>I run macOS because Apple understands that QA testing is something of actual importance, and designing yet another package manager is not.

Apple demonstrated with their latest releases that they don't give a single fuck about QA. OSX 26 is very buggy. The corner resize debacle, the glass debacle, and problem after problem that has made it to the HN front page is enough to know they don't care about QA the way you think they do.

The list of problems are described are not typical, I've seen none of that running Linux. YMMV

Apple decided to focus on "Glass", an outdated UI style that was introduced in Windows Vista. They didn't have to, it wasn't wanted by anyone and it has caused significant embarrassment for apple and problems for users. Why couldn't they replace Finder with something actually useful? Why couldn't they fix the UI so "About this software" isn't the first thing on the first menu which is a waste of space. They made MacOS objectively worse.

> The list of problems are described are not typical, I've seen none of that running Linux. YMMV

Haven't run into any of those problems either. Linux has been a "just works" experience for me for nearly a decade now. Buying Intel hardware seems to have done the trick.

It's pointless to engage in such argumentation though. Even if the experience was poor, it wouldn't matter, because the cost of a "good experience" is being a serf in Apple's digital fiefdom, and that is an unacceptable moral failing. It's not about practicality, it's about not being reduced to begging the trillion dollar corporation for permission to do basic things with "your" computer.

I recently went (almost) all-in on Linux after many years on Windows. The final straw for me was that I paid for a "lifetime license" for Outlook, because I've been using Outlook for decades, and have every email I've ever sent or received in Outlook. Well, I upgraded the CPU on the server where I run the VM which hosts Outlook, and then Microsoft wanted me to purchase a full new copy of Outlook because of the CPU upgrade. That was it, I'm done.

I moved Linux Mint and Thunderbird for email, and it's honestly been great. I switched all of my Windows-based VMs to Linux Mint.

My main workstation/laptop is still on Windows due to some hardware issues, but I will work those out in time. Mainly I have a USB4 port that also outputs Displayport, which I connect to a Displayport splitter so I can run three 4k monitors. That's the only thing that I haven't solved on Linux, but I haven't put much time into it. And I don't really blame Linux for that, I more blame the laptop manufacturer for not fully supporting Linux.

Most "serious" companies do not support Linux in their IT infrastructure. I've begged to run Linux, but it's a hard no from IT. They only support Windows and MacOS, and that's all. So I choose a Windows desktop, because I am not a fan of Apple. Having been forced to use Macs in past jobs, I'll choose Windows every time. I liked being able to dual-boot Windows on a MBP in the past, but that is no longer an option.

Recently an article on HN front page was about a guy who had to file down his MBP because the front edge of it was too sharp and resting his wrists on it hurt his hands. At least two people in the comment section noted how the sweat on their hands over time caused the sharp edge of the MBP chassis to pit and it caused it to turn in to a sharp serrated edge that actually cut their hands.

You can say other laptops are "plastic and shitty" all you want, but Apple's offerings aren't necessarily the best thing out there either. I personally like variety, and you don't get that from Apple. I can choose from hundreds of form factors from a lot of vendors that all run Linux and Windows just fine, plastic or not.

I've run MacOS x86 VMs on Windows, it used to work great for a while. I haven't done that lately. I just don't care that much about supporting Apple users anymore, Apple makes it too expensive and difficult.

But aren't Mx based macs supposed to be the fastest computers you can get? Why wouldn't they be able to run more than 2 VMs?

I can run a ton of Windows VMs at the same time, wouldn't Windows be a comparable resource hog to MacOS?

Apple M2 CPUs can have up to 192GB of RAM. If we look at the Mac Neo that has only 8GB of RAM, then an M2 host should be able to run at least 20 VMs before memory gets scarce.

There's no good reason Apple limits to 2 VMs except for greed, which they are well known for.

>The "two VMs per unit hardware" has been in their license for at least a decade.

I'd be pretty surprised if there isn't a workaround or hack for this.

Microsoft has had limits on some things like RDP on some versions of Windows, but there have always been ways to get around it.

You are commenting on the article that discusses exactly that.

Sure you can do it technically, but then you have a licensing compliance issue, so no reputable business will do it.

You can run x86 macOS VMs in Windows or Linux too with a little bit of technical trickery, but again, you end up with a license issue, so no-one reputable does it.

I've never really understood how Apple can let people download MacOS for free, and then tell them where and how they can run it - only on Apple's hardware. If I download a copy of Windows or any software ever written, I can run it on any hardware that exists that can run it. But somehow Apple gets to dictate to people where and how they can run freely available software that anyone can download?

You are not Apple's target market, and never will be.

They don't care what you want to do with the hardware you own.

I tried to launch a MacOS instance on EC2 recently (on my work account), and was blocked.

So I asked the IT dept and they said it's stupidly expensive to run a MacOS instance on EC2, and that they would just send me a Macbook Pro instead.

I wish I were kidding.

Frustrating for you, hilarious for me. I had no idea they had hobbled MacOS in this way. It doesn't surprise me at all really, and it's pretty ridiculous.

I'm not sure why people keep giving Apple their money, especially tech-savvy people that would want to run VMs.

Because we have customers that use macOS and both x86 and apple silicon are build targets of ours.

yeah I'm glad I paid extra for linux on a used dell, I'd hate to be slumming in some poverty ridden ghetto like mac users with their vm limits

I run up to a dozen Linux VMs at once on my Macs.

I've never hit the referenced limit because it isn't a limit on running VMs it's a limit on running macOS, and I hardly ever run macOS VMs.

I'm not sure why people don't use Mac's are so obsessed with telling people who do use Macs that they're wrong, and yet here we are.

>90% of the jobs people have today didn't exist 50 years ago.

We also have 100% more people on the planet than we did 50 years ago.