When you realize that the vast majority of EV charging will happen at home, at night, then there is no problem with electricity shortages or infrastructure limitations. Night time electricity usage is sufficiently lower than daytime usage that there is plenty of excess capacity available to handle EV charging, even if 100% of all vehicles sold from today forward were pure electric vehicles. In fact, the amount of electricity saved by switching from incandescent bulbs to LED bulbs, actually offsets around half of the entire increase that would result from a switch to 100% electric ground transportation. Because of that transittion, and the scaling up of solar power, there has actually been a glut of electricity which has been keeping electricity prices artificially low. This artificially low cost was part of the stimulus that drove the sharp increase in the cryptocurrency mining which has absorbed most of the excess electricity capacity.
The first problem I see here is that the cars will be charged at night... from solar power? I think you missed a step or something.
Let's assume this is true, and perhaps take it a bit further, and assuming future growth in power demands will be gentle, or even flat. That we would not have to build power plants at any greater pace than we do now. The generating capacity might not need to increase but the energy demand still grows. Again, energy vs. power. We might not need more power plants but they will need more fuel. Given that the cars will charge at night, I won't dispute this, and the sun shines in the day, then something needs to offer that delay in energy transfer. This means storage, and lots of it.
Storage takes many forms. One way to store energy is to store it as fuel not burned. If we assume this is existing coal and natural gas plants then maybe we can grow enough solar power to displace daytime coal and natural gas burning. A problem with that is a steam thermal plant needs to stay hot, and therefore burn fuel, if you expect to get energy from it in short order. Using gas turbines allows for a speedy spin up but they are only half as efficient as a steam plant, it burns twice the fuel for the same electrical energy. That's not saving any fuel.
If we store the energy in batteries then that takes away from the batteries needed for the cars. Storage in hydroelectric dams means having enough rivers to dam up. We dammed up all the easy places, it's going to get more expensive real quick.
The only way to meet demand and not be burning a lot of coal and natural gas to make up for the energy demands at night is nuclear power. If you want your electric cars, and not see CO2 emissions rise, then we need more nuclear power.
I haven't heard much about this for a long time but it seems booting from a network drive, presumably including wireless, is something Apple supports. I don't know how Linux works with this. It would be fun to try.
In your experience, how practical is it to carry two laptops?
Far more practical to carry two new laptops now than even 5 years ago, certainly compared to 10 years ago, and OH MY GOD far better than 20 years ago. I look at some of the old hardware I keep around (because I'm a pack rat that can't throw away hardware that works no matter how old) and I can stack up two of my newer laptops and still be smaller (but not necessarily lighter) than just one older one. If one chooses wisely then the laptops can share a single USB-C charger, which will also save on space and weight.
Have you seen the sizes of laptops shrink? Two laptops is easy. Just find an old laptop carry case and you'll see.
Apple cares about the competition. If the competition is offering a secure boot option then they want that to sell product. If a few people are upset by this because it happens to lock them out of Linux on Apple hardware then that's not much of a matter to them on the balance.
They care about Windows booting because they know that there is a significant portion of their market buying Apple hardware to run Windows. They can also pawn off some of the work/cost to Microsoft. If there is a Linux distributor that sees Linux on Apples as something of value then I can imagine some kind of deal to happen, and that distro gains a market advantage.
Considering they explicitly mention the Linux signing key this is not an accident, it's probably a trial balloon from Apple to see what happens if they ship Macs that don't run Linux ahead of a migration to ARM.
Or, it's just a support headache that they'd rather avoid. Don't jump to malice if laziness will do. Supporting Linux on their metal costs money for what I can imagine is little gain. By stating that people are on their own to run Linux then they can wash their hands clean of any problems brought to them such as people wiping their drive of valuable data in the process.
As a former EE major I was able to run what little Windows software I needed just fine in a VM.
I've attended university (as EE), worked at a university (as a web developer), and then attended again (technically software engineering but I didn't complete any degree), so I've seen the progression of what's been happening on universities for a while. "Windows" and "engineering" are in near opposition. I've seen the labs the engineering students use and all but one had Linux on the computers. Students often have Apple laptops, like I did, and simply ran Windows in a VM or avoided the issue completely and ran Linux. That one Windows lab, at least as I saw, was only for Java programming. The students didn't have to run Windows but if they didn't then they had to bring their own computer and the instructor was limited in helping on issues beyond the code.
It would have been trivial for me to go through my classes without needing Windows except for the one exercise in one Java lab where I had to run on the Windows computers provided because the assignment was to pass messages over the network to other students in the lab. The WiFi was on a different subnet and would have messed up the coding for everyone else if I ran my part on my laptop, especially if I had a VM and NAT networking.
Another issue was needing to run a serial programming cable for a little robot for one semester. Getting the software to talk to the USB-to-serial adapter was simply easier on my already existing Windows VM. Getting it to work on Linux or macOS was possible, and other students did so, but I simply followed the printed Windows instructions provided out of laziness. (This plays into the better access to hardware point, I guess. Still a VM but Windows had better support for the USB connection.)
Undergrad classes had Windows as an option, and perhaps path of least resistance, but not required. The graduate level classes I took didn't even touch Windows except as a terminal to a Linux machine in another room.
So using a VM to run Linux is not an appropriate solution.
Then don't buy Apple hardware. At least not until this Linux boot issue is resolved.
I've heard two reasons people run Linux on Apple hardware. First, Apple makes nice hardware and (until now at least) Linux support was quite good. So, buy used, wait and see if this issue is resolved, or both. Second, while a person might prefer Linux they have a need to run macOS for their work. In this case a dual boot is used, or running a VM with either macOS or Linux as host and the other as guest. Running Linux on the metal is in this case merely preferable, not required.
I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro made in 2007. What's your point?
This computer has a dead battery, a dead optical drive, and is developing lines on the screen. I use it as a desktop through a KVM switch, largely because of the bad screen. Apple has not supported OS updates for several versions now, and I can't run most new software because of that. I keep it because it's paid for and it comes in handy for posting on Slashdot, reading my e-mail, and other light duties, without having to disrupt what I'm doing on my other computers.
