4 ms·

I wish Apple would drop the 2 VM limit for virtualized macOS. UTM is really nice for running Xcode as a build server, but being limited to two VMs sucks. I bui

I wish Apple would drop the 2 VM limit for virtualized macOS. UTM is really nice for running Xcode as a build server, but being limited to two VMs sucks. I build lots of software with old macOS versions because I still support macOS versions that Apple no longer supports.

Alupis 3y ago
It's amazing the level of abuse the average Apple developer tolerates. There's money to be made on Apple's platforms, to be sure, but putting up with nonsense like VM limits and what-not is insanity. I remember a time when it was against the EULA to virtualize OSX at all. Finally, perhaps a decade late, Apple grants virtualization to the commoners and people rejoiced - Stockholm Syndrome-esque. Apple gets away with this not just because people accept it, they welcome it. Meanwhile, most other platforms bend over backwards to make development easy.
- Terretta 3y ago
  It's as if Apple's purpose is a "don't make me think" level of end user experience and trust, and their assumption is engineers will need to invest extra effort to enable that priority. It's not just Apple. Developer-experience focused web frameworks make one time creation easier, at the expense of users who run it every time. The priority is upside down. Thankfully, for hardware, wallet-share shows there's money to be made from giving users a curated experience at the cost of nominal incremental developer effort. And the resurgence of SSR (new old hotness?) shows the same can hold true on the tech stack.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    It's not mutually exclusive though. A developer can be allowed to spin up N vm's and Apple can still provide an amazing end-user experience. It's just a EULA thing... there's no technical reason. It's "just because".
    - newaccount74 3y ago
      They could just sell it as an add-on. I paid a lot of money to have more RAM in my machine, I'd pay again to be able to use that RAM to run more VMs. (I would of course still complain about it)
- newaccount74 3y ago
  > Apple grants virtualization to the commoners and people rejoiced Nobody rejoiced. Everyone who virtualises macOS complains about the limit. It's a shame, they made it so much easier to create macOS VMs on M2 (Metal finally just works!!), but then they crippled them on purpose (no iCloud, no App Store, max 2 VMs enforced by the virtualisation framework) I wonder if you could go after them on anti-competitive grounds? I'm pretty sure the machines that Xcode cloud run on are not limited to 2 VMs.

Alupis 3y ago

It's amazing the level of abuse the average Apple developer tolerates. There's money to be made on Apple's platforms, to be sure, but putting up with nonsense like VM limits and what-not is insanity. I remember a time when it was against the EULA to virtualize OSX at all. Finally, perhaps a decade late, Apple grants virtualization to the commoners and people rejoiced - Stockholm Syndrome-esque. Apple gets away with this not just because people accept it, they welcome it. Meanwhile, most other platforms bend over backwards to make development easy.

Terretta 3y ago
It's as if Apple's purpose is a "don't make me think" level of end user experience and trust, and their assumption is engineers will need to invest extra effort to enable that priority. It's not just Apple. Developer-experience focused web frameworks make one time creation easier, at the expense of users who run it every time. The priority is upside down. Thankfully, for hardware, wallet-share shows there's money to be made from giving users a curated experience at the cost of nominal incremental developer effort. And the resurgence of SSR (new old hotness?) shows the same can hold true on the tech stack.
- Alupis 3y ago
  It's not mutually exclusive though. A developer can be allowed to spin up N vm's and Apple can still provide an amazing end-user experience. It's just a EULA thing... there's no technical reason. It's "just because".
  - newaccount74 3y ago
    They could just sell it as an add-on. I paid a lot of money to have more RAM in my machine, I'd pay again to be able to use that RAM to run more VMs. (I would of course still complain about it)
newaccount74 3y ago
> Apple grants virtualization to the commoners and people rejoiced Nobody rejoiced. Everyone who virtualises macOS complains about the limit. It's a shame, they made it so much easier to create macOS VMs on M2 (Metal finally just works!!), but then they crippled them on purpose (no iCloud, no App Store, max 2 VMs enforced by the virtualisation framework) I wonder if you could go after them on anti-competitive grounds? I'm pretty sure the machines that Xcode cloud run on are not limited to 2 VMs.