Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X Cracked For PCs Again
An anonymous reader writes "Ars Technica and The Register are reporting the Apple Kernel 10.4.8 has been cracked using Apple's publicly available source trees. This is the first time Apple was hit by hackers again since Maxxuss silently left the scene.The funny thing about this is the hacker who cracked OSx has released his sources according to APSL. He told Ars Technica in an interview that he did this because he believes in freedom of information, but will this now harm Apple's opensourceness?" From the article: "Unfortunately, free and legal are not necessarily the same thing, and the EULA for OS X requires Mac hardware. However, there is an interesting comment on the blog, one that asserts the requirement of Mac hardware is a "post-sale" restriction. Such a restriction may not be applicable in certain countries, such as those of the European Union. Expect to see what Apple Legal thinks about that shortly."
Apple need to collaborate with Microsoft, and make the Apple Genuine Advantage. As a leader in the field of pissing off customers, Microsoft can proudly show Apple how to protect its interests against those nasty hackers.
Oh You POS
What the summary doesn't say is that this method does not enable the GUI. Booting into single user mode works, but unfortunately I'll have to cancel that Dell I ordered.
However, there is an interesting comment on the blog, one that asserts the requirement of Mac hardware is a "post-sale" restriction.
If it's a post-sale restriction, and you're not buying it, problem solved.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
OS X is a great OS. If more people could try it out, there'd be a lot more converts.
Agile Artisans
They'd let people install it on anything they want... just make it "illegal" to do so. It's not like Windows' market share was achieved only with legal licensed copies.
Were it not that I have already purchased my Intel Mac and have no real need for a cracked OS X, I would love this. I would install it and quietly use it. But, having said that I would hate myself for it.
From TFA:
The only snag: you can't boot into the familiar GUI. (...) In any case, the code will boot up into single-user mode, which has a certain interest for Unix and command-line geeks, but isn't going to get Mac fans rushing off to buy cheap Dells instead of Apple machines.
So this doesn't mean it's time to download a newer version of a so-called "OSX86" distrobution, anyway. C'est la vie.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
It might be a post-sale restriction, but you'd have to buy mac hardware, at the moment, to get the right to exploit your freedom to ignore post-sale restrictions. By 'cracking' it you're probably breaching the contract anyway.
The post-sale argument will get more interesting for the intel shrinkwrap of 10.5.
All this does is give you Darwin. Its hardly a "hack" - just compiling Darwin/x86, which you've been able to do with Apple's blessing for years (save a brief interlude when kernel sources weren't ready yet).
Now if they get around the binary signing on critical GUI components (Finder, WindowServer, etc) then I'll be more impressed.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
This news is like so two days ago. Those of us who tried it realized there isn't much point in pirating the Mac OS only to be able to use it in single user mode. May as well just grab FreeBSD if that's what you're looking for.
So here's what I'm wondering.
Apple's EULA says Mac OS X can only be used on an "Apple-labeled computer." But what does that really mean, legally? I've heard some people suggest that if you stick your own label that says "Apple" on a PC, then it should count as being "Apple-labeled," but I'm assuming the real meaning is "a computer that has been labeled by Apple."
So, what if you buy an old Blue & White G3 tower, remove the motherboard, and install a P4 or Core 2 motherboard (along with CPU and RAM)? Can this machine still be considered "Apple-labeled"? Surely you can upgrade the hard drive or RAM without voiding the EULA; which other components are OK to replace before the result can no longer be legally considered "Apple-labeled"?
Of course I'm talking about using a legally purchased retail copy of Mac OS X.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
To follow the links down a few levels you find this. Which is the source code tree from one of the previous versions of Mac OS X. Is it just me, or is there a hell of a lot of GPLe'd software there? That said, how do they get around by not making osx oss? Just curious.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
I'm a switcher, well, more of an adder. I maintain Windows networks, my laptop is a Dell and my home system is a PowerMac G5.
I bought it because I wanted to do some for-pay video editing. It's a great platform but I still have to use my Windows system for a few things.
The biggest problem I have is one that isn't commented on: Tiny awesome apps. Example: Those familiar with Irfanview know it is damned quick. The Mac can't get close to it. For the basic editing/viewing of my 14,000 photos, the G5 just is too damned slow.
Even Photoshop (PC= Elements vs. Mac CS2) runs faster on the little Dell laptop.
But, for video editing? It's amazing. I have gone with 152% of my CPU doing renders and awesome stuff. Woo hoo! My PC never got close to making me happy while rendering.
Luckily I don't have to choose. The Mac and the PC are both tools. As for stupid analogies: You can hammer in a screw, but they make different tools for different jobs.
I love it but I don't like Entorage or Mail. I don't like Word or Excel. It just doesn't 'feel' the same. Keyboard commands for example are wonky. But it is pretty and sometimes that works.
This is really not a case of anything being cracked. The source code was available, all this guy did was remove the requirements for particular hardware. Consequently, as we've all known before the gui doesn't work without the checks that were implemented, and you still need something illegal to get it going as an actual OS X install... all you have here is Darwin running out of the same tree as OS X. I'm sure Apple knew this would happen as soon as they released the kernel source.
