Running OS X Mavericks under QEMU with KVM
blog.definedcode.com
blog.definedcode.com
Adapting his work in my opinion is not copy and pasting his work and adding a line or two in the middle. Making a simple enough script that runs the whole thing from start to finish for example would be a nice adaptation that I am sure he and many other people would appreciate.
Maybe the choice of your wording and the structure of your post is a bit unfortunate. If so, consider editing it.
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/%7Esomlo/OSXKVM/
edit: sorry, if i came across harsh, in the tiny little world in my head the one thing engineers care about/enjoy(but don't expect) after an accomplishment is praise and credit.
This was more as a reference and a quick guide (also because I couldn't achieve Mavericks via his research and therefore I have added it here).
Thanks anyway.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2786240/how-to-compile-in...
See also Mozilla Bug 921040 - Cross-compile Firefox for Mac on Linux. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=921040
* It is easier to just install a Linux 3.15 kernel. I installed the latest RC on Ubuntu 14.04 and that did the trick.
* You should not have to install Mountain Lion first. I made a Mavericks ISO using the script mentioned and it installed without any issues
* The Qemu that ships with Ubuntu 14.04 is new enough. No need to compile your own. Those patches are pretty old and if your distro is up to date then you most likely already have a Qemu that just works.
This posting also has more info http://blog.ostanin.org/2014/02/11/playing-with-mac-os-x-on-...
Edit: try this out another time - you need access to an OSX machine to do various steps of the process.
This is also a useful article that I read in addition to Gabriel's work to get this working: http://blog.ostanin.org/2014/02/11/playing-with-mac-os-x-on-...
It's great that we can finally virtualize OS X with no hacks to the guest.
Just today I was looking at the current Mac lineup, and there's not a single setup that works for me. Everything comes with underpowered Intel graphics, unless you pay the ridiculous price for a top-of-the-line MacBook Pro.
Oh, if only I could have a Surface Pro 3 running OS X... I could live with the Intel graphics if it had Surface-style portability.
My current MacBook Pro can switch between an AMD Radeon 6770M and Intel HD Graphics 3000. I've found that the Intel is fast enough, and the Radeon is hot and uses a lot of energy.
I usually don't play games, I don't do graphics development, and I don't use Adobe products. So in practice, I rarely need the Radeon.
I'd like a new Mac, but I'd really prefer to have something better than the basic Intel HDwhatever integrated graphics... Based on benchmarks, the Iris seems like it could be good enough for non-Retina MacBooks. But of course Apple has chosen to use it on the Retina MBPs where it's still underpowered. Sigh.
Also, how is Intel underpowered? Seems perfectly adequate for me.
I read elsewhere that desktop computers are much easier to work with, but the OP is explicitly talking about portability and, in that case, it is just better to shell out the money to buy a MacBook... event though they get expensive really quick.
The catch is that I specifically found known-good laptops and then went and bought one. Ditto for the wifi card.
A second hand i5 HP ProBook with 4GB RAM. £126. Add to this a 120GB Samsung EVO SSD for £55 from Amazon, and a £6 wifi card from eBay. Less than £200 all in.
Everything works out of the box on this laptop except the wifi, which you have to replace (or use a USB adapter).
I configured one last week. Mavericks runs perfectly. Quartz Express, Sleep/Wake, all works.
http://www.scctrade.co.uk/prod/hp-probook-6360b-core-i5-23gh...
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/DELL-DW1520-CN-0KVCX1-LAPTOP-WIREL...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-120GB-Basic-Solid-State/dp/B...
I bought a used Dell Latitude E6520 because it was the only laptop I could find with a reasonable price that had a good full HD screen.
As a bonus, it has an i7.
I didn't want/need discrete graphics because hackbooks don't have discrete graphics support (yet?). The only thing I HAD to replace was the WiFi, but I upped the RAM to 8 GB. Other people have upgraded to 16 GB with no problems.
The one thing you give up, of course, is the guarantee of future compatibility. That said, there is some security in hardware working in 10.9, likely working with 10.10+ (or w/e Yosemite is) just as old Mac's working with future OSX versions, with the additional ability to easily swap/upgrade components.
