Slashdot Mirror
Apple Embeds Message to OS X Hackers
zentechno writes "Apple has confirmed it embedded a message in the form of a poem to those who would hack its version of OS X on Intel hardware." From the article: "The embedded poem reads: 'Your karma check for today: There once was a user that whined/his existing OS was so blind/he'd do better to pirate/an OS that ran great/but found his hardware declined./Please don't steal Mac OS!/Really, that's way uncool./(C) Apple Computer, Inc.'Apple also put in a separate hidden message, 'Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext,' in another spot for would-be hackers."
Seems Apple has a sense of humor - Bill Gates could learn a little from them.
Would be hackers?
Given the fact that there are sites dedicated to porting OSX, the "Would be" is a matter of opinion.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
a prick. slashdot is a little late on stories because a) they have paid subscribers that get to the stories a little earlier and b) because slashdot actually has moderators. They come up with a good headline, a proper description to start off a meaningful discussion.
Basically, you come here for the discussion, go to digg.com for the speed.
There once was a man from Nantucket...
Who saw another BSOD and said f..k it
Music is everybody's possession.
It's only publishers who think that people own it.
Fuck Beta
~John Lenno
Dear Crackers,
In anticipation of the Intel switch, we believe we have made our legal department 4-5X faster too. We're actively looking to test and confirm those benchmarks.
XOXO, Steve
...because it's true (The content of the poem that is). I don't mind people playing around to see if they can get it running on their systems but when they go as far as the release the cracked versions with the intent to use them without even paying for it that is when it gets wrong.
There once was a geek who was bored
All other systems he'd explored
So he added one more to his hoard
Though against his methods the vendor implored.
Now that's what I'm talking about.
I'm not sure what it takes to be an English-language poet (as opposed to code poet) at Apple, but this one stinks. And running one OS, even a fully-copyrighted, commercial OS, on hardware its creator did not intend for it is not piracy -- it's fair use. I know we aren't supposed to have that anymore (after the distribution cartels bribed congress to pass the DMCA, but, hey look, there's still that pesky Supreme Court ruling that says we do), but we do. Fair use is taking the OS software I bought from Apple, even if bundled with one of their machines, and running it on any other hardware, software, combination thereof(, the record player if I want,) so long as I am not simultaneously (in time) running the software somewhere else. So, no mister/madam poet, this isn't piracy. This is, shock of shocks, innovation. Please stop name calling. We aren't children, even if you'd like to treat us like that. And we sure do not deserve to be compared to people who actually break the law. You should reserve those epithets for people who actually do pirate your software, as confusing the two lessens the meaning of the word when used in its proper context.
And, Apple, you are free to innovate by releasing updates that make any progress on this front obsolete. It'll be a fun race that way.
There is a very simple solution here that will alieviate a LOT of the reasons people will hack or want to get the hacked OS. Just sell it seperate. Yeah I know, that means a lot more hardware support, well, there is a VERY simple solution to that, leave the hardware support up to the hardware manufacturers, and let the customers know that if it is not on the "approved hardware" list, that it is unsupported and they are on their own to get it working, or SOL. The biggest reason that Apple has always had about not selling the OS itself is the fact that it only worked on their own hardware. In a sense, they did sell it, though, as upgrades to older systems. Well, guess what, now it runs on x86 hardware... why in the world would you want to limit your market? You have a product, and a good one, but you put an artificial limit of your own on what you will allow it to be used on, which effectively cuts you out of 99% of the market that would potentially purchase your product, and for what reason? Because you don't want to support all that different hardware? Guys get a clue from Sun Microsystems, Solaris 10 x86 is out there available for purchase, but if you don't have supported hardware, well you are SOL for that piece of hardware. You are free to hack away at it to see if you can get that hardware to work, but don't go crying to Sun if it doesn't because they warned you ahead of time. All Apple needs to do is the same thing and I am certain that there would be a LOT of sales generated, which to Apple is basically FREE MONEY!!! I mean, really, it is like they have their own money printing machines, but they stamp out CD's or DVD's and place them in boxes, which then get "exchanged" at the going exchange rate. It only costs a few dollars to make the copy of the physical media, box it, and ship it, why not bring in all the money they can? It is just assinine if they do not.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
"And no, artificially tying the product to their lackluster hardware offerings is NOT acceptable. Yes I said lackluster. Sure they are pretty but as PC hardware they just ain't all that. Cheap plastic cases with wimpy power supplies and little expansion for the desktop and useless one button laptops. Gimme a big manly box made of 2mil aluminum and a big ass stable power plant to start, then let me pick out a premium motherboard and memory and an drives of my choice. Why should the OS vendor get to make all of my hardware choices for me? And never forget the insane markup they get for their pretty but bland specced hardware."
