Thats wrong, its not free as is freedom. If that was the case I should be able to do as I please with the code and that is not the case. If I use the free(GPL) software as a baseline for a project I then have to turn around and release all the changes I made for free as well. This may be hundreds of hours of work and I don't know anyone that works for free.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Pulls Public Mac OS 10.4.8 Source
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thats wrong, its not free as is freedom. If that was the case I should be able to do as I please with the code and that is not the case. If I use the free(GPL) software as a baseline for a project I then have to turn around and release all the changes I made for free as well. This may be hundreds of hours of work and I don't know anyone that works for free.
Are we talking about the FreeBSD license or the NetBSD license. The NetBSD license isn't free and that is what OSX is based off of and apple paid to use the license.
Umm...
Getting Mac OS X from your friend and installing it onto your pee cee is illegal. You must purchase Mac OS X from Apple or Amazon or whoever.
Getting OS X without paying for a license (which is what you are insinuating) is illegal. Just because you didn't download the software and got it from a friend doesn't make it legal, dumbass.
The front page on macrumors says (for this article) that the source is available to anyone with an Apple account, this is really clever, as it's free to get the access but when you sign up for a developer account you have to agree not to share the software as it's "pre-release" and that's breaking the NDA. Basically if OSX86 Project stick 10.4.8 online now they have to get the source from an Apple developer account, so if OSX86 stick this source on their site Apple can make them pull it, AND developers can still get the access they need, it's a win-win situation.
Pirates can still also get the source at stick it on Bit Torrent trackers but they cannot get the publicity except in black hat circles so Apple cares less, as there's nothing they can ever do about that.
Exactly, just what everyone else does on Piracy (just like Apple)
Ahh, the eternal debate.
What's funny is, you could easily swap "Software" for "Hardware" in your little mantra and it still rings just as true.
"Apple is a Software Company"
"If they didn't sell the Mac OS they would be out of business"
"The Hardware is what makes the Software valuable"
"The Hardware is easy to use and works well"
"If they Hardware worked with any software, it would not be so easy to use"
"It would also not work so well"
Apple is not a hardware company, it is a computer company. There is quite a difference. Apple has a symbiotic relationship between it's hardware and software. One without the other, the company would be dead.
What's funny is, you could easily swap "Software" for "Hardware" in your little mantra and it still rings just as true.
"Apple is a Software Company"
"If they didn't sell the Mac OS they would be out of business"
"The Hardware is what makes the Software valuable"
"The Hardware is easy to use and works well"
"If they Hardware worked with any software, it would not be so easy to use"
"It would also not work so well"
Apple is not a hardware company, it is a computer company. There is quite a difference. Apple has a symbiotic relationship between it's hardware and software. One without the other, the company would be dead.
OSX is based off FreeBSD and mach. Apple may have taken some code from NetBSD over the years but FreeBSD is the predominate source for the BSD layer. It's pretty common knowledge, it even used to be mentioned on Apple's website, although I don't know if it still is.
The NetBSD licence is a BSD-style licence. That's a free licence. FreeBSD and NetBSD often use each other's code for various things. View the licences for yourself:
http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html
http://www.netbsd.org/Goals/redistribution.html
If Apple did use any NetBSD code, they may possibly have made a donation to the NetBSD foundation but they certainly didn't "pay" for a licence.
Sorry, but that doesn't really make sense.
I think the point you were trying to make was flawed by simply replacing Hardware with Software and vice versa. In what way does the Hardware perform less well if it had other OSs running on it?
I take your point, but I disagree that running other software on Apple hardware somehow makes the hardware itself 'more difficult to use' (whatever that means).
Already replied to this, so take the time to read the rest of the posts. But to answer once more... I will take my PC to his house install there, mess with it and reformat once i take it home some days later. Like many use the same Windows install for more then one PC.
This is a way to get around having to get a new copy of osx, because the law alows this where i live. But i'm not completely sure and will try to get more information on this.
Just wish people would reply and try to help or explain, instead of immediatly trashing me... I'm trying to do the right thing, and if i have to buy th OS then I will. The reason is just to try OS X on a PC and for the sake of the apple experience.
But hey, know you're all apple fanboys in here so maybe i should just go somewhere where people dont trash you for nothing...
Just as same, just as ridiculous, as saying that running Apple software on other hardware makes it "more difficult to use."