I expect that the resale value of this computer is about that of your Vostro 1500, maybe $50 because it kind of runs and could be used for parts. I've seen laptops much this one selling for $20, so maybe I overstated the value of mine by a wide margin.
Which virtualization package were you thinking of?
All of them.
Unless you are running some really odd hardware then there's a way to pass through the network to the VM at full speed on every VM package I've seen. I'm guessing I've seen a lot of them but not all. If the speed of the network is critical, and you need it for an OS in a VM on a Mac, and this is for mission critical work at a for profit business, then I'm guessing one just needs to suck it up and open up the wallet a bit for the right software. I double checked VMWare's website because that's what I use on my laptop and they say VMWare Fusion supports USB3 speeds on pass through. That should be good for gigabit Ethernet on any USB3 Apple computer, and quite likely 10 Gbps for any Mac with USB-C ports and the right adapter.
I'm not big on the GPU intensive gaming so I have little first hand experience on this but I picked up a few things on this reading Slashdot. Apple hardware has been regularly mocked for their gaming performance, they just aren't built for it. On the low end systems there's often a pretty pathetic GPU. On the high dollar systems there might be a nice GPU but they are optimized for workstation type stuff, which is apparently different than what gamers want. Then there's issues of things like VR systems needing a GPU that simply does not exist in Apple hardware, it would have to be an add-on.
So, whatever the case the Linux gamer that is concerned about GPU intensive games will not be buying Apple hardware or they will do so knowing they need an external GPU for it to work well. If one is so adamant to spend the money needed for an external GPU then adding external bootable storage for the Linux OS will be nothing. The headline is deceiving, the computers seem to be able to boot an unsigned OS from external storage. If someone is going to add an external GPU to overcome the limitations of the Apple GPU then having an external boot drive is trivial in cost, complexity, and inconvenience.
Even if the internal GPU does meet their gaming needs, and they are adamant on running Linux to play those games, then just boot from external storage while gaming. Since there seems to be a lot of complaints on Apple not putting much for internal storage (size and/or speed), making internal drive upgrades difficult to impossible, and/or a custom build with a larger drive from Apple being expensive, I'm guessing that external boot drives for the Linux on Mac gamers is the norm already.
Getting access to a NIC or GPU with a VM has been possible for a long time now, and a bit of a corner case as I'm guessing few people consider this a real problem. Calling this an issue seems rather contrived.
Also, Linux on Apple hardware has always been something of a hack, hardware support was always problematic. The latest issues change nothing on this. I can recall some companies making something of a deal on reselling old Apple hardware as Linux workstations and servers. I recall one company that sold new Apple hardware this way, but losing Apple's blessing on the way since Apple would not allow an "official" retailer to sell their hardware wiped of their OS.
Running Linux directly on Apple branded metal has always been a hack. I suspect that in time this issue will be resolved, with another hack, or not. Not resolving this means having to dual boot Linux on Apple hardware with an external drive. I'm guessing that if people want Linux on their Apple computer that bad then they will simply deal with this as a minor inconvenience.
You are thinking short term. Think long term, this affect future resale value. This affects if it will be even usage able in 3yr or 4yr or.
How many computers have you kept for more than 4 years? I'm guessing not that many.
I buy nice computers and so I tend to keep them running for 4 or 5 years. As I've been an laptop user for nearly 20 years now I'm on my 4th new laptop. I get mocked for not buying computers more often as people notice I'm running hardware that's 3 years old. My brothers got in the habit of buying a new laptop nearly every year because in that time they find it getting slow for their needs, wear it out, or break it. I broke one of mine, busted it up real good on it's 3rd year. It happens. I was a bit upset with myself but I picked up the pieces, was able to get my data off of it, bought a new laptop, and moved on.
More often than not a 4 year old computer is worthless. I'm sure a high dollar system can be very useful for much longer but it will be relegated to secondary use, given away, or sold off for pennies. As I sit here in my office I have six computers booted up in front of me. That's because I'm a code monkey and pack rat. I pulled a couple of these computers out of the trash because the businesses that owned them considered them worthless, there is no resale value on 4 year old hardware so that does not concern me. To me these old computers are "toys", something to play with as at their age they are slow, outdated, and something I consider unreliable. They do nothing of importance but I find them convenient. I am the outlier, as again most people would have thrown this hardware away. Even then I buy a new laptop every 4 or 5 years (except in the case of unrecoverable damage) because I need something reliable for my day to day stuff. And at that I'm even the outlier for keeping my daily workhorse for so long.
I guess you like not owning any thing
I like owning my stuff just fine. That includes my data. Secure storage on a computer means my data remains my data, and Apple just offered another layer on their hardware to assure that my data stays my data.
Secure storage is a good thing. You are merely creating a straw man to rip on this feature, something other computer makers offered for years. Now that it's on an Apple then I guess it becomes "bad", because Apple is "bad".
I'm still pretty sure dual booting is for chumps. Let's take your example.
If the guy needs Linux on the metal for running network tests then run Linux on the metal. He can run Windows in a VM if he needs that for things like e-mail and office apps. If he's doing work where he needs both Windows and Linux on the metal then he needs two computers. It's not like a computer is an expensive piece of hardware any more. If the company can't be bothered to get him the hardware but hobble him with reboots on a regular basis, as well as supporting computers with two operating systems installed, then they are penny wise and pound foolish.
Even then there are ways to pass through the network hardware on the computer to the VM. One easy way that most every virtualization package I've seen supports is a USB pass through. The freeware VM packages might throttle this to 100 Mbps speeds but the payware stuff will pass through at gigabit speeds. There's even PCI pass through on some VM packages if USB is insufficient.
If you are dual booting for something as trivial as what you describe then you are doing it wrong. It sounds like the guy is an idiot for hosting Linux on Windows instead of the other way around.