Where do you get this sense of self-entitlement? Apple spent their money creating Mac OS X. They get to decide how they want to sell it. If you don't like how they sell it, you don't have to buy it. You're not morally, much less legally, entitled to do what you want with their hard work, just because you can.
Apple isn't denying that people are capable of breaking their copy-protection. They're asking that people don't, out of respect for their right as producer of the software to sell it under their terms.
I don't understand this attitude, where people think that they are fucking entitled to pirate music, movies, software, or whatever. They actually get offended when you tell them that it's immoral!
I mean, I can understand the attitude of "Yeah, I know it's wrong, but I don't care." I don't agree with it, but I understand it. But I don't understand the people who truly don't see what's immoral about, for example, running Mac OS X in a way that Apple expressly asks you not to.
This space intentionally left blank.
Hey that's good.
There once was a man from Nantucket,
Who saw another BSOD and said fuck it,
He couldn't get any sex,
So he installed OS X,
With love that requires a mop and bucket.
"VAX - when you care enough to steal the very best"
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I don't understand why you think you have the right to do what you want with Mac OS X, just because you're not happy with the conditions that Apple sells it under.
They wrote OS X. They get to decide how to sell it. If you don't like the conditions, don't buy it.
It is immoral to say "I don't like the conditions they're selling it under, so I'm going to violate them." How can you not respect the fact that they, as authors of the software, have the right to sell it under the terms they prefer?
Let's say you write a book. You spend ten years of your life writing it, living off your savings. At the end of the ten years, you're almost broke, but your book is done, and it's a masterpiece. You go to a publisher, and say "I will sell you the rights to my book, if you give me 50% of the profits it makes." They agree.
The book goes on to make several millions of dollars in profits for the company, and they give you jack shit. When you complain, they say "Giving you 50% of the profits is NOT acceptable."
It's not exactly the same, but the situation is similar. Apple, as author of Mac OS X, can set the conditions under which it is sold. Even if you can come up with some legal loophole that lets you violate those conditions, doing so is still morally wrong. No one is forcing you to buy OS X. If you don't like the conditions, don't buy it.
Why should the OS vendor get to make hardware choices for you? Because that's how they want to do business. If you don't like it, don't buy from them.
This space intentionally left blank.
This product that apple sells, includes the hardware, deal with it. You're the whiny bitch.
Jonathanjk.com
What? So now it's okay to steal something if someone won't give it to you?
If you won't give me your credit card info, I'll just take it from you instead! In case you don't get it, you are the publisher of your credit card info, and since you refuse to publish that info, I'll just bootleg it instead.
GPL Deconstructed
There once was a user that whined
The phone companies robbed him blind
He'd do better to phreak
With a 2600Hz beep
So a blue box was designed
Please don't steal phone calls!
Really, that's way uncool.
*saw this over at MacRumors
you're the whiny bitch.
Apple is approaching this with a lot of common sense, respect for legitimate users, and humour.
you're acting like a childish prick because everything doesn't go your way. wah! Han shot first! wah! I can't afford a Mac! wah! stealing makes me a hero! wah!
grow up and get a life.
> But I don't understand the people who truly don't see what's immoral about, for example, running Mac OS X in a
> way that Apple expressly asks you not to.
Because I don't recognize their moral authority to tell me HOW to use their product. Their Copyright only gives them the right to control making copies. Yea I'd violate the letter of that if an iso appeared that would boot on my hardware simply because of curiosity. I wouldn't adopt it for daily use and certainly wouldn't use it at work without buying a copy. (Although until the first upgrade hits retail I'd probably have to buy the PPC copy and call it close enough.)
