11 comments

  • cyanmagenta 6 hours ago
    Forgive the naivety, but what graphical Linux apps are people trying to run that don’t have native MacOS builds? In my experience, Linux GUIs are generally written in Qt or GTK, both of which are multi-platform.

    I don’t doubt that they exist, I’m just struggling to think of a popular example.

    • fny 2 hours ago
      That's not the use case. The use case is running apps from a remote Linux host as a local window. A performant VNC for specific windows if you will.

      For example, you could run VS Code on that machine as a window on your Mac. A more real world example is people accessing guis (e.g. matlab) on lab clusters.

      The closest set up for x11 would be to use x11 forwarding with xpra.

      • adastra22 59 minutes ago
        Or running applications within fully sandboxed VMs on the local machine, but with native-ish forwarded GUI. Great for dev.
    • jon-wood 6 hours ago
      This is very interesting to me for two reasons:

      1. I'd really like to run my development environment for things under Siri for its tiling window management but for better or worse I'm deeply embedded in the Apple ecosystem for everything else, this looks like it could be a really nice way of doing it (possibly once multi monitor support is in).

      2. There are still a few applications which have supported Linux builds but no support for macOS (Iridium's Niagara Workbench application for configuration of building management systems springs to mind here). Since Apple ended support for Quartz this has been a bit of a pain to deal with.

    • audunw 6 hours ago
      Popular apps? Probably not many.

      But in the field of integrated circuit design there’s lots of apps that are Linux-only. I’ve tried to run some of them in containers on Mac. But XQuartz is awful.

      If they ever transitioned to Wayland perhaps this would let us run these apps on Mac in a nice way.

      On the other hand some of them have started getting ARM builds (for running simulations on certain cloud environments) so maybe native Mac GUI builds could happen someday soon.

      • addaon 48 minutes ago
        > But XQuartz is awful.

        What issues are you seeing with it? I use it pretty heavily and have no complaints…

        • garciasn 11 minutes ago
          Really? X11 forwarding with XQuartz has never been a superior experience in modern times IMO. In my experience, it’s been bloated, slow, and just janky to use compared to other alternatives.

          I can’t speak to Cocoa-Way, as this is the first I’ve heard of it, but anything has to be a better overall experience than XQuartz.

      • MBCook 3 hours ago
        What about this plus XWayland? Would that do it?
    • ubercow13 5 hours ago
      Apart from just running Linux apps, you can use this to run graphical applications remotely on a Linux server, like X11 forwarding.
      • pkaeding 4 hours ago
        I thought Wayland was different from X11, and didn't allow this. But I'm far from an expert on this topic so I'd like to learn more.
        • adastra22 58 minutes ago
          Wayland natively isn’t built for forwarding the way X11 is. Waypipe fixes this, providing an X11 protocol equivalent for Wayland. This project is a waypipe client for macOS.
        • chrismorgan 4 hours ago
          https://github.com/neonkore/waypipe proxies Wayland over a network. It’s straightforward enough in theory: Wayland core is just a communications protocol plus shared memory; so you just need to forward the messages, and detect and send changes in the shared memory. Not the cheapest thing, but perfectly tractable. Of course, there are also more difficult extensions, like GPU integration, but that sort of thing was a problem for X as well.
          • TingPing 3 hours ago
            This is how modern x11 worked too since nobody uses software rendering with x primitives anyway.
        • functional_dev 2 hours ago
          here is Wayland vs X11 visualised.. it might help - https://vectree.io/c/compositing-window-management-architect...
          • amelius 2 hours ago
            According to that page Wayland's architecture is simpler than X11.
            • dsr_ 1 hour ago
              If you put everything into a monolith, it looks simpler than if you have components that have to speak protocols to each other.
    • xlmnxp 6 hours ago
      I want to use KDE Plasma instead of Mac OS ugly (in my opinion) interface
      • vovavili 6 hours ago
        This is possibly the first time in human history this opinion has been stated.
        • bityard 1 hour ago
          I've been using Linux on the desktop for decades at this point. KDE Plasma is my current favorite and I've been using it for a few years now. It has everything you'd want in a desktop (maybe a bit more), looks great, and is very fast even on modest hardware.

          My current job has me using MacOS on an M3 Pro Macbook and I find it barely tolerable compared to KDE. Usually when I want to do something new or change some configuration, either there is no way to do it, or it's hidden behind some key combination that I never would have guessed. I would describe the overall feel of MacOS as "syrupy." When using the mouse or typing, there is almost always some kind of barely-perceptible latency. Nothing is ever crisp and instant. (This isn't specific to this machine, it feels the same way on every Mac I've borrowed.) It's sort of like someone decided that the only way to make it smooth was to also make it slow.

        • hnlmorg 5 hours ago
          It really isn’t. There are a great many people who use macs for work but who do not like Apples design choices. And that number has skyrocketed even further since Liquid Glass was pushed onto people.

          In fact one of the front page articles today is literally calling macOS “ugly” in the title.

