Psystar's Rebel EFI Hackintosh Tool Reviewed, Found Wanting

CWmike writes "While the world focused on Microsoft's launch of Windows 7, Florida-based Psystar quietly launched Rebel EFI, a software product that should worry Apple a lot more than Microsoft's latest operating system. Rebel EFI allows users to run Apple's flagship operating system, Mac OS X Snow Leopard, on non-Apple hardware. Computerworld test drove the making of a Hackintosh out of a generic PC with the company's new software package and found a product that has a lot of homework still to do. Reviewer Frank Ohlhorst's final analysis: 'Psystar's Rebel EFI (a free trial is available) is an interesting tool, but it is very limited when it comes to the selection of hardware that you can use. The company really needs to create a compatible hardware list and post that on its Web site — and it also needs to create some usable documentation. As it stands right now, you can use Rebel EFI to build a Mac clone, but unless you stick to relatively generic hardware, you will be disappointed.'"

Comments

So in other words...

[Darkness404]

As it stands right now, you can use Rebel EFI to build a Mac clone, but unless you stick to relatively generic hardware, you will be disappointed

So in other words an OS made to run and tested only on 6 or 7 different major configurations of computers is going to need some tweaking before it can run on other, untested and unsupported hardware? This is hardly a suprise. Next thing is we're going to have a story saying that iPhone OS doesn't run so great on the G1...

Re:So in other words...

[Yvan256]

A lot of Apple computers use the intel GMA950.

Re:So in other words...

[Nursie]

Yes, you do have it right, they release specs and they actively contribute code and developer time, they're a good friend to Linux.

Re:So in other words...

[camperslo]

Pystar is trying to get around Apple suing them for the "clone" of Snow Leopard. This is supposed to be a "generic" MacOS clone..which seems to me would make it pretty much UNIX BSD.

Not sure how that got modded up... it's entirely wrong. While the hardware Pystar has sold might be called a clone (it's just PC hardware with known-compatible chips), they are NOT providing a clone as an alternative to OS X. The OS X that is installed is the actual retail version. They're loading some things to allow it to install (emulating the Mac EFI, IIRC), and providing some drivers/patches to get some hardware to work.

Or, if we are about the open source,

[James_Duncan8181]

http://chameleon.osx86.hu/
The same, but FOSS. Some even suggest the same codebase, but I of course would never be cynical enough to suggest that or that running strings on both if someone had a spare moment might be interesting.

Re:Or, if we are about the open source,

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

What is it with unethically derivative commercial tools for running OSX on PCs? Back in the PPC days, there was the whole CherryOS thing, that turned out to be a straight rip-off of pearPC. And now this.

Re:Or, if we are about the open source,

[zn0k]

He's talking about Psystar being unethical in - potentially - taking an open and free tool that does the same thing and re-branding it and charging for it without giving credit.

Re:Or, if we are about the open source,

[Darkness404]

As for unethical, it's not unethical in the least unless you're stealing the code directly

Which is basically what CherryOS was doing. They took the PearPC code, slapped a CherryOS logo on it and distributed/sold it.

It's hypocritical beyond belief whenever somebody says that it's unethical to use Apple software in a way that Apple doesn't approve. Makes me wonder what that makes anybody that runs software based heavily on designs lifted from elsewhere.

I don't think you understand what he was saying. He wasn't saying that it was unethical to use this to run Mac OS X but rather it seems to be heavily borrowed from a F/OSS project much as how CherryOS basically took PearPC and changed it to make it look like a different product. That is unethical.

Re:Or, if we are about the open source,

[DJRumpy]

Do you really hear yourself? Apple could care less if Joe User comes in, buys OS X , and makes a hackintosh. They do care when some business comes in, takes their intellectual property, packages it in competing hardware, and sells it as their own. I'm also sure they do have a problem with folks who go out and download it via Torrent. Psystar can't even prove that they bought OS X. They 'lost' their receipts. Funny thing that...

There is nothing 'dubious' about it. Apple owns OS X. They can license it to whoever they choose. You may not like it, but that doesn't make what Psystar is doing right. If someone else tries to make profit off of Apples product without license from Apple, then Apple is absolutely within their rights to prevent it.

Think you can do it better, than purchase something Like NeXT and design your own with your own time and money and then Open Source your result.

Re:Or, if we are about the open source,

[v1]

The catch here is that Apple's Mac OS X license forbids installation on anything but a "Macintosh Brand Computer", hence when you install snow leopard you are violating its license. That's the main sticking point. Not that I like stupid tie-downs in licenses like that, but the law looks to be on Apple's side. Pystar themselves may not be violating the license, but they're blatantly assisting and encouraging their customers to do so. Should make for an entertaining battle...

