Slashdot Mirror

Then you aren't looking for it.

Hello, I'm an Apple customer. I am typing this on a 2014 MacBook Pro. I carry an iPhone.

My next laptop will not be an Apple, because they are going out of their way to make products that are incompatible with my previous purchases (LED Cinema Display, countless USB products). Why can't I get a 12" or 13" notebook with discrete graphics? I don't even want the discrete graphics necessarily inside the notebook - isn't that kind of the point of Thunderbolt? Yet, Apple goes out of their way to disable external graphics adapters in their OS.

Why can't they put even one regular USB port on their notebooks? They helped to standardize USB 15 years ago, and now they have just decided that the literally hundreds of millions of devices already out there don't count any more. Why does buying a new notebook require me to buy another couple pounds of bullshit I have to carry everywhere just to use shit I already have; or spend hundreds more to replace perfectly working devices just to not have dongles on *everything*?

Razer figured this one out, and there's no way they have more R&D and product design budget than Apple. For $400 less, you can get a better processor, a 4K screen, the same Thunderbolt 3.0 connectivity without the arbitrary restrictions - in fact they will happily sell you a thunderbolt GPU enclosure. And, it's thinner and lighter if that's the goal. Sure, you don't get the touch strip thingy, but instead the whole god damn screen is touch.

Apple used to make products that people wanted - now Apple seems to be making products that Apple wants, regardless of customer sentiment. This transition started with the Mac Mini that was worse than what came before, and the useless trash can Mac Pro, and it's only gotten worse.

It's because they are EFI32 and not EFI64. I have a 2,1 as well. Without a soldering iron these aren't going to become EFI64 logic boards.

You can complain about it here or head over to http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,1123.0.html , install a 64-bit boot loader, and be done with it.

Well, in Apple's case they just gave all the people with 32-bit chips the finger, and therefore they don't have to keep building two versions of their OS to support both the 32-bit and 64-bit chips.

If you're talking about Mountain Lion, well then, yeah; but how long has it been since Apple shipped a CoreDuo system? 2007, I think. That's five years. Meh. And that was only for those who bought the lowest-end MacBook and 'mini, and only for 1 iteration. That's a pretty small percentage of machines that were just barely Lion-compatible. Everything else has been 64-bit capable. It's time for Apple to make OS X 64-bit "clean".

But even up through Lion (can't say for sure about Mountain Lion), I'm fairly sure Apple DOES support both 32 and 64 bit EVERYTHING, Let me check. BRB...

Yes, it does, and interestingly enough, you can even select which kernel you start with. But Lion MAY be the end of the line for 32-bit, period. Doesn't mean your existing Mac running even Lion won't work for 32 bit; but the solution gets a little more kludgy if you want to run Mountain Lion...

The rules appear to be that the 64-bit OS X kernel WILL run 32-bit apps; but NOT 32-bit kexts; so, if an app relies upon a 32-bit kext; it's SOL. But most applications don't muck about in the kernel (any app you can Drag-Install, f'rinstance) SHOULD be ok to go...

Netkas was incorrect and making a knee-jerk attempt to dismiss their efforts for some reason. Heck, did you even read the addendum to the very article you're posting about? http://netkas.org/?p=435

Essentially it translates Source Engine calls to OpenGL commands at the same level that they get turned into DirectX commands on Windows.

they've been clearly warned by the judge in the case that distributing Rebel EFI will get them into trouble

Not true. They have been warned by the judge that distributing Rebel EFI may get them into trouble, if such distribution turns out to be a violation of Apple's rights.

They ripped off a FOSS project

Apparently, they legally ripped off a public domain project, because the original authors distributed the software without establishing a license. Not only that, with most FOSS licenses, they would perfectly be within their rights to re-brand and re-distribute, subject to terms such as source release in some cases. The FOSS community does this all the time. It is called "forking".

The article is not exactly well documented, unfortunately. Apparently, the software was inadvertently placed into the public domain. See here.

If not, I would like to see what the original terms of the license were, if there was such a license. Anyone?

You can't "steal" code that is in the public domain, and there is some considerable indication that the code concerned here was (inadvertently) so placed. See here.

If Netkas didn't want other people to use his code, he should have started out with a non-free, commercial use restricted license from the very beginning. All open source licenses in the normal sense of the term allow commercial use of the sort he is complaining about, under generally reasonable terms and conditions (such as source release). Without a historical license, he may not even get that, and that is a shame.

Rebel EFI is already open source. It's not because Psystar doesn't respect the APSL that it isn't. They stole the code for it from the OSX86 community :

http://netkas.org/?p=299

Can you steal code?

Rebel EFI is already open source. It's not because Psystar doesn't respect the APSL that it isn't. They stole the code for it from the OSX86 community :

http://netkas.org/?p=299

Prior to Steve Jobs' return, Apple was struggling to stay afloat. When Jobs came, one of the first things he did was up the major version number from 7 to 8 because the license for Mac OS 7 allowed third parties to make computers that could run Mac OS. It's just my guess but I think the reason Apple is doing this because some of the price that goes into it's computers is the price of developing the operating system. If Psystar wins this case, it will give a carte blanche to everybody else to create Mac clones, bringing Apple back into the situation they were in in 1998.

Personally I'm rooting for Apple on this one. It's their business model, and it has benefits for their users. And Psystar apparently likes to leech off of open source projects, or maybe they just like to violate licenses - it's ambiguous since their latest product - Rebel EFI - is based on an open source one - FakeSMC - whose license doesn't allow commercial use.

Unless you think a lack of (or maybe instead shady) business creds automatically gives you geek creds... But please do tell what geeky things they have done? Is building a cheap PC (with "good" old BIOS), putting EFI on it, pretending they made it, and selling it for far more than cost geeky?

Many of you would rush condemn GPL violators but some of those same people do not seem to have a problem with Psystar violating the license agreement for OS X. Hypocrites!

Not only that So, this is violation of my authorship rights on pc efi v8. pc_efi v8 now had been reloaded, and includes very basic license which denies any commercial using. also updated with actual smbios.

Or it could be $399

This and this will get you started.

I'm using the following parts:

Ultra Wizard mid-tower (free after $40 rebate, no shipping, from Frys)
Thermaltake 500w "Modular" power supply
Intel "Bad Axe 2"
Intel E4500 (Allendale) C2D 2.2ghz processor
2GB G.Skill DDR
80gb Seagate SATA HDD
IDE CD-RW/DVD-RW (LiteOn or AOpen, I forget, doesn't matter)
nVidia 8600gts PCIe video

Works great with OSX, though the machine spends most of its time in XP (Can't play the games I play in OSX, natively).

sounds like you'll have your wish very soon... http://netkas.org/?p=46