Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X Intel Build Addresses Pirating
aardwolf64 writes "ThinkSecret has an article up detailing information about the newest Mac OS X 10.4.3 builds (which is currently said to fix almost 500 bugs with 10.4.2.) What is more interesting is the release of 10.4.2 (Intel) to developers. Universal binaries built with the new version (and apparently all subsequent versions) will not work on systems running the older version of the OS."
Is a corporate wet dream
That's a lot of bugs. And I haven't even noticed any of them. :(
I remember old PC games being sold (illegally) in the streets. The CD included a directory called "crack" which contained some patches.
I wonder how long before someone hacks into the OS/X code and does this...
Mac OS X 10.4.3 build 8F23 includes about 75 new bug fixes to the OS, fast bringing the total number of specific improvements the update will deliver to nearly 500.
Looks like 75 bugs and 500 improvements.Bradley Holt
The hackers will be making it sing like Sinatra.
Is that really so surprising? That a company will act to protect its products from people who are blatantly pirating it and enacting workarounds to bypass whatever security might have been present to ensure it only worked on developer workstations?
Oh no, your pirated pre-release software can't be upgraded! Teh horror!
Apple did this to protect PPC-mac sales. They don't want current Mac users to buy some crappy x86-boxen just to test their new software.
I'm sure when Rhapsody (the Pre-OSX betas just after the NeXT takeover) was being developed, that some of the same types of incompatibilities were there.
;)
Think about it though, most apps from 10.3 don't work properly in 10.2, but that doesn't mean it's apple's way of keeping pirates away. Since all these X86 versions are beta quality anyway, they're probably working on a much faster development mode, and things break easier.
Then again, they could be doing it on purpose, in which case they have the right, since it's their OS.
Since this is still not a publicly released Operating System available to buy, I'm not all that surprised they're taking care of this sort of thing now. There's no reason for them to care about the old versions of the Operating System if it is not available to the general public. Once the Operating System is actually available to buy this sort of thing will stop, but they want their developers to be using the most recent version available to give them the newest target. I don't really see a problem with this.
cheese logs keep my wang warm at night.
In case you were wondering whether Apple wanted everyone to pirate OS X onto their Dell and HP systems (for mindshare!), now you have your answer.
I was reading some publicly available Apple documentation on the transition to intel style chips, and they included a note that as of June they hadn't finalized their application-binary-interface (ABI) specification for MacOS X on intel. So, maybe it just means they changed the spec and now there's an incompatibility. It would be something most developers would never see, totally taken care of by the compiler, and a make clean and a recompile necessarily fixes everything.
Start Running Better Polls
Will binaries built using the currently available builds of OSX and Xcode work on future versions of x86 OSX? I can understand newer builds not working on older versions of the operating system, but is the same true of the reverse?
everyday is another shooter.
Would somebody care to explain what aardwolf64 and Zonk think is too obvious to be worth stating in the summary? What exactly does this mean to people trying to pirate OSX, who exactly will be affected, and under what circumstances?
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
Don't Panic! Just. Remain. Calm.
Everything will be OK. We're going to drop 3000 lb bags of sand from helicopters... wait, those aren't helicopters... those are hackers wearing propeller beanies.
-pyrrho
"Universal binaries built with Xcode 2.2 and the new copy of Mac OS X 10.4.2 for Intel will also fail to run on systems running the older version of the operating system."
I know that updating for bugfixes is the right things to do... But there's not much incentive to upgrade if your 'universal' binaries won't work on the previous developer system. Does anyone else think that the whole universal binaries idea is a waste of time? Sure its handy where writing two versions is next to impossible, but realistically, thats not very often.
I flipped on this issue so fast that my head is still spinning. Aside from having the iPod and a huge cash reserve to keep them afloat I am honestly worried that piracy will crush the mac platform on intel.
And in all honesty I want my platform to continue living - I need Apple to stay proftiable in the computer business because I want to continue to buy their computers. Sadly this means that I now support any kind of gestapo like tactic that they use to keep the OS locked to their hardware.
Hopefully they can find a middle ground but the past few years have taught me that technology cannot build a wall that technology cannot also knock down - it will be a long uphill battle - I hope the FSB on the new powerbooks is worth it.
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
Well, the poster has one take on this, but perhaps the current release is incompatible because Apple has changed the compiler and some of the dynamic libraries? Perhaps this was not to specifically address pirating, but to fix bugs and to otherwise optimize the system. The OS X 86 project page has a slightly more informed discussion.
This gives a clear indication that apple is (as expected) not going to let it's new intel OS run on non apple hardware. Does apple have the means to stop (legal use anyways) typical beige box users from using a virtual server to run OS X though?
Perhaps with proprietary hardware that the OS relies on in some way which would have to be emmulated in a typical intel pc?
I found one particular bug in Safari that has been improved with the release of 2.01 but still not completely squashed is certain Javascript buttons not working, at least for me. For example, if I attempt to print a map from Google maps the print button will many times do nothing. I have waited and waited, still nothing. Closing the page and re-opening usually fixes the problem, but sometimes I have to restart Safari. A similar problem I have found is links sometimes fail to change the mouse cursor to a hand icon indicating a link. Maybe they're both part of the same problem?
./Library/Widgets. New permissions are now XXXXXX" (or something similar). Which seemed to fix the problem for a few days until they disappeared again. I ran Disk Utility again and there was another permission problem which when fixed brought the widgets back. Once they were back, I deleted and re-installed them and haven't had the problem since.
I also had a weird problem with Dashboard where widgets I installed (not the default) would disappear. I ran Disk Utility, fixed the permissions and received a message, "We are using special permissions for the file or directory
There is also an update today to Java 1.3.1 release 2 and an Itunes phone driver for the ROKR phone from a few days ago.
Who among us in their right mind didn't expect this possibility? The whole idea of these utterly generic Intel PowerMacs were for them to be cheap development preview systems. ADC members who wanted to test and develop ahead of time could either build Universal Binaries on PPC (and cross their fingers), or actually buy one of these and test while the OS is being ported and finalized.
The point here being, these are not production Intel Macs! Why would you expect to have everything Just Work (which, of course, is the whole reason many folks buy Macs in the first place) - heck, you can only get one of these systems if you're an ADC member! Remember, Apple said that OS X would not work on a generic Intel PC, only on Apple's gear. So now it's starting to come true? Wah!
As for the breakage between 10.4.1 Intel and 10.4.2 Intel - Get used to it - this may well happen a few more times before live product ships next year. I don't think any legit developers are worried about it. Only the pirates. Right now is the "build, test, and learn" phase, anyhow.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
The system changed so much between Developer Releases that Apps for DR1 would not run on DR2, etc.
Major updates underneath between releases.
HOWEVER - this was when they were fleshing out the base of the OS. New libraries, new coding practices, new releases of major components that were incompatible with prior versions.
You could still coax some NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP apps to run, though. I imagine it's the same. Some Cocoa apps will run, some won't.
Is anything being done for straight ports of old X86 OPENSTEP code? It would be cool as rice to see a handful of the Unique apps (with source - no Lighthouse Suite, I know) running across the board (NS, OS, OSXPB, OSXPPC, OSX86).
I think it's more a matter of NeXT programming practice than anything. If the old version doesn't work, so be it - the old application doesn't need to go along for the ride anyway. Keeps people writing new software, keeps it fresh and in-tune with the theme of the system, & keeps the market alive.
'Pirating' is a word made up by those who actually believe in selling a peice of software to try to claim losses in a capitolist society. It is those who make up this blatent crap that stifle innovation.
OS X is a very advanced OS, and should be allowed for everyone, not just those who buy X hardware. I always have, and will continue to so called 'pirate' what I want. And always will. If I can see it, I can get it. If I pay for it, It is mine.
I paid for Tiger because I beleive in Apples innovation. I paid for Tiger, and I will damn well run it on what I want. Tiger is the only peice of software I have paid for since Doom3 first came out, and Quake3 before that.
So before you propritary software devs start moaning over your pathetic losses of a few meazly bucks over the millions you already have... remember this... If you try to protect it, I will break it, and you can't stop everyone. Its you, just you, against the entire 'pirate' community. Good luck Apple. You will need it.
Currently Apple requires NO serial number, registration, or any other verification to load OS X. People trade Jaguar, Panther & Tiger disk images on filesharing networks and they burn great. The same disks or legit copies can be used to load onto multiple machines on the same network. "Upgrades" bought from Apple require no previous version's SN to install, and cost the same as a brand new copy.
The big question is, does this new policy signal a change?I hope not, I appreciate Apple's laid back policy. Right now I'm trying to determine which flavor works best on my near-obsolete G3/333 "Lombard" Powerbook. It's convenient to be able to try out different options before I license a copy.
Most cracks are extremely simple, crackers are simply looking for a conditional and unconditional jump instruction, that's it! Then it's all about stepping into the code step by step and having break points.
if ( !condition ) { error_message(); }
http://www.unixwiz.net/techtips/x86-jumps.html
So, one easy way is as simple as by passing the checks by renaming JZ into JNZ, JE into JNE, JO into JNO, or similar when the serial number is checked.
This way any invalid serial is now actually valid...
You might have to add a NOP to make the instruction the same length.
Other serials are simply generated by having the serial key code compare being blindly copied into another program to create a keygen.
if ( input_key != calculated_key ) { error(); }
Another way is to run it in debug mode and then see the content of the register having calculated_key.
The only product scheme which are more difficult to crack is those which they *seems* to be cracked, but fail unexpectively after a period of time which is very far apart the actual "test".
Days or weeks is a good delay.
And for products which prevent "debug mode" utilities, well, there exist other products to go around this issue by simply masquerading the WinIce/SoftIce application, so it doesn't get detected and prevented from running in "debug mode".
That's all I can tell.
Some of course are encrypted, but even then the code must be "decrypted" before being run so...
it's still possible to analyze it, just a bit harder.
In the end, the best way for a product is to be good, useful, have nice manuals and have a proper support at the right price, then the majority of people will buy it, especially if it's bundled with good hardware, since it wouldn't make sense otherwise.
"Universal binaries built with the new version (and apparently all subsequent versions) will not work on systems running the older version of the OS." So you gotta do a fresh install? no biggie.
I remember *SEEING* them. And I never said the info I got wasn't from a friend who actually bought it. In any case, the programs i'm talking about were from 10 years ago, and in my country information laws (if any) aren't retroactive :)
OS X is a very advanced OS, and should be allowed for everyone, not just those who buy X hardware
Right now Apple use profits from hardware to help fund the development of the OS. If they can't sell you hardware then they'd have to jack up the OS price something fierce to still make a profit selling it to you. So, are you willing to pay what it actually costs?
or do you think those 20, 40, and 60 GB iPods out there are all full of iTunes bought at 99 cents each?
When the OS X86 was first announced, I was immediately concerned piracy of my prefered OS would diminish Apple hardware sales and destroy the company I have switched to.
But Internet Explorer taught me not to worry.
As a web developer my office tries to build web apps that are cross browser compatible. But when the client starts running low on cash, and _they_ aren't concerned about FireFox users on Linux, then my boss stops being concerned and adds enough to my plate that I stop being concerned too.
So no matter how OS X gets on desktops, it is a win for Apple. Paying hardware customer - double win - but any win is a good win when you have 5% of the market and your next biggest competitor has sixteen to eighteen times that!
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
You couldn't possibly be more mistaken about the details here. Applications written for version 2 of the Developer-only release are intentionally not backwards-compatible with version 1 of the Developer-only release.
So, we will need to do more then just edit just some plist files to get stuff going ?
BRING IT ON !.
I've been having so much fun with my hackintosh the last weeks, I just can't wait.
Vosnul.
Apple needs to learn that it can't control and sell hardware, OS, and software at the same time, because it will be working against the market all the time, not with it.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
What is Apple thinking? They've got fans so dedicated that they're hacking OS-X to run on Intel boxes a full year before any mainstream applications are likely to arrive, and all Apple can think about is how to stop and discourage them.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Well I agree to your comment with one question in my mind...
just imagine if MS did such thing or even less and imagine the comments...
BTW strangely I'd be happy if they made a DRM based electronical OS X release (downloadable) after paying needless, stupid amounts to Fedex (or any courier).
In Apple's case. Yes. $180 sounds fair. But I would pay up to $300 If I could put it on what I want, and as many machines as I want. But would still crack it to suit my needs.
