Found it, the same repo linked in August 2018: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17763855
And September 2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12556609
Apparently the version control model of the repo is ‘scrap everything once in a while’.
I think we'll eventually get there. Simply because the M1 macs will upsize the pool of people working on it.
I imagine that similar is true for many users of this project, although some others use it just to daily drive macOS on a configuration Apple doesn't sell.
† Rosetta 2 is not emulation.
Plus, that's ignoring how people will actually try to get MacOS running on these machines. Once x86 is finally considered "dead" and removed from the MacOS ecosystem, the solution is going to be kernel patching. It's hard to speculate on how difficult this might be, but I'd imagine that a small team could port binary patches from BSD to Nu-Mac fairly quickly. It's not a particularly complicated process, just a mite arduous.
It means that users will be able to create any number of macOS instances with 3D acceleration, without having to care about trying to do complicated things (mediated devices or single-gpu passthrough or pci-passthrough of a second GPU).
As of now, the performance hit is high (more than 50%), but it will certainly improve over time, and many users might already find it acceptable (= people NOT playing recent video games).
Icing on the cake, thanks to the EGL-headless display (which is independent of virtio-gpu) and VNC, it is possible to connect to these instances remotely.
Shameless plug: I am working on Phyllome OS , a Fedora Remix with the goal to include the necessary plumbing to ease advanced virtualization techniques for end-users, and to offer curated virtual machine models.
I currently only use virtual machines as desktop machines, including locally, and even my poor x230 laptop can do it. I keep the host operating system intact (Phyllome OS), and use VMs as desktop machines. It has drawbacks (difficult USB access; displays models that were not designed for local use; sound support), but I firmly believe it will get better over time and, perhaps, one day, end-users will be able to easily deploy any modern OS on any modern hardware...
 Sorry, I could not find the link to the repository
 Delete mention of KVM/QEMU
Actually, GPU passthrough is quite simple: configure host Linux to assign a virtual driver to a secondary GPU on boot and configure QEMU to use that driver on guest boot. If you buy a GPU that is natively supported by macOS (e.g., Sapphire Radeon RX 580 Pulse 4GB), you get 99% performance and 100% stability of a native Mac (not a single macOS/QEMU crash in years for me).
Moreover, if you configure your QEMU mouse/keyboard to use evdev (event devices), you can game under macOS/QEMU or Windows/QEMU without any input lag.
Besides, in the long term, Apple is likely to drop support for AMD or Intel GPU in their OS (but yes, they might also drop support for virtio devices).
Yes, evdev is currently the best way to share your inputs devices to a VM, thank you for pointing that out (alas, it is only available in distributions with very recent virtualization-related packages).
In my (perhaps narrow) view: virtualization should be about making you less reliant on the underlying hardware. I wish that GPU manufacturers would agree on a common standard to allow users to split their beefy GPU into smaller parts (Intel is apparently dropping support for vfio-mdev (Intel GVT-d), adopting SR/IOV instead for their latest offerings. But SR/IOV is only available on professional models for AMD and Nvidia. In summary, there won't be a standard any time soon, leaving virtio-gpu as the sole hardware-agnostic contender)
Off topic but I’m curious about this. On one hand I think it’s a very Apple like thing to do but on the other hand it would practically kill Mac for pro use cases, which is barely hanging on by a thread right now. Could you imagine buying a $10,000+ workstation and Apple telling you 1 8k display is enough?
I think it really hinges on what the next Mac Pro looks like. If it’s arm based and allows expansion then it’ll likely support AMD and intel gpus and support for those will stick around for years. If not , then the current intel macs and their egpu support will be the end of the line.
With what they unveiled in terms of GPU performance with the Macbook Pro, the writing's on the wall; Apple is not going to support third-party GPUs going forward. The Mac Pro will only offer Apple CPUs and GPUs, I'm sure of it.
I am curious how this is so stable for you. Are you running this on Intel? Just last week I installed this on my AMD Linux workstation to test some stuff with Xcode and qemu would crash randomly while compiling LLVM/Clang.
I knew virtio support was happening but hadn't seen any info on the GPU bit.
Besides, it is correct that whatever happens on the driver side of things, Apple will have to approve it first (as the other reply pointed out)
There are a fixed number of partitions and a specific setup you need to do with /sys nodes, refer to the manual. Considering this and that support only became possible some time after 2014 it's worth realizing it does not work like normal VFIO passthrough. Why? No idea, seems like an oversight. Need to stop providing lying interfaces to users.
"Intel GVT-g is a full GPU virtualization solution with mediated pass-through (VFIO mediated device framework based), starting from 5th generation Intel Core(TM) processors with Intel Graphics processors. GVT-g supports both Xen and KVM (a.k.a XenGT & a.k.a KVMGT). A virtual GPU instance is maintained for each VM, with part of performance critical resources directly assigned. The capability of running native graphics driver inside a VM, without hypervisor intervention in performance critical paths, achieves a good balance among performance, feature, and sharing capability."
See the following link for supported devices.
Although this all will not matter once macOS becomes exclusive to Apple Silicon.
