It seems like this is a bug, apple went through the trouble to allow something like asahi to be possible in the first place. I doubt they're purposely trying to break it.
Apple designed a bootloader for Apple Silicon Macs that allows you to run an unsigned OS without degrading security when you boot into MacOS. This wasn't an accident.
M series macs are weird tho, yes the bootloader allows it but absolutely no documentation on the hardware, drivers etc. Can't help but to think the goal of this wasn't to actually allow third-party OSes, but for development purposes(and ye they could hide the feature behind apple account with paid dev license) or anti-anti-trust measures à-la Google with Firefox: in front of a jury of normal people they can simply say "look there's these nerds making Asahi" the same way "look we're not a monopoly Firefox has .2% market share".
And if Apple were going to change their mind and try to block linux, they would intentionally modify the bootloader to remove that functionality, not break the boot picker.
If the happy path disappears, the not-so-happy path will be taken to allow for booting custom kernels, one that will likely rely on turning the some or a lot of the RE energy towards breaking the Secure Enclave, the bootloader, and so on. Apple practically laid the red carpet out to avoid people trying to crack the parts of the hardware/software chain-of-trust they would really rather not have cracked. A similar strategy helped keep the Xbox One un-pwned for over a decade (running homebrew was allowed in a specific mode). It is doubtful Apple's legal department isn't aware of the value of the current software strategy.
No, if their lawyers want it gone, Apple will just update the bootloader to reject local signing keys.
The actual problem was that Apple has an undocumented APFS key for if a volume is bootable, which Asahi wasn't setting and Apple wasn't checking, but now they do, so they do.
Pretty much all ARM platforms are. Even ARM devices designed from the ground up to be Linux devices are full of issues, like the MNT Pocket Reform's lack of HW suspend. The tight interop between vendor and implementation is a huge anti-pattern for software freedom, and the standardization initiatives like ARM SR are nowhere to be seen. It's probably the most problematic part of ARM being the future of personal computing, yet another impending manifestation of enshittification.
Other than this situation, what other landmines are there? I have an M1 with Asahi Arch Linux that I've been using as my primary laptop for the last 8 months, its my favorite laptop by far out of the 5ish I have.
i run linux on both in arch and fedora versions with zero problems, by using the hypervisor framework of macos and wsl2 (wrapper for hyperv). do you need a more direct than hypervisor access to some hardware?
Those are currently suffering from high power draw because they have to keep the cores awake for memory speeds. Lackluster performance as well, but thats the problem with the majority of the ARM ecosystem ever since apple started crafting SoCs.
A consumer shouldn't be restricted from installing their own OS on a device that they bought, be it a smartphone, tablet, laptop, desktop, or server.
A company the size of Apple should also be required to release proper documentation that enables the porting of operating systems to these kinds of devices.
The reverse engineering work that the Asahi team did is remarkable but so much of it is ultimately busy work that didn't need to be done if we regulated the consumer electronics market appropriately.
If you believe this, the fight should be against PlayStation and Xbox.
They’re 100% commodity hardware and fully locked down from any user freedom. Weirdly everyone focuses on Apple with all their might instead of gaming consoles.
Because gaming consoles are for a very specific purpose (and sold as such – the ruling against Sony for blocking Linux on the PS3 only happened because they advertised Linux compatibility) and Macs are general purpose computers
I can see the argument when it comes to locked-down mobile devices, but macOS is a general-purpose operating system with no restrictions on software sources that can't be easily disabled. Nearly every program available for Linux (excepting OS-specific stuff like desktop environments) is available for macOS, commercial and free, and there's plenty more that's macOS-only. Asahi is cool, but it's mostly used by enthusiasts - there's very little practical use for it as a macOS alternative. I think that you'd have a hard time convincing regulators that this cause really matters.
In any case, though, Apple agrees with you, and they explicitly built support for non-macOS OSes into the bootloader. This is a bug in the first developer beta of a new release.
Honestly this shouldn't be limited to traditional computing devices. Why do I need some hacker to reverse engineer my robot vacuum and then fully disassemble it just to install custom firmware to it? Should be a basic requirement of right to repair so all this smart crap doesn't wind up in a landfill when a company goes out of business or decides to arbitrarily drop support for it.
The EU is not some kind of god that will make others do your bidding if you pray enough to them. You've been misguided into following a false religion.
For every niche thing you wish that Apple or other third parties do only for your own enjoyment, there are hundreds of millions of other people who want different niche things. Buy the products that suit your needs and wants, and companies have incentive to make them. And if no company wants to provide a feature or function that you know a huge portion of people will want, then you have a golden opportunity to start a business providing this.
That might be reasonable for a general purpose computer if we were talking about something like a Parallel Inference Machine running KL1 software on a KL0 kernel. But I think conflating Apple's products with that level of foundational engineering is highly disingenuous. They're not exactly trundling into the dark woods of exotic hardware and reinventing the bridge between human and computer. It's an ARM computer running a Unix clone. Apple's engineers aren't mapping every codepath and counting every micro-op, Darwin contains extensive amounts of third-party code.
On the other hand I doubt that's intentional.
Even as an avid Apple critic I want to mention that people I trust and are more involved with Asahi, always pointed out that Asahi received the occasional little help from Apple devs where possible (surely, not with official documentation, or confidential infos).
So, I would wait until things had time to calm down and not get too invested with Apple bashing.
Apparently fixed already, or will be fixed soon. https://social.treehouse.systems/@chaos_princess/11672546441...
It seems like this is a bug, apple went through the trouble to allow something like asahi to be possible in the first place. I doubt they're purposely trying to break it.
Apple designed a bootloader for Apple Silicon Macs that allows you to run an unsigned OS without degrading security when you boot into MacOS. This wasn't an accident.
Macs have always allowed you to run another OS.
iDevices have always had a locked bootloader.
People shouldn't confuse the two.
M series macs are weird tho, yes the bootloader allows it but absolutely no documentation on the hardware, drivers etc. Can't help but to think the goal of this wasn't to actually allow third-party OSes, but for development purposes(and ye they could hide the feature behind apple account with paid dev license) or anti-anti-trust measures à-la Google with Firefox: in front of a jury of normal people they can simply say "look there's these nerds making Asahi" the same way "look we're not a monopoly Firefox has .2% market share".
And if Apple were going to change their mind and try to block linux, they would intentionally modify the bootloader to remove that functionality, not break the boot picker.
(removed)
If the happy path disappears, the not-so-happy path will be taken to allow for booting custom kernels, one that will likely rely on turning the some or a lot of the RE energy towards breaking the Secure Enclave, the bootloader, and so on. Apple practically laid the red carpet out to avoid people trying to crack the parts of the hardware/software chain-of-trust they would really rather not have cracked. A similar strategy helped keep the Xbox One un-pwned for over a decade (running homebrew was allowed in a specific mode). It is doubtful Apple's legal department isn't aware of the value of the current software strategy.
So isn't that just purely security by obscurity then? Would they not rather have someone publicly break it instead of selling a zero day?
No, if their lawyers want it gone, Apple will just update the bootloader to reject local signing keys.
The actual problem was that Apple has an undocumented APFS key for if a volume is bootable, which Asahi wasn't setting and Apple wasn't checking, but now they do, so they do.
Sadly both main ARM platforms (Apple silicon and Qualcomm) are a mine field for Linux
Most computers have been like that, FOSS got lucky that IBM failed to secure the PC for themselves, thus the PC clones.
When folks say Intel and AMD are done, and we should all be on ARM, or RISC-V, beware of what to wish for.
Yes there are device trees now, however someone has to keep them up to date, and that is only part of what makes a motherboard.
Pretty much all ARM platforms are. Even ARM devices designed from the ground up to be Linux devices are full of issues, like the MNT Pocket Reform's lack of HW suspend. The tight interop between vendor and implementation is a huge anti-pattern for software freedom, and the standardization initiatives like ARM SR are nowhere to be seen. It's probably the most problematic part of ARM being the future of personal computing, yet another impending manifestation of enshittification.
Other than this situation, what other landmines are there? I have an M1 with Asahi Arch Linux that I've been using as my primary laptop for the last 8 months, its my favorite laptop by far out of the 5ish I have.
does suspend and other hw fully works on it? however it is an old gen computer
The M1 is still perfectly fine.
i run linux on both in arch and fedora versions with zero problems, by using the hypervisor framework of macos and wsl2 (wrapper for hyperv). do you need a more direct than hypervisor access to some hardware?
