Live data from Hacker News

Darling – macOS Translation Layer for Linux

darlinghq.org

21–30 of 176 posts

Re: Darling – macOS Translation Layer for Linux

#21

I wish I had the time to contribute to this. Getting Logic running on linux would let me ditch the Apple hardware. It's usefulness is entirely limited to the implementation of the core library frameworks such as Core Image, Audio, MIDI, Animation, Data, etc...which will be very, very difficult, I think, while maintaining FOSS status.

I wish Ardour had some of the features Logic does (most significantly flex time), as well as a nicer UI. Literally Logic is the only thing keeping me on macOS.

Re: Darling – macOS Translation Layer for Linux

#22
post #17

What would be amazing is if Darling could join forces with the long-running GNUstep project in order to provide access to the Cocoa APIs. This would provide a means to run Cocoa apps on Linux, which will make Linux a more attractive operating system for prospective Mac converts and may also increase the popularity of GNUstep. Also, with many Mac users expressing anxieties about the future of the Mac given Apple's bus…

Every year or so I take a look at GNUStep just to see what's going on. Crazy it hasn't taken off.

Re: Darling – macOS Translation Layer for Linux

#24

Something like this is sorely needed by the open-source, not-for-profit, shoestring-resources, cross-platform development community... For example, let's say that I'm writing some cross-platform open source software. And let's say that I am developing this software on a Windows or Linux Box. Now, let's say that for whatever reason, I don't have and can't afford a Mac (a scenario like this is more common than you woul…

>I don't have and can't afford a Mac

Why wouldn't you just virtualize, same as any other OS? If you're not virtualizing on Mac hardware than there are a few minor extra hoops to jump through but it's still less work compared to a hackintosh. Performance can be janky if you don't dedicate a video card to it, but something perfectly adequate like a Radeon 560 seem readily available for $60-80 now. There are a few bits of Mac specific hardware these days like the T-series chips, but not even all supported Macs have that by a long shot.

Re: Darling – macOS Translation Layer for Linux

#25

Something like this is sorely needed by the open-source, not-for-profit, shoestring-resources, cross-platform development community... For example, let's say that I'm writing some cross-platform open source software. And let's say that I am developing this software on a Windows or Linux Box. Now, let's say that for whatever reason, I don't have and can't afford a Mac (a scenario like this is more common than you woul…

> Now, let's say that for whatever reason, I don't have and can't afford a Mac. Rely on some developer(s) spend 10,000 hours of their time for free developing a Mac emulation layer, or go on eBay and buy a $600 used Mac to test on...

The nice thing about the former is that that cost is shared across all consumers, whereas the latter would be incurred for every user. The latter approach may still cost less for now (or forever), but it's something to keep in mind.

Re: Darling – macOS Translation Layer for Linux

#26
post #22
post #17

What would be amazing is if Darling could join forces with the long-running GNUstep project in order to provide access to the Cocoa APIs. This would provide a means to run Cocoa apps on Linux, which will make Linux a more attractive operating system for prospective Mac converts and may also increase the popularity of GNUstep. Also, with many Mac users expressing anxieties about the future of the Mac given Apple's bus…

Every year or so I take a look at GNUStep just to see what's going on. Crazy it hasn't taken off.

Unfortunately - call me superficial - I can't really get past its crusty look.

Re: Darling – macOS Translation Layer for Linux

#27

I wish I had the time to contribute to this. Getting Logic running on linux would let me ditch the Apple hardware. It's usefulness is entirely limited to the implementation of the core library frameworks such as Core Image, Audio, MIDI, Animation, Data, etc...which will be very, very difficult, I think, while maintaining FOSS status.

Linux audio latency really isn't great, having another layer in between your app and the kernel probably won't help.

Re: Darling – macOS Translation Layer for Linux

#28

Something like this is sorely needed by the open-source, not-for-profit, shoestring-resources, cross-platform development community... For example, let's say that I'm writing some cross-platform open source software. And let's say that I am developing this software on a Windows or Linux Box. Now, let's say that for whatever reason, I don't have and can't afford a Mac (a scenario like this is more common than you woul…

Worth noting that outside of this bubble, macOS has less than 10% market share. Not every software needs to run everywhere.

There are other working solutions, JetBrains seems to do alright with Java runtimes.

Re: Darling – macOS Translation Layer for Linux

#29

I'm puzzled, wont most console apps already cross compile without much modification? Isn't this basis of brew/etc? The GUI piece seems like the key, but without it I'm failing to understand why this is significant.

It says that it "does not yet" run GUI applications, so it seems like they plan on it. Additionally, if no one ever talked about software like this before completion, they'd have a pretty hard time getting enough developers interested to ever reach completion.

As for making the front-page of HN, the HN crowd probably consists disproportionately of technology enthusiasts who find interest in technology beyond its immediate usefulness.

Re: Darling – macOS Translation Layer for Linux

#30
post #24

Something like this is sorely needed by the open-source, not-for-profit, shoestring-resources, cross-platform development community... For example, let's say that I'm writing some cross-platform open source software. And let's say that I am developing this software on a Windows or Linux Box. Now, let's say that for whatever reason, I don't have and can't afford a Mac (a scenario like this is more common than you woul…

> I don't have and can't afford a Mac Why wouldn't you just virtualize, same as any other OS? If you're not virtualizing on Mac hardware than there are a few minor extra hoops to jump through but it's still less work compared to a hackintosh. Performance can be janky if you don't dedicate a video card to it, but something perfectly adequate like a Radeon 560 seem readily available for $60-80 now. There are a few bits…

Doing so is not legal in most countries. the macOS T&C/EULA/etc. forbid running it on non-apple hardware. This is a large barrier to entry that a lot of people don't want to even approach.
Post reply on HN