Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Linux running natively on M1?

  • Like
Reactions: gank41
I'm looking forward to a fresh install of Fedora 40 once I get my M1 MBP back from service. Now's my chance to adjust the space allocated to Linux.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gank41
dmr727 said:
Sigh...dammit you convinced me. Gonna give this a go on my M1 MBA.
Click to expand...
One thing I noticed is that after the install finishes, it'll launch the "Steam Deck" version of Steam, which is cool! But you can still open and run the "Regular" app version of Steam, too. Now just need some more games to work with Linux. Although I've managed to use ScummVM for those games.
 
Has anyone tried running a benchmark on an M1/M2 SoC on Linux? What is the difference between the performance of an M1/M2 SoC on Linux and macOS?
 
  • Like
Reactions: chars1ub0w
Xiao_Xi said:
It looks like marcan will stop upstreaming Asahi patches to the Linux kernel. :(


Click to expand...
If you e been following along, there’s someone who’s absolutely refusing to accept that some stuff can be coded in Rust instead of C++ for this Asahi project, and make things better in the long term. Doesn’t mean things still won’t work for the Asahi Fedora builds, it just means that their contributions won’t be felt for other folks that use Fedora on other hardware.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bousozoku and Xiao_Xi
Xiao_Xi said:
There seems to be a new maintainer for Apple hardware in the kernel.

New Apple Silicon Co-Maintainer Steps Up For The Linux Kernel - Phoronix

www.phoronix.com www.phoronix.com
Click to expand...
I read that, too. I’m not quite taking it that way, though. What they are implying is that they won’t upstream any bug fixes or firmware updates anymore. He did also say that he “might” still upstream some important things, but isn’t going to bother anymore. That doesn’t mean that if you are running Asahi Lennox or Asahi Fedora on a Mac that it still won’t get those updates. They’re still maintaining the max specific stuff. They’re just not up streaming it so that they no longer have to maintain that.

Tl;dr is that if you are running this on your Mac, all will still be well and you will still get all of the same updates you normally would. It’s just easier to upstream all of this to the main kernel so that a fresh install gets all of the stuff. Now, after you’ve installed it, you just have to check for updates and then finish. You’ll still be in the same place overall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xiao_Xi
Also, some of the comments from that post on Phoronix are pretty ... ill-informed.

What does "apple silicon maintainer" even mean? This is not officially supported right? And it will probably never ever be.

And what's more, how does one transition from maintaining an unofficial port to considering the linux kernel official language inferior garbage that needs to be phased out.

I just don't see the overlap between "a platform maintainer" and "completely unfounded yet somehow rampaging superiority complex".

And what about their official duties, when they are not too busy helping out them backward, scheduler for extinction C dinosaurs", are they making good progress with their actual pet project? When can I expect to get a fully working linux copy running on an ipad, with all the features and performance?


Again, if you're running this on your Mac, you're still fine and will still get all of the same updates/patches. The issue here is that the person that upstreams this to the main kernel is changing due to frustration with someone ELSE who is just not willing to admit that things change and need to be updated (inclusion of patches built in Rust as opposed to C++).
 
