3 ms·

For now. In theory, with enough emulated libraries, you could probably run anything with this. But I don't think the point is to run "random mac app" on Linux:

by Xuzz 16y ago

For now. In theory, with enough emulated libraries, you could probably run anything with this. But I don't think the point is to run "random mac app" on Linux: it's probably more likely to enable something like iPhone development, which right now is Mac only.

sliverstorm 16y ago
Just watch as Apple, in their infinite wisdom, decides to shut this down because the developers aren't paying to buy the macs needed for development.
- mambodog 16y ago
  Is there any precedent for your assertion?
  - dschobel 16y ago
    yes. http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/apples-iphone-lockdown-apps-must-be-written-in-one-of-three-la/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/apples-iphone-lockdown-ap...
    - cookiecaper 16y ago
      I agree that this is a fair piece of precedent, but I would also like to note Apple eventually removed this clause and developers are again free to develop in other languages.
    - mambodog 16y ago
      I don't consider the 3.3.1 situation to be relevant, as in this case you would be running the official Apple toolchain. If you had brought up the section of the iOS Developer License Agreement relating to "non-Apple-branded hardware" you might be in the right ballpark, but the legality of a similar clause in the Mac OS EULA was cast into doubt in the Psystar case. Psystar aside, the (non-commercial) OSx86 scene continues to thrive, unhindered by Apple. At the end of the day, given that you would be running the official Apple toolchain, how would Apple be able to prove that a particular iOS app was not built on a Mac?
    - Xuzz 16y ago
      However, GCC and friends are licensed under the GPL: the code is published at http://opensource.apple.com http://opensource.apple.com; their only technical barrier so far is actually making it run on another OS. That's not to say they couldn't block something like that, but with GPL code it does become significantly more difficult, if not (technically, not "this would take forever to port back to Linux") impossible.

by Xuzz 16y ago

sliverstorm 16y ago

Just watch as Apple, in their infinite wisdom, decides to shut this down because the developers aren't paying to buy the macs needed for development.

mambodog 16y ago
Is there any precedent for your assertion?
- dschobel 16y ago
  yes. http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/apples-iphone-lockdown-apps-must-be-written-in-one-of-three-la/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/apples-iphone-lockdown-ap...
  - cookiecaper 16y ago
    I agree that this is a fair piece of precedent, but I would also like to note Apple eventually removed this clause and developers are again free to develop in other languages.
  - mambodog 16y ago
    I don't consider the 3.3.1 situation to be relevant, as in this case you would be running the official Apple toolchain. If you had brought up the section of the iOS Developer License Agreement relating to "non-Apple-branded hardware" you might be in the right ballpark, but the legality of a similar clause in the Mac OS EULA was cast into doubt in the Psystar case. Psystar aside, the (non-commercial) OSx86 scene continues to thrive, unhindered by Apple. At the end of the day, given that you would be running the official Apple toolchain, how would Apple be able to prove that a particular iOS app was not built on a Mac?
  - Xuzz 16y ago
    However, GCC and friends are licensed under the GPL: the code is published at http://opensource.apple.com http://opensource.apple.com; their only technical barrier so far is actually making it run on another OS. That's not to say they couldn't block something like that, but with GPL code it does become significantly more difficult, if not (technically, not "this would take forever to port back to Linux") impossible.