Slashdot Mirror

Maybe you should learn things.

Here's a link for replacing the kernel panic image in Mac OS X:
A New Screen of Death for Mac OS X

... is not to be confused with Amit Singh, who also works at Google and has authored an excellent book on Mac OS X Mac OS X Internals.

Amit Singh has something to say on this...

http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/

There are no guarantees, but it's not looking like Apple is keen to enforce the TPM on Mac users.

I would probably consider OSX a lot more seriously if they weren't sapping performance by encrypting several key executables in the OS, purposely hobbling performance just to control piracy. Yet out the other side of his mouth Steve Jobs espouses hatred for the record companies and their insistence on using DRM to control piracy. Why nobody has picked up on this and skewered him with it is beyond me, but I suppose it's because of the RDF.

Tying the hardware to their own platform in that manner isn't really necessary. People that can't be bothered to hack around encryption (which others have gotten past) won't be bothered to hack around, say, making just one little part of how OSX boots up incompatible with anything lacking a certain flag in the BIOS. They're not stopping anyone that wants to run OSX on non-Apple hardware from running it on non-Apple hardware. They're just sapping performance from legit customers.

Kinda leaves me disinclined to drink their Kool-aid when they're pissing in it then calling it sugar.

yawn

...and they do use the hardware (TPM) to make it difficult or impossible for non-Apple people to create hardware which an unmodified OS X can run on.

No they don't. For someone that seems to have a strong opinion on the subject you are strikingly ill-informed.

...as the from the apple-could-do-this dept. statement opines, but only for the artists and/or labels with direct legal standing to make such a request with Apple. Hint: it's not anywhere near the number people think it is. Even some artists who sell or provide DRM-free music via other channels may not actually have such a (legal) capability with Apple, for example, because their label's contract with Apple (or other stipulations) doesn't currently allow it.

And while we're at it, let's fix the title of this submission:

Puretracks drops DRM from less than 4% of its tracks; even less when you consider well known commercial artists on major labels; changes format and delivery mechanism for such songs

Let's face it: like it or not, that's important.

I do agree that Apple should aggressively work toward this, and they should absolutely drop the "all-or-nothing" mentality with DRM on the iTunes store, because dropping all DRM at once won't work. They definitely need to start somewhere, even if it's with relatively unknown artists and/or labels. Consider, too, that some of Apple's existing contracts may have stipulations that all other music sold on the same store or via the same mechanisms have the same protections.

The article notes:

Essentially Puretracks is relaxing the major-label mandated DRM rules that it had initially applied to all labels, even the indies that wanted no part of DRM.

What if Apple isn't currently in a legal, technical, business, and/or support position to do that? What if it is, in fact, planning to do just that, but can't move quite as quickly as people seem to think it should be able to. This isn't a "2-3 day" operation as some people think it should be. It may be months before any fruits of this are seen on the iTunes Store.

Consider further that Apple may not want to sell, e.g., MP3 format specifically, for a variety of reasons. If a label (like EMI, which is talking to everyone BUT Apple about its possible no-DRM experiment - perhaps some ulterior motives of their own?), specifically wants "unprotected MP3", what if Apple's format of choice is "unprotected AAC"? Should Apple start selling multiple formats as well as multiple protection levels? How much of the years-proven consistency of operation and ease of use should Apple sacrifice on the iTunes Store?

There are a lot of unknowns here that don't automatically mean that Apple "doesn't really want to drop DRM."[1] Yes, actions speak louder than words, but Jobs' landmark statement on DRM, concisely shredding any arguments in favor of DRM, is, in fact, a pretty big action in itself. But Apple has a lot invested in the iTunes Store ecosystem, and they're not going to make rash decisions, screw things up, break support models, confuse customers, or do anything that would cause them to lose one or more large commercial content providers.

So while other fringe and marginally known stores may be able to make moves in this direction, it's a delicate situation for Apple. Hopefully Jobs' strong words, which have already caused a firestorm of circling wagons among some pro-DRM entities, and other stores with the luxury of being able to move more quickly into experimental areas, will push the balance toward "no-DRM". Regardless of what the bloggers and pundits think, who instantly came out with all of these "Apple doesn't really want to get rid of DRM" arguments believing this was a carefully crafted PR play, Jobs' DRM statement is the strongest stance from anyone at such a high level in music and media, and that's exactly what it will take to move the industry forward.

[1] Also, Apple doesn't use "DRM" or trusted computing/TPM on Mac OS X, in any way. The restriction is a manifestly a licensing one, and any technical difficulties of running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware are incidental (even if intended to make it non-trivial).

