Since it was told to me in private conversation I'm not going to name
drop, but two Apple vice presidents said that Apple is completely
fine with virtualization of Mac OS X or Mac OS X Server as long as it
is on Apple hardware (and is properly licensed).
I'm not entirely sure that "Two Apple VPs told some guy that
virtualization
was OK by them" is an ironclad defense in court...
The point is that Apple executives are saying it's okay.
Not that just because they told it to "some guy" that it makes it
okay, but that Apple's position is (apparently) that it is
okay...making the follow-on questions of, "What's the holdup?" and
"Why do you think Apple doesn't want to allow this, when their
executives say they do?" perfectly appropriate. Or at least, "Why are
you guys not getting this resolved ASAP with Apple if Apple
executives are on board with the idea?"
I also asked Apple Legal and Apple's copyright folks multiple times
whether the clause in the license agreement prohibited
virtualization. No answer, of course.
...especially when Apple Legal can't be persuaded to say anything
similar.
Apple can resolve this inconsistency in five minutes if they choose
to.
Neither Parallels nor EMC/VMWare has that power.
I understand that, but since when did a license agreement not
*explicitly* stating that virtulaization is allowed equate to
virtualization being prohibited? I know people like Parallels and
VMware aren't in the business of making questionable legal decisions,
but it would seem that making a virtualization product that allowed
virtualization of Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server only on Apple hardware
wouldn't be a violation of the license agreement at all. And given
Apple's apparent agreement on that fact, albeit in a "just telling
some guy"-type of setting...well, let's just say I don't think
they're lying when they say that, so I am genuinely wondering how
this still hasn't been resolved after two years now.
Agree. I'm starting to put services into our Red Hat Enterprise Linux
VM environments instead of Mac OS X Server, specifically because of
numerous advantages in our environment, not the least of which is
cost, for VMs.
I'm starting to look at replacing Xserves with *NIX/Windows servers
as well,
for similar reasons.
The REALLY boggling thing to me is that Apple almost certainly
makes MORE
profit off of a $999 copy of Mac OS X Server than off a $2999
Xserve, so if
they can sell more copies of server for virtualization use that's
nothing
but a win for them. But they don't see it that way.
I agree, but to play devil's advocate, a lot of the win in Apple's
mind comes from using Mac OS X Server *with* Xserve, in essentially
one supported configuration, so when they talk about things like
Server Monitor and LOM and whatnot, it always applies to the one and
only way the product could be sold. Hell, I'd be happy just with
virtualizing Mac OS X *on Xserves*...I don't even need it to run in
our VMware environment.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Macos-x-server mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
