2 ms·

The constant stream of articles from large companies about how they have not yet been able to get their applications running. Running under a virtual machine d

The constant stream of articles from large companies about how they have not yet been able to get their applications running. Running under a virtual machine definitely does not count.

mkl 6y ago
Rosetta 2 is not a virtual machine. It does binary translation, mostly ahead of time.
kergonath 6y ago
Wait, I thought large companies did not count. Large companies have loads of users who rely on their applications; they are much more conservative than small developers, and have longer procedures for testing and validation before each release. Some lag is expected, and their applications are useable in the meantime, anyway. You’ve got things completely backwards. Virtual machines running on M1 Macs at the moment are ARM, they don’t emulate x86_64 (yeah, I know, there are experimental versions of some emulators; none of them are ready yet). So a virtual machine is not going to help you running Intel binaries. Rosetta 2 is a translator (takes binary, spits out binary once, which is then run), and has nothing to do with a virtual machine. Besides, what matters is that the resulting executable work, and with more than adequate performance. You install programs to make them run and do useful things, not just for the intellectual pleasure of having done it The One True Way, which is bullshit anyway. Do you also go trolling that Linux is terrible because Python scripts are interpreted?
- superkuh 6y ago
  >I thought large companies did not count. If they are having trouble then individuals will too. As for Rosetta 2, you're right. I'm not making the distinction between a virtualizing and attempting to do translation of one binary architecture to another blindly. The second is much more unreliable. A script interpreter is an entirely different thing than binary architecture translation and I think you know that.

The constant stream of articles from large companies about how they have not yet been able to get their applications running. Running under a virtual machine definitely does not count.

mkl 6y ago

Rosetta 2 is not a virtual machine. It does binary translation, mostly ahead of time.

kergonath 6y ago

Wait, I thought large companies did not count. Large companies have loads of users who rely on their applications; they are much more conservative than small developers, and have longer procedures for testing and validation before each release. Some lag is expected, and their applications are useable in the meantime, anyway. You’ve got things completely backwards. Virtual machines running on M1 Macs at the moment are ARM, they don’t emulate x86_64 (yeah, I know, there are experimental versions of some emulators; none of them are ready yet). So a virtual machine is not going to help you running Intel binaries. Rosetta 2 is a translator (takes binary, spits out binary once, which is then run), and has nothing to do with a virtual machine. Besides, what matters is that the resulting executable work, and with more than adequate performance. You install programs to make them run and do useful things, not just for the intellectual pleasure of having done it The One True Way, which is bullshit anyway. Do you also go trolling that Linux is terrible because Python scripts are interpreted?

superkuh 6y ago
>I thought large companies did not count. If they are having trouble then individuals will too. As for Rosetta 2, you're right. I'm not making the distinction between a virtualizing and attempting to do translation of one binary architecture to another blindly. The second is much more unreliable. A script interpreter is an entirely different thing than binary architecture translation and I think you know that.