Not to mention that fact that you'd have to load the TPM chips with the Apple keys

OS X doesn't use the TPM.

You are correct in that Apple does do some things to try and bind MacOS X to Apple-manufactured hardware, but you are incorrect about the TPM module being involved:

http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/#EXECU TIVE_SUMMARY

For those too lazy to click through: Apple is not using the TMP module at all. There are only the default keys installed on it, and you can wipe those and use your own without preventing the system from working.

If you had done your homework, you would know that Mac OS X does _not_ use a TPM.
http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/

He's not against DRM. Mac OS X is protected with it (the Intel version has certain binaries such as Dock.app "protected" in this way using encryption and the TPM chip.) He's also spoken approvingly of DRM on Bluray.

He just appears to dislike it when it comes to music. And, to be honest, with Apple's absolutely hysterical comments in the past concerning, for example, France's attempts to outlaw DRM, I honestly think this is a new position, based upon forthcoming events, not because of pressure from Europe meaning Jobs feels like he can say what he always wanted to say really.

Quite honestly, the notion Steve Jobs has always been against DRM makes no sense whatsoever. There's no evidence for it, and there's plenty of evidence against it.

Actually recent Macs don't have a TPM: http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/ While there are (may?) be signed binaries, they obviously can't have anything to do with TPM.

Now try buying OS X and installing it on the box you just built... can't do it.

Yeah, because you cannot buy a retail version of Mac OS X for Intel yet. This question won't be really answered until Leopard is released. How is Apple going to release Leopard upgrades to their Intel Mac customers while, at the same time, preventing people with non-Apple x86 machines from installing Leopard. I've read that some Intel Macs don't have TPM chips in them, so obviously OS X doesn't use TPM chips for DRM.

Mac OS X does not use TPM or trusted computing in any way to tie Mac OS X to Apple hardware. In fact, Apple doesn't use TPM for any purpose, at all.

Newer Macs no longer have TPM chips (or at least they're firmware-blocked).

http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/ (see "No TPM for You! Next!" section)

Also, keep in mind that TPM chips in notebooks is not just an Apple thing.

One company is buckling to industry pressure and including DRM, the other has a fricking Trusted Platform Module in every new computer it makes.

Because Apple would never ever ever do anything to abuse their position as the market leader. I mean look at their generous FairPlay licensing program! And that Trusted Platform Module in every computer they make? That's just there for giggles.

So if you are so scared about the TPM chip, buy a new Mac, because they are no longer in them .

Actually, you're the one who is 'freaking nuts' as you like to say. The trusted platform module (tpm) that is an integral part of the intel architecture on both pc & mac.

The TPM is such an integral part of the Intel Architecture no both PC and Mac that it's not even included on the latest Mac hardware, such as the Core 2 Duo iMac, the Mac Pro, or any of the Core 2 Duo portables.

No, they do not.

At the time of this writing (October 2006), the newest Apple computer models, such as the MacPro and possibly the revised MacBook Pro and the revised iMac, do not contain an onboard Infineon TPM. Apple could bring the TPM back, perhaps, if there were enough interest (after all, it is increasingly common to find TPMs in current notebook computers), but that's another story.

Many people were afraid of the Intel switch because of the potential of adding far-reaching DRM. And indeed, the first Intel Macs had TPM (Trusted Computing) chips built into the motherboards. However, while there is a TPM driver in OS X, it is not actually being used by anything (not even iTunes DRM). And, in fact, starting with the MacPro, it appears that Apple is no longer including the TPM chip in their systems.

For the curious, you can actually use the TPM chip from user space. A great article about TPM and how Apple uses it (and how you can use it yourself) can be found at:

http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/

Speaking of their operating systems, it's highly unlikely that Apple will implement anything remotely close to Microsoft-restrictive for OSX running on Apple hardware (i.e. it'll probably remain free of even product keys.) OSX does not run on non-Apple hardware. That is an obvious decision. That's not something that Apple's going to be able to suddenly change for the worse later ("Hey, guess what, now OSX is only going to run on Apple hardware that... uh.. was manufactured in Tailand! Yeah, that's it!")

