Yes, and at a really low resolution. That's okay, it's expected.
Make It Work, Make It Right, Make It Fast. I personally didn't expect Asahi would get this far on steps #1 and #2 nearly as quickly as they have. It's bloody impressive.
It’s at a 2004 resolution at sub 2004 FPS and the title is clickbait claiming it “runs”, sorry but 28 FPS isn’t considered playable in my book. I’m just not as impressed by that as people pretend I should be. They should have waited and at least gotten a solid 60 before this should’ve been shown off. The sad state of the Apple (and Microsoft too) reverse engineering scene has been obliterated by lawsuits and this whole Asahi Linux thing is a fluke that someone hadn’t got shut down yet. It actually saddens me what shambles the Apple RE’ing scene is for it to be taking this long to achieve only this meager level of support. Seemingly only 2 or 3 people in the world are working on this? For the most powerful laptops in the world?
The title never claims that it's playable, just that it runs.
That said, I've played many games at <30 fps and low resolution in the past, due to not being able to buy the latest & greatest hardware - it's perfectly playable, even if not an ideal experience.
Of course, it's different here - the hardware is more than capable. But do you expect them to jump from nothing to smooth 60 fps full resolution with nothing in between? Maybe a post like this will motivate more people to join development, as opposed to waiting until it's perfect.
My dude, the first 50 years of gaming struggled to reach 24 fps, 24fps is the framerate of the film industry we've only recently had access to 4k60fps in the last few years.
It's a start - remember this developer has basically bootstrapped linux on Apple's custom hardware and this is the early stages of the latest area she's focussed on (getting the GPU working). This has been an impressive project, it'll no doubt continue.
Minor correction but most of the "bootstrapping" work unrelated to the GPU has been done by Hector Martin, Alyssa's focus has always been on the GPU side of it.
I believe they're calling it Day 1 in the sense that the devs themselves are saying a lot of it is hacked together and not daily driver material for most of the users. A lot of releases and revisions before this is even upstreamed.
This isn't a port of an existing driver. It's completely new Kernel space + user space driver. Of course it makes use of the mesa "framework" but that doesn't mean the driver is 27 years old.
What do you think porting a driver to a completely new GPU means? Doing so will require new kernel space and user space code. The existence of these new components doesn't mean there is a completely new graphics driver. Only parts of it that are platform specific are new.
The graphics driver of a system spans from a talking to the hardware to exposing a graphics API such as OpenGL or Vulkan for applications to use. Splitting up the graphics driver into separate components and calling each component a driver is different from what I mean when I am referring to a driver.
Mesa isn't a driver. Mesa is just an abstraction on top of the software that DRIVES the hardware (a driver), which is being written from scratch. Nobody (including the Asahi developers) but you subscribes to your definition of a driver. Drivers implementing Mesa may share next to nothing in common, so no, it's not a "port".
The ashahi driver inside Mesa builds upon Gallium3D so it does use shared components of the Mesa library stack. This is not a from scratch driver, it's one that uses the powers of the Mesa library.
On a macbook with a M1 pro I generated a single new world that started in a forest biome and with the default settings I got about 80 fps when using a resolution of 854x480.
There should be a way to decouple the UX from the program and if people want a Discord “skin” for IRC that looks nearly 1:1 they should be able to have that.
I don't think that would help. The IRC protocol is missing so many messaging features that platforms like Discord have. Just looking like Discord wouldn't fix that.
This is lipstick on a pig. I'd be perfectly happy with a client that looks like IRC but has the features of Discord. I'd like to be able to chat on my phone without running an external service that provides a modern HTTP based protocol.
IRCCloud is fine, but it's more expensive than Discord, the UX is not quite as nice for reasons inherent to the IRC model, and it's not really more open in any substantive sense (my phone will be running the proprietary IRCCloud application that speaks a proprietary IRCCloud protocol). So why would one bother?
> and it's not really more open in any substantive sense [...]. So why would one bother?
Not for you, because you want to use a turnkey solution, and you don't want to pay for it (instead relying on whatever model they have where you are the product, I guess?). But if you use IRC to talk to me, I can run my own bouncer for free, and I can run the client I want. I can even write my bouncer and my client, and still talk to you.
That's infinitely more open than Discord. It's just that you don't care about others.
> Not for you, because you want to use a turnkey solution, and you don't want to pay for it (instead relying on whatever model they have where you are the product, I guess?). But if you use IRC to talk to me, I can run my own bouncer for free, and I can run the client I want. I can even write my bouncer and my client, and still talk to you.
> That's infinitely more open than Discord. It's just that you don't care about others.
I care a bit about whether you can run your bouncer. But I also care about whether non-technical people can talk to me without an unreasonable level of effort. Expecting everyone else to pay extra for a worse experience so that you can use it the way you want seems pretty entitled.
> Expecting everyone else to pay extra for a worse experience so that you can use it the way you want seems pretty entitled.