That's a pretty long list of "ifs" and still many years for fixes to come. I don't see much to be all worried about yet, especially with a list of existing workarounds.
I see it this way, now Apple has a secure boot process in exchange for potential boot problems years from now. Apple isn't going to kneecap their systems for years without a potential for corporate suicide. Worst case on the boot problems is losing access to the internal storage. So, plan for that like one should anyway with proper backups or whatever. Best case is getting a secure boot process now and a potential for signed booting from your OS of choice. You don't know which will come, and the worst case doesn't seem all that bad considering that we could see far better storage technologies in the future anyway.
Would you rather Apple didn't have a secure boot process at all? Because that seems like the only other option. Sounds like Apple can't win on this. If they don't have secure boot then they are mocked for not having it like the competition. If they do have it then people run around like their hair is on fire because Linux MIGHT not boot on the hardware years later.
I'm thinking people are simply looking for an excuse to beat up on Apple again.
Here's what the average PC owner wants more than the ability to exchange parts, they want the computer to work. Parts stuck in sockets and slots are less reliable than soldered down parts.
I'm 99.9% sure that's bullshit otherwise servers would be the first to have soldered parts, not laptops. It's all about cost. Lower production cost and not dealing with support costs because people meddled with it, no logistics for parts, no repair instructions or tools. A lot of devices like the Surface Laptop 2 that got a 0/10 score by iFixit is clearly not designed to be repaired by anyone, including Microsoft. Inside warranty if it breaks they replace it, outside warranty you're shit out of luck.
Let's assume it is bullshit. Servers are a much smaller market, for people that can be expected to "tinker" a bit with the hardware, and on a far larger budget. The ability to swap out parts is far more valuable even if it comes at the cost of lowered reliability if that reliability comes with things like ease and speed of repairs. Even servers have become more "appliance like" in that they come with multiple Ethernet ports on the motherboard, built in video (crappy VGA video because it's a server, but video on the motherboard regardless), and perhaps other features that would have been add-in cards not long ago. The parts one can swap out are minimal by the standards of not so long ago, when people had to install their own drive controllers and NICs.
Computers are appliances again, which is really what many people want.
Actually they're going one step past that, the computer is just the terminal to access your data. Your iPhone syncs everything to iCloud, if your phone breaks just grab another and sync it back up. Steam is the same, by default you sync your save games online so just log into another computer and pick up where you left off. Your local HDD is just a cache to the cloud...
That's true. People simply don't want to swap out parts on their computers any more than they wanted to swap out vacuum tubes on their TV set. Once the electronics got to a certain point of reliability and affordability it simply doesn't make sense to have the parts user serviceable. A desire to lower costs, weight, and size add to that. Having speedy and ubiquitous internet access allows for further freedoms on their hardware needs.
The parts swapping set of the computer user are a small part of the computer market. Apple is not in the market for the part swapper set, and the part swappers don't like an OS they can't open up the code to either. In other words, if you don't like Apple then don't buy from them.
If you don't fight boot locking every time it occurs, in 10 years from now Linux will run on only on old thinkpads.
For that to happen people would have to find Linux so worthless that no one kept it up to date and developed new hardware to run it. That's not likely. If Linux only runs on old ThinkPads in 10 years then that would mean some other open source OS dominated that market.
There's a market for boot locking because malware is getting sophisticated enough now that it can corrupt the boot process and hide itself from all but the most sophisticated tools to find it. This secure boot is a good thing. Don't fight it, work with it. I should not have to run Linux on lesser hardware, I expect developers to make it work because they find value in a secured boot process. If Linux can't keep up then it deserves to die.
You'd think that people with the skills to install Linux would realize that there's more than one way to install Linux on a computer. There's several quite capable VMs that I'm aware of with excellent support for running Linux on macOS. There's Parallels, VMWare, VirtualBox, just off the top of my head. I suspect that in no time we'll see ESXi get signed for Apple hardware for the people that take things up a notch on virtual machines, like myself.
If the goal is to test software on multiple platforms then I'm a bit doubtful one needs to run on the metal anyway. The only things that I can think of that need that kind of access to hardware would be drivers, and someone is not likely to write Linux drivers for Apple hardware this quickly except for things like getting it booting, which is exactly what people are working on right now.
Dual booting is for chumps. If you can't dig up real hardware or figure out how to run a VM then you are simply getting ahead of yourself. Make it work on the hardware and OS you got, then worry about making some money or dig through some university dumpsters for some hardware.
This is a made up problem since the hardware just came out. If this persists for a while then I might see an issue. My guess is someone figures this out next month but Slashdot won't post it because it's news where people can't go on bashing Apple.
Savage announced the winning entry, which defined "santorum" as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex".
Soon, people will be dismissing soldered hard drives and memory as "expected", and this mentality will infect every other company selling hardware.
I remember when it was "expected" for a computer to have a built in modem. Before (and after) that people were "expected" to buy one as an external additional cost accessory if they wanted one. I remember when people "expected" an optical drive in their computers, are you still mad at Apple for not including that as standard equipment on their computers? I'm not sure if kids these days even know that a CD or DVD were used in computers, I mean other than to play music and movies on them.
A top-of-the-line Mac Mini (that still had user-replaceable storage and memory) was barely over $1000 in 2012. A top-of-the-line Mac Mini is now over $4000, and Apple labels this as their "entry-level" model.
That was 4 cores and seven years ago. Also with that money comes a computer with ThunderBolt 3, 10Gb Ethernet, SSD, and far more RAM. Apparently some people believe it's worth the price.
And consumers don't give a shit about reliability. If they did, they would demand their most expensive electronic investment (smartphones) have user-replaceable batteries to make them last more than a fucking year or two.
I doubt people are buying new phones every year or two because the battery is losing capacity. I'm guessing it's because they simply wanted a phone with more features. You are probably right about people not being concerned about the phone being reliable as they buy a phone knowing in advance they'll just trade it in for a new one next year.
I suspect that phone makers stopped offering user replaceable batteries because few people demanded them. There was a time when phones with replaceable batteries were on the market at the same time as phones without replaceable batteries. I'm guessing the phones without user replaceable batteries simply sold better. It probably didn't help that phones rarely used any common battery type anyway. By the time a battery needed replacement the cost of a new battery wasn't worth keeping the phone when a new phone comes with a new battery.
If you don't like paying Apple prices then don't buy them.
Lenvo sells their Tiny-In-One line that does much of what you describe, including sharing the power supply. I've also seen 3rd party "hacks" that will mount a Mac Mini behind a screen. Maybe calling it a "hack" is unkind, they look very nice and not like something hacked together. There's stuff out there that do this.
The entire idea behind the PC or "personal computer" was that the user can exchange parts.
No, that's not the entire idea.
The idea behind a personal computer was a computer small and inexpensive enough for a person to own. Before the personal computer they were very large and very expensive. Early personal computers were not much more than a video game console with a keyboard. The only parts you could exchange, if you could call it that, was a ROM cartridge. Not only was the RAM soldered to the motherboard but the keyboard was integral to the unit. If you didn't like the keyboard then you simply had to deal with it. The CPU was soldered down, and if you wanted storage other than what came with it then you needed to buy some external accessory that plugged into it.
There were some very interesting "hacks" to add on to these early personal computers. I can recall upgrades that would clip on top of the existing chips on the board and somehow bypass the chip it clipped onto. People would take soldering irons to their PC to remove chips and replace them with something faster, stronger, and higher.
There was a subculture in this PC community of people that would exchange parts, which certainly grew after PC makers encouraged this with computers that had expansion slots and sockets. This meant people no longer had to solder to exchange parts. Outside of this subculture the average PC owner was not likely to open the case of their PC.
Here's what the average PC owner wants more than the ability to exchange parts, they want the computer to work. Parts stuck in sockets and slots are less reliable than soldered down parts.
I'm afraid we've been marching closer and closer to the death of the consumer PC and this is just another warning shot.
No, we've been marching closer to the personal computer as an appliance. Do you get yourself worked up that your dishwasher or clothes dryer does not have user serviceable parts? Way back in the day this might have been the norm but then in those days these appliances were far less reliable. I remember seeing someone highlight an appliance advert from the 1950s, in the advert they prided themselves on needing only 3 service calls in 5 years. Today this would be considered unacceptable junk. I remember computers needing this kind of service, where modem cards would need replacing from taking a voltage spike from the phone line, and people often expected to swap out dead hard drives. Computers are appliances again, which is really what many people want.
Means more $$$$ for them.
Of course it does! You think these computer makers are selling computers out of the goodness of their hearts? No, they do it to make money. It turns out that selling reliable computers at a low price makes them more money than unreliable computers with user replaceable parts.
Computers are for computing, not for swapping parts. If you want to take stuff apart and put it together again then I suggest buying some Lego Blocks.
It sounds like you are projecting some personal test onto other people.
It sounds like you are trying to read my mind and psychoanalyze me base on a few paragraphs.
It is hard to take you seriously when you combine these arguments as both can be subjective.
Then don't take me seriously. I'm merely pondering on where epi-genetic research might lead us.
If your argument is that there is some fictional place where everyone will just get along and everyone will be at the same "place" in society, then you need look no further then communism.
That's not my argument. My argument is that if stresses on the parents means poorly behaved children then it would be to our benefit to reduce stresses on parents.
I've been watching some interesting videos lately on how IQ correlates to financial and other success in life, as well as what factors contribute to IQ. The most recent video I saw was on "McNamara's Folly" or Project 100,000, by someone that wrote a book on this and who's name I don't recall right now. I don't have the link to the video as I found it on a different computer than I'm using right now but here's the Wikipedia page on that project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Other videos I've seen were from Dr. Jordan Peterson where he describes how the US military has a large database of how people scored on their version of an IQ test and how well the people performed in their job. Dr. Peterson and others I've seen describe various possible contributing factors to IQ, and therefore future success. This simply fascinates me. There's some dispute on how genetics influence IQ, but no dispute that IQ is influenced by genetics. Maybe genetics contributes 80% to IQ, maybe only 50%. So, what contributes the rest? Can this be explained by epi-genetics? If so, then how much? Then comes the question of real importance, if epi-genetics influence future success then what should we do with this information?
I don't want everyone in the same place since that means, as you point out, communism where everyone has an equal share of the misery. I want people to reach their greatest potential. If stresses on the parents means lowered chances of success for the children then we, as a society/nation/species/community, should do what we can to lower this stress. If epi-genetics means nothing then we should still be excellent to each other but know that such efforts may not be rewarded in better behaved children. That is we'd be no better rewarded than we already know with things like well fed children leading to healthy adults, as opposed to malnourished children leading to adults being stunted in physical and mental development.
I mentioned the TED Talk on a possible link of epi-genetics to homosexuality as something this article reminded me about and shows possible effects on humans. Homosexual tendencies are "bad" in that the species cannot propagate with these tendencies. If homosexual behavior is genetic then one could assume that it is unlikely to have survived to today. This then leads one to think about how it might propagate, since a genetic trait that's counter to propagating the species should fade in time. There must be something beneficial to this, and there must be a mechanism for it to exist in following generations. This is perhaps no different than anti-social behavior (or rather what we define today as such) being beneficial to the species. There's little doubt that stressed parents lead to aggressive children, what might be left unexplained is the mechanism behind it. A stressed parent might need aggressive children since war is a stressor and aggressive people tend to be more successful in war. There's now another layer to the nature vs. nurture debate and it's called epi-genetics.
