Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple to Allow Virtual Mac OS X Server Instances

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the server-in-a-server-in-a-server dept.

Technology (Apple) 167

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.'"

cancel ×

167 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Virtual DRM? (-1, Troll)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 6 years ago | (#21185969)

Is that what this means? The hackers are drooling already.

Re:Virtual DRM? (0, Troll)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186185)

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:Virtual DRM? (1)

YukonTech (841015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186271)

Pretty simple really, just make VMware and Parallels check if it is on mac hardware before it will enable the virtual machine.

Re:Virtual DRM? (1, Insightful)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186389)

I said 'hackers', Any scheme like that WILL be hacked. Maybe I need to be more obvious.

Re:Virtual DRM? (1)

doxology (636469) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186497)

Well, like, you can already run Mac OS X in VMWare (somewhat hacked, and in breach of license) on non-Apple hardware (not sure about Leopard... but certainly with Tiger, and if not yet with Leopard, soon with Leopard...)

Re:Virtual DRM? (1, Interesting)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186691)

> Pretty simple really, just make VMware and Parallels check if it is on mac hardware...

Yea, they 'need' Steve's goodwill and blessings. So that leaves Xen, QEMU, etc. Once youy can buy a non-upgrade license 'off the rack' the genie is out of the bottle. Unless they really are stupid enough to pass through the DRM like you suggest, then it will ease the breaking of it and the freeing of OS X Desktop. Which would be hella fun. :)

Nobody cares about the EULA because it isn't enforcable in most states. (Real site licenses often are though since they involve a real contract signed by both parties.)

Of course nobody outside the hardcore Mac Faithful care about OSX Server or the Xserve anyway so it is a dead issue. The Xserve is just a tarted up rackserver the same as a dozen other top tier vendors can sell you with comparable features and support and a better sticker price. And for server duty, except for a few features to support OS X desktops a bit easier, OS X is just another UNIX, but one of the less featured, slower and less scalable ones.....

Hella? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21187363)

"Which would be hella fun"

The only people who use "hella" like that anymore are named Cartman in a 3 year old episode of SouthPark making fun of people who say "hella".

Re:Virtual DRM? (1)

AnotherShep (599837) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186343)

Huge fines against companies found to be doing it without licenses?

You know, just throwing ideas out here...

Re:Virtual DRM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21187073)

The major players VMWare and Parallels who sell VM software to the Mac user market have a vested interest in keeping Apple happy, so expect them to build in enough the same level of casual checks that OS X users to keep from running on a non-Apple branded PC. That's to say, if you truly want to run it, you can. But don't expect to be able to install OS X with just a few mouse clicks.

I personally think Apple let's power users install OS X, because these users, who can easily transition between OSes, are more likely that Joe Windows User to buy a Mac after trying out OS X for a while. More over power users require less tech support reducing costs and increasing profit.

server? (0, Troll)

FlashBuster3000 (319616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186001)

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

Re:server? (0, Flamebait)

Chirs (87576) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186063)

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

Re:server? (5, Informative)

njfuzzy (734116) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186219)

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? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186327)

It supports Apple's proprietary server protocols for serving to other Macs....
Like what? AFP? Linux, *BSD, Windows and even Novell Netware all provide support for AFP. I'm not sure, but I think even OS/2 Server had support for it as well.

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

Re:server? (4, Insightful)

znu (31198) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186527)

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? (2, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#21187023)

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.

Mixed platform environment... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21187751)

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? (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 6 years ago | (#21188197)

if you have even 60 macs (which most large companies who use macs have more in the realm of 200-300) spending 500 on a unlimited seat licensed server OS that works with Mac, Linux, AND Windows network protocols is a heck of a time saving (and ultimately money) over trying to get it to work with Linux... or /snick 2003.

Re:server? (2, Interesting)

tdknox (138401) | more than 6 years ago | (#21187903)

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:server? (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186141)

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? (1)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186449)

Maybe you should pay closer attention to the word "simultaneously"?

Re:server? (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186737)

Oh yes. Had some contractors here with macbooks a while ago. They had Mac OS, with Windows (and I think Linux) running in VMs.

Nope. That word doesn't provide the change between then an now.