Also, why would you want OSX on a surface? it is silly. OSX thrives on little tiny buttons. it is hell to use even with a mouse (impossible to live with OSX without keyboard shortcuts) i can't imagine anyone wanting that on a touch device.
If you consider the time you'll spend tweaking your hackintosh into a useful state and the risk of bricking it on every update, it's actually a bargain.
I wouldn't buy a Mac to run Linux, but I wouldn't buy anything else to run OSX.
At that point the 13" MacBook Air is a bargain.
Unless you're doing intensive 3D, which is mostly reserved for gaming, then the Intel graphics will be just fine.
The reason that Mac OS X updates are currently free is because the software development (and that of iLife and iWork and iCloud etc) is subsidised by the hardware. You can think of the Mac as a very elegant functional dongle, if you like. But the fact is, that's the way Apple structures its business.
Macs are not cheap, you get what you pay for. MACOS is streamlined for macs , it makes little sense for me to run such an OS on a PC and deal with crashes and other problems.
Having tried this in the past with Virtualbox there were some serious caveats.
If you still can't make Seamless mode in Virtualbox work under Linux and have accelerated graphics drivers then it's not worth trying to run OS X virtualized. It's a crap experience.
No OSX version allows for virtualizing it as a guest VM.
(just pointing it out)
> The grant set forth in Section 2B(iii) above does not permit you to use the virtualized copies or instances of the Apple Software in connection with service bureau, time-sharing, terminal sharing or other similar types of services.
"If you obtained a license for the Apple Software from the Mac App Store, (...) you are granted a (...) license (...) to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments (...)".
So "No OSX version allows for virtualizing it as a guest VM" looks like an incorrect statement to me. Instead, some OSX versions DO seem to allow for virtualizing as a guest VM, under some conditions.
Previous versions just flat-out banned any sort of virtualization.
Appears this release now allows you to have up-to 2 OSX guests running ontop of an OSX host.
(A pathetic attempt at allowing virtualization imho, my Xen hosts at the office have 10-30 guests running concurrently per box)
[1]: http://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/microsites/search.do?langua...
I can't think if a single case.
That being said, I'm among the people who would love to run virtualized OSX.
Though now that travis-ci has beta support for osx, this is changing. But probably at a much greater cost and complexity than it could have without the VM restriction on the license.
(just pointing it out) :P
Despite this Mac people insists getting Linux to work is "hard" when it mostly works out of the box on any hardware. Amazing.
Linux is harder than OS X to get running, when you follow the OS X EULA.
Download an ISO and install it.
I think you will be surprised. Pop the disk in after burning to a CD/DVD. Click "install", reboot and you are done.
Doesn't matter what your hardware is... it will install and work.
Other than getting a computer with a pre-installed OS, it really can't get much simpler. Modern Linux Desktops do not require you to do anything but click the "install" button. You don't have to mess with partitioning, packages, etc. You can understand absolutely nothing about Linux and install it easily and use it easily.
Not sure how it can be any easier other than getting a computer pre-installed (which you can now too, but, admittedly not as common as I would like). I mean, you have to put a disk into some hardware at some point and click some install button...
It's not like it doesn't work, it worked fine 90% of the time. But 90% is not enough; when even Half-Life 2 is completely unplayable (on hardware which easily runs it in Windows), something's wrong.
And to touch on your gaming comment -- actually, Valve has found the same games perform better on Linux using OpenGL than they do on Windows. So much so, that they were surprised at how well they performed. So much so, that many many other gaming companies are now re-releasing and/or planning future releases on Linux. The day of Linux gaming is here...
Sorry, these issues were experienced by me this year. On hardware that is not defective as it works flawlessly on Windows.
>They have all been solved, especially in the major distros.
No they haven't. It has not been fixed. Neither my GPU issues nor my Audio issues have been fixed.
>A current version 14.x of Ubuntu, or version 20+ of Fedora will work "out of the box" with zero tweaking.
It was running out of the box. It just didn't work properly.
>And to touch on your gaming comment -- actually, Valve has found the same games perform better on Linux using OpenGL than they do on Windows.
Yes, I know. OpenGL works, and all that. However, the harsh reality I have found is that the graphics drivers didn't work properly and frames would be delayed (not elongated; delayed) making Half-Life 2 unplayable under both WINE and natively.
