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.'"

The problem VMware and others might face...

The problem VMware and others face in getting Mac OS X up an running in a VM is that the OS might not support the hardware they're emulating. Work that out an they'll have to OS up and running in no time.

Xen and non-Apple Hardware

I think it would be just as well if Apple ported the kernel to Xen and allowed it to be run on a Dom0 and additionally was allowed to run on non-Apple hardware.

Before you get too excited...

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...

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...

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

Expected

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

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.

Still only on Apple Hardware

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.

But still only on Apple hardware

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

Damn! Almost excited...

Now if only they can rug up a means to run OSX (Not the server version) on Non-Apple hardware... such a tease!

(I know, I know - but while I'm dreaming and all, I'd like a pony).

/P

"greater capability as a virtual machine server"?

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...

This could be good...

While AAPL wouldn't allow it, it opens the possibility of running OSX in a VM on a PC.

There's a new marketing plan that Apple should consider... Offer OSX to PC owners with a stripped-down version of Linux and an emulator, and Apple could get away with not having to support a myriad of hardware & their associated drivers...

But, alas, Stevie J. is too full of himself to consider what the consumers want...

exciting license

"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.

Pity, no good for developers

This - alas - doesn't solve the need for developers to have access to Mac OS X for testing and porting their apps. Especially OSS developers, who may not want to fork out for a mac just for testing.

With luck Apple will at some point release a developer-only Mac OS X client OS (perhaps one without all the apps it normally comes with etc, just a barebones OS) for testing apps. They'd still face some risk people would use it for other things, but people who do so are likely to want to jump to real Apple gear anyway.

I'm not holding my breath, of course, since I value my life.

Go tell it to Apple

I am SOOOO sick of folks being so sure that Apple should bless MacOS X on generic PCs.

Do you all honestly think that the folks at Apple are entirely congenital idjits?

(I know, it wouldn't be /. if 99% of the posters weren't convinced their 30 seconds gloss on any random topic didn't give them profound insights those investing their professional careers on a subject astonishingly oblivious to...)

Perhaps, just perhaps, Apple has run the numbers.

Indeed, possibly, Apple actually HAS the numbers to run and so, after looking over their numbers, and considering their financial model, and the state of the market, they've managed to determine MacOS-on-* might NOT be in their best interest?

Because going on (and on, and on) about your deepest fanboy wishes on /. & like sites doesn't seem to be impressing the folks at Apple.

So, instead of telling the rest of us this again & again how you think Apple should do things how about putting together a nice presentation for them and see how far you get. Now, to be honest I don't think J. Random Know-It-All is gonna tell them anything they don't already know (probably better then you do) but please, go ahead, stop blathering on about how you're right and they're wrong and try and convince THEM.

'Cause saying it over and over again here is just a waste of electrons.

Ludicrous

The notion that Apple (or any software vendor) has any say in this whatsoever is disgusting.

Re:server?

It supports Apple's proprietary server protocols for serving to other Macs....

Re:server?

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.

Re:server?

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).

Re:server?

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?

I don't know, and with this quote, I suspect, neither do they!

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.

Seriously - you can already run these on Apple hardware already (sans virtualization). The word "change" doesn't not apply here.

Re:server?

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.

Re:Virtual DRM?

You think I'm not serious? They say the virtual machines will only run on Apple hardware. How are they going to enforce that?

Re:server?

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?

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?

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?

Much better GUI, it is vetted as official UNIX while Linux is not, and enterprise customers may have more faith in Apple as opposed to a much smaller company like RedHat to be able to support a massive service agreement. Furthermore Apple is also beginning to come out with integrated, enterprise level software. That makes Apple a more integrated enterprise solution going forward than Linux is.

Re:server?

The tools for administering the system are -- I'm told, by IT people who work on both Macs and non-Macs -- pretty slick. It means one person can monitor, control, and update hundreds of machines at a time.

Other systems have methods for doing this, of course. But the people I know who do this are much happier with the Mac OS X Server Tools than the stuff available for Windows and Linux.

Re:server?

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?

Seriously, what does an apple server offer over linux? Are there any advantages? Perhaps if you're doing cross-platform development, it could open up a way to build Mac binaries with a lot more ease than having to install cross-compilers and all.

Re:server?

This is a very good question. My take is that it depends heavily on company size and resources. A small company with fairly limited IT needs may do quite well with an XServe, as the management is designed to be extremely simplified.

Obviously, if the admins are already comfortable with linux, need customization of services, and want popular extensibility, XServe is probably not the way to go.

I think that if I were to migrate a company from a hosting plan to owning their first server (my actual situation), I definitely prefer the XServe, since when the #### hits the fan, and I don't have a rollover machine, I'd feel more comfortable getting the GUI running and restore the system, compared to desperately working with config files. Again, this has a lot to do with learning curve, and I'm sure a linux user would say the exact opposite! : )

Other recommendation? Thoughts or advice?

Re:cheaper OS X Server hosting perhaps?

I'm sure someone would be glad to provide that service for a 1000% premium or so.

Liscense cost of adding another Linux/BSD VM:$0
Stick in on any beige box.
Admin cost for provider---~zero, provides common image, your problem after that for the most part.

Xserve OTOH...

Re:server?

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

Same thing a Windows server does. Ease of use and better integration, *especially* if you have a network full of Macs.