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."
It seems to me the article is talking more about the legality of doing it, not the possibility.
Although the article does talk about the 'legality' of running OS X on non-Mac PCs, it would seem to me that there is nothing illegal about this whatsoever (as long as you've purchased your copy of OS X, you should be able to do what you like with it).
No matter how vmware & parallels dress it up, the problem here is not legality, but fear of reprisals from Apple.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
at WWDC 2006, explaining that we would pay extra for Mac OS X Server, if it were possible to run it under VMware ESX. The ability to run Mac OS X (Server or otherwise) under Fusion or Parallels Desktop or even VMWare/Parallels Workstation would also provide a strategic advantage and encourage us to maintain our subscription levels (well over 400 seats today).
Would "virtualizable" OS X lead to piracy? Probably. But as with most piracy, it would not necessarily impact actual sales. Pirates steal things they wouldn't have ever paid for anyway...
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
Most people who use OS X for any time at all love it. Why not give everybody a chance to love it? Why not let developers get a taste for the development tools without buying a new system? What do you think their next computer purchase will look like?
They could work with VMWare to create an appropriately DRMed player if they are that paranoid about piracy. VMWare already has their ACE platform that could probably be extended to include some sort of virtual TPM.
Offer OS X as a bundle with a specially modified VMWare player. Let 90% of PC users see what they've been missing. I bet any piracy will be dwarfed by the gains in market share.
The best case scenario I see for Apple would be for some smart cookie to write a minimal Linux distro that boots up VMWare and OS X inside--a poor man's OS X if you will. Users of such a configuration are likely to be the geeks. They'll start learning ObjC and Cocoa and maybe increase the platform's worth. Even if some geeks are content to run an unsupported configuration like this, and *never* purchase a proper Mac, they'll be a force for conversion and software development.
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
When you buy a book, you own a copy of the story; when you buy an audio CD, you own a copy of the songs stored on it; when you buy a data CD, you own a copy of the programs stored on it. "Copy" refers to a tangible medium on which the information is stored. Whether or not you have the rights to make any further copies (which would be governed by the EULA, or in this case by an exemption to copyright law), you still own a copy.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
The Mac OS X EULA says you can only run the software on Apple hardware.
I don't get it.
If I run Firefox on an XP virtual machine running on Apple hardware, then that instance of Firefox *IS* running on Apple hardware; it uses Apple memory and CPU in order to do its thing.
If I run OSX in a virtual machine running on Apple hardware then OSX *IS* running on Apple hardware, surely this is the end of the story?
Unless Apple *specifically* exclude virtualisation, I think its a red herring.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.