141–150 of 190 posts
It's hard to see what Docker is adding here since qemu is being run inside Docker. You could get almost identical functionality out of a bare VM image and not deal with the hassles of docker.
It's a hammer problem. Docker is the new hammer and now everything starts to look like nails.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if you do it on a non-Apple comoputer. If you install linux on your mac, then follow the guide I believe it should be fine.
Not a lawyer, etc, but I read this as requiring the VM to be run on macOS host: allowed "to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software " https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macOSCatalina.pdf
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we are going to divert into Zen koans and non-dual philosophies, then it is definitively "yes it did". The falling away of the perception of an intrinsicly-existing self doesn't change that there's still perception. It would make a sound the same way there is a sound made when one hand claps. Back on topic though: it's too bad Apple doesn't allow licenses for running things headlessly like this.
>Back on topic though You over-philosophized to the point of bringing their kitschy koan off-topic. How I interpreted the use of the koan : Apple has no history of legally chasing those who virtualize their operating system; as this is a non-topic thusfar -- who cares? The hammer may fall one day, but so far 'why are we worried about a legal response that doesn't seem to exist?'. The answer, of course, is that anyone…
Maybe not macOS yet. But the definitely chased people who virtualized iOS:
https://www.macrumors.com/2019/08/15/apple-corellium-copyrig...
Does this mean I can run Xcode to do iOS and Unity builds on a Linux host?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Apple has no motives to send the BSA after anyone ... until your virtualization layer starts having a material impact on their precious hardware sales. You cannot build business-critical systems on contractual clauses being "unofficially unenforced".
Probably the majority of macOS CI/CD use cases are materially beneficial to apple. Most people just want to automate building software for macOS/iOS. Making it easy to produce software for their products, just strengthens their ecosystem.
I just want a good CI/CD system for macOS to build iOS apps without needing to buy a farm of Mac Minis, or even buy a Mac, is that too much to ask?
The typical answer is paying to those who do that for you, like Travis. And yes, too much to ask. Apple's principal revenue source is selling hardware. They don't care if developing for their platform is not cheap; they explicitly target the premium segment, and are never uncomfortable with their well-known large margins.
The existence of companies like MacStadium filling rooms with Macs just to bend over backwards for inane license terms proves the paid demand is there. Apple could offer to license their OS for use not on Apple hardware — for a fee. They don't. The objection isn't to the price; the objection is that needing to manage physical hardware (as opposed to spinning up VMs like in the article) is a PITA to manage, comparatively. Companies would — and do — pay to not need to deal with that pain, but it would be a lot less painful to not need to get a third party involved / to be able to make use of the infra I have without having to stuff some Macs into a closet and wonder how I'm going to make that redundant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The EULA says you can't run Mac OS on non Apple hardware? Pretty sure these terms are not enforceable in Europe so safe to ignore.
I've always wondered why apple gets a pass on the kinds of anti competitive suits brought against google. Google gets fined Billions of dollars for preloading a web browser in Android, but it's fine for apple to completely monopolize their hardware and software ecosystems.
Chromium is competing with Samsung internet and others on Android, because several companies sell Android. So it's not fine for Google to force the choice.
Apple is not competing with anyone else on iOS, you don't have a choice. As long as iOS does not have a monopoly in smartphones, they're in the clear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is exactly what I was thinking of. I don't want to buy dedicated hosts from MacStadium. I got native iOS builds and Unity buidls that would work well with this. Isolation is not as big of a concern. I too would like to hear if anyone has been able to pull this off. EDIT: And what about licensing?
Licensing is impossible if you don't run this on Apple hardware. The macOS license only allows you to install and run macOS on devices that came with it and this includes virtualization. However, if you buy a Mac, install Linux and use it to run the pipelines, that'd be strictly legal I believe.
I'm in this boat, so there's a market for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't care though. What I care about is that it's a pain in the butt to do CI/CD pipelines for an application with iOS/OSX support. So if someone has a headless OS X contraption on offer, I want to hear some more about it. The last time I set this up, a manager decided he wanted a laptop like the rest of us instead of the iMac he got. He asked semi-jokingly if someone wanted the machine for anything and I said "Yes…
> So if someone has a headless OS X contraption on offer, I want to hear some more about it. you still legally need to run it on an actual Mac due to Apple's terms of service though... so is there really a lot gained ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to Apple software license agreements, yes, it is too much to ask. You can not legally run Mac OS on non-Apple hardware. But don't be sad, their new Mac Pro is fantastic .
I'm not sure that to run a CI you have to violate the Apple license. I mean most core components of macOS (the Darwin project) are actually open source, and thus can be built and used freely. And for a CI you don't need a GUI and other stuff, only the kernel and the compiler basically. So maybe it's possible to compile a version of Darwin so close to the real macOS that has the bare minimum to run the compiler to bui…