61–70 of 109 posts
I'm thinking about getting a MBP (have one at work) because the hardware is shiny and OSX is useful/needed for some things (iOS development, Unity development). However I'd much rather run Linux as the base OS. That setup wouldn't violate the EULA. I guess I'll spin up a VB-image on this OSX-MBP and see how it goes :) Useful.
You're going to miss out on firmware updates and have bad battery life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you need multiple types of Torx security screwdrivers and have to literally disassemble the thing 100% (including removing the HSF and pulling out multiple tiny ribbon cables) to get the hard drive out; and it completely voids your warranty to do so. And hopefully you made a USB install stick first, since they don't ship with install media anymore. I'm sure the next iteration of the Mini will go to 32GB/64GB(…
Which Mac Mini model? I've never heard of such a thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgEBPlz4QB8
5:10 is particularly comical, by the way :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, I live in the UK and I live in constant fear of the mighty US drone army. Our laws (a great deal of which predate the existence of the US) have no meaning.
Congratulations, England is an old country.
If you want an old country, look at China.
I'm thinking about getting a MBP (have one at work) because the hardware is shiny and OSX is useful/needed for some things (iOS development, Unity development). However I'd much rather run Linux as the base OS. That setup wouldn't violate the EULA. I guess I'll spin up a VB-image on this OSX-MBP and see how it goes :) Useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Virtualization is expressly permitted by the Mac OS X 10.10.3 (Yosemite) SLA (Section 2B III) - http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/OSX10103.pdf (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)…
What I don't understand is: If Apple allows people to visualise OS X, why do they make doing so such a pain in the ass? 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 :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same experience here. I usually don't have an Apple computer underhand, but I maintain cross-platform software for which I publish OSX binaries. I wish Apple gave some consideration to this situation, which is less of a problem for other plaforms which can be virtualized properly. After going though hoops running unstable VMs on old versions of VirtualBox, I ended up getting a vaguely stable build process up and runn…
"Doesn't Apple have any consideration for this situation?" 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.
I'm thinking about getting a MBP (have one at work) because the hardware is shiny and OSX is useful/needed for some things (iOS development, Unity development). However I'd much rather run Linux as the base OS. That setup wouldn't violate the EULA. I guess I'll spin up a VB-image on this OSX-MBP and see how it goes :) Useful.
I would guess you'll probably get at best mediocre battery life not running OS X as the host OS. 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 virtualis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same experience here. I usually don't have an Apple computer underhand, but I maintain cross-platform software for which I publish OSX binaries. I wish Apple gave some consideration to this situation, which is less of a problem for other plaforms which can be virtualized properly. After going though hoops running unstable VMs on old versions of VirtualBox, I ended up getting a vaguely stable build process up and runn…
"Doesn't Apple have any consideration for this situation?" 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.
Or not to build for Linux because you have to buy a linux machine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That kind of consideration is synonymous with "give us more money" in my book. For developers who are willing to develop for iOS but don't use Macs, why not give them a bone and let them develop on a VM? Apple still makes money if the app sells.
Apple has considered that question, and the answer is "because they won't truly buy into our larger ecosystem."
Apple wants high quality apps, not apps from people who just want to cash in. (And the people who aren't willing to spend $600 for a mac mini because they're being cheap are not likely to invest the much more expensive development time to make a good app.)
I'm thinking about getting a MBP (have one at work) because the hardware is shiny and OSX is useful/needed for some things (iOS development, Unity development). However I'd much rather run Linux as the base OS. That setup wouldn't violate the EULA. I guess I'll spin up a VB-image on this OSX-MBP and see how it goes :) Useful.