Re:Or, if we are about the open source,

[DJRumpy]

Was that supposed to be clever? Apple owns OS X. No one claimed they owned BSD. OS X was developed, marketed, and sold by Apple. It is not BSD, although it has it's roots in BSD. NeXT was based on FreeBSD and NetBSD. OS X was derived from NeXT.

Think you could do better? It's perfectly legal to take open source, package it, and sell it if the license allows. Take the path that Apple did. Of course you'd need developers, tons of money, and then more cash to market it. They own OS X. Any arguments to the contrary are just slight of hand.

Psystar didn't do that. They took a product owned by someone else and sold it as their own. Hell, they are doing the same thing to the OSX86 community and all their work. I find it curious that people will try to defend Psystar when they are turning their thumbs at the very same open source community.

Re:Or, if we are about the open source,

[lurker-11]

If someone else tries to make profit off of Apples product without license from Apple, then Apple is absolutely within their rights to prevent it.

It's perfectly legitimate to resell products at a profit without permission or "license" from the manufacturer. That's exactly what any retail store does to make money (in the case where they buy from a distributor and aren't the original manufacturer).

Re:Or, if we are about the open source,

[Bobartig]

I just searched WestLaw for "EULA End User License Agreement", and came up with 100+ documents, most of them reading over and over "the EULA clearly restricted blah blah", "...were clearly enforceable under California law", "EULA... was a validly binding contract.", "EULA.. was enforceable", etc. etc. Way to post nonsense with absolutely NO research to back it up.

So let me fix that for you.

*HUNDREDS* of cases about violating EULAs have been brought to court in the US, and in many cases, they were found enforceable.

Just a couple weeks ago I was in district court listening to a case regarding an EULA, and discussing various aspects of it. There was no discussion of whether it was enforceable. Clearly it was, but that there was dispute as to the scope of the contract itself.

Re:Or, if we are about the open source,

[Stupendoussteve]

Sure they have, see Blizzard vs Glider. Glider didn't come out of it very well with words like copyright infringement, interference with a contract and a DMCA violation.

Re:Or, if we are about the open source,

[dbet]

Until Apple proves in court that you're criminally liable for installing OSX on a non-Apple brand computer, they can take their EULA and stuff it. An EULA cannot be legally binding if it contains instructions that violate the law (for example, an EULA that says I now own your children). This is the crux of Psystar's argument - that Apple's restriction of using OSX on Apple-brand hardware is not supported by the law.

I don't really care about this particular court battle, however, the ramifications for what an EULA can restrict are important to pay attention to. What if MS decides you can only install Windows on a list of approved brands?

Re:Or, if we are about the open source,

[Mr2001]

You don't need a license to install or run software once you've bought a copy. 17 USC 117 is all the entitlement you need.

Re:Or, if we are about the open source,

[vadim_t]

It's one thing to sell a product "as is". Retail stores does this all the time. It's another thing to take a product, modify it and then re-sell it without the permission of the OEM

I don't see why permission would be needed.

Do you need permission from the provider of wood to make chairs with it that you will sell? If I buy a vase and paint it, do I need to ask the maker for permission to resell it?

The problem...

[mattventura]

...is that it turns it into a cat-and-mouse game. Just like the Apple vs Palm USB issue. Apple will find a way to prevent OS X from running on this, and people will have a system where any software update could brick their computer. Then the Psystar team will find a way around that. Rinse, repeat. So I can either ignore upgrades, use a different OS, or actually buy a Mac. Sounds like some great choices.

Virtualization

[corychristison]

I am waiting for the ability to run it ala VirtualBox or Vmware Player/Workstation.

I don't have any use for my Mac mini other than checking some web design comparability with Safari under OSX (Win port does not like WINE). I can run XP under VirtualBox no problems but the Win Port of Safari isn't exactly the same anyway.

I don't like having yet another piece of hardware I don't even need sitting around. I already have two desktops, 2 laptop, media center pc and my homebuilt router (ITX board w/ dual Gb lan + gb switch + wifi card running pfSense).

Perhaps this Rebel product will lead the way into running OSX under virtualized hardware?

Re:Virtualization

[ya really]

I am waiting for the ability to run it ala VirtualBox or Vmware Player/Workstation.

It's been done for ages:
http://pcwizcomputer.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=75&Itemid=45
It says 10.5.2, but it works with at least the last version of leopard from my knowledge.

Re:Virtualization

[MtHuurne]

You can run a virtual Mac in qemu using the "-M mac" option.

Re:Virtualization

[jmorris42]

> You can run a virtual Mac in qemu using the "-M mac" option.

I have heard this before. Is this an out of tree patchset? On Fedora 11 I get this:

$ qemu -M help
Supported machines are:
pc Standard PC (default)
isapc ISA-only PC

I'd love to explore OS X a bit, but the price tag to get in the gate and look around is just to much unless you have already drank the Kool-Aid. The mini at $599 is sort of a joke and everything else goes over the 1K line.