"Post sale restrictions" are IMHO the legal flaw in just about *every* EULA.
You've gone to the store, you've purchased a product, you've driven home, you've opened the product and are in the process of installing the
product and WHAMMO -- you're forced to agree to something after you've already expended time, energy and money towards posession of that
product. If you disagree with the EULA, you'll need to expend further time, energy and money (and bereaucratic frustration) in order to
undo the financial transaction and receive compensation. (Ever try taking XP back to Staples and saying you didn't agree with the EULA?).
This is a form of trickery and extortion that goes far beyond bait-and-switch. It is a transaction in which 'good faith' on the part of the
manufacturer is non-existent. EULA's are legal documents which cannot be given due diligence (because the expense of said diligence would vastly
exceed the price of the product), and they are agreed to by minors, the elderly and consumers with no legal background every day. The price
for disagreement is more wasted effort, more lost time and more lost money.
Post Sale Agreements should be illegal.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Um, they *did* make the operating system (Darwin) OSS. How did you think the source you're looking at was released in the first place? This hasn't been news for five years at least.
They haven't made the GUI shell (Quartz, Aqua, etc...) that runs on top of it OSS, but then neither have all the companies that make accelerated X servers and other system software for Linux made their software OSS.
I am pretty sure it says right on the outside of the box that it requires a Macintosh computer. I think that makes it a pre-sale condition.
OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink
This isn't illegal, unethical, or surprising. It's interesting and encouraging, that OpenDarwin's frustration and shutdown hasn't stalled the continued support of Darwin on non-Apple hardware, but people have been turning Apple's open source releases into bootable operating systems for years.
What's the big deal? That if you take things a few steps further you can use this to run the GUI on top of Darwin on Intel instead of just Power PC? Well, yes, that's a big deal, but that's not possible with what this guy's released. It's not XPostFacto.
Give me a break. Porting the Darwin kernel and then running an OS X userland on top of it is not "cracking". It may be in violation of Apple's EULA, but I really don't see any reason to get pushed out of shape about it.
Apple will do whatever they will do in response to it. If they're smart, they're just going to leave it alone: in the end, this really doesn't matter, since people by Macs for the whole package; OS X itself really isn't all that special.
If you are running Photoshop on an Intel Mac, you should know that it is running in emulation (Rosetta). Performance with an Intel native binary would likely be faster. As far as your "small tools" complaint, have you tried to find smaller, faster tools? Irfanview isn't included by Microsoft in Windows by default... Last thing: what keyboard commands are wonky, exactly?
Wow, so much FUD. "overpriced" even though the Mac Pro is $1,000 less than the equivalent Dell and the new MacBook Pros are also less than the equivalent Dells. You even end with the old "iPod users just want to look cool" canard.
There are many ways Apple can (and probably will) tie OS X to Mac hardware. They've got people who can do it (to date, there has never been a crack for Logic 7 Pro and its USB dongle).
"Sufferin' succotash."
You keep using "0x86". I think you mean "x86", denoting [3456]86 chips. 0x86 is the standard representation for the hexadecimal equivalent of the number '134'.
Logic 7 Pro is a 'niche' application with a limited audience. (I think it would be a great thing to have, but many people could care less about it). Security for it can't compare to that for wide-audience products. It can be made secure in part because it's expensive and 'support' will certainly be part of the package for purchasers.
Apple's OS, on the other hand is widely distributed and many more people want it. Apple can't afford the kind of hand-holding (tech support call: "put the dongle in and try again and if that doesn't work we will overnight you another dongle.") that comes bundled with products like Logic Pro.
A niche application with a limited audience that happens to be the most-used front-end to Pro Tools in recording studios. I wasn't suggesting that OS X will use a USB dongle; the TPM chip is the dongle. Apple's engineers will simply integrate the GUI and other services even further into the chip.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I own a desktop Mac and would be willing to buy a MacBook today, which are reasonable priced, if only there was a sub-notebook model available which is weighs less than 2.5 pounds.
But, Apple still refuses to make (or contract out) sub-notebooks for their MacBook line. The smallest & lightest MacBook available is the 13 inch 5 pound model, which is too big and heavy for frequent flyers and daily public transit commuters. Not everyone needs a full-size desktop replacement. I still can't understand why Apple won't even contract out a MacBook sub-notebook to Sony, Panasonic, JVC/Asus, Fujitsu, etc.?
So until Apple changes its weight-lifting policy, I would be more willing to buy a copy of OSX and use a crack so that I can use it with full GUI on my ix86 sub-notebook.
>Even Photoshop (PC= Elements vs. Mac CS2) runs faster on the little Dell laptop.
This is actually an unfair comparison as, despite similar names, Photoshop Elements and Photoshop 9 (alone or as part of CS2) are not really comparable programs in terms of the stress they put on your system resources.
Reading can be difficult...
Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
You reacted like you're offended I referred to it as a niche application. Whoop de doo. I suppose.
[W]ill this now harm Apple's opensourceness?
/., so that others can stay aware of Apple's treatment of the issue.
More to the point, what effect will this have on sales?
If Apple (or independent hackers) use this information to quickly produce a fix and publish a patch, as typically happens with open source, I'll take it as a good sign, and OSX will be ranked higher in my future purchase decision.
