This would be great if things like open source were more supported in the "real" world. Unfortunately, you're describing exactly why a community means nothing in this situation unless the community is giving back to the project. When the "original tinkerer" moves on, everything depending on that project breaks when everything else changes around it.
>Apple has been able to migrate between 5 processors during its existence by breaking backwards compatibility and even remove entire processing subsystems from ARM chips by removing 32 bit code compatibility.
I would consider myself an Apple evangelist, for the most part, and even I can recognize what's been lost by Apple breaking backwards compatibility every time they need to shift direction. While the philosophy is great for making sure that things are modern and maintained, there is definitely a non-insignificant amount of value that is lost, even just historically but also in general, by the paradigm of constantly moving forward without regard for maintaining compatibility with the past.
What was the alternative? Sticking with 65x02, 68K, or PPC?
They could have stuck with x86 I guess. But was moving to ARM really a bad idea?
They were able to remove entire sections of the processor by getting rid of 32 bit code and saving memory and storage by not having 32 bit and 64 bit code running at the same time. When 32 bit code ran it had to load 32 bit version of the shared linked library and 64 bit code had to have its own versions.
>What was the alternative? Sticking with 65x02, 68K, or PPC?
No, including an interpreter like they did (Rosetta) was an alternative. The "alternative" really depends on what the goals were. For Apple, their goal is modern software and hardware that works together. That's antithetical to backwards compatibility.
>They could have stuck with x86 I guess. But was moving to ARM really a bad idea?
I don't think I ever suggested that it was or that they couldn't have...
>They were able to remove entire sections of the processor by getting rid of 32 bit code and saving memory and storage by not having 32 bit and 64 bit code running at the same time.
Yes, and, in doing so, they killed any software that wasn't created for a 64-bit system. Again, for even a purely historical perspective, the amount of software that didn't survive each of the instanced transitions is non-negligible. Steam now has an entire library of old Mac games that can't run on modern systems anymore because of the abandonment of 32-bit without any consideration for backwards compatibility. Yes, there are emulators and apps like Wine and CrossOver than can somewhat get these things working again but there's also a whole subsection of software that just doesn't work anymore. Again, that's just a byproduct of Apple's focus on modern codebases that are currently maintained but it's still a general detriment that so much useable software was simply lost immediately because of these changes when there could have been some focus on maintaining compatibility.
> No, including an interpreter like they did (Rosetta) was an alternative.
The downside of including an interpreter with no end of life expectations is that some companies get lazy and will never update their software to modern standards. Adobe is a prime example. They would have gladly stuck with Carbon forever if Apple hadn’t changed their minds about a 64 bit version of Carbon.
That was the sane reason that Jobs made it almost impossible to port legacy text based software to early Macs. Microsoft jumped onboard developing Mac software and Lotus and WordPerfect didn’t early on.
But today you would have to have emulation software for Apple //es, 68K, PPC and 32 bit and 64 bit x86 software and 32 bit and 64 bit ARM (iOS) software all vying for resources.
Today because of relentlessly getting rid of backwards compatibility, the same base OS can run on set top boxes, monitors (yeah the latest Apple displays have iPhone 14 level hardware in them and run a version of iOS), phones, tablets, watches and AR glasses.
Someone has to maintain the old compatibility layers and patch them for vulnerabilities. How many vulnerabilities have been found in some old compatible APIs on Windows?
> The downside of including an interpreter with no end of life expectations is that some companies get lazy and will never update their software to modern standards. Adobe is a prime example. They would have gladly stuck with Carbon forever if Apple hadn’t changed their minds about a 64 bit version of Carbon.
I don't see that as a downside; I see it as a strength. Why should everyone have to get on the library-of-the-year train, constantly rewriting code -- working code! -- to use a new API?
It's just a huge waste of time. The forced-upgrade treadmill only helps Apple, not anyone else. Users don't care what underlying system APIs an app uses. They just care that it works, and does what they need it to do. App developers could be spending time adding new features or fixing bugs, but instead they have to port to new library APIs. Lame.
> Someone has to maintain the old compatibility layers and patch them for vulnerabilities.
It's almost certainly less work to do that than to require everyone else rewrite their code. But Apple doesn't want to spend the money and time, so they force others to spend it.
This may come as a surprise to you, but the vast majority of users absolutely hate it when their software changes.
They don't want all new interfaces with all new buttons and options and menus.
People get used to their workflows and they like them. They use their software to do something. The software itself is not the goal (gaming excepted).
I'm not suggesting that things should never be gussied up, or streamlined or made more efficient from a UX perspective, but so many software shops change just to change and "stay fresh".
I'm not sure why you're responding to me. Nothing that you're saying is anything that I've mentioned or brought up. I know what the downsides are. I'm just saying that the goals that Apple has optimized for have resulted in a loss of things that many would consider valuable.
If Apple users really appreciated backward-compatibility, the would be a significant market for 3-rd party emulators and VMs to run old software using no longer supported hardware or software API. It is not there. There are VMs, but they are mostly used by developers or by people who want to run Windows software on Mac, not old Mac software. So from Apple perspective if their users do not want to pay for backward compatibility, why should Apple provide it?
I wonder how much of that is just lack of awareness. E.g., the whole story at [0] needn't have occurred if anyone involved were aware of VM emulation for older OS versions. But there's no money in selling old software, and Apple would probably open themselves up to lawsuits ("you told me to use a VM, and then it got hacked!") if they openly advertised it.