Re:Virtualization

[snuf23]

From your link:

"As you can imagine, the VMware Fusion team was pretty excited when Apple modified their licensing to allow Mac OS X Leopard Server to run in a virtual machine on Apple hardware."

So in order to run an OS X VM you need to run it on a Mac. Somehow I don't think that would help the original poster get rid of his Mac Mini.

Apple should be concerned...

[cosm]

Although I am all for the proliferation of decent software, Apple should be considerably nervous about these kinds of offerings. Right now the support loop for hardware is fairly closed; the amount of variables they must take into consideration when providing tech-support is fairly small considering they control the hardware side of things so tightly.

On the same token, it seems these days a lot of add-on hardware is Mac compatible, hard drives, memory, video cards, sound cards, the list goes on...so this leads me a conclusion of Apple putting more bullets in its feet as the list of upgrades and add-ons for Apple machines grows; they lose that hardware control variable.

This leads to the next conclusion, at what point does outfitting a machine with tons of non-factory-spec hardware separate it from a ground up build? If it is just the motherboard, then they are facing a conundrum.

Again, IANAMU, does Apple's support coverage encompass machines with things like user-added memory & videocards? If it does, then eventually they might as well just allow individuals to purchase OEM copies for their build, seeing as their support loop must scale to additional interoperability anyways.

Re:Athiests as a Majority

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir. You are not supposed to drink the bong water.

Re:What I Find Interesting...

[minsk]

Aside from the detail that Apple is busy suing them into a deep hole...

Welcome to legal systems. Whether or not you think justice is being rendered, the rendering takes time.

OS X on Mini 9

[Anonymous Coward]

I got Dell Mini 9 last spring but it was almost unusable with WinXP due to the screen resolution and sluggishness of Windows on Atom CPU. Later I installed Mac OS X 10.5.7 and then 10.5.8 with EFI and it completely changed usability problems I had with the netbook. And no, I didn't copy that floppy but rather bought Leopard DVD from Apple.
This is an intermediate solution because I'm still waiting for a netbook or a 4x iPhone-type panel from Apple. Once I put my hands on it I will certainly sell this Dell.

Re:OS X on Mini 9

[CharlyFoxtrot]

I'm running Leopard (and Solaris) on an Acer Aspire One and it's amazing how well it runs on what's really the lowest of the low end especially when there's no chance of squeezing decent performance out of MS' latest offerings on the same hardware. Apple's definitely doing something right with their OS.

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they put unicorns and fairy dust into it, too, but I doubt it.

A Mac is just a fancy PC with a pre-set hardware spec. If it was really some bizarre, proprietary hardware configuration then Windows and Linux wouldn't run on it. And the fact that you can run virtual OSX on a non-Mac if you don't care about unsupported hardware just reinforces that.

[sigh]

[Space cowboy]

OSX uses the xnu kernel (a derivative of Mach). It is not based on BSD, and only provides a BSD userland to make things easier for developers/users. Xnu is open-source.

Having said that, a huge chunk of the user-visible runtime is not open-source, and Apple maintain an actively protective stance over it. I agree with the lawsuits comment...

Simon.

Re:[sigh]

[TheRaven64]

XNU is a hybrid kernel, which means it's basically a monolithic kernel but it runs something that looks a bit like a microkernel and puts all of the important system servers in the kernel's address space. The Microkernel is Mach, which was released under the CMU license (roughly equivalent to the BSD license) by CMU. Most of the services (e.g. process management, networking, and so on) are provided by the BSD server, which is now mostly based on FreeBSD. You'll note how easily libdispatch was ported to FreeBSD. This is because it uses the kqueue interface to the kernel, which XNU only has because it was copied from FreeBSD (and then slightly modified to support things like Mach ports). Almost any system call you issue in OS X will be serviced by code taken from FreeBSD. The biggest difference is the driver subsystem, which is completely new in OS X.

Re:non-Apple hardware?

[ducomputergeek]

Apple specs out the parts to the same manufactures that a lot of PC users do, but they are slightly different specs. When I opened up a 5 year old PowerBook and dell the other day, they both had Hatichi Travelstar harddrives, but the one in the Mac had a "Made for Apple" on the label. The one from the Dell had just a generic label. As far as I can tell, the drives are identical other than the type of ribbon had a standard EIDE connector on one end and a ribbon with a special adaptor for the motherboard. Same with the DVD burner.

Now what I have found is that Apple tends to write their own drivers. For YEARS ATI had better hardware than Nvidia, but ATI's drivers sucked on windows. It was literally buy a graphics card, wait 6 months for a decent driver to come out. On the Macs, never had the issues. From my understanding, the reason behind that was the fact that Apple wrote the drivers, not ATI.

Re:Athiests as a Majority

[imakemusic]

I was going to post a rebuttal but this has to be a troll. I refuse to believe that anyone is this retarded.