Why isn't there a Mac>Linux version of picrel?

So here's the thing.
I used linux for some time ages ago but had to move away because of stuff I need for my studies, namely adobe CC and Rhinoceros. (No, GIMP/blender are not acceptable choices because of the need to share files with workmates)
FF to today, there are still no linux versions of said programs and chances of them happening are pretty much nonexistent, but in the meantime we had Mac versions of them (and more stuff) showing up. Why isnt there an effort to make a compatibility layer to run mac programs on linux? For what I understand it _should_ be easier to achieve compatibility of both platforms, right?

Other urls found in this thread:

darlinghq.org/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>Rhinoceros
use fucking maya like everyone does ? they have native linux versions for more than 15 years now

fuck off, maya is shit for anything that isnt a character or animal. Also muh nurbs

ok, then use cinema4d ? they too have a linux version

Motherfucker im not asking about alternatives, I cant disrupt the work flow with the guys I work for being "that retard with the penguin system"

I'm asking why isnt there anyone trying to make a wine-like for mac applications on a linux machine, that's it.

then just stop being the retard with the penguin system, or write some compatibility layer yourself.
and no, it's not easier for mac->linux because the use a different display server, gui libraries, etc
anyone with half a working brain could have figured that out within 2 minutes of looking that shit up

So does windows and yet here we are.

>Used Linux for ages, had to move away to use X and Y

That's why dual booting exists

because no on is interested in os x software or shitty ports of windows software to os x, but people are interested in some of the software for windows. until like 10 years ago apple almost didn't exist anymore, so no one cared about it. and now it's just a normal pc with shitty windows ports.

A lot of "professional" software exists for macOS though. Creative software (Adobe suite and CAD), as well as shit like Office. Since that's what most people using Wine want anyway, why wouldn't they try to build in macOS support when it will probably be much much easier than Windows which isn't even posix

Had it for a while but it really isnt practical enough, windoze still takes like 3 minutes to start up so fuck that shit.

>Creative software (Adobe suite and CAD), as well as shit like Office
all ported from windows and works with WINE
thats why no one cares about the macos versions.
and it's not the posix part that matters but the stuff i mentioned before.

use a windows VM and IOMMU to pass through a GPU and pin some CPU cores ?
thats what i do for windows only software that needs gpu acceleration.

Just install Hackintosh. That's what I did. All the benefits of Unix but it has apps and just werks. Everything fucking works on my machine including the bluetooth.

I don't know the answer.
If it was trivial, I would think it would have been done by now.
If it was trivial to port to BSD, a lot of people would jump ship to BSD really fast.

I suspect that the big problem lies in getting proprietary software to work.
It is always harder to get something to work when you don't know 100% how it should work in the first place.

Wine has existed for a long time and it is somewhat recent that it actually started to work without having you spend a lot of time to configure stuff and patch random dll's to get something to work.
I have recently played a game through wine and while it works most of the time, I cannot move the window without crashing the graphics and some times I have to alt+tab away and back to get the graphics to update.

But I agree, it would be cool to see more OSX software on linux.

Let's go through this step by step.

MacOS really isn't that much easier because while it's POSIX, all the libraries are different and they make up the majority of any compatibility layer effort.

Additionally, while it has it's own notable software, it doesn't have nearly as much as Windows and it's far less well known for that than Windows is.

Therefore WINE was created and MACWINE wasn't. Windows was undeniably the priority, if you could only have a compatibility layer for one of them, you'd choose Windows basically every time.

Now that we have WINE, there is even less reason to build another compatibility layer, the intersection of programs that run on neither Linux nor Windows is pretty small.

>works with WINE
Thats the point, they dont. The latest compatible version of photoshop is like cs5 or some ancient shit like that, rhino and other 3d apps (solidworks is one i use every blue moon), shit themselves when you move your mouse.

I also tried that but it was a pain in the ass to get it to work, has the setup been simplified since?

So it goes like this:
Outside of the general lack of interest, it would take pretty much the same effort to get the libraries to work on linux, right?
If someone out there would be madman enough to try it, the results would take pretty much the same effort as wine to get results?

>The latest compatible version of photoshop is like cs5
i tried CS6 like 3-4 years ago, worked like a charm

>has the setup been simplified since?
it's retard-proof now. you can even do it with a few clicks with virt-manager.

>If someone out there would be madman enough to try it, the results would take pretty much the same effort as wine to get results?
As far as I'm aware, yes. I suspect there may be fewer libraries, I was a Mac user for years and never noticed them having quite as much A: legacy bloat or B: general number of libraries and toolkits.

>all ported from Windows
Photoshop was initially exclusive to System/Mac OS

I doubt the current versions are made that way tho, and I certainly dont see adobe making the 2 versions simultaneously.

darlinghq.org/

get an SSD
rebooting from linux to windows takes me maximum 15secs, and thats counting the bootloader