Apple Pulls Public Mac OS 10.4.8 Source

[MacRumors]

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)

Earlier this week, the OSx86 project released a version of the 10.4.8 kernel that was hailed to be 100% legal according to the APSL and run on any x86 machine. Prior to this release, Apple's code would only run on Apple's hardware due to various dependencies (such as EFI).

While the code could run under single-user mode on any x86 machine, it would not boot up into Apple's familiar OS X Aqua interface without Apple's TPM (trusted platform module) keys which are illegal to distribute (but are reportedly floating around the internet).

The circumstances are reminiscent of when Apple previously stopped releasing the Intel version of the Mac OS X kernel, which some had concluded was due to piracy concerns. Apple finally released the source at WWDC along with an apology for the delay, but did not give an explanation.

 

[BlueRevolution]

That's hardly surprising. I'm more interested in the 100% legal bit - it's interesting that Apple hasn't yet moved to explicitly ban running OS X on non-Apple hardware.

 

[kresh]

Oss

The thin veneer is off the vast majority of people that clamor for OSS.

Whenever I hear the OSS crowd scream "Software should be FREE!" I translate that to mean "I refuse to pay someone for their work, thus I will STEAL it"!

I don't blame Apple. The OSS community abused what they had and turned to piracy by stealing the GUI. Kudos Apple.

 

[twoodcc]

well i really don't blame Apple on this. with the piracy around and all

 

[codo]

They might just end up releasing the source a version later so hackers intent on spreading the latest and greatest simply can't - whilst still providing the code for legitimate uses.

Just out of interest - What do people actually do with this source? I mean, are there other operating systems based on it? Or is it useful for OS X developers so they can refine their code to integrate with OS X? Forgive my ignorance, just wondering.

 

[slb]

Logic Pro 7 has yet to be cracked, so Apple has people who know how to do copyright protection. I suspect Leopard will employ very strong TPM integration compared to Tiger.

 

[longofest]

That's hardly surprising. I'm more interested in the 100% legal bit - it's interesting that Apple hasn't yet moved to explicitly ban running OS X on non-Apple hardware.

It's not necessarily illegal to run Darwin on non-Apple hardware, which is much of the goals of the OSx86 project. The source as it comes from Apple will only run on Apple hardware mainly due to EFI and some other stuff. The GUI is what seems to be so tied to the TPM circuitry, which is what OSx86 is NOT touching and why they say it's still legal.

 

[Iroganai]

Well, I only have the free online ADC account, but I can still access the source of the kernel. How can it be called as 'pulling' the code ?
In the end, anyone interested can still see the code, without paying even a dime.

 

[toonerh]

Actually, Apple has never gotten around to posting the 10.4.8 sources on their Darwin web page. The involved found it on an intermediate page that has all recent stuff and allows html directory list (normally disabled).

Nothing has changed for 3 weeks.

 

[jakaj]

I don't blame Apple. The OSS community abused what they had and turned to piracy by stealing the GUI. Kudos Apple.

Now that's a stupid thing to say. The OSS community doesnt steal the GUI, the warez community does. And those two really don't overlap much.

It is true, though, that everyone might use the work of the OSS community, even for illegal purposes.

 

[ankit]

Whenever I hear the OSS crowd scream "Software should be FREE!" I translate that to mean "I refuse to pay someone for their work, thus I will STEAL it"!

You have no idea what "free" means, do you? Free software has absolutely nothing to do with the money you pay to obtain it. Commercial software that you would pay thousands of dollars for can be a perfectly good example of "free" software.

 

[macintel4me]

You have no idea what "free" means, do you? Free software has absolutely nothing to do with the money you pay to obtain it. Commercial software that you would pay thousands of dollars for can be a perfectly good example of "free" software.

huh??

 

[Shadow]

So? Who uses it anyway? I know absolutley *no-one* who uses OpenDarwin/whatever its called. No-one. I know people who use Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OS X, but no-one uses OpenDarwin.

 

[sparkleytone]

Its not that big of a deal. Every "OSx86" release we have seen so far share the same fundamental problem: they are "one-off" builds.

This means they are not upgradeable via Software Update and the build can be easily obsoleted by a subsequent Apple release. This combined with the fact that Joe User wouldn't touch this with a 10ft pole means that it can't really harm Apple very much. In fact, until it is truly hacked, OSx86 builds will probably contribute more to Apple sales than hurt them.

 

[rjwill246]

You nailed it

The thin veneer is off the vast majority of people that clamor for OSS.

Whenever I hear the OSS crowd scream "Software should be FREE!" I translate that to mean "I refuse to pay someone for their work, thus I will STEAL it"!

Even when you talk to these people they eventually get around to saying that everything "digital" should be free. I assume they don't really work for a living and think that welfare should be universal and include them de novo, probably play/sing " The Internationale" at sunrise and bedtime and have never paid taxes or at least intend not to.

I would NEVER hire anyone like this since they obviously have NO problem with stealing others' hard work.

 

[Unorthodox]

"It's mine and you can't have it, with you I will not share it, cause if I share it with you, you'll have it to!"
Thats Apple's theme song.

 

[macalig]

MacGeek

Hello guys,

I found some more info about open source 10.4.8 kernel.

http://macgeek.freeflux.net

http://semthex.freeflux.net

Check it out...

 

[xPismo]

Didn't the Open Darwin project get shut down a few months back already? I don't like the concept of Apple loosing its open kernel due to someone reading between the lines on what is legal and what is right. Thats sad.

Even when you talk to these people they eventually get around to saying that everything "digital" should be free. I assume they don't really work for a living and think that welfare should be universal and include them de novo, probably play/sing " The Internationale" at sunrise and bedtime and have never paid taxes or at least intend not to.

I would NEVER hire anyone like this since they obviously have NO problem with stealing others' hard work.

Gah, that is a wild generalisation of many distinct groups which have nothing in common. Can we please differentiate from OpenSource and Cracked Software? You are giving the most interesting component of modern software a bad name.

Hello guys,I found some more info about open source 10.4.8 kernel. <snip> Check it out...

Best thing about that link is the youTube "and Boom!" video of SJ.

 

[sjo]

The thin veneer is off the vast majority of people that clamor for OSS.

Whenever I hear the OSS crowd scream "Software should be FREE!" I translate that to mean "I refuse to pay someone for their work, thus I will STEAL it"!

I don't blame Apple. The OSS community abused what they had and turned to piracy by stealing the GUI. Kudos Apple.

OSX as we know it would not exist without the work "OSS crowd" did and does. So it's only appropriate for Apple to contribute back to the community, as it has done and hopefully continues to do.

 

[Macula]

As long as it is MEANINGFUL to run OS/X on generic PCs, technical solutions (and ever better ones for that matter) will always be found.

The only way for Apple to safeguard OS/X from generic machines is to make such hacking MEANINGLESS. The solution is not in security technologies such as TPM but in MARKETING: Building machines that are evidently cheaper, beautiful, feature-rich and FASTER than the competition.

(Same goes for iPod and DRM, which was also cracked recently).

 

[Rocketman]

It's not necessarily illegal to run Darwin on non-Apple hardware, which is much of the goals of the OSx86 project. The source as it comes from Apple will only run on Apple hardware mainly due to EFI and some other stuff. The GUI is what seems to be so tied to the TPM circuitry, which is what OSx86 is NOT touching and why they say it's still legal.

Maybe, but they explicitly mention TPM is available as a pirated item from bit torrent, and, the first high bandwidth mirror they added was located in CHINA, piracy central.

It seems to me the point of the exercise from the point of view of the authors is to make a great hack. We can safely say they have accomplished that. They are now famous to a degree as well, even though they cannot spell worth a sh|t. At least they are stoned and insane

The point of USERS of this, is to combine the legal hack with illegal TPM cracks, and combine them onto commodity hardware to run a MacOS environment without paying a dime to Apple whatsoever.

Plenty of Apple high end software has been "cracked" so one can get it and use it for free if one is so inclined, or in the case of the Chinese, insulated from recourse by a sympathetic government.

In the final analysis there is a vast number of people working hard to get past copyright and avoid paying the author for their work. That is illegal to some degree in every country, or at minimum, by treaty with the USA.

I am not sure what tangible benefits have flowed to Apple by having the OS code as open source. It may be as simple as window dressing to attract developers who actually use Xcode anyway in the real world. But if there are any tangible benefits they have escaped my notice.

Leopard will tightly couple TPM and do other tricks to further harden it, but somebody will crack it. If by no other means than by making a pirated ROM chip for hack motherboards.

Meanwhile CPU sales are up 30%.

Rocketman

 

[Bonte]

Apple will need to open up osX to generic PC's but i can understand they'll want to wait until the Mac growth is stalling. Maybe at about 10% marketshare ?

 

[longofest]

Misinterpretation of what OSx86 is currently doing

Folks, I think you are misinterpreting what the OSx86 project is doing (at least in this case)...

The OSx86 project is taking the Darwin and XNU source that Apple releases and making them so they can run on any x86 hardware. Basically, they are bringing back the functionality that Darwin and XNU had BEFORE Apple ported OSX to Intel, as the x86 versions of Darwin used to run on any x86 hardware until Apple started including a lot of EFI-specific commands (as well as some other things). If you download and compile the OSx86 source, you won't be able to get a full-fledged OSX user experience, because they have not circumvented Apple's TPM protections for the GUI. In order to get Aqua, you need to have the Aqua resource files (which you'd have to get from a OSX install CD), and you'd have to get the TPM keys, which would be illegal.

Also remember, Darwin and XNU does NOT EQUAL the full OSX user experience. Darwin/XNU is just a command-line operating system, as that is the only part that is open-source.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Free != no cost

The thin veneer is off the vast majority of people that clamor for OSS.

Whenever I hear the OSS crowd scream "Software should be FREE!" I translate that to mean "I refuse to pay someone for their work, thus I will STEAL it"!

I don't blame Apple. The OSS community abused what they had and turned to piracy by stealing the GUI. Kudos Apple.

Anyone who understands what OSS and or "free software" is knows that they're not talking about money when they say it should be "free".

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software (emphasis added):

To help distinguish libre (freedom) software from gratis (zero price) software, Richard Stallman, founder of the free software movement, developed the following explanation: "Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of 'free' as in 'free speech', not as in 'free beer'". More specifically, free software means that computer users have the freedom to cooperate with whom they choose, and to control the software they use.​

Are there people who steal software, yes - but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about here.

FWIW: I work every day developing commercial web sites with free software (JBoss, Tomcat, Ant, Apache, gcc, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Eclipse, etc...). Why? Because we don't want to pay for it? Hell no! We pay a lot of money in licenses and support contracts just like we would for non-OSS products. The difference is that, when needed, we can see why the software acts the way it does and even can change it if we find it necessary. We don't have to rely solely on a vendor's promise about how secure or optimized their code is because it's wide open for all to see. THAT is what OSS is all about.

 

[xPismo]

Apple will need to open up osX to generic PC's but i can understand they'll want to wait until the Mac growth is stalling. Maybe at about 10% marketshare ?

Remember the years of the clones? Apple is a whole widget company. They will not suceede by emulating M$ and selling software to other peoples hardware. Ever.