A lot of us would prefer MS/Apple to never be within touching range of our hardware.
what about the ones from CIX like the orangepi or their framework mainboard? (though I agree, I miss UEFI for all its faults)
Those are currently suffering from high power draw because they have to keep the cores awake for memory speeds. Lackluster performance as well, but thats the problem with the majority of the ARM ecosystem ever since apple started crafting SoCs.
i hope, but i dubt that will be mass produced.. so no economy of scale
Source: https://social.treehouse.systems/@AsahiLinux/116719749555082...
I wish the EU would regulate this kind of stuff.
A consumer shouldn't be restricted from installing their own OS on a device that they bought, be it a smartphone, tablet, laptop, desktop, or server.
A company the size of Apple should also be required to release proper documentation that enables the porting of operating systems to these kinds of devices.
The reverse engineering work that the Asahi team did is remarkable but so much of it is ultimately busy work that didn't need to be done if we regulated the consumer electronics market appropriately.
If you believe this, the fight should be against PlayStation and Xbox.
They’re 100% commodity hardware and fully locked down from any user freedom. Weirdly everyone focuses on Apple with all their might instead of gaming consoles.
Because gaming consoles are for a very specific purpose (and sold as such – the ruling against Sony for blocking Linux on the PS3 only happened because they advertised Linux compatibility) and Macs are general purpose computers
I can see the argument when it comes to locked-down mobile devices, but macOS is a general-purpose operating system with no restrictions on software sources that can't be easily disabled. Nearly every program available for Linux (excepting OS-specific stuff like desktop environments) is available for macOS, commercial and free, and there's plenty more that's macOS-only. Asahi is cool, but it's mostly used by enthusiasts - there's very little practical use for it as a macOS alternative. I think that you'd have a hard time convincing regulators that this cause really matters.
In any case, though, Apple agrees with you, and they explicitly built support for non-macOS OSes into the bootloader. This is a bug in the first developer beta of a new release.
>I think that you'd have a hard time convincing regulators that this cause really matters.
"A foreign power could potentially deny access to the OS" sounds like a compelling argument.
foreign or domestic
Honestly this shouldn't be limited to traditional computing devices. Why do I need some hacker to reverse engineer my robot vacuum and then fully disassemble it just to install custom firmware to it? Should be a basic requirement of right to repair so all this smart crap doesn't wind up in a landfill when a company goes out of business or decides to arbitrarily drop support for it.
The EU is probably going to want tight control over users like any other government body. Bring your own software runs counter to that.
The EU is not some kind of god that will make others do your bidding if you pray enough to them. You've been misguided into following a false religion.
For every niche thing you wish that Apple or other third parties do only for your own enjoyment, there are hundreds of millions of other people who want different niche things. Buy the products that suit your needs and wants, and companies have incentive to make them. And if no company wants to provide a feature or function that you know a huge portion of people will want, then you have a golden opportunity to start a business providing this.
I don't think it's unreasonable for a device manufacturer to tightly couple it to the software they design to run on it.
That might be reasonable for a general purpose computer if we were talking about something like a Parallel Inference Machine running KL1 software on a KL0 kernel. But I think conflating Apple's products with that level of foundational engineering is highly disingenuous. They're not exactly trundling into the dark woods of exotic hardware and reinventing the bridge between human and computer. It's an ARM computer running a Unix clone. Apple's engineers aren't mapping every codepath and counting every micro-op, Darwin contains extensive amounts of third-party code.
> A consumer shouldn't be restricted from installing their own OS on a device that they bought
That is not what the industry, that pays lobby money, wants. They want to be able to control what the user runs and extract profits.
macOS 27 Golden Cage /s
On the other hand I doubt that's intentional. Even as an avid Apple critic I want to mention that people I trust and are more involved with Asahi, always pointed out that Asahi received the occasional little help from Apple devs where possible (surely, not with official documentation, or confidential infos).
So, I would wait until things had time to calm down and not get too invested with Apple bashing.