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?"
Even if something results in a gain for someone, if they feel it's a nuisance, it's a nuisance.
At this point it probably doesn't make much of a difference, as you have to jump through hoops to get it running. In a few years, now...we'll have to wait and see.
Stopping someone from cracking this sort of thing by strengthening the protection won't work simply because of the number of skillful people hammering at it. I expect more of a shift towards nailing the people who crack it and tell others how to the wall.
This should not be considered hacking any more than modifying an Xbox to run "unauthorized software".
Vendor lock-in mechanisms shouldn't be considered "security".
I dont care what Apple's business model is, purchasers of software should be able to do with it as they see fit (as long as it's not for malice obviously). If I own a Mac, and want to install OS X out of curiousity on an Dell x86 system I have already paid Apple for both Mac hardware and Mac software. Why is it their business to try to prevent that? Just cause I buy a car doesn mean I have to drive it where Ford says I should.
Posted AC, because it costs mod points to say anything against Apple on slashdot.
The fact of the matter is that Apple doesn't really care about people running OSX on a non-apple system. It's money in their pocket either way. What they want to avoid is having a bunch of white box manufacturers and Dell selling $400 PC's pre-installed with the OS. By making an honest effort to prevent install on non-apple platforms, they can prevent any sort of commercial competition on the hardware side.
So yeah, a few geeks will get OSX running on their PC's. They'll struggle with getting drivers to work correctly on non-blessed hardware, but generally feel cool. The rest of the world will buy Apples when they want to run OSX.
But one interesting twist on this: if I was looking to buy Apple hardware in hopes of having a dual boot OSX system this might change my mind. To my knowledge nobody has managed to get XP to run on Apple's hardware, but OSX is apparently running on non-apple hardware. That might all change with Vista coming out soon, but in the mean time running OSX on non-apple systems might be the better option.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Apple is at risk for an "illegal tying" lawsuit if they insist that their operating system run only on their hardware. IBM lost that issue decades ago, which is why there are IBM-compatible mainframes.
Back when I worked at Apple and they were splitting the OS X project into multiple releases spread out over many years... The Apple AIX team was busy hacking Linux to run on the Mac hardware. So, it's not like they haven't don't similar actions in the past. But it makes you wonder if Maxxus is an ex-Apple/Intel-crossover programmer that was so pervasive back in '96. I know that most of the core code hasn't changed in the ten years it's been around.
7h3$3 4r3n'7 7h3 Ðr01Ð$ ¥0 4r3 £00|{1n9 f0r. M0v3 4£0n9. --OB1
- pirating Mac OS X, which is the current only way of obtaining Mac OS X (Intel), and
I don't know if they ship an "universal" upgrade, but if you have a legal license for OS X (for example from an old Mac) and a legal OS X upgrade to 10.4.4 that can upgrade it to a "dual-platform" OS X version, then you have a valid license. Bundling the hardware and OS is illegal in many places (I know at least in Germany the courts stuck Microsofts OEM license down) and whatever the EULA says is null and void. Theoretically you should be able to move your OS X license (paid in full) to a generic x86 machine. In any case, this seems to replace so much of OS X "under the hood" that I really wouldn't want to try...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
However, when you look at Dell's Core Duo laptop and Apple's Core Duo laptop... the differences aren't much. That's the big win for Apple in switching to Intel hardware- the systems are really comparable and fairly easily similarly priced.
People hacking OS X to run on non-Apple Intel hardware *is* a blessing in a sense, because those who do go through the extra hassle to install OS X on non-Apple hardware are certainly asserting, beyond their hacking ( or simple file-sharing ) skills, that OS X is a really, really worthy bit of software to have... and they'll find, I suspect, that some things, in particular Software Update, won't play nicely at all with their very non-standard system. They're a seriously small number of people, probably, and are folks who either wouldn't for whatever reason buy *either* a Dell or an Apple system ( because it's all about building it yourself ), or, quite possibly, they're buying Apple hardware or software already ( don't you think the folks who worked out how to do this bought Apple hardware in order to do so ? ) in which case... well, let's just say Apple doesn't exactly go to great lengths to keep you from installing the same copy of OS X on multiple Apple machines... it's just not something they're worried about preventing. The notion that hacked x86 systems amount to try-before-you buy is probably not unfounded.
In short, while it's interesting to us geeks, it's not exactly a threat to Apple's business model... in a very real way, the fact that someone would want to do this pays quite a compliment to Apple's software, and is not terribly significant otherwise... just normal and likely small-scale software piracy, really.