Re:server? (3, Informative)

domatic (1128127) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186171)

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:server? (4, Insightful)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186213)

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? (4, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186479)

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? (2, Informative)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186909)

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

Re:server? (2, Insightful)

Knara (9377) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186501)

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

Re:server? (1)

MiKM (752717) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186583)

If the sysdadmin has nothing to do, he could play a pretty badass game of Tetris.

Re:server? (1)

iphayd (170761) | more than 6 years ago | (#21187093)

Which is why I generally pull the video cards out of my XServe orders. However, some users have XServes for graphics clustering, which a beefy video card is good for, thanks to all that Core* that Apple lets programmers play with.

Re:server? (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 6 years ago | (#21187181)

If the boxen are being used as a render farm, for example, having the hardware for the graphics card is probably good, but does it really matter what resolution the card can display?

Re:server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21186543)

All your points are rubbish and only pertain to desktops. We are talking about servers here. If someone running a server can't be bothered to RTFM then I really hope they consider a career change. GUIs on servers, especially critical servers that need every cpu cycle and free memory on hand, just takes up unnecessary resources.

As for your second point. We are talking software here, virtualization. Whether or not apple hardware is of good quality is moot. Who is going to any sort of video layer higher than the basic vga stuff on a server and sound is an extremely rare case. You are trolling and you know it. Linux and Windows have plenty of drivers for networks when it comes to servers. Most servers are predictable and don't come with much funky hardware. That is unless your idea of a server is running some commodity Pentium 4 from alienware in your basement.

Re:server? (4, Insightful)

ickoonite (639305) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186767)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21187535)

Well let me clear up that misunderstanding. Maybe the term 'RTFM' seems a little extreme and asshole-ish but I expect that someone who is setting up a server for non trivial stuff, and I assume that if you are running multiple servers in virtualization that that would be the case then I expect that you know what you are doing. No amount of shiny GUIs will automagically prepare for every single case of something breaking and if you don't know what you're doing, you can break things bad. My biggest qualm is the same hackneyed mantra comparing apple on the server to other operating systems on a desktop benchmark. People can do whatever they want on a server, i mean a computer's role dictates what a server can be and what is a desktop but I thought we were talking about serious servers, not personal servers. Audio? Video? rare cases. BTW if you are talking about personal servers, there are plenty of Linux powered server appliances that require little to no configuration from the user besides a nice shiny web interface.

Re:server? (1)

teknopurge (199509) | more than 6 years ago | (#21187771)

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. :|
There go my mod points....

It's not that the server is hard to use - it's the consequences and how all the different technologies work together.

Could you even image JoeUser trying to figure out why the directory service isn't working? Sure he can go to wikipedia and find out what LDAP is, and I'm sure there are pretty preskool-esque browsers he could use that come with Leopard Server, but what about all the things that his "usage" can affect?

JoeUser: Cool, a 'Users' object - that shouldn't be there, I've given myself Admin rights along with everyone else so they can print and stuff. So I'm and Admin, and don't need this Users groups anymore....
*JoeUser deletes the User class from the tree*

Or maybe he tries to remove software through Directory Policies, or delete the "lpd" user account or any of hundreds of thousands of other things. I'm going to take a guess in that the parent has never had users utterly rely on a server providing a service.

Re:server? (1)

ickoonite (639305) | more than 6 years ago | (#21187847)

JoeUser: Cool, a 'Users' object - that shouldn't be there, I've given myself Admin rights along with everyone else so they can print and stuff. So I'm and Admin, and don't need this Users groups anymore... *JoeUser deletes the User class from the tree*

Point. But my point - that servers needn't be that complex still stands, I think. And the market is moving in that direction anyway. Consider Windows Home Server, or whatever it's called...

:)

Re:server? (2, Insightful)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186777)

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? (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 6 years ago | (#21187763)

Well, it looks like Ubuntu has a package for dansguardian, and it seems as if it probably contains a default config file, using reasonable values. Really, that's what the distros are for... setting the defaults and such. If you installed from source or another location, are you really surprised that you have to do a little bit more work to set things up? Besides, how many GUI administered packages give you the same power that dansguardian does?

