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

macOS in QEMU in Docker

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 190 posts

Re: macOS in QEMU in Docker

#151

Post by sjwright »

user5994461 wrote: post #56
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #24

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 .

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.

If you don't respect Apple's software license terms, you have no moral authority to insist anyone respects the GPL's license terms.

I take it you'd have no objection to Google forking the Linux kernel for Android and refusing all requests for the source code.

Re: macOS in QEMU in Docker

#152

Post by vaxman »

heavyset_go wrote: post #149
jcelerier wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ?

There is if you're running Linux, like you might be if macOS dropped support for your hardware.

With 40 years of Apple development under my belt, I can safely say that Apple used to be great about supporting older hardware.

When they were on rough times, everyone understood about needing to break compatibility with old hardware (that nobody really cared about anyway because, despite it's horrendous price, was super obsolete due to the rate of Moore's law back then). But nowadays, Apple is invalidating old hardware platforms for superfluous reasons, like abandoning 32-bit apps, enforcing their OEM cryptographic authority (with T2 chip) and getting into it with nVidia (granted nVidia screwed up big time with those GPU chips that blow) or more recently, getting into it with Intel (which has caused agonizing supply-chain issues for Apple). They are no longer that good about helping people support Linux either --you would think that when they deprecate a machine, they would at least have the decency to open source all of its drivers...(and have pre-negotiated the legal rights to do so).

Re: macOS in QEMU in Docker

#154

Post by fulafel »

etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #8

So this is pretty misleading. It's really a full system emulator (qemu) running inside Docker, using root privileges on the container that make the isolation very weak (--privileged). It also uses hardware assisted virtualization (KVM) which is not going to be available most of the time Docker is. You can think of the Docker platform itself as subset of the Linux platform. With many common features removed by default…

KVM will be available if you run Docker natively on your laptop, or if your docker-on-VM setup supports nested virtualization - I think these are pretty common setups?

Re: macOS in QEMU in Docker

#155

Post by fulafel »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #24
cercatrova wrote: post #19

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?

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 .

You can of course run the CI/CD system on Apple hardware just fine. You can even get colo hosted Apple hardware with a monthly payment Hetzner style from a few companies.

Re: macOS in QEMU in Docker

#156

Post by hunter2_ »

mindfulhack wrote: post #142
ac29 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

IANAL either, and also I only read that PDF for a minute, but: maybe the Apple firmware running on the motherboard, a T2 chip etc, can satisfy the requirement that it is a computer "already running the Apple Software", even with Linux as the host OS. I think "the Apple Software" carries broad meaning in that agreement (and not very exclusive in its definition), e.g. clause 1: "The Apple software (including Boot ROM c…

The definition is broad (and self-referential, oddly): The "Apple software" is defined as "The Apple software (including Boot ROM code), any third party software, documentation, interfaces, content, fonts and any data accompanying this License"

If a subset such as "Boot ROM code" on the VM host was sufficient to allow for using "Apple software" beyond said subset in VM guests, then any other subset (such as "fonts") would also have to be sufficient, and no reasonable person would agree with such a thing. Therefore, it follows that the _entirety_ of "Apple software" must be "already running" on that "Mac Computer" before booting any VM guests that use "Apple software." This interpretation is supported by the use of the word "and."

Re: macOS in QEMU in Docker

#158

Post by ChrisRR »

benbristow wrote: post #26
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #24

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 .

It's also £5,499.00 in the UK (just under $7k USD). Not exactly ideal for hobbyists.

Not exactly ideal for many people.

I've never spent more than £600 on a computer and never felt like I need to spend 10x that for any of my software development

Re: macOS in QEMU in Docker

#159

Post by 411111111111111 »

umvi wrote: post #48
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I considered including a price tag (... and comes for only $6990 ), but decided against it for being too thick. I also think that using /s markers kinda kills the idea of sarcasm.

Poe's law is especially strong with Apple, /s is definitely needed unless you go over the top with praising the price.

> unless you go over the top with praising the price

most apple enthusiasts think that the price is spot on and in no way overblown. (i do not have an opinion on the matter as i neither own nor use apple devices)

i dont think you can convey any point about apple in a sarcastic manner while omitting a /s tag. there are always people honestly believing the point you're stating sarcastically.

this applies to both negative and positive statements

Post reply on HN