Lastly, Apple includes a TPM in the Intel Macs, true. But, in the words of Amit Singh, "Unfortunately, there are several aspects of trusted computing that are often misunderstood--in particular, its relationship to the controversial idea of Digital Rights Management (DRM)." How is it often misunderstood? Apple doesn't use the TPM, for one thing. "Nevertheless, it is important to note that Apple does not use the TPM. If you have a TPM-equipped Macintosh computer, you can use the TPM for its intended purpose, with no side effect on the normal working of Mac OS X." (emphasis his) In order to get the TPM to do anything at all, he needed to write a driver for the thing, which is what the article I was quoting from is about.

One last thing: some of the newest Intel Macs don't have TPMs anymore.

So, the submitter's question: "Will Apple follow Microsoft's lead in [being DRM-friendly]?"

They'll probably continue to use DRM in iTunes, but that's iTunes, and not Macs or Mac OS X, and it's certainly on the good side of things. OSX doesn't seem to be using DRM right now, and it's unlikely that it will use severe DRM in the immediate future (and certainly not Trusted stuff). With the caveat that bobody can predict the future, I think the answer is: no.

Did you read the site? There is no certainty around wether the TCPM is incuded or not. http://osxbook.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=97 that post is actually rather worrying becuase the TCPM is not advertsing itself to the OS anymore.

Did you actually read that post? The guy never got back to amit. You also have to ignore all the evidence from someone that's been proven to know a hell of a lot about Mac OS X and instead believe someone that may have typed something incorrectly and has only ever posted to that one thread.

Is that why I can only use my iTunes music with my iPod?

How bizarre. I can use ripped music from CDs on my iPod just fine.

You are not correct - newer intel macs no longer ship with TPM due to cost reasons

If you read the page you linked it's only assumed that that's the case, because the system no longer reports the presence of the TPM. If you read further, though, you see this:

Possible Caveat

A reader reported the case of a disappearing TPM after a firmware update (details here). I have yet to look into it. Other than looking at the I/O Registry (on somebody else's computers), I haven't examined these newer systems enough to be able to conclude if their alleged TPMs might have similarly "disappeared". If and when I do look and find something, I will update this page.

In other words, it's entirely possible that the TPM still exists, but is only hidden -- a situation that's considerably more sinister.

While some Intel Macs had TPM hardware, it was never used, not even for making sure Mac OS X ran on a Mac. More recent Macs don't even include it anymore (much to the chagrin of some people who actually did make use of it)

Did you read the site? There is no certainty around wether the TCPM is incuded or not. http://osxbook.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=97 that post is actually rather worrying becuase the TCPM is not advertsing itself to the OS anymore.

Unlike Mac OS X, Linux does include drivers for TPM by default

And you can install them and uninstall them if you like. If and when apple throws the switch (and it may not be system wide) on the TCPM you won't have a choice but to use it (I guess you could switch to linux).

If Apple's DRM is so draconian, how come it's the most lenient out there?

Is that why I can only use my iTunes music with my iPod?

Nothing that Apple has ever done can't compare to what MS is doing. I mean, even remotely. It's not only not the same league, it's not even the same sports they're playing. Sorry, but MS very much is leading this charge.

Apple will enforce the same restrictions when macs start shipping with blue-ray/hd-dvd drives. You know, apple doesn't NEED to have an elaborate infrastructure to handle certification and testing of drivers. Primarily becuase Apple has a VERY limited hardware platform.

The link is really rather pointless - the article cites a number of issues and it seems the author takes issue with the fact that Microsoft is trying to assure higher standards for the hardware and software that goes into an end users pc. I can't really get into debuking that post as it's not really related to this discussion.

Do you have a source for this? I looked around and I couldn't find anything definitive. I did find this site:
http://www.tuaw.com/2006/11/02/apple-drops-trusted -computing/ but it cites this site: http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/ as the source of this information.

However, after reading the the second site, it does not say that the TCPM is not included (it states the chip included) it simply says that Apple is not currently using the TCPMs capabilities.

I think though that Apple is including and will continue to include that chip, and I am willing to bet that it will be used at a later date. We'll be told something to the effect of "iMovie download store is open! You'll need the latest Intel based hardware to access this content" under the auspices of "compatibility" when in fact, it will be becuase their encryption scheme will require the TCPM.

Geez, your post reads like you were just making it up as you went along, yet it got modded 5. Fascintaing.

1. While some Intel Macs had TPM hardware, it was never used, not even for making sure Mac OS X ran on a Mac. More recent Macs don't even include it anymore (much to the chagrin of some people who actually did make use of it)
2. Unlike Mac OS X, Linux does include drivers for TPM by default
3. If Apple's DRM is so draconian, how come it's the most lenient out there?
4. Nothing that Apple has ever done can't compare to what MS is doing. I mean, even remotely. It's not only not the same league, it's not even the same sports they're playing. Sorry, but MS very much is leading this charge.

1. Apple doens't use the TPM hardware. Unlike Mac OS X, Linux actually does include drivers for this hardware, as far as I know (Quote Linus: "A lot of commercial companies want to do some really bad things with DRM. So people dislike DRM and want to make it harder to do. But the silly thing is that DRM really is just technology, and like most everything else, the badness comes not from the technology, but from what you use it for. There are actually valid uses of the exact-same technology, even if it ends up being called something different ("privacy rights," "security," what-not)."
2. Apple uses DRM in the iTunes store, but that DRM is relatively lenient, compared to what Microsoft allows for.

This simply doesn't compare to what Microsoft is doing.

So what are you going to do? Write your own OS?

You are not correct - newer intel macs no longer ship with TPM due to cost reasons. This really made some people unhappy because the TPM can do some interesting crypto things, like generating true random numbers. Someone did an analysis and wrote some software, it is here:

http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/

The important take aways are:
- TPM on Macs are NOT used to tie OSX to Apple hardware
- TPM module is not even used by OSX in any capacity
- TPM is user-controllable/hackable to perform what you want
- TPM is not available on all intel macs.

Apple, no DRM? You're kidding, right? Might need no serial, but what about the TPM module?

Get your facts right - OS X has no support for the TPM module (heck, the Mac Pro, and the Core 2 Duo modules don't even have the module), although there are free (in cost and source) drivers that add support for it.

http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/ has plenty of useful information.

But can you make Windows run on a PowerPC?

Also, show me proof that it is illegal.

Regardless of what the media has been harping on for a long time, and regardless of what system attackers have been saying about the "evil TPM protection" Apple uses, Apple is doing no TPM-related evil thing. In fact, Apple is doing no TPM-related cryptographic thing at all in Mac OS X. Yes, I know, there has been much talk of "TPM keys" and such, but there are no TPM keys that Apple is hiding somewhere.
More specifically, Apple simply does not use the TPM hardware. In Apple computer models that do contain a TPM, the hardware is available for use by the machine's owner. Of course, to use it you need a device driver, which Apple indeed doesn't provide. -- Trusted Computing for Mac OS X

(In short: you're some combination of idiot, liar, and asshole, depending on how much of your own bullshit you believe.)

Despite what Cory Doctorow eloquently ranted about some time ago, Apple has only used the TPM module in the initial developer-only "transition kit" computers. Some Intel Macs do indeed have TPM chips on their motherboards (as do most other Intel machines, of course), but the firmware doesn't talk to the chip and OS X has no driver for it. Furthermore, not all of the Intel Macs even have the module. http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/ Singh also makes a point in that article which I'd noticed when I'd actually, y'know, read the TPM specs, which I don't think many people have -- the idea that the chips can somehow, in and of themselves, prevent you from running "unapproved" applications, let alone lock you into proprietary data specs, is pretty bogus. While the chips have the potential of being used for evil, that's certainly not intrinsic to their design, and in fact TPM chips could be used to implement public key security and signing for users in a more secure fashion than can be done in software alone. At any rate, the idea that OS X is being locked to Mac hardware via TPM chips appears to simply not be the case. It's locked to Mac hardware primarily by Mac hardware just not being quite as interchangeable with PC hardware as the "Intel Macs are just PCs in new cases" crowd thinks.

Before the reply window closes here, I'd like to point out that according to Amit Singh (the writer of a book about Mac OS X and hardware), the newest Macs don't carry TPM chips anymore and in fact weren't even using them for much of anything in the models that had them. So much for the "they're about to launch Trusted Computing on all Macs, it's just a software update away!" theory.

Description is here.
Movie is here.

Description is here.
Movie is here.

Yes, here it is.
And there's a movie.

Yes, here it is.
And there's a movie.

> Once they write a program to allow you to turn around in video games with this, I'm definitely getting a Mac!

Here. It was done 2 years ago.

So, can it be done?

Knoppix on the Intel-Macs.

To multi-boot before this you had to use drivers that had been hacked and probably violated someones copyright. [emph mine]

What? Why do you say that?

BAMBIOS is an EFI program (based on bochs bios emulation code) that allows legacy bootloading.

It does not violate anyone's copyright.

why the download is 83GB as it'll contain drivers for all of the Intel mac platforms.

Hmmmmn, I did miss that! 83MB still seems like alot - but I guess its Windows bloat & there's not alot Apple can do about it!

