Sure, but that was the 90s. Now everyone in the world is connected to the same network, and any security flaw can have critical, global consequences.

Basically, having a "wormable" build and deployment pipeline may have been tolerated back then, but it sure isn't now.

> and if you've been around and done enough, you would know that "unsupported" doesn't always mean "can't be done"

Yes, I'm sure it can be done.

> The ones who know it can will hack around, play and investigate, explore the limits, and ultimately become better developers

That's disingenuous. You only have so much time available, and you cannot do everything which is technically possible. You have to prioritize.

My free and underfunded open-source projects are going to invest the efforts I have capacity for into making a better product for the users, not learning all the ins and outs of running a pirated OS on hardware Apple clearly doesn't want it to run on.

Basically: My point was Apple is putting up lots of roadblocks which no other OS-vendor is, and that if they stopped doing that, maybe you'd see more projects bothering to support MacOS as a build-target.

And really... As a user, would you be happy to be told that the software you are asked to install and trust was built on a hacked OSX copy downloaded from the internet which the developer has no way of verifying if is trustworthy or not? I'm going to assume not.

So why are you making the argument that developers should do just that?