Re:server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21187781)

Oh, c'mon you're being over dramatic here. We are talking about serious servers here, not personal NAS. Yes, a server shouldn't have to be hard, but also Yes a person setting up a server should really know what one is doing. What many may call arcane is actually robustness. A shiny GUI may make things streamlined but what if you need to do something non-standard. In my experience a lot of GUIs don't offer every feature imaginable in the GUI and in many cases it is actually MUCH easier to just change a setting in a file rather than poke around at radio buttons and check boxes. Is reading a manual so hard? Learn once, admin for your career. Perhaps I was a little too hasty about rejecting the notion of a GUI but depending on the job, a gui is an unnecessary layer. How about the points on Audio/Video? Do you need a 1600x1200 display to run a server? How about 5.1 surround sound. The GP is comparing desktops to servers and not even mentioning the topic of virtualization. I believe in the best tool for the job but I think using OSX for a couple of setup wizards is a horrible waste of time, but this is just my opinion.

Unless you're doing something totally weird such as trying to use linux to talk to some proprietary mac or windows program protocol, a lot of the standard linux server packages are well documented, well supported, and are industry backed. I am pretty sure if someone really wanted it bad, they could write a apache front end in pyGTK.

One more issue, you act as if Linux is this software package just thrown at you where "no support" is mandated. There are many companies that provide support contracts for issues when something is broken or not working right. This is Red Hat's bread and butter. I suggest (without assuming too much) that you pick a distribution that is well supported and has a commercial backing. Linux being free doesn't mean you don't have to go and get support for it. Any sane administrator would opt for that, no matter how skilled, and I assume you do too but are just bringing up points that don't belong.

Re:server? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21186561)

If you need a GUI to run a computer, maybe you should leave servers to the people who have a clue?

Re:server? (1)

FigTree (1076935) | more than 6 years ago | (#21187095)

If a GUI makes it simple and easy while staying reliable, why? Your statement reminds me of the argument against compilers... (Yes, I know how to use and do not fear the CLI. However, I am afraid of misrepresenting myself.)

Re:server? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21186619)

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.

The guy plans doing serious stuff and doesn't want to RTFM? That's a great startpoint.

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,

What you mean as "generic"? A beige box?
I've never had any problems with Linux and IBM, Dell or even HP servers. Actually those are much better machines than Apple's if you want to run anything serious.

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

Your tech guy is:
- Installing Ubuntu in a server (sorry, I don't think Ubuntu is the best choice for this).
- Your RACK server must run X, and in "1600x1200"?!

Sorry, what kind of place is that, for real? Your room?

Re:server? (1)

FlashBuster3000 (319616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186697)

I don't get why a server needs nice GUIs (let alone 1600x1200 graphics).
Besides, one shouldn't buy a "generic PC" when it comes to serving businessapplications.
I can get some decent servers that run Linux by every major company.

*cough* (2, Informative)

msimm (580077) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186743)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21187043)

It was worked out in Gutsy Gibbon! Sheesh...your tech support guy needs to keep up.

Re:server? (1)

illumin8 (148082) | more than 6 years ago | (#21188125)

(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)
Go fire your tech support guy and ask him why he needs or even cares about running X windows on a rack mount server? Most real sysadmins run all of their servers at runlevel 3, and X doesn't load until runlevel 5. He's probably installing Compiz and Beryl right now and crashing your webserver with eye candy...

Re:server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21186395)

Nothing. No.

It's just a appliance hardware company on a powertrip. Just before they fade into obscurity in the computer market.

Re:server? (1)

GnarlyDoug (1109205) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186507)

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? (1, Flamebait)

toadlife (301863) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186747)

Much better GUI,
On a server?

it is vetted as official UNIX while Linux is not
Who cares?

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.
That statement makes no sense to me. Why would people have more faith in Apple, who has dropped the ball on (or purposely ignored) enterprise support for it's entire lifetime, over a company like Redhat who has been doing enterprise Linux for it's entire lifetime?

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.
If Apple is just beginning to come out with integrated, enterprise level software, that puts them about 10-15 years behind the competition.

Re:server? (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 6 years ago | (#21188165)

If you're a shop that doesn't have a massive IT department, an easy-to-learn GUI on a server for administration can be a boon. That way, the intern can handle it, while the command-line junkies can work on other things. On the low-end, an easy to configure server beats the crap out of "hire a contractor to come in and handle things 10 hours a month" On the other end of the spectrum, UNIX certification means assured compatibility with some apps, and also meets some standardization prerequisites, which can be a big deal in big businesses.

