9 ms·

Install OS X 10.10 Yosemite in VirtualBox

230 points by frdmn 11y ago

csvan 11y ago
Needless to say, this is a gross EULA violation (clarification: if you do it on non-Apple hardware, that is).
- kuschku 11y ago
  If you are in the US. In other countries, these parts of the EULA might not have a legal meaning at all.
  - chii 11y ago
    in other countries, the US can activate and kill with drones, their laws have little to legal meaning at all.
    - jlt 11y ago
      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.
      - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
        Congratulations, England is an old country.
        pluma 11y ago
        Not that old. The US is just an infant by comparison, that is all. If you want an old country, look at China.
        chrisBob 11y ago
        The Republic of China is only about 100 years old.
        pluma 11y ago
        The PRC, yes. China, no. That's like saying Germany is only 70 years old because the Federal Republic was only created after WW2.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
- legulere 11y ago
  It's not, you're allowed to install OS X in virtual machines granted it is on a apple device.
  - josteink 11y ago
    > It's not, you're allowed to install OS X in virtual machines granted it is on a apple device. I was with you until you said something about restrictions. No court of law anywhere has said that you running standard X86 code in a standard X86 environment is illegal.
    - anon1385 11y ago
      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).
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        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 are tested in court.
        anon1385 11y ago
        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 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118963284332223 [2] e.g http://tuomov.bitcheese.net/b/archives/2005/12/23/T22_53_01 http://tuomov.bitcheese.net/b/archives/2005/12/23/T22_53_01 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1877926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1877926
- josteink 11y ago
  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. In the meantime I will virtualize OSX to get the Mac-specific parts of my build and tests running, and leave everything else on proper Linux.
  - antimagic 11y ago
    Yes, because all "mac heads" are responsible for the choices made by Apple </s>
  - supercoder 11y ago
    As the Apple hardware & software combo is so beautiful, I prefer to run OSX and virtualize Linux when necessary.
    - PopeOfNope 11y ago
      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.
      - josteink 11y ago
        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.
        PopeOfNope 11y ago
        > I can buy any Thinkpad and boot Ubuntu with all hardware detected and functional. Until you try to hook up an external screen, then all bets are off. I know because I recently attempted to do just that (w530, ubuntu 14.04 LTS). Compare that to buying a macbook pro and it's no contest. The hardware is simply better supported.
- nathankunicki 11y ago
  Virtualization is expressly permitted by the Mac OS X 10.10.3 (Yosemite) SLA (Section 2B III) - http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/OSX10103.pdf http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/OSX10103.pdf (iii) to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software, for purposes of: (a) software development; (b) testing during software development; (c) using OS X Server; or (d) personal, non-commercial use. Unless you are talking about the modification of the installation media. That, I am unclear on.
  - michaelt 11y ago
    What I don't understand is: If Apple allows people to visualise OS X, why do they make doing so such a pain in the ass? I looked into virtualising OS X so I could test an installer on a clean machine image, but the instructions always involve downloading patched ISOs from torrent sites. Seemed to me testing like that would make me less professional, not more professional :)
    - mschuster91 11y ago
      I managed to install OS X Yosemite on Windows VMWare Workstation 10 using a commonly available VMWare patch and a USB stick for the installation, created using the standard createinstallmedia command.
    - jakobegger 11y ago
      Installing OSX 10.7 and later in VMWare Fusion on OSX is trivial. If I recall correctly, VMWare does it automatically if you just pass it the Installer from the app store. Installing 10.6 requires a bit of hackery unless you have a copy of the server version. I have a bunch of VMs for testing my OS X apps on older versions of the OS.
    - JohnTHaller 11y ago
      Apple only permits you to virtualize their OS on Mac hardware. They make it purposely difficult on everything else as they want every developer to have to buy into the hardware ecosystem to be able to build software for OS X and iOS.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
neals 11y ago
Would this run faster on a Windows-SDD than on a Mac-mini sloooow HDD?
- provemewrong 11y ago
  Why don't you replace that Mac Mini HDD with a blazing fast SSD instead?
  - byuu 11y ago
    Because you need multiple types of Torx security screwdrivers and have to literally disassemble the thing 100% (including removing the HSF and pulling out multiple tiny ribbon cables) to get the hard drive out; and it completely voids your warranty to do so. And hopefully you made a USB install stick first, since they don't ship with install media anymore. I'm sure the next iteration of the Mini will go to 32GB/64GB(+$100)/128GB(+$300) M.2 SSD options, all conveniently soldered onto the mainboard as well.
