not sure if this belongs here and/or if this is the new 'craze' but I would like to hear your thoughts about what everyones posting up. does it really run faster on a PC? http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2603740&page=1
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.
OSX on a dell?
- Thread starter cplusON3R
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Um...a Mac is a PC, just like a Dell is a PC...the difference between those, if there are any, are almost moot now that Apple stopped using PPC procs and went with Intel. Why would it run faster on a Dell (?!?), I would imagine given the same specs, it would run identically.
Hi,
No.No.No.
It is not legal.
Read the Mac OSX license agreement.
Do not do it.
Buy a mac.
Thanks in advance.
No.No.No.
It is not legal.
Read the Mac OSX license agreement.
Do not do it.
Buy a mac.
Thanks in advance.
janey said:
Well, I think Apple has the opportunity to optimise the integration between their own hardware and the OS to a point, so arguably it'd still be slightly faster on a Mac. Of course, I don't think this would be noticeable, so it's a moot point.
Wellander said:
The OS X licence is not the law.
Having said that, the guy on the forums must have pirated the OS, which is of course illegal. He claims he bought it at retail, but the retail version is for PowerPC (unless the requirements listed on the box are incorrect).
There are still lots of issues when running OS X on a PC. IMHO, the biggest of which are the lack of any real video drivers. No Quartz Extreme or Core Image or as a trade off if you have an ATI card you can enjoy mouse/screen tearing and other assorted video issues.
That combined with the fact that you can't do any updates once you get your box working - unless someone puts up another hack. Then the chances are still 50/50 that something will break your installation. It's great fun to play with, but not something that should be considered if you really need to get some work done. I installed my copy of OS X (came with a new Mac Mini) on a Dual Xeon just to see if it could be done. Now it sits in my boys' bedroom - we call it the Hackintosh. Even with its shortfalls, OS X on a PC is head and shoulders above Windows
That combined with the fact that you can't do any updates once you get your box working - unless someone puts up another hack. Then the chances are still 50/50 that something will break your installation. It's great fun to play with, but not something that should be considered if you really need to get some work done. I installed my copy of OS X (came with a new Mac Mini) on a Dual Xeon just to see if it could be done. Now it sits in my boys' bedroom - we call it the Hackintosh. Even with its shortfalls, OS X on a PC is head and shoulders above Windows
Cooknn said:There are still lots of issues when running OS X on a PC. IMHO, the biggest of which are the lack of any real video drivers. No Quartz Extreme or Core Image or as a trade off if you have an ATI card you can enjoy mouse/screen tearing and other assorted video issues.
That combined with the fact that you can't do any updates once you get your box working - unless someone puts up another hack. Then the chances are still 50/50 that something will break your installation. It's great fun to play with, but not something that should be considered if you really need to get some work done. I installed my copy of OS X (came with a new Mac Mini) on a Dual Xeon just to see if it could be done. Now it sits in my boys' bedroom - we call it the Hackintosh. Even with its shortfalls, OS X on a PC is head and shoulders above Windows
thats pretty interesting.. nobody in that thread even mentioned that.. either they dont know or they dont care... ehhh.. I'll go with the latter
But the license agreement is a legal contract... enforceable by law.Nermal said:
The first boxed retail versions of Mac OS X for Intel hardware won't be showing up until 10.5 because all Intel hardware ships with a copy of 10.4 (so there is no need for a retail version of 10.4 for these systems).
The retail version of 10.4 is actually an upgrade to hardware came with a previous version of the Mac OS... strictly speaking, Apple has never sold a version of the Mac OS without hardware. Your hardware (up to this point) has been the license key to use the Mac OS. And retail versions of the Mac OS are upgrades that use your existing license key.
This point is often lost on people because all previous hardware (both from Apple and the makers of the clones) came with a Mac OS installed and those are the only systems that the Mac OS has been able to run on previously. The developer kit versions of Mac OS X (which don't go beyond 10.4.3 as I recall) are the first that can be installed on non-licensed hardware. And in that case you are not only breaking a license agreement, the person to whom the original kit was given is breaking their developer agreement as well.
I don't know about Ma OS X, but Apple's Mac OS X is not based on Linux. It is based on the Mach operating system which originally used 4.3BSD as an interface layer (which was later replaced with 4.4BSD Lite and now uses elements of FreeBSD). The application environment is based on both the original NeXT APIs and the Copland APIs (a modified version of the Macintosh Toolbox), and the graphic rendering is based on the original Display Postscript (codeveloped by Adobe and NeXT)...howesey said:"Ma OS X is based on Linux".
So basically, there isn't anything from Linux and most everything in Mac OS X predates Linux. Darwin is an open source project but much of it uses special license by Apple. Other parts (the parts from 4.4BSD Lite and FreeBSD) use a license by the Regents of the University of California.
