Linking to "patches" on the front page?

[*LTD*]

That isn't bad at all. I might consider the 10v.



The discussions has already been validated.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/499678/

Alright. Then section 10 of the Forum Rules is worthless.

There is no point in having it at all when under certain circumstances we end up violating it under the justification of topic popularity. What is the point to the rule in the first place? We should then be allowed to post links to insanelymac and do other things to facilitate license/copyright violations all the time, regardless of the news item. The horse is already out of the barn.

More broadly, and more importantly, it's a question of integrity.

 

[calderone]

Alright. Then section 10 of the Forum Rules is worthless.

There is no point in having it at all when under certain circumstances we end up violating it under the justification of topic popularity. What is the point to the rule in the first place? We should then be allowed to post links to insanelymac and do other things to facilitate license/copyright violations all the time, regardless of the news item. The horse is already out of the barn.

Tell you what. Email the site owner and ask them about it. The horse may be out of the barn, but you have beaten it beyond recognition.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

At the end of the day, this is the reality. But the problem is . . .

This by default validates discussion about the subject, which induces members to then go ahead and violate the same rule.

Kind of sounds like a moral issue right? Kind of like all of the issues you defend Apple for right? Interesting...

 

[*LTD*]

Tell you what. Email the site owner and ask them about it.

I did, earlier today. I'm interested in seeing what the response will be, and how that response will be disseminated publicly, for everyone to see, in the Forum Rules section or another accessible place on Macrumors.

 

[arkmannj]

Jimmany -Cricket < sigh > can we get off the morality or not stuff ? if the site owners and admins have been notified that some find this article objectionable, then that's-that. If they find the topic inappropriate then it'll be shut down, if not, then lets have the topic at hand talked about. As said, not everyone is wanting this topic to be a peg-legged, eye-patch wearing pirate, some of us just like hearing about technology stuff going on, and like to have fun with their hobbies, learn more, have a good time trying stuff out, etc...

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

I did, earlier today. I'm interested in seeing what the response will be, and how that response will be disseminated publicly, for everyone to see, in the Forum Rules section or another accessible place on Macrumors.

They told him to take off his "offensive" avatar so hes mad.

 

[dukebound85]

This could have simply been reported without any reference at all to "hackintoshes" or "create their own netbook Macs."

As it stands, it's now a discussion about piracy.

https://macrumors.zendesk.com/hc/en-us

Warez/Serials/Keys. Do not post software serial numbers or keys or refer people to specific websites, software, or techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, distribute cracks, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

So telling people that support has been re-enabled for a hack whose "purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods" and pointing them to the website where they can be instructed on how to deploy this "workaround" is what?

Arn has stated that you can talk about hackintoshes as long as one doesnt not link to pirated materials...

 

[*LTD*]

They told him to take off his "offensive" avatar so hes mad.

Actually, that was done in my own. I figured if I'm going to complain, I might as well put myself in a position above reproach. It's only right.

 

[AidenShaw]

Members play by the rules. Owners and staff are free to break them since it is (with certain limits re hired staff) THEIR site.

Alright. Then section 10 of the Forum Rules is worthless.

Some members play by the rules - but others seem to be able to harass, insult and name-call without being warned or given a timeout.

Anyway, IMHO this is a legitimate news story about how the community is responding to a move by Apple that many regard as petty and unbecoming. Anyone with a hack-netbook already knew this, so arguments that this story is aiding and abetting software terrorism are stretched.

This Apple action also can affect the honest, EULA-abiding Apple users. For example, one of our Dell PW390 systems with a QX6700 blew its CPU. It's out of warranty, so a quick look at Newegg showed that the QX6700 is EOL and commercial shops aren't selling them.

Intel's website shows the Q8400, Q9400 and Q9550 as compatible replacements. But, if I tried to replace the CPU on an Apple, any strict CPUID checks could cause me a bag of hurt. (Of course, most Apples have soldered CPUs, so I'd need a new Apple ($$cha-ching$$) if my CPU blew.)

The real news story here is that Apple seems to be losing its lustre - its greedy, control-freak approach is illustrated by actions like blocking the Atom. It's news.

