VirtualBox Beta Supports OS X As Guest OS On Macs 154
Posted
by
kdawson
from the macs-on-macs-oh-my dept.
from the macs-on-macs-oh-my dept.
milesw writes "In addition to a slew of new features, VirtualBox 3.2.0 Beta 1 offers experimental support for Mac OS X guests running on Apple hardware. Got to wonder whether Larry Ellison discussed this with Steve Jobs beforehand, given Apple's refusal to allow virtualizing their (non-server) OS."
OSX on Vmware (Score:5, Insightful)
OS X has been working for quite some time on VMWare with a Windows/Linux host. It's been even hacked to work with AMD processors on the host, so from a technical standpoint, nothing new.
Frankly, I'm getting really tired of all the artificial limitations that Jobs is placing left and right for developers and consumers alike. A bit offtopic, but yesterday I realized that while quicktime pro can export to MP4 as well as MOV, if you want to use H264, you need to use the MOV container. Why? When Microsoft did that with WMA vs MP3, people complained. Loudly.
Re:OSX on Vmware (Score:5, Informative)
A bit offtopic, but yesterday I realized that while quicktime pro can export to MP4 as well as MOV, if you want to use H264, you need to use the MOV container. Why?
That's not true at all. I have QuickTime Pro right here. When I choose "export" from the file menu, you can choose to export to an MP4 file. When you click "options", you can set the codec to H264. Here's a screenshot [kicks-ass.org].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Doesn't work for me in Windows... sorry, I really didn't mean to sound trollish.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell this to the people that produce movies in quicktime format that require quicktime. Until then, I still have to use QT. *
* Although some media players can play that codec it seems, besides QT, but not always reliably for some reason...
A billion encoders (Score:2)
Please tell this to the people that produce movies in quicktime format that require quicktime
Not to encode...
There are at least a lot of open source h.264 encoders, why not just use one of them?
Re: (Score:2)
> There are at least a lot of open source h.264 encoders, why not just use one of them?
Because if you are a business, you are opening yourself to getting sued all the way into bankruptcy.
Anyone can implement any patented algorithm and release the code as open source (hell, we all know it is impossible to write even "Hello World" without infringing on patents), but just because somebody wrote the code and it is out there, and maybe nobody has not been sued yet, that doesn't mean anyone using or distributi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think there is no risk that Europe will get software patents some day you are either incredibly optimistic or incredibly naive.
Re: (Score:2)
>> There are at least a lot of open source h.264 encoders, why not just use one of them?
>
> Because if you are a business, you are opening yourself to getting sued all the way into bankruptcy.
Then you use one of the many proprietary alternatives indicated by the existence of the Free Software one.
The point being that the Apple-only gear is hardly required by anyone.
The idea that it is, is just clueless fanboy nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Because if you are a business, you are opening yourself to getting sued all the way into bankruptcy.
Fine, then use any number of commercial encoders! There are a ton of choices, but the REALITY is that many people use software like FFMPEG today to encode h.264 videos that Quicktime plays back just fine. The thought that you need to encode using Quicktime, ever, is absurd!
patents (Score:2)
This shows how the only way the world manages to deal with the insanity that is so called "intellectual property [cat-v.org]
I agree. However they include a quote by Thomas Jefferson, who started out as opposing patents. His friend James Madison convinced him patents could encourage progress though, and Jefferson eventually took out some patents himself. Jefferson was the one who determined how long patents should last, using actuary or Life [wikipedia.org] tables he calculated they should last 14 years with one 14 year extension p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
QuickTime in Windows is an exercise in masochism.
Re: (Score:2)
A bit offtopic, but yesterday I realized that while quicktime pro can export to MP4 as well as MOV, if you want to use H264, you need to use the MOV container.
That's very odd. I can definitely export to H.264 + AAC in an MP4 container. Maybe it's because I'm still using Leopard (or QuickTime 7.6.6) ?
Re: (Score:2)
I tried the Windows version... (so yeah, it's my fault) :)
Re: (Score:2)
Just rename the .MOV to .MP4. The formats are practically identical - the MPEG-4 group chose Apple's MOV format for that basis of the MP4 fo
Re:OSX on Vmware (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I'm getting really tired of all the artificial limitations that Jobs is placing left and right for developers and consumers alike
I read your other posts, and it's not that you sound trollish or anything, just that you have your own experience, which as it turns out isn't what it's supposed to be and not Apple's fault. But I quoted you because it is becoming extremely trendy to bash Apple for jealously protecting their IP. It is difficult for one to separate personal preference or bias from the truth of the matter when trying to make a global evaluation of a company using a few gripes repeated ad infinitum by the uninformed. It's not an artificial limitation that Apple is employing. Or rather, it's no more artificial than Windows requiring a key. But Apple's money comes from hardware, and by restricting their software to only run on their hardware, by any means, they are creating a consumer insentive to buy their hardware. To quote the insane and immoral tyrant himself, "it's as simple as that."
