7 ms·

When we were first adding Mac OS X guest support at VMware (2022)

71 points by luu 3y ago

antonvs 3y ago
They wouldn’t have to be horrified if their employer was more open about its software. Is there even a legal way to run a Mac VM on non-Apple hardware?
- m463 3y ago
  But you can run vmware on apple hardware.
  - lloeki 3y ago
    most notably you can run ESXi (or is it vSphere or something currently?) bare metal and virtualize macOS
    - giobox 3y ago
      How does licensing work, or am I hopelessly out of date? My understanding is historically the EULA-type thing on the OS only allowed you to virtualize on another Mac running macOS, or something along these lines, similar to other comment above. This always caused all sorts of fun for automated testing scenarios for me in years past... The technical barriers weren't the biggest headache around this in a commercial setting previously.
      - Wowfunhappy 3y ago
        Right, so you can run macOS inside ESXI on an Intel Mac and be fully EULA-compliant. This is a thing people do.
        lloeki 3y ago
        Or on Linux in Virtualbox, which combined with GitLab runner's virtualbox executor leveraging snapshotting provides you with instant-on, clean state macOS for each job run.
        toyg 3y ago
        You mean a virtualized Linux on Mac, that in turn runs VirtualBox? Because afaik, as soon as MacOS is not on Apple hardware at some level, it's not license-compliant.
        jagged-chisel 3y ago
        As long as real Mac hardware is anywhere in the stack, you are compliant.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - lloeki 3y ago
        > allowed you to virtualize on another Mac running macOS ^W^W and you'd be right. The only runtime requirement is Apple hardware. The initial wording was something along the lines as "on Apple-branded hardware", creating (if you were a bit zany) the loophole of stamping an Apple sticker on any hardware and declare it Apple-branded. That was the joke in some Hackintosh circles circa Snow Leopard.
      - actionfromafar 3y ago
        EULAs are far from completely legally binding in all jurisdictions. In fact, they seem to be a smorgasbord of legalese.
        giobox 3y ago
        I'm absolutely aware of this. It doesn't change the fact most professional medium to large enterprises will want to follow along, so whether it's truly legally binding or not is a moot point in reality a lot of the time.
        actionfromafar 3y ago
        Yes, which is why I’m always surprised when companies are willing to offer products tending to these edgy markets.
      - wkat4242 3y ago
        There was no technical barrier. ESXi until version 8 simply would recognise if it was running on a Mac and would offer macOS guest support automatically and officially. The hacks (like donk's unlocker) were only needed if you wanted to run on non-Mac hardware. I still run some Macs at work with ESXi on it for this purpose. With version 7 because VMWare stopped supporting Mac with ESXi 8. Sadly, because Apple hasn't even stopped yet making intel versions, it's a bit early IMO.
- vbezhenar 3y ago
  > Is there even a legal way to run a Mac VM on non-Apple hardware? I don't think so. No technical reasons, though, qemu runs it just fine.
- saagarjha 3y ago
  They absolutely would have.
  - antonvs 3y ago
    The point is if the OS were more open, people wouldn't have to hack their way around it like this.
- jeroenhd 3y ago
  Legal: probably. I don't expect consumers installing their legally bought software on a machine the manufacturer didn't approve to hold up in court. Without breaking the EULA: no. For the same reason you're not allowed to install Windows on an ARM Chromebook. Legally and without breaking the EULA: only the Darwin kernel and the various open source tools that can run on top of it. If you've bought an OS install disk, I'm not sure how enforceable "you may only use this disk on hardware we sell" is in countries with consumer protection laws (i.e. large parts of Europe). In some jurisdictions, you would even be allowed to reverse engineer and patch any code that breaks compatibility. If you're using a license tied to your MacBook on another machine, or pirate a copy, that's probably illegal in every way possible. In theory you can install Lion, software you can physically buy and the last way to get a separate OSX license, install it, probably legally, and then upgrade the