Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 31st May 2009 22:07 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes Yes, it's been one busy week here at OSNews. We published a guide on how to build a computer that can run Mac OS X using an unaltered retail disc, and this guide became one of the most often-visited stories in a matter of days. On top of that, we had countless interesting and insightful discussions about Mono and Moonlight, the Linux Unified Kernel, switching to Mac OS X, the future of the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, and lots of other interesting stuff. Due to me being engulfed in university work, there is - again - no My Take this week. It might take a few weeks before I can get My Take back into the game - my apologies for that.
Order by: Score:
Cant stand 'My Take'
by Dirge on Sun 31st May 2009 23:53 UTC
Dirge
Member since:
2005-07-14

I enjoyed this edition of 'Week in Review' as it was more serious and to the point. I and am glad you have dropped the 'My Take'.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Cant stand 'My Take'
by righard on Mon 1st Jun 2009 00:21 UTC in reply to "Cant stand 'My Take'"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

I do like the 'my take'. Now it's just a sum of the week. Okay that might be the purose of a week in review ;) but without it there is no added value as to just reading the summaries of every page 1 aeticle.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Cant stand 'My Take'
by UltraZelda64 on Mon 1st Jun 2009 02:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Cant stand 'My Take'"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

I don't really pay much attention to these "week in review" articles anyway (after all, chances are, by the end of the week to me it's already old news), but I see no problem with the "My Take" section. In fact, it can add to the article, instead of just spouting the same old crap (the same exact stories from earlier). I say keep it.

Don't like it? Just... don't read it. Genius idea, eh? Stop as soon as you see the words "My Take." What's the problem? Why even complain? You're given the opportunity to completely skip it. But apparently some people would rather read it (or not) and complain.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Cant stand 'My Take'
by righard on Mon 1st Jun 2009 10:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cant stand 'My Take'"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

Is this a reply to my comment on purpose? Because I said that i DO like the 'make take' part.

Reply Score: 1

no apologies needed
by spikeb on Mon 1st Jun 2009 01:59 UTC
spikeb
Member since:
2006-01-18

it is much better without your take.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Mon 1st Jun 2009 03:12 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Pystar was a pointless operation given that they could have had better results going out and creating an easy to use FreeBSD based distribution based on KDE and spending what ever money they did on the Mac OS X hackery to instead filling in the gaps when it comes to FreeBSD + KDE on the desktop.

What the Pystar case tells me is that there is a whole generation of moochers who expect to make a buck quickly with no investment themselves. I don't expect things to change anytime soon - what investors or 'entrepreneurs' what is a product within a year and a profit within 18 months; it is unrealistic and yet we have people expecting that an alternative desktop to Windows can just spring out of no where. If an alternative were to arrive and based on FreeBSD along with a desktop ontop which is shipped with hardware sold by the same company, it would take atleast 2-3 years worth of development to get it up to scratch - something that most investors aren't willing to wait.

Until we see an eccentric investor willing to wait 2-3 years and a CEO who is willing to lay down a design coupled with a team of programmers who put their egos aside in favour of just building the damn thing - I don't see an alternative to the Mac OS X/Windows duopoly anytime soon. FreeBSD and KDE have the raw materials needed for a great desktop - the problem is that there isn't someone willing to invest the money and turn it into a viable business because of the short term view that investors have (and the current financial crisis is the epitome of what is wrong with the current system).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by alcibiades on Mon 1st Jun 2009 03:36 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

kaiwai,

Surely they were just offering a service and trying to profit from demand for it? Its hard to see anything wrong with that. At one level, it was just saying to people, you want a Hackintosh but don't want to make your own, let us do it for you for a fee.

Lots of us make a good living from stuff like that. We go out and fix peoples machines, we go and configure their networks. We don't do anything particularly creative, we just reuse software other people have made. Well, maybe we write little scripts. What is wrong with it? Its called delivering a service, its a very legitimate activity.

The lesson of Psystar may not be this. It may be that what is important to people about Macs is that they are branded Apple. It may be like those funny little logos people used to like to have on their shirt pockets to show they were wearing something branded Lacoste or Lauren. Its not using OSX that is important, its actually having a Mac?

So Psystar had got it wrong. They were delivering a valid service, but one that there is no market for. It may be a myth that there's huge demand for generic hardware running OSX. As the faithful keep saying, the problem is, they are not Macs. The important thing about this is not that they are functionally any different or worse. But they do not have that magic brand on them. It doesn't feel the same to be sitting in Starbucks with a Dell, even if it runs OSX perfectly!