 

[Apple //e]

this site used to be more tech and a loooot less of this arguing over vocabulary.
of all the things to discuss regarding atoms and osx, first a eula and then site rules?

mac users were never the most tech minded but seriously, this is absurd

 

[dukebound85]

Arn's stance

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/4958453/

and

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/6498521/

Thats the final word

you can move on now

Summary

It is ok to talk about hackintoshing as long as one does not link or give instructions pertaining to the piracy of osx

Macrumors does not enforce EULAs

 

[*LTD*]

Arn has stated that you can talk about hackintoshes as long as one doesnt not link to pirated materials...

Accoding to Forum Rules, this would be fine.

But we can't do this:

Do not . . . refer people to specific techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

So we can't discuss any techniques, can't post code to that effect, can't post ways in which to accomplish it. I hope this was also made clear.

Arn's stance:

These issues have been revisited lately, and the decision has been to not police EULA violations specifically.

Contradicts:

Do not . . . refer people to specific techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

Arn's "other stance":

- we don't make it a point to police EULAs, but other forum members frequently object to common EULA violations surrounding Apple
- we do not permit illegal ("against the law") discussion for obvious reasons

At best, unclear. They don't make it a point to "police EULAs", yet they object to specific discussion of EULA violations. So do they object to them or not? Does it cover me saying "I violated Apple's EULA" or me saying "Here's how you violate Apple's EULA" (rather, here's how you install OS X on an Atom-based netbook.)

 

[dukebound85]

Accoding to Forum Rules, this would be fine.

But we can't do this:

Do not . . . refer people to specific techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

So we can't discuss any techniques, can't post code to that effect, can't post ways in which to accomplish it. I hope this was also made clear.

Read the threads in which arns posts are in to get proper context

One of them (created by me a while back) addressed the specific issue about talking about hackintoshes

Arn's stance is what matters as its his site

My undertsnding is we cant link to pirated material or tell how to pirate it if one goes that route though really, now you can simply use a trtail disk to make a hackintosh at which point its only a EULA violation.

When it comes to EULA's it is ok to talk about as MR does not enforce them (being EULA violations)....hence all of the hackintosh and jailbreaking threads

Arn's stance on this issue superseeds forums rules if there are conflicts as the issue was specifically addressed

 

[CQd44]

I'm waiting for more forum rule spam.

 

[mike dunx]

Accoding to Forum Rules, this would be fine.

But we can't do this:

Do not . . . refer people to specific techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

So we can't discuss any techniques, can't post code to that effect, can't post ways in which to accomplish it. I hope this was also made clear.

look, if you're really that curious about it, search google.. its not that hard. theres even forums that DO let you talk about it! so go find one.

 

[Eidorian]

Some members play by the rules - but others seem to be able to harass, insult and name-call without being warned or given a timeout.

Anyway, IMHO this is a legitimate news story about how the community is responding to a move by Apple that many regard as petty and unbecoming. Anyone with a hack-netbook already knew this, so arguments that this story is aiding and abetting software terrorism are stretched.

This Apple action also can affect the honest, EULA-abiding Apple users. For example, one of our Dell PW390 systems with a QX6700 blew its CPU. It's out of warranty, so a quick look at Newegg showed that the QX6700 is EOL and commercial shops aren't selling them.

Intel's website shows the Q8400, Q9400 and Q9550 as compatible replacements. But, if I tried to replace the CPU on an Apple, any strict CPUID checks could cause me a bag of hurt. (Of course, most Apples have soldered CPUs, so I'd need a new Apple ($$cha-ching$$) if my CPU blew.)

The real news story here is that Apple seems to be losing its lustre - its greedy, control-freak approach is illustrated by actions like blocking the Atom. It's news.

Did the BIOS have the correct microcode to allow the newer 45nm Yorkfield quad core?

A QX6700 was a bit much but it is the original Core 2 Quad and has a sexy unlocked multiplier.

 

[dukebound85]

Accoding to Forum Rules, this would be fine.

But we can't do this:

Do not . . . refer people to specific techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

So we can't discuss any techniques, can't post code to that effect, can't post ways in which to accomplish it. I hope this was also made clear.

