Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sends Hidden Message to Hackers?
RetrogradeMotion writes "The OSx86 Project is reporting on a hidden
message to hackers in Apple's new MacBook Pro. The new Intel-based OS X contains
a file named 'Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext' and is accompanied by the message,
'The purpose of this Apple software is to protect Apple copyrighted materials
from unauthorized copying and use.' The file is not present in either the
PowerPC version of OS X or the Intel version shipped to developers last year.
While Apple has sent messages
to hackers before, is this a tounge-in-cheek introduction to the anticipated (and hated) Trusted Platform Module? Is locking down OS X a strategic necessity or a missed opportunity?" Obviously a big maybe here, but a good story just the same.
It was IBM, but they were also under Anti-Trust scrutiny that placed a lot of restrictions on their business. Another example: They were forced to license things like ISA and VGA to PC clone manufacturers for a very low price.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and it never has been.
Only cracked out moderators would mod this up.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
If this were the case, it would have shades of their OS X 10.1 update CD debacle. Basically you could take the free 10.1 update CD [that you could walk into many CompUSAs and pick up off the counter] and convert it to a full 10.1 install CD. The update CDs had a file on them that basically flagged them as an update. If you imaged the disc, removed this file, then reburned it, it would act as a full 10.1 install CD.
This guy's the limit!
If this were the case, it wouldn't be any different than things were before the transition to x86. There were, and still, other machines available that run on the PowerPC (or the mostly-compatible POWER) architecture other than Macs, so this issue already existed.
In fact, it has existed from the very beginning, because even back before the transition to PowerPC, Macs ran on Motorola 680x0 processors, and there were other machines that would have been capable of running Mac OS back then. I had an Amiga (also a 68k processor), and there was some company back then that sold a board that allowed you to take ROMs out of a dead Mac and put them on their board, and then you could boot Mac OS up as a task under AmigaDOS. And it worked just fine. If I recall correctly, at first people were buying ROMs from Apple parts dealers, and Apple got angry about this and made it so the ROMs were no longer available, and they may have even threatened to sue, although I can't remember.
No, ISA was under a government-mandated Reasonable And Non-Discrimatory hardware license program which dated from the minicomputer wars of the 1970s. Every PC clone vendor paid IBM several dollars per PC up until the late 1990s when the patents finally expired.
IBM supposedly developed MicroChannel several years earlier and sat on it until they could get the Reagan DOJ to let them out of their consent decrees. That's why MCA was not under RND licensing (ie, not only was it more expensive, IBM could have used it to force clone vendors to buy OS/2.)
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
That's exactly right. OS X is taylored to pretty tight specs. Anything outside these specs is potentially causing problems. It doesn't need much to cause hickups. I've seen OS X run fine, although bloody slow, in VMware on a Sempron 3100+, whereas it doesn't even boot in VMware on a dual Athlon MP 2000+.
Another reason is that Apple is mainly a hardware manufacturer and their main interest is to sell hardware while supplying suitable software. Were they to open OS X for all x86-plattforms, they would not only open themselves to serious problems but also hurt their own core business.
I don't really think that OS X is that much more stable than Windows. It's apparently better stability mainly comes down to the fact that it don't have to account for a plethora of different hardware configurations like Windows. Ok, the solid BSD-based "undercarriage" certainly boosts reliability but is no guarantee either.
Sgt. Schultz
This is the infamous Broadcom chipset, used in the Airport Express module and Mac desktops for several years now. Broadcom publishes virtually nothing about their WLAN chipsets, and does not respond to requests for information about them.
This isn't realyl Apple's fault for the lack of disclosure, but is their fault for sticking with such a tight-lipped vendor.
Also, you have to remember that this is the *point* of the BSD license.
"No, ISA was under a government-mandated Reasonable And Non-Discrimatory hardware license program which dated from the minicomputer wars of the 1970s."
e cture (Marketshare Issues):
I'll just disagree in a friendly way with you.
When MCA came out it was covered with dozens of patents and it had to be licensed. However, a condition of licensing was that you had to agree to pay back royalties on ISA on every PC you ever shipped. I recall that for the most part, IBM was simply looking for other companies to acknowledge that ISA was owned by IBM and didn't in fact look for back royalties.
As a result, nobody licensed MCA with two exceptions... one was Tandy, the other one escapes my mind at the moment.
In fact Wikipedia seems to agree with me (for what it's worth):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Channel_archit
"A final problem was that IBM had lost control of the hardware market for PCs. Anyone could create an ISA card and plug it into any ISA bus-equiped computer. While it was thought that by creating a new standard, IBM would regain control via the required licencing. As patents can take 3 years or more, only those relating to ISA could be licensed when MCA announced. Patents on important Micro Channel features, such as Plug and Play automatic configuration, were not granted to IBM until after PCI had replaced MCA in the marketplace."
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
But they don't even bother to give something back by opening their hardware specs so the people that wrote/write BSD can use their OS on Apple hardware?
Well, if you really want to call it "theirs". The wireless chipset that the "Airport Extreme" cards are built around are produced by Broadcom - and Broadcom has had a multitude of excuses why they can't release open drivers. If you open up your Apple hardware, you'll notice a lot of chips made by other companies, and they're bound to the conditions of the license they acquired use of the technology under. It'd be nice if they could release specs, I agree - but this is one situation where my and your desire on it is irrelevant to them.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
And one more article that seems to indicate it will be possible with Vista, but that XP would require some tricks to get working. I would suspect that if Linux does not yet support it, it will very quickly.