On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Just to address this specifically, I am referring to Apple's penchant for > stuffing their machines with hardware from vendors that don't play well with > open-source (for example, switching to wifi-only devices and shipping Broadcom > chipsets with no open-source drivers). I don't understand how this relates to installer problems and thus installer release criteria. Other vendors use Broadcom and end up with the same lack of out of the box wireless, but out of the box wireless doesn't cause installer problems or failure (OK unless you choose to use the netinstaller) or data loss. >Then also playing games with their > bootloader system so that we have to go through lots of hoops to trick it into > letting us install. OK I don't know what either "games" or "hoops" refer to, plural means you must have at least two examples of each. Their firmware works the same as any other UEFI system, except they do additional things. The firmware can read HFS+ out of the box, and can use information in the HFS+ volume header to boot a computer when NVRAM contents are ambiguous or have been reset. This is because Apple has 30+ years of experience with NVRAM corruption, loss, and confusion that they have the same exact keyboard sequence on every single Mac made in that 30 year period to clear the NVRAM and still boot. If there's a game being played, it's with other vendors who could have agreed to the same feature and keyboard sequence, and codified it in the UEFI spec. All for the benefit of their users. But they didn't do that did they? > Apple's entire business model is predicated on the idea that they know best and > you should only ever run software on their devices that they have provided to > you... at a substantial percentage for themselves. They do whatever they can at > a technical level to enable this. They do whatever they can to enable the primary experience. They don't go out of their way to sabotage their compatibility, quite to the contrary, they've spent a lot of effort to accommodate Windows on Macs. > (Note: I'm not attempting to vilify Apple here. Their devices are usually > sturdy, well-constructed and certainly attractive. They are however a company > trying to make money and they have a certain business model that is largely > dependent on *not* enabling us.) Apple isn't doing what they're doing so that Fedora doesn't work. They're doing what they're doing with their primary and secondary use cases in mind only, and both of those use cases have no issue with a dependency on proprietary components. Fedora has chosen to avoid proprietary components, and it just has to live with the consequences of that choice rather than rephrase the difference as if Apple and other vendors are actively trying to prevent Fedora from being used. Fedora isn't on any of Apple's lists. -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