If Apple tries to harrass Soghoian or anyone else, or closes the source, I'll take that as a sign that they're more interested in PR than fixing problems, and OSX will be ranked lower in my future purchase decisions.
I can't speak for anyone but myself, of course. I'm aware that there are people that interpret silence as "no problems". I'm also aware that such fools are often in charge of purchase decisions. But I like to think that purchase decisions in which I'm involved are made on more rational grounds.
Anyhow, I'll be watching to see how Apple reacts to this. I hope that we also read followups about this here on
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
While the result of the full system strategy is typically a much more polished product, commoditization enables mix-and-match of components to create a truly specialized system. Does Apple make a micro-tablet like OQO's Model 01+ or Sony's UX-280? What about OS X virtualization setups?
...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
Sounds like the guy who posted the hack can get the gui to work (and so can you), but it's not on by default for legal reasons.
you don't agree to.
This is why people use clean room reverse engineering.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
you ruin everything. It's funny watching people pretending they know something.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"A niche application with a limited audience that happens to be the most-used front-end to Pro Tools in recording studios."
recording studio software is a niche market.
It can be cracked, as can ALL SOFTWARE.
The very nature of software makes this possible. The question is, "How many people need/want this tool?"
I don't have a recording studio in me basement, and niether do most people.
I did a quick Google check, and it seems there is a crack of pro logic 7 out there.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If it's been cracked on PCs, don't run it on PCs. Only run it on mainframes and minicomputers, not Intel or Apple PC hardware.
EFI! Dolt! What do you mean? Vanilla x86... Sheesh.. You ever research the tech stuff your making weak comparisons to?
I don't own a mac, but I got to know:
What was the Mac lacking that Linux has?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
He told Ars Technica in an interview that he did this because he believes in freedom of information
Yeah, right... freedom of information...
50% of the price? Really? Could you post a link to someone selling new 2GHz core duo notebooks for $550? I'd like to buy about a dozen.
0 1 - just my two bits
i own a Mac LC back home. Does that fulfill my "apple hardware requirement"? I am technically a Mac owner.
Wallpaper with a cute Penguin on it.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
I don't think there's anything stopping anyone making an OSX virtualization product. In fact, I think VMWare is working on it.
So many comments say things like this and get modded Insightful. Apple doesn't want unmaintained, illegal copies of OSX out there because it weakens Apple's branding. For every person who gets "converted" after downloading a hacked copy of OSX, there's another guy who tries it out, gets some weird driver conflict because he's running non-Apple hardware, and says, "Hey, this thing is just as buggy and confusing as Windows!" And moreover, human nature dictates that people like to bitch more than they like to evangelize, so it's the second guy who's gonna tell all his friends what a piece of crap OSX is.
mac is moving away from ppc altogether, so who cares. besides the fact osX(i think) is available on the intel based mac mini.
Of course, show a Windows user or a Mac user that you're running KDE ontop of their sacred OS and it's all suddenly, "Why are you doing that!?".
The same people get really upset and iffy when you aren't using the same office applications, paint programs and so on too. Me? I couldn't careless what people use, I know what I like to use.
Things I can do on Linux that MacOSX and Windows can't:
I wrote a simple script that simply switches between wireless and wired networks automatically without disconnecting any of my existing connections on IRC and so on.
I plug in the Ethernet cable, a script automatically starts and disables wi-fi card, duplicates NIC settings from the wi-fi card (IP address and so on) then brings up Ethernet. My applications just continue running, still connected to servers and such. If I pull out the ethernet cable, Wi-fi starts up, connects to the relevant network (if it's there) and my applications still aren't disconnected from anything.
This is really useful for me when I need to move around, but every now and then, I need to connect to a wired network so I can do network intensive tasks quickly, such as speedy backups, huge file copies, low latency network gaming, conference calling (works fine over wi-fi, but artifacts sometimes occur).
The other thing is, whenever I need to use a scanner, tablet, Bluetooth dongle, wi-fi card -- anything. I can just plug it in, and it works, no need to download drivers, configure the thing. It just works almost instantly. Now, MacOSX? I find a lot of hardware doesn't "just work" on that, if it works at all. I have a Bluetooth dongle that crashes the OS, but works fine on Windows and Linux.
Windows on the other hand.. Always asking me drivers, it rarely finds drivers automatically from the windows update site, the drivers that come on the CD don't work for some reason (designed for XP SP1 and doesn't work on SP2 -- manufacturer's website uses some borked javascript that doesn't let me download the drivers -- BLAH). I just can't use any off-the-shelf equipment immediately with non-linux OSes.
I admit there is definitely hardware that doesn't work with Linux, but so far. I've had far more problems with MacOSX and Windows.
The windows games I can get working under Wine, run often faster than I ever got under Windows on the same hardware -- including some wouldn't even work under Windows on my hardware (second life) -- but worked fine under Wine and Linux (now second life has a Linux port which is even better).
Things I can't do on Linux:
Play every windows game.