Re: (Score:2)
it's no more artificial than Windows requiring a key.
I would disagree with you there. There's a huge difference between saying 'you can only use our software if you purchase it legally' and 'you can only use our software if it's on our hardware'. If their hardware was different and they didn't want to do extra work to make OS X run on non-mac hardware, fine. But it isn't anymore. There's really no difference between a mac and a high end Dell. The _only reason_ you can't run OS X on a Dell is because Steve Jobs says so. For some reason nobody defends Microsoft
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's really no difference between a mac and a high end Dell.
There is a big difference, they both make money on hardware. Apple makes software too though whereas Dell doesn't. Once upon a tyme Apple did allow Mac clones [wikipedia.org] but Apple lost money on them.
Falcon
Apple's money comes from hardware (Score:2)
Apple's money comes from hardware and software both.
and by restricting their software to only run on their hardware
Apple releases software for Macs and Windows. QuickTime 7 Pro for Windows [apple.com]. Apple even has iTunes [apple.com] and Safari [apple.com] for Windows. While not much there are some Windows software from Apple.
they are creating a consumer insentive to buy their hardware.
Insensitive? I switched from MS Windows PCs to Linux and Macs and I have not had as many problems with my Mac in the almost 3 years I've had it than I ha
Re: (Score:2)
MP4 and MOV are the same (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because vmware player has all kinds of arbitrary artificial restrictions...Mainly because they want to force you to buy the expensive version. It's also extremely annoying having to recompile its kernel drivers each time you update the kernel (all the drivers kvm requires are built in to the kernel).
Anything that uses VT-x seems to prevent you using it for anything else, it seems to be how VT works..
I have a few servers running several KVM images each, it seems to work a lot better than vmware especially fo
Re: (Score:2)
No, just kvm. I frequently have vmware's player and virtualbox on the same computer and they co-exist just fine. kvm is the only virtualization application that I've had that problem with. (and before someone mentions xen -you can't run xen without booting into a xen virtual machine, so that doesn't count.)
no VMs unless OSX server? (Score:2)
Than what about the Apple approved boot camp? VMware Fusion, and a bunch of other products?
Granted those have a host OS of OSX and a VM of something else. Still why can't someone buy OSX 10.6 and put it in a VM? I know quite a few people who would do that. They have a need for OSX. However, that need does not justify buying an all out Apple computer. A VM for the use would fit the bill better.
I know it is related to support. Jobs is afraid of people having OSX issues and people complaining about OSX. This w
Re: (Score:2)
Still why can't someone buy OSX 10.6 and put it in a VM?
Because Apple is not in the business of selling operating systems, they are in the business of selling computers. If people could run Mac OS X on non-Macs, that would hurt Mac sales, virtualized or not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The biggest threat that comes from virtualized MacOS is the possibility that people might be
able to try MacOS without any real investment in the process. They could easily and cheaply
determine for themselves if it is "all that".
You will no longer need to be a "geek" to give MacOS a serious test drive.
That will likely cause all of Apple's mystique to evaporate.
Re: (Score:2)
> Although a big advantage is that you always run it on good HW :)
That would be the same hardware that enabled hackintoshing because it was so similar to Dell's netbooks.
MacOS is nothing special.
Re: (Score:2)
>> You will no longer need to be a "geek" to give MacOS a serious test drive.
>
> Right. Except for the virtualization part.
Once you have a ready made VM, the bar is considerably lowered. Infact, the "geeky" part would
be installing an OS anywhere rather than the VM part. Once you've got a VM, you can set it up
so that it runs when double clicked.
A lot of stuff that a lot of fear mongering is thrown at boils down to this.
Re: (Score:2)
Still why can't someone buy OSX 10.6 and put it in a VM?
Because Apple can't make any money off their hardware if people weren't forced to buy it along with OS X.
The big barrier keeping OS X from running on any ol' box came down when they switched to Intel, so now they protect their income stream with a EULA and a bunch of lawyers instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Still why can't someone buy OSX 10.6 and put it in a VM?
Because Apple can't make any money off their hardware if people weren't forced to buy it along with OS X.