Re:server? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21186953)

How many Java App servers are certified to run on Mac SERVER? With neither .Net not Java runs (I mean perfectly, not just for demo purpose, for mission critical applications) who is going to use Mac as Servers?
And it is really funny to say enterprise customers prefer Apple for RedHat. At least the most widely used JBoss server runs perfectly on RedHat linux (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).
Taking about Enterprise solutions, how many ESB or SOA or EAI application can run on Mac OS X? Very few (almost all supports Windows and Linux).
Nothing can replace Linux in the server market, but there is a great chance that Linux can exceed market share of Mac OS X (even Windows Vista in longterm) on desktop (I think Linux already exceeds Mac OS X in market share).
Also How many really bother whether Linux is an OFFICIAL UNIX or not. I don't. All I care is it should be scalable, secure and supports major application frameworks and databases.

Re:server? (1)

kithrup (778358) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186621)

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? (2, Insightful)

jsz0 (1174083) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186749)

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? (1)

jay-be-em (664602) | more than 6 years ago | (#21188239)

But let's face it, a GUI with 2-3 clicks can only set up the most basic apache, sql, samba, etc
server. We're talking about applications with 100s of configuration options, and a GUI
with 100s of checkboxes is not the most usable way to configure an application. This is why in
general GUIs are useless for server applications.

Re:server? (1)

mrjb (547783) | more than 6 years ago | (#21187317)

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? (1)

af_weeks (729471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21187659)

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?

But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21186005)

Do these virtual Mac OS X server instances run Linux?

The problem VMware and others might face... (1)

anss123 (985305) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186021)

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.

Re:The problem VMware and others might face... (1)

Major Blud (789630) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186153)

I'm not sure I follow you on this. Apple is only licensing Leopard to be run on an OS X host. Are you suggesting that VMWare won't be able to support Mac hardware in an OS X virtual machine running on an OS X host box on Mac hardware?

Re:The problem VMware and others might face... (1)

anss123 (985305) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186615)

The OS running in the VM can't directly access the host hardware (except the CPU) so to run Linux, Windows, etc, VMs emulates a SVGA card, a network adapter and such. There's no guarantee that Mac OS X supports these emulated devices out of the box (I don't know). That's the biggest hurdle with running OS X on current VMs. With that solved they'll probably also want to add some 'vm tools' before releasing Mac OS X compatible products.

Re:The problem VMware and others might face... (1)

Major Blud (789630) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186753)

I understand that part, but not all VM's work this way....doesn't VMWare actually access some physical devices directly (or maybe this is Xen, not sure)? Regardless, Apple did release a VMWare image of 10.4 to developers when making the Intel transition, so I'd imagine that this wouldn't be too difficult.

Re:The problem VMware and others might face... (1)

anss123 (985305) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186913)

Some VMs do give hardware access, but that's for stuff like CD-Roms and USB devices. If Mac OS X already runs in VMs then I guess you should see VMs with Mac OS X support sooner rather than later.

Xen and non-Apple Hardware (1)

PowerEdge (648673) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186035)

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... (5, Informative)

kebes (861706) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186089)

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... (1)

PowerEdge (648673) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186143)

Is there going to be an ESX variant specifically for X-serve systems? And why? Otherwise, how is the proposed solution any different than Zones?

Re:Before you get too excited... (2, Insightful)

domatic (1128127) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186249)

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... (4, Interesting)

statusbar (314703) | more than 6 years ago | (#21187591)

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... (5, Funny)

Scootin159 (557129) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186365)

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

Re:Before you get too excited... (1)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186915)

No, you just need Apple to label your computer for you :)

Re:Before you get too excited... (1)

Gojira Shipi-Taro (465802) | more than 6 years ago | (#21187857)

No no no. You need a label gun and the ability to spell "Apple" in horrible raised letters.

Re:Before you get too excited... (1)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 6 years ago | (#21187891)

I have a bunch of old Apple Labels. And now I hope I don't regret that I didn't save the labels off all that old Mac hardware I scrapped a few years back. In any event, I boxed up and saved all the CDROM drives out of the machines, and they all have Apple labels on them. They're SCSI drives, but I suppose as long as I bolt them into whatever x86 clone I want to run Apple's MacOS on, I am okay. Or I could peel the labels off the CDROM drives, stick 'em on some release paper and sell them on eBay to other people who want 'Apple labeled' hardware to run Apple's MacOS on.

