Slashdot Mirror
New G3-Based Platform Runs Mac OS X
Worried writes "Pegasos is a new platform based on G3/G4 CPUs and it runs MorphOS and various Linux distros so far. This very interesting review of the platform over at OSNews points out that Darwin can play a significant role attracting new buyers. Another --possibly significant-- point in the article is that Pegasos can run Mac OS X via the Mac-On-Linux runtime kit. This is the *first* non-Mac platform that can run OSX without even the need for an Apple BIOS!"
...point?
I mean really. Open sourcers, whats the point?
Want to run OS X? Buy a Mac!
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
It might, assuming you have access to all the source code. But not all of OS X is OSS. Significant chuncks of it are closed and proprietary. Without the source for that stuff the best you could do is hope to emulate G3/4 hardware on X86, which isn't really an attractive prospect.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Couldn't you run OS X on MOL on an IBM RS/6000, er pSeries? And what about the Briq?
You are paying $500 for a 600MHZ PowerPC G3 motherboard at the entry level. Not exactly a bargain by any stretch. We're talking Celeron-esque performance here for considerably more money, not something that's going to attract a lot of customers in my opinion. This is similar to the problem we saw in an article here awhile ago about building one's own Macintosh: high cost of parts made the project rather unreasonable for anyone other than financially-stable tinkerers. And moreover, judging from the author's conclusions, the OS isn't exactly stable either. Someday, in a happy world, there will be inexpensive Mac clones and we will even be able to build them ourselves from a vast and inexpensive selection of parts.
Loomis
"The television is the retina of the mind's eye" - Videodrome
As long as this falls into the "interesting hack" category, Apple won't care.
However, if someone tries to market these things as "Mac clones", they can expect a lawsuit pretty quickly. Apple's EULA restricts OS X to their own hardware, and vendors can not legally preinstall an OS without a written contract.
But, in all likelyhood, this is just Amiga Ressurection Vaporware Project #312, so who cares.
Apple is mainly a hardware company, so don't expect them to release an x86 version of MacOS X. And anyway, what's the big deal? You can get a eMac (w/ a G4 processor) for $749. That's pretty cheap and it's gonna work well: my G3 800Mhz iBook runs just fine. Stop crying about prices: iMacs, iBooks and eMacs are good machines and are pretty cheap (in price). On the other hand, PowerMacs and PowerBooks are power machines, and it's natural that they cost more
The article makes mention of Debian (go Purdue!) and MorphOS shipping with the computer, so It may be hard for Apple to come down on them for a EULA violation. Individuals would have to be the target .
Procedure... A
#1> Buy MacOS
#2> Don't tell Apple
Procedure B
#1> Buy PEGASOS motherboard
#2> Put Motherboard in old mac
#3> Call it an upgrade (The hardware {case} was approved by apple)
Procedure C
#1> Pirate MacOS
#2> Don't tell Apple
I'm not sure about the legal standpoints of running mac software on non-mac systems, but ya know, I don't give a shit. The SIAA isn't likely to go after *me* if I bought the software, no more then I've ever heard a case of mac emulation being pursued provided they bought the required ROMs. I should beable to put MacOS in my toster if I so choose to, dispite it being a violation of my license agreement. The worst thing I can see Apple doing is not support this alternative platform.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
This, of course, assumes that EULAs are valid contracts. Many of us would say they are not.
I do not have a signature
Architectural differences between OS9 and OSX will mean that MOL will be significantly slower for OSX for a long time.
MOL has to buffer the screen in order to make its graphics drivers glue the two operating systems together. MOL-in-a-window may buffer the screen twice or more. Iduno. OSX buffers each window, composites it, and buffers the resulting screen. Between the two of them, you've got so many layers of buffers that the MOL+OSX GUI is destined to be really tetchy.
If some OpenGL hackers were to spend a while writing a Mac OS X OpenGL driver for MOL, and then MOL were able to pass those OpenGL calls to the Linux OpenGL drivers, QuartzExtreme could give us bufferless graphics for MOL+OSX.