Run a program equivalent in functionality to Satscape.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
That's the big question. I'm looking at the EULA of my 'Retail box' copy of 10.4, and it says nothing about requiring a valid license from an older version of the Mac OS. Windows 'Upgrade' EULAs state this. They require a legally valid existing license for a prior version of Windows. The OS X license merely states that you must have an 'Apple-labeled' computer; but declines to define 'Apple-labeled'.
I have an old Power Mac G3. I have upgraded the memory, processor, and video card. Yet it is still undeniably 'Apple' hardware. If I remove the original Power Mac G3 motherboard, and insert a motherboard from an Intel Mac mini, replacing the memory, processor, and video card, (but keeping the original hard drive,) it is still Apple hardware, right? My license to have 10.4 on that computer is still valid, right? (After all, the mini came with a valid license as well.) But now I'm running an x86 version of 10.4. If I take the processor and RAM from the mini's motherboard, and put them in a 'generic' x86 motherboard that supports said processors, am I still using Apple hardware? I'm using the same processor as I was before, the same memory, the same hard drive. The only thing that has changed is the motherboard. (Say I wanted a real hardware parallel port or serial port for some reason, or I got a motherboard with a PCI Express slot.) Is my license still legal?
How about if I take the guts of the Power Mac G3, and put them into a generic ATX PC case? It doesn't have an Apple label on the outside, but it's 100% Apple hardware on the inside. Is it 'Apple-labeled'? If so, then what if I follow with the process above, replacing with a Mac mini motherboard, then replacing the Mac mini motherboard. Now, the only Apple-original hardware would be the processor, memory, and hard drive. But I started with completely legal versions of everything. Does mere moving of parts and replacing of parts make the license illegal?
Nowhere does Apple define 'Apple-labeled'.
Apple's OS 9 'retail' license speciically said that you had to install it on a computer that contained an existing legally licensed copy of the Mac OS. Meaning that OS 9's retail box was really an 'upgrade' license.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Before the i486, the Intel Architecture chips were the 8086 (and the 8088, but it was just a crippled 8086), the 80186, the 80286 and the 80386. The standard way of describing a member of this family was 80x86. Perhaps the grandparent just has a defective 8 key that only works every other press...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Actually, just for the record, I tried someone's "Logic Pro 7" crack for Mac a while ago. Looked like they simply took some files out of Logic Express and swapped them for the original Logic Pro files (since Express has no dongle.
It seemed to work, although it was a rather "sketchy" crack... (EG. Not real confident doing something like that wouldn't break at least some feature/function in the program.)
Depends what they mean. Parallels is very nice on OS X. If you mean a virtualisation system that runs OS X then keep in mind that Aqua is fairly GPU-heavy (even if you just count the compositing then it takes a huge performance hit having to do that in software). If someone released a virtualisation program for Windows that provided 3D support, however, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple released a demo version of OS X that allowed people to play with iLife, but not install new software or save state between reboots...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The sad part of this is the people that should run OSX won't. The people out there that could really benefit from running OSX for a myriad of reasons won't because it's a hack to do so. The people out there running Windows with full admin accounts, with there wireless point named "Linksys", unpatched systems, etc. Those are the people that should.
It's a damn shame.
Apple must exit the computer hardware business as quickly as possible. The powerful competitive forces marshalled by a multi-billion-dollary industry will destroy Apple. Who wants to buy an overpriced computer from Apple?
OK, who gave the guys over at Gartner Slashdot accounts?
Umkay... I keep seeing this so I went and checked it out. The cheapes MacBook Pro to date is $1999. In this price you get Intel Core Duo @ 2.16 GHz, 1GB or ram, 120GB of HD space, X6 double-layer dvd drive, 128MB ATI MOBILITY(TM) RADEON® X1600, and 15inch monitor.
Now to the Dell side. On the Dell E1505 you get Intel Core Duo @ 2.16 GHz, 1GB of ram, 120GB of HD spave, X8 double-layer dvd drive, 256MB 256MB ATI MOBILITY(TM) RADEON® X1400, and a 15.4inch monitor. And how much is this Dell??? Why $1399 of course!! $600 LESS!!!!! HOW IS A DELL $1000 MORE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
The way Apple simplifies the user interface is to take functionality or choices away. Why go to all the trouble of assembling a pc and then load it up with a crippled OS? Why not just run linux?
The 486 was also technically known as the "80486". Only with the Pentium, did they start switching to a weirder naming scheme (i.e. "P5", "P54C", and so forth) that is different enough from the product names so as to be seen almost nowhere anymore.
I wrote a simple script that simply switches between wireless and wired networks automatically without disconnecting any of my existing connections on IRC and so on.
I plug in the Ethernet cable, a script automatically starts and disables wi-fi card, duplicates NIC settings from the wi-fi card (IP address and so on) then brings up Ethernet. My applications just continue running, still connected to servers and such. If I pull out the ethernet cable, Wi-fi starts up, connects to the relevant network (if it's there) and my applications still aren't disconnected from anything.
This is really useful for me when I need to move around, but every now and then, I need to connect to a wired network so I can do network intensive tasks quickly, such as speedy backups, huge file copies, low latency network gaming, conference calling (works fine over wi-fi, but artifacts sometimes occur).
