Apple say no problem: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT6099?viewlocale=en_US&locale=e...

OSX can only be run on Mac hardware. If you want virtual Macs within the EULA, this is what you must do. This would be attractive for people wanting to to build testing on mac machines, for example.

> OSX can only be run on Mac hardware.

http://www.tonymacx86.com/

If you are an enterprise you would not be using modified kernels with the copy protection neutered in production.

Sir or madam, I've seen this done in production environments costing tens of millions of dollars.

Two quick technical points:

1) OS X itself does not utilize any copy protection. There are no serial numbers, call-home activations, etc.

2) You can run OS X without any modified kernels or kexts with the right mix of hardware.

There is actually. Look for the following kernel extension.

   Don't Steal MacOSX.kext

(Name might be wrong, but it's certainly there)

If you are an enterprise, you will not be running MacOSX on a server at all.

If you want to do continuous integration on a Mac or iPhone/iPad/iPod application and still be compliant with Apple's license, that's pretty much the only way to go.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but that would be more a development environment than a traditional server. That it would be used for developing client side applications would reinforce such a distinction.

Yes and no. It's a development environment because most of the development tools have to be there. It's a server because the CI machine should be running at all times and, ideally, should not have a user sitting in front of it bothering it with tasks such as browsing HN.

Running at all times does not equate to being a server. Nor does being headless. The important point is for it to serve clients. In this case, it could at most tenuously be a server in the sense that it would be listening to have code uploaded to it. That would more be a secondary function for the convenience of getting code onto it though, as that portion would not require being on MacOSX. It's the desktop functions that require MacOSX.

In any event, that's still a far cry from being an enterprise server. Generally, it should serve the needs of the entire enterprise and not just a single department. There should also be full vendor support for the complete solution, and a high level of fault tolerance to really be enterprise.

I think if you're planning on running a business of OSX machines, you probably shouldn't rely on hackintosh stuff. Upgrading the OS on hackintosh is pretty painful.

> I think if you're planning on running a business... upgrading the OS... is pretty painful.

This is by no means specific to OSX.

Don't confuse what he said.

Upgrading a hacked copy of OS X running on hardware it was never designed to run on is pretty painful.

Upgrading OSX on Apple hardware is a breeze.

Point releases updates on real hardware is so easy. My Hackintosh scares me to even update Safari and the self-updater has managed to brick the computer with just security updates (really stable when not updating tho :)

> If you want virtual Macs within the EULA

EULA definitely doesn't allow Hackintoshes. Some workplaces are ok with this, some definitely are not.

Thinking about it, I am thinking commoditization of the entire device is flawed while commoditization of parts is not.

x86 Chromebooks uses different firmware too, which is sad because those UEFI bugs that affect Linux would be easier to fix if they didn't.

There are a few uses - mostly related to OSX anyways though. A buttload of Macs is very useful for automated testing of OSX or iOS apps, for example.

That said, the bottleneck for this type of usage isn't performance - you'd have to wait 200ms between taps anyways, so why bother with a fast machine?

I'm having trouble seeing any use for this sort of thing. The main uses for hosted Macs are very, very well covered by a boatload of Mac Minis - they're a lot more cost effective also.

>A desktop system with a novel thermal design is being packed in tightly in a way that the manufacturer probably hasn't tested, and in a way that's going to be hard to diagnose or fix?

I don't see anything that's "going to be hard to diagnose or fix".

I'm leasing a server from MacStadium that's used for iOS continuous integration. I could also see MacStadium being useful for someone learning iOS development who isn't ready to splurge on a new Mac.

From the OS X Mavericks license:

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.

and

Except as expressly permitted in this Section 2G, or except as otherwise licensed by Apple, you agree not to use the Apple Software, or any of its functionality, in connection with service bureau, time-sharing, terminal sharing or other similar types of services, whether such services are being provided within your own organization or to third parties.

where the quoted section allows remote access by a single device, remote viewing by a "reasonable number" of devices, and remote access to a separate desktop session by a single Apple-branded device.

So buying/leasing a hosted Mac for development is fine, but renting remote access to a shared Mac for development is right out unless only one person (or two, with the second connecting only from Apple-branded devices) is using it at a time and virtualization is not used.