And I don't recognize any right for them to say their copyrighted work can ONLY be accessed on their brand of player. That is the same sort of bullshit arguments the MPAA and the DVD-CCA use to tell me I can't play DVDs I own on a DVD drive equipped PC I own because they refuse to bless a player for my preferred platform. By your logic I should just forego DVD on Linux or be a good lemming and install Windows. Wrong, I didn't 'license' my season sets of South Park, I BOUGHT copies and I'll read them wherever I damned well please and if I want to skip the trice damned commercials for Drawn Together and the Daily Show I will. And if I ever decided to install OS X I'd BUY a copy of it and do whatever I damned well wanted to with it as well and Steve could just go perform an improbable act of self procreation if he didn't like it. It is just a fscking product people, you don't have to join Steve'e cult and lose all sense of right and wrong.
Democrat delenda est
RIAA to sue Apple for use of copyrighted lyrical style, lack of DON'T STEAL MUSIC hidden message.
And no, artificially tying the product to their lackluster hardware offerings is NOT acceptable. Yes I said lackluster.
Michael Dell, is that you!?
Eat the Path.
you sound like the whiny baby. it is not like Steve Jobs took food off your plate and kicked your grandmother in the teeth. they created OS X and they have the right to do with it as they please. if you want full control over hardware and software, build a PC and install OSS. done. problem solved.
some of us like having machines that run really well to use as tools to do work and not spend our days working on them.
"They wrote OS X. They get to decide how to sell it. If you don't like the conditions, don't buy it."
Question: do you think the same applies to MS Office? They wrote it, they get to decide whether you run it under Wine or not. If you don't like the conditions, don't buy it? Or to Windows. They charge OEMs for all computers sold regardless of whether they have Windows installed. You are an OEM. They get to decide how to sell it...
Fact is, companies cannot set any conditions they like, because there is in most Western jurisdictions both competition law restraints, and consumer protection restraints.
This is not an argument about whether they should sell OS X or not, its just an argument about whether they have the legal right to impose these kinds of restrictions on use, post sale. Don't believe so.
There is a lot of this type of chip art... Here's a link: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/creatures/pages/russia ns.html
Don't feel bad, I couldn't remember it exactly as well, had to look it up!
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
You don't think it had anything to do with CmdrTaco not wanting to splash your username on the front page, would it?
its not the same situation. The soviets could not have bought vaxen if they had wanted to. It certainly would have been cheaper for them to do so, but the technology was embargoed.
I remember a story that the apollo crew who linked up with a soyuz in the early 70's were surprised to find a mechanical sequencer (a cylinder with pins attached) running the show on the soviet side.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
What's your opinion on academic or personal-use licenses, then?
I can buy a copy of IntelliJ IDEA for academic use for $99, or a license for personal use for $199. They charge (I think) $599 for the commercial license. All have equal functionality. So, you think it's moral for me to buy the personal license for $199, and then use it to create commercial software? After all, that right do they have to tell me what to do with the software I've purchased? I should be able to do whatever I want with it, regardless of what the terms of the sale were.
This space intentionally left blank.
"An unfair term in a contract covered by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (UTCCRs) is not binding on you.
Test of fairness A term is unfair if: * contrary to the requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance inthe parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers."
"Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
"Consumer Sale of Goods Contracts
"Consumers cannot have their legal rights removed in sale of goods contracts. Furthermore, it can be an offence to mislead consumers about their legal rights. To do so could result in a criminal prosecution. For example, notices such as "We do not give refunds" are misleading and cannot be used. Enforcement is undertaken by local Trading Standards Departments."
These quotes are from Department of Trade and Industry Guidelines.
It must be very doubtful that a EULA which forbids you to do things with the product after you have bought it, that you can perfectly well do, and which you have some reasonable reason to want to do, can be lawful in the UK or the EC. In fact, putting clauses in a Eula which mislead the consumer about his rights under the law in this regard appears, from the above, to be criminal.
While I realise that Apple have to protect their technology, Steve Jobs' anti-hacking comments lately have been a bit hypocritical, given his history. Here is a more appropriate poem:
Yes, as my current computer is running a multi-button Logitech using Apple's drivers. And in fact, they even sell a multi-button mouse. (Mighty Mouse) Though you are right, there should be a school...