Mac OS X does this automatically, without needing that little script you wrote. Just give both interfaces the same IP information, and it will seamlessly switch to whichever is higher in the list of connections.
Once again, all kinds of power, and a GUI that makes it trivial to use.
The other thing is, whenever I need to use a scanner, tablet, Bluetooth dongle, wi-fi card -- anything. I can just plug it in, and it works, no need to download drivers, configure the thing. It just works almost instantly. Now, MacOSX? I find a lot of hardware doesn't "just work" on that, if it works at all. I have a Bluetooth dongle that crashes the OS, but works fine on Windows and Linux.
Not exactly persuasive, since it's personal experience. My experience has been that pretty much anything that's USB or Firewire just works, including such dongles, serial adapters, modems, printers, etc. Most PCI/AGP/PCI-Express works as well, although that is more spotty. A lot of that is thanks to class drivers, and a lot is thanks to open source (CUPS and Gimp-Print, for instance).
At the same time, I can sit here and spin tales of how my MegaRAID adapter in my server wasn't recognized by several Linux install CD's, then was broken in the kernel for a few versions, and when I finally switched to an IBM ServeRAID 3L, it wasn't supported by Windows XP!
In 20 years of using the Mac and 10 years of Windows and Linux experience, I'd say you're most likely to get something to work with full functionality on Windows. You may have problems and conflicts, but full feature support is a priority. You're most likely to get most functionality on Mac OS X. Some things are only partially supported (printer or scanner features, for instance), and there are occasional devices that don't work (video cards needing Mac-specific firmware - why is that?). As for Linux, all I can say is it's very hit or miss, distro to distro, version to version. Things break much more often on Linux. It might just need some new package or config tweak, but running a system update (synaptic, yum, emerge, etc) is sometimes like russian roulette. I backup my Linux system fully before applying updates - I don't need to with OS X or Windows.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
You're using the wrong products. The Mac Pro is the desktop system with the dual Woodcrest processors.
The MacBook Pro (laptop) isn't cheaper than a Dell notebook. Though the new ones are closer -- and they come with sufficient RAM (2 GB), hallelujah!
Mac Pro != MacBook Pro, Tweedle Dum. They have different names because they're different products.
Pay attention next time.
Far less software is cracked for Mac than PC because of the same reason that so many more viruses exist for PC. There are simply far fewer Mac users. There are lots of cross-platform apps with fancy dongle protections (like Waves plugins) that are regularly cracked on the Windows platform, but never properly cracked on Mac. This certainly isn't because of Apple's superior anti-piracy measures.
The difference here is that there are a LOT of Windows users who want to use OSX, so we're talking about a big horde of Windows users chipping away at it, not just the tiny population of Mac users trying to crack an app.
Saying that, I'm not saying Linux doesn't have it's issues, I've just found that I have far less problems and issues on the OS in general, I also prefer some of the desktop environments a lot more.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
As long as you're aware that your DHCP server could reassign that address on you when it expires... DHCP servers track the IPs they assign by MAC address. In addition, by manually setting the IP, you've told the network interface that you're not using DHCP.
And if you're duplicating the MAC address, that opens a whole 'nother can of worms.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Indeed, in fact it is amazingly seemless. I started a transfer on a 802.11B network, and the file chugged along at B speeds. I then flicked on a 802.11G AP and after a few seconds it switched over and started transferring at the 802.11G speeds. I then plugged in my ethernet cable and the Activity Monitor jumped up in the massive speed boost. But then I pulled out my ethernet cable, this caused the transfer to pause for a bit and then it picked up the pace again. This is amazing to watch, doesn't matter what you use (even SMB to Windows boxes), it just seems to work. Very impressed by how simple it is to set up.
I always wondered where this setting was...
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Actually the KHTML incident was Apple giving back a whole heap of cluster patches from the original bit of source code they took out which was horrendously out of date, but if you actually look at things, WebKit is completely open source and available: http://webkit.org/ (which is what the GPL requires, funnily enough). If the KHTML people want a feature from WebKit, then they can just grab it off relevant subversion repository like every other project. Anyone can get to the source, I'm not sure what the problem is?
I always wondered where this setting was...
Does anyone know if welll ever see something like WINE but OSX? Like an "Open Source implementation of the OSX API". Not knowing a lot about the subject - but i would imagine now we already have Darwin a big chunk of the kernel level stuff is already done. What would remain would be all the user space stuff , GUI and stuff.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
"I'm looking at the EULA of my 'Retail box' copy of 10.4, and it says nothing about requiring a valid license from an older version of the Mac OS"
That's because, to date, there's no need to state it. The only way you could ever buy MacOS or OS X was to put onto a Macintosh computer--you own a Mac, and all Macs ship with MacOS preinstalled. Therefore, you have a preexisting license by virtue of owning said Macintosh. There's no way to obtain, and no need for Apple to sell, a "full retail" (in the Windows sense) version of their operating system.
"The OS X license merely states that you must have an 'Apple-labeled' computer;"
I believe it states (in addition to the above) that you must own a Macintosh. There's no need to define "Apple-labeled" in the EULA--people love to accuse lawyers of haggling over minutiae, but they lack a fundamental appreciation of when and why those details come up. Lawyers, in the overwhelming majority of instances, accept definitions as reasonably intended--an "Apple-label" system is one sold by Apple. No, an Apple sticker doesn't count, nor does a PC in an Apple case.