OS through official installers. That becomes a complex legal matter very quickly (as you often need to fake hardware IDs of real Apple devices to get through the process) as every upgrade comes with its own EULA, but it's a way forward. However, blocking these installs is pointless anyway. We're at the point where docker run -it [...] sickcodes/docker-osx:ventura spawns a VM for you. Lastly, as long as the software was developed on a Mac and tested with the open source kernel on other platforms, there's no legal reason why they couldn't have created an emulator. Darwin is a free kernel in almost every sense of the word and while their customers may be breaking the TOS between themselves and Apple, there's no restriction on selling software that may break the TOS if run on the wrong machine. With Macs being Intel PCs capable of running Linux and Windows, often lacking special drivers from Apple, targeting generic x64 seems like a perfectly fine solution.
  - antonvs 3y ago
    Thanks for the informative comment. > With Macs being Intel PCs capable of running Linux and Windows, often lacking special drivers from Apple, targeting generic x64 seems like a perfectly fine solution. Of course they're quickly becoming ARM64 PCs now.
    - jeroenhd 3y ago
      That's true, and I think it's going to be the end of the old Hackintoshes as well. At some point a version of OSX will be released that will only be available on aarch64. Until Microsoft sells Mac compatible Windows for ARM licences, the "you can use it in bootcamp" defense becomes a lot harder to argue.
wnscooke 3y ago
What’s with the weird looking ‘vm’ on vmware?
- ale42 3y ago
  some fancy Unicode (small-caps letters... see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_caps#Unicode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_caps#Unicode). Not sure why the author used them, though.
  - gbraad 3y ago
    unnecessary stylizing. seems to have been changed as it seriously messes up searching.
    - commandersaki 3y ago
      Maybe not being indexed under vmware in plaintext is the goal?
  - Wowfunhappy 3y ago
    > Not sure why the author used them, though. I'm pretty sure the author is trying to mimic the VMWare logo: https://cf-assets.www.cloudflare.com/slt3lc6tev37/6lqgerXP230AIMluLJZkNZ/ff759aac93876f7bf3646c6f5293c28e/vmware_logo_high_res.png https://cf-assets.www.cloudflare.com/slt3lc6tev37/6lqgerXP23... Reading through their blog, the author appears to enjoy being clever with unicode.
    - numist 3y ago
      Pretty much. When I was at VMware (2007-2011) the canonical logo used small caps for the capital letters. I thought it looked nice.
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      He didn't manage to make it look like the ligature though :( There is probably a way to do that with unicode.
AshamedCaptain 3y ago
I ponder how many engineers remain at VMware that still play tricks like that. These days Workstation seems like a carcass of its older self.
- numist 3y ago
  Not many! They fired the entire hosted-ui team in 2016 (ref: https://blog.chipx86.com/2016/01/26/a-tribute-to-vmware-workstation-fusion-and-hosted-ui/ https://blog.chipx86.com/2016/01/26/a-tribute-to-vmware-work... )
gh123man 3y ago
Maybe a slightly off topic question, but with the recent-ish news of Corellium winning against Apple in court to sell an iOS virtualization service. How is it that virtualizing macOS (on non-apple hardware) is still NOT ok (illegal?)? Cloud providers are forced to host mac instances on real mac hardware for example (with a lot of strange restrictions).
- 4ad 3y ago
  Virtualizing macOS on non-Apple hardware is against Apple's TOS. It is not illegal. Big difference.
  - solarkraft 3y ago
    What exactly are the repercussions for breaking them? Sure, Apple wouldn't sell me anything officially anymore, but how could they actually stop me? They evidently can't stop Corellium.
    - thenewwazoo 3y ago
      They could sue you in court, and the court could find for them and enjoin you from doing a particular thing (an "injunction"), and then if you did that thing any more you'd be in contempt of court, which can result in fines and jail time.
    - fragmede 3y ago
      Ask Psystar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar_Corporation
wkat4242 3y ago
It's really annoying they dropped macOS guest support from ESXi 8 though. After all, Apple is still bringing out new versions for intel.

