Apple to Allow Virtual Mac OS X Server Instances

Glenn Fleishman writes "Apple has changed its license for Mac OS X Server 10.5 (Leopard Server) to allow virtualized instances. VMware and Parallels are poised to offer support. This probably presages a thoroughly overhauled Xserve product with greater capability for acting as a virtual machine server, too. 'Ben Rudolph, Director of Corporate Communications for Parallels, told me, "Enabling Leopard Server to run in a virtual machine may take some time, but we're working closely with Apple on it and will make it public as quickly as possible." Pat Lee, Product Manager at VMware, concurred, saying "We applaud Apple for the exciting licensing changes implemented in Leopard Server. Apple customers can now run Mac OS X Server, Windows, Linux and other x86 operating systems simultaneously on Apple hardware so we are excited about the possibilities this change presents." Although neither company committed to specific features or timetables, it appears as though we should be seeing virtualization products from both that will enable an Xserve to run multiple copies of Leopard Server in virtual machines.'"

Before you get too excited...

[kebes]

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?)

Statement in article is incorrect

[FranTaylor]

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:server?

[domatic]

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?

[njfuzzy]

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:Statement in article is incorrect

[Bill_the_Engineer]

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...

*cough*

[msimm]

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?

[Constantine XVI]

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

Re:server?

[Anonymous Coward]

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:The problem VMware and others might face...

[TheRaven64]

Any half-decent server virtualisation tool will use emulated devices for booting at most. After that, it will switch to using paravirtualised devices. These will use device drivers written by the VM provider with an interface designed to have very low overheads. OS X has had a stable driver API for some years, so this really shouldn't be a problem.

Re:server?

[vought]

If you mean Appletalk, NT does that.

AppleTalk is quite dead.

AFP over IP isn't proprietary. Sad to see how many people here still think there's something "different" about Macs on a network.

Re:server?

[seabasstin]

(also PHP, Perl and Python runs seamlessly on Linux rather than on Mac, I mean PHP or Perl or Java is well TESTED on Linux rather than on Mac).

What the hell are you talking about?

PHP PERL PYTHON and all your linux and most Unix server software has been running perfectly in OSX since the day it was released.
every single mac install comes with apache, php, perl and python installed by default.
Mysql is one click away as well.

Furthermore most software that needed to be recompiled to run on the power architecture doesn't need to be anymore as an apple server is just another x86 server.

Most developers who I work with on major web projects using PHP/Mysql/postgres/Oracle/Python/Ruby do all their work in OSX, with some compatibility testing on windows, not much on Linux. (iVillage, BlackPlanet, VH1, MTV, Coke, L'oreal, Nickolodeon, Scolastic, etc) This is to their advantage because they can use all vi or emacs on the command line, they can use all opensource tools, as well as subetha, bbedit, etc, but then they can have MSword, excel and all the garbage that production managers/account execs send them as well, without using some clanky converter software.

further down your post:
How many really bother whether Linux is an OFFICIAL UNIX or not

Why should it matter if its an official Unix?
Well for starters because it means that most applications and application frameworks from any other Unix system can run on osx, either with a recompile or directly if from another x86 based Unix; again obviating your ignorant argument about Linux being the ONLY server.

Second because any Unix admin can open an osx command line and will feel at home, as he would on Solaris, AIX, IRIX, Unixware, etc.

All I care is it should be scalable, secure and supports major application frameworks and databases. Exactly, which is what OsX does. its scalable, you can form a grid system in a few clicks or command line commands, it supports every major framework as all the other Unix systems do, and it runs mySQL, Postgres, Oracle, DB2, and any other unix compatible open source database .

Nothing can replace Linux in the server market, but there is a great chance that Linux can exceed market share of Mac OS X
OsX might not be the most popular server for sure, but Linux market share in that market is DECLINING, not increasing:
http://enterpriselinuxlog.blogs.techtarget.com/2007/08/28/the-server-market-share-battle-microsoft-gains-2/ [techtarget.com]
http://www.geekpedia.com/news193_Linux-server-market-share-plummeting.html [geekpedia.com]
http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/184429419 [techweb.com]
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/48999.html [linuxinsider.com]

on desktop (I think Linux already exceeds Mac OS X in market share)
Hugh, dood... come on alright:
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/newsanalysis/techhardware/10385313.html [thestreet.com]
and the money is showing the opposite as well here:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/10/22/apple-q407-financials-triumph-of-the-steve [arstechnica.com]


how did this post get a 5 -- are you kidding me? what is informative about it?