Plus, the reduced power consumption and battery life extension is insanely good now. Whereas I could only get an hour and a half from an Intel MacBook Pro, I can now get over a days use out of the M4. I have not been affected by the lack of “legacy” software support and I am more than happy to have this tradeoff.
Engineering is always about trade offs. Microsoft could never make the trade offs that Apple has made and while it has suffered because of it in new markets, it’s gained the trust of Big Enterprise. Microsoft should not be trying to act like Apple.
There is room for both. But if you are a gamer, the Mac isn’t where you want to be anyway. Computers have been cheap enough for decades to have both a Windows PC and a Mac. Usually a desktop and a laptop.
I never suggested that they should, in either case. I'm just saying that there are things that are lost by completely ignoring backwards compatibility. There are plenty of Mac-only applications that aren't games that are now obsolete and unusable because of architecture changes.
Critical thinking is one thing but that "thing" is a process rather than an individual item. Critical thinking, like science, is a process that iterates upon itself. You analyze the information you have and make a conclusion based on that information. The "critical" part comes in when you take a step back and then use that same process to analyze your conclusion and poke holes in it, checking to see if the information you have supports that hole or supports the conclusion.
It's like saying that a computer is one thing despite the fact that the one thing is made up of multiple pieces.
Why anyone would think we're going to get more transparency this time around is beyond me. President Obama started the federal Open Data initiative and Trump, almost as quickly, neutered it just short of axing it. If they cared at all about being transparent, they would have worked on the Open Data initiatives rather than shrouding everything in further secrecy.
>All this hyperventilating over DOGE is distracting from actual issues to worry about
It's not hyperventilating. It may start as a task force but it can easily and quickly be upgraded to a full-on department of the federal government by Congress.
> it can easily and quickly be upgraded to a full-on department
It cannot easily be converted. The house margin is razor thin now that Gaetz and Stefanik gave up their seats for nominations, and filibuster-able.
And Senate leadership is status quo GOP with Sen Thune as Senate Majorty leader, and his allies Grassley and Cornyn, as well as shakey Senators like Collin and Murkowski reducing that majority, and the Senate is still filibuster-able as well.
And given the amount of controversy over a number of Secretary choices, it'll take 6-9 months alone just to go through the Senate Confirmation backlog.
Where were you for the last 8 years? If there's one thing the GOP is great at, it's coalescing around votes. Even with the thin margins, there are ways for them to achieve their goals quickly. I think you're not giving them enough credit here...
It is only the Senate which has the filibuster, and it merely exists as a Senate rule. It can be removed with a simple majority vote, though I believe rule changes must occur at the beginning of the new Congress.
That may be a moot point with regard to cabinet positions should the incoming Republican Senate go along with Trump's request for recess appointments, though.
> It is only the Senate which has the filibuster, and it merely exists as a Senate rule. It can be removed with a simple majority vote, though I believe rule changes must occur at the beginning of the new Congress.
Rule changes can occur any time, but except for the initial adoption of the rules by a majority vote by each House at the opening of each Congress are, themselves, subject to the rules adopted by that House for that Congress, which may impose additional process.
House can de facto filibuster in the sense that a 3 rep majority will inevitably lead to clashes internally, as every rep in the GOP absolutely will use this as an excuse to get concessions. This happened everytime this happens.
> It can be removed with a simple majority vote
It absolutely can, but both sides steer away from doing so due to situations like this - either party inevitably becomes the minority as some point in the Senate, so Senate leadership in both parties prefer to maintain it.
> That may be a moot point with regard to cabinet positions should the incoming Republican Senate go along with Trump's request for recess appointments, though
And that's my point. With Thune as Senate majority leader, Recess Appointments are basically moot.
The whole point of Recess Appointments is to undermine the power of the Senate, which much of the Senate obviously opposes.
You say this as if Trump will also not be in control of both sides of Congress. All it takes to make this a department of the government is a vote in Congress.
And most of the members of congress (all of the house, 1/3 of the senate)will be up for election in 2 years. Let’s see if they are up for cutting social security and medicare when they have to face the voters just two years later.
Let’s break this down. Payments on the debt (10% of budget) are already off the table. SS, Health Insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, etc) and defense represent about 58% of the budget. If we eliminate everything else, we are going after things like welfare, the VA, and veterans benefits, as well as subsidies to a variety of businesses. Bottom line, even if there wasn’t an economic impact, there will be some very pissed-off powerful constituents.
At the end of the day, this whole process shows that Musk and Ramaswamy are clowns.
Also hard to ignore him nominating several of the authors of, and people involved in, p2025 to his cabinet.
A lot of people who weren't paying attention are going to be saying "I didn't know", "How could've I known", "Why didn't anyone tell me", in the coming months and years.
It's unfortunate so many will suffer at the hands of the disengaged and the misinformed / poorly informed voters of this country.
I'd like to think they'll pay attention after this, but I thought the same thing last time around.
they're literally talking about deleting agencies, which was explictly mentioned in the plan.
several of the authors have already received / been earmarked for appointments.
if someone says "i'm going to blow up a building", and then starts buying a ton of dynamite, it's pretty reasonable to assume they're gonna blow up that building.
What do you mean? There are people who wrote parts of Project 2025 who will be in the next government, or do you think the Heritage Foundation has no ties to the future Trump government at all?