Someone once said to me that in his street, his neighbors would not be seen dead in a Ford. Jaguars would be fine I suppose, that is, Fords, but branded Jaguar. For Mac users it may be similar, it really matters what it is you are being seen in, or with.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Mon 1st Jun 2009 03:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Surely they were just offering a service and trying to profit from demand for it? Its hard to see anything wrong with that. At one level, it was just saying to people, you want a Hackintosh but don't want to make your own, let us do it for you for a fee.


No, they are moochers. Mac OS X is subsidised by hardware sales and thus they are mooching off Apple's hard work.

Lots of us make a good living from stuff like that. We go out and fix peoples machines, we go and configure their networks. We don't do anything particularly creative, we just reuse software other people have made. Well, maybe we write little scripts. What is wrong with it? Its called delivering a service, its a very legitimate activity.


Which has nothing to do with the fact that Pystar was mooching by hacking up a product (Mac OS X) whose development costs are subsidised by hardware sales; they have contributed no money to the development of Mac OS X by sharing the profits from their hardware sales back to Apple - thus they have mooched off Apple's hard work.

Apple has a business model that relies on hardware sales supporting their operating system sales; that is no different than console companies whose model is based on games vendors paying royalties to console companies for the right to have access to the said platform.

The lesson of Psystar may not be this. It may be that what is important to people about Macs is that they are branded Apple. It may be like those funny little logos people used to like to have on their shirt pockets to show they were wearing something branded Lacoste or Lauren. Its not using OSX that is important, its actually having a Mac?

So Psystar had got it wrong. They were delivering a valid service, but one that there is no market for. It may be a myth that there's huge demand for generic hardware running OSX. As the faithful keep saying, the problem is, they are not Macs. The important thing about this is not that they are functionally any different or worse. But they do not have that magic brand on them. It doesn't feel the same to be sitting in Starbucks with a Dell, even if it runs OSX perfectly!

Someone once said to me that in his street, his neighbors would not be seen dead in a Ford. Jaguars would be fine I suppose, that is, Fords, but branded Jaguar. For Mac users it may be similar, it really matters what it is you are being seen in, or with.


Thank you for throwing every one into the same basket - way to go for stereotyping. I own a Mac because I like Mac OS X. If Apple tomorrow licenced Mac OS X to Dell, HP and Lenovo - I'd go out and purchase a Thinkpad and ThinkCentre straight away. I don't care about logo's and what is and isn't cool - your post was nothing more than a adhomen attack on people who use a product that you have no interest in purchasing. You don't have any interest in owning a Mac, good for you, but don't turn around and make that pathetic high and mighty assertion that all Mac users are incompetent idiots who are simply there because it is the 'in thing'. I use a Mac because that is what I enjoy using - nothing to do with 'what is cool' and everything to do with personal preference.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by Bobthearch on Mon 1st Jun 2009 05:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27


No, they are moochers. Mac OS X is subsidised by hardware sales and thus they are mooching off Apple's hard work.


Your posts are generally well thought out and insightful. But I cannot agree with your assertion that Psystar are "moochers" or otherwise immoral for using OSX on their computer builds.

Psystar purchased the OSX copies at full retail prices through perfectly legal channels, including directly from Apple. Apple makes good money on stand-alone sales of OSX. Being the #25 best-selling item on Amazon, they've probably sold enough OSX copies to pay for the R&D ten times over.

And what about Dell, Gateway, IBM, Asus, and a thousand other companies who build computers without writing their own operating systems? Are they "moochers" too? How about Apple themselves, aren't they "mooching" by using NVIDIA's graphic cards?

And so what if Apple subsidizes their OS R&D by overcharging for hardware? That's their decision of course, but it doesn't affect the legality or morality of someone using their operating system packages on other computers.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 1st Jun 2009 06:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I hear this argument all the time, but... Where is the proof of this? Windows Vista Home Premium costs 99 EUR here, so Mac OS X' 120 EUR isn't far off. I would finally like some proof concerning this statement, because it gets presented as fact all the time, even though it's never been proven.

And even if it was true... What's the problem? Is it against the law to profit off companies? In what universe is it my, or Psystar's, concern that Apple decides to sell its *stand-alone retail copy* of Mac OS X below costs? Why should I treat them extra special nice because of that?

They sure as well won't treat *you* extra special nice!

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by alcibiades on Mon 1st Jun 2009 09:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

I think its correct. What it does is allow Apple to move people who want OSX to higher priced hardware than they need to buy on the merits of their application. So they get both a higher total price per computer, and also the higher margins that they make. The result is a great deal of money.

Its the same reason why they will never introduce an X-Mac. Its lower priced hardware, probably lower margin, and would cream the Pro.

