Anyone use UNLOCKER on ESXI 6.7?
ESXI 6.7 Support Mac OsX 10.13 ~ 14.
anyone use unlocker?
IIRC it modifies some files, to make it possible to run OS X virtualized.
It didnt work on 6.5 without causing some serious issues so i imagine not at all on 6.7 but I think discussing it here is against the rules
Very likely, since it's a violation of the Apple TOS
Edit: Whoever downvoted, downvote all you want. It is against the Apple terms of service to run MacOS on non Apple hardware and this sub generally doesn't allow the discussion of illegal activities.
Violating a ToS is not a crime. It can lead to a suspension of service by the provider, but it will not land you in jail. See the EFF article below for some additional insights.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/07/court-violating-terms-service-not-crime-bypassing
A more recent article.
I'm sure they could hit you for "circumventing a copy protection device", which is a crime under the DMCA.
Those don't apply because we're not talking about a website being used in a way that violates the services TOS. Breaking protections to run software on an unsanctioned system is illegal under the DMCA.
But, even if they were the same thing, right from the article you posted. "In other words, it may be a crime to circumvent technological barriers <....>, even if those measures are taken only to enforce the terms of service through code."
Is it Apple protection we're circumventing here, or is it VMware? IANAL, so I can't really speak to the precedents, or the difference of website vs software from a legal standpoint.
As a technical resource for a company I would absolutely discourage someone from using this tool.
I guess the next productive question would be, "How can I legitimately run a Mac OS in a VM?"
To expand on this: ESXi actually runs pretty nicely on my Mac Mini 2011 (2.5Ghz dualcore). It supports Mac guests without having to use the unlocker. Just updated to 6.7 and it works great. Mac Minis are pretty cheap second hand.
It's a shame Donk's unlocker no longer supports it though :(
By the terms of the MacOS license, you can virtualize only on Apple Hardware. Really stupid IMO, but there it is.
If I break ToS for something while doing my job I lose my job. Since I, and I believe many others, read this sub as part of or related to their job it's not a very popular topic.
But I get what you're saying, it is not a crime.
But that's a code of conduct, or something else your employer has in place, and is distinct from the ToS argument.
Not 100% sure that should result in termination either, since almost not one reads the ToS.
At my previous job we had a department that specifically read, and negotiated Terms of Service with software vendors. If they didn't like what was in there, and the vendor wouldn't change it, they'd red flag the software and we couldn't use it.
This argument quickly devolves into spirit of the law, vs letter of the law, and I'm not equipped to do it justice because IANAL.
But it is. Breaking a TOS is not a crime, however, circumvention of protective measures for the purposes of breaking a TOS is. Personally, I think it's a stupid law, but it is a law.
TOS is not a legal thing, breaking it doesn't make the activity illegal.
Personally, I think the below is bullshit, but it is the law.
17 U.S. Code § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(a)Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.—
(1)
(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that— (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(3) As used in this subsection— (A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and (B) a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
Not being an American or being in the United States, I am well aware of that fact, but there is no place in the reasonable world that allows you to circumvent protections legally.
Ahem Hi, from Australia. We go out of our WAY to let people circumvent stuff like that. In fact, our government actively encourages people to bypass things like GeoBlocking, and Australia Post provides dropboxes for shipping stuff from the US and Canada to here.
So yeah. The only place in the world that doesn't let you do it is the US.
Really?
Australia
COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 116AN Circumventing an access control technological protection measure
(1) An owner or exclusive licensee of the copyright in a work or other subject-matter may bring an action against a person if:
(a) the work or other subject-matter is protected by an access control technological protection measure; and
(b) the person does an act that results in the circumvention of the access control technological protection measure; and
(c) the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the act would have that result.
And just for fun, EU Directive 2001/29/EC, Article 251, Section 47
Technological development will allow rightholders to make use of technological measures designed to prevent or restrict acts not authorised by the rightholders of any copyright, rights related to copyright or the sui generis right in databases. The danger, however, exists that illegal activities might be carried out in order to enable or facilitate the circumvention of the technical protection provided by these measures. In order to avoid fragmented legal approaches that could potentially hinder the functioning of the internal market, there is a need to provide for harmonised legal protection against circumvention of effective technological measures and against provision of devices and products or services to this effect.
