Can the same technique be used to run Yosemite under KVM?
Install OS X 10.10 Yosemite in VirtualBox
71–80 of 109 posts
Re: Install OS X 10.10 Yosemite in VirtualBox
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Doesn't Apple have any consideration for this situation?" They do; buy a Mac. EDIT: That sounds harsh, but it is their business model. That is the cost of entry to the Apple eco-system. I would argue that the running through hoops was your choice. The obvious choice is to not build for their platform.
That's kinda like saying the obvious choice is not to build for Windows, because you have to have Windows to run Windows development tools. Or not to build for Linux because you have to buy a linux machine.
You don't have to buy Microsoft hardware to run Windows development tools
Re: Install OS X 10.10 Yosemite in VirtualBox
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same experience here. I usually don't have an Apple computer underhand, but I maintain cross-platform software for which I publish OSX binaries. I wish Apple gave some consideration to this situation, which is less of a problem for other plaforms which can be virtualized properly. After going though hoops running unstable VMs on old versions of VirtualBox, I ended up getting a vaguely stable build process up and runn…
"Doesn't Apple have any consideration for this situation?" They do; buy a Mac. EDIT: That sounds harsh, but it is their business model. That is the cost of entry to the Apple eco-system. I would argue that the running through hoops was your choice. The obvious choice is to not build for their platform.
When I'm fixing a bug in a piece of open source software reported by a user running it on a Mac, my inclination to actually pay money to fix that bug hovers around zero.
Re: Install OS X 10.10 Yosemite in VirtualBox
#74I 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
I run Yosemite Zone on a Lenovo W530 just fine, 13Gb RAM Allocated to OSten. Sure it's a little slow but it's usable. Still I agree, on slower hardware it's useless. I'm buying a Macbook Air 2011 next week since I need something faster and the Lenovo is a company machine.
Re: Install OS X 10.10 Yosemite in VirtualBox
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's kinda like saying the obvious choice is not to build for Windows, because you have to have Windows to run Windows development tools. Or not to build for Linux because you have to buy a linux machine.
You don't have to buy Microsoft hardware to run Windows development tools
But you do need to buy their software (or you did, until very recently), at least their operating system. In this case, Apple only sells their software in combination with hardware.
$500 for a Mac (with a license to all their "free" software) is not terribly far from $200 for Windows 8 Pro.
Re: Install OS X 10.10 Yosemite in VirtualBox
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Those legally binding EULAs with the associated EULA-violations we've constantly heard people getting jailed over. How about you Mac-heads come to terms with Macs being bog standard X86 hardware and OSX being a bog standard X86 OS, and that running a bog standard X86 OS on bog standard X86 hardware is absolutely within everyone's legal right to do? There's nothing special about your hardware nor OS. Get over it.…
As the Apple hardware & software combo is so beautiful, I prefer to run OSX and virtualize Linux when necessary.
At the very least, it's less hassle than linux thanks largely to well supported hardware. As for the beauty of the hardware and software, it becomes less so with every passing year.
Re: Install OS X 10.10 Yosemite in VirtualBox
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know of some images that are available at The Pirate Bay, but they are only for VMware and also require some kind of patch to the virtualisation software for a reason I do not know.
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.
[deleted]
Re: Install OS X 10.10 Yosemite in VirtualBox
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somehow I imagine you take a rather different stance when it comes to the many aspects of the GPL or AGPL that haven't been tested in court. On those issues the position of the FSF is very much 'illegal till proven otherwise' (that's if you actually succeed in getting Eben Moglen to give a straight answer).
That's one of the most often repeated bits of nonsense regarding the GPL, the FSF has always been more than willing to test these aspects in court it's just that nobody has felt sure enough they would prevail in such a lawsuit that they bothered to follow through on it. Effectively this is testimony to how well the GPL has been put together from a legal point of view, it is bad contracts, agreements and licenses that…
So you think the FSF/SFLC wanted to go to court over this case, where Moglen was giving private legal advice to linux developers that was very much in conflict with copyright law[1]? I don't.
Uncertainty over what adaption means serves their purposes. Uncertainty about the legality of taking somebody else's code and just relicensing it as GPL also serves their purpose. As does uncertainly over what results in a combined or derivative work with GPL binaries. The more solidly those lines are drawn then the less risk people face when calling GPL code from GPL incompatible code. That means people are more likely to do all the kinds of things that RMS fears (e.g. proprietary IDEs that call out to gcc and all that kind of thing, which RMS was talking about recently in relation to emacs interfacing with gcc).
The problem they face is that ultimately they can't create a license that prevents interoperation with proprietary code without also violating freedom zero. The only real way they have to discourage people from doing that is legal uncertainty. That is why it's very difficult to get a straight answer from the FSF or SFLC about what constitutes a combined work (other than them just claiming everything in the world is a combined work, which is the usual nonsense reply you will get). If they answer the question then it's them flagging up the best way to get around the GPL.
For example the FSF claim that distributing FooApp that links to a user chosen library at runtime and calls frobulate() requires FooApp to be GPL licensed, even if the developer of FooApp doesn't distribute the library with the app (or at all), so long as there exists a library implementing frobulate() that is GPL licensed. If you really press them on this point then they will argue that it depends if other non-GPL libraries also implement frobulate(). Of course that creates a large loophole - just create a very basic crappy implementation of the API and make it available, with the expectation that users will actually use the superior GPL library. So it's worth noting that the FSF doesn't actually accept that argument when it comes the readline and editline. Distributing a binary containing the symbols for the readline API [2] is a GPL violation as far as they are concerned. Yet they have not taken anybody to court over this yet even though the FSF owns the copyright for readline.
You can easily find people with quite different views on what the linking clauses in the GPL mean[3], so it's clear that there is a great deal of confusion out there. Nobody really knows what it means till it gets tested in court and the FSF have no interest in getting this cleared up because there is a non-zero chance that the courts don't agree with the FSF's interpretation of title 17. Once the red line is drawn over what is and isn't a combined work then people will be free to work around the GPL with minimal legal risk.
That much legal uncertainty is not the sign of a well written license, if you think the aim of a license is to clearly enumerate what rights people have. If you think a software license is a political weapon then you probably don't care that some people are being scared away from doing things they have a legal right to do with your code (but that you don't like).
[1] http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118963284332223
[2] e.g http://tuomov.bitcheese.net/b/archives/2005/12/23/T22_53_01
Re: Install OS X 10.10 Yosemite in VirtualBox
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the Apple hardware & software combo is so beautiful, I prefer to run OSX and virtualize Linux when necessary.
At the very least, it's less hassle than linux thanks largely to well supported hardware. As for the beauty of the hardware and software, it becomes less so with every passing year.
On the contrary I find OSX's hardware support very poor compared to Linux.
I can buy any Thinkpad and boot Ubuntu with all hardware detected and functional. I cannot do the same with OSX.
Re: Install OS X 10.10 Yosemite in VirtualBox
#80I 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
> 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.
For desktop use it's probably true, but you can enable SSH and log in to run build-jobs and test-runs with Xcode and friends just fine.