And Apple has avoided tying anything covered by the GPL into Mac OS X... and almost everything in Linux is covered by the GPL.
cplusON3R said:
It _could_ run very fast on non-Apple hardware. For example it would "fly" on a quad core Opteron. Apple has selected low-power CPUs for their systems. If you don't care about power or heat or noise you can get a very fast box.
The problems is going to be drivers. Your Operon is going to have to have Apple-like graphics and audio to work.
RacerX said:
Of course you are 100% correct.
Two sources of confusion. (1) Many people don't know that a shell prompt and the Linux/UNIX kernal are two different things and think that "linux" is a generic name for free unixes. If you don't understand how it all fit together then hard to keep it straight. This is after all a Macintosh forum. Don't expect kernel hackers to hang out here. It's prety clear that more then a small amount of free unix in OSX.
(2) "Linux" has come to mean the "operaing environment" that includes much software including the Linux kernel, X11, Apache, Gnome and so on. If you alow this meaning of "Linux" then OSX does "include Linux". I know it is better to say the "OSX ships with much of the same software are most Linux distributions". But enough people equate "Linux Distribution" with "Linux" that you can't fight it any longer. so by some warpped logic yes there is some Linux in OSX.
While using something with the same chipset as the MacIntels may seem easy, you still will need drivers -- because Apple is using a lot I/O external to the chipset, where a Dell may use almost nothing but Intel's included I/O.
So you will need drivers to switch I/O to the built in Dell I/O on their EFI machines.
Apple made a PC chipset look like an Apple on the outside by using all their old I/O.
I wouldn't be surprised if Broadcom still supplies Ethernet/wireless chips and their sound/USB/FW I/O chips are the same ones they used before on the PPCs.
So you will need drivers to switch I/O to the built in Dell I/O on their EFI machines.
Apple made a PC chipset look like an Apple on the outside by using all their old I/O.
I wouldn't be surprised if Broadcom still supplies Ethernet/wireless chips and their sound/USB/FW I/O chips are the same ones they used before on the PPCs.
There is plenty of GPL licensed software in Tiger. A few obvious ones are:RacerX said:
Samba - used for Windows Networking
bash - default shell in Terminal.app
CUPS - the printing system is licensed under the GPL, although it may be possible that Apple are paying Easy Software Products for a non-GPL licensed version.
emacs - command line text editor shipped with Tiger
Some of these provide core functionality (e.g. cups, samba).
But not in places where the GPL can be applied to parts of the main elements... for example Installer.app. In NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP Installer.app used tar within the package format but the newer versions of tar (gnutar) used the GPL, and the lawyers said no way (which is why Rhapsody 5.0 and 5.1 don't come with Installer.app). What they settled on was pax for Installer.app when it was brought back in Rhapsody 5.3 and Mac OS X Developer Preview 1.dr_lha said:
How GPL software is used within the operating system (or more importantly... not used within the operating system) governs what additional software will inherit the GPL.
Bundling applications will not transfer the GPL from them to the actual OS... but in some cases, if the OS or other Apple products use software in a certain way... then the GPL would apply.
Apple has been very careful about what and where it uses open source software and which type of license is used (GPL or BSD). In most cases if the software is too closely tied to an Apple product they use something covered by BSD.
Believe me, Apple is very careful about when and where it uses software covered by the GPL (and bundling GPL apps doesn't transfer the GPL to Mac OS X).
By the way, the Terminal.app has always let you install and use other shell scripts which is why the GPL doesn't apply to Terminal.app. NeXT/Apple originally used the Bourne Shell as the default shell in the Terminal.app which was covered by the BSD license. The fact that they now use bash (GNU's Bourne-Again Shell) shouldn't be that surprising.
CUPS wasn't bundled with Mac OS X until 10.3... but could be added to earlier versions. Same with samba (going all the way back to NEXTSTEP, I know people who have ported samba to NEXTSTEP 3.3) which wasn't in earlier versions of Mac OS X. These are not core functionality... they are nice extensions.
Of course, they are free to use any GPL apps they like. This is the spirit of the GPL. Only people who take code out of GPL apps and use them in their own software, or distribute modified GPL apps without making the source code available have anything to worry about.RacerX said:
No. Terminal app is a terminal program that doesn't contain any GPL code, that's why GPL doesn't apply. Do you actually understand the GPL?
bash is the default shell for almost all UNIXs now, so its not surprising that its used (did I say it was?)
You don't count the ability to print as core functionality? In Tiger you can't print without cups, its not an "extension". Yes, Apple used other printing subsystems in older releases of OS X, but from I believe, Panther, cups is whats used. As I said, core functionality.