There could soon be a growth industry for Apple Labels.

still forcing hardware (1)

WrongOne (872463) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186107)

seems this is only allowed on MAC hardware.... Mr. Jobs. please stop tieing your software to your hardware.

Re:still forcing hardware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21186151)

Really, if you don't like the product that Apple builds, buy something else. The fact is that Apple has and always will tie their software to their hardware. This is for many technical reasons.

Move on.

Mr Jobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21186493)

Doesn't want you to call his support number when your hodgepodge computer doesn't work because there are no OS X drivers for your hardware.

Expected (2, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186127)

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 (4, Informative)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186137)

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 (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186657)

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

Same problems as virtualization has always solved.

The ability to deploy different versions of the same services on the same ports without deploying a new box.

The ability to run different versions of OSX on the same box.

Server consolidation.

Testing/debugging environments.

etc, etc.

Re:Statement in article is incorrect (1)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 6 years ago | (#21187131)

If I have to buy a license for each instance, it's going to get expensive fast.

Is the license for instance copies, or running instances? How about suspended instances? Do they count? What if I copy an instance and it's running in two places at once? Even if I suspend one as soon as the second unsuspends? Running a licensed OS in a virtual machine is an exercise in ambiguity.

Right now there's only one version of OSX that will support this, so that's not interesting.

Just about anything you can do on an OSX server, you can do faster, cheaper, etc. on a Linux server. Different story on the desktop, I'm not going there.

Re:Statement in article is incorrect (1)

ThosLives (686517) | more than 6 years ago | (#21187239)

I still amuse myself from time to time thinking, "Heck, if we virtualize OS software, why don't we go one step further and virtualize virtualization software! A whole new untapped market!"

Seriously, though, if applications and OSs were structured differently, there would be no reason for "virtualization".

(After all, isn't the OS supposed to be the "virtualization" between applications and hardware in the first place?)

Re:Statement in article is incorrect (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#21187637)

I still amuse myself from time to time thinking, "Heck, if we virtualize OS software, why don't we go one step further and virtualize virtualization software! A whole new untapped market!"

Actually the above is likely to happen.

Seriously, though, if applications and OSs were structured differently, there would be no reason for "virtualization".

Not really. It would look different but we'd still need it.

Consider if the hardware abstraction provided by virtualization had been there all along, and was standardised, so you could install a HAL, and then an OS, and then your applications. In theory, the HAL could support multiple OSes, so the HAL would have to provide more than basic 'memory management', and decisions would have to be made on how to provide each OS a 'video' card, while still allowing hardware acceleration, etc.

Such a HAL would look a lot like VMWare ESX, except that instead of providing virtual hardware to the OS on top, it would provide a standardized HAL API.

Of course, over time, we'd improve the HAL, and different OSes would require different HALs, and we'd need to have a HAL that could host the different HALs...

(After all, isn't the OS supposed to be the "virtualization" between applications and hardware in the first place?)

That's just one small facet of operating systems. Other facets are thread and memory management, common libraries and services including everything from providing an api for user interface (the windowing system, and window widgets like buttons) to providing encryption services, and network stacks like TCP/IP.

Re:Statement in article is incorrect (1)

ThosLives (686517) | more than 6 years ago | (#21188207)

Interesting points, but I feel there is more discussion:

...and decisions would have to be made on how to provide each OS a 'video' card, while still allowing hardware acceleration, etc.

How is that different than simply providing each application with a graphics context? Sounds the same to me, just with a different flavor.

Other facets are thread and memory management,...

A VM today has to do this between the various OSs. OSs already do this today. I don't see any difference, other than an OS wants to have more control than applications typically.

common libraries and services including everything from providing an api for user interface (the windowing system, and window widgets like buttons) to providing encryption services, and network stacks like TCP/IP.

These are just software abstractions and I agree they are not the same as "accessing the hardware". A TCP/IP stack is just a common interface to Ethernet hardware. These are things that I understand are fine to be part of the "OS".

