Apple to Allow Virtual Mac OS X Server Instances 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.'"
Re:Virtual DRM? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.....
Re:Before you get too excited... (Score:5, Interesting)
jeffk
Re:server? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:server? (Score:3, Interesting)
No, we have a customer that would like to use the bog-standard equipment they paid for. That's not a lot to ask.
Tho, it's *native* resolution is 1600x1200? Talk about cruisin for a bruisin. You sure the videocard even supports that video mode? Sure it, should, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it didn't.
Why is 1600x1200 such a difficult requirement in 2007? As far as whether the video card supports it, the same hardware was working fine at 1600x1200 under SUSE 10.x several months ago, then we decided (for various unrelated reasons) to upgrade to Ubuntu, and now we have this problem.
I stand by my statement, though. Getting a monitor to work at high res on a server should be waayyyyyat the bottom of the "things that matter in any way whatsoever" list, since any reasonably smart admin is going to be utilizing a remote connnection anyway.
This server won't have a "reasonably smart admin" available, that is the point. The server will not be connected to the Internet for security reasons (it controls audio at a theme park), so any administration will be done by the customer, possibly with our tech people answering questions over the phone. If the server was an Apple machine, our job would have been done several days ago because everything would have "just worked" out of the box. It doesn't much matter whether YOU think it's important or not, it's important in this application and while Linux should be able to do handle this application easily, it's currently not doing so.