Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple to Allow Virtual Mac OS X Server Instances

Posted by Zonk on from the server-in-a-server-in-a-server dept.

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.'"

14 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Before you get too excited... by kebes · · Score: 5, Informative
    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?)
    1. Re:Before you get too excited... by Scootin159 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    2. Re:Before you get too excited... by statusbar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
  2. Statement in article is incorrect by FranTaylor · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  3. Re:server? by domatic · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  4. Still only on Apple Hardware by GoRK · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:server? by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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)
    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  6. Re:server? by njfuzzy · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    My Photography - http://ian-x.com
    The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
  7. But still only on Apple hardware by TheDrewbert · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    http://www.CelloFourteGroupie.net
  8. Re:server? by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:server? by znu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).
    --
    This space unintentionally left unblank.
  10. Re:server? by ickoonite · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    :|

  11. Re:server? by vought · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  12. Re:server? by seabasstin · · Score: 3, Informative

    (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?

    --
    Content + Container; Content = Container; Content â Container... which is the question?