Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Virtualize OS X on Linux

grodola.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 143 posts

Re: Virtualize OS X on Linux

#131

Post by pjmlp »

jiiam wrote: post #129
pjmlp wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is that market of small utilities that puts money in the pockets of developers that care about the desktop experience, and that isn't exclusive of Apple systems.

This simply means that Apple would rather outsource the job and make some small developer happy and a few users (like me) unhappy, rather than improve their highly praised interface. By the way, there is an ecosystem of excellent small utilities developed open source for linux that are, in my opinions, superior to the ones on OSX, or at least, the one I work and am familiar with. Of course open source produces many u…

No, it means there are some developers out there that are happy to earn their income and pay their bills developing software for desktop users, something that doesn't really exist in GNU/Linux.

Living from donations isn't really a sustainable thing.

Re: Virtualize OS X on Linux

#132

Post by AlexeyBrin »

tavert wrote: post #125
AlexeyBrin wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually Fortran works best if you combine Visual Studio with Intel Fortran compiler. You can freely call C from Fortran and viceversa, furthermore Intel's versions of BLAS and LAPACK are seriously faster than the reference BLAS and LAPACK you will build yourself on Windows. It is also possible to link gfortran compiled dll's with C and C++ in Visual Studio. A few years ago I even called a gfortran dll from C# using…

Of course you don't build the reference BLAS if you care about performance. But OpenBLAS is quite competitive, and open source. A non-free compiler is a big impediment to build reproducibility and accessibility for new contributors for a large open source project.

> A non-free compiler is a big impediment to build reproducibility and accessibility for new contributors for a large open source project.

Agree, this is why I've mentioned that you can use Fortran code compiled as a DLL with gfortran (open source) from Visual Studio in C, C++ and C# projects.

Re: Virtualize OS X on Linux

#133

Post by khedoros1 »

pjmlp wrote: post #118
skykooler wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nor does it run OSX.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zPYW6Ipgok

...and? I think I see the point that you're trying to make, but I don't think that it's pertinent to the discussion. A tablet is still a "personal computer" (solely as a descriptive term) without the keyboard, and regardless of Apple marketing. But it's not a "personal computer", in the same sense that common usage of that word doesn't include (most) tablets, smartphones, PDAs, programmable calculators, etc.

But, we digress. Tell me again how it's reasonable that hardware that will run OSes 1, 2, and 3 shouldn't be allowed to run OS 1, because the hardware doesn't have a fruit sticker on the side.

Old hardware was inherently incompatible software-wise, due to widely varying CPU and system architectures. ARM and MIPS hardware today somewhat mirrors that on a device-by-device level; every model has different interconnections between its components and often different mixes of components connected in. Luckily, we've got OSes that provide relatively robust hardware abstraction layers, so that the same software package from my 2010 device is highly likely to run on my 2016 device. I think that strengthens my argument: when even widely varied hardware isn't much of a barrier to software interoperability, why should we be satisfied with legal limitations?

And anyhow, the point was software development. Going into the definition of what is and isn't a PC is a bunch of BS semantics. Let's drill down to the devices that are pertinent to the discussion: The set of devices that are technically capable of native (as opposed to web) OSX and iOS development, and the set of devices that are legally capable of the same. Those are what the discussion is about.

Re: Virtualize OS X on Linux

#134

Post by fizzbatter »

swozey wrote: post #128
fizzbatter wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but we used to have to run farms of mac minis because we couldn't have jenkins/bamboo trigger more than one xcode test/build run at a time. As someone who is interested in OSX testing like this - ie, not arguing with you - would it be possible to have a mac mini use virtualbox with real OSX installations running in parallel? From what i've heard in this thread, Virtualbox/etc support OSX just fine, on OSX machines.…

I last worked on this stuff 2-5 years ago so I'm not completely clear. I'm probably very wrong on this nowadays so hopefully someone can give you better info. IIRC you can run two OSX guests on an OSX host with Apple hardware. Anything that isn't using OSX as the base OS is EULA violating. I see a lot of people doing it via esxi. I'm not sure if the EULA has changed and that's ok now or people are just doing it. Than…

No worries, appreciate what information you could give :)

Re: Virtualize OS X on Linux

#135

Post by [deleted] »

pjmlp wrote: post #30
kxyvr wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I'm one of those developers that got forced into buying a Mac Mini in order to test my software on MacOS. On one hand, you're correct that Apple "won" because I was pushed into spending $500 on their hardware. On the other hand, the parent is very much correct. Candidly, I'm still angry at Apple for making their ecosystem a pain in the ass to work with. Hell, I would have paid good money to buy a MacOS virtualizat…

Mac OS X is mainly a desktop OS and those of us that know Apple since the Mac Classic days don't have any issue with their desktop culture, which wasn't any different from the Atari and Amiga ones. I never sshed into them.

[deleted]

Re: Virtualize OS X on Linux

#136

Post by AceJohnny2 »

tvmalsv wrote: post #40
AceJohnny2 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God, I wish the opposite! After years of using AwesomeWM [1], now that I'm stuck in OS X for work I feel like I'm tied down and handicapped. While I'm around, anyone know the keyboard shortcut to UNminimize a window? [1] https://awesome.naquadah.org/

Another method is to ⌘-tab to the minimized app, and while still pressing ⌘, hold down the Option key and release ⌘. Not very elegant and it won't work if the app has a mix of minimized and non-minimized windows, but I usually don't have a mix. If that's the case, you can still use notyourwork's method above.

Yeah, in my case I have a mix of open and minimized windows in a given app (Preview, iTerm, Emacs...), hence the issue.

MacOS is not keyboard-only-friendly. It took me a year before someone pointed out the option to let "Tab" cycle through ALL controls in a dialog >_ Keyboard -> Shortcuts, then at the bottom, the "Full Keyboard Access" radio buttons)

Re: Virtualize OS X on Linux

#137

Post by AceJohnny2 »

pritambaral wrote: post #60
tvmalsv wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another method is to ⌘-tab to the minimized app, and while still pressing ⌘, hold down the Option key and release ⌘. Not very elegant and it won't work if the app has a mix of minimized and non-minimized windows, but I usually don't have a mix. If that's the case, you can still use notyourwork's method above.

I liked how some WMs handle windows of same application. I can Alt-Tab to a window of an app, and then — without releasing the Alt key — Alt-` to a different window of the same app. On Kwin, for example, going from Alt-Tab to Alt-` smoothly filters out all the non-same-app windows. Alt-Tab => Alt-` is also much easier than ⌘-tab => ⌘-Option => Option I'd think OS X's WM would have ⌘-tab => ⌘-`

OS X does have ⌘-` to switch between (unminimized) windows of a given app.

Re: Virtualize OS X on Linux

#138

Post by ianai »

72deluxe wrote: post #121
ianai wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's how they enforce their monopoly. To the point of driving their market share down below mainstream.

Under which area does Apple have a monopoly? Mac market share is tiny.

They're the only vendor for the Mac platform and one of two competitors for mainstream desktop OSes. Tell me they don't have market power. It's just...self limited to a niche of a bigger market.

Re: Virtualize OS X on Linux

#139

Post by _acme »

pawadu wrote: post #58
pjmlp wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone wants UNIX clones and there are toons of goodies on the OS X stack for doing desktop development for people willing to pay for it.

> Not everyone wants UNIX clones Technically OS X is a "UNIX clone" > and there are toons of goodies on the OS X You mean there is a Clippy for OSX?

Technically, macOS is UNIX, not a "clone".

Re: Virtualize OS X on Linux

#140

Post by stuaxo »

jrowley wrote: post #26
joombaga wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. This image is meant for Apple hardware.

For example when you are running Linux on your MacBook but are too lazy to boot back into OSX for dev purposes. ;)

Been there, and even used the risky option of letting the VM access the disk in raw mode to run the "real" mac os.
Post reply on HN