Nonetheless, it's part of the MacOS distribution. And since you'd need a copy of some MacOS anyway for this hypothetical clone hardware, you'd get all the needed files (as evidenced by the fact that you can take a blank HD that has had nothing to do with Apple and install successfully on it).
The ROM in ROM is also known as Open Firmware; it's covered by an IEEE standard (off the top of my head, 1275?) and is also used by Sun (and I think a few other Unix-hardware makers) for their hardware. Not exactly proprietary...
lsbom/Library/Receipts/10.0.3Update.pkg/Contents/Resour ces/*.bom | less
Admittedly, you can't do this until after the package is installed. But it is a nice way to see what's just been upgraded, provided you can understand the pathnames.
And of course when they modify and enhance GPL'ed software such as gcc, they have their changes publically accessible too, as they must.
And they're not just minimally complying with the GPL, either; the cc people at Apple are currently slaving away to get various Darwin/NeXT extensions (general Darwin support, AltiVec optimization, and Objective-C++ are the Big 3) properly integrated into the original gcc tree.
(yet another darwin-development subscriber)
Re:The first exploit.
on
Cracking OSX
·
· Score: 1
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the latest Open Firmware rev lets you password-lock at the hardware level, so that you have the option of even preventing a single-user boot.
Yes, but if you can change the amount of installed memory, the password protection goes away on the next boot. This really is a feature, not a bug; there is no substitute for proper physical security.
P.P.S. umount -f seems to cause lockups pretty easily. Too bad, all the other BSDs are stable after one.
True. But all the other BSDs don't have the autodiskmount daemon automatically mounting removable (and fixed, actually) media. Granted, it Really Should be able to deal with inconsistencies like that, but it doesn't.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but: I used to hate command lines, possibly because of my exposure to DOS at an impressionable young age, but then I got an account on my school's CS dept's Unix system, and started to love them. I am _not_ Apple's mind slave, thank you very much.
Not entirely: If memory serves me right, the system cc is a fork of gcc with better Objective-C support, but a bit out-of-date; the last time I heard anything about it Apple was trying to merge it with the GNU version.
Hmm... IANAL, but it seems to me that that kind of statement should be invalid if signed under duress. So essentially it says "If I am not under duress, I am not under duress", which is a trivial tautology and as such means nothing.
I encountered it in Compute!'s Gazette (?). I shudder to remember the days when the only way to get software into your computer was to type it in manually.
Of course, I still have a bit of misguided nostalgia for the Automatic Proofreader: for each Basic line you entered it would display a two-letter checksum in the upper-left(?) corner of the screen, which you could check against the listing in the magazine. MLX did something similar: an extra checksum byte at the end of every 8-byte row.
Yes, but: On several occasions I've come across closed-source "Linux" software that turned out to be an x86 binary, which sucks when you're using a PPC. This is maybe a little bit off-topic, but: Linux IS NOT INTEL!
You have to name the file "waiting"; if you look at the first line you'll see that it opens its source to a filehandle called "_and". I think that what it then does is read itself, then print the alphabetic/whitespace characters (and a bit of the punctuation); the last command is to sleep() indefinitely.
What did Apple do with the Altivec? Bundled it with a slow processor and sold it in overpriced systems.
AltiVec was invented by Motorola, not Apple; it's part of the processor, not an add-on unit like FPUs used to be. And even if it were, it couldn't just be "bundled" with any arbitrary processor.
Female Barbarian: "Og mad! Og smash" (Og being one of those gender-neutral names) Female Paladin: "I shall smite thee, foul spawn of evil!" Female Wizard: "You will regret angering me for the few seconds you have left to live, as your internal organs all turn to stone." Female Thief: "Hey, sorry, I thought it fell out of your pocket."
A reason that ``academic'' languages don't make it out of academia? The reality of the situation is that many many people just bought into C++. They were used to programming in C---a good language for low-level work---and they said, ``Oh! A C-like object-oriented language! Cool!''
I didn't "buy into" C++. I like it because I can do things with it that would be hard, slow, or impossible in other languages, and because it sort of matches the way I think. I also like Scheme, an "academic language" if ever there were one, because I can do things with it that would be hard, ugly, or impossible in other languages, and because it sort of matches the way I think. C++ and Scheme are suited to different things, but they are good (in my opinion) at what they were intended to do.
65% of all software bugs are due go memory leaks, and writing code in C++ is one fool-proof way to fall victim to this rule. (This is actually is problem with C, but as long as some wonderful designer like Stroustrup was working on improving C, he might as well have built in garbage collection.)
Stroustrup didn't build in (i.e. require) garbage collection because he didn't want to restrict programmers to a particular style of memory management. He did, however, allow (and probably intend) for garbage collectors to be used in cases where there is an advantage to using them; i.e. programs with a lot of dynamic allocation.
The image could be scaled in order to make the Window$ controls recognizable, the same way a single-piece LCD with 1024x768 pixels displays at 800x600. Of course, since this is a 38-inch screen, the effective resolution (not the actual hardware resolution) would be rather less than 72 ppi.
Slashdot Mirror
Definitely better than their original idea -- bringing in Theo De Raadt to lead their PR department.
No, no: Theo DeRaadt was for Apple's legal department...
Nonetheless, it's part of the MacOS distribution. And since you'd need a copy of some MacOS anyway for this hypothetical clone hardware, you'd get all the needed files (as evidenced by the fact that you can take a blank HD that has had nothing to do with Apple and install successfully on it).
