[moep]

I just found this link on twitter and was quite surprised as I haven’t heard of this news yet.
Apple has changed their EULA and now allows Leopard Server to run in an virtual instance — VMware Fusion 2 Beta 2 already supports it.
Together with the new multiple snapshot feature this should be a pleasant surprise for for Developers and normal Users alike. The video demonstrates that quite nicely.

Link: Best Practices for Running Mac OS X Server Virtual Machines on VMware Fusion 2 Beta 2

(VMware Fusion 2 is a free upgrade from v1 by the way)

[mduell]

This was changed a while ago, Parallels Server supported it before VMware.

[besson3c]

So what is needed to support OS X Server in a host? Does it need some special Apple provided code, or does it simply work?

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So what is needed to support OS X Server in a host? Does it need some special Apple provided code, or does it simply work?

It should "just work", as long as the host is a Mac. You can't use this to run a virtualized Mac Server on a PC running Parallels or VMWare.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by mduell 

This was changed a while ago, Parallels Server supported it before VMware.

Sure, if you have $1000 to spend on Parallels Server.

VMWare Fusion is $80. The People at Parallels are about to get their a**es handed to them on a plate. After the experience many have had with virtually nonexistent "technical support" from Russians pretending to have American names, I don't think they'll trust the company to provide proper support for Server. If I spend $1000 on Parallels Server, I'd better d*mn well have PROPER support! That exists even!

[moep]

This is what happens when you try install Leopard with the regular desktop installation DVD.
To me it feels like it’s really just a matter of changing a string to “Mac OS X 10.5 Server“ or bypassing the check for the installation.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

It should "just work", as long as the host is a Mac. You can't use this to run a virtualized Mac Server on a PC running Parallels or VMWare.

Why does the host have to be a Mac? It sounds to me that Apple did give Parallels/VMWare some special code to trick the VM kernel into thinking that it is booting from a Mac or something, which is what I was afraid of.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why does the host have to be a Mac? It sounds to me that Apple did give Parallels/VMWare some special code to trick the VM kernel into thinking that it is booting from a Mac or something, which is what I was afraid of.

The host has to be a Mac because of Apple's license restrictions. The license specifies that the virtual machine MUST BE HOSTED on an Apple machine.

Originally Posted by Leopard Server License

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Mac OS X Server Software.
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. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.

Emphasis mine.

Also, I don't think Apple has provided any "special code" to the virtualization companies to enable virtualization of Mac OS X Server. They didn't provide "special code" to the people hacking Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware, did they? Oh, you mean allowing all software updates to be installed without problems? I think that the virtual machine implementations will have to be updated before major updates can be installed. That was also the case with Vista SP1 (you had to update Parallels before it could be used). Or, since the VM is running on real Apple hardware, they can expose things to the virtual server that are only present on real Apple hardware.

Not only that, the PC versions of the software would have to be updated with the same support in order to virtualize Mac OS X Server, and if any company did that they would get sued by Apple. They're not going to risk it. But that still doesn't mean that Apple gave them any "special code."

[besson3c]

So there is nothing technologically stopping people from installing Leopard Server on a VM solution that isn't VMWare or Parallels?

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So there is nothing technologically stopping people from installing Leopard Server on a VM solution that isn't VMWare or Parallels?

As long as the VM solution runs on Apple labelled hardware, there shouldn't be, as far as I can tell.

Now, if they allow it (at least officially) on non-Apple hardware, Apple could come after them for violating the "You agree not to install... or to enable others to do so" part of the license agreement.

Let's put it this way. The same underground software people are using to get OS X running on non-Apple hardware could be used to get OS X running in a virtual machine, provided the VM software doesn't check for, and disallow it, as VMWare apparently does when you try to install the client version of Leopard on it, as evidenced by the screenshot posted by moep, above. But I bet it could be done on QEMU right this minute.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

As long as the VM solution runs on Macs, there shouldn't be, as far as I can tell.

And what I'm trying to figure out is why it has to run on a Mac, if there is no special Apple software shim needed to get the VM to work?

A VM host is a self contained Linux kernel that is not aware of the hardware installed beneath it.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And what I'm trying to figure out is why it has to run on a Mac, if there is no special Apple software shim needed to get the VM to work?

Oh, there has to be a software shim to get it to work at all, but why do you think that the shim code can only come from Apple to get it to work well?

A VM host is a self contained Linux kernel that is not aware of the hardware installed beneath it.

Not always. Software can take advantage of the fact that it is running on real hardware to expose it directly to the hosted operating system. In doing so it no longer becomes pure virtualization, but it still achieves the same end. Not every piece of hardware has to be dedicated exclusively to one instance of the OS.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

Oh, there has to be a software shim to get it to work at all, but why do you think that the shim code can only come from Apple to get it to work well?

Because if somebody else were able to reverse engineer the "is this a Mac?" boot check via software, they would have done it already? Also, even if they could, it would no doubt be illegal?

Not always. Software can take advantage of the fact that it is running on real hardware to expose it directly to the hosted operating system. In doing so it no longer becomes pure virtualization, but it still achieves the same end. Not every piece of hardware has to be dedicated exclusively to one instance of the OS.

Right, but not on para-virtualized guests, of course... I guess it would be possible to require a Mac in only allow booting when the VM host has presented the proprietary Apple hardware check to the guest...

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Because if somebody else were able to reverse engineer the "is this a Mac?" boot check via software, they would have done it already? Also, even if they could, it would no doubt be illegal?

Some of what's been done by the underground community is already not completely legal to begin with. And it's probably being worked on. The difference is that the underground community is doing what they are doing to circumvent license restrictions.

What the virtualization companies are doing is not circumventing license restrictions, even if the methods are the same, the stated goals are different, and that may be all that is needed in terms of the law. (NOTE: IANAL).

Right, but not on para-virtualized guests, of course... I guess it would be possible to require a Mac in only allow booting when the VM host has presented the proprietary Apple hardware check to the guest...

Only one way of doing it. There may be others.

[moep]

Originally Posted by moep 

To me it feels like it’s really just a matter of changing a string to “Mac OS X 10.5 Server“ or bypassing the check for the installation.

Well well, look what we have here.

VMWare Fusion 2.0 beta2 supports virtualizing Mac OS X Server as a guest OS. If you try to install a Leopard Client guest, you get an error:

The guest operating system is not Mac OS X Server.

However, if you create an ISO/CDR image from your Leopard install DVD, mount it then do

touch "/Volumes/Mac OS X Install DVD/System/Library/CoreServices/ServerVersion.plist"

then unmount it, you can now use that image to install Leopard Client into VMWare with no complaints. After you install, reboot VMWare from the install DVD ISO again, run Terminal and

touch "/Volumes/Macintosh HD/System/Library/CoreServices/ServerVersion.plist"

then reboot from the HD. This probably violates your license agreement so don't do it, I certainly wouldn't.

rectalogic: Virtualizing Mac OS X

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by moep 

Well well, look what we have here.


rectalogic: Virtualizing Mac OS X

Sure, you can do that, but then you also have other problems as well. Several applications refuse to run under OS X Server. For example, many of the iLife applications and several backup applications.