Arn's stance:

These issues have been revisited lately, and the decision has been to not police EULA violations specifically.

Contradicts:

Do not . . . refer people to specific techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

Arn's "other stance":

- we don't make it a point to police EULAs, but other forum members frequently object to common EULA violations surrounding Apple
- we do not permit illegal ("against the law") discussion for obvious reasons

At best, unclear. They don't make it a point to "police EULAs", yet they object to specific discussion of EULA violations. So do they object to them or not? Does it cover me saying "I violated Apple's EULA" or me saying "Here's how you violate Apple's EULA" (rather, here's how you install OS X on an Atom-based netbook.)

Any issue concerning EULAs, Arn doesnt care and won't enforce them

That much is what he made clear in his posts

Regardless, his stance allows these type of threads as long as no help in regards to piracy is going on. Seeing how making a hackintosh involves only breaking EULAs and no piracy (as you can use a retail osx disk), then it's fine to talk about

Can we move past this as the owner of this site has already expressed his views on this matter multiple times on this specific issue?

 

[*LTD*]

... .. ...

Read the threads in which arns posts are in to get proper context

The Forum Rules provide the proper context.

One of them (created by me a while back) addressed the specific issue about talking about hackintoshes

An issue that is (wrongly) regarded by the mods as an exception to the Forum Rules. Not my site, so they can do what they like. Still wrong, though.

Arn's stance is what matters as its his site

Again, this has to be balanced with a clear reading of the Forum Rules, which should be clear in the first place.

My undertsnding is we cant link to pirated material or tell how to pirate it if one goes that route though really, now you can simply use a trtail disk to make a hackintosh at which point its only a EULA violation.

"Only" an EULA violation??

When it comes to EULA's it is ok to talk about as MR does not enforce them (being EULA violations)....hence all of the hackintosh and jailbreaking threads

Except that EULA violations fall under:

"Do not post . . . or refer people techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods . . . or obtain or use commercial software or media *in violation of its license* and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help."

"violation of its license." Here, "license" includes just that! A software license, which includes an EULA."



Arn's stance on this issue superseeds forums rules if there are conflicts as the issue was specifically addressed

Arn's stance on this issue isn't simply unclear, it completely contradicts his own rules.

Bottom line: If Arn's stance is different from the published Forum Rules, then "Arn's Stance" needs to be included in the Forum Rules.

 

[dukebound85]

lol im just trying to give you the stance of the owner of this site and his thoughts about hackintosh discussion which really should absolve any questions about it

whether or not it seems contradictory to the rules or not is not my concern though i admit its in a grey area depending on how you interpret it

however, since Arn specifically went out of his way to address this very issue, then that is the answer regarding this issue plain and simple regardless if it may contradict the rules he made

consider it an exception if you think it does contradict

 

[*LTD*]

lol im just trying to give you the stance of the owner of this site and his thoughts about hackintosh discussion which really should absolve any questions about it

It doesn't absolve questions about it, I'm afraid. Quite the contrary.

whether or not it seems contradictory or not is not my concern though i admit its in a grey area

The Forum Rules make it pretty black-and-white, actually. I'm assuming we can't discuss EULA violations (methods, techniques) unless they are Apple EULA violations. That's interesting.

however, since Arn specifically went out of his way to address this very issue, then that is the answer regarding this issue plain and simple

Except I don't know what his answer is. It isn't clear at all. Unless he's making Apple EULA violation discussions (methods, techniques) the specific exception to his own rules. Which makes no sense.

But . . . I do appreciate you taking the time to try to explain the issue. Thank you.

 

[66318]

But, if I tried to replace the CPU on an Apple, any strict CPUID checks could cause me a bag of hurt. (Of course, most Apples have soldered CPUs, so I'd need a new Apple ($$cha-ching$$) if my CPU blew.)

The real news story here is that Apple seems to be losing its lustre - its greedy, control-freak approach is illustrated by actions like blocking the Atom. It's news.

If you did replace the CPU on a Mac (and this is possible on any of their desktop machines) it would still work fine. Any CPU compatible with the chipset in the Mac is going to remain in the supported list of processors in the kernel. Want proof? Read my earlier post about how they "blocked" the Atom by fixing a bad logic check.

This is a case of Apple optimizing their software for their hardware, and not some control-freak issue.

 

[AidenShaw]

Did the BIOS have the correct microcode to allow the newer 45nm Yorkfield quad core?

Yes, the new CPU had the capability bitmask that the BIOS required. "Meets requirements" was the check, not "was exactly this CPU every sold on this motherboard".

I also bought a half-dozen Merom T7600 CPUs on eBay, and upgraded Yonah systems from Dell and Lenovo so that they could run 64-bit software. No problems. (Of course, Dell and Lenovo have socketed CPUs, not soldered.)

I also enjoyed replacing the 130watt QX6700 with a 95watt part!

Get off your dang high horses, I'd be willing to bet the majority of people here have either violated an EULA or outright pirated something before.

Apple has probably lost far more money on people who rationalize "why should I buy the family pack, when it doesn't check how many systems I install?" than on Hack-netbooks.

Any CPU compatible with the chipset in the Mac is going to remain in the supported list of processors in the kernel. Want proof? Read my earlier post about how they "blocked" the Atom by fixing a bad logic check.

This is a case of Apple optimizing their software for their hardware, and not some control-freak issue.

No, this is Apple control-freak crap.

The original test (CPU at or above a certain level) is the necessary test. The control-freak change (CPU in set {a,b,c...z}) only serves to block Hackintoshs - and legitimate users wishing to upgrade or replace CPUs with newer models.

The "any CPU compatible with the chipset in the Mac" is the root of Apple's control-freak problem. The Atom is compatible with supported Apple chipsets and CPUs. Apple had to go out of their way to intentionally break support.

If you checked the links, it points out the absurdity of the Apple action. The patched kernel changes the entry for "Core Solo" to match the CPUID of the Atom - so that the "unsupported CPU" panic is avoided.

Once the system boots, however, both logical CPUs are visible and usable - so OSX was able to recognize the dual logical CPU and enable SMP even though the CPUID was for a single logical CPU system. LOL.

 

[Eidorian]

Yes, the new CPU had the capability bitmask that the BIOS required. "Meets requirements" was the check, not "was exactly this CPU every sold on this motherboard".

Did you have to update the BIOS at all? I remember quite a few teething issues with Yorkfield.

I also bought a half-dozen Merom T7600 CPUs on eBay, and upgraded Yonah systems from Dell and Lenovo so that they could run 64-bit software. No problems. (Of course, Dell and Lenovo have socketed CPUs, not soldered.)

The service manuals are very easy to get ahold of too.

 

[AidenShaw]

Did you have to update the BIOS at all? I remember quite a few teething issues with Yorkfield.

The current (at the time) BIOS supported Meroms, since the models introduced with Yonah were upgraded to Merom in mid-model updates. (The PW390 BIOS worked too.)

Of course, a Merom-aware BIOS would be necessary to boot 64-bit.

Since other PC vendors regularly update their BIOS versions, it's not a big deal.

The service manuals are very easy to get ahold of too.

Dell's step-by-step illustrated service manuals are superb - as long as you have a second system that works to go through the manual. Lenovo is very close as well.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Accoding to Forum Rules, this would be fine.

But we can't do this:

Do not . . . refer people to specific techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

So we can't discuss any techniques, can't post code to that effect, can't post ways in which to accomplish it. I hope this was also made clear.

Arn's stance:

These issues have been revisited lately, and the decision has been to not police EULA violations specifically.

Contradicts:

Do not . . . refer people to specific techniques whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

Arn's "other stance":

- we don't make it a point to police EULAs, but other forum members frequently object to common EULA violations surrounding Apple
- we do not permit illegal ("against the law") discussion for obvious reasons

At best, unclear. They don't make it a point to "police EULAs", yet they object to specific discussion of EULA violations. So do they object to them or not? Does it cover me saying "I violated Apple's EULA" or me saying "Here's how you violate Apple's EULA" (rather, here's how you install OS X on an Atom-based netbook.)

Go somewhere else than. Discussion is one thing, linking is another.