Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X Intel Kernel Uses DRM
An anonymous reader submits "Several people have discovered that the new Intel kernel Apple has included with the Developer Kit DVD uses TCPA/TPM DRM. More specifically, it includes "a TCPA/Palladium implementation that uses a Infineon 1.1 chip which will prevent certain parts of the OS from working unless authorized."
I had thought that it was widely known that OS X won't run on anything not sold by Apple as a Mac.
i am a soviet space shuttle
nah don't worry about switching. all commercial vendors of os's will use drm. so strap yourself in, enjoy your new found freedom; the freedom to know you can't do anything about it.
there just won't be a public backlash this time. it'll creep in slowly.
how to make amphibians edible through the use of high temperature h2o.
the GNU philopsophy will save us all... if it weren't for the fact that they are a bunch of pinko terrorists.
not that i'm saying we should give up by any means except that i just don't see this going away like the BS "test the waters" cpu serial # scandal a few years ago.
so many companies have invested heavily in digital -end user handcuffs that it's very improbable that they will give up easily. and the media certainly won't be telling the public anything negative, that much you can count on.
i would like to donate to the eff, except i don't want to be put on a list of terrorists. the only way to even have a remote chance of beating this nonsense (criminal and unethical behavior) is to educate the public at a greater rate than the "mainstream media" can "educate" them.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
(And no, don't say Linux - I don't have enough time to learn it well enough to use it as a desktop machine on a daily basis.)
Isn't that the best way to learn? Using it on a daily basis.
I won't say Linux because, despite the vast improvements the last years, it takes some patience.
But if you'd rather take it as they (MS, Apple) hand it to you by all means. Just don't complain that there aren't alternatives... As the old saying - the cost of freedom isn't free.
Seriously, what did anyone expect?
Apple does not want OS X installed on every generic PC out there. If Mac sales die tomorrow, Apple and OS X go with it. And no, they wouldn't open all the source after the liquidation and you would be stuck with Linux and Windows on the desktop. With both options being crap (for differing reasons).
I would absolutely love for OS X to be sold for any machine with an Intel or AMD chip inside, but it's just not going to happen because Apple is not positioned to do so and survive.
Fortunately, Apple has never even hinted at taking a route other than having OS X run on their machines and their machines only. Any disappointment should be tempered with the knowledge that they have had their cards on the table on this for some time. I don't think there was any question of another outcome.
Apple is not screwing anyone over, they are just continuing what they have done for the past 21 years (even the brief period of Mac clones only involved the OS running on approved hardware).
Perhaps things will change sometime down the road with Apple making further inroads into consumer electronics and successfully diversifying their business. I wouldn't hold my breath, though. The seamless integration between hardware and software is at the very core of the Mac experience.
It's unfortunate that OS X is going to stay on one set of hardware, but it is just the way it has to be for the time being.
the copyright infringers didn't put the DRM in the machines. trying to prevent people from copying on a computer is like preventing fish from getting wet.
you'll more than likely piss off the users/fish far more than you'll prevent copying.
but that's not even relevant to this issue.
how is paying for mac os x and installing it on an x86 computer you already own, copyright infringement? paying for the software obviously means that the vendor has complete control over what you do with it.
it's a sad world we live in... because we're all responsible for our ills, in one way or another.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
Nah, if "content providers" weren't such greedy bloodsucking parasites, then there'd be no need for DRM.
Because those companies didn't actually EARN those profits by providing a desired good or service at a price that buyers were willing to pay? Like what would happen in a _real_ capitalistic market instead of a government-mandated one.
If you analyzed the mach_kernel binary file on the Developer Kits, you would see that the kernel is vastly different than the Darwin 8.2 that Apple released as open source. For one thing, it automatically calls the oah750 daemon (better known as Rosetta) every time that it finds a non-universal PPC executable.
Before the kernel uses Rosetta to execute the PPC application (i.e. ATSServer in the case of starting a GUI), it calls the TPM kernel extension and checks the private keys in the TCPA chip. This is the only thing, as far as is apparent, that prevents Mac OS X from flawlessly running on a non-Apple system.
Everyone here has been waiting for OSX-x86 ISOs to hit torrent sites so they can run OSX on their whitebox PCs. As has been seen many times before, not every ADC member holds up their end of the bargain with regard to their NDA. Knowing this full well it was rather obvious Apple would have to take some sort of action to keep their OS from being widely pirated within days of the first dev kits being delivered.
There's a lot of hand waving here about companies removing people's rights and slippery slope arguments along the lines of "if they do X they will eventually do Y for reason Z". This entirely ignores the fact that Tiger-x86 is probably the hottest thing to hit torrent sites in a long time. It was bad enough when developer releases of Tiger for PowerPC were making the rounds and people were making stupid assessments of the system months before release. The development kits and pre-release copies of OSX are meant to be in Mac developer hands, not Joe Dork down the street on his PC.