The big barrier keeping OS X from running on any ol' box came down when they switched to Intel, so now they protect their income stream with a EULA and a bunch of lawyers instead.
Except that isn't it either. Snow Leopard was the first Mac OS that required an Intel CPU. Leopard [wikipedia.org], released on 26 October 2007, could be installed on a PowerPC G4 [apple.com] from
Re: (Score:2)
I know it is related to support. Jobs is afraid of people having OSX issues and people complaining about OSX. This would go against the belief that OSX is perfect and never crashes or has problems. Simply put in a disclaimer: If you run OSX on non Apple hardware or in a VM you are on your own for support. Or is that against the law?
Breaking a EULA isn't illegal. There was a supreme court ruling in 1985 [findlaw.com] that dealt with installing software on unsupported hardware, the ruling was that you can't tie software to hardware.
If you can go out and buy OSX in a store, you can install it on your microwave oven if you really want to.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice. (It's obviously a template for a microwave oven OSX installation guide that I'm working on)
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking a EULA isn't illegal. There was a supreme court ruling in 1985 [findlaw.com] that dealt with installing software on unsupported hardware, the ruling was that you can't tie software to hardware.
1. Breach of a EULA isn't illegal, but it means that you lose _all_ rights to the software involved, including making _any_ copies that run _anywhere_. It's not the breach of the EULA that is your problem, it is the consequent copyright infringement. If Apple's EULA said "you have to pay us $10,000 for any copy that you install on a Dell computer", and you installed MacOS X on a Dell, you would most likely be able to argue that you don't have to pay $10,000 because you didn't agree to the EULA, but you woul
Re: (Score:2)
1. Breach of a EULA isn't illegal, but it means that you lose _all_ rights to the software involved, including making _any_ copies that run _anywhere_. It's not the breach of the EULA that is your problem, it is the consequent copyright infringement. If Apple's EULA said "you have to pay us $10,000 for any copy that you install on a Dell computer", and you installed MacOS X on a Dell, you would most likely be able to argue that you don't have to pay $10,000 because you didn't agree to the EULA, but you would have to face the full consequences of your copyright infringement.
I don't buy that. I paid for software in a software store and I'm not making copies for anyone else. As far as I'm concerned, it's a sale. When you have me sign the EULA before the sale, then I'll agree with you.
Data General vs. Digidyne is quoted again and again and again but it doesn't apply as long as you don't have hardware that can run MacOS X _and nothing else
That's the problem with rulings like this. It didn't specifically say that, what it did say was The court concluded that the tying arrangement was illegal per se, because petitioner's RDOS operating system was sufficiently unique and desirable to an appreciable number of buyers to enable petitioner
DCMA law (Score:2)
There was a supreme court ruling in 1985 [findlaw.com] that dealt with installing software on unsupported hardware
The problem here is that, in addition to EULA, there's encryption involved too (Mac OS X relies on a key inside the TPM chip of the target mac).
And although USA did apparently consider EULAs invalid, according to the case you cite, the USA's DMCA law doesn't not allow enough provisions to circumvent that DRM (although in Switzerland, it would have been probably possible).
So you could install Mac OS X legally on any hardware you would like, but there's a lock that prevent you from doing it and this lock can
generic PCs (Score:2)
I know it is related to support. Jobs is afraid of people having OSX issues and people complaining about OSX. This would go against the belief that OSX is perfect and never crashes or has problems. Simply put in a disclaimer: If you run OSX on non Apple hardware or in a VM you are on your own for support.
Jobs is also concerned about Apple losing money allowing OEMs to install OS X on non-Apple hardware. Apple [wikipedia.org] already tried that.
Falcon
VMWare and OS X (Score:2, Informative)
I have been running OS X virtualized in VMWare for the last 6 months now. Unfortunately Apple won't release their SDK for Windows, so I had to look into it. Oh and its running on an AMD host as well. Heres the (30 minute) guide:
http://adbge.org/installing-snow-leopard-as-a-virtual-machine/
waiting... waiting... waiting... (Score:2)
Why is installing MacOS so painfully slow...
Re: (Score:2)
No idea, I had to do it three times today... and Apple's definition of 35 minutes for Snow Leopard is similar to the Microsoft Time Units used to measure Vista install times.
Windows 7 smokes OS X on install time. (Although, is install time THAT big of a deal?)
Why is installing MacOS so painfully slow... (Score:2)
Installing OS X take me less tyme than installing MS Windows did. And that's on a Mac laptop versus a PC tower.
