Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Install OS X 10.10 Yosemite in VirtualBox

blog.frd.mn

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 109 posts

Re: Install OS X 10.10 Yosemite in VirtualBox

#41

Post by wooger »

stephenr wrote: post #27
kriro wrote: post #22

I'm thinking about getting a MBP (have one at work) because the hardware is shiny and OSX is useful/needed for some things (iOS development, Unity development). However I'd much rather run Linux as the base OS. That setup wouldn't violate the EULA. I guess I'll spin up a VB-image on this OSX-MBP and see how it goes :) Useful.

I would guess you'll probably get at best mediocre battery life not running OS X as the host OS. If you happen to have any issues with hardware (that are actually hardware issues) it will also most likely be a lot harder (i.e. more involved) to get support from an Apple Store. Also, from reading the quoted text about the "virtualisation" clause in the EULA - it may only be "acceptable" (by Apple's terms) to virtualis…

Also, there's no way to install firmware updates released by apple unless you're running OS X on the hardware - though you can keep a crappy USB drive around to boot from to accomplish this OK.

Re: Install OS X 10.10 Yosemite in VirtualBox

#42

Post by wslh »

I used OS X in VMware and Virtualbox (running Xcode) and the experience was awful. Mainly because 3D support is not available and OS X makes a heavy use of graphics acceleration.

OS updates also break the installation.

There are many discussion threads on this topic, like this one https://communities.vmware.com/thread/466874

Re: Install OS X 10.10 Yosemite in VirtualBox

#43

Post by josteink »

extra88 wrote: post #38
josteink wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VMware does not (last time I checked) support (U)EFI boot and OSX relies on this, even though it's an extremely dated EFI version from 2006. Virtual box support EFI-boot fine, so no patches are needed and OSX can be installed from a normal, unhacked ISO-file. Basically I'd say this is a shortcoming in VMware and I'm surprised it's still there after all these years.

"VMware" is the company, not the product. You can run many versions of OS X as a guest on VMware Fusion and VMware ESXi when the "physical system is an Apple-labeled computer." [1] Installation does not require a hacked ISO or other modified installer however the current ESXi instructions do say to install Mountain Lion first in the VM then install Yosemite on top of it. [1] http://partnerweb.vmware.com/GOSIG/MacOSX_…

So basically VMware plays fiddle to apple's artificially restrictive licencing, and virtualbox does not then?

If that's so, I'll clearly prefer virtualbox in the future. I like software that respects the user as opposed to software restricting my options.

Re: Install OS X 10.10 Yosemite in VirtualBox

#44

Post by [deleted] »

jlt wrote: post #24
chii wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in other countries, the US can activate and kill with drones, their laws have little to legal meaning at all.

Sure, I live in the UK and I live in constant fear of the mighty US drone army. Our laws (a great deal of which predate the existence of the US) have no meaning.

[deleted]

Re: Install OS X 10.10 Yosemite in VirtualBox

#46

Post by lloeki »

josteink wrote: post #43
extra88 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"VMware" is the company, not the product. You can run many versions of OS X as a guest on VMware Fusion and VMware ESXi when the "physical system is an Apple-labeled computer." [1] Installation does not require a hacked ISO or other modified installer however the current ESXi instructions do say to install Mountain Lion first in the VM then install Yosemite on top of it. [1] http://partnerweb.vmware.com/GOSIG/MacOSX_…

So basically VMware plays fiddle to apple's artificially restrictive licencing, and virtualbox does not then? If that's so, I'll clearly prefer virtualbox in the future. I like software that respects the user as opposed to software restricting my options.

> VMware plays fiddle to apple's artificially restrictive licencing

VMware merely passes relevant host information to the guest.

For OS X this is something (can't remember) that satisfies the "Dont Steal Mac OS X" kext. For Windows and PCs with embedded license signature keys (again, can't remember the name, SLIC or something like that) then they're passing that (making virtualized Windows+Office OEM licenses activate against the original hardware†). VirtualBox does not (or did not last time I had to patch it), and it's a pain, putting you in all sorts of legal grey areas for something the license allows.

† also works on a hackintosh

Re: Install OS X 10.10 Yosemite in VirtualBox

#47

Post by extra88 »

josteink wrote: post #43
extra88 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"VMware" is the company, not the product. You can run many versions of OS X as a guest on VMware Fusion and VMware ESXi when the "physical system is an Apple-labeled computer." [1] Installation does not require a hacked ISO or other modified installer however the current ESXi instructions do say to install Mountain Lion first in the VM then install Yosemite on top of it. [1] http://partnerweb.vmware.com/GOSIG/MacOSX_…

So basically VMware plays fiddle to apple's artificially restrictive licencing, and virtualbox does not then? If that's so, I'll clearly prefer virtualbox in the future. I like software that respects the user as opposed to software restricting my options.

I don't know what VMware's software does or doesn't do but its documentation just reiterates what OS X's EULA says. VirtualBox's documentation does the same thing [1] and goes further to caution "These license restrictions are also enforced on a technical level. Mac OS X verifies whether it is running on Apple hardware, and most DVDs that that come with Apple hardware even check for an exact model. These restrictions are not circumvented by VirtualBox and continue to apply."

BTW, if you're going to count on Oracle (who owns VirtualBox) for supporting software freedom, you're going to have a bad time.

[1] https://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ch03.html#intro-macosxgues...

Re: Install OS X 10.10 Yosemite in VirtualBox

#48

Post by mauricemir »

TickleSteve wrote: post #30
sbuk wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is "proper" Linux?

He's probably one of those guys that thinks OSX is a version of Linux... or BSD... ( hint its Mach with a BSD userland).

using both you wouldn't think that Linux works better for one

Re: Install OS X 10.10 Yosemite in VirtualBox

#49

Post by belorn »

pavlov wrote: post #29
userbinator wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EULA is a different thing from copyright.

Indeed. Software licenses exist because copyright on its own is insufficient to define the relationship between vendors and customers. I'm not saying that EULAs are good. But they're not obviously invalid just because common sense suggests you should be able to run some software on some hardware. If Apple's EULA is unenforceable, how about Oracle's licensing agreements? Or the GPL? These are complicated questions.

Before those question exist, you got to answer even more complicated questions like if a license is a contract, if there is meeting of the minds, and what impact consumer protection laws has.

When it comes to an EULA, is that a contract or an license? Is there a meeting of the minds when one party has not read it or can't possible understand it even if they tried? If we then agree its a contract which both party must follow, how was the details of that contract communicated during the sale of the product? Are there parts which conflicts with contract/consumer protection laws, and what impact does that have to the contract as a whole?

A license agreement however is a bit easier if we agree that it is not a contract. If a person want to distribute a copyrighted work, then the law require them to seek permission from the copyright author. That permission is then granted through a license on specific conditions, conditions which the distributor has to prove in court if the permission is ever disputed. If the license would somehow be found to be invalid, then the distributor would be found distributing without a valid proof of permission.

Many people are of the second interpretation that licenses are not contract, which mean GPL and EULA's are under completely different legal theory and law. A contract can be unenforceable, and it doesn't impact the theory of software licenses.

Post reply on HN