Perhaps, (but I still maintain that it's 'easier' to run 'non-Apple' software on a Mac than it is to run OS X on 'non Apple' hardware. But it's true to say that calling Apple exclusively a 'hardware' or 'software' company is a little short sighted, so we're in agreement there.)
It is the hardware sales that keep them afloat, and it's the software that makes the hardware more attractive.
Which is what a lot of people have been saying already
To clarify:
Apple is not a normal company. It's a one-off, niche company that do things differently from the rest of the industry. If OS X is licenced to other PC makers then part of the Mac eco-system is lost, and that will kill Apple.
Perhaps, (but I still maintain that it's 'easier' to run 'non-Apple' software on a Mac than it is to run OS X on 'non Apple' hardware. But it's true to say that calling Apple exclusively a 'hardware' or 'software' company is a little short sighted, so we're in agreement there.)
It is the hardware sales that keep them afloat, and it's the software that makes the hardware more attractive.
Which is what a lot of people have been saying already
To clarify:
Apple is not a normal company. It's a one-off, niche company that do things differently from the rest of the industry. If OS X is licenced to other PC makers then part of the Mac eco-system is lost, and that will kill Apple.
To clarify further:
We both agree. Apple is not a Hardware OR Software company. I was simply responding to the earlier rediculous notion that Apple is simply a Hardware company, which both you and I know it isn't.
This article is bogus!
10.4.8 sources have never been available via the Darwin Releases page (just never linked to the web-page). They have been available via macosforge.org (links to tarballs on Apple's site) which has been mostly offline and under-construction for the last month and they have been available via the tarball link (10.4.8 Intel is xnu-792.13.8).
Also the "ADC link" referenced for the tarballs is not an ADC account but the standard free open source account that anyone can create. The only requirement is that you read and agree to the open source license. You do not need any type of ADC account, no select or premier, no seed key, just a free Apple ID (create one if you need it) and click that you understand that the APSL exists. This is the same account that you need to gain access to any of Apple's open source items (been this way for years).
The articles premise is bogus, it is making a false statement about something that did NOT happen.
I strongly urge that this article be corrected since it is not true and will only serve as FUD material....
Apple appears to have pulled the publicly accessible Mac OS 10.4.8 Source Code (Darwin, the open-source foundation of OS X, and XNU, Darwin's open-source kernel), leaving only developers with ADC log-ins with access to the code (public link, ADC link)
10.4.8 sources have never been available via the Darwin Releases page (just never linked to the web-page). They have been available via macosforge.org (links to tarballs on Apple's site) which has been mostly offline and under-construction for the last month and they have been available via the tarball link (10.4.8 Intel is xnu-792.13.8).
Also the "ADC link" referenced for the tarballs is not an ADC account but the standard free open source account that anyone can create. The only requirement is that you read and agree to the open source license. You do not need any type of ADC account, no select or premier, no seed key, just a free Apple ID (create one if you need it) and click that you understand that the APSL exists. This is the same account that you need to gain access to any of Apple's open source items (been this way for years).
The articles premise is bogus, it is making a false statement about something that did NOT happen.
I strongly urge that this article be corrected since it is not true and will only serve as FUD material....
Steve wasn't on board with the first clones and Apple wasn't on Intel yet, in my eyes there have been clear signs (now and in the past) that Apple and Steve are still open for the idea of licensing osX to other vendors if necessary. There big time investors also won't take 'just because' as an answer to why Apple won't license there OS, if the growth stops than there is no alternative.
Don't forget hell did froze over several times lately.
I do believe you are inherently wrong here.
Information is stored on artifacts (things). Therefore the combination of the artifact and its highly value added information has yet more "intrinsic" value.
What has more value in stopping cars, a red light or a blue light. They are both lights. They only emit different information.
Dictionary.com:
"Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent."
Rocketman
Yes, what he is saying about "Free" software is true. "Free" software is about what rights to use the source code the user has; most "Free" software is available in at least some commercial version for a fee (e.g., Red Hat Linux, MySQL).
The graphics professionals I know don't scurry out to buy a new Mac everytime apple lifts it's cheek and plops one out.
Software companies make their money by writing their software to the largest audience, and the Intel Mac is currently a very small portion of an already small segment of the general 'computer user' population.
If your argument is that if Adobe were to write a universal version of their software that graphics professionals would run out instantly to buy new hardware, that's just not reality.. not when they're still paying off the G5's they just bought a year or two ago.