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
I know this may sound a tad taught
,so Face.
but I am sure you have all read Slash-dot
This hacking we do is not aimed at you
And we don't mind if we all get caught
we find the law a touch stringent
and pedantically we must say its not stealing..
but Copyright infringement .
Though we are sure that this is not always the case.
If we bought it then we own this
You the see problem with the EULA
is that when you pay
Its as binding as an plastic toupee
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
So let me get this straight: In the beginning, removing an item from a store without paying for it was considered "stealing". Then, simple copyright infringement became "stealing". Now, Apple is saying that if I go to the store, buy Mac OS X, and get it to work on my computer, I'm "stealing"? WTF?
http://outcampaign.org/
Image you went to your local baker and bought a loaf of bread and then were threathened with jail time for hacking it up into little bits and feeding it to the ducks when clearly the baker decided it was only to be used for human consumption.
But computers are different. It causes people like you to behave like slaves who lick their masters asses and swallow everything they deliver.
Apple sells software. Once it made the sale I can do with it what I want for my personal use. If I decide to take it apart and chance it to run on other hardware or to function in a way different then it was before then that is my right.
Oh but wait of course, I get it. Games were never intended to run with trainers. So trainers are illegal. They also never meant for you to use someone elses savegame so savegames are illegal. They also do not come with a walkthrough so clearly walkthroughs are illegal.
Running say program X on a emulator is obviously clearly illegal.
But then I got a bit of bad news for you. Your lord and master Steve Jobs is breaking his own laws. By allowing windows software to run in emulation he is hacking that software to run on platforms it was never intended to run on. Could every windows developer sue whenever a mac user runs a bit of windows software?
No, Apple has a right to cry foul when people give away its software for free but when I buy a copy of Mac OS X in the shops I am then free to use it in anyway I please. I can use it as a coaster. I can run it on mac hardware and I can hack it and run it on whatever I like. As long as I respect the fact that I got right to 1 copy of it running at anyone time I am in the clear.
Anyone who tells you different is a fucking tool.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You can't buy OS X for intel at the moment, pal.
w00t
Haiku:
Bad axe in apple tree
Please do not steal our fucking
OS you bastards
If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
So lets get this straight.
Apple takes FreeBSD which runs on just about any platform including Intel and put into Darwin/MacOSX then Apple cripples OS to run on DRM Intel board, and embed messages to be found by people who decripple the OS to run on any Intel board.
Now who's calling who uncool ? Decrippling is totally cool in my book while Crippling is not regardless of legality.
Apple! I'm calling you out. 3PM after school, by sandbox!
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
In other words, Apple owns OS X, and has created rules about how you can use it. Because it uses DRM, you cannot legally install it under your brand-spanking new vanilla x86 machine, even if you ran out and purchased bought two MacBook Pros and owned tons of Apple stock, thanks to the DMCA.
That should read "Because it uses DRM, you cannot legally install it under your brand-spanking new vanilla x86 machine, at least not under US law and other insane jurisdicitons with (also insane) DMCA-like regulations".
Law 9609/98 (Brasilian "Computer Programs Intelectual Property Act"), art 6: "It is NOT infringement to the rights of the author of a computer program: (...) IV - to integrate it, maintaining its characteristics, to an operating or application system, if it's technically indispensable to the use of the software, and it's promoted by the user". IOW: if you bought your copy of MacOS X, you can hack it to use on your computer.
Law 8078/90 (Brasilian "Consumer Defense Code"), art 39: "It is prohibited, to any supplier of products and services: I - to condition the supply of any product or service to the supply of another product or service" (this is called in Brasilian Consumer Law "venda casada" == "married sale", where one product/service only goes where the other goes). IOW: If I want to buy MacOS X, Apple cannot refuse to sell it to me, even if I don't own a Mac.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
The main reason people want a hacked OS is because they are cheap bastards. By definition they aren't interested in spending money. Trying to sell them something that they are already stealing is not an effective tactic.
Nope. Main people they want a hacked OS is because the un-hacked OS does not run on their machines and for the moment they are not interested in new hardware, thank you, just in new software. People who say "no, I don't want the Super Size combo" and "yes, I know two apple pies is just fifty cents more than one, but I will only eat one, thank you". Is that so hard to understand? And, yes, _when_ said people try out the OS and they see "hmm. this is neat, bet it would be faster/prettier on Apple's hardware", what do you think will be the next hardware they'll shop for? Build it, and they will come.
