[HN Gopher] Darling - run Mac apps on Linux ___________________________________________________________________ Darling - run Mac apps on Linux Author : tomrod Score : 291 points Date : 2022-01-05 19:27 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.darlinghq.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.darlinghq.org) | waynecochran wrote: | I assume this is not command line only? If so, you really need | some screenshots. | max-ibel wrote: | I suggest actually reading the page since it has the answer to | your question. | | TL;DR: GUI almost working. I assume screenshots will be added | when it is. | tombert wrote: | Not to in any way put down the developers on this, because I | realize this is a hard problem, but it's been "almost | working" for roughly five years. I don't think we should hold | our breath on it, sadly. | em500 wrote: | Also, the fact that last update of the blog/progress report | linked from the main page dates from 2019Q2 does not give | much confidence. | tombert wrote: | The Github is still getting updates, at least as of | November. | | I think part of the problem is that most software that | you would want to run on Linux from MacOS are also on | Windows, and Wine/Proton already exists. As a result, I | think people don't really feel the urge to contribute to | Darling when they could just contribute to Wine. | waynecochran wrote: | _Almost_ tells me they must have _some_ screenshots of _some_ | GUI app working. Otherwise I _almost_ have a million dollars | to donate. | gattilorenz wrote: | > Does it support GUI apps? | | > Almost! This took us a lot of time and effort, but we finally | have basic experimental support for running simple graphical | applications. | | So, I guess for now it makes sense there are no screenshots | ithkuil wrote: | https://github.com/darlinghq/darling/issues/657 | stuaxo wrote: | There's still a long way to go, especially if you want GUI apps. | | If you want to contribute there is an active community on | Discord. | awill wrote: | isn't packaging/selling going to be a problem here? Some of the | apps I rely on (on my MBP) are only in the Mac AppStore. | hitpointdrew wrote: | Oh man, if we can have iTerm2 on Linux I will be pumped. | jldugger wrote: | Are you familiar with Terminator? https://terminator- | gtk3.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ | hitpointdrew wrote: | I don't see a password manager listed in the features, which | is about 70% of what I think makes iTerm2 so useful. | freedomben wrote: | Just thought it may be worth mentioning if there are devs from | the project here, but Darling is one of the efforts that I would | sponsor/donate to (just small amounts for now as I haven't made | my millions yet ;-) if there were a more defined road map with | milestones/goals. | | This is an amazing and important goal! Thank you so much for | dedicating your time and efforts to this! | mastazi wrote: | This project needs more contributions! I hope being on the HN | home page will help | miller_joe wrote: | Can it run Messages.app? This is the one thing that constantly | gives me pause on the linux-desktop switching | | EDIT: It says "some" GUI apps are working / experimental, so | probably Messages is not there yet, just curious if anyone has | tried. | divbzero wrote: | Or Preview.app? That is the other macOS app that I use all the | time. | monocasa wrote: | Does this still require a kernel driver to intercept syscalls? | | It'd be nice to have a gvisor/UML like option that would let it | run entirely in user space. | andjd wrote: | Related unrelated comment. Is there any effort to make Darwin | itself user friendly? Everything I've heard anecdotally is that | Darwin is a world of hurt unless you really, really know what | you're doing. It seems like that might be a slightly easier path | towards having an open-source OS that can run mac apps than | building a whole compatibility layer over Linux. | aflag wrote: | That sounds more difficult, actually. Because then you need to | be able to run everything. Whereas, with linux, you can | leverage most of linux's library and only use darling for the | couple apps that you need that only run on Mac OS. | mkdirp wrote: | Lots of questions around GUI apps. As someone pointed out, GUI | apps have been "almost" working for years. Darling looks great | but it hasn't gotten near as much love as Wine has gotten. | | I've been keeping an eye on it, and will continue to keep an eye | it, and I've noticed the development is very slow. At the rate | it's going, it'll be years before it'll be a viable solution like | Wine is. I hope visibility for it will increase so that the | current devs get some more help on this. | | I'd still like to give thanks to the devs as this is a very | ambitious project. I'm sure people used to say "it'll be years | before it'll be a viable solution" when Wine was in its infancy. | | Having Linux run iOS, macOS, Android, and Windows applications | running would be nothing less than mind-boggling, and would | finally get people to stop yelling that nothing runs on Linux. | freedomben wrote: | > _Having Linux run iOS, macOS, Android, and Windows | applications running would be nothing less than mind-boggling, | and would finally get people to stop yelling that nothing runs | on Linux_ | | Nothing will stop those people from yelling that, because it | hasn't been true in a _very_ long time and that doesn 't stop | them. These are the same people who say they don't want to run | Linux because they don't want to compile their sound card | drivers. They are already way outside of rational territory and | deep into religious territory. In their minds Linux hasn't | changed a bit since 1999, even though if you were to compare | mac os from that time period against modern linux, they would | become enraged at the unfairness and injustice. | 2muchcoffeeman wrote: | Google all the sound problems people had and the solutions | for the 2020 Dell XPS 17. People have that attitude because | it still happens from time to time. It's much rarer. But it | still happens. | dmitriid wrote: | While Linux has changed, the rest of the world changed, too. | | So yes, on the one hand people will want things like Sketch | and Logic Pro, and on the other they will want good trackpads | and reliable hibernation. | aspaceman wrote: | > They are already way outside of rational territory and deep | into religious territory. In their minds Linux hasn't changed | a bit since 1999, even though if you were to compare mac os | from that time period against modern linux, they would become | enraged at the unfairness and injustice. | | I agree that this is part of it. But I also just see plain | antagonism against Linux because people recommend it. Just | pure contrarianism. | | But a lot of the recommendations for Proton are also "memey". | It's a bad fit if you need Anti-Cheat or proper injection | protection. And that's just the nature of the beast. A proper | Anti-Cheat _shouldn't_ approve of the injection necessary to | get Proton working | | So I do have to keep a Windows installation myself. But | Proton represents a really cool technical milestone. Weird | the way people talk about tech in games. | txdv wrote: | Been playing a lot of steam games with proton, it is mind | bogling how valve expanded from support for linux for the | source engine to support 70% of the games. | code_biologist wrote: | 70% of games _big asterisk_ | | The giant youtube channel Linus Tech Tips has done a recent | series of videos on gaming on linux. On Jan 1 they | published a 15 min summary video that covers that 70% claim | in a much more nuanced way: https://youtu.be/Rlg4K16ujFw | | Punchline: it's kinda true, but there's plenty of struggle | for new and multiplayer games still. | donio wrote: | I am sure it heavily depends on the kind games we play | but I've had a 100% success rate over the past couple of | years. I have to keep reminding myself to check protondb | just in case. There are even a few games with native | ports that I run through proton to avoid bugs in the | native versions. | smoldesu wrote: | It may be true, but it really depends on how new the | games you want to play are. I don't consider myself a | hardcore player, but I'm perfectly happy with the games | I've got on Linux; Overwatch, Diablo 2/3, Warframe, Risk | of Rain 2, the Fallout series... they all work fine. It's | certainly no Mac when it comes to game compatibility. | Really, the only time a game _doesn 't_ work on Linux is | when the developers go out of their way to ensure you | aren't running Linux; with the prevalence of anti-cheat | that has indeed seen a bit of a fork in the road. But | developers can also whitelist Linux users, and now that | the Steam Deck is getting ready to ship to hundreds of | thousands of future owners, those devs have an incentive | to get their games on Linux. | | I think "asterisk" is warranted, since there are still | show-stopper games that won't run without their precious | kernel-level anti-cheat (sorry professional Valorant | players), but the asterisk is shrinking, not growing. | It's a fairly small caviat at this point, especially for | more casual audiences, and I kinda wonder why it was such | a sticking point for Linus. Wine is not a panacea, but if | you look at the landscape and see _the majority_ of | Windows software running, I think there 's hope in that. | hn8788 wrote: | There are even bigger caveats to that number than what | they mentioned in the video. Since all the ratings are | based on user reports, there is no standard for what is | considered a working game. You can look through pretty | much any game and find positive reports that mention | frequent crashes, performance issues, missing textures, | requires a custom proton version, etc., but since it | launches, they gave it a thumbs up. I've tried platinum | rated games that are completely unplayable, ProtonDB | ratings are a general guide at best. | | ProtonDB also considers a game as "working" if even a | single person gave it a thumbs up, so the big "17,984 | games work" on the home page is very misleading. | als0 wrote: | I can already envisage some poor Valve employee who's | going through each ProtonDB entry to make individual | workarounds for the Steam Deck release. | Legion wrote: | That's what's making the Steam Deck possible. And the | release of the Steam Deck is only going to bring more | attention to Proton and accelerate further development. | twblalock wrote: | > These are the same people who say they don't want to run | Linux because they don't want to compile their sound card | drivers. They are already way outside of rational territory | and deep into religious territory. | | It's rational for me to want my sound card to work without | having to compile code. No other operating system would make | me compile code to fulfill such a rudimentary and basic | expectation. That's not religion, that's usability. | | I can't imagine trying to walk my parents through compiling a | kernel driver to get their hardware working, and that's why | I've never tried to get them to use Linux. If you want normal | people to use Linux you should never, ever, ever ask them to | even use a terminal, much less a compiler. | | I've used Linux on the desktop, on and off, for over 20 years | -- in fact, since the year 1999 as you mentioned. It still | sucks. Every time I come back to it I have at least one | driver problem. It's not ok, and it's not defensible. Instead | of defending it and blaming critics for being "religious," | admit that it has faults. Things only get better when we | recognize the deficiencies and fix them, as Valve has been | trying to do with Proton. | ogogmad wrote: | The parent commenter's point is that while you may have had | to compile drivers back in 1999's Linux, you don't have to | in today's Linux. This is the apparent misconception which | he was pointing out, and which you yourself have displayed | in your response. | | This is not WorksForMe(TM). It's you misinterpreting | (wilfully?) what the parent commenter meant. If you | disagree with him, you should argue that indeed you do need | to compile drivers, or do something similarly complex, in | today's Linux. Instead you're pretending that he meant that | compiling device drivers is absolutely wonderful, and | everybody should do it in 2022. But I don't think you | should carry on, because none of your responses have been | in good faith. | beepbooptheory wrote: | Ive only got ten years under my belt, but I don't think I | have ever had to compile a driver! perhaps a few times in | Arch, although it would be an AUR thing and hardly and | intensive manual process. But certainly not in debian-based | stuff. I dont even understand what it would be like to have | the bad experiences people do with it. | | I can only assume its hardware disparity. I never have much | money so I always get older cheaper hardware I can afford, | where support has most likely had time to mature. Perhaps | people with these negative impressions of Linux are trying | to install distros on newer, bleeding edge stuff? | colordrops wrote: | You missed the point. You typically don't have to compile | anything for your sound card, assuming you even have one | anyone considering that motherboards have had integrated | sound forever now. | twblalock wrote: | littlestymaar wrote: | This comment is really fascinating: not only the author | completely missed the point of the original comment they | are responding to (which is: "having to compile your | drivers was the state of Linux in 99, but it' hasn't been | anymore for at least 15 years, so complain that Linux | doesn't work using this argument just shows you're out of | date by two decades at this point") but the author just | refused to even attempt to understand when other people | tried to warn them and instead went completely mad. | tragictrash wrote: | You missed the point. I have never had to compile drivers | for my Linux machines. | | Furthermore I'm sick of people like you spouting this | nonsensical BS about what everyone else expects. You are | wrong. | | You want to know what I see? A great amount of progress | in a short time. | | 1999 called they want you back. | wlesieutre wrote: | If you ever got in a situation where your sound card | wasn't supported on macOS, instead of "you can compile a | driver" the answer you'll get is "throw away your sound | card and buy supported hardware." | | You could apply the same fix to a Linux computer and | purchase known working hardware, but because you have the | option of fixing the software yourself that makes it a | worse operating system? | saghm wrote: | I've used Linux for around 8.5 years now, and I've never | once had to compile a sound card driver to get my sound | working. On the half dozen or so laptops I've installed | it on since then, every one of them just had sound | working without needing to compile anything. | | >Every time Linux on the desktop is discussed, the | reaction of the Linux desktop community is predictable: | defending Linux and its problems, and downplaying the | difficulty that many users have. A ton of people say "it | works for me on my hardware" or "I didn't need to compile | any drivers" or "the games that I want to play work | fine". In fact, this comment thread has good examples of | this type of reaction. So what? Until it works for | everyone it's just not good enough. | | I'm a bit confused; have you actually had this experience | when you had to compile your sound card driver in the | past ten years? It would be totally reasonable for you to | be unhappy if you had, but given how much you're | criticizing, I have to assume that if you had this | experience you would have mentioned it. Given that, it | sounds like the only criticism is that someone could | theoretically happen to need to do this, but that's not | really any different from any other operating system; the | difference is that if your sound card doesn't work on | Windows, you don't have the option to compile it at all. | I'm not sure how often people have driver issues on | Windows these days, having not used it much since before | I swapped to Linux, but I'm not going to prematurely get | angry about the idea that people _could_ be having driver | issues but not have the option to compile their own if I | don't actually hear about anyone having these issues. | danachow wrote: | >> They are already way outside of rational territory and | deep into religious territory | | > Until it works for everyone it's just not good enough. | | You are pretty well proving the GP point. There is no | system that works for _everyone_. Windows can be very | challenging to get up and running on hardware setups that | are not the most common. | | > Windows and MacOS don't make people do that | | False. And it's funny that this is about sound drivers. I | have a piece of older but perfectly working Roland | audio/MIDI equipment that uses USB drivers that are no | longer supported on modern MacOS. How did I get it | working? By compiling a fucking driver the other day. | (And yes it works perfectly out of the box on any Linux | kernel for the past 20 years). | | Now go ahead and move the goalposts about older hardware | not mattering or some nonsense. This hasn't been the only | frustration with MacOS. It took these clowns the better | part of a year to fix VLAN configuration in the network | setup window. The only way to configure them for a lot of | hardware was to drop down to the command line - so much | for working for _everyone_. | coder543 wrote: | Windows doesn't work for everybody either, and I do mean | actual problems with Windows not working, even pre- | installed from the factory. | | I don't even have to look outside the circle of people I | know in person to have seen this. Googling for Windows | not working with $X specific laptop instantly reveals | quite a treasure trove beyond the people I know, where $X | can be pretty much any Windows laptop. Everything from | fingerprint readers no longer working to even simple | things like the function key hotkeys no longer working. | | Issues with sound drivers not working are far from | unheard of on Windows laptops. | | You definitely seem to have missed their point, and, in | my opinion, you're being unnecessarily antagonistic. | freedomben wrote: | Agreed, you definitely missed my point, but in your | defense the point was implied rather than explicitly | stated so I'll take the fault for not being clear. | | I don't mind building my own drivers (in fact I maintain | one[1]), but I would never expect the average person to | have to do that. It would be entirely unreasonable. | | But, the _vast_ majority of linux users don 't have to | compile any drivers. Unless you have some obscure piece | of hardware or one that is so new that the driver isn't | mainlined yet, you don't have to worry about it. | | You say you've been using linux for 20 years. which | driver(s) in the last 5 or so years have you had to | compile yourself? | | [1]: https://github.com/FreedomBen/rtl8188ce-linux-driver | threatofrain wrote: | The "religious" part is about saying the the world froze | for over 20 years, and the point is that people _don 't_ | have to compile their drivers. | kaba0 wrote: | On most machines I tried, linux had every conceivable | driver ready out of the box without any configuration. | | This is absolutely not something one can say about | windows (though at least nowadays it will try to fetch | drivers from God knows where and often succeed). And Mac | supports like 2 hardware devices all together, both of | them manufactured by them -- comparing an OS that | exclusively run on specific hardware is just stupid and | not made in good faith. | torstenvl wrote: | Interesting. I have had to compile drivers for every | Linux install I've done in the past three years. Ubuntu, | Xubuntu, elementaryOS, Pop!_OS, etc. Maybe we can all | accept that people have different experiences? | | And of course, you're under no obligation to listen to | any of us whine, but if, on the off chance, you happen to | _want_ more people to like Linux, it seems like taking | people 's experiences seriously would be a good starting | point. | kaba0 wrote: | I didn't say that the contrary can't happen - but wildly | inaccurate, bad-faith claims that the account made I | replied to are not ok either. Linux did come a long long | way, and often used hardware will indeed just work out of | the box most of the time - I think it is absolutely fair | to point that out because it was not this way always -- | there was a time when the majority of hardware needed | some tinkering. | | May I ask you what hardware did you install linux on? | squarefoot wrote: | > Windows and MacOS don't make people do that | | They don't make people compile their own drivers because | their respective corporations spend some good money to | pay their developers to work on company provided | hardware, or harware manufacturers to make their drivers | first, and sometimes only their drivers. Linux developers | otoh are often forced to reverse engineer closed source | drivers on hardware they purchased themselves, so Linux | support usually comes later. | | The upside is that nearly