Apple Pulls Public Mac OS 10.4.8 Source

[iMeowbot]

Didn't the Open Darwin project get shut down a few months back already?

Yes, that project closed down, but OpenDarwin, and the associated Web site, and the decision to give up, were all independent of Apple.

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.

This is really the same thing that was being done by the earlier project. The claim from Apple all this time has been that Darwin (but not the higher level OS X stuff) is open source; this is supposed to be happening.

 

[Macula]

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 ?

Science fiction scenario: Five to seven years from today Apple and Hewlett Packard partner. HP gives up on Microsoft/Windows and ships machines with either Mac OS or Linux. Dell considers joining the club, as well.

Another five years later, Mac OS market share approaches that of Microsoft.

 

[floam]

.

 

[xPismo]

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

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.

Cool, thanks for the info, I did not get that from the news post. Are there any high visability projects that are using the open source darwin setup? I would be interested in learning why they choose it over other options.

 

[Westside guy]

Well, stuff like iScroll2 - the two-finger scrolling hack for older Macs like my Powerbook - was able to be developed because of freely-accessible Darwin source code. I'd imagine the tun/tap 3rd party virtual devices + drivers (needed by openvpn) also wouldn't have been feasible if the developer couldn't get at the kernel source.

Right now the osx86 project is of little interest to the public at large, since it's not like you get a box that is particularly useful to someone that doesn't want to tweak incessantly (sound may or may not work, networking may not work, printing may not work, etc.). But I imagine Apple wants to keep forcing them to re-solve the basic functionality issues over and over, so they don't get to the point where the average user would actually find it worthwhile to investigate this.

 

[kresh]

OSx86 is a warez Distro group, plain and simple!

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.

Oh no, we get what they are doing (from the blog at OSx86):

"I had to remove a key which you need to reinsert if you want to run it GUI, due to legal issues. I called it the "magicpoem" maybe you got the point now. The hex for it is around so don't mail me about it, I want spread anything illegal.

I hope Steve, you enjoy this release, read my poem and think about it. The community was victorius again. Thanks to everyone who supported me and/or worked this out with me. Special thanks go to (in no special order):"

The whole point of them "running the rat-race for 2 days" was to make the kernel work with the express intent of running the Aqua GUI.

How much plainer does it need to be, their whole intent is to enable people to steal the GUI and enjoy the Apple OS X experience for free.

The whole OSx86 project is a warez project hiding behind OSS. It just re-enforces the negative OSS image.

edit: They even have screenshots of Aqua running on an unknown Pentium 4 processor. If that's not promoting warez, what is it? And you know where this path eventually leads to? WGA!! I rue the day when Apple has to try and lock down OSX like MS is forced to attempt with Vista!

 

[NewSc2]

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.

yeah, but Logic Pro requires a dongle.

 

[xPismo]

The whole OSx86 project is a warez project hiding behind OSS. It just re-enforces the negative OSS image.

edit: They even have screenshots of Aqua running on an unknown Pentium 4 processor. If that's not promoting warez, what is it?

Ack. Thats pretty damming text.

 

[Electro Funk]

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.

a quick look at google will show you that Logic Pro 7 has definately been cracked...

 

[PygmySurfer]

yeah, but Logic Pro requires a dongle.

The TPM on Intel-based Macs could essentially be used as a dongle.

What's worse, the TPM would make something like Microsoft's product activation trivially simple.

 

[Marx55]

APPLE, DO NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE AGAIN!!!

Apple made a big mistake not licensing Mac OS 22 years ago allowing clones. Otherwise Mac OS X would be now the mainstream operating system.

Now history repeats. Apple has now the oppotunity to take over and beat Windows. But for that it is absolutely essential to allow Mac OS X to run on ANY PC out there.

Why does Apple make the same mistake?

Even more, if Apple would open Mac OS X completely including Aqua and give it for free as Linux, then Windows would be history in a few months!!!

Apple, are you listening?

 

[Rocksaurus]

Isn't a healthy chunk of OS X based on FreeBSD? A free, open source Unix distro? In a sense, if they use FreeBSD and do not contribute back to the very open source community they're borrowing from, doesn't that make Apple a thief? Maybe I'm missing something

 

[iMeowbot]

Isn't a healthy chunk of OS X based on FreeBSD?

Yes, big parts of it come from the BSD world.

A free, open source Unix distro? In a sense, if they use FreeBSD and do not contribute back to the very open source community they're borrowing from, doesn't that make Apple a thief?

The BSD terms specifically allow derivatives to keep their sources closed, as long as credit is given.