First, I never said the Terminal.app contained any GPL software... and I said that was why it didn't apply. The use of bash doesn't change this.dr_lha said:
You are arguing a point which I never made here... we should stick to what I said if you wish to continue.
I would suggest reading more carefully before you post next time.Second, yes I do understand the GPL. My father was a law professor and I've been studying the GPL and it's implications (with his help) since 1997. I would happily offer my consulting services in this area if you would like some help in understanding the GPL (seeing as my background with it seems more solid than yours).
You were saying it was in Tiger when it is actually included with Mac OS X.
Mac OS X's print services are not based on CUPS nor is it dependent on CUPS. And CUPS was added in 10.2 and the version of CUPS in Mac OS X was given an exception from the GPL (it was Gimp Print that was added in 10.3).
Like most everything in Mac OS X, the print services were designed to be extendable and this is no different. CUPS added functionality but did not replace the print services. In fact Apple doesn't even offer technical support for CUPS issues (which means it is use at your own risk).
I can consult on issues of Mac OS X too if you need a tutorial.
You'll have a hard time finding anyone who has spent more time with this software (in all it's forms) than me.Shall we continue? I love arguing when all the facts are on my side.
Exactly, I was responding to your comment:RacerX said:
which as a sentance is totally wrong. The fact that Terminal.app lets you pick a shell is not *why* Terminal.app doesn't violate GPL.
Perhaps you should be more careful what you write next time?
Whereas my background is 10 years of Linux sysadmin experience; writing GPL software including Linux kernel modules. Trust me, I have a full understanding of GPL.Second, yes I do understand the GPL. My father was a law professor and I've been studying the GPL and it's implications (with his help) since 1997. I would happily offer my consulting services in this area if you would like some help in understanding the GPL (seeing as my background with it seems more solid than yours).
You're being pedantic here, I was simply using "Tiger" as a meme for Mac OS X as it currently exists. Next time I'll say Mac OS X instead of "Tiger" OK?
You are quite simply wrong here I'm afraid. The whole backend for Mac OS X printing in Tiger and Panther is based on CUPS. FACT. When I say backend I mean the part of the OS that handles the print queue and actually sending the data to the printer. CUPS is hidden from the user and programmer generally by the higher end printing interfaces in Cocoa and Carbon, but in the end everything you print goes through the cups.
Do me a favour. Go onto your box, and type "ps -ax | grep cups". Guess what? You'll see cupsd running, this is the print daemon on Tiger and Panther running. Try killing it and printing, see what happens.
Now take a look at /System/Library/LauchDaemons/printer.plist, and tell me what the "ProgramArguments" key says. Does it have the word "cups" in it anywhere?
Now take a look here:
http://developer.apple.com/document...tml#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP30000440-TP30000432
and read the first paragraph. Actually I'll quote it to you:
Let start from the beginning (as rereading or reading seems not to be your forte)...
Either you have reading problems or you are trying to pick a fight. Either way, you don't have much to stand on here... give it up.
None of that experience means anything when looking at legal documents. If I thought that anything close to or exceeding your background was enough, I wouldn't have gotten a professional opinion on it.
So no, I don't trust that you have a full understanding. And I would advise that you get legal counsel on the subject if it actually means anything to you. Note: That wasn't putting you down, that was sound advice for anyone.
Still, CUPS is not used by Apple under the GPL. And the reset of Apple's print services are not directly tied in with CUPS (anymore than they had been with spoolserv).
Which brings us back to the topic you needed to talk about... so lets review:
Well, there you have it. You could have not posted with how successful your GPL examples are (I'm glad you did because I didn't know Apple changed the status of CUPS, which I assume is now fully supported).
Of course just because those examples didn't work out doesn't mean you should stop trying... There are tons of people who have been trying to show that Apple has used GPL software within Mac OS X so that parts of Mac OS X would also fall under the GPL.
Like I said earlier, Apple is very careful about licensed software, specially the GPL.
Happy hunting.
dr_lha: There is plenty of GPL licensed software in Tiger. A few obvious ones are: bash - default shell in Terminal.app
RacerX: By the way, the Terminal.app has always let you install and use other shell scripts which is why the GPL doesn't apply to Terminal.app. NeXT/Apple originally used the Bourne Shell as the default shell in the Terminal.app which was covered by the BSD license. The fact that they now use bash (GNU's Bourne-Again Shell) shouldn't be that surprising.
dr_lha: No. Terminal app is a terminal program that doesn't contain any GPL code, that's why GPL doesn't apply. Do you actually understand the GPL?