The vast majority of people I know who use an Apple computer for a living in the visual arts sector have not made the switch to an Intel Mac, and don't plan to anytime soon, regardless of what Adobe does.
In fact, talk around the campfire seems to revolve around wether Intel Mac native apps will run any better or faster than the new crop of Winblows apps.. with some 'jumping ship' to join the thousands of others who have moved to the Windows platform in recent years.
If you want to "try out" Mac OS X, what's stopping you from trying it out on your friend's computer? If you want to do the right thing, you won't be installing OS X on non-Apple hardware.
Unless you're a corporation who purchased a volume license, using the same Windows install on multiple machines is illegal too, btw.
They will take "because it'll kill Apple's hardware business, which is where Apple makes most of their money" as an answer, however.
Apple's interests lie in selling high-margin solutions, not bottom-of-the-market extremely low margin PCs.
Think of Dell as Ford, and Apple as BMW.
The computer - car analogy has to stop, it makes no sense at all. The most reliable car is the Toyota Corolla because it is the longest in production and has the errors worked out a long time ago, worst reliable cars are short production but expensive models like the Ferrari. Ford has less luxury options but may well be more reliable than BMW, price and luxury isn't the key factor here.
As for the "high-margin solutions" Apple has a good position at the moment, price is competitive and high standard. It looks like Apple wants to keep a firm grip on the top end models but losing it on the low end, there is no sub $500 Mac! (except maybe the "iTV") Licensing an OS has a typical $80 price point and that is more than they make on a Mac Mini (hard- and software together) so it makes sense to me.
A few years back Steve said that Apple would focus more on software than on hardware (and brought the iPod on the market
), the release of 10.5 may well be the turning point for the OS. If Mac sales go the way of the iPod then i agree there is no need to license but if not i see no other option. Its not if but when.For the record, i'd gladly pay top dollar for OSX 10.5 if I could put it on my own 'home built' x86 box with Apples blessing.
Here's an idea for Apple.. start selling ATX motherboards for the DIY crowd bundled with the latest MacTel OSX version, and let the consumer just drop them in their own case.
Really.. that would be going right back to their roots (the Apple I was sold like that)
Price the board/OS bundle package at a point that makes it cost prohibitive for OEM's to build clones with the boards.. but low enough that the 'Techno Geek' (who would otherwise simply buy a simular spec'ed Intel Chipset board and run their bootleg osX86 on it.) is buying their parts right from Apple.
Let's face it.. if you're a guy who wants OSX, but can't shell out the $1000+ bucks for an iMac, but could.. say.. spend $300 for the OS and a board you can just drop in your exsisting PC case, and use your current hard drive, power supply, etc.. you would probably not even bother trying to build a 'bootleg' MacTel.
That way, Apple stays in firm control of the hardware, makes their big fat margins, and nips the whole 'osx86' thing right in the bud.. not to mention that such a program would have little to no impact on their 'full machine' sales (because the typical Mac buyer isn't a person real interested in 'building' their own computer)
Here's an idea for Apple.. start selling ATX motherboards for the DIY crowd bundled with the latest MacTel OSX version, and let the consumer just drop them in their own case.
Really.. that would be going right back to their roots (the Apple I was sold like that)
Price the board/OS bundle package at a point that makes it cost prohibitive for OEM's to build clones with the boards.. but low enough that the 'Techno Geek' (who would otherwise simply buy a simular spec'ed Intel Chipset board and run their bootleg osX86 on it.) is buying their parts right from Apple.
Let's face it.. if you're a guy who wants OSX, but can't shell out the $1000+ bucks for an iMac, but could.. say.. spend $300 for the OS and a board you can just drop in your exsisting PC case, and use your current hard drive, power supply, etc.. you would probably not even bother trying to build a 'bootleg' MacTel.
That way, Apple stays in firm control of the hardware, makes their big fat margins, and nips the whole 'osx86' thing right in the bud.. not to mention that such a program would have little to no impact on their 'full machine' sales (because the typical Mac buyer isn't a person real interested in 'building' their own computer)
Umm, how much did you pay for that 'baseline' GPL software? Did it just write itself?
Anyway to explain the difference, the BSD license maximizes the freedom of the end-user and the GPL license maximizes the freedom of the community. The two aims are mutually incompatible, so you have to pick which you're going for before you start.
it's freedom of speech versus free beer. it all depends on the license the authors used for the code though.
security through obscurity doesn't really work as well as its proponents would like to think. take pgp for example. it's completely open. how many cracks have there been for it?