Asahi Linux has published some installation statistics.
Breakdown by device:
count | device_class | description
-------+--------------+-------------------------------------------
13211 | j313ap | Apple MacBook Air (M1, 2020)
5672 | j314sap | Apple MacBook Pro (14-inch, M1 Pro, 2021)
5633 | j413ap | Apple MacBook Air (13-inch, M2, 2022)
4828 | j293ap | Apple MacBook Pro (13-inch, M1, 2020)
2858 | j274ap | Apple Mac mini (M1, 2020)
2597 | j316sap | Apple MacBook Pro (16-inch, M1 Pro, 2021)
2001 | j414sap | Apple MacBook Pro (14-inch, M2 Pro, 2023)
1601 | j316cap | Apple MacBook Pro (16-inch, M1 Max, 2021)
1449 | j473ap | Apple Mac mini (M2, 2023)
1390 | j493ap | Apple MacBook Pro (13-inch, M2, 2022)
1198 | j415ap | Apple MacBook Air (15-inch, M2, 2023)
759 | j416cap | Apple MacBook Pro (16-inch, M2 Max, 2023)
725 | j416sap | Apple MacBook Pro (16-inch, M2 Pro, 2023)
715 | j314cap | Apple MacBook Pro (14-inch, M1 Max, 2021)
630 | j414cap | Apple MacBook Pro (14-inch, M2 Max, 2023)
451 | j474sap | Apple Mac mini (M2 Pro, 2023)
283 | j375cap | Apple Mac Studio (M1 Max, 2022)
198 | j456ap | Apple iMac (24-inch, 4x USB-C, M1, 2021)
188 | j475cap | Apple Mac Studio (M2 Max, 2023)
122 | j475dap | Apple Mac Studio (M2 Ultra, 2023)
85 | j375dap | Apple Mac Studio (M1 Ultra, 2022)
77 | j457ap | Apple iMac (24-inch, 2x USB-C, M1, 2021)
1 | j516sap |
1 | j180dap | Apple Mac Pro (M2 Ultra, 2023)
Click to expand...

They are working on an M3 Pro MBP and M2 Ultra Mac Pro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gank41
I wish Apple would open the hardware as much as is necessary to install it the usual way and then boot into it the usual way. In the old days i could just select startup disk and reboot or use rEFIt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MBAir2010
Spunk Bubble said:
I wish Apple would open the hardware as much as is necessary to install it the usual way and then boot into it the usual way. In the old days i could just select startup disk and reboot or use rEFIt.
Click to expand...
Hardware openness and boot are orthogonal issues. Apple could fully document everything about the hardware except their private signing keys, and the boot process would still work the way it does.

The Apple Silicon Mac secure boot process is actually quite innovative technically - they managed to achieve two seemingly very contradictory goals at the same time. The first goal was for Macs to gain iOS-class secure boot, and the second was to still allow Mac owners to install and run anything they liked. They pulled it off - on Apple Silicon Macs, you can have a fully secure and very locked-down macOS installation living right next to a totally insecure non-Apple-signed OS. It even protects the secure OS container from tampering done while booted into any of the insecure OS containers.

This capability is something which exists nowhere else in the computing world right now. Unfortunately, the things you're annoyed with are side effects of the design they came up with to achieve this. I don't know of a way they could have preserved the things you want (startup disk selection from your regular macOS install, or option-key boot picker) while still hitting all their other design goals. Secure boot is a tough thing to square with flexibility.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: bousozoku, Xiao_Xi and gank41
mr_roboto said:
Hardware openness and boot are orthogonal issues. Apple could fully document everything about the hardware except their private signing keys, and the boot process would still work the way it does.

The Apple Silicon Mac secure boot process is actually quite innovative technically - they managed to achieve two seemingly very contradictory goals at the same time. The first goal was for Macs to gain iOS-class secure boot, and the second was to still allow Mac owners to install and run anything they liked. They pulled it off - on Apple Silicon Macs, you can have a fully secure and very locked-down macOS installation living right next to a totally insecure non-Apple-signed OS. It even protects the secure OS container from tampering done while booted into any of the insecure OS containers.

This capability is something which exists nowhere else in the computing world right now. Unfortunately, the things you're annoyed with are side effects of the design they came up with to achieve this. I don't know of a way they could have preserved the things you want (startup disk selection from your regular macOS install, or option-key boot picker) while still hitting all their other design goals. Secure boot is a tough thing to square with flexibility.
Click to expand...
It’s because of all of this, that the small group of Asahi folks got this done and Microsoft “can’t”? I’m convinced Microsoft has no intention now of ever doing this. I’m very happy with Asahi Fedora, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bousozoku and MBAir2010
nigelbb said:
Why would you want to use Linux on any Mac when it already has a very nice UNIX under the covers?
Click to expand...

Because Linux is more efficient. I don't need 3000 process running in the background when I only need 3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back