The ROM in ROM is also known as Open Firmware; it's covered by an IEEE standard (off the top of my head, 1275?) and is also used by Sun (and I think a few other Unix-hardware makers) for their hardware. Not exactly proprietary...
lsbom /Library/Receipts/10.0.3Update.pkg/Contents/Resour ces/*.bom | less
Admittedly, you can't do this until after the package is installed. But it is a nice way to see what's just been upgraded, provided you can understand the pathnames.
And of course when they modify and enhance GPL'ed software such as gcc, they have their changes publically accessible too, as they must.
And they're not just minimally complying with the GPL, either; the cc people at Apple are currently slaving away to get various Darwin/NeXT extensions (general Darwin support, AltiVec optimization, and Objective-C++ are the Big 3) properly integrated into the original gcc tree.
(yet another darwin-development subscriber)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the latest Open Firmware rev lets you password-lock at the hardware level, so that you have the option of even preventing a single-user boot.
Yes, but if you can change the amount of installed memory, the password protection goes away on the next boot. This really is a feature, not a bug; there is no substitute for proper physical security.
Just boot up the windows partition you "obviously" have and watch the damn quicktime.
Umm... somehow, I doubt that the linux/ppc, linux/sparc, etc. people "obviously" have a 'doze partition. (-:
P.P.S. umount -f seems to cause lockups pretty easily. Too bad, all the other BSDs are stable after one.
True. But all the other BSDs don't have the autodiskmount daemon automatically mounting removable (and fixed, actually) media. Granted, it Really Should be able to deal with inconsistencies like that, but it doesn't.
Oh, and there's still no man page for it.
Don't forget NIH Syndrome, which was invented at Apple.
But... if that were true, then no-one else would be using it, because it wouldn't have been invented there.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but: I used to hate command lines, possibly because of my exposure to DOS at an impressionable young age, but then I got an account on my school's CS dept's Unix system, and started to love them. I am _not_ Apple's mind slave, thank you very much.
Shame about the lack of gcc.
Not entirely: If memory serves me right, the system cc is a fork of gcc with better Objective-C support, but a bit out-of-date; the last time I heard anything about it Apple was trying to merge it with the GNU version.
RNG
Because it's not the kernel, it's the whole OS distribution.
Hmm... IANAL, but it seems to me that that kind of statement should be invalid if signed under duress. So essentially it says "If I am not under duress, I am not under duress", which is a trivial tautology and as such means nothing.
I encountered it in Compute!'s Gazette (?). I shudder to remember the days when the only way to get software into your computer was to type it in manually.
Of course, I still have a bit of misguided nostalgia for the Automatic Proofreader: for each Basic line you entered it would display a two-letter checksum in the upper-left(?) corner of the screen, which you could check against the listing in the magazine. MLX did something similar: an extra checksum byte at the end of every 8-byte row.
You mean like the iBrator?
And Apple's Software Update, introduced in Mac OS 9.
Yes, but: On several occasions I've come across closed-source "Linux" software that turned out to be an x86 binary, which sucks when you're using a PPC. This is maybe a little bit off-topic, but: Linux IS NOT INTEL!
You have to name the file "waiting"; if you look at the first line you'll see that it opens its source to a filehandle called "_and". I think that what it then does is read itself, then print the alphabetic/whitespace characters (and a bit of the punctuation); the last command is to sleep() indefinitely.
What did Apple do with the Altivec? Bundled it with a slow processor and sold it in overpriced systems.
AltiVec was invented by Motorola, not Apple; it's part of the processor, not an add-on unit like FPUs used to be. And even if it were, it couldn't just be "bundled" with any arbitrary processor.
None of these is as nice at the display as Acrobat Reader. And Acrobat Reader is a truly painful program to use in other respects.
Not to mention that Acrobat Reader's "Linux" version is actually an x86-only binary, which is useless to users of other architectures.
I was born on December 19. You have offended my birthday.
What about this:
Female Barbarian: "Og mad! Og smash" (Og being one of those gender-neutral names)
Female Paladin: "I shall smite thee, foul spawn of evil!"
Female Wizard: "You will regret angering me for the few seconds you have left to live, as your internal organs all turn to stone."
Female Thief: "Hey, sorry, I thought it fell out of your pocket."
HTH; HAND
A reason that ``academic'' languages don't make it out of academia? The reality of the situation is that many many people just bought into C++. They were used to programming in C---a good language for low-level work---and they said, ``Oh! A C-like object-oriented language! Cool!''
I didn't "buy into" C++. I like it because I can do things with it that would be hard, slow, or impossible in other languages, and because it sort of matches the way I think.
I also like Scheme, an "academic language" if ever there were one, because I can do things with it that would be hard, ugly, or impossible in other languages, and because it sort of matches the way I think.
C++ and Scheme are suited to different things, but they are good (in my opinion) at what they were intended to do.
65% of all software bugs are due go memory leaks, and writing code in C++ is one fool-proof way to fall victim to this rule. (This is actually is problem with C, but as long as some wonderful designer like Stroustrup was working on improving C, he might as well have built in garbage collection.)
Stroustrup didn't build in (i.e. require) garbage collection because he didn't want to restrict programmers to a particular style of memory management. He did, however, allow (and probably intend) for garbage collectors to be used in cases where there is an advantage to using them; i.e. programs with a lot of dynamic allocation.
The image could be scaled in order to make the Window$ controls recognizable, the same way a single-piece LCD with 1024x768 pixels displays at 800x600. Of course, since this is a 38-inch screen, the effective resolution (not the actual hardware resolution) would be rather less than 72 ppi.