all Linux drivers are FOSS, | which makes a _huge_ difference as there 's no such thing | as planned obsolescence among FOSS. Never seen a | perfectly good peripheral being supported by Windows | until version x, so that you install Windows 10 and that | card that worked fantastic under Windows 7 or 8 isn't | supported anymore? No drivers, no party. Sometimes the | price to pay for running an OS that doesn't allow you | compile your drivers is the purchase of new hardware | along with system upgrades; that represents one of the | hidden costs of closed source software that should be | stressed more often. | | Edit: ...and btw, it's like 15 years I don't have to | compile my kernels anymore. A couple things or so have | changed since 1997. | Osiris wrote: | To get my bluetooth adapter to work I had to find a third- | party driver, compile it, and manually setup DKMS so it'll | update whenever a new kernel gets installed. | | That's a much more complicated process that either macOS or | Windows. | colordrops wrote: | How long ago was this and what was the make and model? I | haven't had Bluetooth driver problems for a while. | pessimizer wrote: | > That's a much more complicated process that either macOS | or Windows. | | Especially when the process on macOS or Windows is that | they do not support that bluetooth adapter, they will never | support it, and you should just buy a different one. | | I do my hardware compatibility checking _before_ I buy. If | I 'm going to have to track down and compile drivers, it's | my punishment for wanting a bleeding edge thing, and I | always know what I'm getting into. | jorvi wrote: | For macOS to use a USB <> Ethernet adapter I had to hunt | down some obscure driver, and after a certain macOS update | it kept putting it in a folder on the desktop after each | update despite it working if I just reinstalled it. | | I absolutely used to love macOS and thought that they must | have the cleanest nicest code in the world because they | have such a well-developed UI+UX, but in the end, the core | code below it has the same wrinkles as any software | project. They're just paved over. Plus, Apple loves to let | stuff fail silently. | jandrese wrote: | On the flipside I have an older but functional scanner[1] | that doesn't have a driver for modern Windows (Latest | version is for Windows 7 32-bit) or Mac (Latest version | 10.6), but still works perfectly fine in Linux. | | [1] https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/sup | port/de... | freedomben wrote: | I don't doubt that happened to you, but I've had almost a | dozen bluetooth devices and I've only had one not work | OOTB. I'm using OnePlus Buds Pro with my linux laptop right | now and it paired flawlessly. | | Generally speaking, bluetooth is a complicated and | proprietary mess though and many (especially cheaper | vendors) don't bother testing at all. I'm actually amazed | that bluetooth works as well as it does on linux. Taking a | few minutes before a hardware purchase to check | compatibility is a really good idea. | chana_masala wrote: | > because they don't want to compile their sound card drivers | | I literally had to do this to get my sound card working on a | new laptop recently. I know it is partially my fault for | choosing such a new laptop and expecting Linux to work on it, | but still... it's not an unreasonable expectation to have in | 2022. | pessimizer wrote: | Nothing's special about 2022. The reason Linux doesn't work | out of the box with things that aren't in a lot of | developers' hands yet hasn't changed. What's reasonable | about thinking that the year matters? | lelanthran wrote: | > I'm sure people used to say "it'll be years before it'll be a | viable solution" when Wine was in its infancy. | | I don't think so. Wine was viable for me, playing Starcraft | Brood Wars in 2000. | | Other than games, in 2000 it was running a significant number | of minor applications for me. | bww wrote: | Wine was originally released in 1993. You're talking about a | period 7 years into it's development. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_(software) | gh123man wrote: | Has anyone been able to use darling for iOS CI jobs yet? | Admittedly I haven't researched this in a while, but one of the | biggest hurdles in large scale iOS development is sane DevOps | infrastructure. I know due to Apple's TOS that you will never be | able to build, sign, and distribute your app on non-Apple | hardware. But i'd love to use darling to run unit tests/CI jobs | on commodity cloud infrastructure. | | Even if you do get dedicated mac instances, managing them is a | bit of a nightmare since MacOS isn't designed to be headless. | 999900000999 wrote: | This is for Unity specifically, but people are building IOS | apps on Windows. | | https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/tools/utilities/ios-pr... | | I doubt any employer would let you do this though. And I have | my Mac Mini for recording music and building IOS apps. But it | is neat to see it's possible | stuaxo wrote: | There are plenty of much smaller companies and some of them | would do definitely do it. | saurik wrote: | I was doing this--using Darling to run the various tools from | Xcode on Linux so I could build one of my macOS projects--five | years ago and it worked great, but