[HN Gopher] macOS virtualisation refactored and sandboxed in Via...
___________________________________________________________________
macOS virtualisation refactored and sandboxed in Viable updates
Author : zdw
Score : 75 points
Date : 2022-12-28 14:29 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (eclecticlight.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (eclecticlight.co)
| pxc wrote:
| > In case you think that the two apps can be used together to run
| more than two macOS VMs at the same time, I'm afraid that macOS
| remains one step ahead of you, and enforces Apple's licence limit
| across virtualising apps.
|
| Is this true for all VMs or just VMs running macOS? (How) does
| the OS know what operating systems the guests are running?
| pram wrote:
| It knows because it's going through the MacOS Virtualization
| framework. There isn't a similar limit for Linux guests.
|
| It's probably actually really easy to 'enforce' because the
| method for starting a MacOS VM is completely different than
| Linux:
| https://developer.apple.com/documentation/virtualization/vzm...
| [deleted]
| mustardants199 wrote:
| This is super useful for me
| Shadowgamer195 wrote:
| Too bad I can't run multiple Vms at the same time :(
| saagarjha wrote:
| Virtualization definitely supports this.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| Apple is such an annoying company. The M1 performance to price
| ratio definitely made it worth it to buy an MacBook Air but the
| constant crippling of their product line for product segmentation
| makes them impossible to like.
|
| They are so consumer hostile, I think it's going to hurt them in
| the long run. I'm really thankful that the EU is going to be
| shaking them a bit on their business policies in Europe.
| pjmlp wrote:
| No different from ARM, AMD and Intel having product
| segmentation on their CPU cores.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Apple is the only company among the ones listed that forces
| you to use their software on select products. That's the
| product segmentation, and it's really frustrating when
| hardware like the iPhone/iPad is so excellent but entirely
| hamstrung by it's OS. There's nothing wrong with segmenting
| your hardware or writing a pared-back OS for smaller devices,
| but forcing everyone to use it is a pretty obvious and
| arbitrary limitation.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Windows Home vs Pro vs .... with "Works best on Windows"
| OEM agreements.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Those are quite dumb too, but Microsoft's deals with the
| OEM don't stop me from using Intel's hypervisor framework
| or iGPU on Linux.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Depends on how much the community has managed to reverse
| engineer the hardware, firmware, boot lock, and then
| there is Surface.
|
| The same way that Apple hardware has to be reversed
| engineered.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Why do you think I'm defending any of Microsoft's
| products here? When Microsoft releases a locked-down
| product, it's also as bad as when Apple does it. But even
| still, there's less reverse-engineering work that goes
| into getting a Surface device boostrapped than an Apple
| Silicon one. Writing a custom OS for x86 is lightyears
| easier than bootstrapping one for ARM.
| pjmlp wrote:
| I don't think, rather pointing out Apple isn't alone.
|
| x86 only happened because of IBM being unable to kill the
| clones, and going forward many of them will eventually
| also have ARM workloads.
|
| All OEMs have Apple envy in shipping sealed experiences,
| just like all 16 bit platforms with exception of PCs.
|
| Hence why they rather ship locked down laptops, phones
| and tablets than classical desktops.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Well, it's time we stopped the trend dead in it's tracks.
| IMO, it's fine to seal your experience however you want
| as long as the bootloader is open on the hardware. If the
| user isn't trapped in the hardware they own, then it's
| fair game.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| cdolan wrote:
| What happens if/when the EU fails to update their laws on, say,
| USB-C mandates?
|
| I agree the short term legal framework seems to have benefits,
| but I fear for the long term impact.
|
| Laws are RARELY every taken off the books. Government doesn't
| shrink
| viraptor wrote:
| They already did from micro USB to USB-C. There's a whole
| process for updates built into this regulation already.
|
| It's not a USB-C mandate. It's a "talk to each other and
| figure out one solution" mandate. USB-C is just the current
| result.
| cdolan wrote:
| Those are good points that I was not aware of. In the
| literature I read it was focused on "USB-C" as the
| standard.
|
| Do you have any links to where we can read more?
| black3r wrote:
| The current standard is USB-C and there is a list of all
| device types that need to use the standard from now on.
| Afterwards, the European Commission shall do market
| research every 5 years and have the power to update the
| device type list and charging standard on its own.
|
| Source: the text version of the adopted directive (with
| translations into all 24 official languages available in
| the top right corner) - https://www.europarl.europa.eu/do
| ceo/document/TA-9-2022-0338...
| smoldesu wrote:
| What's the long-term fear, here? That Apple will suddenly
| reverse their stance on iPhone transfer speeds, and design a
| new super-fast transfer spec for iPhone in 2025? They can
| still do that. They can do it the same way they did with
| Thunderbolt, where they work with other industry leaders to
| propose a standard to the USB-IF consortium. Once everyone is
| happy with it, then they can roll it out to their products.
| These are the standards that should be designed
| democratically, not privately.
|
| All this nail-biting around USB standardization is worrying
| in the wrong direction. It's like saying that all of our cell
| carriers should get to choose whatever spectrum they want,
| because if we don't give them freedom then we might be
| stifling their innovation. Sometimes, there are more
| important things to worry about.
| soneil wrote:
| They could also theoretically do lightning-3 as an alt-
| channel over usb-c. The regulation is concerned with
| charging, not data.
| cdolan wrote:
| I think your spectrum analogy misses the mark, here's why:
|
| USB-C is a misnomer. There are actually about 10 different
| variations, which _all conform to the same physical port
| constraints_ , but have drastically different behaviors in
| terms of charging, data transport, and more.
|
| By mandating a USB-C port, I fear we've created a pointless
| monopoly on the design that will stifle future innovation.
| Is USB-C the "best port in the world"? It's 2022/2023, the
| answer may be "yes"... but MicroUSB was "the best port in
| the world" in 2007-2008, and its downright awful now.
|
| Spectrum is different as it's a physical medium that the
| government regulates to ensure the flow of information
| within that physical medium. Thats more akin to water
| management or other physical resources, and outside the
| scope of incentive management for innovations sake.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Is it really? Why shouldn't we also regulate connectors
| as a physical medium to ensure the flow of information
| and electricity between compatible devices?
|
| It's a ridiculous comparison, but only because Apple's
| blatant failure to innovate brought us here. We're not
| even forcing them to use Thunderbolt or USB-3.0 speeds,
| it just needs to plug-in the same as other phones.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > Why shouldn't we also regulate connectors as a physical
| medium to ensure the flow of information and electricity
| between compatible devices?
|
| I think you misunderstand - regulating the physical
| medium (the actual shape of the USB-C receptacle and
| outlet) is all we've done. There is no regulation on how
| you label/market cables and ports for their capabilities,
| so there is a 'wild west' right now in that your device
| has a USB-C plug, but certain features might not be
| supported by each end of the device, or even the cable.
| For example, unless you got a pretty nice USB-C<->DP
| monitor included with your display, your run-of-the-mill
| $10 Amazon USB-C->DP might not work due to strict signal
| integrity (read: cable build quality) requirements when
| MST is absent[0].
|
| 0: https://sebvance.medium.com/everything-you-need-to-
| know-abou...
| newaccount74 wrote:
| It's such a shame that Apple feels the need to cripple their
| devices to protect their revenue. Mac Studio would be a super
| powerful machine, allowing me to run all my CI and testing on my
| local Mac, but the 2 VM limit prevents that. So for now I'm stuck
| with the Intel Mac mini, which doesn't have this stupid limit.
|
| I bet the machines they use for Xcode cloud don't have this dumb
| limit.
| fifafu wrote:
| the macOS license allows only two virtual instances, regardless
| of CPU architecture ;-(
| wkat4242 wrote:
| That's not really relevant though if it is technically
| possible.. They're not going to sue you for it. If they cared
| they'd have gone after the hackintosh community a long time
| ago.
| fifafu wrote:
| unfortunately it's very relevant if you want to use it for
| CI in any corporate environment. It's a really annoying
| limitation.
| BonoboIO wrote:
| How is this limit enforced? Couldn't you do it?
| saagarjha wrote:
| The Virtualization framework has a check inside of it.
| [deleted]
| robertoandred wrote:
| How many versions of macOS do you need for simultaneous CI and
| testing?
| newaccount74 wrote:
| For testing I usually have 4 VMs running the latest version
| of macOS (spread scross 2 Macs), but they are currently
| broken after upgrading to the latest version of macOS and
| Xcode.
|
| I also have a few more VMs running legacy versions of macOS
| for building stuff that needs to be built on older versions
| of macOS, but I only run them on demand.
|
| And I use a VM for collaboration (multiple people can code
| together and share a screen remotely on a designated VM that
| doesn't have any personal stuff on it).
|
| At most I probably had 6 or 7 VMs running on the Mac mini
| simultaneously, but if I bought a Mac Studio I'd really want
| to be able to run more of them. I don't want to have to quit
| VMs that I'm not currently using because suspend/resume
| always takes ages and I'm never sure if networks drives are
| still mounted afterwards.
| amluto wrote:
| If the testing is automated? As many as fit in memory.
| smm11 wrote:
| At least in 2014 or so iCloud was Dell/Oracle.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-28 23:01 UTC)