71 points by luu 3y ago

They wouldn’t have to be horrified if their employer was more open about its software. Is there even a legal way to run a Mac VM on non-Apple hardware?

m463 3y ago
But you can run vmware on apple hardware.
- lloeki 3y ago
  most notably you can run ESXi (or is it vSphere or something currently?) bare metal and virtualize macOS
  - giobox 3y ago
    How does licensing work, or am I hopelessly out of date? My understanding is historically the EULA-type thing on the OS only allowed you to virtualize on another Mac running macOS, or something along these lines, similar to other comment above. This always caused all sorts of fun for automated testing scenarios for me in years past... The technical barriers weren't the biggest headache around this in a commercial setting previously.
    - Wowfunhappy 3y ago
      Right, so you can run macOS inside ESXI on an Intel Mac and be fully EULA-compliant. This is a thing people do.
      - lloeki 3y ago
        Or on Linux in Virtualbox, which combined with GitLab runner's virtualbox executor leveraging snapshotting provides you with instant-on, clean state macOS for each job run.
        toyg 3y ago
        You mean a virtualized Linux on Mac, that in turn runs VirtualBox? Because afaik, as soon as MacOS is not on Apple hardware at some level, it's not license-compliant.
        jagged-chisel 3y ago
        As long as real Mac hardware is anywhere in the stack, you are compliant.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - lloeki 3y ago
      > allowed you to virtualize on another Mac running macOS ^W^W and you'd be right. The only runtime requirement is Apple hardware. The initial wording was something along the lines as "on Apple-branded hardware", creating (if you were a bit zany) the loophole of stamping an Apple sticker on any hardware and declare it Apple-branded. That was the joke in some Hackintosh circles circa Snow Leopard.
    - actionfromafar 3y ago
      EULAs are far from completely legally binding in all jurisdictions. In fact, they seem to be a smorgasbord of legalese.
      - giobox 3y ago
        I'm absolutely aware of this. It doesn't change the fact most professional medium to large enterprises will want to follow along, so whether it's truly legally binding or not is a moot point in reality a lot of the time.
        actionfromafar 3y ago
        Yes, which is why I’m always surprised when companies are willing to offer products tending to these edgy markets.
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      There was no technical barrier. ESXi until version 8 simply would recognise if it was running on a Mac and would offer macOS guest support automatically and officially. The hacks (like donk's unlocker) were only needed if you wanted to run on non-Mac hardware. I still run some Macs at work with ESXi on it for this purpose. With version 7 because VMWare stopped supporting Mac with ESXi 8. Sadly, because Apple hasn't even stopped yet making intel versions, it's a bit early IMO.
vbezhenar 3y ago
> Is there even a legal way to run a Mac VM on non-Apple hardware? I don't think so. No technical reasons, though, qemu runs it just fine.
saagarjha 3y ago
They absolutely would have.
- antonvs 3y ago
  The point is if the OS were more open, people wouldn't have to hack their way around it like this.
jeroenhd 3y ago
Legal: probably. I don't expect consumers installing their legally bought software on a machine the manufacturer didn't approve to hold up in court. Without breaking the EULA: no. For the same reason you're not allowed to install Windows on an ARM Chromebook. Legally and without breaking the EULA: only the Darwin kernel and the various open source tools that can run on top of it. If you've bought an OS install disk, I'm not sure how enforceable "you may only use this disk on hardware we sell" is in countries with consumer protection laws (i.e. large parts of Europe). In some jurisdictions, you would even be allowed to reverse engineer and patch any code that breaks compatibility. If you're using a license tied to your MacBook on another machine, or pirate a copy, that's probably illegal in every way possible. In theory you can install Lion, software you can physically buy and the last way to get a separate OSX license, install it, probably legally, and then upgrade the OS through official installers. That becomes a complex legal matter very quickly (as you often need to fake hardware IDs of real Apple devices to get through the process) as every upgrade comes with its own EULA, but it's a way forward. However, blocking these installs is pointless anyway. We're at the point where docker run -it [...] sickcodes/docker-osx:ventura spawns a VM for you. Lastly, as long as the software was developed on a Mac and tested with the open source kernel on other platforms, there's no legal reason why they couldn't have created an emulator. Darwin is a free kernel in almost every sense of the word and while their customers may be breaking the TOS between themselves and Apple, there's no restriction on selling software that may break the TOS if run on the wrong machine. With Macs being Intel PCs capable of running Linux and Windows, often lacking special drivers from Apple, targeting generic x64 seems like a perfectly fine solution.
- antonvs 3y ago
  Thanks for the informative comment. > With Macs being Intel PCs capable of running Linux and Windows, often lacking special drivers from Apple, targeting generic x64 seems like a perfectly fine solution. Of course they're quickly becoming ARM64 PCs now.
  - jeroenhd 3y ago
    That's true, and I think it's going to be the end of the old Hackintoshes as well. At some point a version of OSX will be released that will only be available on aarch64. Until Microsoft sells Mac compatible Windows for ARM licences, the "you can use it in bootcamp" defense becomes a lot harder to argue.