You know what? The proof that this argument is bogus resides in Apple itself and its iTMS. People went in flocks to buy regularly what they couldn't have with CDs (loose tracks) and they could have irregularly (MP3s via P2P).
And besides, "stealing" does not fit on your phrase above. It's impossible to steal software/movies/music. "Stealing" means "subtracting something from others"; when you (irregularly) copy software/movies/music, you may (OR MAY NOT) be "copyright infringing", but you are never "stealing".
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Oh man, you could not have chosen a better verb!
This isn't really an "ah-hah! gotcha!" kind of thing, or an attempt at humour (though it is a little funny). Its about LEGAL protections - copyright, DMCA, etc. We did something similar at AOL - I had just posted about this at my blog.
graphically speaking
It IS a limerick.
There once was a user that whined
his existing OS was so blind
he'd do better to pirate
an OS that ran great
but found his hardware declined.
Naturally, it requires a slightly modified way of pronouncing pirate and/or great.
It seems that Apple's US operations seem to be running a little behind the times... because here in China, while I can get an iPod Shuffle 512MB for $70 (not a typo), the software comes along much cheaper (like I can buy iLife for about $5), and this is at an APPLE STORE. Also, while they didn't tolerate hacking as much in the US (witness this legal threat), they have done nothing to the main OSx86 BBS (I mean forum, to non-Chinese people) in China, OSx86 China and people at the Apple Store have directed me to that web site once they knew that I wouldn't complain to them if I couldn't make it work.
On a related note (disclaimer)... I have been using an example of an official Apple Store where I live to and what it does, but this store may not necessarily be official, just that they look official, and they say that they are official, and have sufficiently proved to me that they are official (showed me that they have access to internal Apple systems and all that).
What I mean is that they should not be trying to deter hackers, but rather encourage those who are smart enough to hack it, and discourage those who can't.
OSx86 FTW
Now, you're a "pirate" if you try to "decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof."
Whatever happened to "1984 won't be like 1984"?
OS X is a combination of an open source kernel (Mach), an open source kernel interface (BSD), open source command line tools (BSD), and open source compiler (GNU). It's a GUI that was bought from NeXT, which originally took the language and much of the library design from Stepstone and Xerox, and the imaging model and imaging system from Adobe. And for the last decade, Apple has not invested much at all in research--pretty much every "innovation" they have shipped was invented elsewhere.
Yes, Apple has the copyright on the whole thing, and BSD doesn't disallow what they are doing, but it's not like OS X is some hugely innovative piece of software that was entirely created by Apple. So, assert your rights in court if you like, but stop the whining--it's inappropriate.
If you didn't include the final ,1, then whatever you loaded was loaded into the 38k RAM block set aside for basic programs. If you did include it, it would load into RAM starting at the address the person saving it had designated.
Some programs loaded into the top half of the BASIC RAM, which was fine if you weren't running any BASIC programs, because that was the area BASIC used to store variables. However, there was a 4k block starting at 49152 which was set aside solely for user-initiated macine language programming and/or data storage (i.e. sprites, etc), so some programs would load in with ",8,1" or ",1,1" and then you'd type "sys 49152" to get them started.
Last, there was some set of registers just below the BASIC RAM that you could use to auto-start a program. I think that the way that these programs were written, they'd write a small basic program as a loader that would include a command similar to "LOAD 'MAINPROGRAM',8,1", and then they'd tack something on to the beginning of it which would be unintelligible if you loaded it right into BASIC RAM, but if you loaded it with the final ,1, the pre-pended stuff would fall into a register that said, "Execute the program that's just loaded", and the BASIC would be in the right place. I remember typing in a program from Compute's Gazette that let me create such auto-run files.
Ah, those were heady days!
The CB App. What's your 20?
Look, some wanker politician (IIRC it was the premier of QLD) said in a speach that his right "not to get blown up" is more important than joe six-pack's right to privacy, k?
And if you don't like my sig... well... I don't really care. Write your own, pout, put me on your blocked list. Who gives a fuck?
Send lawyers, guns, and money!