    - feld 11y ago
      Which Mac Mini model? I've never heard of such a thing.
      - byuu 11y ago
        2014 model. Here's a video showing the procedure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgEBPlz4QB8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgEBPlz4QB8 5:10 is particularly comical, by the way :)
    - robotresearcher 11y ago
      I extended the life of an iMac by booting from an external SSD over Thunderbolt. I couldn't face the replacement process at home. Performance is very good.
    - aphistic 11y ago
      > And hopefully you made a USB install stick first, since they don't ship with install media anymore. As if anybody actually does that any more? I just bought a new ThinkPad and it didn't even come with a manual, just a little sheet of paper telling me where to find the PDFs.
alkonaut 11y ago
It seems the image must be created on an existing OS X installation. Is a pre-baked image portable to virtualbox running on other host OS:es? (Yes I know, Eula yada yada).
- josteink 11y ago
  It is.
- mahouse 11y ago
  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.
  - josteink 11y ago
    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.
    - extra88 11y ago
      "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_10_10.html http://partnerweb.vmware.com/GOSIG/MacOSX_10_10.html
      - josteink 11y ago
        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.
kriro 11y ago
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.
- stephenr 11y ago
  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 virtualise OS X on top of OS X (emphasis mine): > to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software
  - wooger 11y ago
    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.
  - tracker1 11y ago
    I also understand, that if you bootcamp to get windows/linux that the thunderbolt ports aren't completely compliant... Ie you'll see issues connecting/disconnecting devices after booting (like the wired ethernet).
- Igglyboo 11y ago
  You're far better off dual-booting or running Linux in a VM. You're going to miss out on firmware updates and have bad battery life.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  Why not just dual-boot linux-mac?
wslh 11y ago
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 https://communities.vmware.com/thread/466874
- pierrec 11y ago
  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 running. But it was a pain. Edit: less aggressive wording
  - sbuk 11y ago
    "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.
    - reedlaw 11y ago
      That kind of consideration is synonymous with "give us more money" in my book. For developers who are willing to develop for iOS but don't use Macs, why not give them a bone and let them develop on a VM? Apple still makes money if the app sells.
      - zkhalique 11y ago
        Apple has considered that question, and the answer is "because they won't truly buy into our larger ecosystem."
rmoriz 11y ago
There is a simpler solution out there using Hashicorps' Packer and the great build scripts from timsutton ( can build images for Fusion and Parallels, too.): https://github.com/timsutton/osx-vm-templates https://github.com/timsutton/osx-vm-templates e.g. https://gist.github.com/rmoriz/37b671afe53c984b2f85 https://gist.github.com/rmoriz/37b671afe53c984b2f85
arihant 11y ago
Since Virtual Box supports EFI boot, and since we did not fiddle with the ISO in this process, that means this process will not work on incompatible older Macbooks, right?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
zyxley 11y ago
Note that if you do this with 10.10, performance will be terrible because of graphics accelerations issues. From what I understand, 10.9 generally works fine in VMs, but there was a change in the underlying graphics engine in 10.10 that works fine on real hardware but plays merry havoc with VMs.
st3fan 11y ago
Can the same technique be used to run Yosemite under KVM?
- defied 11y ago
  Take a look at http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~somlo/OSXKVM/ http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~somlo/OSXKVM/ I haven't tried it myself, but those instructions should help with running Yosemite on QEMU/KVM
  - st3fan 11y ago
    Ah thanks for the reminder. I had looked at that page previously when it just covered 10.9. I see that it has been updated with instructions for 10.10. Wonderful.
cerberusss 11y ago
Now I remember why I don't like VirtualBox. There's always some problem when I use it. In this case, I followed the exact instructions. I have a non-functioning trackpad in the guest, which sometimes happens, and sometimes not. In the OS X installer, I also can't select the disk to install to. And when I powered down the VM and powered it up again, I get an error message "Error loading kernel cache (0x9)". That seems to be fixed when you follow the FAQ for "Stuck on boot". The non-functioning trackpad I can get around, by rebooting until it works. Anybody had the problem where you can't select the target disk in the installer? Edit: got it. You have to format the disk. In the installer, go to Disk Utility and "erase" the disk. This formats and partitions it.

230 points by frdmn 11y ago

csvan 11y ago

Needless to say, this is a gross EULA violation (clarification: if you do it on non-Apple hardware, that is).

kuschku 11y ago
If you are in the US. In other countries, these parts of the EULA might not have a legal meaning at all.
- chii 11y ago
  in other countries, the US can activate and kill with drones, their laws have little to legal meaning at all.
  - jlt 11y ago
    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.
    - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
      Congratulations, England is an old country.
      - pluma 11y ago
        Not that old. The US is just an infant by comparison, that is all. If you want an old country, look at China.
        chrisBob 11y ago
        The Republic of China is only about 100 years old.
        pluma 11y ago
        The PRC, yes. China, no. That's like saying Germany is only 70 years old because the Federal Republic was only created after WW2.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
legulere 11y ago
It's not, you're allowed to install OS X in virtual machines granted it is on a apple device.
- josteink 11y ago
  > It's not, you're allowed to install OS X in virtual machines granted it is on a apple device. I was with you until you said something about restrictions. No court of law anywhere has said that you running standard X86 code in a standard X86 environment is illegal.
  - anon1385 11y ago
    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).
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      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 are tested in court.
      - anon1385 11y ago
        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 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118963284332223 [2] e.g http://tuomov.bitcheese.net/b/archives/2005/12/23/T22_53_01 http://tuomov.bitcheese.net/b/archives/2005/12/23/T22_53_01 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1877926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1877926
josteink 11y ago
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. In the meantime I will virtualize OSX to get the Mac-specific parts of my build and tests running, and leave everything else on proper Linux.
- antimagic 11y ago
  Yes, because all "mac heads" are responsible for the choices made by Apple </s>
- supercoder 11y ago
  As the Apple hardware & software combo is so beautiful, I prefer to run OSX and virtualize Linux when necessary.
  - PopeOfNope 11y ago
    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.
    - josteink 11y ago
      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.
      - PopeOfNope 11y ago
        > I can buy any Thinkpad and boot Ubuntu with all hardware detected and functional. Until you try to hook up an external screen, then all bets are off. I know because I recently attempted to do just that (w530, ubuntu 14.04 LTS). Compare that to buying a macbook pro and it's no contest. The hardware is simply better supported.
nathankunicki 11y ago
Virtualization is expressly permitted by the Mac OS X 10.10.3 (Yosemite) SLA (Section 2B III) - http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/OSX10103.pdf http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/OSX10103.pdf (iii) to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software, for purposes of: (a) software development; (b) testing during software development; (c) using OS X Server; or (d) personal, non-commercial use. Unless you are talking about the modification of the installation media. That, I am unclear on.
- michaelt 11y ago
  What I don't understand is: If Apple allows people to visualise OS X, why do they make doing so such a pain in the ass? I looked into virtualising OS X so I could test an installer on a clean machine image, but the instructions always involve downloading patched ISOs from torrent sites. Seemed to me testing like that would make me less professional, not more professional :)
  - mschuster91 11y ago
    I managed to install OS X Yosemite on Windows VMWare Workstation 10 using a commonly available VMWare patch and a USB stick for the installation, created using the standard createinstallmedia command.
  - jakobegger 11y ago
    Installing OSX 10.7 and later in VMWare Fusion on OSX is trivial. If I recall correctly, VMWare does it automatically if you just pass it the Installer from the app store. Installing 10.6 requires a bit of hackery unless you have a copy of the server version. I have a bunch of VMs for testing my OS X apps on older versions of the OS.
  - JohnTHaller 11y ago
    Apple only permits you to virtualize their OS on Mac hardware. They make it purposely difficult on everything else as they want every developer to have to buy into the hardware ecosystem to be able to build software for OS X and iOS.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

neals 11y ago

Would this run faster on a Windows-SDD than on a Mac-mini sloooow HDD?

provemewrong 11y ago
Why don't you replace that Mac Mini HDD with a blazing fast SSD instead?
- byuu 11y ago
  Because you need multiple types of Torx security screwdrivers and have to literally disassemble the thing 100% (including removing the HSF and pulling out multiple tiny ribbon cables) to get the hard drive out; and it completely voids your warranty to do so. And hopefully you made a USB install stick first, since they don't ship with install media anymore. I'm sure the next iteration of the Mini will go to 32GB/64GB(+$100)/128GB(+$300) M.2 SSD options, all conveniently soldered onto the mainboard as well.
  - feld 11y ago
    Which Mac Mini model? I've never heard of such a thing.
    - byuu 11y ago
      2014 model. Here's a video showing the procedure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgEBPlz4QB8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgEBPlz4QB8 5:10 is particularly comical, by the way :)
  - robotresearcher 11y ago
    I extended the life of an iMac by booting from an external SSD over Thunderbolt. I couldn't face the replacement process at home. Performance is very good.
  - aphistic 11y ago
    > And hopefully you made a USB install stick first, since they don't ship with install media anymore. As if anybody actually does that any more? I just bought a new ThinkPad and it didn't even come with a manual, just a little sheet of paper telling me where to find the PDFs.

alkonaut 11y ago

It seems the image must be created on an existing OS X installation. Is a pre-baked image portable to virtualbox running on other host OS:es? (Yes I know, Eula yada yada).

josteink 11y ago
It is.
mahouse 11y ago
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.
- josteink 11y ago
  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.
  - extra88 11y ago
    "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_10_10.html http://partnerweb.vmware.com/GOSIG/MacOSX_10_10.html
    - josteink 11y ago
      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.

kriro 11y ago

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.

stephenr 11y ago
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 virtualise OS X on top of OS X (emphasis mine): > to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software
- wooger 11y ago
  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.
- tracker1 11y ago
  I also understand, that if you bootcamp to get windows/linux that the thunderbolt ports aren't completely compliant... Ie you'll see issues connecting/disconnecting devices after booting (like the wired ethernet).
Igglyboo 11y ago
You're far better off dual-booting or running Linux in a VM. You're going to miss out on firmware updates and have bad battery life.
ikeboy 11y ago
Why not just dual-boot linux-mac?

wslh 11y ago

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 https://communities.vmware.com/thread/466874

pierrec 11y ago
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 running. But it was a pain. Edit: less aggressive wording
- sbuk 11y ago
  "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.
  - reedlaw 11y ago
    That kind of consideration is synonymous with "give us more money" in my book. For developers who are willing to develop for iOS but don't use Macs, why not give them a bone and let them develop on a VM? Apple still makes money if the app sells.
    - zkhalique 11y ago
      Apple has considered that question, and the answer is "because they won't truly buy into our larger ecosystem."

rmoriz 11y ago

There is a simpler solution out there using Hashicorps' Packer and the great build scripts from timsutton ( can build images for Fusion and Parallels, too.): https://github.com/timsutton/osx-vm-templates https://github.com/timsutton/osx-vm-templates e.g. https://gist.github.com/rmoriz/37b671afe53c984b2f85 https://gist.github.com/rmoriz/37b671afe53c984b2f85

arihant 11y ago

Since Virtual Box supports EFI boot, and since we did not fiddle with the ISO in this process, that means this process will not work on incompatible older Macbooks, right?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

zyxley 11y ago

Note that if you do this with 10.10, performance will be terrible because of graphics accelerations issues. From what I understand, 10.9 generally works fine in VMs, but there was a change in the underlying graphics engine in 10.10 that works fine on real hardware but plays merry havoc with VMs.

st3fan 11y ago

Can the same technique be used to run Yosemite under KVM?

defied 11y ago
Take a look at http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~somlo/OSXKVM/ http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~somlo/OSXKVM/ I haven't tried it myself, but those instructions should help with running Yosemite on QEMU/KVM
- st3fan 11y ago
  Ah thanks for the reminder. I had looked at that page previously when it just covered 10.9. I see that it has been updated with instructions for 10.10. Wonderful.

cerberusss 11y ago

Now I remember why I don't like VirtualBox. There's always some problem when I use it. In this case, I followed the exact instructions. I have a non-functioning trackpad in the guest, which sometimes happens, and sometimes not. In the OS X installer, I also can't select the disk to install to. And when I powered down the VM and powered it up again, I get an error message "Error loading kernel cache (0x9)". That seems to be fixed when you follow the FAQ for "Stuck on boot". The non-functioning trackpad I can get around, by rebooting until it works. Anybody had the problem where you can't select the target disk in the installer? Edit: got it. You have to format the disk. In the installer, go to Disk Utility and "erase" the disk. This formats and partitions it.