Serious question, you do understand the different between reshipping from another country and breaking software protections in copywrited material right? And circumventing geofencing is also not the same thing as circumventing software protections.
Hacking your software to use to run in a way specifically prohibited by the owner of the copyrighted software is illegal. Even in Australia.
Yes, and if I was to break COPYRIGHT then yes, that's unlawful. Breaking copyright means pretending that I am allowed to sell something I'm not.
You clearly lack a complete understanding of what copyright means.
From the same law;
"access control technological protection measure" means a device, product, technology or component (including a computer program) that:
(d) if the work is a computer program that is embodied in a machine or device--restricts the use of goods (other than the work) or services in relation to the machine or device.
Australian copyright law clearly states a computer program is a covered work. All you are trying to do is justify piracy. It's a crime even in Australia.
I just realised a nice and easy way to prove you're wrong:
https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Australia%27s_High_Court_rules_mod-chips_are_legal
The court ruled that because the modchips merely allow users to play copied or imported games, and do not enable the copying of games, modchips do not breach copyright.
Copyright. Is. Not. Licencing.
dsmos.kext may not be a very effective technological measure to control access but it is a technological measure.
It's probably the bare minimum they needed to do legally to go after anyone selling systems with MacOS on them. They put a system in place, so legally, anyone who does so, is breaking the law. Apple is not a software company, they're a hardware company. They want you to buy their hardware, so they "force" you to. That's my opinion anyway.
Obviously they don't really care to much about individuals. They just need enough in place to block any competitor from selling hardware advertised as MacOS compatible.
Virtualizing MacOS has almost always led to terrible performance in my experience. I've never been able to figure out a way to get any graphics acceleration working in a VM and the OS kind of requires some graphics acceleration.
If you suck off apple hard enough do they give you App Store credits?
I just installed it on my 6.7 now, and it works so far. I just booted up my macOS vm.
I cloned the latest from github, and edited the esxi-install.sh file to accept 6.7. Installed, rebooted, and my VM booted up fine.
Yes, ESXi is running fine (I don't use vCenter which I think was having issues with the MacOS vm). I have not rebooted ESXi since I installed the unlocker, but I do not run the macOS vm that often.
I just spun it up now, and no problems (that was even after moving the VM on to another datastore)
I found the easiest option is to install a nested copy of esxi 6 and just leave it there. That way you have a dedicated unlocked copy of esxi that will only run mac vms, and you don't have to modify your primary install.
I haven't noticed anything significant. The experience, to me at least, is completely transparent... So long as you don't accidentally shutdown the vm containing the hypervisor and expect your mac vms to say on... May or may not have done that once, lol.
Haha.. OK I will look out for not shutting down the hypervisor before the VM.
Thanks, been stuck on 6.0 for a while simply because of unlocker no longer working with 6.5+. I probably won't upgrade any time soon but nice to know there is a decent solution if any new version is worth the upgrade.
I had it working with 6.5 for a while... wasn't aware of any issues!
I think it's a reliability thing. I had it work for me before as well but then all of a sudden after another reboot on the host none of my VMs booted until I uninstalled the unlocker.
I never thought of that! So you're running 6.7 then 6.0 within there?
Why not 6.5? Unlocker 2.1 worked for me with 6.5 with no issues...
I had some intermittent problems with 6.5, but I don’t recall what they were. I remember considering which to use, but do not remember why I chose 6 over 6.5. Doesn’t matter though, so long as unlocker works on it :)
I ended up just switching to proxmox after the script stopped working on 6.5. He said he was discontinuing support for ESXI so unless someone has some has taken over my guess is no.
My VMs failed to start after the upgrade to 6.7. I ran the UNLOCKER uninstaller, rebooted, and everything started working again. Probably borked...
Rollback 6.5 then uninsatll unlocker. maybe it work(?)
I uninstalled after the 6.7 upgrade, rebooted the host, and it started working fine.
So you uninstalled it and the VM just ran or did you have rerun it?
I haven’t tried reinstalling unlocker or running a macOS VM since removing it. Sorry
"OS not found". ESXI 6.5 does not know how to boot APFS. Not sure about 6.7 but this did the trick for me to get it to boot: https://licson.net/post/vmware-apfs/