As a third-party OS X software developer, it's just another ( small, likely ) set of machines I might be able to sell software or online services to, so it's all good for everyone except maybe Apple, and it's just not a big deal to them either, since hacked versions of OS X aren't going to be installed on over 1% of existing Windows PCs any time soon.
"Normal" buyers of Wal*Mart PCs won't have the technical acumen to install cracked versions of OS X and they probably won't have the inclination to do so anyway. Even if they did try, they would probably be less inclined to blame Apple because they won't have any expectation that OS X will run on generic PCs anyway.
Devil's Advocate: You've almost certainly never owned any software, unless you coded it yourself. It was licensed to you, and legally Steve Jobs has the power to dictate everything about how, when, where, and on what you run his sortware.
In other news: This has never stopped me from running any software the way I want to use it.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
I would pay more for OS X on a Thinkpad.
I don't like Apple's laptops, at all, and I'm not much of a fan of any of Apple's hardware.
Not that I'm gouing to run out and get a Thinkpad and install cracked OS X on it, but sheesh... Apple's hardware choices really suck.
As I wrote earlier Apple would be well to do to relieve some of this pent-up desire for OS X and capitalize on it by releasing a VMWare image that is sufficiently locked down for their own peace of mind.
The audience for OS X grows to anyone who can run VMWare player, they get Windows users into an Apple product upgrade cycle (upgrade to real hardware!), they still get to control the user experience the way they want to (no b0rked hacked video drivers), and best of all they get to grow their developer base.
Seems like a win-win.
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
If microsoft started selling PC hardware, then locked all other PC's out with OS modifications, that would probably be illegal and anti-competitive, and they would be forced to unbundle the two.
But somehow Apple can get away with this, why is this? Because they less of a monopoly?
"The new MacBooks [...] offer as much or more bang for the buck as anything in the Windows world"
4 568&UserCtxParam=0&GroupCtxParam=0&dctx1=25&Countr yISOCtxParam=US&LanguageISOCtxParam=en&crc=1074370 188
s pa sp?a=168245,168244,168264,163762,167102&pt=2&sid=1 565
These are probably made in the same factory as Macbooks:
http://us.acer.com/acerpanam/page4.do?dau22.oid=1
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1907007,00.a
http://www.pcmag.com/compare_products/0,1943,,00.
Intel Duo
2Ghz processor
120GB HD
256M graphics memory (Radeon)
DVD+/-R - DL
battery life 3:47
List price: $2500
Street price: $2400
Hopefully, the Macbook has a 4 hour battery life.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Good post, but I don't think Apple cares about people's ethics. They want to make money, and OSX in the wild helps their cause. Any exposure is good exposure. Try out OSX for free, but the catch is you have to live with stability problems, hardware incompatibility, no updates, etc. The solution? Go out and buy a Mac! Oh, and don't weep for Apple. If you want to talk about ethics, let's talk about the Eminem ad and Intel ad being ripoffs of a Lugz and Postal Service video, respectively. Nobody's a saint... except for maybe daveshroeder.
If not, why not? Why buy multiple copies for multiple machines? It's only the "license" that is preventing you from doing otherwise...
And the licence is justified because.....?
Software doesn't just want to be free, one must go to extraordinary lengths to make it un-free. If Apple want to put some ridiculous EULA in their shrink-wrapped software, fine. Expect me to laugh at it while I do whatever the hell I please with my purchase in the privacy of my own home.
May the Maths Be with you!
No, it's not their decision to make.
Ford doesn't get to say that you can only fill their cars with Chevron gas. Sony doesn't get to say you can only put CDs from Sony/Columbia Records into their CD players. SBC/Qwest/BellSouth don't get to say you can only connect Panasonic phones to their lines. Certainly, they can recommend those things, but they cannot force compliance with those wishes, since they lack standing to do so.
Likewise, once you've lawfully obtained a copy of MacOS-X, Apple loses all rights to dictate how that copy may be used. Certainly, they recommend you run it on Apple hardware. But if you can get it to run on something else, they have no legitimate right to complain about it (although they can refuse to support you).
They cannot demonstrate harm to their business (because there isn't any). But even if they could, it doesn't matter. The sustainability of Apple's business model is entirely Apple's responsibility, not the consumer's. It was transparently obvious to most people back in the Irrationally Exuberant Dot-Com days that offering free overnight shipping on all items was unsustainable. Was it therefore the responsibility of the customers to eschew the free shipping, since taking advantage of it would materially damage the businesses they professed to support? Of course not.
