51–60 of 344 posts
It just seems so arbitrary and unhelpful, and I have a hard time imagining that the amount of hardware purchased it forces outweigh the benefits from making macOS/iOS better platforms for development and computation.
It just seems like such an odd stance to take.
Can someone remind me why Apple is so anti-VM in seemingly every instance? It just seems so arbitrary and unhelpful, and I have a hard time imagining that the amount of hardware purchased it forces outweigh the benefits from making macOS/iOS better platforms for development and computation. It just seems like such an odd stance to take.
Presumably they have determined that lost hardware sales would offset any increased app or service sales from allowing VMs on non-Apple hardware.
Though I don't actually know what platform macOS and iOS VMs run on in GitHub Actions and Azure pipelines.
Edit: apparently Azure pipelines uses Mac pros. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/age...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't find anything online to support that. Everything I find says that to be illegal, something must be against the law, and that a contract is not law, so the word "illegal" doesn't apply to breach of contract because it's private. There is a difference between illegality and criminality however -- e.g. breaking the speed limit is illegal but it doesn't reach criminal, as one source uses as an example.
> Everything I find says that to be illegal, something must be against the law. A breach of contract is against, and has remedies provided under, the law of contracts.. > A contract is not law No, but the law of contracts is law.
And all the discussion I can find online say breaking a contract doesn't fall under the definition of "illegal".
Do you have an authoritative source that defines it otherwise?
Can someone remind me why Apple is so anti-VM in seemingly every instance? It just seems so arbitrary and unhelpful, and I have a hard time imagining that the amount of hardware purchased it forces outweigh the benefits from making macOS/iOS better platforms for development and computation. It just seems like such an odd stance to take.
2: Control over the platform.
It's funny how the 30% tax and App Store nonsense automatically makes me want Apple to lose every single court case in perpetuity. Having such a monopoly on a device you purchase really means the legal system needs to take you down a notch.
Can someone remind me why Apple is so anti-VM in seemingly every instance? It just seems so arbitrary and unhelpful, and I have a hard time imagining that the amount of hardware purchased it forces outweigh the benefits from making macOS/iOS better platforms for development and computation. It just seems like such an odd stance to take.
Apple is not anti-VM. It is anti VM-on-non-Apple-hardware. ;-) Presumably they have determined that lost hardware sales would offset any increased app or service sales from allowing VMs on non-Apple hardware. Though I don't actually know what platform macOS and iOS VMs run on in GitHub Actions and Azure pipelines. Edit: apparently Azure pipelines uses Mac pros. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines…
Now I'd like to be able to legally run MacOS on a virtual machine or on AWS or Azure or Google Cloud or something. I know you can rent a bare metal Apple Mini or something, but Apple's terms of service make this all basically illegal to use like any other VM. That means if I want to develop an app for iOS (beyond just what you can do in Swift Playgrounds), I can't just boot up a VM or AWS instance, I have to either b…
Azure Pipelines supports macOS 11 and 12.
GitHub Actions supports macOS 11, 12, and 13 beta.
Can someone remind me why Apple is so anti-VM in seemingly every instance? It just seems so arbitrary and unhelpful, and I have a hard time imagining that the amount of hardware purchased it forces outweigh the benefits from making macOS/iOS better platforms for development and computation. It just seems like such an odd stance to take.
Apple is not anti-VM. It is anti VM-on-non-Apple-hardware. ;-) Presumably they have determined that lost hardware sales would offset any increased app or service sales from allowing VMs on non-Apple hardware. Though I don't actually know what platform macOS and iOS VMs run on in GitHub Actions and Azure pipelines. Edit: apparently Azure pipelines uses Mac pros. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't find anything online to support that. Everything I find says that to be illegal, something must be against the law, and that a contract is not law, so the word "illegal" doesn't apply to breach of contract because it's private. There is a difference between illegality and criminality however -- e.g. breaking the speed limit is illegal but it doesn't reach criminal, as one source uses as an example.
> Everything I find says that to be illegal, something must be against the law. A breach of contract is against, and has remedies provided under, the law of contracts.. > A contract is not law No, but the law of contracts is law.
contract law is the body of precedent and collective set of laws related to the legality, construction, execution and all around use of contracts, and while I’m sure there are some specific extra laws that make breach of certain types of contracts a misdemeanour or felony. Generally speaking in most jurisdictions around the world in fact, breach of contract is a civil law matter between the parties of the contract, and settlement of the civil law side of the “is this actually a breach of contract” is usually necessary first before any potential criminal liability can be applied.
An example: An contract can be invalidated for lack of sufficient consideration offered (peppercorn isn’t always enough to make it valid)… this makes the contract void, not illegal. This is a simple example but it illustrates the basic point well, and I’m not trying to write a legal theory essay while on the way to work.