As we know, Adobe no longer develops new Flash versions for Linux (except for Google Chrome, i know). It does, however, develop actively Flash for Windows and Mac.

Linux can run native Windows applications through Wine. It sure can be awkward, tricky and faulty sometimes - but often it is quite possible.

Taking into account that Linux is much more similar to Mac than Windows, I suppose Linux should be able to run native Mac applications at least as well as Windows applications?

For example, why can't Linux run new Adobe Flash for Mac?

  • I don't think this is on-topic. Mods?
    – William
    Apr 27, 2015 at 13:06
  • @WilliamD.Edwards Explain me why. The question depends strongly on the fact that both Linux and Mac stem from the same Unix foundation. So a more general question like Why can't Linux run Mac applications seems to be on topic for me. And this is just a special case of this more general question.
    – gaazkam
    Apr 27, 2015 at 13:13
  • 1
    You may want to edit your question to rephrase it substantially. Your question actually have very little to do with flash and has more to do with why there isn't an equivalent for WINE but for running Mac OS X applications.
    – Bratchley
    Apr 27, 2015 at 13:44
  • 1
    But fwiw I think someone was working on something like that called "Darling." It wasn't stable yet. The task is probably just as big as windows. OS X being Unix probably makes it theoretically similar, but there's still an API that needs to be implemented and helper applications written. Being Unix-like just means it probably won't vary from the "Unix" standard in a way that's deemed "un-Unix" which all OS's (including both GNU/Linux and OS X) do to some degree. Very few OS's are 100% compatible. There are even big differences between the proprietary Unix platforms.
    – Bratchley
    Apr 27, 2015 at 13:52
  • 1
    What @Bratchley said. If you think this kind of emulation is easy, you're in for a world of pain. Heck, there are significant differences even between different distributions of Linux for the same architecture (think systemd vs. non-systemd).
    – lcd047
    Apr 27, 2015 at 15:06

1 Answer 1



  • Different executable format (Mach-O vs ELF)
  • Different runtime environment ABI (e.g. libSystem vs. glibc)
  • Different core frameworks (e.g. AppKit vs. GTK+/Qt)

Darling can run OS X binaries on Linux, but as it is still a one-man show, it's not progressing as fast as one would wish.

Yes, in many ways, developing Darling is simpler than developing Wine. OS X builds on a ton of open source libraries (i.e. it is enough to recompile them under a different ABI), whereas Windows does not.

  • 1
    An hyperlink for Darling would be helpful in your answer Feb 18, 2016 at 13:11
  • Link added (but it's the first link on Google for "darling os x" anyway).
    – LubosD
    Feb 19, 2016 at 14:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .