On Oct 8, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Dave and others wrote:
After some back and forth, VMware ultimately said that while what
Apple VPs say on the subject is fine, they need Apple to change the
license agreement to explicitly *allow* virtualization. I'm not sure
if that's just an excuse or a legitimate concern or a combination of
the two. I had hoped (before it was known to not be the case) that
Leopard (or at least Leopard Server) itself would have some kind of
virtualization capability, but alas, it doesn't look like we'll get
virtualization of Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server anytime soon, even on
Apple hardware. :-/
Just curious about this thread. What exactly is this thread about?
What and why is this important or disappointing? I understand
VMWare, Parallels, etc allowing "virtual" environments of non-Mac
OSes. But I don't understand why I would want a virtual Mac OS
environment in a Mac OS environment.
Some virtualization software (like VMware's server products) replace
the host OS completely.
Which is what makes the difference between a type 1 and type 2
hypervisor.
"Bare-metal" things like Xen, ESX, and the upcoming MS hypervisor are
type 1.
Host based stuff like GSX, Fusion, Parallels, and Virtual Box are type
2.
