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.
I recall a company in the past that wouldn't sell you their software unless you purchased their hardrware. They were taken to court and forced to unbundle the OS from the Hardware since the OS was capable for running on other hardware. I can't recall the company name off hand but I feel someone will to do the same to Apple.
What if that's the file that the TPM system uses to "sign" the OS? Essentially you have to have "/System/Library/Extensions/Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext" present on your system to boot OS X with exactly those contents. If you have it, it means you've got the warning in place and can't claim ignorance if sued for improper use of the OS.
Hell, maybe this example is even common knowledge amonst the slashdot crowd.
make world, not war
Now, with regard to the text in question
software is to protect Apple copyrighted materials from unauthorized copying and use.
this could merely indicate that Apple is going get more aggressive about insuring that the OS in use is indeed paid for. That is, if a single user copy is bought, then it is only used on the single computer. I have no problems with this, as a five user edition can be acquired for less than Windows XP. Now, if this copy protection becomes too much of hassle and wastes my time, such as typing in long serial numbers, I will likely be looking for an OS with less hassle.
But the facts remains that the move to intel will expose Apple to a greater risk of unlicensed use of thier product, and they are likely to react accordingly, no matter how silly. I hope they don't make me pay for an extra chip to manage thier shrinkage issue. I hope that it is a simple matter of registering the machine and the serial of the software at Apple, as they appear to do now, and then just leave us alone. Honestly, if I wish to install one of my licensing of Mac OS on an extra PC, and I cannot, then I am likley to an become an irate customer. And given how ambivilant many of us are about the move to intel, I would hope that Apple would think long and hard about transforming that ambivilance to outright annoyance.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
OK I've asked a couple lawyers and they all seem to agree. If Apple sells their OS separately on their website (which they do)*. They can't legal say that you can only use their software their hardware. The other side of course is you need to break the DMCA to use it on any other hardware. I'd really like to see someone challege Apple in court. I don't think they can legally say you can buy their OS, but can only use it on their hardware.
* Currently, they only sell the PPC version, but let's assume they'll offer the next release to Intel Mac users.
Can some Apple officiados tell me whether or not it was legal to make PPC-based Mac clones without needing some special license from Apple? I vaguely remember something about a court case or 10 where clone makers were told they could sell machines with OS-X preinstalled so long as they used no Apple logos on their promotions and made it clear to their customers that they were indeed buying a clone. Wouldn't the same rulings apply if Dell wanted to ship Intel-based Mac clones with OS-X preinstalled? Not that I imagine they would.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Cute message but of course it's not hidden in any way; it lacks the finesse and charm of the "Stolen © Apple" easter egg (described at the second link in the article summary, for those who didn't RTFA). Too bad nobody ever copied the ROM on the early Macs and get busted; it would have been a pretty hilarious moment in Apple legal history for someone to bring that message up on the screen during a trial. This would serve the same purpose if it wasn't so obvious; then again, perhaps there is a hidden version of the same message just waiting to be popped open at the right time....
I think he meant bigot, but he has a point. I also tend to think that the slashdot crowd really thinks too highly of itself. "Average computer users" aren't that dumb. Most people aren't going to plunk down the $100+ for an operating system without asking at least a salesperson a question first. Even if they are, I'm pretty sure that Apple will put a message at load time stating that software could not find the proper Apple hardware to run, and would probably inform them that they have to buy Mac hardware. Most people would say, "Oh, I made a stupid mistake" and either buy what they need, try to bring back the software (probably not going to happen anyway), or live with their stupid mistake.
Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
I have the exact opposite experience; I don't remember anyone with big problems with any of the clones. I'm still a proud owner of a Power Computing Power Tower Pro 225... never had a hardware problem with the computer itself in about 10 years of ownership (and about 5 years of daily use). It was a dream compared to its Apple-branded sibling the 9500 and it benchmarked faster at the same speed CPUs. Great advertising too. I also administered another clone, UMAX J700 I believe; it wasn't nearly as sweet but it gave me no trouble in terms of hardware. And I never heard anything but praise for the Daystar Millennium (I think that's what they were called) which could sport up to 4 PPC chips (though not a lot of software would use all CPUs at the time). There probably were some crappy clones out too but they didn't do as well.
I don't think that's true. I believe ISA was simply reverse engineered, I don't think it was ever licensed by anybody. That was the whole point to the PS/2 and the Micro Channel architecture... it was something IBM actually owned and COULD license. They had this vision of a piece of every PC out there, but MCA was complex, expensive to implement, and then expensive to license on top of that. So, for the most part, the industry just went around them, with EISA (never broadly taken up), VESA Local Bus for graphics, and then eventually PCI. Micro Channel died a quiet death.