"You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
- greg
Start a happiness pandemic
I dunno about switching naming schemes starting with the Pentium... I remember my parents having a brand-new Windows 95 box with a Pentium 75MHz, and there were several pre-installed desktop backgrounds (installed by the computer vendor, but they were from Intel). They were all futuristic outer-space graphics of nebulas and moons with big colourful 3D text saying things like `i586' and `80586' `Intel Inside' and stuff like that.
The Shoes of the Fisherman's Wife Are Some Jive Ass Slippers
Clarification: classic MacOS did have that brief Apple clone detour in its history, hence the "preexisting license" requirement. OS X has had no such aberration.
I can't imagine the expertise of crackers like that! Whoever he is, he stands from the crowd now. What does it really take to be like this guy? Many years of OS development and enough free time to play?
Apple has always been a hardware company with its own OS. In 1984, it was brilliant. In 1996, not so much. But now that we have an OS that can run on multiple processors, maybe there is a rationale for selling two different Mac OSes: one for Macs, and another one for a limited set (at first) of PC mothrboards. However, for the Dells, it would sell in one version, Deluxe, for about $50 less than Vista Ultimate. That's the good part. The tough part would be this: it would have to have a control for the PCs it would work with. If you could buy a PC with the Mac OS preinstalled, it would be welded to that machine. If you try to do anything more than refresh or update that OS, it wouldn't work. You'd have to have serial numbers, activation and the like. Just a little less draconian than Windows. Don't have a real serial number? Total lockout.Then Apple wouldn't bleed sales to cheaper PCs, because if you have a Mac, each new OS sells for $129 -- maybe less, once the cost of the OS is amortized by sales to PC box owners.
Of course, before Apple does this, they'd have to have their own, full-blown Office setup. iWrite, iNumber, iPre-- well, you get the idea.
And Apple could then, without the difficulty of making all of its own hardware, could become Just Like Microsoft. Hackers would proliferate, to get the Mac OS on their box for free. That's easily controlled by sending lawyer's letters to the big hackers' websites. (Can't have a movement without a clubhouse.) Hackers are really okay, because there aren't many of them. The mass market doesn't want to go through all that crap, and then lose the OS for a month or so after an upgrade breaks it. Most users just want to install the OS and go.
Keep the whole OS open source and give it away? Fuggedaboutit. Use Linux if you want free. They don't make a computer, or an iPod, or whatever new thing is coming down the Apple hardware pipeline, do they? Don't get me wrong, it's great. But Apple's UNIX can't go open source and have Apple survive as a company.
That's the big question. I'm looking at the EULA of my 'Retail box' copy of 10.4, and it says nothing about requiring a valid license from an older version of the Mac OS. Windows 'Upgrade' EULAs state this. They require a legally valid existing license for a prior version of Windows. The OS X license merely states that you must have an 'Apple-labeled' computer; but declines to define 'Apple-labeled'.
That's because it's implied. If you have a Mac, you have a MacOS license.
There is no equivalent to Windows. It's trivial to buy PCs without Windows. Thus, Microsoft have "full" versions for OS-less PCs and an 'upgrade' for PCs already running Windows.
All Macs are already running MacOS. Ergo, all retail versions are upgrades (if used legally).
I have been a long time anti Msoft guy, because I found most of there OS products buggy, lollypop systems. I switched to Linux because it was unix like and more stable.
2.5 years ago I got a mac, cause I was fed up with Linux wireless drivers and other issues with KDE and the likes.
I love OSX it has the stable BSD/Unix under the hood and the very slick Mac UI on top.
This hacking of the OSX kernel is bad for everyone. Apple spends a lot of money developing their OS i.e they pay software engineers in the USA to develop their products. This crack means that they will lose money on Pirated OS and lost hardware sales. IBM does things differently they make money on their servers and pay developers to develop Linux. Different business models, but both producing great products, Linux, BSD / OSX. Look at Red hat, soon they will be no more, all because of the business model!!!!
This hackers says information should be free, sure I agree, but I want a free Porsche or Nintendo system, mansion in the hills, but I cannot just go take one, well I could but I would end up in some jail somewhere with a new boyfriend named bubba and have lots of good times !!!!!
Apple has been really good to the OSS communities by contributing back to the projects, ie, Konquerer, BSD, gcc. etc etc.
What this ultimately does is make a case for the governments of the world to outlaw reverse engineering and hacking. They will make the Inet so tight ( trusted computing, trusted connections to the net) and the penalties so steep, that us people who like to take things apart will end up in Jail with bubba.
If you don't think that hacking, DRM cracking and reverse engineering will become a crime, just
look at what the US and Canada (our current PM is a whack job) did with Kyoto. I mean because stopping global warming would mean loss of our current economic ways of like, so they said forget it and will let us die for money.
So if they killed kyoto to protect the economy, they will kill hacking and reverse engineering by sending us to jail or heavy fines just to protect the same ECONOMY, because everything is going digital, TV, Music, electronics (3D printing, downloadable CPUs (FPGA))
Apple's engineers will simply integrate the GUI and other services even further into the chip.
Into the chip? You obviously have no idea of how TPM works.
though testing Apple's legal team and leaving your real name in a screenshot
Do you really think that Mr Albert Hofmann, who had his 100th birthday in January, spends his well deserved time as a happy pensioner cracking OSX?
I think that if Apple lawyers pay him a visit to ask about his activities, he might offer them a nice memorable drink, to help them enjoy the beauty of the Swiss countryside...
Now try comparing Apples with... well - not Apples, but perhaps Acers.
My Acer outperforms any similarly configured Apple, outspecs it in ALMOST every area, has equal or better build quality, and is significantly less expensive...
Apple's hardware has ALWAYS been overpriced, and always will be.
You keep on making the same mistake.
You will be using it legally all right. You may be violating a valid civil contract imposed by a Eula. They are not the same thing! There is nothing illegal about violating a civil contract, though it may be unwise and expose you to civil penalties.
I plug in the Ethernet cable, a script automatically starts and disables wi-fi card, duplicates NIC settings from the wi-fi card (IP address and so on) then brings up Ethernet. My applications just continue running, still connected to servers and such. If I pull out the ethernet cable, Wi-fi starts up, connects to the relevant network (if it's there) and my applications still aren't disconnected from anything.
Two questions:
1) Why couldn't you write a script to do this in MacOS X?
2) Why would you need a script to do this? (Spoken as a Mac user who's used to network connections working pretty much like that automagically)
I'll agree that $50 is a stupidly low price. The educational price for a copy of OS X.4 in the local shop is $69 this morning. I'd argue it's priced as an "upgrade" copy, since (ignoring the hack) any machine it runs on will already have an Apple OS on it. There's usually about $100 difference between retail-upgrade and retail-full on Windows, so call it around $170 as the absolute MINIMUM price.
On the other hand, assigning the full profit of an "average" Mac to that cost is also stupid. I hang out on a Mac user-support mailing list (I support *anything* at work, except the crawling horrors that are AIX and OS/2), and most of the users there seem to upgrade the OS on their Mac at least every other X.point release. And since high-end Macs get built with nigh bleeding edge hardware, they're routinely flogged along until the motherboard craps out; machines from 1999 are still considered "usable". Depending on Apple's intentions, they might sell a retail and an upgrade, or branch out and have Apple upgrade, OEM retail, and upgrade pricings. It all depends on what exact business they want to be in, and what attacks (both legal and pirate) they want to thave to deal with.
Oh, before anyone accuses me of partisanship: Mac OS X, Windows XP, and the major flavors of BSD and Linux all suck, in roughly the same degree. They just each do it in different ways and in different aspects.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Argument is not correct.
They can refuse to sell it unless you produce a valid certificate of purchase or product code for an earlier version. Or they can make it refuse to install unless it detects an earlier version. Or they can refuse to support an upgrade if it was not installed as an upgrade (assuming they have a way of detecting it).
What they cannot do is sell it at retail in a way that will install on a non-Apple machine, and stop you from doing that simply by means of an agreement at time of purchase. THAT would be a post-sales restriction on use. It would be just like taking home your Sony CD player and discovering that it would plug perfectly well into your Marantz amp, but Sony had imposed a post sales restriction on use forbidding it, and mandating the purchase of a Sony amp. Not possible. No court is going to enforce it.
Probably this might be why upgrade copies of Windows check to find a copy of Windows they can upgrade....?
You will be using it legally all right. You may be violating a valid civil contract imposed by a Eula. They are not the same thing! There is nothing illegal about violating a civil contract, though it may be unwise and expose you to civil penalties.
This may (or may not - depending on your locality, I'd imagine) be true, but it doesn't change the rationale behind OS X's pricing and licensing structure.
If you're running OS X, Apple expect you to be running it on a Mac and price appropriately. Given the number of people who run OS X, but not on Macs, is vanishingly small at this stage, arguing Apple don't price OS X as an upgrade is specious, at best.
Interesting, I didn't know that the ABI emulation was that far along. Too bad that there's been so little interest in the whole thing. :-/
Its Mac...It can never have such issues. Lets blame it on MS as usual
Interesting - do you have a link to where Acer make these quad-core machines ?
The OP referenced the "Mac is $1000 cheaper" meme, which means he was referring to the desktop workstations. I thought Acer just made so-so laptops that don't run OSX...
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
What you're saying is that Apple just purchase commodity units (hard disks, screens, keyboards, etc.), drop-ship them to Asus, and have them come up with the MB and MBP ?
What planet are you from ?
Apple *design* their own circuit-boards and *design* the environment that these boards fit into. What other manufacturer has ambient-light sensors in the case, and translucent backlit keyboards ? Who else has LED's integrated into the bezel (see the latest MBP) so you can't see it when it's not glowing ? Who else puts firewire (400/800) onto the motherboard ? What about the keyboard on the Macbook ? How about the sudden-motion sensor, or the magsafe power connector (I could go on and on...)
So, for the umpteenth time, there is a difference between [b]design[/b] and [b]manufacture[/b]. Any competent factory can solder parts in place and assemble them into a product - that's what factories *do*, but coming up with the initial design is called *engineering*. And that's what Apple do best of all.