Of course, over time, we'd improve the HAL, and different OSes would require different HALs, and we'd need to have a HAL that could host the different HALs...

In my mind, this means we're doing it wrong - we don't have the correct view of abstraction. Any time you can increase something infinitely without bound, that's a good indication that somewhere your method of thinking about it is wrong - it means you should have taken out some of the middle layers.



That said, I think the only legitimate use of virtualization is running different operating systems on the same hardware because of the differences in libraries and APIs as mentioned above. That's mostly interface preference, though, and shouldn't have anything to do with a need for virtualization.

A single operating system should never have to have multiple instances running in virtual machines on the same hardware - In my mind this means that operating system cannot appropriately manage hardware resources, or applications aren't written to behave nicely with other applications. All throwing two instances of the same OS on a VM on a single piece of hardware means is that the OS (and/or applications written for it) can't handle the desired multiple applications that you'd want so some other meta-manager is required to keep things in check. Any "good" application should behave nicely with any other applications running in a single OS instance, be able to pass control to another instance of that application on other hardware, etc. A "good" OS should be able to survive rogue programs and keep them sandboxed and isolated so one program dying won't cause others to die.

So, if anything else, I agree that

It would look different

But I still think that virtualization, as it is currently used today, is just a patch to a class of more serious underlying issues with design philosophy.

Re:Statement in article is incorrect (2, Informative)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186675)

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...

still has its downsides (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21187901)

for one thing you'd have to run OSX, and the other problem is that you'd have to run Apple hardware. Seems like a couple of deal breakers to me.

Re:Statement in article is incorrect (1)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186959)

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

The change to their license only applies to OS X server, so it it applies to their server product. I run my domains on a $20/mo VPS service. This is fine for dns, web, e-mail, moderate database, etc. A server like this is more than enough for a small business.

Without support for virtualization, I'd need to buy and colocate an XServe, which would be around an order of magnitude more expensive. This pretty much rules OS X out without even getting into a discussion of the pros and cons, it just can't participate at a price that's interesting.

Re:Statement in article is incorrect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21187115)

buzzword compliance, apple has to keep the fanbois happy

Still only on Apple Hardware (3, Insightful)

GoRK (10018) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186195)

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:Still only on Apple Hardware (1)

YukonTech (841015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186405)

I'm a network specialist for a department of education, and I can say apple is no where near their last legs in education. Infact nextyear we will be removing 2 of our 3 remainging windows labs and replace them with iMacs. This last year we rolled out 300 new iMacs and it went fantastic I'm not sure what your talking about when you say NO computing product for the education market. Apples education discounts are very aggresive, Apple remote desktop is an incredible tool for education deployments, management, and even for classroom management. Price: Take the cost of an educational iMac and compare it to the price of a dell computer, add on deepfreeze, ghost, and antiviurs licences and you will find that the iMac is actually cheaper. Factor in the fact that our macs have at least a 50% longer life before they need to be replaced and you can see why apple is still king in education. As for running a windows lab without ghost / deepfreeze to save money we found we spent far more time on repairs, re-images, and RIS issues, than the cost of those two prodcuts. Without them it takes about 30 seconds for a grade 10 student to fry a windows install, to the point of the machine not booting. Disclaimer I am not a fanboy I will never get rid of my gaming PC at home, but when it comes to Education computers OSX really does provide the best user experience, management capabilities and have a very competitive total cost of ownership.

Re:Still only on Apple Hardware (1)

Minupla (62455) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186651)

Sorry this is a huge OT, but since you don't have your email listed, I can't send this out of band.

Judging by your name and your language I'm going to assume you're working for YTG Education. In which case, congrats, you're doing the position I did in 2000. If Jay or Vivian are still there (or if you're one of them!) say 'Hi' from Dale. Feel free to drop me a line at my listed email if you feel like it.

Dale

But still only on Apple hardware (4, Insightful)

TheDrewbert (914334) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186291)

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... (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186305)

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"? (2, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186401)

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...

I'm sure someone can come up with a feature list.. (1)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186979)

I'm the first to argue that Apple's hardware isn't as overpriced as everyone claims, but this is one notable exception.