I don't think anyone has ever attempted to license VGA, either. NVidia and ATI license out their modern 3D chips to third parties, but basic VGA functionality is, to my best knowledge, a completely free specification, and always has been.
I've never given Microsoft any money if I could help it, but I'd be happy to pay for an OS X that would run on the computers I have. But that's just it, I HAVE hardware. I don't want to buy any more. I like having hardware that will run whatever OS I care to boot to.
I suppose the question is whether Apple's X86 hardware will boot Windows (not just run it in a window or emulate it) - then the apple hardware might be the generic platform to run Win/Linux/OS X.
Here's the output of system_profiler, ioreg, and kextstat on an Intel-based iMac:
http://appleintelfaq.com/#17.6
Of note in ioreg:
| +-o TPM
And kextstat:
83 0 0x20a15000 0x3000 0x2000 com.apple.Dont_Steal_Mac_OS_X (4.0.0)
Microsoft never sold a PC in its life and its market capitalization is four times that of Apple. When is Apple going to wake up and realize they could grow a lot bigger if they got over their obsession with selling high-margin computers and licensed an even higher margin OS to PC makers. It didn't work the first time they tried it because they did it half-assed.
Without stooping to Microsoft's business practices it could still be "first among (un)equals" in hardware for the Mac platform just as Microsoft has the lead in office suites and certain other apps on the Windows plaform. IBM screwed up by letting MSFT control the OS. Apple could BE the Microsoft of the Mac OS world. They've already avoided many of MSFTs biggest mistakes (the Registry, DLL hell). They could enforce stringent standards to keep the Mac's much vaunted integration of hardware and software. How? Not just in the licensing terms but those companies whose hardware doesn't toe the line, will be unable to attract market share.
There's no need or reason to license the iPod stuff except for compatible equpment (like automakers who pay the iPod tax to make their car audio equipment iPod compaptible.) Apple can keep that as its private preserve.
Once again Apple is "failing up." Their great sales and innovative products hide the fact that they could do much, much, better if they revamped their business model by copy the best aspects of Microsoft's model.
That's another reason for Microsoft's tremendous success. They're not ashamed to copy things that work. Apple is to suffused with a snobby not-invented-here attitude.
Insert witty sig here.
This is slightly offtopic, but I just looked into buying one of those cool Mac Mini computers. I would use it as a server and would put Debian on it (not because I think it is better, but because I am more familiar with it) so I had to do what every Linux user has to do before buying hard ware, I checked if it is supported (nowdays with changing wlan chipsets without changing the name of the wlan product one has to dig really hard).
Anyways, there was information about the fact that the wlan module for the Mac Mini was not supported. That strikes me as odd. I thought Apple took a lot of work from the BSD project and used it for free in their OS. 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? I mean I wouldn't steal something. I would even have to buy a bundled version of their OS that I wouldn't use anyways. I would pay the Apple tax. I just would like to use a different OS.
Anyone care to comment?
Everyone's been wondering why Microsoft is going to keep producing Office for five more years, and it's really pretty simple. Apple agreed not to let Mac OS run on regular PCs for the same duration. As long as they keep it tied to their hardware, Microsoft really has no worries about a Windows competitor.
At some point later, Christian Bauer released Shapeshifter to compete with EMPLANT, and then after Jim Drew claimed that Shapeshifter was stealing EMPLANT ip (which kind of put the lie to his earlier claims that the card held the emulation engine) released the GPLed Basilisk II, which is still usable on modern hardware - emulating the MCM680x0 Mac under Windows, x86 Linux and Unixes, and PPC Mac OS X.
In any case, if I recall correctly the ROM wasn't even used directly... you could obtain a ROM image on the net if you didn't have one to rip with the card.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
No.
Judge Penfield Jackson's finding of fact declared Microsoft a monopoly. The issue is settled. Done. Finished.
The only issue is how the Department of Justice will enforce monopoly oversight. They simply won't, being composed of regulators chosen for the ideological hatred of monopoly regulation. THAT case is closed as well for at least twelve years, given that a Democratic administration is at least two years away AND they'd require ten years to bring a new case to its conclusion. The Republicans could take back the Presidency and the Congress in ten years (given that they will lose both in the next four), so ten years is pretty impossible as a target for case settlement. AND the democrats are pretty Republican in their business oversight, anyway. And the courts are packed solid with Federalist Society judges and their ideological fellow travellers; hell, Alito alone makes antitrust dead in this country for the next thirty years -- maybe longer, if you consider life extension tech will come out in the next thirty years as well. We may see some of the current younger members of the Supreme Court stick around for fifty years or more.
