←back to thread

OpenGL 3.1 on Asahi Linux

(asahilinux.org)
512 points simjue | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.418s | source
Show context
kytazo ◴[] No.36213178[source]
Its been more than a year I'm running asahi on my macbook air and I can't stress how grateful I feel for enjoying such wonderful freedom.

I don't feel like ever going back to x86 to be honest, at this point there is nothing lacking or unable to run and when the neural engine drivers come online now that the GPU is starting to mature people will be able to juice out every last bit of computation this machine is capable of.

For the record, I've switched to the edge branch a couple of months ago and honestly I noticed no actual difference in my day-to-day tasks which is really telling about how powerful even the M1 is when it can handle software rendering in such an effortless manner coupled with anything else running.

Really thank god for asahi being a thing.

replies(8): >>36213250 #>>36213626 #>>36213905 #>>36214314 #>>36214545 #>>36215750 #>>36217933 #>>36218411 #
JCWasmx86 ◴[] No.36213626[source]
Would you say buying e.g. a Mac mini for 2.3k€ just to run Asahi Linux is worth it?
replies(7): >>36213715 #>>36213791 #>>36213902 #>>36214007 #>>36214014 #>>36215673 #>>36219187 #
jb1991 ◴[] No.36213791[source]
I’ve owned both windows and Apple computers, quite many of them, over the last 20 years. On average, the Apple machines last at least twice as long as the windows machines while still being fully usable. One could argue just based on that basic math that they are worth twice the price.
replies(3): >>36213933 #>>36215489 #>>36215657 #
jabbany ◴[] No.36213933[source]
Unfortunately, Apple machines are usually 4 - 10 times more expensive, making this choice still quite difficult.
replies(3): >>36214674 #>>36215419 #>>36222803 #
jb1991 ◴[] No.36214674[source]
They are expensive but 10X certainly seems like a stretch. Show me comparably specd hardware only 10% the price of an Apple machine?
replies(2): >>36215248 #>>36215604 #
jabbany ◴[] No.36215604[source]
See, here's where the undefined nature of things comes in. "Comparably spec'd" needs to be conditioned on what task you're aiming for.

A "pure gold hammer" is a terrible idea and would also be terribly expensive. But asking for a "comparably spec'd" hammer presumes the absurd premise that the material of the hammer must be kept consistent regardless of its intended use just for the purpose of being comparable.

To preface, I totally understand the value proposition of Apple devices for some use cases, but it is important to recognize that they are aiming for certain workloads.

As examples:

I have one friend that runs virtualization workloads that require a lot of memory, a lot of storage, a lot of cores, but they don't really care about memory bandwidth, "having a display", or even the noise of the device. An older server with 192G of RAM, 24 cores and >8TB of storage can easily be had and upgraded within $1k, whereas a "comparable" Mac Pro costs upwards of $10k! (Of course nobody would use a Mac Pro for this workload, so the comparison is moot)

I also have friends that are digital artists. They care about having a high brightness and color accuracy display but otherwise don't do anything that taxes the computer. They also appreciate having high quality speakers and long battery life. Some of them run M1 Macbook Airs at the lowest 8G memory configuration for ~$800 (discounted new from other retailers) + a digitizer for ~$100, while the closest comparable non-Apple laptops are all premium devices upwards of $1.5k and even then they are still worse in the battery department!

As for myself, I do light dev work, virtualization, gaming, but also travel a lot and present at conferences. I use a GPD Win Max 2 for a little over $1k (early Indiegogo pricing). The closest Apple offering would be a 14" MBP, and configured as needed (32GB/2T) would be about $3800 and still be short a 4G modem and a couple of extra devices like a digitizer, game controller, and dongle for USB-A. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Can't win 'em all.

replies(1): >>36215818 #
1. wtallis ◴[] No.36215818[source]
> An older server with 192G of RAM, 24 cores and >8TB of storage can easily be had and upgraded within $1k,

Are you referring to a used server, or just buying a minimally-equipped new server and upgrading it with aftermarket RAM and (low-quality) SSDs?

replies(1): >>36215870 #
2. jabbany ◴[] No.36215870[source]
Used (decommissioned from equipment retirement from companies) server, upgraded by maxing out the RAM slots and using the cheapest available SSDs.

This is a pretty common practice for homelab enthusiasts, or so I hear.