I'd suggest that you should wait for the release of BAMBIOS.

Well, according to my buddy Mark, with BAMBIOS you'll be able to book x86 whatever you want (os/2, solaris, xp, etc). I'd guess we'll see a release within a week or so.

You mean like this? http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/misc/knoppix/
Or perhaps this? http://www.mactel-linux.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/misc/legacyboot/

...Amit Singh from IBM and kernelthread.com (slashdotted 16 times for excellent technical articles on various bits of internals of Apple hardware and Mac OS X) has his own legacy boot solution as well. From a rejected submission:

It appears that Amit Singh of IBM Almaden Research Center, of kernelthread.com and author of Mac OS X Internals, has devised a method to allow legacy, or BIOS-based, booting on Intel-based Macs, which they're calling "BAMBIOS". This means operating systems that currently only support legacy booting, such as many Linux distributions that don't yet support EFI, or things like Windows XP and the forthcoming Windows Vista (the 32-bit version of which will lack EFI support), will now be able to run on Intel-based Macs without modification (and completely legally). There is also another solution from "narf2006", described here and shown in this flickr set of photos. narf2006's solution is awaiting verification by Colin for the $12,000 pot. Time to get that MacBook Pro you've been waiting on for the best of both worlds, everyone...

So even if narf2006's solution isn't real, Amit's solution most certainly is, since he has a great deal of credibility. One way or another, we'll all be able to boot Windows directly on our Intel-based Macs.

This will be great news for people interested in Windows gaming on an Intel-based Mac (who really need the direct video access) and/or people who just want to do it NOW; however, a virtualization solution running under Mac OS X, such as VMware or Parallels, will be the real holy grail for most users. Most people don't want/need/care about the highest graphics and I/O performance; just the ability to run Windows side-by-side with Mac OS X at a speed that is more than usable, and to also have some capability to seamlessly share things like clipboards and files between the environments (as a nice VM environment would most certainly do). Not to mention not having to reboot.

In any case, even dual booting will be a welcome capability. It remains to be seen how convoluted the process is...

Also, I just spoke with Colin Nederkoorn (the guy running the contest) moments ago, and narf2006's solution has NOT been submitted to him yet. He said that narf2006 said he's "cleaning it up" and will be submitting it "later this week". So, no one, including Colin, has actually seen this solution working yet. Also, he apparently hasn't been in communication with Amit on the BAMBIOS solution as yet...

...Amit Singh from IBM and kernelthread.com (slashdotted 16 times for excellent technical articles on various bits of internals of Apple hardware and Mac OS X) has his own legacy boot solution as well. From a rejected submission:

It appears that Amit Singh of IBM Almaden Research Center, of kernelthread.com and author of Mac OS X Internals, has devised a method to allow legacy, or BIOS-based, booting on Intel-based Macs, which they're calling "BAMBIOS". This means operating systems that currently only support legacy booting, such as many Linux distributions that don't yet support EFI, or things like Windows XP and the forthcoming Windows Vista (the 32-bit version of which will lack EFI support), will now be able to run on Intel-based Macs without modification (and completely legally). There is also another solution from "narf2006", described here and shown in this flickr set of photos. narf2006's solution is awaiting verification by Colin for the $12,000 pot. Time to get that MacBook Pro you've been waiting on for the best of both worlds, everyone...

So even if narf2006's solution isn't real, Amit's solution most certainly is, since he has a great deal of credibility. One way or another, we'll all be able to boot Windows directly on our Intel-based Macs.

This will be great news for people interested in Windows gaming on an Intel-based Mac (who really need the direct video access) and/or people who just want to do it NOW; however, a virtualization solution running under Mac OS X, such as VMware or Parallels, will be the real holy grail for most users. Most people don't want/need/care about the highest graphics and I/O performance; just the ability to run Windows side-by-side with Mac OS X at a speed that is more than usable, and to also have some capability to seamlessly share things like clipboards and files between the environments (as a nice VM environment would most certainly do). Not to mention not having to reboot.

In any case, even dual booting will be a welcome capability. It remains to be seen how convoluted the process is...

Also, I just spoke with Colin Nederkoorn (the guy running the contest) moments ago, and narf2006's solution has NOT been submitted to him yet. He said that narf2006 said he's "cleaning it up" and will be submitting it "later this week". So, no one, including Colin, has actually seen this solution working yet. Also, he apparently hasn't been in communication with Amit on the BAMBIOS solution as yet...