Microsoft may be a monopoly, but they might as well pretend that they aren't, because the law is a dead letter now.
Actually, I think Half-Life's major innovation was putting a girl in the game that didn't have blatantly polygonal boobies. The storyline itself was almost entirely missing -- "Gordon. Good to see you. Now go somewhere else ... but take the back way!" in front of a standard post-apocolyptic backdrop.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Microsoft's success has pretty much always been based on winning price wars. They won the OS battle by having the cheapest OS combined with cheap hardware. They won the office suite battle by selling for around 30% of what the compitition was selling for. They made huge progress on the server front by being much cheaper than Oracle, Sun....
How is Apple supposed to win on that front? Apple has never shown the ability to outperform companies like Dell with respect to logistics. Apple has never shown an ability to offer the best value for the money in a mature market (according the the mainstream). What Apple has shown is an ability to out innovate.
No... Apple would be more than happy not to be "scarce". They'd be pleased as punch if eveyone went out and bought a Mac. And thats the key. They dont want you running OSX on your eMachines Wal-Mart special. I recall hearing something about them not even making a boxed version of OSX intel (thus tying the OS to the machine you bought it with). For the umpteenth time... Apple is a hardware company. Apple makes the bulk of their money selling computers and iPods. Steve Jobs has been down the road of killing a hardware platform before in order to sell its software (which is just what many here are calling for, those too young to remember). I would not expect it to happen again. Would you pay $400 for a student license for OSX? Well, very few did. When Apple kills its hardware business to focus on sales of OSX, you'd be wise to consider selling your Apple stock.
In the soundtrack for the Amiga game Lotus Esprit Turbo Challenge 2, composed by Barry Leitch, there's a sample saying "you will not copy this game". It's practically impossible to hear while playing, but if you get ahold of the .mod file, it's sample 2 or 3 (it's been a while since I loaded that one up). I remember reading rumors that it was originally supposed to say "kill your parents" but in the end they chickened out and went with the anti-copying message.
Ironically, the version I played back then was copied.
Hmm, I guess you've never tried to install Linux on an ASUS notebook. Today, three years later it might be an easier experience but believe me it used to be a royal pain. Wicked broken bioses that wouldn't sleep the machine when the lid closed, nasty bugs that would lock up the gfx hw so badly to require a cold restart, crappy P'n'P that wouldn't enumerate the attached hardware and make linux struggle when looking for it and stinky bioses that wouldn't properly shut down the PIC (or perhaps jitter some "lid open" signal, but that's not sw, it's plain bad hw) and wake windows 2000 when the laptop was sleeping... and presumably inside a bag.
I had to choose between a vertical solution where the same company designed both hardware and software and quickly nailed every single darn bug (not only security gaping maws) or a chaos of different hardwares only loosely following specs and hoping to fix 'em in software workarounds.
I bought an external firewire enclosure; it used to work fine but the damn chipset firmware decided to quit claiming it's fw id as by spec. Os X would refuse to sense the device unless, once in a while the signals would be stable enough to get the firmware to follow procedures. I had to wait for an xp64 fix that incidentally added the necessary firmware workarounds (IE increasing wait states during power up) to get the thing reliable on the mac. Hmm, and that was an add-on... imagine that multiplied for all peripherials in a regular pc. Apple takes the chore out of computing.
Apple is turn key. I bought a bluetooth thingie and the guy at the shop said: "hmm, I don't know, this device is a bit fussy I struggled a weekend and failed on a couple of XPs". I plugged it in, waited for Os X to bring the bluetooth portion alive and synced my address book within 5 minutes. The guy at the counter was close to tears; I was happy to have bought an Apple Powerbook with Os X.
Ok, I could choose a dell, run windows home and follow the program, but I'd be struggling with viruses, spywarez and surrendering 1 GHz and a RAM stick to Norton to get my job done. Or I could run Linux and curse the damn manufacturer for making cheap broken hardware and only provide software fixes for windows.
I still long for open, fully spec'd platforms, properly designed hardware modules and combinations and timely updates to fix deviations from the agreed standard. Today, by a bad approximation, that means using windows. Today, I won't run windows and I will happily pay 100for the privilege of better software bundled to neatly ironed hardware (where linux, btw, is a champ)
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Sounds like an old Apple approach to address piracy directly - but with a slightly different attitude now. Here's the old approach from the original Mac BIOS: http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macin tosh&story=Stolen_From_Apple.txt&showcomments=1
Now they're just asking folks not to steal their stuff...
If you open up the original iPod firmware in a hex editor with the proper number of columns, the first thing you see is an ASCII-Art stop sign and a scary legal message. This is nothing new.
I used to read Caltizzle. I was a lot cooler than you.