Announced in early August and initially planned for the end of the month, the Fedora Asahi Remix distribution is finally here for those who want to install the Fedora Linux operating system on their Apple Silicon Macs.

The distro is based on the latest Fedora Linux 39 release and ships with the KDE Plasma 5.27 LTS desktop environment by default, using Wayland.

  • sir_reginald@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    they are downvoting you, but you’re absolutely right.

    they can’t hardly be repaired and it’s impossible to upgrade them at all, even something as basic as swapping the SSD needs desoldering. They are still sold with 8 GB of RAM as the base and they can’t be upgraded.

    it isn’t worth it at all.

    • pftbest@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Just don’t buy an 8gb model, easy fix) But seriously when you get a laptop which allows you to work 8 hours straight from battery and then have 30% capacity left at the end of a day, there is no chance you would get back to the Intel system and plug it in every 2 hours.

      • toastal@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        I have a 1½-year-old laptop AMD Ryzen 6860Z processor & get 9 hours on the regular running NixOS doing programming/browsing/chat. That’s not quite 8 hours with 30% to spare, but good enough that I don’t worry about carrying my charger (but being lightweight GaN, normally keep it in my bag just in case). Apple folks have this tendency to think all their hardware is massively better, but even if it’s ‘better’, it’s often just by a small margin that doesn’t make a big difference–especially when you factor in cost.

        • pftbest@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I did some actual measurements just to confirm it, here is minecraft in default configuration running @ 100fps and the cpu+gpu consumption is around 6w in total. If you add about 5w for display backlight and other components the total would be 9-10 hours of play time on my 100wh battery.

          https://imgur.com/a/C5QuC9v

          Can you please take the same measurements on your system? Maybe ryzen system is better than intel, never had one.

          • toastal@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            I don’t own Minecraft (nope to Microsoft-owned software) nor would I have a reason to do 3D gaming on a battery… are you gaming at a café, the library, or something?

            • pftbest@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              no, it’s just an easy sustained load that can be measured accurately. If you have some other application that provides sustained load but doesn’t spin all the cores to 100% please suggest it, I will try.

            • pftbest@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              For example when watching 1080p youtube video in Safari the power consumption is only 0.1watt because it’s using hardware decoders. (not including display backlight, I can’t measure it). But when I play the same video in firefox which is using software decoding the consumption is around 0.7w which is not as good as hw decoders, but still less than a watt

      • sir_reginald@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        there is no chance you would get back to the Intel system and plug it in every 2 hours.

        don’t be irrealistic. most laptops in the Macbook price range will have 8 hours of usage in low consumption mode or around 6 or 5 if you need more power.

        and at that price point they come with at least 32 GB of RAM which can be upgraded, swappable SSDs with more capacity than the macbook’s, far better keyboard and more ports.

        the Macbooks do have some extra performance per battery usage? yeah I guess. But after 2 years that the battery life is gone, you’ll probably be buying the newer model or wishing that you bought a laptop with a replaceable battery.

        • bamboo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          The thermals and battery life of my Apple silicon MacBooks are unlike any other laptop I’ve owned. When I first got one, I started thinking of recharging it not in hours, but in days. 3-4 days between charges was normal for typical use. Mind you that was not full workdays, but the standby time was so good that I didn’t have to consider that the battery would decrease overnight or in my bag. I’ve used multiple Dell, Thinkpad, and Intel Mac laptops over the past decade as well and none of them come within spitting distance on battery life and thermals. I really hope that Qualcomm can do for other manufacturers what Apple silicon has done for MacBooks.

        • stetech@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          there is no chance you would get back to the Intel system and plug it in every 2 hours.

          don’t be irrealistic. most laptops in the Macbook price range will have 8 hours of usage in low consumption mode or around 6 or 5 if you need more power.

          While I completely agree on the repairability front, which is really quite unfortunate and quite frankly a shame (at least iPhones have been getting more repairable, silver lining I guess? damned need for neverending profits), it’s just… non unrealistic.

          That being said, unified memory kind of sucks but it’s still understandable due to the advantages it brings, and fixed-in-place main storage that also stores the OS is just plain shitty. It’ll render all these devices unusable once that SSD gives out.

          Anyhow, off the tangent again: I have Stats installed for general system monitoring, as well as AlDente to limit charge to 80% of maximum battery capacity. All that to say, by now after around 1.5 years of owning the M2 MacBook Air (which I’ve been waiting for to buy/to release since late 2019, btw), I know pretty well which wattages to expect and can gauge its power usage pretty well.

          I’ll try to give a generalized rundown:

          • High-intensity workloads (mostly in shorter bursts for me): typically around 10W. I’ve installed Minecraft before once just to test it, and I get reasonable frames (both modded and unmodded), where it seemed to draw maybe 15W, thus still being able to charge (!) the battery off a 30W power supply. It doesn’t ever really go above 20W as a rule of thumb, and the CPU/GPU will be capable enough for easily 80-90% of the general population.
          • Idle/suspended: unnoticeable. I use my machine every day with maybe an exception or three per month, but from what I’ve read from others, battery will dip slightly after a month of standby, but that’s mostly due to battery chemistry I’d assume, not actually background usage.
          • Idle/running, light usage (yes it’s the same category*): It actually depends on the screen size edit: whoops, brightness. Energy consumption due to CPU usage is by far the minority portion. I’d say 2-4W, maybe. Screen usage when really bright makes it jump to 8-9W, darker-but-not-minimum screen brightnesses leave it at… 5W maybe.

          Given the spec sheet’s 52 Wh battery, you can draw your own conclusions about the actual runtime of this thing by simple division. I leave it mostly plugged in to preserve the battery for when it becomes a couch laptop in around 5-8 years, so I can’t actually testify on that yet, I just know the numbers.

          I didn’t mean for this to come off as fanboi-y as it did now. I also really want to support Framework, but recommending it universally from my great-aunt to my colleagues is not as easy as it is with the MacBook. Given they’re a company probably 1,000 times smaller than Apple, what they’re doing is still tremendously impressive, but in all honesty, I don’t see myself leaving ARM architecture anytime soon. It’s just too damn efficient.

          *At least for my typical usage, which will be browser with far too many tabs and windows open + a few shell sessions + a (may or may not be shell) text editor, sometimes full-fledged IDE, but mostly just text editors with plugins.

        • pftbest@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I did some actual measurements just to confirm it, here is minecraft in default configuration running @ 100fps and the cpu+gpu consumption is around 6w in total. If you add about 5w for display backlight and other components the total would be 9-10 hours of play time on my 100wh battery.

          https://imgur.com/a/C5QuC9v

          Can you please take the same measurements on your system? I’d like to see how good is the alternative.

          • sir_reginald@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            My system is 7 years old, it wouldn’t be an appropriate comparison. Maybe others can help

    • Skull giver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      The 8GB models are manufactured e-waste but the usable lineup are great machines. They’re practically unrepairable, but they’re built not to need repairs. Not having replaceable parts isn’t just a way to drain customers’ wallets, it also reduces complexity and ways in which their product can be damaged.

      If you care about swapping out the SSD or replacing the RAM, you shouldn’t buy Apple. I promise you, though, that 99% of laptop users don’t, and that includes a significant part of Linux users.

      Macs are expensive as balls but there simply aren’t any competitors for them. They’re the “overkill everything” segment that’s too small to target for other manufacturers. There are maybe one or two series of laptops that come close in speaker quality, and one of those consists of gaming laptops designed after 80s scifi spaceships, and the other comes with terrible battery and even worse Linux support, and both of them lack the battery life+performance quality Apple managed to squeeze out of their CPU.

      I wish someone would produce Macbooks other than Apple. It’s an awful company that produces great hardware for a competitive price, it you care about all the Macbook has to offer. And to be honest, that’s not because Apple is such an amazing manufacturer, it’s because AMD and Intel are behind the curve (Qualcom even more), and the laptop manufacturers that try to compete with Apple always try to squeeze just that little bit of extra cost cutting out of their models so their shit doesn’t cost more, and preload their top of the line hardware with Windows 11 Home (the one with candy crush pinned to the start menu) and their stupid GAMER software suite that works on three models and stops being maintained after two updates.

      We just need better laptops.