I profit from services, and hardware. All my software is open source. I charge people if they are too dumb to use it. If apple could build an Intel G5 (I wish it were AMD) for $400 and sell it for $500, and it be able to run Linux, MacOS, Winblows, and (Insert whatever here), I would gladdly buy from them by volume of 100, and resell. If Apple does this, they must make it to where 'I' can build an Apple myself. But then again, I don't mess with DRM, TCPM, much less support it. Customers are usually refered to the person/company they bought the broken software/music/video from.
I know that many many folks from the bowels if irc to slashdot to warez would gladly pay $200-300 for OSX if it could run on their beige boxen in which they have already sunk ~$3,000! Apples tower lineup is OK (although it desperartely lacks on the low end and the mac mini is a joke), and assuming the price stays the same upon the intel switch, but who wants to sink $2000 base into a new tower when you already have one...or a bakers dozen...
That's an interesting counterpoint to what I was thinking actually. While I fully support the whole "It's their OS, they don't have a monopoly, it's still beta, they can do what they like" idea, I was under the impression that Intel piracy could actually be good for them (something I want, since I, like you, want to continue using Apple's products). For now I'll ignore the debate of whether they could maintain their quality of software over a wider range of hardware or not.
It's true that Apple could benefit from some piracy on the generic vanilla PC side, but this would do little for the long run. There are many people who would love to run OSX and could care less what the PC it's running on looked like or the build quality. If Apple lets the situation get out of control it will put it's hardware business (which is Apple's real business, despite what people keep trying to claim about the iTMS and OSX upgrades) in jeopardy.
Also, Apple has an image as a serious company to maintain for their shareholders. They may want a little piracy to get word-of-mouth, first-hit-free publicity in the Wintel world. But if they stand idley by and become complacent about the piracy/hacking of OSX86 their shareholders are going to wonder how much Apple is working to protect it's core hardware business and their stock investments. Apple may be making a mint off iPod sales, but Macintosh sales are still the company's bread and butter. Apple has to show it's commited to a business plan in it's switch to Intel and not being blaise with the company I.P.
No, chances are they're full of copies of albums ripped from the CDs that the owner already has. It's not a simple case of pirate-or-iTMS. An iPod can play music that has been ripped from a legitimate CD, in case you'd not noticed.
I remember old PC games being sold (illegally) in the streets. The CD included a directory called "crack" which contained some patches. I wonder how long before someone hacks into the OS/X code and does this...
Maybe never. The consumer hardware that ultimately ships may only partly resemble PC compatible hardware. Using Intel CPUs and PCI chipsets does not mean you have a PC compatible motherboard. The current hack only works because Apple is using an off-the-shelf Intel PC motherboard. Apple has quite a bit of experience designing their own motherboards, they could easily redo their current custom design, or redo an Intel reference design, and ship something that does not use PC compatible parts and Mac OS X can be coded to only support those parts. Think interrupt controllers, DMA controllers, etc. The real cost savings comes from using Intel CPUs and PCI chipsets, not from having Intel design your motherboard.
Remember, Apple only said they would do nothing to stop Windows from running on their hardware. That does not mean the version of Windows you have today will run, they may merely mean they would not prevent MS from doing a version of Windows for Apple hardware.
Wonder how much innovation will be sacrificed by pulling developers and stuff off creating great new features, and putting them to work creating copy proof/crack proof install media.
Give it 5 years, and they could have 95% people trying blindly, Microsoft style to stop piracy, and have given up making the OS better in the first place.
Get your own free personal location tracker
Now I've gotta update Urban Dictionary to include:
"license a copy": phrase, slang for burning pirated software to DVD for longterm storage
The only real issue is the hardware and hardware support. Didn't Apple get bit hard by crappy mac-knock-offs/cheap imitations a long time ago?
Dunno. I just think Apple can sell support+services+hardware to a broader market, once they creep into the x86 space.
like "mplayer mms://machine.network.org/stream.wmv" ??
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Might be little of topic but I would like to hear his perspective?
There have been recently a lot of articles about Apple
but comments I read don't bring anything interesting or refreshing.
Where are YOU?
Does anyone know if 0SX86 shares the linux binary compatibility of FreeBSD?