        • polshaw 6 hours ago
          I don't want KDE but I would much prefer gnome to macos desktop, I think it's both prettier and more functional, and that's not a tahoe thing. I hate finder too, and don't see any way to properly use an alternative.
        • ozgrakkurt 3 hours ago
          not sure about the looks but I also find KDE much better in usability
        • layer8 5 hours ago
          Similar opinions are voiced in about every recent macOS UI thread, and even occasionally in Windows threads.
        • sersi 6 hours ago
          I mean Apple hasn't done itself any favours with Macos Tahoe.
          • drob518 4 hours ago
            “Liquid Ass” as some people say.
        • Imustaskforhelp 5 hours ago
          To be honest, I agree a little bit because I remember from my time at customizing KDE that everyone wanted it to make it look like Mac OS

          but it feels a bit of peer-pressure/cool-factor, people used to like how Mac OS look but after Tahoe, I feel like most people don't.

          To be honest, I am on mac right now but I really like Niri/Hyprland and to a degree KDE as well. I definitely feel like those were immensely more customizable and I miss that customizability, even if some people might use that customizability to make it look like MacOS default.

      • coldtea 4 hours ago
        Then you want to run KDE on Linux. This is not going to replace your native mac desktop environment.
      • MarsIronPI 4 hours ago
        Honest question: why use MacOS at all then? If you prefer KDE, why not run a system that KDE natively supports? Is it a particular MacOS application? Or is it that Linux support on Mac hardware is not good enough?
        • TingPing 3 hours ago
          Linux has good support for m1 and m2, so for newer devices running a custom desktop would be neat.
    • boschetto 6 hours ago
      I think there are many use cases for this software.

      For example, you may not want to run some graphical applications directly on your Mac for security, isolation or testing purposes.

      If this software turns out to be lower latency than RDP and CRD, I could also see it being very useful for accessing a remote graphical workstation (e.g.: running heavy software on an beefy machine in a data center instead of taking up resources on my skinny laptop).

    • addaon 50 minutes ago
      There’s a bunch of old Fortran stuff I use regularly (AVL, XFoil), but that’s all X, not Wayland, and XQuartz has worked great for decades.
    • okayokay123 4 hours ago
      Emacs runs much faster and better on Linux VMs. And I have a VM for each client I work with.
    • OJFord 6 hours ago
      It's not necessarily something only available for Linux, but something that you want to containerise. (And then it's inherently running on Linux.)
    • bigyabai 2 hours ago
      Native GTK apps on macOS are often more broken than running it in a VM or Parallels, in my experience. I used to use Gitg on macOS and it was a terrible experience all around.
    • hrmtst93837 5 hours ago
      Try building Inkscape or GIMP from source on macOS and see how "multi-platform" those GTK apps feel in practice. Even when a Mac build exists, it is often skinned oddly or lags because somebody has to carry Mac patches against an old fork.

      This is for the long tail. The compositor path dodges a pile of volunteer-port churn and runs the Linux build directly, which is a lot more appealing for niche GUI tools and dev apps that barely get maintained on Linux, never mind macOS.

    • pajko 4 hours ago
      PuTTY
      • coldtea 4 hours ago
        That's a Windows app.
        • alt219 3 hours ago
          PuTTY is absolutely available for Linux. On Debian-based distros it’s just a `sudo apt install putty` away. But why?
  • jFriedensreich 2 hours ago
    I need something like this for android, termux-x11 is a good start but if termux gets wayland support or there is a way to expose wayland sockets from the android native linux VM, the only thing missing is a native rendering compositor for a smoother experience
  • jbverschoor 5 hours ago
    Perfect.. this will allow me to run GUI apps in a container.

    I did a similar thing with X11, but I didn't like so much.

    Bit by bit, Apple is loosing it's Desktop position. It all starts at the developers. At soon, every person will be a "developer".

    • jbverschoor 3 hours ago
      In reply to then throwaway.

      Anything I want sandboxed or “grouped”.

      Work on a project -> open the relevant container.

      Similar to parallels window integration mode.

      It’s all from shortcomings to have a hierarchical view on your data and applications.

      Goal: isolation. Security-wise, and focus-wise

    • throwaway613746 4 hours ago
      [dead]
  • skrrtww 3 hours ago
    This looks like slop? The README is full of emojis and kind of incoherent, there are no implementation details, there claims to be a Metal backend that doesn't seem to exist, etc.

    The dependency list is also...something: https://github.com/J-x-Z/cocoa-way/tree/main/vendor

    • jhatemyjob 1 hour ago
      This is definitely not worth using. It doesn't even say what hypervisor its using. Is it using QEMU? Docker? Podman? Lima? Colima?

      And also this chart is super weird:

          Solution  Latency  HiDPI    Native Integration  Setup Complexity
          Cocoa-Way Low      Yes      Native windows      Easy
          XQuartz   High     Partial  X11 quirks          Medium
          VNC       High     No       Full screen         Medium
          VM GUI    High     Partial  Separate window     Complex
      
      A standard VM will always be the easiest to set up by far. And latency should be the same across all 4. I mean after all it's a VM running on your local machine. Honestly I don't even know what it means when it says "Latency".

      I also looked at some of the code and it's using OpenGL 3.3 Core which is... super old. But it makes sense in the context of this being LLM-generated since most of its training data is probably OpenGL 3.3 Core code....