Falcon
A promising start to what end? (Score:2)
This is a promising start, but to what end? Everything I'd do on a Mac is done much better on either Windows or Linux. I triple boot on a Dell Mini10v, and I never boot into mac anymore. Recording Music and Editing Video are way better in Linux Mint (and faster, and easier). And games are all obviously better and easier and faster on Windows. I have Firefox on all 3 platforms, but it still seems to run best on Windows. Frequently I actually run Firefox on a VDI of MicroXP, just so I can have all my bo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple's policy has always been (as far as I know), you can virtualize OS X all you want, but you have to have Apple hardware. I thought you had to have OS X Server as the host OS, but I guess that wasn't the case.
Re:With what host? (Score:5, Informative)
That's not true. You can virtualize OS X Server starting with Leopard as long as it's on Apple hardware (host does not need to be OS X, in fact Parallels has a bare metal version for XServes). They've never let you virtualize OS X, just the last 2 versions of Server.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If the former, turning it into
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The other question, of course, is whether the "On Macs" requirement is technical in some serious sense(any one of the modern virtualization tricks where you pass as much as possible through to the hardware, rather than trapping it and crunching it in software emulation depending somehow on EFI, or the particular chipsets of Macs, or something of that nature), or whether it is a purely artificial constraint, that exists to keep Oracle out of range of Steve Jobs' eye lasers...
There is the license, the hardware, and the DMCA.
The license says you can run _one_ copy of MacOS X on one _Apple branded_ computer. I think it is quite clear that "Apple branded computer" means the actual physical hardware. The Macintosh hardware contains one chip containing a key, and MacOS X checks for the existence of the key. Now with virtualisation, the virtualisation level _must_ pass access to this chip down to the real hardware, otherwise MacOS X won't install. Passing the access through to the
Re: (Score:2)
However, VirtualBox(with the exception of a few bits and pieces found only in the commercial/proprietary version) is FOSS. If the "OSX on Macs only" restriction is largely artificial, it seems extremely likely that some annonymous dude in Lithuania or somewhere will cook up a patch that removes the restr
Re: (Score:2)
Except in some countries there is no such thing as the DMCA, and EULAs are not always binding, especially when you can buy a copy of OSX over the encounter without having to agree to it first. In which case running OSX in this way is "unsupported" rather than "illegal"...
If the software requires to check a chip in order to function, then any complete emulation would need to emulate that chip, emulators for all kinds of other systems already do exactly this.
Re: (Score:2)
The Macintosh hardware contains one chip containing a key, and MacOS X checks for the existence of the key.
No it doesn't [osxbook.com]
OS X checks for an EFI firmware (not a functioning one either, just an EFI firmware that responds to a few calls) and boots on that.
It can also boot on a machine with a regular BIOS - in fact VMware Fusion 1 and 2 used a fairly generic BIOS image in the darwin.iso that it boots from, it wasn't until VMware Fusion 3 that the darwin.iso contained a full EFI implementation.
Re: (Score:2)
It is obviously not difficult at all for the virtualisation software to emulate the presence of this chip. If they did that, then you could run MacOS X on _any_ computer.
The whole idea of a TPM chip is exactly that you can't do this - it's got secret cryptographic keys burned into it that are never exposed to the host OS, and they can't be virtualised.
Re:With what host? (Score:5, Informative)
The host doesn't matter, what matters is the underlying hardware. Mac OS X unmodified will only be able to start if it runs on Mac hardware.
http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?p=134642&sid=e4351fbfef3e3c91d57db22fc2af2cb9#p134642
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
mod coward up, makes all parent posts irrellivent.
wow, it's in the manual:
3.1.1 Mac OS X guests
Starting with version 3.2, VirtualBox has experimental support for Mac OS X guests. This allows you to install and execute unmodified versions of OS X on supported host hardware. Whereas competing solutions perform modifications to the OS X install DVDs (e.g. different boot loader and replaced files), VirtualBox is the first product to provide the modern PC architecture expected by OS X without requiring any “hacks”. You should be aware of a number of important issues before attempting to install a Mac OS X guest:
1. OS X is commercial, licensed software and contains both license and technical restrictions that limit its use to certain hardware and usage scenarios. It is im-portant that you understand and obey these restrictions. As a result, before attempting to install Mac OS X in a virtual machine, make sure you understand the license restrictions of the Mac OS X version you want to use. For most versions of Mac OS X, Apple prohibits installing them on non-Apple hardware. These license restrictions are also enforced on a technical level: Mac OS X ver-ifies whether it is running on Apple hardware, and most DVDs that that come with Apple hardware even check for an exact model. These restrictions are not circumvented by VirtualBox and continue to apply.