This would enable future Mac x86 users to run commercial software wich has been ported to linux but not the Mac, like Softimage XSI and SideFX Houdini on the intel Macs (under X11 though, I don't know if they provide accelerated drivers for X11 aswell).
There seems to be a lot of excitement of cracking OSX to run on generic hardware. Seems like a painful waste of effort fighting Apple to keep OSX running on the hardware of your choice again and again before any shiplevel software is to be seen.
For those that really want to hack OSX in a meaningful way, don't pursue the developer builds in any public way. Feel free to privately figure out, but know that as soon as you try to cash in and brag and demonstrate your hack, the next developer build will just overcome it and obsolete previous builds (since no non-developer end-users are supposed to have it they can do it). If everyone managed to hold back their hacks until a publicly available release with real end-users was out, they couldn't so readily break compatiblity.
But if the developers want to scratch their itch in a more constructive way long term without having to fight a company with conflicting goals over the platform, GNUstep is certainly a project that could benefit from the effort. I use a GNUstep based environment as much as possible, and with some TLC, you could have a relatively OSX-like environment complete with mostly compatible API for applications. Their are some little rough spots, but primarily it lacks in a sophisticated look (improve camaelon) and some nicely-fitting aplications (using GNUStep apps is nice, but jarring when you go to an appl like firefox or gaim that doesn't behave GNUstep-ish.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Jeez, guys, come on. This is a geek site. You'd expect more of a clue.
r Tools/Conceptual/cross_development/index.html for more info.
It has been the case for quite a while that a Mac OS X application built against a particular set of headers and stub libs will only run against those libs or newer. This means that if you build against the 10.3.9 headers (either by building against the system headers under 10.3.9 or against the 10.3.9 SDK), your code will not run in 10.3.8.
It has also been the case that the XCode install provided by Apple only provides SDK for the newest dot-releases of the OS (e.g. the current XCode installer has SDKs for 10.2.8 and 10.3.9 and no other of the 10.2.x and 10.3.x releases).
See Apple's Cross-Development Programming Guide at http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Develope
This is no intentional crippling. It's just how XCode works. No conspiracy here, move along.
Didn't DVD Jon crack that a few days ago... could've SWORN I read a story onthisverysite about it. Here's TFA it linked to
But Maaa! Everyone else has a
Could take a free operating system and turn it into something people want to pirate. Long live the GPL.
Apple took a $795 user operating system ($1295 with the development system), moderized it, added new technologies (many of which were open sourced) and open sourced the core OS.
They now sell it commerically (with the development system) for ~$120.
Meanwhile, they are giving away:
-Darwin
-QuickTime streaming server
-Webkit
-Launchd
-Netinfo
-I/O Kit
Nobody in the open source community really asked for any of those things, Apple just opened them.
Then again, the things that people want from Apple has never been part of "a free operating system" that Apple benefitted from:
- QuickTime (particularly the commercial codecs)
- OpenStep / Cocoa / Carbon APIs
- Quartz compositor, Q. Extreme
- Core Image, Video, etc; Core Data
So mentioning the GPL isn't applicable at all. Apple has borrowed from and contributed things back using BSD style licenses.
Trying for force people to share isn't freedom.
I've got 25GB of music ripped into iTunes, and the CDs in another room. What exactly is your point?
I'm glad as a system administrator I don't have to deal with product activation on Mac OSX, as with Windows XP
Though it's not the only reason, not by far, but activation in X is one reason I plan on making the next computer I get a Mac. And though I plan to get Virtual PC with Windows 2000, that is the last MS OS I will willingly get unless and until they get rid of activation.
Ditto with AutoCad and Photoshop if they start activation as well. Actually I'm looking for a good book to learn GIMP and if I were a halfway decent programmer I'd do some programming for GIMP myself.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The main thing for Apple is to get people hooked. For every hour that some kid is running a hacked OSX on his hand-me-down PC that's one less hour that Windows is being used and sucking out the kid's brain.
Apple gains mindshare regardless, and when that kid grows up and buys his first computer it'll probably be an official MacIntel. And of course by then he'll be able to use MacWINE to run his legacy Windows apps.
-- thinkyhead software and media
Apple has probably patched up the parts that made OS X vulnerable to the "run on any machine" hacks, but it's pretty silly to claim the binary breakage was part of it. They just haven't secured the ABI, that's all. Afterall, they do use a pre-release fork of GCC 4.x (which, BTW, was a bad idea if you ask me). And I'm not even talking about the C++ ABI, which seems to break everytime one of the GCC devs sneezes.
I thought from the sound of the blerb that apple was trying to pull a VISTA on us ppc users. I'm glad that's not the case. You know, the upgrade from X.2 to X.3, and X.3 to X.4 "broke" binaries. This is still in development. I was expecting to see something about apple trying to embed 15 different kinds of DRM in the kernel like MS is trying to dupe people into buying. Don't scare me like that!
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
- no more piracy - unfettered development - destroy Windows - sell hardware? It's the last one that's a tough nut to crack.
since people keep saying apple is a services company
I've heard people say Apple is a hardware company, others say it's a software company, and myself I say it's a hardware and a software company but this is the first tyme I heard someone say it's a service company. At least that I can recall. Thinking about it though I suppose you can say it, as they say "it just works".
copyright grants them the right to use that copy in whatever means the customer sees fit.
Not with DMCA and other such laws. These laws now outlaw fair use. And though not all many are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.
vote with your dollar and more importantly, vote with your conscience. even if you must buy DRM products, at least give some real thought into what you're owed and what you're giving up.
Yeap, in part that's why after I get Windows 2000 I don't plan on getting another MS OS unless and until they get rid of activation.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Incorrect.
The dynamic linker in OS X makes the actual location of functions & other symbols in a linked library irrelevant, since the addresses are computed at run time by the dynamic loader -- the compiler inserts a 'stub' routine and a dummy address. The dummy address is first initialised to the address of a compiled-in function called _dyld_stub_binding_helper, which calls the relevant dyld library APIs to find the real function. The real address is then written over the dummy address, so future invocations will jump straight to the target routine.
I compile apps on OS X 10.4. Most things I compile using gcc 3.3 (because gcc 4.0 auto-links against a library that isn't present in 10.2.x), but I've never had the slightest problem running an app on an earlier version of the operating system. Unless I actually attempt to use a symbol that actually isn't there, nothing goes wrong.
Also, OS X has had weak-linking since 10.2. That means that the stub binding routine can happily return a symbol address of zero, meaning that I can link against somelib.dylib, including somefunc() which only exists in 10.4 & later, and -- at runtime -- I can simply do if (somefunc != 0) to see if the function is available. On 10.4, the function will be there. On earlier systems, the symbol value will just be zero.
Y'know, you should actually read the links you post, for instance, on the page you linked you'll find this useful nugget of information:
...you seem to imply that you're a programmer, so I'd recommend looking at <AvailabilityMacros.h> for further enlightenment.
So no, this isn't "just how Xcode works". Xcode (read: gcc & dyld) work in precisely the opposite way, and for a good reason. What's really happening is that some part of the binary file format has been changed, implemented, or created for the benefit of the Mach-O/dyld runtime.
Maybe it's something new for the Intel machines; maybe it's something that has been available for PPC, but just wasn't implemented in the Intel build of OS X 10.4.1; maybe the latest Intel build of dyld has some performance enhancements which are mirrored by a slight re-ordering of the data/text section format & flags. It doesn't really matter, since even now-- and this seems to be an important yet frequently ignored point so I'll make it very clear --
OS X for Intel is NOT FINISHED YET
Apple can and will make changes. That's part of the reason why folks like me have Developer Transition Kits. So we & they can find things that don't work so well, and would do better if they were changed slightly. This is just work in progress, and things can be changed, removed, added. It's Just Normal.
-Q
Help I am trapped in box with mac on it.
Help I am trapped inside a box with mac on it. Never to be updated or dated again. The women used to whoo at my altivec and glee at Alvi's presentation but not now it is just for homostatious relationships. Not for real function. Just a fish bowl. X is inhel.
