Apple to Allow Virtual Mac OS X Server Instances

Glenn Fleishman writes "Apple has changed its license for Mac OS X Server 10.5 (Leopard Server) to allow virtualized instances. VMware and Parallels are poised to offer support. This probably presages a thoroughly overhauled Xserve product with greater capability for acting as a virtual machine server, too. 'Ben Rudolph, Director of Corporate Communications for Parallels, told me, "Enabling Leopard Server to run in a virtual machine may take some time, but we're working closely with Apple on it and will make it public as quickly as possible." Pat Lee, Product Manager at VMware, concurred, saying "We applaud Apple for the exciting licensing changes implemented in Leopard Server. Apple customers can now run Mac OS X Server, Windows, Linux and other x86 operating systems simultaneously on Apple hardware so we are excited about the possibilities this change presents." Although neither company committed to specific features or timetables, it appears as though we should be seeing virtualization products from both that will enable an Xserve to run multiple copies of Leopard Server in virtual machines.'"

Comments

Before you get too excited...

[kebes]

Note that this change means that you can run multiple copies of OS X server on a single physical machine... as long as that machine is Apple-branded hardware. They are not permitting you to run OS X Server in an arbitrary virtual environment on arbitrary x86 hardware. The new license reads:

This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Mac OS X Server software (the "Mac OS X Server Software") on a single Apple-labeled computer. You may also install and use other copies of Mac OS X Server Software on the same Apple-labeled computer, provided that you acquire an individual and valid license from Apple for each of these other copies of Mac OS X Server Software.

(emphasis added)

That having been said, I have to wonder whether people will attempt to side-step this restriction. Once OS X Server and virtual solutions (like VMWare) are tweaked so as to allow easy virtualization, one would imagine it would be easy to move the virtual image to different (not Apple-branded) hardware. Then again, perhaps part of this collaboration with VMWare and Parallels is specifically to have hooks that will allow OS X Server to verify that the physical hardware is a genuine Apple machine.

Or maybe it's not a major concern, since the target market for OS X Server is large-scale businesses that typically abide by software license agreements. (Or am I being naive?)

Re:Before you get too excited...

[domatic]

I've never seen any reason for Apple to disallow virtualization on their own hardware. There's been times I could have used it myself. I used to run Linux on a Pismo Powerbook and used MOL for those times I needed OS X. It ran really well too. But no soap doing that with an Intel Mac. It just takes hooks so that even a virtual OS X can make the Apple hardware checks. They really need to extend this to the client OSes as well. I have and like an Intel MacBook but would rather mimic my old Pismo setup. It isn't an option currently and no I don't want a VMWare hackintosh under Linux I like things like Software Update working correctly.

Re:Before you get too excited...

[Scootin159]

Apple-labeled computer? So I only need to put an Apple sticker on my computer?

Re:Before you get too excited...

[statusbar]

The reason I have been wishing for mac os x support in vm's (but not server support!) is because I hate that when I bought a new laptop it came with tiger and panther would not install on it. So if I wanted to sell a program that is validated to work on panther, I had to keep old hardware around that would run panther. Same issue now with leopard and tiger. If I could run the o/s in a vm like I do with windows 2000, xp, and vista, then I'd be able to validate the software for all the o/s's easily. Even win98 if I had to, even without an old computer that could still run it.

jeffk

Re:Before you get too excited...

[TheRaven64]

Great! My copy of Leopard came with two Apple stickers!

Expected

[MBCook]

I've been wondering if they would allow this for a while. My idea was Apple would allow it, but only when the host system is Apple hardware (possibly running an Apple OS as the host OS). That way you could run 10 copies of OS X Server on your XServe, that would be OK with them. But you couldn't run copies of OS X Server on your Dell.

That seems like the Apple solution to the problem to me. You can do what you want, but under our slightly restrictive policies that wouldn't be a problem for many people (but others won't like).

Statement in article is incorrect

[FranTaylor]

In the story John Walsh says that virtual machines are more important in Windows. It's just as important with Linux. Much commercial Linux software requires a distribution that you probably don't want to run on your machine. With virtualization, it's no problem.

It's not clear to me what problem is being solved by having virtual OSX.

Re:Statement in article is incorrect

[Bill_the_Engineer]

It's not clear to me what problem is being solved by having virtual OSX.

Availability

Imagine having an instance of an OSX operating system running on a rack of XServers. Now imagine that particular XServer getting bogged down by another OSX instance, or worse beginning to show signs of failing. By having instances of OSX running on virtuallized servers (especially on identical hardware), that particular instance of OSX can migrate to a better performing XServer within the rack without the software or the users of the instance realizing that a change has been made. Other than some latency due to the migration.

Wow I talked about migrating virtual operating systems twice in one week, this is an omen...

Re:server?

[domatic]

In house Software Update for one. I have one copy of OS X Server installed on a machine for that. Even though I happily serve Macs reliably and affordably with Linux, OS X Server is pretty much turnkey for serving Macs and makes an OK server for Windows. Correctly configured, Linux (or a BSD) can mimic OS X Server (minus the update server) but it isn't all that easy getting there.

Still only on Apple Hardware

[GoRK]

It would be important to note in the summary that they seem to be allowing virtualized 10.5 server but still only if you do it on Apple-branded hardware and only if you buy licenses for each instance. It is kind of strange considering that the users who need this sort of thing are also the users who are quite good about being license compliant. A lot of these people who are asking for this are ready to deploy virtual Xserves right on top of existing VMWare ESX clusters today if it were simply ALLOWED. I can't really see the justification from a piracy concern standpoint or honestly even from the standpoint of losing hardware sales on the Xserve line.

What they really ought to allow is desktop OS X to be virtualized on top of apple hardware (ie run OS X VM's on xserve clusters) and allow OS X server to be virtualized on top of non-apple hardware. Not allowing this is really going to hurt their server business over the next few years I suspect. I also think that virtual desktop instances of OS X would be a very appealing way forward for the education market. I think Apple is enjoying its last days of lock-in in schools and having really NO computing product that is purpose built for education will probably make them slip soon.

Re:server?

[Jeremi]

Seriously, what does an apple server offer over linux? Are there any advantages?

I can think of several possible advantages:

1. Apple's GUIs are (thought to be) better quality and easier to use than those of Linux. People who are uncomfortable running/admining a Linux box (read: don't want to RTFM) are often more familiar with MacOS/X.
2. Apple's hardware is of good quality, and just as importantly it is a known quantity -- when you get an Apple box, you can be sure that it will have all the necessary audio/video/network drivers installed and working. If you buy a generic PC and install Linux on it, you sometimes run into trouble getting the networking to work, or the video drivers to display your preferred screenmode, or the audio hardware to be recognized, or etc. This isn't due to any inherent superiority on Apple's part, it's merely because Apple's OS people work together with Apple's hardware people more closely than the Linux people work together with the various PC hardware manufacturers. That said, it saves a lot of hassle. (yes, even in 2007 -- as I type, our tech support guy is spending a lot of time and effort trying to convince Ubuntu Feisty Faun to display 1600x1200 graphics on a rackmount PC with an Intel graphics chipset... you'd think this stuff would have been worked out by now, but apparently not)

Re:server?

[njfuzzy]

We had an XServe at a previous (small) employer, mostly for testing, but it seemed like a very slick implementation. Things like monitoring, remote configuration, and so forth were all managed very slickly. It meant less time farting around with the server. It also provides Apple's proprietary software and protocols, and a good package of standards-complient stuff set up to be easier to use. Plus it is (when updated) a nice, powerful, well-engineered 1U box, that compares favorably in pricing to the competitors.

But still only on Apple hardware

[TheDrewbert]

It would be more interesting if I could run virtualized OSX server on my quad-processor AMD boxes alongside Linux and Server2003.