I'm sure someone could come up with a feature list that would make an XServe look competitive to a straw man "equivalent" box. Let's see, dual dual-core woodcrest plus *3* drive bays? Most 1U servers only have 2 bays, so that'll narrow things down... and don't forget, when you're comparing Mac and PC you don't worry if the PC is overspecced: you gotta have every feature of the Mac solution in the "equivalent" PC but the Mac never has to match up.

Apple's hardware has nice big margins, and PC hardware has razor-thin ones. That's reflected in the price.

The Mac Tax is the price you pay to get OS X. It's been worth the price for me, so far, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

Re:I'm sure someone can come up with a feature lis (1)

Macrat (638047) | more than 6 years ago | (#21187293)

The Mac Tax is the price you pay to get OS X. It's been worth the price for me, so far, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

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

Re:I'm sure someone can come up with a feature lis (2, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#21187517)

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?

still ignoring that $1k raid card... (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21187675)

I'm sure someone could come up with a feature list that would make an XServe look competitive to a straw man "equivalent" box. Let's see, dual dual-core woodcrest plus *3* drive bays? Most 1U servers only have 2 bays, so that'll narrow things down

Not really, considering there are many 4-bay choices out there; ALL of the 1U NAS boxes are 4-bay. The Xserve used to have 4 bays, and they cut it back to put in cooling ducts. The third drive is largely useless considering that all most people want to do in that market segment is have a pair of mirrored drives.

Have you actually spec'd out rackmount gear in an enterprise setting? Everyone's got "dual core woodcrests". In fact, you have far more processor options from other vendors; HP offers almost a dozen processor choices for 1U machines, and that's just on the intel side; they offer another slew of choices from AMD. Apple only offers intel, dual-core xeon processors, while everyone else offers everything from celeron/Pentium-D to quad-core, dual socket solutions. I'm sure that's coming- in 6 months or so, Apple will have a big press event where they offer Xserves with a pair of quad-core processors. "Whoop de doo, welcome to January 2007", everyone else will say.

Dual power supplies, dual network, two [PCI/PCI-e/PCI-x] slots, dual processor slot, etc- it's all available from IBM, HP, Dell, etc. All the other vendors also offer superior iLOM features Apple doesn't, like virtual floppy/CDROM images and full virtual KVM emulation; the best Apple offers is a serial port and software-based remote control.

Most of them also support hardware raid- again, something the Xserve doesn't- unless you pony up another thousand bucks. Everywhere else, $1k will buy you a raid controller with gobs of on-card memory, battery-backup capabilities, and a lot more than three ports.

Yes, Apple servers are Cheap (1)

Macrat (638047) | more than 6 years ago | (#21187025)

I agree with you. Considering all that you get out of the box, Apple servers are pretty cheap. Especially compared to the Dell "frankenboxes" that you constantly have to babysit.

Re:Yes, Apple servers are Cheap (1)

Slashcrap (869349) | more than 6 years ago | (#21187923)

I agree with you. Considering all that you get out of the box, Apple servers are pretty cheap. Especially compared to the Dell "frankenboxes" that you constantly have to babysit.

So what exactly are the differences between Apple servers and equivalently priced Dell servers which make the Dell ones so inferior and in need of babysitting?

I suppose that the Apple servers come fitted with RAS cards allowing full out of band remote diagnostics and OS provisioning while the Dells don't, right? Please reply with real substantiated facts instead of any old shit that you think you can get away with just because this is in the Apple section.

This could be good... (0, Flamebait)

BUL2294 (1081735) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186519)

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...

Wouldn't help... (1)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186771)

Without hardware OpenGL you wouldn't get the performance, and with pass-through OpenGL they'd have to support all the video drivers anyway.

exciting license (2, Funny)

lordholm (649770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186581)

"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.

Re:exciting license (1)

myz24 (256948) | more than 6 years ago | (#21186931)

Well, it's exciting for them because it means $$. They'll have a larger pool of customers now that it includes Apple hardware as well. Really, it represents probably the best choice for a place that wants/needs to run multiple OS's as Apple hardware+vmware (or parallels) would be the ONLY way to run all three at the same time.

cheaper OS X Server hosting perhaps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21188045)

Could this mean cheaper (virtual) OS X Server hosting? I'd rather see OS X than
Linux running my webapp... I'm always a little nervous with Linux that I'll bork
something up ...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>