X on mactel inhel is homo
An example of this (an old one albeit) was my first (cough) crack way back in time. I had bought ultima 5 but the disk (5 1/4) stopped working after a while. So I learnt assembly and did use debug to see why my game stopped working. After a short loading phase it went and XOR'd a small subset of instruction with number increasing by 3 (3,6,9 etc...) then if I recall correctly (it was waaaay long ago) it exchanged the interrupt 3 (the trace call interrupt) with a jump instruction and jumped right into the start of the code, which was only loading some waaaay off data into the disk interruption (13h) to read a bad sector on the disk. Depending on the result then it would say it is THE original disk or not. I simply exchanged the JMP with NOP, XOR'd by the correct number , wrote back the .COM programs. Et voila ! I could paly my game again.
The funny things is, this is only waaay later that somebody explained me that I had cracked my game. I just wanted to be able to play with something which had cost me 50$ and being 12 that was a lot of cash...
Nowaday the debugging is a bit more complicated and it all come down to the same : stop calling laserlok/safedisk/whatsoever checking that the CD is here.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Gore takes credit for more pc's being used. Dell says they knew all apple people had pc's at home. Jobs was not available for comment he was away according to Gore on a matter of "national security, err apple security", said Gore. Jobs reportedly was last seen being escorted into the back of a black van.
"It's convenient to be able to try out different options before I license a copy."
... No problem at all.
Dude, why don't you try Ubuntu?
Different architecture, old architecture,
Jesus Christ that's the worst headline I've ever seen. Practically every single word can be either a verb or a noun. It took me 20 minutes just to RTFH.
For the 871st time, Darwin is NOT FreeBSD! Can you say 'Mach microkernel'? Go look it up.
mod parent down as troll
Maybe if the hackers would have waited for a good stable build, Apple would have delayed their strategy. Imagine if the x86 OS X hack had not been made available until 10.4.4, or 10.4.8... what would Apple have done then? It would be too late to pull this strategy out of their hats. As long as the OS was stable, and binaries could be built with some version of XCode, I, for one, would at least be very interested in running this client version as a web/ftp/appletalk server/proxy... but only for the coolness factor, as part of a 'collection' of cool Apple stuff that should not be (like an ANS running Rhapsody or something). But 10.4.1 is just too unstable, as far as I can tell, for it to be worth dedicating such a new/good piece of hardware.
The Admin and the Engineer
You do know that mplayer/meconder can save the stream to a file, don't you?
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Troll, but informative.
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
Could take a free operating system and turn it into something people want to pirate. Long live the GPL.
The BSD license is less restrictive than the GPL specifically to allow this. Operating systems using BSD-licensed software include Solaris, HP/UX, Mac OS X, Tru64, AIX, SCO UNIX, Windows NT/2000/XP, and Windows Vista.
So, the number of bugs afflicting us Mac users has a negative correlation with the popularity of the software? Not quite, but you might be on to something here: Because Windows is so popular, Microsoft doesn't give a shit how many bugs it has!
Mike van Lammeren
It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.
Nobody was asking for them because, frankly, Apple's kernel is an obsolete 1980s academia design with poor performance.
And people like you in the Linux-centric part of the free software community are ignoring all the rest of the really nice stuff in the pile of software that Apple's distributing because you're going "Ick, Mach". Personally, I'd rather they didn't use Mach... the 1970's design in Linux and BSD is much easier to get right than a microkernel, and Mach isn't even much of a microkernel... but *damn*, there's some really good stuff in there outside the kernel.
As to Apple contributing I give you khtml as an example of where the talk the talk but don't walk the walk.
You're kidding, right?
They didn't ask for any favors, they provided regular snapshots of their source tree, and when a bunch of people in the community got bent out of shape over what turned out to be a complete misunderstanding they went out of their way to accomodate everyone, including putting their source repository on the web.
Anyone who says they "don't walk the walk" has been viewing a filtered reality, in the real one they've gone far beyond what anyone could have expected of them.
The point is not to clone all aspects or to have the expectation of universally simply recompiling complex apps, but to provide a development environment and user environment with a lot of the features. Despite a great deal of work on Apples side, there is still a great deal of common API, so that if the community wrote their apps as much as possible to the common APIs, GNUstep would be able to offer a great deal while simultaneously giving those Apps the opportunity to run in OSX. Focus on GNUstep/Cocoa common API and there is still a great deal of flexibility to be had.
