131–140 of 206 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The opposite would be much more interesting and finally make cross-platform CI bearable without relying on closed source third-parties.
You'd still need a Mac with xcode for the build, no?
It's testing that's the problem really, where you really need the hardware.
Does this have to be this complex? Can't I just fire up a VirualBox as I do on Linux and Windows and go ahead?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like I pretty much have full control over my Mac laptop. Why would you expect to fully control a machine from inside a VM anyway? Sounds like a massive security risk too.
Security is entirely orthogonal here. It's like saying you're ok with not being able to enter your own house because of security.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems overly complicated. Is there any benefit over using Docker?
I'm not sure what you think Docker on a Mac does. Docker is a Linux-specific piece of software, and the only way to use it within macOS is to run a Linux virtual machine, with Docker running inside the Linux VM. If the containers you want to run with Docker are x86 software, that Linux VM either needs to be an x86 Linux distro running in qemu emulation of a full x86 machine, or an ARM Linux distro using the new (not…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The comment you replied to was about UTM, which does allow running earlier versions of macOS/OS X on Apple silicon hosts: Virtualizing OpenCore and x86 macOS on Apple Silicon (and even iOS!) https://khronokernel.github.io/apple/silicon/2021/01/17/QEMU... Run Tiger, Leopard, or any Mac OS X PowerPC version on M1 https://tinyapps.org/docs/tiger-on-m1.html
Their website says differently Note that macOS VM support is limited to ARM based Macs running macOS Monterey or higher. https://mac.getutm.app/
While ARM virtual machines are limited to Monterey and higher on Apple silicon[0], emulation works just fine for x86, PowerPC, etc.
Here's a video I cobbled together of UTM running Tiger on an Apple silicon Big Sur host: https://tinyapps.org/screenshots/tiger-on-m1.mp4
and another of the same host running Windows XP: https://tinyapps.org/screenshots/20210522-utm-xp.mp4
[0] https://kb.parallels.com/125561 "To run a macOS Monterey VM on Mac computers with Apple M1 chips, Parallels Desktop 17 uses new technology introduced in macOS Monterey, that's why it is not possible to run earlier versions of macOS on a Mac with Apple M1 chips."
I can’t help but feel UTM pushed Apple to deliver this polished of a solution? Pulling this 100% out of thin air though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't run the Linux x64 binary on macOS ARM. You run the Linux x64 binary on Linux ARM inside a VM on macOS ARM.
It seems overly complicated. Is there any benefit over using Docker?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. It uses qemu.
Pretty sure I downloaded it and it let me set up a machine with or without qemu. Asked if i want virtualization or emulation.
I can’t help but feel UTM pushed Apple to deliver this polished of a solution? Pulling this 100% out of thin air though.
They’ve been providing these APIs for a while for existing VM solutions in order to get rid of the kernel extensions previously needed. They keep evolving to support that use case. I’ve long thought it would be interesting to release Linux native apps in this sort of wrapper to the App Store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With Apple, it is all about exerting control and crippling softwares that don't align with their goals. Don't be surprised if Apple suddenly forces developers to only use their virtualisation API on macOS, just like they did for application firewalls (that are no longer allowed to have their own custom kernel extensions for "security" and "stability"). They are slowly squeezing macOS to make it more and more like ios…
> are no longer allowed to have their own custom kernel extensions for "security" and "stability" Why the "scare quotes"? Sounds totally justifiable. Third party kernel extensions have always have had issues with both security and stability.