Yeah, the price is an issue indeed. I guess that's why we keep having monopolies: it's easier to get VC money if you can ensure user lock-in, and it's easier to make a nice UX if you have VC money.
Now, don't think you don't pay those proprietary messengers. You just pay differently.
Why are developers still limiting themselves by posting their code on the clearweb in a manner they can be traced and held liable for? Host everything on Tor from a server outside USA jurisdiction and this should be a total non issue. Code is speech. It’s time to stop letting the government get away with trampling on our 1st amendment rights to free speech.
My failed startup operated in a similar space: SDRs & military applications. I dunno how people don't plan from Day 1 with a knowledge of Uncle Sam's heavy-handed export restrictions in their mind.
I was using existing open-source software as a basis (GNU Radio), all of my engineers were foreigners in their home countries, my SDRs and single-board computers were dual-use hardware from multiple other nations, and my company was in Hong Kong. All because I knew I primarily wanted to target foreign countries with behind-the-power-curve militaries, not the admittedly-huge US defense market with its obnoxious barriers to entry. If you operate in the US, just keep your stuff closed source until you can afford expensive lawyers to tell you what you can share.
> It’s time to stop letting the government get away with trampling on our 1st amendment rights to free speech.
That needs to be a legal fight, since classified information is specifically exempted from free speech, among a long list of other things (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations). Moving to Tor might skirt the rules, but does little to challenge them, and won’t prevent any legal trouble for someone who gets caught. (It could make things worse, as it might demonstrate intent.) If you believe that free speech should be absolute, that needs to be litigated and voted for. Just remember Chesterton’s Fence: all the free speech limitations we have now have already been litigated and fought for. There are good reasons that freedom of speech is not absolute.
If someone independently invents something using the available resources at hand it shouldn’t be able to be considered classified or copyright restricted, if it was really that advanced and sophisticated then nobody should be able to discover it unless it leaks. If there’s no proof it leaked to the public in violation of a government employee’s oath then the information should be legal. In that case I agree anyone who leaks classified documents should be charged for treason. But there’s a major difference between a software developer accidentally inventing a banned algorithm and getting slammed with the full force of the government and secret information the government has being leaked.
I can agree with everything you just said, but there’s a bit of a misconception of what free speech means tied up in this. The government isn’t claiming ownership. Freedom of speech is a protection the government offers to protect citizens against itself, and the government defines what freedom of speech means. It’s probably best to leave copyright aside, introducing that now and mixing it up with free speech is going to muddy the discussion. This isn’t a copyright issue.
It doesn’t matter if I independently invent nuclear weapons, I’m still not currently allowed to open source them for other people, possibly in other countries, to use. That isn’t because the government thinks they own my ideas, it’s because the government believes that sharing information on how to build nuclear weapons is bad for us and threatens our safety. (Edit) BTW, it’s also important here to recognize that claiming “independent” invention is risky and problematic, if you received any benefit from your environment in the form of education, ideas, collaborators, parts, market conditions, etc. There are very few, if any, truly independent inventions.
Note I’m not making any arguments on whether ITAR should or should not be classified. What I’m pointing out is that that is what needs to be debated - whether ITAR is classifiable (or otherwise export controlled), and this isn’t otherwise an issue of free speech failing to be absolute. It’s a simple fact that freedom of speech is not absolute, and therefore demonstrating perceived abuses needs to be demonstrated based on the specifics of the case. Why should ITAR be declassified/open? That’s what needs to be shown.
> The government shouldn’t be able to classify scientific information that the public is able to discover on their own
It doesn’t matter if I independently invent nuclear weapons, I’m still not currently allowed to open source them for other people, possibly in other countries, to use.
It's funny you mentioned nuclear weapons. Nuclear design information is purportedly "born secret" in the United States (that is, purportedly restricted based on what it is, not where it came from).
However, the one time that this looked like going to trial, when a magazine called The Progressive intended to publish Howard Morland's article describing the operation of thermonuclear weapons in the 1970s and the DoE tried to stop them (United States v. Progressive, Inc.), the Government ended up backing down before a final resolution of the case. The article was published, but whether or not this prior restraint is legal is still undecided.
It is also worth noting that the argument for suppression leaned on the severe consequences up to thermonuclear war, something which the argument for suppressing passive radar technology is going to have a harder time with.
> the argument for suppression leaned on the severe consequences up to thermonuclear war, something which the argument for suppressing passive radar technology is going to have a harder time with.
Why would you assume radar needs the same justification as nuclear weapons, when there are lots of export controlled products and ideas already that aren’t justified by the specific or immediate threat of thermonuclear war, e.g., encryption, weapons, chemicals, software, etc.? That’s what ITAR is…
The Morland/Progressive story is quite fascinating. It’s worth pointing out that it happened more than 30 years after the original designs, after other countries had their own nukes, and the case was dropped due to all of the info Morland shared already being in the public domain. It’s not really an example of free speech winning against the government, and isn’t precedent for how we’re handling defense related technology today.
