Slashdot Mirror
OSx86 Cracked Again
The Cardboard God writes "The OSx86 Project is reporting that the intrepid hacker 'Maxxuss' has once again eluded Apple's security methods and cracked the latest release of Mac OS X for Intel, or 'OSx86', to run on standard x86 PCs. It seems Apple just can't win this eternal struggle with the hackers, as 10.4.4 included beefed up security designed to prevent similar hacking methods used on beta releases of the operating system. Is this a blessing for Apple, or simply a nuisance?"
It will not be good for Apple. Apple makes it's money from it's hardware. They make good software to sell that hardware. The OS alone will drastically reduce revenue.
Coral Cache of link
Posted anonymously to avoid karma whoring, so feel free to mod this up.
Happy Valentines Day... from Maxxuss.
The hacking guru has announced preliminary patches for Apple's latest release of OS X for Intel, version 10.4.4. According to his website, http://maxxuss.hotbox.ru/
This is a preliminary release of my Patch Solution for the official Mac OS X on the Intel platform. Ultimately, it would allow you to run this Mac OS X release on a generic x86 computer (SSE2 required).
There's still a lot of work and documentation to do, like support for SSE2-only CPUs, a proper installation procedure and a PPF patch. However, if you like to play around, this will get you started.
The significance of this event is huge. While many users were able to run OSx86 on their PCs last summer, the general feeling was that Apple hadn't implemented their final security solution. That much was true.
Onlookers have told us that 10.4.4 is a serious step forward in security, utilizing many of the same technologies as the 10.4.1 and 10.4.3, as well as the obfuscated code that Apple filed a patent for a few months ago.Few expected this final version - or at least the version that shipped with the first Macintels - to be easy to hack.
What this means is that Apple's best attempts to secure their OS have, ultimately, failed. For its best efforts, the company is unable to lock OS X to their hardware. Without doubt, this will have profound impacts on the company's future as running OSx86 on a PC becomes less a hacker's trick and more mainstream. When all it requires is the downloading of a DVD, that's certainly the future we're looking at.
This also opens a host of new questions for Apple, OS X, and the PC users who love it. Will this mark the beginning of Apple's legal endeavors to keep OS X locked down? Will it persuade Steve Jobs that releasing his OS is an insanely great idea?
Time will tell. Things keep getting more exciting. Stay Tuned.
Apple could be so much more successful
Let's take a trip in the way back machine for moment.
Once upon a time, Apple tried to open up its system to being cloned, and only achieved 7% market share.
Then Jobs came back, stopped allowing the Mac to be cloned, and introduced the iMac to the world. Jobs saved Apple and brought them to profitability.
So who's correct? You or Jobs?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Likewise, once you've lawfully obtained a copy of MacOS-X, Apple loses all rights to dictate how that copy may be used.
You never lawfully obtain a copy of Mac OS X to do with whatever you wish.
You only lawfully enter into a license agreement with Apple, the terms of which require you to run Mac OS X on Apple hardware.
Just in case any readers are unaware of this fact, it is perfectly legal for you to agree to a license that removes rights you would otherwise have. You may have the right to do anything you like with certain products in the absence of a license agreement governing your purchase. But it is perfectly legal for a vendor to sell a product by means of a license agreement which removes rights you would otherwise have had. When you agree to the license, you are bound by it, including those portions that restrict or remove rights you would otherwise have had in the absence of the license agreement. If you don't like the license agreement you are free not to purchase the product, or to return it for a refund. You are not legally entitled to unilaterally rewrite the terms of the license agreement to suit your desires.
You may dislike the fact that you never lawfully obtained a copy of Mac OS X to do with whatever you wish, but there is no ambiguity about your situation as far as the law is concerned. A recent federal court ruling has upheld click-through EULAs. As far as US law is concerned, they are fully valid license agreements, including terms that restrict or remove rights which purchasers normally have in the absence of such agreements. Click through EULAs were specifically ruled to waive fair use rights. (see page 23 of the linked decision)
The retail boxes are technically upgrades. The requirements include a computer that shipped from the factory with Mac OS. The GP is correct, if you are not running on a Mac it technically is piracy, you are using an upgrade as a full product.
100% false. The retail boxes are full installers that run on any supported Mac, whether or not that Mac has any OS installed.
The only "upgrade" CD's are those that are bundled with computers which have an earlier OS pre-installed because the new OS was recently released. Sometimes you have to pay them $19.95 to have them send it to you if it didn't come in the box. They say "upgrade" clearly on the CD label.
The upgrade CD is also a full installer, no different than the retail box, but it refuses to install if it can't first find a drive with the previous or current OS on it. However, the new OS doesn't have to be installed on the same drive as the existing OS, meaning if you've got any computer with the previous or current OS installed, you can put it into Target (FireWire) disk mode, plug it into the machine you want to install onto, and the upgrade CD will let you proceed as usual.
So the retail kits are neither technically nor legally upgrades. You may well be right that Apple doesn't want to sell retail copies of the OS to someone who hasn't also spent money on Apple hardware, but that hardly makes it piracy or even an abuse of an upgrade to do so. Of course, before Intel Macs existed, it was impossible (or at least highly implausible) to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, so it's conceivable that when they release a retail version of Intel OS X (which they very likely will with 10.5), the license agreement may specify that you may only run it on Apple-manufactured hardware, and then you'll be in violation if you do otherwise. But that still doesn't make it piracy, or misusing an upgrade. It just puts you in violation of the EULA, whoop de do.