I said that using bash in Terminal.app would not make the GPL apply to the Terminal.app, which is why bash can be used. There is no error in that statement and it is in all ways correct. Had bash been integrated into the Terminal.app, then the GPL would have applied... it is not, so it doesn't.RacerX: By the way, the Terminal.app has always let you install and use other shell scripts which is why the GPL doesn't apply to Terminal.app. NeXT/Apple originally used the Bourne Shell as the default shell in the Terminal.app which was covered by the BSD license. The fact that they now use bash (GNU's Bourne-Again Shell) shouldn't be that surprising.
dr_lha: No. Terminal app is a terminal program that doesn't contain any GPL code, that's why GPL doesn't apply. Do you actually understand the GPL?
-and-
which as a sentance is totally wrong. The fact that Terminal.app lets you pick a shell is not *why* Terminal.app doesn't violate GPL.Either you have reading problems or you are trying to pick a fight. Either way, you don't have much to stand on here... give it up.
Not if you read it with the same comprehension skills shown here today.
None of that experience means anything when looking at legal documents. If I thought that anything close to or exceeding your background was enough, I wouldn't have gotten a professional opinion on it.
So no, I don't trust that you have a full understanding. And I would advise that you get legal counsel on the subject if it actually means anything to you. Note: That wasn't putting you down, that was sound advice for anyone.
Well, it appears that you are right here... even though the documentation I got from Apple (dated 2005) doesn't show that it replaces spoolserv, it seems that it has.
Still, CUPS is not used by Apple under the GPL. And the reset of Apple's print services are not directly tied in with CUPS (anymore than they had been with spoolserv).
Which brings us back to the topic you needed to talk about... so lets review:
Well, let see where you stand on these...dr_lha said:
Samba isn't tied to the OS in any way that would make the GPL apply to Mac OS X,
bash isn't tied to the OS (or Apple software) in any way that would make the GPL apply,
CUPS is not used by Apple under the GPL, and
emacs is an application and isn't part of the OS or any Apple software.
bash isn't tied to the OS (or Apple software) in any way that would make the GPL apply,
CUPS is not used by Apple under the GPL, and
emacs is an application and isn't part of the OS or any Apple software.
Well, there you have it. You could have not posted with how successful your GPL examples are (I'm glad you did because I didn't know Apple changed the status of CUPS, which I assume is now fully supported).
Of course just because those examples didn't work out doesn't mean you should stop trying... There are tons of people who have been trying to show that Apple has used GPL software within Mac OS X so that parts of Mac OS X would also fall under the GPL.
Like I said earlier, Apple is very careful about licensed software, specially the GPL.
Happy hunting.
RacerX, I think you misunderstand my motives.
I am not trying to say that Apple is violating the GPL, simply that they use GPL software within Mac OS X. There is nothing wrong with this, quite the opposite, the reason those software packages were written is so they can be used.
I was simply pointing out the fact that software that is licensed under the GNU GPL is included on the Mac OS X Tiger DVD and default install, and provides functionality (printing, interaction with Windows Networks) that we Mac users have come to take for granted.
I think you may be mixing up the kernel with the OS. For Macs, XNU is the kernel, whereas Mac OS X 10.4 is the operating system. Just like Linux is a kernel and Debian is an operating system. If Apple included GPL'd code in XNU then they would be in violation of the GPL and be required to release their source code under the terms of the GPL. However they are free to distribute a non-linked GPL program along side that kernel with no problem.
The biggest "trap" of the GPL is linking proprietary software with a GPL licensed library, but this is why they invented the GNU LGPL ("Lesser General Public License") to specifically allow programs to do this without violating the license.
I am not trying to say that Apple is violating the GPL, simply that they use GPL software within Mac OS X. There is nothing wrong with this, quite the opposite, the reason those software packages were written is so they can be used.
I was simply pointing out the fact that software that is licensed under the GNU GPL is included on the Mac OS X Tiger DVD and default install, and provides functionality (printing, interaction with Windows Networks) that we Mac users have come to take for granted.
Yes I agree with this, but I never said anything about Terminal.app violating the GPL, you seemed to imply this from my original post for some reason. I have no idea why.
Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. However I would argue that Samba, bash, cups and emacs are all part of the "Operating System". However there is no problem with this, because the GNU GPL allows for these components to be distributed as part of an OS. Operating Systems can be part GPL and part proprietary without violating the GPL.
I think you may be mixing up the kernel with the OS. For Macs, XNU is the kernel, whereas Mac OS X 10.4 is the operating system. Just like Linux is a kernel and Debian is an operating system. If Apple included GPL'd code in XNU then they would be in violation of the GPL and be required to release their source code under the terms of the GPL. However they are free to distribute a non-linked GPL program along side that kernel with no problem.
The biggest "trap" of the GPL is linking proprietary software with a GPL licensed library, but this is why they invented the GNU LGPL ("Lesser General Public License") to specifically allow programs to do this without violating the license.