I haven't done it much since | as at some point I started using MacStadium to rent Mac Minis. | (I want to start using Darling again though, on the assumption | that it is still working for running more GUI-oriented build | tools--stuff like ibtool and actool, which I have sadly started | to need, and now particularly the actual xcodebuild stuff, as | Flutter is forcing me into that world due to its usage of | CocoaPods... I hate it :/--from newer versions of Xcode.) | SmileyKeith wrote: | For bazel users there is also this project[0] which runs the | tools natively on Linux without requiring this layer. Although | you lose tools like ibtool / actool which don't have open | source re-implementations. | | [0]: https://github.com/apple-cross-toolchain/rules_applecross | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | For unit tests, can you "just" build on Linux natively? I'm | pretty sure Swift and Objective C are supposed to both work on | Linux, although I assume library/API surface limits that. | SmileyKeith wrote: | This does generally work, but it requires a lot of manual | effort to setup the environment correctly with Xcode's SDKs | to satisfy the compiler / linker. | saagarjha wrote: | Plus, I've found that most iOS codebases, tend to rely on | parts of Foundation and the Objective-C runtime that are | not implemented on Linux, even if the code doesn't touch | UIKit at all. | teilo wrote: | Good luck with supporting Mac GUIs. It's a constantly shifting | target. Carbon is gone, but now Cocoa isn't always Cocoa because | you also have to support SwiftUI, which is itself a moving | target. | Uehreka wrote: | I thought SwiftUI was an abstraction layer on top of Cocoa, | Cocoa Touch, etc. so you could reuse code between executables. | Is that not the case? | tomrod wrote: | Excited to see this. Hopefully this resolves the application | portability issue for Linux (e.g. Microsoft Office native apps) | danieldk wrote: | If you want to run apps like Microsoft Office, Wine is probably | a far better bet. I'd be surprised if Darling runs complex | Cocoa apps anytime soon. | xattt wrote: | There is no possible way to run current versions of Office | 365 on Linux at present. | marcodiego wrote: | I run it with Wine. It is slow and buggy but it works. | OnlyMortal wrote: | I'd guess doing the C APIs for CoreGraphics and using those | under AppKit would be a way. | | CoreFoundation already (partly) exists for FoundationKit | support though I'd probably grab the GNUStep code for that. | | Any old Carbon APIs might be a hassle. | | Compositing is where it'd get tricky even with Ghostscript. | It'd be slow without hardware support. | | Impressed they can load dyld though. That's a tricky thing to | do. | OnlyMortal wrote: | Interesting. I expect the display postscript (now PDF) would be | tricky with its compositing in particular. | | I doubt Ghostscript would be up to it performance wise as much of | the DPS is backed by hardware nowadays. | | Anyway, good luck! | mikkelam wrote: | See also: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12854895 [nov, 2016] | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19772322 [apr, 2019] | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22700365 [mar, 2020] | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24683669 [oct, 2020] | bifrost wrote: | This is cool, would love to be able to use this on FreeBSD as | well. | dvirsky wrote: | Looks like an incredible project, but if GUI is not working, what | is the current use case for it? Command line apps are usually | open source and can be compiled in either system. What are people | using this for in day to day work? | stuaxo wrote: | GUI will come eventually. | | Some Dev commandline tools and compilers are starting to work, | so these kind of environments will probably come first which | will provide better performance than running under virtual | machines. | ivolimmen wrote: | > Some Dev commandline tools and compilers are starting to | work, so these kind of environments will probably come first | which will provide better performance than running under | virtual machines. | | Then it's not useful as the only thing interesting on macOs | are the GUI applications. All the tools I used on macOs for | the command line where already available on Linux. | marcodiego wrote: | Considering POSIX/UNIX heritage of both Max and Linux, | disregarding user space libs, I'd estimate this to be a much | smaller effort than Wine. So, besides GNUStep, Is there any | project to reimplement open-source portable MacOS user space | libs? | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | > disregarding user space libs | | most macOS software uses the APIs offered by userspace libs | almost exclusively. They represent a huge and vast | interconnected set of libraries, developed over decades. Maybe | not quite as large as the entire Windows API, but similar in | scope. | VTimofeenko wrote: | Asking out of inexperience with Mac command line tools ecosystem: | outside of CI mentioned in the neighboring comments - are there | any tools that could be useful on a desktop Linux? | jedisct1 wrote: | Zig has out of the box support for Darling, in order to directly | run cross-compiled macOS apps on Linux. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-01-05 23:00 UTC)