2. Only CPUs known and tested by Apple are supported. As a result, AMD CPUs will never work at all, and if the Intel CPU is newer than the build of OS X, it will most likely panic during bootup with an “Unsupported
Configuring virtual machines
3. The Mac OS X installer expects the harddisk to be partitioned so when it does not offer a selection, you have to launch the Disk Utility from the “Tools” menu and partition the hard disk. Then close the Disk Utility and proceed with the installation.
4. In addition, as Mac OS X support in VirtualBox is currently still experimental, please refer also to chapter 14, Known limitations, page 278.
salient details from p.278
4 Known limitations
Mac OS X guests.
– Mac OS X guests can only run on a certain host hardware. For details about license and host hardware limitations, please see chapter 3.1.1, Mac OS X guests, page 47. – VirtualBox does not provide Guest Additions for OS X at this time. – The graphics resolution currently defaults to 1024x768 as OS X falls back to the built-in EFI display support. See chapter 3.12.1, Video modes in EFI, page 61 for more information on how to change EFI video modes. – Even when idle, OS X guests currently burn 100% CPU. This is a power management issue that will be addressed in a future release. – OS X guests only work with one CPU assigned to the VM. Support for SMP will be provided in a future release. – Depending on your system and version of OS X, you might experience guest hangs after some time. This can be fixed by turning off energy saving (set timeout to “Never”) in the system preferences. – By default, the VirtualBox EFI enables debug output of the OS X kernel to help you diagnose boot problems. Note that there is a lot of output and not all errors are fatal (they would also show on your physical Mac). You can turn off these messages by issuing this command:
VBoxManage setextradata vmname "VBoxInternal2/EfiBootArgs" " "
To revert to the previous behavior, use:
VBoxManage setextradata vmname "VBoxInternal2/EfiBootArgs" ""
Re: (Score:2)
As a hackintosh user, I'd have to assume that this means that you'd have to do typical hackintosh-y things to get Mac OS X to run on a Mac or Windows host.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on your definition of "unmodified." Providing an EFI bootloader isn't modifying the OS IMO, and certainly no more than running it in a VM.
Re: (Score:2)
So I'm testing this now... It will be a few hours. Thinking that VirtualBox has the same EFI and VMM on all host platforms, I'm building an OS X VM on a Mac, exporting it, and importing it at home on my Linux host. Hopefully it will work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Macs can run all kinds of OSs these days through boot camp.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, "Mac OS X guest on a Mac from a Windows or Linux host" implies running another OS on Mac/Apple hardware, does it not?
I'd love to run OS X as guest OS on my dev machine (not Apple) to test web pages on OS X Safari instead of powering up the old MacBook.
Yes, it's webkit and I can use Chrome but still some form elements render differently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...except it isn't quite the same beast.
Seeing MacOS boot without the GUI is rather interesting (and somewhat Linux like).
Re: (Score:2)
(and somewhat Linux like).
But let me guess - it's even more BSD like?
Re: (Score:2)
Or actually, Linux is somewhat Unix-like and Mac OSX (as of Snow Leopard) actually is Unix.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
OS X is a thin BSD compatibility layer on top a heavily hacked Mach microkernel. It's about as much "UNIX" as Microsoft Windows is UNIX, "UNIX 03" brand name shenanigans notwithstanding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Empire EFI [prasys.co.cc]
YMMV, check hardware compatibility first, blah blah blah.
Re: (Score:2)
Woo-f*ckin-hoo.
Can this use recovery disks or does this only support retail box sets?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not. I've tried twice using the beta with my recovery disks on my rev1 nv9400 mini and got hangs both times.
Re: (Score:2)
Snow Leopard is only $30. You don't need the "Box Set" at $129 to make it work. But both are different from recovery discs. Recovery discs won't work.
Re: (Score:2)
I was expecting it to tell me "this is isn't the right Mac" rather than just crashing the whole box.
Re:With what host? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The title states OS X as the guest, Mac as the platform, but does not name the host OS. It doesn't state the host OS in the stub, either.
Improve your reading comprehension before you start slating others for theirs.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The actual change log for 3.2.0 beta (http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30287) merely states:
> Experimental support for Mac OS X guests
There's nowt about running the OSX guest on Apple hardware but maybe this is stated somewhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the host hardware matters as long as it's intel-compatible. That's the whole point of an x86 emulator. It might require certain features of the host processor, but that's probably all.