Why would you assume radar needs the same justification as nuclear weapons, when there are lots of export controlled products and ideas already that aren’t justified by the specific or immediate threat of thermonuclear war, e.g., encryption, weapons, chemicals, software, etc.? That’s what ITAR is…
The first amendment arguments in the case (and related cases like the Pentagon Papers) in part hinged on the immediacy and degree of harm to the United States that publication was likely to cause. "Thermonuclear war" is an easier sell in this balancing of concerns than "better radar".
It’s worth pointing out that it happened more than 30 years after the original designs, after other countries had their own nukes, and the case was dropped due to all of the info Morland shared already being in the public domain.
Not exactly. The Teller-Ulam design was about 26 years old at that point - it was first tested at Ivy Mike in 1952. The Soviets and British developed similar staged thermonuclear weapons over later part of the decade, the Chinese and French not until the late 1960s.
Morland and The Progressive argued from the start that the article was based on information in the public domain, when the DoE first came to them. The government on the contrary argued that the article contained still-secret information. The government then did say they were dropping the case because it was mooted by events, but dropping it did also avoid the risk of an adverse ruling - as I said, the legality of these kinds of prior restraints on publishing independently-derived material remains unclear.
> “Thermonuclear war” is an easier sell in this balancing of concerns than “better radar”.
Why? That doesn’t explain the entire rest of everything that is currently export controlled, right? Threat of Thermonuclear war is not the basis for the ITAR program.
Why? Because it's a more grave and imminent threat, and the jurisprudence around first amendment vs prior restraint against publishing of classified material is around balancing of concerns, with prior restraint justified in cases of "direct, immediate or irreparable harm to our Nation or its people". It's not a black and white line, the degree of harm matters.
"Everything else that is currently export controlled" has not been litigated (but note that we are only concerned here with limits on the export of expressive text, not for example actual armaments). The one case where restrictions on the export of software by ITAR was litigated - Bernstein v. United States Department of States (District Court of California) (1997) - the District Court ruled the regulations in question were an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech and issued a declaratory judgement preventing the government from enforcing the ITAR in question against DJB or anyone else seeking to use, discuss or publish his encryption code.
Oh I see what you mean now, thanks for the explanation. Yes I agree that when challenging in court whether some tech can be classified or not, then nukes are an easier sell than radar. I was more referring to what happens before that, how something becomes classified and/or export controlled by the government. It doesn’t have to be litigated in order to legally limit feee speech, while it does have to be challenged, litigated, and won in order to become free speech.
I'm not a fan of github for other reasons, but how the heck would your solution work for searchability and discoverability, two of github's largest values?
This could work for distribution but it's not a solution for shielding the developer(s). If you have already publicly published code with attribution I would not consider tor + forward pawns to be 100% invulnerable to forensics to determine authorship. So now you're looking at tackling code transformation without obfuscation to cover provenance, which sounds non-trivial.
(Your comment made me wonder if coPilot can also be used to fingerprint developers based on their existing code.)
Yes, but not using that tool. Certainly not at a $8 price-point over USB 2.0 (and while some of them have USB 3.0 looking ports, they're USB 2.0 internally).
I'd start by looking at the Black Magic Intensity Pro 4K, but you're looking at hundreds of dollars.
I have multiple of what I'm very confident are basically those devices. I use them fairly regularly.
They are almost all built around the MS 2109 Macrosilicon chip (and the ones that aren't are worse). They will only do MJPEG when above a certain rez and framerate.
1080p60 24-bit colour depth is 372.5MBytes/sec uncompressed. So it's going to require some compression.
I'm not an expert on h.264 etc, but can you do real-time lossless CBR below 53MBytes/sec on a readily available hardware encoder that, including the HDMI capture functionality, comes anywhere near $8?
People can still get your ip and ddos you on discord. its just a little expensive. theres a forum where you can pay $500 for someone to send an EDR to Discord from a police email. Also there was a file attatchment bug in the wild that leaked your ip as recently as 6 months ago which im not sure was even fixed. A guy I befriended in a hacking community proved it to me.
Its a highly illegal felony, yes. but take into account the value of a human life is low as $226 in some countries. These operators are in foreign countries and dont care.
The purchase of twitter for $44b will be known as the most expensive corporate mistake in history. He's aleady chased away most of his advertisers, pissed off both sides of the political spectrum with his selective enforcement of rules, and clearly he's reneged on the whole idea of turning Twitter into a "public square" as theyre still taking down legal free speech. His ship is sinking. fast.
You’re right. He still might realize he can use it to extract personally profitable handouts from ethno-nationalistic autocrats. Through suppression, promotion, and sharing user data. That would be good for him at least.
Nonsense. For example Yahoo had the opportunity to buy Google for $5 billion in 2002, and 20 years later Google is worth more than a trillion dollars. Or look at another trillion dollar plus company Microsoft--and remember that it was IBM that came out with the IBM PC in 1981--and then IBM totally blew it.
