> Yes. Those legally binding EULAs with the associated EULA-violations we've constantly heard people getting jailed over.
Businesses care about software EULAs, but no end-user is getting jailed for running OS X on x86 hardware, however, people who sell hackintosh computers have been sued and lost in court [1][2]. Also, it is unlikely anyone would go to jail over this (due to criminal law versus tort law), however it is quite likely a company egregiously violating OS X's EULA and profiting from it would be sued and lose in court.
> How about you Mac-heads come to terms with Macs being bog standard X86 hardware and OSX being a bog standard X86 OS
"Mac-heads" know this; however, "Mac-heads" may or may not support Apple's EULA terms. I don't think that any Mac fans enjoy the fact that they cannot legally run OSX in more places.
> running a bog standard X86 OS on bog standard X86 hardware is absolutely within everyone's legal right to do
See [1] and [2] again. I disagree with the outcome of the Psystar court case and it's clear that you do too, however, it has, in fact, been tested in court and unfortunately the courts decided that it is not "within everyone's legal right to do".
> 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.
I will too, and I highly doubt Apple will ever go after you or I for doing so, however, it may be unwise for a business to do so at a significant scale (but Apple may still turn a blind eye so as not to be hostile towards developers which enhance the platform).
As a final note, I am a 100% Linux user, I try to avoid using proprietary software, I do not enjoy using OS X, I do not like Apple's business practices, and I also think you should be able to run OS X in a VM legally, however, in the current version of the United States, that is not the case.
[1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/29/court_denies_final_p...
(hint its Mach with a BSD userland).
I was referring to Linux as a proper, unrestricted Unix-environment.
Ironic really, given that OS X is certified UNIX 03, and I don't believe any Linux distribution is.
Being a properly free and unrestricted environment to work with and work in is not. That's something concrete, real and has actual value.
It's not, actually. You also have to do a lot of work to conform to the specs.
Linux doesn't. BSDs come very close. Mac OS X is conformant.
So why didn't you say that? You said "I was referring to Linux as a proper, unrestricted Unix-environment"
To be pedantic, Linux is the kernel. The environment, is the GNU userland, which is specifically NOT UNIX.
Yes I know it's Unix-like. But when you start your complaint with "it's not proper" try to at least know what you want it to be and what you don't want.
OS X is a "proper UNIX" operating system.
GNU/Linux distributions are free unix-like operating systems.
I can buy any Thinkpad and boot Ubuntu with all hardware detected and functional. I cannot do the same with OSX.
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.
I don't care about pendantics. I care if I can plug a monitor into my laptop and have the damned thing work. Guess which one doesn't require me to battle with video drivers and make changes to the bios just to use the displayport?
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.