Slashdot Mirror
When you realize that the vast majority of EV charging will happen at home, at night, then there is no problem with electricity shortages or infrastructure limitations. Night time electricity usage is sufficiently lower than daytime usage that there is plenty of excess capacity available to handle EV charging, even if 100% of all vehicles sold from today forward were pure electric vehicles. In fact, the amount of electricity saved by switching from incandescent bulbs to LED bulbs, actually offsets around half of the entire increase that would result from a switch to 100% electric ground transportation. Because of that transittion, and the scaling up of solar power, there has actually been a glut of electricity which has been keeping electricity prices artificially low. This artificially low cost was part of the stimulus that drove the sharp increase in the cryptocurrency mining which has absorbed most of the excess electricity capacity.
The first problem I see here is that the cars will be charged at night... from solar power? I think you missed a step or something.
Let's assume this is true, and perhaps take it a bit further, and assuming future growth in power demands will be gentle, or even flat. That we would not have to build power plants at any greater pace than we do now. The generating capacity might not need to increase but the energy demand still grows. Again, energy vs. power. We might not need more power plants but they will need more fuel. Given that the cars will charge at night, I won't dispute this, and the sun shines in the day, then something needs to offer that delay in energy transfer. This means storage, and lots of it.
Storage takes many forms. One way to store energy is to store it as fuel not burned. If we assume this is existing coal and natural gas plants then maybe we can grow enough solar power to displace daytime coal and natural gas burning. A problem with that is a steam thermal plant needs to stay hot, and therefore burn fuel, if you expect to get energy from it in short order. Using gas turbines allows for a speedy spin up but they are only half as efficient as a steam plant, it burns twice the fuel for the same electrical energy. That's not saving any fuel.
If we store the energy in batteries then that takes away from the batteries needed for the cars. Storage in hydroelectric dams means having enough rivers to dam up. We dammed up all the easy places, it's going to get more expensive real quick.
The only way to meet demand and not be burning a lot of coal and natural gas to make up for the energy demands at night is nuclear power. If you want your electric cars, and not see CO2 emissions rise, then we need more nuclear power.
Not resolving this means having to dual boot Linux on Apple hardware with an external drive.
If you can find a port to plug it into.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I haven't heard much about this for a long time but it seems booting from a network drive, presumably including wireless, is something Apple supports. I don't know how Linux works with this. It would be fun to try.
In your experience, how practical is it to carry two laptops?
Far more practical to carry two new laptops now than even 5 years ago, certainly compared to 10 years ago, and OH MY GOD far better than 20 years ago. I look at some of the old hardware I keep around (because I'm a pack rat that can't throw away hardware that works no matter how old) and I can stack up two of my newer laptops and still be smaller (but not necessarily lighter) than just one older one. If one chooses wisely then the laptops can share a single USB-C charger, which will also save on space and weight.
Have you seen the sizes of laptops shrink? Two laptops is easy. Just find an old laptop carry case and you'll see.
Apple cares about the competition. If the competition is offering a secure boot option then they want that to sell product. If a few people are upset by this because it happens to lock them out of Linux on Apple hardware then that's not much of a matter to them on the balance.
They care about Windows booting because they know that there is a significant portion of their market buying Apple hardware to run Windows. They can also pawn off some of the work/cost to Microsoft. If there is a Linux distributor that sees Linux on Apples as something of value then I can imagine some kind of deal to happen, and that distro gains a market advantage.
Considering they explicitly mention the Linux signing key this is not an accident, it's probably a trial balloon from Apple to see what happens if they ship Macs that don't run Linux ahead of a migration to ARM.
Or, it's just a support headache that they'd rather avoid. Don't jump to malice if laziness will do. Supporting Linux on their metal costs money for what I can imagine is little gain. By stating that people are on their own to run Linux then they can wash their hands clean of any problems brought to them such as people wiping their drive of valuable data in the process.
As a former EE major I was able to run what little Windows software I needed just fine in a VM.
I've attended university (as EE), worked at a university (as a web developer), and then attended again (technically software engineering but I didn't complete any degree), so I've seen the progression of what's been happening on universities for a while. "Windows" and "engineering" are in near opposition. I've seen the labs the engineering students use and all but one had Linux on the computers. Students often have Apple laptops, like I did, and simply ran Windows in a VM or avoided the issue completely and ran Linux. That one Windows lab, at least as I saw, was only for Java programming. The students didn't have to run Windows but if they didn't then they had to bring their own computer and the instructor was limited in helping on issues beyond the code.
It would have been trivial for me to go through my classes without needing Windows except for the one exercise in one Java lab where I had to run on the Windows computers provided because the assignment was to pass messages over the network to other students in the lab. The WiFi was on a different subnet and would have messed up the coding for everyone else if I ran my part on my laptop, especially if I had a VM and NAT networking.
Another issue was needing to run a serial programming cable for a little robot for one semester. Getting the software to talk to the USB-to-serial adapter was simply easier on my already existing Windows VM. Getting it to work on Linux or macOS was possible, and other students did so, but I simply followed the printed Windows instructions provided out of laziness. (This plays into the better access to hardware point, I guess. Still a VM but Windows had better support for the USB connection.)
Undergrad classes had Windows as an option, and perhaps path of least resistance, but not required. The graduate level classes I took didn't even touch Windows except as a terminal to a Linux machine in another room.
So using a VM to run Linux is not an appropriate solution.
Then don't buy Apple hardware. At least not until this Linux boot issue is resolved.
I've heard two reasons people run Linux on Apple hardware. First, Apple makes nice hardware and (until now at least) Linux support was quite good. So, buy used, wait and see if this issue is resolved, or both. Second, while a person might prefer Linux they have a need to run macOS for their work. In this case a dual boot is used, or running a VM with either macOS or Linux as host and the other as guest. Running Linux on the metal is in this case merely preferable, not required.
I'm not seeing a problem here.
I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro made in 2007. What's your point?
This computer has a dead battery, a dead optical drive, and is developing lines on the screen. I use it as a desktop through a KVM switch, largely because of the bad screen. Apple has not supported OS updates for several versions now, and I can't run most new software because of that. I keep it because it's paid for and it comes in handy for posting on Slashdot, reading my e-mail, and other light duties, without having to disrupt what I'm doing on my other computers.
I expect that the resale value of this computer is about that of your Vostro 1500, maybe $50 because it kind of runs and could be used for parts. I've seen laptops much this one selling for $20, so maybe I overstated the value of mine by a wide margin.
Which virtualization package were you thinking of?
All of them.
Unless you are running some really odd hardware then there's a way to pass through the network to the VM at full speed on every VM package I've seen. I'm guessing I've seen a lot of them but not all. If the speed of the network is critical, and you need it for an OS in a VM on a Mac, and this is for mission critical work at a for profit business, then I'm guessing one just needs to suck it up and open up the wallet a bit for the right software. I double checked VMWare's website because that's what I use on my laptop and they say VMWare Fusion supports USB3 speeds on pass through. That should be good for gigabit Ethernet on any USB3 Apple computer, and quite likely 10 Gbps for any Mac with USB-C ports and the right adapter.
That and GPU-intensive games.
You're doing it wrong.
I'm not big on the GPU intensive gaming so I have little first hand experience on this but I picked up a few things on this reading Slashdot. Apple hardware has been regularly mocked for their gaming performance, they just aren't built for it. On the low end systems there's often a pretty pathetic GPU. On the high dollar systems there might be a nice GPU but they are optimized for workstation type stuff, which is apparently different than what gamers want. Then there's issues of things like VR systems needing a GPU that simply does not exist in Apple hardware, it would have to be an add-on.
So, whatever the case the Linux gamer that is concerned about GPU intensive games will not be buying Apple hardware or they will do so knowing they need an external GPU for it to work well. If one is so adamant to spend the money needed for an external GPU then adding external bootable storage for the Linux OS will be nothing. The headline is deceiving, the computers seem to be able to boot an unsigned OS from external storage. If someone is going to add an external GPU to overcome the limitations of the Apple GPU then having an external boot drive is trivial in cost, complexity, and inconvenience.
Even if the internal GPU does meet their gaming needs, and they are adamant on running Linux to play those games, then just boot from external storage while gaming. Since there seems to be a lot of complaints on Apple not putting much for internal storage (size and/or speed), making internal drive upgrades difficult to impossible, and/or a custom build with a larger drive from Apple being expensive, I'm guessing that external boot drives for the Linux on Mac gamers is the norm already.
Getting access to a NIC or GPU with a VM has been possible for a long time now, and a bit of a corner case as I'm guessing few people consider this a real problem. Calling this an issue seems rather contrived.
Also, Linux on Apple hardware has always been something of a hack, hardware support was always problematic. The latest issues change nothing on this. I can recall some companies making something of a deal on reselling old Apple hardware as Linux workstations and servers. I recall one company that sold new Apple hardware this way, but losing Apple's blessing on the way since Apple would not allow an "official" retailer to sell their hardware wiped of their OS.
Running Linux directly on Apple branded metal has always been a hack. I suspect that in time this issue will be resolved, with another hack, or not. Not resolving this means having to dual boot Linux on Apple hardware with an external drive. I'm guessing that if people want Linux on their Apple computer that bad then they will simply deal with this as a minor inconvenience.
This seems like much ado about nothing.
You are thinking short term. Think long term, this affect future resale value. This affects if it will be even usage able in 3yr or 4yr or.
How many computers have you kept for more than 4 years? I'm guessing not that many.
I buy nice computers and so I tend to keep them running for 4 or 5 years. As I've been an laptop user for nearly 20 years now I'm on my 4th new laptop. I get mocked for not buying computers more often as people notice I'm running hardware that's 3 years old. My brothers got in the habit of buying a new laptop nearly every year because in that time they find it getting slow for their needs, wear it out, or break it. I broke one of mine, busted it up real good on it's 3rd year. It happens. I was a bit upset with myself but I picked up the pieces, was able to get my data off of it, bought a new laptop, and moved on.
More often than not a 4 year old computer is worthless. I'm sure a high dollar system can be very useful for much longer but it will be relegated to secondary use, given away, or sold off for pennies. As I sit here in my office I have six computers booted up in front of me. That's because I'm a code monkey and pack rat. I pulled a couple of these computers out of the trash because the businesses that owned them considered them worthless, there is no resale value on 4 year old hardware so that does not concern me. To me these old computers are "toys", something to play with as at their age they are slow, outdated, and something I consider unreliable. They do nothing of importance but I find them convenient. I am the outlier, as again most people would have thrown this hardware away. Even then I buy a new laptop every 4 or 5 years (except in the case of unrecoverable damage) because I need something reliable for my day to day stuff. And at that I'm even the outlier for keeping my daily workhorse for so long.
I guess you like not owning any thing
I like owning my stuff just fine. That includes my data. Secure storage on a computer means my data remains my data, and Apple just offered another layer on their hardware to assure that my data stays my data.
Secure storage is a good thing. You are merely creating a straw man to rip on this feature, something other computer makers offered for years. Now that it's on an Apple then I guess it becomes "bad", because Apple is "bad".
I'm still pretty sure dual booting is for chumps. Let's take your example.
If the guy needs Linux on the metal for running network tests then run Linux on the metal. He can run Windows in a VM if he needs that for things like e-mail and office apps. If he's doing work where he needs both Windows and Linux on the metal then he needs two computers. It's not like a computer is an expensive piece of hardware any more. If the company can't be bothered to get him the hardware but hobble him with reboots on a regular basis, as well as supporting computers with two operating systems installed, then they are penny wise and pound foolish.
Even then there are ways to pass through the network hardware on the computer to the VM. One easy way that most every virtualization package I've seen supports is a USB pass through. The freeware VM packages might throttle this to 100 Mbps speeds but the payware stuff will pass through at gigabit speeds. There's even PCI pass through on some VM packages if USB is insufficient.
If you are dual booting for something as trivial as what you describe then you are doing it wrong. It sounds like the guy is an idiot for hosting Linux on Windows instead of the other way around.
That's a pretty long list of "ifs" and still many years for fixes to come. I don't see much to be all worried about yet, especially with a list of existing workarounds.
I see it this way, now Apple has a secure boot process in exchange for potential boot problems years from now. Apple isn't going to kneecap their systems for years without a potential for corporate suicide. Worst case on the boot problems is losing access to the internal storage. So, plan for that like one should anyway with proper backups or whatever. Best case is getting a secure boot process now and a potential for signed booting from your OS of choice. You don't know which will come, and the worst case doesn't seem all that bad considering that we could see far better storage technologies in the future anyway.
Would you rather Apple didn't have a secure boot process at all? Because that seems like the only other option. Sounds like Apple can't win on this. If they don't have secure boot then they are mocked for not having it like the competition. If they do have it then people run around like their hair is on fire because Linux MIGHT not boot on the hardware years later.
I'm thinking people are simply looking for an excuse to beat up on Apple again.
Here's what the average PC owner wants more than the ability to exchange parts, they want the computer to work. Parts stuck in sockets and slots are less reliable than soldered down parts.
I'm 99.9% sure that's bullshit otherwise servers would be the first to have soldered parts, not laptops. It's all about cost. Lower production cost and not dealing with support costs because people meddled with it, no logistics for parts, no repair instructions or tools. A lot of devices like the Surface Laptop 2 that got a 0/10 score by iFixit is clearly not designed to be repaired by anyone, including Microsoft. Inside warranty if it breaks they replace it, outside warranty you're shit out of luck.
Let's assume it is bullshit. Servers are a much smaller market, for people that can be expected to "tinker" a bit with the hardware, and on a far larger budget. The ability to swap out parts is far more valuable even if it comes at the cost of lowered reliability if that reliability comes with things like ease and speed of repairs. Even servers have become more "appliance like" in that they come with multiple Ethernet ports on the motherboard, built in video (crappy VGA video because it's a server, but video on the motherboard regardless), and perhaps other features that would have been add-in cards not long ago. The parts one can swap out are minimal by the standards of not so long ago, when people had to install their own drive controllers and NICs.
Computers are appliances again, which is really what many people want.
Actually they're going one step past that, the computer is just the terminal to access your data. Your iPhone syncs everything to iCloud, if your phone breaks just grab another and sync it back up. Steam is the same, by default you sync your save games online so just log into another computer and pick up where you left off. Your local HDD is just a cache to the cloud...
That's true. People simply don't want to swap out parts on their computers any more than they wanted to swap out vacuum tubes on their TV set. Once the electronics got to a certain point of reliability and affordability it simply doesn't make sense to have the parts user serviceable. A desire to lower costs, weight, and size add to that. Having speedy and ubiquitous internet access allows for further freedoms on their hardware needs.
The parts swapping set of the computer user are a small part of the computer market. Apple is not in the market for the part swapper set, and the part swappers don't like an OS they can't open up the code to either. In other words, if you don't like Apple then don't buy from them.
If you don't fight boot locking every time it occurs, in 10 years from now Linux will run on only on old thinkpads.
For that to happen people would have to find Linux so worthless that no one kept it up to date and developed new hardware to run it. That's not likely. If Linux only runs on old ThinkPads in 10 years then that would mean some other open source OS dominated that market.
There's a market for boot locking because malware is getting sophisticated enough now that it can corrupt the boot process and hide itself from all but the most sophisticated tools to find it. This secure boot is a good thing. Don't fight it, work with it. I should not have to run Linux on lesser hardware, I expect developers to make it work because they find value in a secured boot process. If Linux can't keep up then it deserves to die.
Written on a 15yrs old machine :)
You should probably stop borrowing your kids computer.
In 3 years he'll get the computer back when the kids go off to college to buy their own.
Why can't you just run Linux in a VM?
Exactly.
You'd think that people with the skills to install Linux would realize that there's more than one way to install Linux on a computer. There's several quite capable VMs that I'm aware of with excellent support for running Linux on macOS. There's Parallels, VMWare, VirtualBox, just off the top of my head. I suspect that in no time we'll see ESXi get signed for Apple hardware for the people that take things up a notch on virtual machines, like myself.
If the goal is to test software on multiple platforms then I'm a bit doubtful one needs to run on the metal anyway. The only things that I can think of that need that kind of access to hardware would be drivers, and someone is not likely to write Linux drivers for Apple hardware this quickly except for things like getting it booting, which is exactly what people are working on right now.
Dual booting is for chumps. If you can't dig up real hardware or figure out how to run a VM then you are simply getting ahead of yourself. Make it work on the hardware and OS you got, then worry about making some money or dig through some university dumpsters for some hardware.
This is a made up problem since the hardware just came out. If this persists for a while then I might see an issue. My guess is someone figures this out next month but Slashdot won't post it because it's news where people can't go on bashing Apple.
Covered in a mixture of shit, blood and cum
I believe that's called "santorum".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Savage announced the winning entry, which defined "santorum" as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex".
Soon, people will be dismissing soldered hard drives and memory as "expected", and this mentality will infect every other company selling hardware.
I remember when it was "expected" for a computer to have a built in modem. Before (and after) that people were "expected" to buy one as an external additional cost accessory if they wanted one. I remember when people "expected" an optical drive in their computers, are you still mad at Apple for not including that as standard equipment on their computers? I'm not sure if kids these days even know that a CD or DVD were used in computers, I mean other than to play music and movies on them.
A top-of-the-line Mac Mini (that still had user-replaceable storage and memory) was barely over $1000 in 2012. A top-of-the-line Mac Mini is now over $4000, and Apple labels this as their "entry-level" model.
That was 4 cores and seven years ago. Also with that money comes a computer with ThunderBolt 3, 10Gb Ethernet, SSD, and far more RAM. Apparently some people believe it's worth the price.
If you don't like it then don't buy one.
And consumers don't give a shit about reliability. If they did, they would demand their most expensive electronic investment (smartphones) have user-replaceable batteries to make them last more than a fucking year or two.
