Slashdot Mirror
The Prospects For Virtualizing OS X
seriouslywtf writes in with a look at the current state of the question: will people eventually be able to run Mac OS X in a virtual machine, either on the Mac or under Windows? Ars Technica has articles outlining the positions of two VM vendors, Parallels and VMWare. Both have told Ars unequivocally that they won't enable users to virtualize OS X until Apple explicitly gives them the thumbs up. First, Parallels: "'We won't enable this kind of functionality until Apple gives their blessing for a few reasons,' Rudolph told Ars. 'First, we're concerned about our users — we are never going to encourage illegal activity that could open our users up to compromised machines or any sort of legal action. This is the same reason why we always insist on using a fully-licensed, genuine copy of Windows in a virtual machine — it's safer, more stable, fully supported, and completely legal.'" And from VMWare: "'We're very interested in running Mac OS X in a virtual machine because it opens up a ton of interesting use cases, but until Apple changes its licensing policy, we prefer to not speculate about running Mac OS X in a virtualized environment,' Krishnamurti added."
Apple's software license for OS X says that you can only run it on Apple hardware.
Actually, looking here http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/, the phrase is "This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time."
So it sounds like if you write "Apple" on a Post It and stick to your PC, you can virtualize away.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
No matter how vmware & parallels dress it up, the problem here is not legality, but fear of reprisals from Apple.
This statement brings to mind images of young casually dressed men and women storming their offices with gayly decorated weapons with rainbow Apple logos and shouting grammatically incorrect and utterly meaningless slogans that nevertheless get great press and everyone forgets about it by three days out because they're too busy writing op-ed pieces on the relative social and economic costs and benefits of trying to break up Microsoft again.
Well, it did.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Yes, but in Soviet Russia, Apple's trademark violates YOU!
<.<
>.>
*runs*
"Gratuitous complexity is akin to chaos" - True Vox
How about if I cut off a corner of the plastic on an old PowerMac 7300 and bond it with epoxy to the case of a Dell Optiplex? In particular, I would prefer it be the corner of the PowerMac 7300 case where the Apple branded logo is set.
It also wouldn't be difficult at all to put a fast current x86 motherboard into an old Beige PowerMac case. Say, one of the later ones, a 7300 or 7500, all set up nicely with slots for PCI bus cards....
'We're very interested in running Mac OS X in a virtual machine because it opens up a ton of interesting use cases, but until Apple changes its licensing policy, we prefer to not speculate about running Mac OS X in a virtualized environment,'
Means: "we have it running in the lab."
you had me at #!
I took that to mean that I can only install it on one Apple-labeled computer at a time, but as many non-apple computers as i want.
Or maybe if you set the PC on top of an Apple you're okay...
How about if I cut *an* apple in half and stick *that* on my PC?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Look, teh Steve says pre-OSX is dead. Along with that goes the rainbow (except it isn't a rainbow, is it? Just ask Roy G. Biv).
Most of my rainbow Macs are stacked in the garage, in fact only two of the "beige generation" are in the house. Everything else has monochrome apples.
Not if you aren't selling it or trying to convince people that it's a real Apple.
Actually, the //e was toast after the first wash.