It is not a particular right to run OSX on anything but a Mac, the OSX EULA that you have to agree to in order to install the system specifically states that. Apple locking OSX onto Macs means they can continue to sell the machines with a straight face. No one would bother to buy a Mac if they could just grab a copy of Tiger and slap it on their PC at home. Apple would have little incentive to continue Mac development if there were no Macs being sold.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
You know... as much as it sucks, you have to admit that if people weren't pirating things, there'd be no need for DRM.
That's the same way I feel when a cop wants to search me illegally or otherwise hassles me. Or when my employer wants to make me take a drug test even though I don't even so much as smoke cigerettes or drink alchohol and my job involves me sitting at a desk reading and writing things of little consequence.
Yep. I just think to myself "This sucks, but I don't need to be angry at the police or employers for violating my rights or my privacy. I need to be angry at the weekend pot smokers who make it necessary for people to infringe on my privacy or violate my constitutional rights".
And when the cops shoot a black man for having a candybar in his pocket or shoot an unarmed non violent black man four dozen times at close range, I just think "It sucks, but if black people weren't out there killing every person they come across, these police wouldn't have to senselessly murder any of them".
Seriously man... Get real.
Ugg. How many times does it have to be said?
THESE ARE DEVELOPER MACHINES AND DO NOT REPRESENT HARDWARE THAT APPLE WILL SHIP.
There. Apple has said many times they don't plan on using a BIOS in the shipping products, and have hinted at EFI. But the first developer machines have a BIOS, so everyone ignores Apple and assumes it will have a BIOS. Apple has a huge investment in driving forward with 64bit with all the marketing they have done, and yet everyone expects PowerMacs with the same Pentium chips in the developer machines that aren't 64 bit.
Nowthis DRM thing comes up. Will Apple do similar in shipping hardware? It's hard to say. But right now, noone here can say yes or no for sure (unless your sitting at Apple's HQ working on the new products right now). I myself wouldn't be suprised if they do indeed put some kind of protection on, as the Mac OS has always had some kind of odd hardware requirement that prevents it from easially just running on a clone PowerPC box.
Just settle down and wait until real products ship. Because if you have OS X 10.4.1 for Intel, you either have the hardware to run it on due to your developer program, or you pirated the ISO image off some torrent site and have it illegially.
Yeah, sure, OS X will probably be runnable on a non Apple box some day. But guess what, it's likely to be a hacked up solution that kinda sorta works, and leaves you wasting time that could have been spent earning money to just buy a $500 Mac Mini. For me, my Apple hardware is a big reason I moved to OS X. Running OS X on my Dell just wouldn't be the same.
That theory has been kicked around a little already and it seems to make sense on the surface but it ignores no less than three very important points.
1) Installed base. If Apple intends to promote a movie download service that only runs on Macintels, it's going to flop big time and worse than just flopping, it's going to really piss off people who bought PPC hardware in the past couple of years.
2) Transion time frame. Apple will begin the transition to Intel next year but it won't be selling Intel boxes exclusively until 2007. That means the announcement of a service that requires an Intel box would have to wait until then or risk killing hardware sales. Somebody else will be doing it before that.
3) iTMS model? Assuming they intend to follow the same model with their movie store, where selling movies is really just a way to move a different product (video iPod, set-top box, etc), they'll want to sell movies to Windows users as well as Mac users just as they do with music now. They'll also need to allow users to move their purchased movies to another device which may or may not contain the same DRM.
Anyway, they don't need hardware DRM to open a movie store. They have a perfectly good software based DRM for music so something similar should be enough to make the movie industry happy.
Hey, I don't shop at stores that force me to leave my bag at the door either.
companies that want to treat me like a criminal by default can munch my taint.
It's been a long time.
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
Yep - that would be the ability of the US Congress to control whether or not the copyrighters have a right to copyright. Note that it provides congress with a power, it does not provide the people with a right.
Importantly, it has the clause "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" - once copyright is no longer filling that role, it should not be in place...
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
but as to the drug testing, unless you did not agree to such a thing when you started your job, well, it's kind of like having to deal with a Non-Compete clause. You agreed to it.
I don't know... in more civilized law systems some rights are upheld EVEN if you signed them away.
That's why they are called "unalienable", you know.
Ciao, Renato
You know... as much as it sucks, you have to admit that if people weren't pirating things, there'd be no need for DRM.
Honestly, how can you blame companies for trying to protect their profits when thousands of people are ripping them off every day?
