5 ms·

I can’t help but feel UTM pushed Apple to deliver this polished of a solution? Pulling this 100% out of thin air though.

pram 4y ago
UTM implements VF and QEMU implements HVF as an accelerator. I don't know why theres so much circling the wagons about them itt, these are complementary technologies. VF and HVF are not competition or a replacement.
webmobdev 4y ago
With Apple, it is all about exerting control and crippling softwares that don't align with their goals. Don't be surprised if Apple suddenly forces developers to only use their virtualisation API on macOS, just like they did for application firewalls (that are no longer allowed to have their own custom kernel extensions for "security" and "stability"). They are slowly squeezing macOS to make it more and more like ios.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >are no longer allowed to have their own custom kernel extensions for "security" and "stability" Why the "scare quotes"? Sounds totally justifiable. Third party kernel extensions have always have had issues with both security and stability.
  - webmobdev 4y ago
    It's not "scare quotes" - it's to convey sarcasm and justified scepticism. Sure, poorly coded third party kernel extensions can have security and / or stability issue. That doesn't mean that Apple is the only one who knows how to write such bug-free or secure system software. In fact, in the past most of the popular application firewalls (and VM softwares) on macOS came with their own kernel extensions and have worked fine without issues, and millions of users have used such applications without any issues. Now that Apple is forcing macOS developers to use their APIs, these software developers are at the mercy of Apple which is exactly what Apple wants - they will now be forced to negotiate with Apple for any changes or new features they want. Apple can now cripple a system developers ability to provide the kind of system software they want to offer to user. End result is that Mac users and developers both lose.
    - coldtea 4y ago
      >It's not "scare quotes" - it's to convey sarcasm and justified scepticism. Sure, poorly coded third party kernel extensions can have security and / or stability issue. That doesn't mean that Apple is the only one who knows how to write such bug-free or secure system software. They don't have to be "the only one who knows how to write such bug-free or secure system software". They just have to disallow a class of potentialy buggy and insecure software running with kernel level access, and that's enough to keep tons of additional attack vectors off the OS. I'd rather trust just Apple on kernel-space (which I have to anyway, as they make the kernel), than Apple + any random third party software that wants to run as a kernel extension.
      - webmobdev 4y ago
        > I'd rather trust just Apple on kernel-space (which I have to anyway, as they make the kernel), than Apple + any random third party software that wants to run as a kernel extension. Which is all ok till you consider that experienced developers that make good system software can offer better software than Apple, which often may have no incentive to support softwares that isn't aligned with their business interest. Application firewalls is an example, because they can also prevent Apple software and services from data-mining a users personal data. (You may trust the Apple codebase on which all Application firewalls on macOS are forced to run, but what if I don't and want alternative? And if you say, "Then don't use macOS", note that's a very anti-consumer view and is toss to everyone's consumer rights). Virtualisation is another example where non-Apple options can be better than Apple's as Apple would prefer that you do everything on their OS than use alternate ones. Or when you don't want to use Apple software because of the terms you have to accept to use it.
        coldtea 4y ago
        >and if you say, "Then don't use macOS", note that's a very anti-consumer view Not much more "anti-consumer" than "if you prefer formal attire, then just don't buy Levi's - as opposed to insist the make black suits and bow ties". Though I understand the convenience - I'd like to have the option myself in some cases. What I dont like is third party companies forcing you to install a kext if you want to use their product, for non essential reasons (that could be handled in userland). At least this forces them to work with userland APIs (looking at the "haxie" peddlers out there).
- saagarjha 4y ago
  > Don't be surprised if Apple suddenly forces developers to only use their virtualisation API on macOS As far as I can tell, nobody has made a third party virtualization solution for Apple silicon nor is anyone really looking to do so. I don't think this conclusion is particularly surprising.
  - webmobdev 4y ago
    What about UTM - https://mac.getutm.app/ https://mac.getutm.app/ - based on QEMU? VM applications - Parallels, VMWare, Virtualbox etc. - have long been available on macOS and so its not as if nobody suddenly wants it just because their macOS is running on ARM SoC. There can be many reasons why they haven't yet migrated to Apple Silicon Macs, some of which may be the smaller userbase, the cost of migrating to a new platform, lack of literature or support from Apple, Apple not allowing them to offer their virtualising application using their own custom kernel extensions or Apple asking them to wait and use their virtualisation API under development. To be clear, I don't believe there is anything wrong with Apple offering built-in OS API solution for applications like firewall, virtualisation, graphic engines etc. The problem is when they say you can only use those and don't allow competition. When a particular type of software on macOS is forced to use just one particular API, it stunts all such softwares using the APIS as they can't really offer any major distinction and can only offer the limited features the API provides. Worse still is when such practices is actually meant to restrict competition to protect their business interest. For example, it is clear that Apple is pivoting more and more into commercialising user privacy (monetised through its services) and advertising (by data mining personal data through these same services). In such a case, existing softwares that offer privacy protections (like application firewalls and even alternate operating systems on macs) are examples of competing system softwares that impede this goal. Obviously Apple cannot directly ban these softwares without negative user backlash. But it can ensure that such softwares are crippled by forcing users to use limited API's and / or by limiting the operating environment they run on. (The frog is slowly boiling - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog - and we developers and users are slowly losing more a more control over our Apple computers and device).
    - 4y ago
numbsafari 4y ago
They’ve been providing these APIs for a while for existing VM solutions in order to get rid of the kernel extensions previously needed. They keep evolving to support that use case. I’ve long thought it would be interesting to release Linux native apps in this sort of wrapper to the App Store.
- djxfade 4y ago
  I doubt you could. You need special entitlements to sign a binary using these APIs, I dont think a wrapper would be enough to grant you that entitlement
nottorp 4y ago
Isn't UTM a frontend for these APIs?
- hoistbypetard 4y ago
  No. It uses qemu.
  - nottorp 4y ago
    Pretty sure I downloaded it and it let me set up a machine with or without qemu. Asked if i want virtualization or emulation.
    - watusername 4y ago
      QEMU can do both virtualization (through Hypervisor.framework) and emulation. When you select "Virtualization" in UTM you have a checkbox "Use Apple Virtualization" which makes UTM use Virtualization.framework instead of QEMU. For "Emulation" it always uses QEMU.
    - hoistbypetard 4y ago
      The one I set up uses virtualization and definitely still uses qemu. If you're seeing it use the hypervisor framework, it's possible that's changed since I set mine up and they just haven't seen fit to advertise that change on the web site, which still claims that it's "based on qemu." (I'm using UTM 3.2.4... just because that's what I used to migrate my data from my old linux laptop to my new mac, and I haven't needed to change it.)
- renaudg 4y ago
  Yes, these and QEMU