wnscooke 3y ago

What’s with the weird looking ‘vm’ on vmware?

ale42 3y ago
some fancy Unicode (small-caps letters... see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_caps#Unicode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_caps#Unicode). Not sure why the author used them, though.
- gbraad 3y ago
  unnecessary stylizing. seems to have been changed as it seriously messes up searching.
  - commandersaki 3y ago
    Maybe not being indexed under vmware in plaintext is the goal?
- Wowfunhappy 3y ago
  > Not sure why the author used them, though. I'm pretty sure the author is trying to mimic the VMWare logo: https://cf-assets.www.cloudflare.com/slt3lc6tev37/6lqgerXP230AIMluLJZkNZ/ff759aac93876f7bf3646c6f5293c28e/vmware_logo_high_res.png https://cf-assets.www.cloudflare.com/slt3lc6tev37/6lqgerXP23... Reading through their blog, the author appears to enjoy being clever with unicode.
  - numist 3y ago
    Pretty much. When I was at VMware (2007-2011) the canonical logo used small caps for the capital letters. I thought it looked nice.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    He didn't manage to make it look like the ligature though :( There is probably a way to do that with unicode.

AshamedCaptain 3y ago

I ponder how many engineers remain at VMware that still play tricks like that. These days Workstation seems like a carcass of its older self.

numist 3y ago
Not many! They fired the entire hosted-ui team in 2016 (ref: https://blog.chipx86.com/2016/01/26/a-tribute-to-vmware-workstation-fusion-and-hosted-ui/ https://blog.chipx86.com/2016/01/26/a-tribute-to-vmware-work... )

gh123man 3y ago

Maybe a slightly off topic question, but with the recent-ish news of Corellium winning against Apple in court to sell an iOS virtualization service. How is it that virtualizing macOS (on non-apple hardware) is still NOT ok (illegal?)? Cloud providers are forced to host mac instances on real mac hardware for example (with a lot of strange restrictions).

4ad 3y ago
Virtualizing macOS on non-Apple hardware is against Apple's TOS. It is not illegal. Big difference.
- solarkraft 3y ago
  What exactly are the repercussions for breaking them? Sure, Apple wouldn't sell me anything officially anymore, but how could they actually stop me? They evidently can't stop Corellium.
  - thenewwazoo 3y ago
    They could sue you in court, and the court could find for them and enjoin you from doing a particular thing (an "injunction"), and then if you did that thing any more you'd be in contempt of court, which can result in fines and jail time.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    Ask Psystar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar_Corporation

wkat4242 3y ago

It's really annoying they dropped macOS guest support from ESXi 8 though. After all, Apple is still bringing out new versions for intel.