Then they wrap OSX around it, knowing the hardware it will support, and integrate that support right into the OS. It's one hell of a combination.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
GNUSTEP has the potential of providing that, but it seems to be stalled.
Yes, and then they closed it. Please keep up.
1. The source is still there. They've pulled one version, similar to what they did the last time someone used it to run OS X on non-Apple machines. They put it back, eventually. Until they announce they're not making any more releases I think it's way premature too say that they've "closed it".
Apple did NOT note that "due to security concerns" they have not intention of making any future version of OSX/Darwin publically available. That was pure supposition by the author of the linked article. Apple's only quote was that the open-source project was "in flux".
Note that the date of the linked article was 17th of May ([grin] my birthday), whereas on the 7th of August, Apple (as in someone *really* from Apple, rather than some ignorant journo making up a story) released this to the world
A quote: "As of today, we are posting buildable kernel sources for Intel-based Macs alongside the usual PowerPC (and other Intel) sources, starting with Mac OS X 10.4.7. We regret the delay in readying the new kernel for release, and thank you for your patience"
Of course, just going and visiting the darwin-download site would let you see that both intel and ppc sources are there for 10.4.7 - it usually takes a while for the upgrades to make their way onto the site so 10.4.8 isn't there yet, but there's *no* indication that it won't appear...
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
OS X has no such requirement. The only requirement for OS X is an 'Apple-labeled' computer. But, again, there is no definition of Apple-labeled. What you think the definition is doesn't count. What I think the definition is doesn't count. If it has never been tested in court, then the definition of 'Apple-labeled' has never been legally established. And no, nowhere in the license does it even once mention the word 'Macintosh' or 'Mac' (except as part of 'Mac OS'.)
I fully agree with the sentiment on what Apple meant. (One computer whose hardware is sold by Apple Computer Inc.) But that isn't what the license says. It says 'Apple-labeled', leaving some room for interpretation. (I just had my mom check her legal dictionary. The word 'label' isn't in it. So there is apparently no legal definition of 'labeled'. I'll see if she will do a Lexis-Nexis search at work on Monday to see if there is any precedent.)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Apple re-opened the source. And as someone else said, WebKit is 100% open, so your KHTML reference is irrelevant.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Where is your script Ash? Sounds interesting...
If you're running OS X, Apple expect you to be running it on a Mac and price appropriately.
True, but irrelevant. Microsoft prices the Xbox on the expectation that I'll buy lots of games for it, rather than use it as a media center PC. NBC "prices" broadcast TV at $0 on the expectation that I'll watch the commercials. There's no legal or ethical obligation to use a product as the manufacturer "expects".
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
It's not a material fact in contention, though. Everybody understands what is meant--every word in the English language does not have to be tested in court before it has a meaning. If it did, no case would ever conclude (and believe me, we quickly tire of how long it takes to get them done as it is). Nobody honestly believes that "Apple-labeled" means "put an Apple sticker on your PC," except with the intent of dodging the EULA. A common test to see if a word is being intentionally misapplied is to ask the following question: "would a person with no stake in the outcome have difficulty identifying 'Apple-labeled' as a concept?" The answer is no. Label is, in fact, in my copy of Black's Law--one of the definitions is "brand." You'll find that the conditions of "labeling" (i.e "branding") have been tried by courts and readily defined, and that there is no misunderstanding of the term, only intentional shoehorning.
The statement I was taking issue with was your last one:
Apple is closer to a "value added reseller" than a hardware manufacturer.
Sorry, but IMHO, that's just plain wrong. VAR's are not generally involved with the design of a product (I've been one!), and usually base their business around customer relationships / extra services. The product is whatever is delivered from the manufacturer.
This is not Apple. At least IMHO.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
True, but irrelevant. Microsoft prices the Xbox on the expectation that I'll buy lots of games for it, rather than use it as a media center PC. NBC "prices" broadcast TV at $0 on the expectation that I'll watch the commercials. There's no legal or ethical obligation to use a product as the manufacturer "expects".
And exactly the same applies to Windows 'updgrade versions'. Your are just as free to use them without an existing Windows license - or with an illegitimate one - as you are OS X.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
http://macgeek.freeflux.net/blog/archive/2006/10/2 8/jas-10-4-8-dvd-intel-sse3-available.html
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Thank you for the legally-defined definition (Black's Law.) I guess my mom didn't use Black's. (She isn't a lawyer herself, but works in a law firm.)
Then that does settle it for me.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
"The question is, "How many people need/want this tool?""
A more pertinent question is how many of those who are budgeting for the sort of gear (both in computing and audio terms) needed to take advantage of those facilities that separate high-end DAWs from much cheaper home studio packages from the same manufacturers will waste time buggering around with warez sites to avoid spending $1000 on software?
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
Nice try, but I've got a personal anecdote that completely destroys your personal anecdote. Why? Because I say so.
I have several acers here and they are nowhere near the build quality of the apples. Skimping on screens, shappy plastic, weak keyboards, battery, the list goes on and on.
Yes the acer is cheaper, but I put Acers one step above the old emachines.