 

[itguy06]

How much plainer does it need to be, their whole intent is to enable people to steal the GUI and enjoy the Apple OS X experience for free.

How do you figure? There are people like me that hate Intel's products but love Apple's. So I really don't want to buy an Intel Mac. I would much rather build an AMD rig and buy OSX and install on that. I have bought all OS X releases since 10.2 and would proudly buy 10.5 and run on non-Apple hardware.

I'd imagine there are many like me that would rather not use Apple hardware but would gladly buy OS X to run on their computers.

And you know where this path eventually leads to? WGA!! I rue the day when Apple has to try and lock down OSX like MS is forced to attempt with Vista!

Being in IT, I have seen MS's progression on OS's and let me tell you this - they turned their heads to piracy in the NT/9x/2k days. Why? They wanted marketshare. They were willing to forgo some sales for the tie and lock in to Windows. Then once it's firmly entrenched in business and homes, they started to crack down. Makes sense - you are hooked on their software and have your stuff firmly entrenched with no migration out path and now you have to pay. It's like the crack dealer that gives you your first few hits free only to hook you later once you can't quit.

That's the sole reason for activation. Has little to do with piracy although they will claim that.

I'd doubt Apple would do a WGA thing as they are not looking for world domination and control like Microsoft.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

APPLE, DO NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE AGAIN!!!

Apple made a big mistake not licensing Mac OS 22 years ago allowing clones. Otherwise Mac OS X would be now the mainstream operating system.

Now history repeats. Apple has now the oppotunity to take over and beat Windows. But for that it is absolutely essential to allow Mac OS X to run on ANY PC out there.

Why does Apple make the same mistake?

Even more, if Apple would open Mac OS X completely including Aqua and give it for free as Linux, then Windows would be history in a few months!!!

Apple, are you listening?

I'd love to be able to legally install OS X on a Dell or build-it-myself PC, even it it wasn't $0, but Apple would tank in no time as they make the lion's share of their money selling hardware. Especially when Dell's can sell this cheap: Is one MacBook Pro C2D worth two Dells?

And, from the look AAPL stock prices lately, I'd say they are doing just fine making their current "same mistake" right now.

 

[slughead]

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.

I don't think there are many out there who think all software should be free. I think these OSS advocates just want as much free stuff as possible, for many reasons.

People want OSS because it spurs innovation. Keep in mind that OS X is built on OSS, and that's one of the reasons it's more secure and more powerful than windows.

That's not to mention the fact that Apple has taken OS X from infancy to the mature OS that it is today at a record pace. This is, in no small part, due to the FREE code they're "stealing."

Apple doesn't sell operating systems for profit, they sell HARDWARE. These people over at OSx86 are trying to create a product that doesn't really exist: OS X on BIOS hardware.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Isn't a healthy chunk of OS X based on FreeBSD? A free, open source Unix distro? In a sense, if they use FreeBSD and do not contribute back to the very open source community they're borrowing from, doesn't that make Apple a thief? Maybe I'm missing something

Who says they don't?

In fact, if you believe this guy's blog, Apple may very well have saved FreeBSD from oblivion: http://trollaxor.com/text/thank_apple_for_freebsd.html

(I'm not necessarily saying he's right about saving FreeBSD, just that NeXT/Apple have contributed to it.)

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Apple doesn't sell operating systems for profit, they sell HARDWARE.

Yep. And you can tell when Apple is selling software for profit like any of the Final Cut Suite app's. Not only do they require a HUGE key to be entered at install/first run, it also locks it with unique info to the machine where it was installed. (Just try migrating a Final Cut Pro installation from one machine to another.)

 

[itguy06]

I'd love to be able to legally install OS X on a Dell or build-it-myself PC, even it it wasn't $0, but Apple would tank in no time as they make the lion's share of their money selling hardware. Especially when Dell's can sell this cheap: Is one MacBook Pro C2D worth two Dells?

That's IF you jump through hoops, IF you find the discount coupon, and IF Dell honors it. You WILL get an inferior machine in every way to Apple's offerings. If you simply call up Dell and order a machine, you won't get that price.

Trust me, I do this for a living - you don't put Dell and quality in the same page, let alone sentence.

That being said, Apple would do fine on software sales. Especially if they significantly upped their software sales. At least 1 OEM has said they would love to ditch Windows at the first sight of a capable OS. OS X is that OS. All Apple would have to do is shift from a primarily hardware company to an iPod/hardware and software co.

 

[Rocksaurus]

Yes, big parts of it come from the BSD world.

The BSD terms specifically allow derivatives to keep their sources closed, as long as credit is given.