But where you are on to something is this. In effect they are using OSX's attraction to extract value in a very indirect way, by exploiting it to boost hardware sales. But that has heavy associated costs. I do think its a very open question whether they might do better to drop hardware altogether, get all the costs out, and raise the price of OSX to what the market will bear.

No company will ever contemplate such a radical step while the sun is shining though, and it certainly has been shining for them recently.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Mon 1st Jun 2009 10:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I hear this argument all the time, but... Where is the proof of this? Windows Vista Home Premium costs 99 EUR here, so Mac OS X' 120 EUR isn't far off. I would finally like some proof concerning this statement, because it gets presented as fact all the time, even though it's never been proven.


Heard of a thing called 'economies of scale'?

And even if it was true... What's the problem? Is it against the law to profit off companies? In what universe is it my, or Psystar's, concern that Apple decides to sell its *stand-alone retail copy* of Mac OS X below costs? Why should I treat them extra special nice because of that?

They sure as well won't treat *you* extra special nice!


There is a licence and Apple's business model - I showed the link between the two and you keep chanting naked around the camp fire making claims that ignore reality in favour of your desire simply to get a cheap Mac. Put your whims and desires aside for a second and look at it from the stand point of a Apple - not from your desire to get a cheap Mac.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by macUser on Mon 1st Jun 2009 18:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
macUser Member since:
2006-12-15

I hear this argument all the time, but... Where is the proof of this? Windows Vista Home Premium costs 99 EUR here, so Mac OS X' 120 EUR isn't far off. I would finally like some proof concerning this statement, because it gets presented as fact all the time, even though it's never been proven.

And even if it was true... What's the problem? Is it against the law to profit off companies? In what universe is it my, or Psystar's, concern that Apple decides to sell its *stand-alone retail copy* of Mac OS X below costs? Why should I treat them extra special nice because of that?

They sure as well won't treat *you* extra special nice!


Look at it this way, if Apple is forced to respond to this by either raising the price of the OS or limiting it's purchase to registered Mac owners who wins?

The hackintosh community?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 1st Jun 2009 19:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Look at it this way, if Apple is forced to respond to this by either raising the price of the OS or limiting it's purchase to registered Mac owners who wins?

The hackintosh community?


I actually AM a registered Mac owners. Several Macs, in fact. And how would that work? Should I bring in my 600kg G4 when I want to buy Mac OS X?

You didn't actually answer my question, though. Mac fans claim continuously that Mac OS X is subsidised by hardware sales, but I've never actually seen ANY proof of this. so, where does this come from?

You see, Windows isn't more expensive than Mac OS X (99 EUR here vs. 120 EUR for Mac OS X), so I'm wondering why Apple's operating system is supposed to be subsidised by hardware sales, while Windows is not - even though Windows requires a whole lot more engineers if only for the gazillion billion drivers it comes with.

So, again, I ask: PROOF.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai
by macUser on Mon 1st Jun 2009 21:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai"
macUser Member since:
2006-12-15

"Look at it this way, if Apple is forced to respond to this by either raising the price of the OS or limiting it's purchase to registered Mac owners who wins?

The hackintosh community?


I actually AM a registered Mac owners. Several Macs, in fact. And how would that work? Should I bring in my 600kg G4 when I want to buy Mac OS X?

You didn't actually answer my question, though. Mac fans claim continuously that Mac OS X is subsidised by hardware sales, but I've never actually seen ANY proof of this. so, where does this come from?

You see, Windows isn't more expensive than Mac OS X (99 EUR here vs. 120 EUR for Mac OS X), so I'm wondering why Apple's operating system is supposed to be subsidised by hardware sales, while Windows is not - even though Windows requires a whole lot more engineers if only for the gazillion billion drivers it comes with.

So, again, I ask: PROOF.
"

Any you didn't answer my question!

Who wins when Apple has to go to the banality that is registration, etc? How would it work? Your Macs have serial numbers don't they? Or did yours come with them filed off?

As to what the real price of MOSX is? I honestly don't know. I believe Apple will go the lock down route before raising the price. I do know that in economies of scale, MS has much more volume so the prices can come down. Perhaps we'll find out should Apple lose it case...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 1st Jun 2009 06:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

No, they are moochers. Mac OS X is subsidised by hardware sales and thus they are mooching off Apple's hard work.


I hear this argument all the time, but... Where is the proof of this? Windows Vista Home Premium costs 99 EUR here, so Mac OS X' 120 EUR isn't far off. I would finally like some proof concerning this statement, because it gets presented as fact all the time, even though it's never been proven.

And even if it was true... What's the problem? Is it against the law to profit off companies? In what universe is it my, or Psystar's, concern that Apple decides to sell its *stand-alone retail copy* of Mac OS X below costs? Why should I treat them extra special nice because of that?

