https://github.com/timsutton/osx-vm-templates
e.g.
OS updates also break the installation.
There are many discussion threads on this topic, like this one https://communities.vmware.com/thread/466874
Edit: less aggressive wording
They do; buy a Mac.
EDIT: That sounds harsh, but it is their business model. That is the cost of entry to the Apple eco-system. I would argue that the running through hoops was your choice. The obvious choice is to not build for their platform.
For desktop use it's probably true, but you can enable SSH and log in to run build-jobs and test-runs with Xcode and friends just fine.
From what I understand, 10.9 generally works fine in VMs, but there was a change in the underlying graphics engine in 10.10 that works fine on real hardware but plays merry havoc with VMs.
Virtual box support EFI-boot fine, so no patches are needed and OSX can be installed from a normal, unhacked ISO-file.
Basically I'd say this is a shortcoming in VMware and I'm surprised it's still there after all these years.
If you happen to have any issues with hardware (that are actually hardware issues) it will also most likely be a lot harder (i.e. more involved) to get support from an Apple Store.
Also, from reading the quoted text about the "virtualisation" clause in the EULA - it may only be "acceptable" (by Apple's terms) to virtualise OS X on top of OS X (emphasis mine):
> to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software
You're going to miss out on firmware updates and have bad battery life.
The non-functioning trackpad I can get around, by rebooting until it works. Anybody had the problem where you can't select the target disk in the installer?
Edit: got it. You have to format the disk. In the installer, go to Disk Utility and "erase" the disk. This formats and partitions it.
(iii) to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software
within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is
already running the Apple Software, for purposes of: (a) software development; (b) testing during
software development; (c) using OS X Server; or (d) personal, non-commercial use.
I was with you until you said something about restrictions. No court of law anywhere has said that you running standard X86 code in a standard X86 environment is illegal.
In other countries, these parts of the EULA might not have a legal meaning at all.
(iii) to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software, for purposes of: (a) software development; (b) testing during software development; (c) using OS X Server; or (d) personal, non-commercial use.
Unless you are talking about the modification of the installation media. That, I am unclear on.
I looked into virtualising OS X so I could test an installer on a clean machine image, but the instructions always involve downloading patched ISOs from torrent sites. Seemed to me testing like that would make me less professional, not more professional :)
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.
> 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...
I haven't tried it myself, but those instructions should help with running Yosemite on QEMU/KVM
I'm sure the next iteration of the Mini will go to 32GB/64GB(+$100)/128GB(+$300) M.2 SSD options, all conveniently soldered onto the mainboard as well.