"greater capability as a virtual machine server"?

[SuperBanana]

This probably presages a thoroughly overhauled Xserve product with greater capability for acting as a virtual machine server, too.

Huh? The current Xserve supports 3 SATA drives, 32GB of memory in 8 slots, and redundant power. Oh yeah, and 4 processor cores. Far as I know, all recent Xeon processors support intel virtualization features.

Regardless- I don't think you'll see Apple kowtowing to the virtualization fetish. Beyond the usual desktop virtualization needs, I don't think Apple's target audience for the Xserve needs this capability.

Let's all take a step back and realize that the current base Xserve is THREE GRAND and pretty damn bare-bones for that price-point; that does include OS X server unlimited, but yeeeeeesh- that's still almost $2k. I'm the first to argue that Apple's hardware isn't as overpriced as everyone claims, but this is one notable exception. It doesn't even include basic hardware RAID capabilities- you have to buy a (inserts pinky into mouth) ONE THOUSAND DOLLAR proprietary raid card to do hardware raid! Jeeeeesus christ, even the cheapest 1U boxen support BASIC raid, typically, or it's a $100-200 option...

Re:server?

[nine-times]

Also, if Leopard server offers Time Machine, it could make for a very good document server. Versioning (via Time Machine) and good indexing (via spotlight).

I mean, ultimately, if you can do it on OSX you can do it on Linux. But sometimes Apple has a nice/slick implementation.

Re:server?

[Knara]

What's the point of caring if a rackmount server runs 1600x1200?

Re:server?

[znu]

Most other things, like the Directory, are based on open standards like LDAP and Kerberos (real Kerberos, not Windows brain-damaged kerberos).

Yes, but with OS X Server you can set up e.g. network home directories for Mac clients with a couple of clicks, and manage everything through a very straightforward interface. While you can technically do all of the same stuff on Linux with an LDAP server, etc. it's going to take a sufficiently large amount of work that the time your IT guys will spend on it is probably worth more than it would cost to buy a copy of OS X Server (and probably a Mac to run it on).

exciting license

[lordholm]

"We applaud Apple for the exciting licensing changes"

Is it just me? But I hardly find a license change exciting, not even the the slightest bit. They should really send the PR person who wrote this to a shrink or a psychiatrist.

*cough*

[msimm]

Okay, I might concede point 1 depending how robust their server management tools are. But point 2 is stupid. While the quality of hardware/drivers argument might hold up with commodity PC, *if* you're going to compare server hardware to server hardware I think you're moving into more even footing. Sun, HP and even Dell's mid-range and up is solidly built and adequately tested to provide reliability on par or even surpassing anything cooked up in Cupertino.

As for your relatively irrelevant point about the problems your admin is having 1) why isn't that server headless anyway 2) and why would he be running what should be considered a beta server distro outside of testing/sandbox?

Re:server?

[jsz0]

The big thing OSX Server has going is the wonderful GUI management tools Apple provides. There's nothing like it for Windows or Linux -- it literally takes 2 or 3 clicks to setup something like Apache, SQL, Samba, etc. I'm not switching from Linux anytime soon but I can definitely understand the appeal of OSX Server -- especially in environments where you already have Macs.

Re:server?

[ickoonite]

All your points are rubbish...

I rarely respond to Cowards, much less those who start out as you did, but your post betrays such a serious misunderstanding - that someone who runs a server must RTFM in order to get it to work. Why does a server need a special somebody to tend to it, pamper it, water it every now and then? Why can't one just buy a server, switch it on and let it get on with doing what it is supposed to do? I understand that IT departments have a vested interest in self-preservation, but truth be told, Apple demonstrates that IT doesn't have to be complicated and that, in particular, a server can be something that normal people can use.

:|

Re:server?

[King_TJ]

No... those points aren't rubbish at all, in my estimation.

I work as a sysadmin and yes, I have Linux servers here too.

The fact is, though, many things in Linux involve not only a "RTFM" - but "FTFMS" (as in find the f'ing manuals), scattered all over the net. Because Linux is free and developed by "anyone, anywhere" - you run into the classic problem of developers who aren't very good technical writers. In a commercial business, this is handled by having their writers do the writing. With open-source, it often means the job either doesn't get done at all, or gets done poorly by the developer him/herself. Then, users try to patch up the missing documentation with wikki's, message forums, and other online resources, where you can get piecemeal suggestions and fixes for your issues (with hours of digging).

As just one example, I have a Linux web proxy server set up here. I wanted to add "dansguardian" to it, so it would do filtering of sites people have no business visiting while working. Sure, dansguardian has a "manual" for it, but it goes on and on with minutia about how changing various integer values in the config files increases or decreases the likelihood of it flagging a site for too much "bad content". In reality, all I wanted were some good, real-world "starting values" appropriate for a business environment full of adults. (We're not a school, so we can handle some curse words on our web pages. BUT, we don't want people browsing porn sites either. Blocking as many malicious script type sites as possible would be a big plus too.) To do this (plus downloading the latest blacklists of sites on a regular basis) required a lot more reading, and my best info came from a blog some guy wrote in his spare time.

Time is money, and if I can reconfigure some rarely-modified server setting in a few seconds, rather than hours of poring over manuals and/or configuration files, the GUI wins out. Meanwhile, the overhead of having some GUI menus is really not significant for a server these days.... Maybe back when a 286 processor was "state of the art", that was a valid point. But currently? You don't even need to stay logged in on the server 90% of the time when it's sitting there serving up data, so how can the GUI be affecting much of anything at that point? Even when you do sign on to the server locally, look at your CPU usage. The fact the GUI is there isn't much of a performance hit at all. Moving your mouse around is likely to use more CPU than anything else (sometimes as much as 8% or so in spikes). But you're not playing a mouse-based video game here... You're just clicking through a few screens. It's a brief usage spike, which users shouldn't even notice.

Re:server?

[Constantine XVI]

Going by Apple's website, it doesn't appear that Server supports Time Machine. It does, however, have Spotlight Server.

Re:server?

[morgan_greywolf]

Assuming you are serving a lot of Macs, yes. In general, though, most large companies are not, and for the few Macs they have in, say, the marketing department, using one of the pre-canned NAS appliances (most of which run Linux) will get them the exact same thing, and probably in a more cost effective manner.

Re:I'm sure someone can come up with a feature lis

[argent]

How is this different from the Microsoft Windows tax imposed on all OEMs even if they ship Linux?

1. You have to pay the Windows Tax even if you're not buying a device made by Microsoft (such as an XBox).
2. You don't have to pay the Mac Tax unless you're buying a device made by Apple (such as a Macintosh).
3. If you're not interested in running OS X, why the hell are you buying Apple's grotty kit?

Mixed platform environment...

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming you are serving a lot of Macs, yes. In general, though, most large companies are not, and for the few Macs they have in, say, the marketing department, using one of the pre-canned NAS appliances (most of which run Linux) will get them the exact same thing, and probably in a more cost effective manner. OS X sever is perfectly capable of providing network services to Windows or Linux clients in a mixed-platform environment. I seriously doubt that Linux is somehow vastly superior in that regard, especially if you factor in the administration effort involved.

Re:server?

[tdknox]

Most, if not all, of Apple's "proprietary" protocols are open standards. Which particular proprietary protocols are you referring to? I can't think of anything.

Re:The problem VMware and others might face...

[TheRaven64]

Any half-decent server virtualisation tool will use emulated devices for booting at most. After that, it will switch to using paravirtualised devices. These will use device drivers written by the VM provider with an interface designed to have very low overheads. OS X has had a stable driver API for some years, so this really shouldn't be a problem.

Re:server?

[Jeremi]

That's unfortunate that you have a customer who is dumb.

