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.