They sure as well won't treat *you* extra special nice!

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by Mellin on Mon 1st Jun 2009 22:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

mac os x is more like vista ultimate not the slightly crippled home version

Reply Score: 2

iFrodo
Member since:
2009-06-01

I've read your Hackintosh article and looked at the software you used to achieve the installation (Boot 123 and the drivers package particularly).

They do no miracle and part of their code are based on Apple's kernel extensions code being modified to crack the protections implemented in the original kext.

So not only the procedure violates the EULA which requires an Apple BRANDED (not just labeled) computer but also violates copyright laws in the USA and internationally, as it uses modified copyrighted code.

So the procedure is not at all legal even if you used unmodified Leopard DVD.

What I wonder on the subject is why nobody has tried to do a class-action against Apple if so much people seem to disagree with the EULA term saying that you can install Mac OS X only on an Apple branded computer. I'm not american but as far as I know this procedure that exists in the US allow US citizen to group themselves to sue a company.

So this would be perfectly suited to remove the legal barrier of the EULA (dont forget to tell also to the court that you want also the court to condemn Apple to put all the resources they have to help making Mac OS X installation on PCs possible.
Because if not, you'll still have to crack the existing protections and so modify or use other hackers modified copyrighted software (kernel extensions for instance like AppleDecrypt.kext), which would still make the install illegal regarding copyright laws.

Edited 2009-06-01 07:37 UTC

Reply Score: 1

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

....So not only the procedure violates the EULA which requires an Apple BRANDED (not just labeled) computer but also violates copyright laws in the USA and internationally, as it uses modified copyrighted code.

So the procedure is not at all legal even if you used unmodified Leopard DVD.


This is a common mistake. US copyright law gives you the right to modify in order to make your lawful copy interwork or install. By the way, US copyright law also protects your right to tell others how to do it, and you may instruct and authorize others to do it on your behalf. You may not redistribute the altered copies without consent. Thom has not done that.

So Thom broke the EULA. But he did not do anything to contravene US copyright law.

Kaiwai,

I didn't mean to personally insult you and Mac users. What I intended was an account of the possible dynamics of the market. I think it could be that the Hackintosh will fail as a product no matter who offers it, because apart from a few technical people, there may be no demand for it, and the reason for that may be that part of the appeal of the Mac is the Apple brand. That is the one thing that the Hackintosh maker cannot deliver. He can only deliver OSX, which may be enough for you and the other knowledgeable buyers, but won't be enough for the general public.

Reply Score: 3

Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

They do no miracle and part of their code are based on Apple's kernel extensions code being modified to crack the protections implemented in the original kext.


Which kexts are you referring too? What information I can find on boot-132 indicates that it includes some additional kexts I.e. drivers for hardware you don't find in a "real" Mac, or replacement kexts that over-write the standard Apple ones, that have been written by third parties.

Because if not, you'll still have to crack the existing protections and so modify or use other hackers modified copyrighted software (kernel extensions for instance like AppleDecrypt.kext), which would still make the install illegal regarding copyright laws.


According to the information I can find, AppleDecrypt.kext is legal to distribute (It is licensed under the GPL even). From a post elsewhere dated August 8th 2008:

The only legal file to distribute at this time is the latest AppleDecrypt.kext because it does not include the key or poem, the source is GNU-GPL and PsyStar is currently in possession of the source.


The problem is that finding any solid information on boot-132 is surprisingly difficult. If you have a better source of information or could point out where exactly the Apple copyrighted components are in boot-132 I'd be very interested.

Reply Score: 2

Apologies?
by sinnerman on Mon 1st Jun 2009 19:31 UTC
sinnerman
Member since:
2009-03-30

Oh the horror! No "My Take" from Thom!? what are we ever to do all those weeks without the deep and highly significant insight from the esteemed Thom Holwerda. Who is going to tell us to go and slap stickers on nameless PCs to magically turn them into Macs!? This calls for a continuous candle-light vigil until our guiding light returns.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Apologies?
by David on Tue 2nd Jun 2009 03:08 UTC in reply to "Apologies?"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

Are you being sarcastic? :-)

Reply Score: 1

after osx86 havent looked back.
by anshu on Tue 2nd Jun 2009 11:41 UTC
anshu
Member since:
2005-09-03

well its nice of you thom to write OSx86 article, i am sure many users benefited from it.

I have started using OSx86 project on my hp laptop (and custom desktop) I have totally forgotten about Linux (it feels sad not bad) . its perfect smooth sailing , I can use most of my linux commands already and I can ssh to my datacenter and do my job with no problems.

i miss visiting linux sites, like this one . ;)

Reply Score: 1