Apple was founded by hackers. They've been around long enough to know that people will do unusual things with their products. This is to be embraced and celebrated, not criminalized. If someone wants to take MacOS-X and get it to run on a boring beige box, that is manifestly their own business. This is reality, a reality that Apple was instrumental in creating. It is therefore Apple's responsbility to learn how to live in it.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Not that simple. May I point you at history?
http://www.jmusheneaux.com/01.htm#1a
IBM only wanted DOS to run on PCs. Official, IBM branded PCs.
Compaq decided to reverse engineer the PC bios, in order to offer 100% PC compatible machines. They succeded, and won the lawsuit. This is a benchmark case in computing.
Now, the legal issues were different. I'm not sure what the IBM EULA was. Either way, I suspect that the portions of the EULA specifying what hardware you can use the software on are not enforceable; otherwise, we'd see Apple going after the PearPC people, and we'd see Apple going after Maxxuss.
Sure, they can make it hard. But I suspect if someone actually built a 100% compatible Apple "clone", apple would be powerless to stop it.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
We tried to install this version of 3 different PCs, plus a VMWare and a VPC virtual machine. Both virtual machines blew up due to invalid or unimplemented operations, and the 3 real PCs all contained some piece of hardware (video card and CD-ROM drivers, specifically) that the installer claims were non-existant. If this is what they consider "just download a DVD and run it" then I'm changing careers before the tech support calls start coming in.
--K
"Broadly, because we live in a society based on the rule of law and respect for the property and work of others"
You're begging the question. If your statement were true, there would be no discussion. Clearly, some members of society disagree that intellectual property is similar to physical property.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I reject the argument that being able to run MacOS on any generic x86 box will hurt Apple in terms of stability or image.
Then you're living in a dream world. The majority of Windows crashes these days come from spyware infestations, rootkits and viruses. But before these became big problems, the majority of the crashes came from "bad third party drivers" according to most reports.
Apple is not big enough to maintain drivers for all hardware available on the PC market. Microsoft, for all their market success, hasn't been able to get a grasp on that.
Remember that Linux has a bigger desktop market share than Apple, and we've not been able to get Broadcom wireless support without resorting to tricks like ndiswrapper. If you think Apple will be able to hold vendors by the balls like Microsoft, you're crazy.
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
I ran the original osx hack on my desktop. It is still installed. Runs perfectly.
I dual boot by using a SATA drive and an IDE drove and I just change the drive in BIOS depending on if I want Windows XP, Linux or MacOSX.
I currently have a bank account which I call my MacAccount. They got me. I love the os. I love the hardware style. Maybe it's what they want. They can have it from me. Even for the price they are asking.
Firefox 2.0 - Spell Rightly.
Missing one point.
Developing software for retail with an illegal copy of OSX is one way to get sued up the wazoo or even land in jail.
If your going to develop for OSX, then your going to own a Mac and own OSX as well.
All this will do is cause OSX to be distributed for free, run on PC's, and hurt Apple because it is currently expected every license of OSX is for a Mac sold by Apple. Without the ability to tie OSX to Mac based hardware, Apple cannot sustain OSX development.
Apple doesn't want to become an OS only vendor, they will fail. OSX hasn't inspired PC owners to switch, even with cheap Mac Mini's and other novel computers. If Apple dropped Mac hardware and simply sold another PC Windows competitor, they won't inspire much of a switch as well. Despite all the benefits and strengths of OSX, there still isn't great software support. Developing software for OSX isn't because of a lack of exposure, its because of a lack of good quality development tools, including Apple's own XCode which is that last tool I would want to work with.
In the end, Apple would love it if people ran Windows on Mac hardware, they want to sell more Mac hardware. But it is Apple's worst nightmare for OSX to become a novelty OS for PC's. I can't understand why the didn't think this would happen or take greater steps to prevent this from happening.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Actually I'd argue it's completely the other way round. We (the public) own OS X and grant Apple copying/economic rights until the expiration of the copyright term. It's a temporary deal to allow them to make a few quid off their hard work.
I'm not arguing against your other points, just an interesting technicality I've never really seen explained by an expert.
What's a beige box? I know what it is among the phreaking crowd (a linemans handset), but that's obviously not what your talking about.
From the linked install notes: