I just want a good CI/CD system for macOS to build iOS apps without needing to buy a farm of Mac Minis, or even buy a Mac, is that too much to ask?
But don't be sad, their new Mac Pro is fantastic.
Not exactly ideal for hobbyists.
most apple enthusiasts think that the price is spot on and in no way overblown. (i do not have an opinion on the matter as i neither own nor use apple devices)
i dont think you can convey any point about apple in a sarcastic manner while omitting a /s tag. there are always people honestly believing the point you're stating sarcastically.
this applies to both negative and positive statements
I Need to buy a new MacBookPro and even though I can reclaim the VAT (sales tax) and it'll come out of corporate accounts the price makes me wince
Oh and I'd like one without a touch bar but screwed on that front unless I go high end MacBook Air
iPhone SE at £400 is pretty reasonably priced though and will be my next phone
Tone of voice (and tone of face) are both essential to convey sarcasm over rich channels, and both are lost over text.
Now add Poe's Law.
In short: Welcome to the wonderful world of autism! /s
I've never spent more than £600 on a computer and never felt like I need to spend 10x that for any of my software development
Unlike Microsoft, Apple has no motives to send the BSA after anyone. Pretty sure they've only used them for egregious copyright violations like the commercial Hackintoshes.
... until your virtualization layer starts having a material impact on their precious hardware sales.
You cannot build business-critical systems on contractual clauses being "unofficially unenforced".
Pretty sure these terms are not enforceable in Europe so safe to ignore.
Chromium is competing with Samsung internet and others on Android, because several companies sell Android. So it's not fine for Google to force the choice.
Apple is not competing with anyone else on iOS, you don't have a choice. As long as iOS does not have a monopoly in smartphones, they're in the clear.
I'm certainly no friend of Google and I'm not losing sleep over them getting fined. But it seems that Apple is just as much if not more anti competitive and anti consumer, but they get a pass because of what feels like a loophole.
At the same time, it makes kinda sense. No company with a product has to allow competition in. GM doesn't have to allow BMW motors in their cars.
When you join a market with a product, like Apple, then you don't have to allow competition in your product. When you create a market like Google did Android, then you to allow competition in that market.
I think that's the key difference, product vs market.
I take it you'd have no objection to Google forking the Linux kernel for Android and refusing all requests for the source code.
Of course the problem are the SDK that you need to use to build most software, they are obviously proprietary, but does its license say that they can only be used to compile software on a real Mac?
I've no affiliation with them, but can recommend them. Never had any technical issues, and the one billing issue we had was sorted out quickly by their support people.
And yes, too much to ask. Apple's principal revenue source is selling hardware. They don't care if developing for their platform is not cheap; they explicitly target the premium segment, and are never uncomfortable with their well-known large margins.
The existence of companies like MacStadium filling rooms with Macs just to bend over backwards for inane license terms proves the paid demand is there. Apple could offer to license their OS for use not on Apple hardware — for a fee. They don't. The objection isn't to the price; the objection is that needing to manage physical hardware (as opposed to spinning up VMs like in the article) is a PITA to manage, comparatively. Companies would — and do — pay to not need to deal with that pain, but it would be a lot less painful to not need to get a third party involved / to be able to make use of the infra I have without having to stuff some Macs into a closet and wonder how I'm going to make that redundant.
The pipeline docs are somewhat lacking though IMHO but once you get them working, they work great.
As much as I like Github for OSS projects, I really love Azure DevOps for everything else. The CI/CD capabilities are amazing, and I haven't had any real issues with lack of documentation (a few small things here and there for sure though).
Long may it live, I hope!
Not to jackknife the thread, but most developers were born in the 90s and do not remember this Microsoft.
The engineering and dev managers DO remember this Microsoft. So while I agree somewhat they are trying to repair their image, with the younger crowd they only know MS as Minecraft, VS Code, Azure, Github. More people probably got exposure to Linux via WSL than all of the previous installs combined.
90s me would have thought hell would have frozen over, and now me knows it has.
They're still playing dirty tricks on open source. They're just not stupid enough to use the ones that would do more harm than good.
When people say that "MS gets open source now", what it really means is the MS gets how OS can be used to further its goals. Not that they have fundamentally changed.
MS will have graduated to the next level of maturity when it open sources something that is strategic to the ecosystem and the ecosystem as a whole benefits (Windows NT 4?) or something that is obviously making them money.
Dotnet Core is cross-platform and fits that bill.
It introduced a huge segment of Windows-only devs to Linux.
Yes, that furthers Microsoft's goals too, as Linux is very important in the cloud, and therefore Azure. But regardless, the move has also benefited many, many developers, and the Linux ecosystem.
End goal was building iOS apps w/o any mac hardware. Using some open source patches to clang, libimobiledevice, and a whole bunch of other tools, I was able to write an iOS app in "good ole C in emacs" on my linux laptop, cross compile it for the iPhone, and even code sign, upload and run it on the phone.
This was several years ago. If offered as a hosted service, do you really think anyone would pay for it enough to make it worth my while to code up and polish?
EDIT: HAH! I forgot I said all this the last time this topic came up 2 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17763855
As such, it's not unusual for the OS X tests to be farther down the list and not to trigger at all if earlier stages failed. It's easier to scale up multiple subprojects if you run the first couple phases on commodity hardware and then ramp up to the more peculiar stuff only if everything else already looks good. That way, your broken build can't slow down my green build very much.
It's not so much that I like doing this, as that it prevents a number of things I most definitely do not like at all.
I've used Azure DevOps on several projects, and it's CI/CD capabilities really are fantastic.
I've also used AppCenter (and the previous incarnation, HockeyApp), and it makes for a great app distribution experience. It also has an integration with InTune, which is very useful in the enterprise, although we did find configurating it to be a total PITA and it required a domain admin to set it up.
Why not use Travis CI by adding `.travis.yml` into your GitHub repo?