I doubt people are buying new phones every year or two because the battery is losing capacity. I'm guessing it's because they simply wanted a phone with more features. You are probably right about people not being concerned about the phone being reliable as they buy a phone knowing in advance they'll just trade it in for a new one next year.
I suspect that phone makers stopped offering user replaceable batteries because few people demanded them. There was a time when phones with replaceable batteries were on the market at the same time as phones without replaceable batteries. I'm guessing the phones without user replaceable batteries simply sold better. It probably didn't help that phones rarely used any common battery type anyway. By the time a battery needed replacement the cost of a new battery wasn't worth keeping the phone when a new phone comes with a new battery.
If you don't like paying Apple prices then don't buy them.
Lenvo sells their Tiny-In-One line that does much of what you describe, including sharing the power supply. I've also seen 3rd party "hacks" that will mount a Mac Mini behind a screen. Maybe calling it a "hack" is unkind, they look very nice and not like something hacked together. There's stuff out there that do this.
The entire idea behind the PC or "personal computer" was that the user can exchange parts.
No, that's not the entire idea.
The idea behind a personal computer was a computer small and inexpensive enough for a person to own. Before the personal computer they were very large and very expensive. Early personal computers were not much more than a video game console with a keyboard. The only parts you could exchange, if you could call it that, was a ROM cartridge. Not only was the RAM soldered to the motherboard but the keyboard was integral to the unit. If you didn't like the keyboard then you simply had to deal with it. The CPU was soldered down, and if you wanted storage other than what came with it then you needed to buy some external accessory that plugged into it.
There were some very interesting "hacks" to add on to these early personal computers. I can recall upgrades that would clip on top of the existing chips on the board and somehow bypass the chip it clipped onto. People would take soldering irons to their PC to remove chips and replace them with something faster, stronger, and higher.
There was a subculture in this PC community of people that would exchange parts, which certainly grew after PC makers encouraged this with computers that had expansion slots and sockets. This meant people no longer had to solder to exchange parts. Outside of this subculture the average PC owner was not likely to open the case of their PC.
Here's what the average PC owner wants more than the ability to exchange parts, they want the computer to work. Parts stuck in sockets and slots are less reliable than soldered down parts.
I'm afraid we've been marching closer and closer to the death of the consumer PC and this is just another warning shot.
No, we've been marching closer to the personal computer as an appliance. Do you get yourself worked up that your dishwasher or clothes dryer does not have user serviceable parts? Way back in the day this might have been the norm but then in those days these appliances were far less reliable. I remember seeing someone highlight an appliance advert from the 1950s, in the advert they prided themselves on needing only 3 service calls in 5 years. Today this would be considered unacceptable junk. I remember computers needing this kind of service, where modem cards would need replacing from taking a voltage spike from the phone line, and people often expected to swap out dead hard drives. Computers are appliances again, which is really what many people want.
Means more $$$$ for them.
Of course it does! You think these computer makers are selling computers out of the goodness of their hearts? No, they do it to make money. It turns out that selling reliable computers at a low price makes them more money than unreliable computers with user replaceable parts.
Computers are for computing, not for swapping parts. If you want to take stuff apart and put it together again then I suggest buying some Lego Blocks.
Doesn't getting spermed on by Dad count as child abuse?
Only after the child has left the womb. While in the womb I expect children to be spermed on quite often.
It sounds like you are projecting some personal test onto other people.
It sounds like you are trying to read my mind and psychoanalyze me base on a few paragraphs.
It is hard to take you seriously when you combine these arguments as both can be subjective.
Then don't take me seriously. I'm merely pondering on where epi-genetic research might lead us.
If your argument is that there is some fictional place where everyone will just get along and everyone will be at the same "place" in society, then you need look no further then communism.
That's not my argument. My argument is that if stresses on the parents means poorly behaved children then it would be to our benefit to reduce stresses on parents.
I've been watching some interesting videos lately on how IQ correlates to financial and other success in life, as well as what factors contribute to IQ. The most recent video I saw was on "McNamara's Folly" or Project 100,000, by someone that wrote a book on this and who's name I don't recall right now. I don't have the link to the video as I found it on a different computer than I'm using right now but here's the Wikipedia page on that project:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Other videos I've seen were from Dr. Jordan Peterson where he describes how the US military has a large database of how people scored on their version of an IQ test and how well the people performed in their job. Dr. Peterson and others I've seen describe various possible contributing factors to IQ, and therefore future success. This simply fascinates me. There's some dispute on how genetics influence IQ, but no dispute that IQ is influenced by genetics. Maybe genetics contributes 80% to IQ, maybe only 50%. So, what contributes the rest? Can this be explained by epi-genetics? If so, then how much? Then comes the question of real importance, if epi-genetics influence future success then what should we do with this information?
I don't want everyone in the same place since that means, as you point out, communism where everyone has an equal share of the misery. I want people to reach their greatest potential. If stresses on the parents means lowered chances of success for the children then we, as a society/nation/species/community, should do what we can to lower this stress. If epi-genetics means nothing then we should still be excellent to each other but know that such efforts may not be rewarded in better behaved children. That is we'd be no better rewarded than we already know with things like well fed children leading to healthy adults, as opposed to malnourished children leading to adults being stunted in physical and mental development.
I mentioned the TED Talk on a possible link of epi-genetics to homosexuality as something this article reminded me about and shows possible effects on humans. Homosexual tendencies are "bad" in that the species cannot propagate with these tendencies. If homosexual behavior is genetic then one could assume that it is unlikely to have survived to today. This then leads one to think about how it might propagate, since a genetic trait that's counter to propagating the species should fade in time. There must be something beneficial to this, and there must be a mechanism for it to exist in following generations. This is perhaps no different than anti-social behavior (or rather what we define today as such) being beneficial to the species. There's little doubt that stressed parents lead to aggressive children, what might be left unexplained is the mechanism behind it. A stressed parent might need aggressive children since war is a stressor and aggressive people tend to be more successful in war. There's now another layer to the nature vs. nurture debate and it's called epi-genetics.