From the end-user's perspective, they aren't as drastically different as one would think at first glance. Make GNUstep shiny, change the menus to shiny and horizontal, tack a shelf feature onto a dock with a little enhancement visually, and you are actually relatively close. Most important aspect is the feel more than the look, and conceptually nextstep/gnustep apps are similar to arbitrary Mac apps (persistant menu, HIG standards, etc).
Could large application with huge codebase written with only in OSX be simply recompiled with GNUstep? Almost certainly not, for the reasons mentioned, but it does not mean that those who feel the Apple OS design are without options in alternatives.
BTW, I think comparing version numbers at all is relatively silly, but particularly Darwin vs. OpenStep seems silly, since most of the meat of the Step-like stuff from an API/user perspective is at a different layer anyway.
The bottom line for me is that it moderately frustrates me that GNOME and KDE receive so much effort and attention, which falls more in the area of the MS Windows interface paradigm, while GNUstep is a path to a really interesting alternative. I am not claiming GNOME or KDE to be Windows clones, just that the way applications/windows/menus in general are managed is far more Windows-like than Mac-like.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Seriously, Apple's marketing over the last 20 years has had one consistant message -- "Apple is cool". They sell themselves more than the computers. That's why you have people, like one guy I know, who has sent his iBook back three times but still bleeds seven colors.
I agree Apple's marketing, pr, needs to be reworked. Instead of them just focusing on being cool, they should let people know what it can do and that though Macs are cost more they are typically in service longer than PCs. Lowering initial costs should help too and I hope the Mactels they sale at lower costs. Actually I've been thinking maybe they should release Mactels at the lower end and keep PPC for the higher end. I'd also like to see Mac OS available on computers from OEMs, Dell, HP, and such. The problem here though is that Apple did allow clones at one tyme but they found that they didn't make enough from the sale of the OS to cover the loss from reduced hardware sales. If Mactels can reduce their costs then licensing Mac OS may be possibly profitable.
one guy I know, who has sent his iBook back three times but still bleeds seven colors.
My first laptop I got from Gateway and in less than a year the hd died and had to be replaced then the motherboard died. The replacement hd they sent second day and the box to send the laptop in I received the day after I called. But then it took a week for them to repair, then when they sent it back I never got it. After jumping between them and the shipper they decided to send a new one. One problem there though was that they were short on parts for it and I ended up waiting more than a month to get the replacement.
The computer I'm using now is an HP and just like the laptop in the first year both the hd and the motherboard had to be replaced. The only computers I've had that I didn't have to have serviced were the two Macs I had. The first I got used in 1990 or '91, it died in 2001 and it would of cost more to fix than the get a new one. The second one I also got used, in 2001. The first year I had it I didn't have problems, other than it was slow and the hd was small.
I've used both Macs and PCs since the mid '80s, mostly Macs from then until '97, and mostly PCs since then. In that tyme the only problem I had with a Mac was when my first one died after I had it about 10 years whereas of the three PCs I've had two had hardware problem within the first year and I had problems with the OS, Windows 98 and ME, on both. I have one PC I haven't had hardware or software problems with. Well I have had software problems but not with the OS, it runs Windows NT 4.0. However I have had problems installing software as the processor is a DEC Alpha. And because I wasn't able to install much software on it I haven't used it much, and not at all in more than a year. I hope to change that soon, I keep saying I'll network the three computers I still have, the Alpha running NT4 and Linux, the HP running WinME, and my Mac running Mac OS 7.x or 8.x, but I hope to do so within a couple of weeks. I need to get some good resources on how to network all of them.
Falcon
PS marketing and PR was one of two problems the Amiga also had. Amigas were exellent and could not only do everything Macs and PCs could but could also run both Mac and PC OSs and software. However instead of marketing the Amiga for a broad market they concentrated on multimedia and gamers. That was because the company, admin or executives, didn't know what they was doing, which was the second problem, er actually first because it caused the poor marketing.
Should there be a Law?
I think all Bani wants to do in this discussion is bitch and whine. Damn the all facts and statistics that are brought up. Some people just NEED to have the last say.
I see carbon and cocoa switching to fltk with less filling as the moto ppl. And moto becomes the new apple and yellowtab the old apple. Debian defeats windows in the battle for desktop and darwin will evolve into a new juicer OS for the new juiceman pro. Well there you have it so get ready to juice.
love,
Cat Man Do