pram 4y ago

UTM implements VF and QEMU implements HVF as an accelerator. I don't know why theres so much circling the wagons about them itt, these are complementary technologies. VF and HVF are not competition or a replacement.

webmobdev 4y ago

With Apple, it is all about exerting control and crippling softwares that don't align with their goals. Don't be surprised if Apple suddenly forces developers to only use their virtualisation API on macOS, just like they did for application firewalls (that are no longer allowed to have their own custom kernel extensions for "security" and "stability"). They are slowly squeezing macOS to make it more and more like ios.

coldtea 4y ago
>are no longer allowed to have their own custom kernel extensions for "security" and "stability" Why the "scare quotes"? Sounds totally justifiable. Third party kernel extensions have always have had issues with both security and stability.
- webmobdev 4y ago
  It's not "scare quotes" - it's to convey sarcasm and justified scepticism. Sure, poorly coded third party kernel extensions can have security and / or stability issue. That doesn't mean that Apple is the only one who knows how to write such bug-free or secure system software. In fact, in the past most of the popular application firewalls (and VM softwares) on macOS came with their own kernel extensions and have worked fine without issues, and millions of users have used such applications without any issues. Now that Apple is forcing macOS developers to use their APIs, these software developers are at the mercy of Apple which is exactly what Apple wants - they will now be forced to negotiate with Apple for any changes or new features they want. Apple can now cripple a system developers ability to provide the kind of system software they want to offer to user. End result is that Mac users and developers both lose.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >It's not "scare quotes" - it's to convey sarcasm and justified scepticism. Sure, poorly coded third party kernel extensions can have security and / or stability issue. That doesn't mean that Apple is the only one who knows how to write such bug-free or secure system software. They don't have to be "the only one who knows how to write such bug-free or secure system software". They just have to disallow a class of potentialy buggy and insecure software running with kernel level access, and that's enough to keep tons of additional attack vectors off the OS. I'd rather trust just Apple on kernel-space (which I have to anyway, as they make the kernel), than Apple + any random third party software that wants to run as a kernel extension.
    - webmobdev 4y ago
      > I'd rather trust just Apple on kernel-space (which I have to anyway, as they make the kernel), than Apple + any random third party software that wants to run as a kernel extension. Which is all ok till you consider that experienced developers that make good system software can offer better software than Apple, which often may have no incentive to support softwares that isn't aligned with their business interest. Application firewalls is an example, because they can also prevent Apple software and services from data-mining a users personal data. (You may trust the Apple codebase on which all Application firewalls on macOS are forced to run, but what if I don't and want alternative? And if you say, "Then don't use macOS", note that's a very anti-consumer view and is toss to everyone's consumer rights). Virtualisation is another example where non-Apple options can be better than Apple's as Apple would prefer that you do everything on their OS than use alternate ones. Or when you don't want to use Apple software because of the terms you have to accept to use it.
      - coldtea 4y ago
        >and if you say, "Then don't use macOS", note that's a very anti-consumer view Not much more "anti-consumer" than "if you prefer formal attire, then just don't buy Levi's - as opposed to insist the make black suits and bow ties". Though I understand the convenience - I'd like to have the option myself in some cases. What I dont like is third party companies forcing you to install a kext if you want to use their product, for non essential reasons (that could be handled in userland). At least this forces them to work with userland APIs (looking at the "haxie" peddlers out there).
saagarjha 4y ago
> Don't be surprised if Apple suddenly forces developers to only use their virtualisation API on macOS As far as I can tell, nobody has made a third party virtualization solution for Apple silicon nor is anyone really looking to do so. I don't think this conclusion is particularly surprising.
- webmobdev 4y ago
  What about UTM - https://mac.getutm.app/ https://mac.getutm.app/ - based on QEMU? VM applications - Parallels, VMWare, Virtualbox etc. - have long been available on macOS and so its not as if nobody suddenly wants it just because their macOS is running on ARM SoC. There can be many reasons why they haven't yet migrated to Apple Silicon Macs, some of which may be the smaller userbase, the cost of migrating to a new platform, lack of literature or support from Apple, Apple not allowing them to offer their virtualising application using their own custom kernel extensions or Apple asking them to wait and use their virtualisation API under development. To be clear, I don't believe there is anything wrong with Apple offering built-in OS API solution for applications like firewall, virtualisation, graphic engines etc. The problem is when they say you can only use those and don't allow competition. When a particular type of software on macOS is forced to use just one particular API, it stunts all such softwares using the APIS as they can't really offer any major distinction and can only offer the limited features the API provides. Worse still is when such practices is actually meant to restrict competition to protect their business interest. For example, it is clear that Apple is pivoting more and more into commercialising user privacy (monetised through its services) and advertising (by data mining personal data through these same services). In such a case, existing softwares that offer privacy protections (like application firewalls and even alternate operating systems on macs) are examples of competing system softwares that impede this goal. Obviously Apple cannot directly ban these softwares without negative user backlash. But it can ensure that such softwares are crippled by forcing users to use limited API's and / or by limiting the operating environment they run on. (The frog is slowly boiling - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog - and we developers and users are slowly losing more a more control over our Apple computers and device).
  - 4y ago

numbsafari 4y ago

They’ve been providing these APIs for a while for existing VM solutions in order to get rid of the kernel extensions previously needed. They keep evolving to support that use case. I’ve long thought it would be interesting to release Linux native apps in this sort of wrapper to the App Store.

djxfade 4y ago
I doubt you could. You need special entitlements to sign a binary using these APIs, I dont think a wrapper would be enough to grant you that entitlement

nottorp 4y ago

Isn't UTM a frontend for these APIs?

hoistbypetard 4y ago
No. It uses qemu.
- nottorp 4y ago
  Pretty sure I downloaded it and it let me set up a machine with or without qemu. Asked if i want virtualization or emulation.
  - watusername 4y ago
    QEMU can do both virtualization (through Hypervisor.framework) and emulation. When you select "Virtualization" in UTM you have a checkbox "Use Apple Virtualization" which makes UTM use Virtualization.framework instead of QEMU. For "Emulation" it always uses QEMU.
  - hoistbypetard 4y ago
    The one I set up uses virtualization and definitely still uses qemu. If you're seeing it use the hypervisor framework, it's possible that's changed since I set mine up and they just haven't seen fit to advertise that change on the web site, which still claims that it's "based on qemu." (I'm using UTM 3.2.4... just because that's what I used to migrate my data from my old linux laptop to my new mac, and I haven't needed to change it.)
renaudg 4y ago
Yes, these and QEMU