Does that sound like a lot of work? Yes, yes it does. I don't think it'll probably ever happen. That means I don't think the MOL folks will ever be able to get OSX running like they've got OS9 running right now. If some big company threw a couple (good) full time developers at it, then maybe.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
I have 1 question about this whole 'Apple BIOS' issue. Why hasn't anyone reverse-engineered it legally like what Compaq/HP (I think it was one of those or both) did to the IBM BIOS back in the day? It was legal back then, has it become illegal now? If someone could do that and get a license for the G4/PC970 chipset, we'd have the same Mac computer market as we have with the PC market. It'd be a boon to competition and 'innovation.' Just my 2 cents...
Totally Life!
ALL replies
This is sort of silly really. People who like apple, dont want a cheap fake apple. they might want cheaper apples, but they want it to work like an apple does. And that means the total experience.
There's no way a mac on linux clone will ever match the quality, ease of maintence, the no-surprises of hardware comaptibility or missing drivers.
Its cute but its not a mac in the ways that attract people to mac.
I think its main utility is for people who run Linux that occasionally need to run mac software
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Yeah, but I bet for the cost of one of those legal nitwits they could employ half the population of whatever south asian country they are building those 970's in.
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
Of course, so far it seems like I'd be far better off buying an iBook or eMac as far as form factor/price/speed/build quality goes and just loading linux on it.
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
Also, if they did this, binaries would be incompatible between the PPC and x86 versions, and fairly quickly most people would only develop for x86, making buying a Mac pointless.
Another thing: If they did this, they would be in direct competition with MS, which would be an insane thing to do.
Slightly more likely is OS X running on an Apple-only x86 system, but the OS 9 -> OS X transition is not totally finished yet, and it would be a major upset.
I bet you're happy to assume the GPL is valid, though?
Fairly pathetic troll, but it's Monday so: The GPL gives permission to do things that would otherwise be illegal. So what would be the point of invalidating the GPL? "Please! I'm begging you! I don't want to be able to copy this software. Take these onerous freedoms away!"
I do not have a signature
The GPL covers private sourcecode modification, so strictly speaking it is a Use License, aka EULA.
Had you read the licence rather than propaganda, you would know that.
Macs SHOULD be able to fly!! I want my flying Mac!! Where can I get one??! Flying Macs are better than ANY OTHER COMPUTER!!!!
I'm pretty sure a lot of other Mac users would feel the same way...
I'm pretty sure you're wrong. I would much rather see Apple aggressively and vigorously defend its IP and licenses. If they don't the value of the company disappears, the stock price plummets, and there's no money for EITHER r&d OR legal.
Signatures are not necessary for a binding contract. I don't sign anything when I buy my groceries at a store, but its still a binding contract because something have been exchanged. Your sign would be considered unconscionable and would not be enforced. But its not wrong in principle. Its how ticketed parking works: 'by entering this carpark, you agree to these terms and conditions'.
No, it assumes Apple thinks EULAs are valid contracts, which it's pretty safe to assume they do. Apple's built a reputation as being a bit lawyer-happy, and I certainly don't want to be the one testing a licenses' legality versus them.
± 29 dB
So don't agree to the license agreement and figure out how to install OS X anyways.
The installer that displays the EULA can be thought of a device that effectively controls access to the copyrighted Mac OS X computer program and is therefore eligible for protection under 17 USC 1201, enacted as part of the DMCA. And if the DMCA is inconsistent with existing first sale and backup laws, the DMCA takes precedence because it was enacted later.
Will I retire or break 10K?
You can't breach a EULA as they are not binding contracts.
According to one interpretation, the EULA has been a binding contract since the DMCA was enacted in October 1998. (See how installers may qualify as copy-protection.)
To make a binding contract, both sides must give something up. You give up the right to reverse engineer the software, sue Apple, run the OS on non-Mac hardware, etc., and Apple gives you "the authority of the copyright owner" under 17 USC 1201 to run the installer that decrypts the computer programs that make up Mac OS X.
Will I retire or break 10K?
It's a strange slashdot obsession.
Putting together a system with this board will probably cost MORE than buying a mac, and running OSX under MOL reduces you to unaccelerated graphics anyway. I can understand firing up an OSX session on your pegasos machine to test if an app compiles/runs under OSX, but the usability of OSX under MOL is minimal.
I'd rather pay for Apple's workstation-class hardware than an obscure mobo running a VIA chipset, even if I have no intention of running an Apple OS.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails