People on HN don't seem to like it when some other companies start their product from one platform.

Nor do they like it when they do support all platforms from day one via an Electron app...

People on HN don't like anything.

Other people on HN like some things.

Speaking of which, I'm a little shocked to see a Mozilla thread that doesn't yet mention Pocket or the rebranding or DoH. That must mean we are in a good mood?

We're busy prepping to argue about UBI at Thanksgiving dinner.

Oh man. Now I really want to tell the wife to turn the car around.

No, just too busy talking about Linux on desktop!

Look again.

When that platform is Mac, certainly. For some mysterious reason you don't see complaints about Linux-only utilities :)

you can virtualize linux, you cannot virtualize macos.

no, downloading sketchy images or hacking your virtualization software does not count.

> you cannot virtualize macos.

You can, and it’s licensed to.

Since Lion:

> (iii) to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software.

No hassle support page on VMware site:

https://kb.vmware.com/s/article/1000131

EDIT: Amusingly on topic with gist of thread above, anger about a dev tool launched for MacOS, this fact with citations from license and support page from VMware garnered instant down votes.

Well if you can only virtualize it on a computer that's already running macos I don't know how that's supposed to help.

You can virtualize on a PC. Whether you may or not, depends whether you believe you own software.

And how it helps when you do it on MacOS on Mac hardware is letting you do all the things you virtualize an OS for, from a fine GUI on a decent kernel.

> all the things you virtualize an OS for

One of the main things I "virtualize an OS for" is to use software that requires Platform A on a system that runs Platform B. Running "legit" (authorized) virtualized MacOS does not help me do that; I am only allowed to run Platform A on Platform A.

So you mean you gotta tinker/hack?

I think we'd just like to have it labelled "for Mac Only right now"

How about linux users?

You’ve got to accept the fact they want to collect feedback from other users first and not you.

From some users first, even if that doesn't include you

No, specifically him. I’ve heard talk. I dunno what he did but he should apologize already.

Extremely featureful debuggers such as this one tend to require a great deal of code that is hardware-specific, in addition to being OS-specific. I assume MacOS was targeted first because it's the platform with the greatest degree of hardware uniformity. I fully expect Linux support to materialize someday, but with the caveat that I expect it will only (officially) work with the most popular hardware.

That's right. The only way to have a performant recording is to capture the browser's OS system calls in the recording. This unfortunately makes the feature quite OS specific.

https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/toolkit/recordr...

Replay is currently in the user-research validation phase. We care about cross platform support and will prioritize it when we are ready to commit to the feature.

One would expect an organization dedicated to freedom to prioritize Linux support.

Mozilla has implemented DRM support in Firefox. I think Mozilla is more concerned with reducing dependence on nonfree software than supporting free software.

Just to clarify, I don't fault Mozilla for having that attitude, but that doesn't mean I prefer it. I would prefer that they prioritize FOSS platforms like Linux and \*BSD, as well as getting Firefox on platforms like Plasma Mobile, PostmarketOS, and other GNU/Linux-based mobile operating systems. Developer adoption is a necessary (but probably not sufficient) precondition for general adoption, which is why developing for these platforms is important even though they are new/unpopular.