      Overall this project is very strange. It makes me feel more confident in my skills, AI isn't all that great. It's all hype. You can get to the frontpage of HN. And if you're Peter Steinberger you can get acquired by OpenAI for a billion dollars. But that's about it. The code isn't getting any better.

      This reminds me of that C-compiler-in-Rust publicity stunt by Anthropic. There's no substance. It's just a headline.

      • lights0123 21 minutes ago
        While I agree with the rest of your comment, they do mention they use OrbStack as their hypervisor in their demo video.
  • BirAdam 4 hours ago
    Now, if only macOS still had the ability to drop to a Darwin shell without a GUI at all… we could just have a nice UNIX with something like KDE or COSMIC, brew as our package manager… what a dream.
    • MarsIronPI 4 hours ago
      But why MacOS then? If you take away the interface what differentiates Darwin from FreeBSD or GNU?
      • BirAdam 3 hours ago
        That it will actually run on Apple Silicon.

        TBH, I would love to install GNU or BSD on my M4 Max Mac Studio. What I really wanted is a modern UNIX workstation. My Studio’s price/performance was the best available, so that’s what I bought. Now, I am happy with that purchase except for the constant diminution in software quality from Apple.

      • esseph 3 minutes ago
        [delayed]
      • komali2 3 hours ago
        Performance on apple chipsets!
  • tsuru 5 hours ago
    Wow. Would this allow a macos-based wayland-client to create an EGL surface?
  • Imustaskforhelp 6 hours ago
    Very interesting, can this run something like android using waydroid within Orbstack too?

    It would then essentially run android on macos as well, I do feel like it should be possible.

  • kogasa240p 3 hours ago
    Wonder if this will bring at least a tiny amount of interest to GNUstep.
  • anArbitraryOne 6 hours ago
    Now if we could switch MacOS to use Win/Linux keyboard commands, MacOS wouldn't be so insufferable
    • jurmous 5 hours ago
      Many of the keyboard commands are configurable in settings, complete with switching cmd and ctrl keys around. Or you can get used in a week or two when switching, this is what I did years ago and now for me Win/Linux is confusing and find the location of the command key more ergonomic on a Mac.

      Here some history on how the command key came to be https://www.folklore.org/Swedish_Campground.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_key

    • SuperManifolds 5 hours ago
      Incredibly L take. macOS keyboard commands are great for working in the terminal since system shortcuts use a different key and don't interfere with control codes
      • drob518 3 hours ago
        Exactly. You don’t have the terminal itself fight with whatever is running on the other side of the term.
    • cpuguy83 4 hours ago
      Sorry having to use ctrl+shift for in a terminal is absolutely awful. macOS keyboard shortcuts are king.
      • dagi3d 4 hours ago
        agree. I guess it's a force of habit, but I am so used to the cmd+<whatever> (specially copy & paste) shortcuts, that I configured them into my linux desktop to behave the same way
      • drob518 3 hours ago
        Being limited to just control and alt definitely cuts down on the options. Conversely, having MacOS command key act as “super” in Emacs opens up some possibilities.
    • rick_dalton 5 hours ago
      Super key for most keybinds is much nicer than windows in my opinion, where it is entirely wasted on opening the start menu. On Linux it gains a few functions based on the desktop environment but not much.
      • layer8 5 hours ago
        The use of the Windows key extends far beyond the start menu. Builtin functions include window management, invoking programs on the taskbar, locking the computer, invoking Explorer and Settings, invoking and controlling accessibility functions like Magnifier. The Microsoft Power Toys add a lot of functions using the Windows key by default as well, like screen snipping, screen OCR, color picking, enhanced clipboard, and many more.
        • rick_dalton 5 hours ago
          My problem is that I don’t use the majority of these functions at all. Command I can use for almost everything no matter how frequent or infrequent. It also replaces most “ctrl+shift” binds which is a great plus for me.
        • daveidol 5 hours ago
          That’s still like 10 uses vs unlimited uses on macOS
          • freedomben 4 hours ago
            It may be ten uses, but it's ten uses I use constantly throughout the day.
          • drob518 3 hours ago
            You must not use MacOS. Command gets used all over the place, even during editing. And in Emacs it gets used as Super, which opens up some options.
          • layer8 4 hours ago
            Even just the window management category is more than ten uses. And it is unlimited uses, as you can assign additional shortcuts however you like.
    • p-e-w 6 hours ago
      I mean, you can simply use Linux and save yourself all those hacks…
      • anArbitraryOne 6 hours ago
        Absolutely. I went through great lengths to install Asahi on my work M1, only to have most things not work (RTFM). So when one is forced to use MacOS, may it round corners in hell, for work…
    • throwaway613746 4 hours ago
      As someone that switches between MacOS (dayjob) and Linux (my own PCs) workstations daily - I wish I could do the opposite for Linux. MacOS keyboard shortcuts are just way more intuitive to me, and they are way more consistent across applications.
  • IshKebab 5 hours ago
    Neat, but wouldn't it be better to have the windows as "seamless"? I.e. not contained within another window.
  • pugchat 3 hours ago
    [dead]