Instead of just blindly saying "pirates are bad" and then handcuffing everyone, even the law abiding people who make them money, they should examin _why_ people pirate. Obviously there is the "pay vs. free" thing, but there are other factors for why people pirate stuff.
A lot of piracy is at least partly down to the pirated material being "better" than the originals in many ways - take TV shows for example. Why do people download them from torrents instead of watching them on TV? Certainly for me, the reason for doing it is that I have to wait well over 3 months after the original air-date for most stuff to get shown here in the UK. I.e. the illegal distribution method is a lot better than the legal one.
Another example: I buy music CDs. Once I have bought them then they get ripped to MP3 so I can easilly get at the music without sorting through stacks of CDs and the CDs themselves only get used on my personal CD player and in the car. So if I buy a CD that's "copy protected" which won't let me do this, it's useless to me, whereas the MP3s of the same CD I can download work fine. I.e. the illegal copies allow me to do what I need (and should be able to do with something I've legally bought), and thus are "better".
A large proportion of people _want_ the legal version of something, but they're not going to buy it if the illegal version is so much better. The producers should look at this and rather than stamping out the illegal competition through restrictions they should improve their own systems so that they "outcompete" the illegal stuff.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Seriously. Donate, grandparent poster.
We'll both get dragged away by the Gestapo. Together. Like old times. It'll be fun!
OK, maybe that was a little bit over the top. But you get the point: if that is your reason for not donating, then the terrorists^Wpoliticians have already won.
Sure, unless you believe the doctrine of first sale applies. I don't "license" my computer; I buy it. Any information on it or with it is mine just like the hardware is, because I never agreed to any kind of license at the time of purchase.
And before you try to tell me "but that's not how it works," I say fuck "how it works." The scum who think up these fake "licenses" can cram them up their ass! They can claim that EULAs exist and are valid all they want, but it doesn't make it true.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
No, I'm being held responsible for someone else's ills. That's the bit that gets to me. I'm being presumed guilty before I even buy a computer, and therefore restricted in the use of my own property.
I have to deal with speed limits being lowered to deal with idiots who speed, bag searches at supermarkets because of idiots who shoplift, and even more intensive screenings at airports because of morons who want to use innocents for their own personal socio-political stupidity. Now I'm also being restricted in my personal hobby interest and profession?
I think I'll be sticking to Linux, where groups like Debian will remove software because it comes under a license that's too restrictive.
Of all the things you can accomplish by screwing up your face and swearing into a dark room, sleep is not one of them.
Think of all the nifty features in OSX, and most of them started life as third party products that Apple decided to reimplement and give away with the next version of OSX
Yeah, Heaven forbid that innovative software could actually be reimplemented by third parties and offered for free to consumers. I mean, next thing you know they might actually make a whole OS by taking ideas here and there and start offering it for free ! Imagine the havoc on poor little OS developers worldwide !
Good thing that our modern democracies have invented software patents, so we can prevent such a catastrophe from ever happening....
</sarcasm>
Thomas -
And here, ladies and gentlemen, we have another person who have fallen for the FUD and no longer believes you can own a copy - you either own the copyright, or you license it. The copyright, the right to make copies, has always been protected by copyright law. If you sell me a Harry Potter book (the copy), you do not need to have a license agreement with me.
Licensing has nothing to do with the right to make copies. It is about controlling how and what you do with your copy, and to avoid consumer rights we recieve by a sale. For example, to only allow playback on approved devices to limit features (disable fast forward), collect player royalties, enforce artifical market barriers (zones)
or to tie licenses to specific hardware or activation schemes to prevent resale, or to remove the rights you normally would have under fair use and other laws.
Anything that isn't lent, rented or leased, I consider sold. You sell me CDs, DVDs, iTMS songs and Windows XP. Not the copytight, the copy. That is my personal philosophy at least. The law is bought.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If OS X had to run on a gazillion different combinations, that fact would be a major point it making it less reliable and less stable. BECAUSE THE OS IS SOLD TO RUN ON ONLY A FEW HARDWARE OPTIONS, IT"S EASIER TO WRITE AND TEST AND Q/A THE DAMN THING! That is part of the success of OS X and what makes it run so geat. Of course Apple wants the hardware sales, but controling the hardware is critical too. I would not want an OS X that could run on Compaqs to Dells to A Opens to your custom PC because then I wouldn't get uptimes of 90 days (rebooting only for security updates that touch the Kernel, etc).
LOOK AT SOLARIS. Ask anyone who needs a Solaris box to stay up for critical stuff (not FTP server, talking about critical stuff at the core of a company / government / hospital) and it will be on one on Sun's servers, it will NOT be Solaris for Intel. Big metal + Tested Metal = Solaris uptimes of years if need be. Small metal + Tested Metal = OS X I know and love.