Linked by moondevil on Wed 11th Jul 2012 22:49 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 526574
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-03-08
And I agree that one can defend Apple's weird EFI implementation with this argument, to some extent. But it kind of gives fuel to the OP's point that alternative OS development on the Mac is not just unsupported, but actively discouraged.
Though as another interpretation, which is arguably equally valid, Apple might also use their nonstandard firmwares as a form of hardware DRM. After all, if Macs just used plain standard UEFI, with a well-documented and predictable behaviour, nothing would prevent the hackintosh community from just running OSX on a PC with a similar configuration. There are plenty of UEFI-compatible mobos out there nowadays...
Edited 2012-07-12 20:52 UTC