No, we have a customer that would like to use the bog-standard equipment they paid for. That's not a lot to ask.

Tho, it's *native* resolution is 1600x1200? Talk about cruisin for a bruisin. You sure the videocard even supports that video mode? Sure it, should, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it didn't.

Why is 1600x1200 such a difficult requirement in 2007? As far as whether the video card supports it, the same hardware was working fine at 1600x1200 under SUSE 10.x several months ago, then we decided (for various unrelated reasons) to upgrade to Ubuntu, and now we have this problem.

I stand by my statement, though. Getting a monitor to work at high res on a server should be waayyyyyat the bottom of the "things that matter in any way whatsoever" list, since any reasonably smart admin is going to be utilizing a remote connnection anyway.

This server won't have a "reasonably smart admin" available, that is the point. The server will not be connected to the Internet for security reasons (it controls audio at a theme park), so any administration will be done by the customer, possibly with our tech people answering questions over the phone. If the server was an Apple machine, our job would have been done several days ago because everything would have "just worked" out of the box. It doesn't much matter whether YOU think it's important or not, it's important in this application and while Linux should be able to do handle this application easily, it's currently not doing so.

Re:server?

[vought]

If you mean Appletalk, NT does that.

AppleTalk is quite dead.

AFP over IP isn't proprietary. Sad to see how many people here still think there's something "different" about Macs on a network.

Re:server?

[seabasstin]

(also PHP, Perl and Python runs seamlessly on Linux rather than on Mac, I mean PHP or Perl or Java is well TESTED on Linux rather than on Mac).

What the hell are you talking about?

PHP PERL PYTHON and all your linux and most Unix server software has been running perfectly in OSX since the day it was released.
every single mac install comes with apache, php, perl and python installed by default.
Mysql is one click away as well.

Furthermore most software that needed to be recompiled to run on the power architecture doesn't need to be anymore as an apple server is just another x86 server.

Most developers who I work with on major web projects using PHP/Mysql/postgres/Oracle/Python/Ruby do all their work in OSX, with some compatibility testing on windows, not much on Linux. (iVillage, BlackPlanet, VH1, MTV, Coke, L'oreal, Nickolodeon, Scolastic, etc) This is to their advantage because they can use all vi or emacs on the command line, they can use all opensource tools, as well as subetha, bbedit, etc, but then they can have MSword, excel and all the garbage that production managers/account execs send them as well, without using some clanky converter software.

further down your post:
How many really bother whether Linux is an OFFICIAL UNIX or not

Why should it matter if its an official Unix?
Well for starters because it means that most applications and application frameworks from any other Unix system can run on osx, either with a recompile or directly if from another x86 based Unix; again obviating your ignorant argument about Linux being the ONLY server.

Second because any Unix admin can open an osx command line and will feel at home, as he would on Solaris, AIX, IRIX, Unixware, etc.

All I care is it should be scalable, secure and supports major application frameworks and databases. Exactly, which is what OsX does. its scalable, you can form a grid system in a few clicks or command line commands, it supports every major framework as all the other Unix systems do, and it runs mySQL, Postgres, Oracle, DB2, and any other unix compatible open source database .

Nothing can replace Linux in the server market, but there is a great chance that Linux can exceed market share of Mac OS X
OsX might not be the most popular server for sure, but Linux market share in that market is DECLINING, not increasing:
http://enterpriselinuxlog.blogs.techtarget.com/2007/08/28/the-server-market-share-battle-microsoft-gains-2/
http://www.geekpedia.com/news193_Linux-server-market-share-plummeting.html
http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/184429419
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/48999.html

on desktop (I think Linux already exceeds Mac OS X in market share)
Hugh, dood... come on alright:
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/newsanalysis/techhardware/10385313.html
and the money is showing the opposite as well here:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/10/22/apple-q407-financials-triumph-of-the-steve


how did this post get a 5 -- are you kidding me? what is informative about it?