Finally got around to writing a proper announcement on/giving more detail on my decisions regarding Mac support for anybody who's interested

Whoops. Accidentally had that marked as patron-only (a new default, I guess?). Should be viewable now.


that's very well argumented, I'm leaning towards doing this myself (I didn't know about the "no crosscompiling rule", I can't even think how they'd justify this one)

Do you have an idea of the rate of adoption of new versions of macOS? I'm fine with releasing macOS builds for folks who didn't move to the latest version, but only as long as it makes sense

@emptyfortress So to give a touch more detail the cross compiling thing boils down to needing to copy some libraries from MacOS and onto your build server so that you can have something to link against, but last time I read the OS user agreement, it prohibited using the OS or any part of it on non-Apple hardware, so technically, I could do it in a VM on my Mac, but since my build server isn't a Mac and I'm not interested in replacing it with a Mac...

@emptyfortress Regarding 10.15 adoption, I have no idea. AFIK, Apple doesn't publish that information, and outside of institutions that do managed update rollouts, I don't imagine there's anybody else who'd have relevant information.

@Cheeseness thanks! Yeah I had a quick look and couldn't find any adoption numbers, I guess I'll keep them going as long as it's not too much of a bother.

That "no non-apple hardware" clause though, that's something else. It raises so many questions, I have no idea how enforceable that would be in court (what makes hardware apple? is linking against a library using it? that sort of thing).

@emptyfortress My impression has always been that Apple sees themselves as a hardware company, and software is a secondary thing they do to make their hardware worth buying.

@emptyfortress It's been years since I read that stuff and I generally don't bother giving much brainspace to garbage that I don't accept, but IIRC, it had to be run on/accessed by a CPU in an Apple branded computer.

Regarding enforceability, I believe they have successfully won a case against a "hackintosh" vendor in the US, claiming that installing Apple software on non-Apple computers was a breach of copyright.

@emptyfortress This kind of usage would probably be a little less framable within that lense, but I figure why use a company's stuff at all if you don't agree with the kind of things they're asking you to do when letting you use it? Just put that nonsense firmly in the sea.

@Cheeseness oh yes, definitely, I'm just amused by the idea of compiling something on an intel x86 processor being somehow different to... compiling on the same x86 processor, only with an apple sticker on it, and someone defending that with a straight face.

@Cheeseness This is all incredibly relatable. I didn't start developing on Macs until the mid-2000s, and it's good to remember that a lot of this was an issue before Tim Cook.

@Cheeseness As someone with four Mac devices, none of which will ever be on Catalina and one of which is a PowerPC, I support this!

@Cheeseness I'm a member of the Low End Mac group on Facebook - would you like me to share (a link to) your post there? It might interest some people there.

@Cheeseness Done! Focusing on the fact that you're supporting older Macs, but people are picking up on your criticism of Gatekeeper anyway.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!