Indirectly it pretty much is. If software works on Apple hardware people wish to buy it.
Boycotting noncollaborating hardware vendors by FOSS is LONG overdue. In my opinion there's too much catering to companies that do not wish to be helped.
Though, we can't forget that, aarch64 support also helps other ARM vendors, open hardware, theoretically. So there's that.
By your logic every hardware vendor should pay for the development of all software (or at least all open source software) that aims to run on that hardware. Which is plain ridiculous. Apple is pretty collaborating in this transition. Not paying for development of every remotely popular project under the sun does not make them “noncollaborating”.
Apple ships a Python.framework and a user-facing python3 installation through CLT, so I expect them to contribute to CPython. And they did. They don’t ship anything remotely related to PyPy, so I don’t expect them to do anything. A gesture would be nice, but that’s being nice.
> By your logic every hardware vendor should pay for the development of all software (or at least all open source software) that aims to run on that hardware.
If it takes special work, yes.
Ungrateful to just demand compatibility but provide none back, Apple hardware is increasingly hostile to 3rd party code running on it. They're not worth it.
"Boycotting noncollaborating hardware vendors by FOSS is LONG overdue"
Is this serious. What does apple even use PyPy for?
We need to boycott APPLE because of a group making software they don't use? Huh?
I suppose we will need to boycott my home builder because they don't support my mattress company that works with the house they built me?
Apple uses python. They ship python3. They contribute to python. That get's folks into python, that get's folks interested in ARM64, so python work and golang and others start targeting ARM64 more, which in turn will probably help Microsoft and AWS whenever they inevitably release ARM products into production. That's the traditional open source cycle. We don't boycott these folks.
One issue - Apple WILL NOT ship GPLv3. Many other companies are EXTRMELY careful about shipping GPLv3 (I wouldn't be surprised if google was strict hell no on GPLv3). So there is going to be some fragmenting as the GNU folks and other put out things like Bash as GPLv3. Probably from the same folks that boycott, so it may not matter in the end.
> I suppose we will need to boycott my home builder because they don't support my mattress company that works with the house they built me?
I suppose you do need to boycott the home builder if they wish to sleep in your bed and also place demands on it.
They want 3rd party software, yet make it increasingly harder to both run and develop it on their hardware.
In the same category is Nvidia, so much effort goes into supporting their hardware but they don't really wish to play ball for more than a decade now. Why bother with such cunts? There are other vendors that are much nicer.
His point is that users who want to run PyPy can already do so on hardware from vendors that enable people to run whatever software they want on their devices instead of providing black boxes that the community has to reverse engineer.
You're still missing the point. It's not about having a particular API documented. You cannot run Linux with the M1's GPU without significant reverse engineering effort. Open source developers do not like to support vendors who do not make their hardware equally available for the open source community to use because it encourages people to use closed platforms. See Nvidia for another example.
Instead, it's better to provide that value-add on open platforms.
Boycotting noncollaborating hardware vendors by FOSS is LONG overdue. In my opinion there's too much catering to companies that do not wish to be helped.
Though, we can't forget that, aarch64 support also helps other ARM vendors, open hardware, theoretically. So there's that.