Okay. Everyone's got their own morals, but if a few people are putting OS X on their PCs, I don't see it as a huge issue. Given how complicated it is it's not really a *problem*. But if a rich company like Apple takes a free thing and makes money off of it and only gives some of it back to the community that created it and gave it away, that seems less moral (this is my opinion) regardless of what the legal documents say.

 

[iMeowbot]

(I'm not necessarily saying he's right about saving FreeBSD, just that NeXT/Apple have contributed to it.)

Not really. There are from time to time fixes that are noticed in Darwin and ported back to FreeBSD by others, but Apple have a history of not getting involved with the projects from where they take code. The stuff about the kernel is especially weird, that's still the area where Apple and FreeBSD differ the most.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Not really. There are from time to time fixes that are noticed in Darwin and ported back to FreeBSD by others, but Apple have a history of not getting involved with the projects from where they take code. The stuff about the kernel is especially weird, that's still the area where Apple and FreeBSD differ the most.

Interesting. So does Apple just put their stuff up under ASPL and let the FreeBSD commiters sift through it?

I figured when they hired Mr. BSD, Jordan Hubbard, back in 2001 they be more active in pushing stuff back out to BSD.

 

[iMeowbot]

Interesting. So does Apple just put their stuff up under ASPL and let the FreeBSD commiters sift through it?

Yeah. This is the same situation that caused some strife between the WebKit and KHTML projects, although in the BSD world it's not such a hot button issue.

Okay. Everyone's got their own morals, but if a few people are putting OS X on their PCs, I don't see it as a huge issue. Given how complicated it is it's not really a *problem*. But if a rich company like Apple takes a free thing and makes money off of it and only gives some of it back to the community that created it and gave it away, that seems less moral (this is my opinion) regardless of what the legal documents say.

Thing is, the BSD community as a whole want the proprietary option open. They avoid taking code from places like the Linux kernel in order to keep GPL terms from coming into play; GPL stuff is segregated into separate packages. Apple aren't getting away with some technicality, the ability to keep source closed is one of the touted features of BSD.

 

[Eraserhead]

Now history repeats. Apple has now the oppotunity to take over and beat Windows. But for that it is absolutely essential to allow Mac OS X to run on ANY PC out there.

Why does Apple make the same mistake?

Even more, if Apple would open Mac OS X completely including Aqua and give it for free as Linux, then Windows would be history in a few months!!!

Apple, are you listening?

You do realise that as a student in the UK (up until the other vendors went Core-2) that it was significantly CHEAPER to buy a Mac than a PC. Case in point, to get an equivalent to my Macbook which cost £775 cost £950 through Dell, and to get an equivalent to the bottom Macbook (£647 without MS Office, on HE discount) cost £797 on the warwick deal (IBM).

THis shows Mac's are CHEAPER for students, but they don't have 100% market share, not even close, many people prefer Windows because it's familiar. Apple would not get huge market share from making their OS available for PC users and it would probably be much less stable.

 

[kresh]

I don't think there are many out there who think all software should be free. I think these OSS advocates just want as much free stuff as possible, for many reasons.

People want OSS because it spurs innovation. Keep in mind that OS X is built on OSS, and that's one of the reasons it's more secure and more powerful than windows.

That's not to mention the fact that Apple has taken OS X from infancy to the mature OS that it is today at a record pace. This is, in no small part, due to the FREE code they're "stealing."

Apple doesn't sell operating systems for profit, they sell HARDWARE. These people over at OSx86 are trying to create a product that doesn't really exist: OS X on BIOS hardware.

That's just rationalization and obfuscation. Apple is not using anything outside of licensing stipulations. The GUI belongs to Apple. They are not giving OSx86 a license to Aqua thus it is theft.

That fact just can't be gotten around.

And to all those who seem to believe that Apple just has to open OSX up to run on any hardware or they will be doomed, you are ignoring history.

Apple wen't down the road of the clones and it damn near put them out of business. It would be sheer stupidity to go down that road again and expect a different result.

If Apple opens OSX to any hardware, just how will they compete? They could not compete against the cloners because they were smaller and could adapt new hardware alot more quickly.

Apple would quickly see their hardware sales dry up, those sales lost to the Dells, Acers, HP, and the whole litanany of bargin basement hardware assemblers.

If you really think Apple can't survive unless they open up OSX, explain how they would compete and win, don't just make a broad unsubstantiated demand that they open it up.

And who cares about marketshare anyway? 80% of the market is made up of almost zero margin hardware sales, how much of that does Apple really want.

/end rant