| ▲ | m132 5 days ago |
| Every time I see Apple flaunting Linux containers I can hardly consider it as anything but admitting defeat. It could easily be Darwin, if they still had the capacity. |
|
| ▲ | Danox 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Darwin is open source still available (anyone who has the guts and talent) can pick up the gauntlet it’s been about 26 years. For example, those three engineers who left Apple to form Nuvia (to bad they didn’t want to do a OS to go along with hardware). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system) https://github.com/PureDarwin/PureDarwin https://www.reddit.com/r/MacOS/comments/1b75xlv/why_is_darwi... https://x.com/LeakerApple/status/2018467873308786771 Nuvia |
|
| ▲ | groundzeros2015 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Just change 30 years of internet history |
| |
| ▲ | al_borland 5 days ago | parent [-] | | For what it's worth, the first web server was a NeXTcube, and NeXTSTEP was the foundation of macOS. |
|
|
| ▲ | tw04 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What is the alternative? They gave up the server market a decade ago and before that they barely actually supported it. If they were to support darwin containers, what would be the point? Literally nobody would build to it, Linux won. |
| |
| ▲ | riffic 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > Literally nobody would build to it because nobody does ci/cd against macOS or iOS apps right? | | |
| ▲ | tw04 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | And what is the revenue stream tied to that ci/cd pipeline they aren’t capturing today? Apple would sell less hardware in order to…? There aren’t any app developers avoiding the Apple ecosystem because there aren’t Darwin containers. They don’t sell server hardware and by all accounts have no intention of ever reentering that space. So they’d spend a bunch of developer cycles to reduce their own revenue stream with no apparent upside beyond “goodwill” which they’ve never been overly concerned about. | | |
| ▲ | m132 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Correct me if I'm wrong, but by the same logic, you could also say this whole containerization framework is of no use either. If they're investing resources into it regardless, they might at least try making something that Docker for macOS and co. haven't solved the same exact way already. Something that, due to their almost unhealthy obsession with "system integrity", only they can realistically make. Like native containers. | | |
| ▲ | tw04 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Supporting the containerization framework lets them sell more laptops to Linux devs that may have otherwise bought a Dell or hp or insert brand to run Linux natively on or windows with WSL. | |
| ▲ | MBCook 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Containers are REALLY REALLY popular. This is a a great value add for developers on Mac who need to deal with Linux containers. Which is a ton of ‘em. |
|
| |
| ▲ | pjmlp 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | They already support this scenario with XCode Cloud, it is only a market for those that don't want to pay Apple for it. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ahknight 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | TheDong 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Apple set itself up for defeat in the server and developer marketplace as soon as they decided macOS was proprietary code. Why would any serious developer use closed-source code they can't debug and modify? Especially for a production server? It's the same reason no serious developers or hackers use macOS, like part of the point of being a developer is being able to dig into the code at any layer and debug and fix things. |
| |
| ▲ | bschwindHN 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > It's the same reason no serious developers or hackers use macOS I know I'm basically taking the bait, but I guess I've not been "seriously" developing stuff for the past decade or two, which is news to me! | |
| ▲ | m132 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | OpenDarwin was a thing at one point, with mailing lists and other infrastructure hosted by Apple. That being said, my point isn't that Apple should absolutely focus on making a server OS again. It just saddens me how far behind macOS has fallen as they stopped caring about the fundamentals; back in the day, it would be Linux trailing behind macOS. Nowadays, you can't even have multiple routing tables on the latter, the firewall code was probably last updated in Snow Leopard, and what Apple happily shows off on WWDC is a wrapper around Linux. Something functionally equal can be cobbled up together by anyone sufficiently experienced in minutes, using just Bash, OpenSSH, and QEMU. I really wish macOS would let me have a similar level of control over applications as Linux with namespaces, without me having to do all the heavy lifting. | | |
| ▲ | alwillis 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Nowadays, you can't even have multiple routing tables on the latter, the firewall code was probably last updated in Snow Leopard Apple uses OpenBSD's Packet Filter [1]; I doubt multiple routing tables are a problem. Back in the Snow Leopard days, it was FreeBSD's IPFW, which is also no slouch. Whatever a firewall can do, PF can do it. You can also get a nice GUI for PF [2]. [1]: https://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/index.html [2]: https://www.murusfirewall.com/murus/ | | |
| ▲ | m132 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, I meant pf. Indeed, it was there in the source tree in 10.6 but they only flipped it on it in release builds in 10.7. My bad. Either way, it has hardly changed since then, while the OpenBSD upstream continued to progress. > I doubt multiple routing tables are a problem. The lack of them is a limitation for me (complex VM + VPN setup), which requires me to do pretty unholy static routing and address rewriting with pf. I think even Apple has come across this; they added "scoped routing" (which IMO is a hacky workaround providing some of the functionality you'd get with multiple routing tables) just before iOS shipped with MMS support. Android, for comparison, uses Linux's routing policies and tables to send and receive MMS. |
| |
| ▲ | alwillis 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > OpenDarwin was a thing at one point, with mailing lists and other infrastructure hosted by Apple. "Exploring Darwin and PureDarwin: The Open-Source Foundation of Apple's Operating Systems" - https://machaddr.substack.com/p/exploring-darwin-and-puredar... |
| |
| ▲ | pjmlp 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Apparently game, desktop and app devs aren't serious. | |
| ▲ | vehemenz 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | No offense, but serious developers don’t think this way at all. | | |
| ▲ | bel8 5 days ago | parent [-] | | For server side, which I believe is the context here, Linux and open source are king. Even Microsoft gave up on Windows and just runs Linux most things except niche cases. Heck, even SQL Server which is expensive piece of machinery got ported to Linux and that's the default target now in their docs. With that said, one can't deny Apple's success on the b2c side of things so it feels wrong to call their strategy a failure. | | |
| ▲ | pjmlp 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Except the cloud isn't open source, the ones that matter to developers that is. Which is why so many projects get burned with their license choices. | | |
| ▲ | gf000 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't see how this comment is relevant to parent's point. Sure, cloud is proprietary. But it is Linux for the vast majority. | | |
| ▲ | pjmlp 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Which is an Pyrrhic victory, when Linus and other founders are long gone, most of this generation actually, what will subsist are proprietary forks, just like what happened with UNIX System V. |
|
|
|
|
|