Valve has (figuratively) bet the house on Linux as tomorrow's gaming platform... and I'm confident they would not have done so without Linux being ready for prime-time.
As a note, don't game under WINE. WINE is great for applications and such, but a game designed to run on windows won't work quite right even on WINE. But, if you install the Native Linux Steam client and have Steam download/install the Native Half-Life 2 for Linux... I assure you, it works flawlessly... as-does all Source games now, Unity games, Unreal games, CryTek games (or at least they can be ported native now).
Phoronix seems to assure otherwise. It feels like every day I read about a minor performance bump with RadeonSI and then a 10fps regression. The proprietary drivers are clunky and don't seem to play nice with my multimonitor setup. Needless to say, my attempts on Ubuntu 14.04 this year on my very standard i5 3570K / AMD 7950 rig have not been very successful. I had this one awful text rendering bug (artifacting) with both the proprietary and apt-get open drivers. Only when I compiled Mesa from Git did I fix it. Taking a step back, running Hackintoshed OS X felt more reliable in the 3D graphics department, and I used it for over 6 months before dropping back to Windows 7 full time.
I wish, wish, wish to use Linux full time. I really do. I'm sure if I had older/integrated graphics hardware my problems would disappear. Unfortunately I need dedicated hardware to drive a dual link DVI (Korean 27") and two more HDMI/single link DVIs.
I'm sure the driver support will come with time. Maybe around the time Wayland/Mir take off. I'll be waiting. My MacBook is my rock, of course.
I echo this 100%. Even after significant tweaking it wasn't smooth enough. I can handle lower FPS than Windows, but delays, full blown glitches, flat out incompatibilities just rule it out for me.
Buy an Ubuntu certified laptop (http://www.ubuntu.com/certification/) and then tell me that the 3d graphics won't work on Ubuntu.
This kind of divisiveness is not necessary. Clearly you have some dim folks in your midst.
VMWare, for one, have been able to do this for quite a while with the effort of ~1 mouseclick.
Edit: Not sure if troll or not?! Getting Linux to run as a guest in Xen 0.0.1 probably took some work, too.
Unless things have recently changed, this is factually incorrect. It might work on OSX, but that's not really the point, is it.
For whatever reason, you may want to be able to run a general purpose X86 OS on your general purpose X86 hardware, or general purpose X86 cloud/cluster.
For instance, getting OSX to run in a regular ESX cluster (for testing, etc) can't be done wtihout immense amount of hackery, and probably requires custom kext-files, injected on another machine before dumping the image and what not.
At this point poor compatibility is just that. I fail to see why someone would try to sell that as something good.
Nobody's selling OSX as a "general purpose X86 os" for "general purpose X86 hardware" though. It's an OS for Apple hardware. It just so happens that the current versions run on x86_64 CPUs.
(Plus I don't think there exists a license allowing OSX to run on a regular ESX cluster. So if it breaks, obviously you get to keep both halves)
And of course, today a stock distro kernel has more drivers in it than Windows or OS X, so it is a long time ago that you're talking about.
You're looking at a Porsche and bitching that it sucks at offroading. Well, yeah. That's not what it's for. If you work offroad and need to carry cargo, a Porsche is not the vehicle for you, but that doesn't mean it's a bad car.
Your comparison would make more sense if it was about making a car made by Porsche drive on roads not made by Porsche. Which everyone agrees is absolutely reasonable.
What you're trying to sell me is the idea that poor compatibility is a feature? It was designed to have poor compatibility despite being built for a standardized platform, so that makes it a porsche?
When I try to get OSX running in our VMWare cluster so that we have clonable, snapshottable machines for testing and debugging and it takes a week of effort not getting it working, you're telling me that's a "feature"?
Yeah, sorry. I don't buy that.
I'm not one of them, BTW. I've got my MacBook Pro for toting around, my Windows desktop for gaming, a Linux box for streaming, sharing, and storage, and an Android phone for phone stuff. Each of them does what I need it to. Horses for courses.
But there are plenty of people whose use case is "I need an OS that works as soon as I unbox the laptop." For those people, compatibility is not an issue, nor should it be.