There is also another promising project called docker-osx which has the best documentation around doing the serial number generation to make iMessage etc work (you can use it in combo with most other methods but the docs are often confusing when I looked about a year ago):
Check YouTube, there are tons of videos of how to do it.
However, OS X/macOs is clearly a general purpose Operating System that could work on a general purpose computer, but is only sold bundled with Apple hardware. There's a potential quandary with respect to using commercial software without paying for it, but Apple doesn't exactly let you pay for it either, so eh? A lot of people don't have a big problem with copying software that is generally unavailable, and I could see how can't buy it without buying expensive hardware I don't want is close enough to meet people's ethics. And some people's ethics allow them to use commercial software without paying without remorse too, so there's that.
I would have no problem with paying for software licensed for use on specific hardware and using that software on different hardware. That's not really a restriction I think a software seller should be able to make, so I'm not going to consider it unethical to circumvent (although in a business context when there's an enforcement mechanism, I might not circumvent it then). Just because my DVD is only licensed for use on a licensed DVD player doesn't mean I'll feel bad playing with with VLC; same with a video game that I manage to play on a system other than the one it was made for. Of course, pirating a movie or video game is different. That's what makes this issue a little touchy --- you can't pay for OS X separate from the hardware (you also can't pay for the hardware separate from the OS); if it's a no cost OS that ships with the hardware, then it doesn't seem bad to use it otherwise, but if it's really a $100 OS that comes bundled, that's different.
"I know Apple doesn't want me to use it this way, and I know I shouldn't, but I'm going to do it anyway even though it's wrong"
"I know Apple doesn't want me to use it this way, but they shouldn't have a say in it, so it's not really wrong"
Would be interested to know how you're thinking about your decision to run MacOS on your Thinkpad from that perspective.
> Would be interested to know how you're thinking about your decision to run MacOS on your Thinkpad from that perspective.
Frankly, I just don't care or think about it for that matter. It took maybe 30 minutes to install, I marveled at how well it worked on unsupported hardware for about an hour, then booted back into Linux and forgot about it altogether. I don't see it as anything other than a cheap party trick, any hurt feelings that the world's largest company has towards it is just a complimentary bonus in my book.
EULA enforcement is not a matter of acknowledging some holy natural right, and onerous EULAs are not only ethically but often legally dubious themselves.
That projects like this are meaningfully harmful is the proposition requiring argument or justification, imo.
I didn't ask "is this legal?", I asked "is this ethical or moral?".
Apple invests what I assume to be a huge effort into making the Mac and selling it, including MacOS. I think we all agree that MacOS is an important part of the "Mac experience" that Apple is selling.
I'm going out on a limb here to say that people who spend a bunch of effort to subvert the technical controls that stop MacOS running on other hardware know that those are in place because Apple sells the MacOS as part of Mac; regardless of the legal technicality of whether they actually clicked through the EULA, read it, or their opinions on whether that license is legally binding.
We have a situation where Apple, the creator of a piece of work - MacOS, only wants people who purchase its hardware to benefit from it. Other people understand that, and try to benefit from it anyway. What is the ethical and moral position you need to take to say "it just doesn't matter what Apple, the creator, thinks."
So what's your theory here? Apple is big enough and profitable enough that meaningful harm to Apple is the determining factor? So it's OK to infringe on IP rights of big profitable companies, or where you weren't going to buy the hardware product anyway?
Or is it that no concept of property exists outside of the physical realm - so that e.g. musicians should have no control over who records their performances, nor artists over who reproduces their work, nor developers over who uses their software and for what purposes?
Intellectual property is a legal construct, and the thing being violated here is a EULA. (I'd also hardly describe what I wrote as ‘railing against’ anything. I just stated some facts about what IP is.)
> So what's your theory here? Apple is big enough and profitable enough that meaningful harm to Apple is the determining factor?
My ‘theory’ is that meaningful harm is a pretty good criterion for ethical objections in general, and that well-founded moral objections to things which are harmless are exceptional. This isn't a novel or controversial view; it's foundational to liberalism.
> Or is it that no concept of property exists outside of the physical realm - so that e.g. musicians should have no control over who records their performances, nor artists over who reproduces their work, nor developers over who uses their software and for what purposes?
I'd say that physical property is also an instrumental legal concept. Its existence, like the existence of intellectual property, is mostly grounded in histories of power and its exercise. But there are good arguments for its usefulness in certain contexts, and there are good moral arguments related to ownership. And the best arguments relating to ownership of physical things don't apply to ideas because ideas are not like physical things.
Your question, as posed, also overlooks the fact that intellectual property as it actually exists in fact does little to ensure that artists have control over their work. In the same way, Apple's policy on the use of macOS on non-Apple hardware is totally outside the control of actual developers who work at Apple.
If you'd like to tell me about how developers at Apple have an interest in ensuring that macOS is not used on non-Apple hardware... congratulations: you've just started outlining a case for how projects like the one in the OP are meaningfully harmful.
If you don't want to use Docker it should still be possible with the OSX-KVM, I've done it before, but I can't remember the exact steps I took to get it running, sorry.
Should also note that I've run into issues with AMD CPUs, Intel seems to work better, but I also haven't tried it since they first added nested virtualization support with AMD CPUs to Hyper-V, so those problems might be fixed now.