Re: (Score:2)
Only the early-release Intel Macs sent to developers used TPM. OS X installer only looks at the hardware present and whether the computer says it's a Mac. Mac OSX desktop will fail to install on VirtualBox - only server. They don't bypass these hardware checks entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Mac is the hardware
No, Mac is the label they put on industry standard hardware after placing it in a shiny case.
Re: (Score:3)
Why are you slamming the OP? Do you not know about Bootcamp with Windows or Linux running as the host OS on Mac hardware? The title, and summary only indicate you have to have the hardware, not what host OS you need to be running. This interests me considerable as I would much rather have Windows 7 running native on my Mac pro as it would allow it to use 8 cores instead of the 2 that VMware Fusion can expose to it. The only reason I don't run Windows as the native OS is that I would have to reboot to us
Re:With what host? (Score:5, Funny)
[Shudder]
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
You can dislike Windows all you like, but Windows 7 is actually pretty good. You should give it a try some time, maybe run it in your virtualbox.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
windows 7 is better/an improvement/what vista should have been. Doesn't mean any of us care or intend to use it other than it being practically required for enterprise employees at the moment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> windows 7 is better/an improvement/what vista should have been. Doesn't mean any of us care or
> intend to use it other than it being practically required for enterprise employees at the moment.
I am not sure I would consider being forced to use MacOS an improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*Coren raises his hand
I have to run Mac OSX to support other users of Mac OSX. I would much prefer not to use it unless needed.
Re: (Score:2)
I tried it and it didn't work. Windows 7 stalled during installation, eating 100% CPU and didn't progress. At least I got to see that they got rid of the DOS-mode installer.
Re: (Score:2)
You can dislike Windows all you like, but Windows 7 is actually pretty good.
Yeah, it's kind of like OS X, which isn't saying all that much.
OS X, Ubuntu, and Windows (Score:2)
You can dislike Windows all you like, but Windows 7 is actually pretty good.
I plan to install Ubuntu on my Mac, but unless Microsoft stops requiring Activation and all the spyware I will not install Windows on any computer I own if I don't have to. Activation, Windows Genuine Advantage [wikipedia.org] or WGA, phoning home [wikipedia.org], and other spyware are some of the reasons why I switched from MS Windows.
What disappointed me about the VirtualBox article is that it doesn't say how to install OS X in a VM. I plan to set up my Mac to
Re:With what host? (Score:5, Funny)
You shudder, but I'll see you one better: Our primary server at work is some kind of Mac tower with two quad-core Xeon processors. It runs Windows Server 2008 R2 which in turn uses Virtual Box to host CentOS VMs for routing, DHCP/DNS, a LAMP stack, and a firewall.
Linux on Windows on Mac. We call it "Turducken."
Re: (Score:2)
I know I'm a straight man stepping into a pool of goo, but ... WHY?
Re: (Score:2)
If you add Solaris, you can then create a zone/container that is able run Linux binaries via ABI emulation.
That's ingenious - we could host our virtual machines inside the Linux version of VirtualBox, running on Solaris' ABI, which could in turn be virtualized on Server 2008 R2's HyperV running in Parallels on Mac OSX. Which, in turn, can now be run in VirtualBox.
I'm actually considering trying that, just to make the next generation of student workers cry. (I'm a graduating student worker; almost all of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does one need to use Apple code to write a hypervisor that supports OS X? If not, Apple wouldn't have any grounds to sue. There's not much difference between a hypervisor and an emulator, and it's clear that emulators are legal. Whether the end user has the right to run the software on a machine, virtual or otherwise, is a problem for the end user not the vendor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple could try to claim a DMCA violation; I do not know whether this would stand up in court, but the threat might be sufficient to scare vendors away.
It worked very well against Psystar, who is supposed to pay $2500 _per computer_ that they sold because of DMCA violation (not that Apple will ever see any of that money), while their illegal copying of MacOS X was only $30,000 for all copies. But there is also the point that those vendors rely on IP protection themselves to do business, so they won't do that kind of thing not because they are scared, but because they believe that not respecting copyrights is a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter if Apple has grounds to sue; what matters is whether they can force the victim to expend resources to defend themselves. If yes, then the actual letter of the law is meaningless, since simply being sued is punishment enough.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but the DMCA specifically does not require such checks -- 17 USC 1201(c)(3). So a well-funded vendor would have a chance to win, perhaps even in summary judgement, should they find the profit potential great enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shit just got real (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You and me both.