6 ms·

macOS virtualisation refactored and sandboxed in Viable updates

89 points by zdw 4y ago

mustardants199 4y ago
This is super useful for me
Shadowgamer195 4y ago
Too bad I can't run multiple Vms at the same time :(
- saagarjha 4y ago
  Virtualization definitely supports this.
newaccount74 4y ago
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.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- robertoandred 4y ago
  How many versions of macOS do you need for simultaneous CI and testing?
  - amluto 4y ago
    If the testing is automated? As many as fit in memory.
  - newaccount74 4y ago
    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.
- fifafu 4y ago
  the macOS license allows only two virtual instances, regardless of CPU architecture ;-(
  - wkat4242 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      unfortunately it's very relevant if you want to use it for CI in any corporate environment. It's a really annoying limitation.
- smm11 4y ago
  At least in 2014 or so iCloud was Dell/Oracle.
- BonoboIO 4y ago
  How is this limit enforced? Couldn’t you do it?
  - saagarjha 4y ago
    The Virtualization framework has a check inside of it.
    - BonoboIO 4y ago
      Can somebody please jailbreak this.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
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.
- cdolan 4y ago
  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
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      They could also theoretically do lightning-3 as an alt-channel over usb-c. The regulation is concerned with charging, not data.
    - cdolan 4y ago
      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.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pxc 4y ago
> 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 4y ago
  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/vzmacplatformconfiguration https://developer.apple.com/documentation/virtualization/vzm...
  - webmobdev 4y ago
    Yet another example of how macOS is slowly being dumbed down to be more ios like by restricting kernel extensions and forcing developers to use their limited OS APIs.
    - saagarjha 4y ago
      No.

89 points by zdw 4y ago

mustardants199 4y ago

This is super useful for me

Shadowgamer195 4y ago

Too bad I can't run multiple Vms at the same time :(

saagarjha 4y ago
Virtualization definitely supports this.

newaccount74 4y ago

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.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
robertoandred 4y ago
How many versions of macOS do you need for simultaneous CI and testing?
- amluto 4y ago
  If the testing is automated? As many as fit in memory.
- newaccount74 4y ago
  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.
fifafu 4y ago
the macOS license allows only two virtual instances, regardless of CPU architecture ;-(
- wkat4242 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    unfortunately it's very relevant if you want to use it for CI in any corporate environment. It's a really annoying limitation.
smm11 4y ago
At least in 2014 or so iCloud was Dell/Oracle.
BonoboIO 4y ago
How is this limit enforced? Couldn’t you do it?
- saagarjha 4y ago
  The Virtualization framework has a check inside of it.
  - BonoboIO 4y ago
    Can somebody please jailbreak this.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

WastingMyTime89 4y ago

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.

cdolan 4y ago
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
- smoldesu 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    They could also theoretically do lightning-3 as an alt-channel over usb-c. The regulation is concerned with charging, not data.
  - cdolan 4y ago
    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.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

pxc 4y ago

> 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 4y ago
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/vzmacplatformconfiguration https://developer.apple.com/documentation/virtualization/vzm...
- webmobdev 4y ago
  Yet another example of how macOS is slowly being dumbed down to be more ios like by restricting kernel extensions and forcing developers to use their limited OS APIs.
  - saagarjha 4y ago
    No.