Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 14th Feb 2006 22:49 UTC, submitted by jayson.knight
Mac OS X It seems like flee-in-Apple's-fur, cracker 'Maxxuss', has succeeded in cracking Mac OS 10.4.4 for Intel. "We were just about to hunker down and wait through the cold winter and a wet spring until we saw some results on the OS X 10.4.4 for Intel hacking efforts, but it looks like we're getting a little Valentines present from 'Maxxuss' who has already broken through Apple's heightened security that is present in their shipping version of the OS. It's just a preliminary release, not all hardware is supported and it requires a bit of futzing around to get it to work, but seeing as we weren't expecting this kind of breakthrough this early, we really can't complain."
Thread beginning with comment 95615
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: hmm..
by porcel on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:21 UTC in reply to "RE: hmm.."
porcel
Member since:
2006-01-28

And apparently, there is a market for wanna-be editors who never went to journalism school but boost their ego by putting down the efforts of others who are far more capable than them.

Guess what, people don't like limitations or being told that you can only use this software on this hardware because I control you and what you can do.

The quest for freedom is a universal human need.

Go ahead, mod me down to kingdom come. It will just show your immaturity

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: hmm..
by cujo on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:33 in reply to "RE[2]: hmm.."
cujo Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, it shows yours.

People also don't like speed limits or the price of gas. That doesn't mean you should go to whatever lengths to get your way.

The quest for freedom is a universal human need eh? Spare the world your self-righteous load of bull. This isn't about slavery or breaking free of social injustice. This is about some guy doing something that everyone here knows isn't legit.

If you think this is legit, give it away yourself. And don't forget to put your name, address, and phone number on it.

Thom's comment may have been ill-advised, but the underlying idea is in the right ballpark.

Reply Parent Score: 3

v RE[4]: hmm..
by monkeyhead on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:53 in reply to "RE[3]: hmm.."
RE[4]: hmm..
by Get a Life on Wed 15th Feb 2006 08:05 in reply to "RE[3]: hmm.."
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

Yes, being able to modify software and use it as you see fit on your own computer(s) is comparable to speeding (hypothetically endangering the lives others) or not paying for gasoline (not compensating another party for physical goods).

If you buy an Intel-based Mac and want to run the operating system on your Pentium 4, that's between you and your software. That others can acquire OS X without compensating Apple for it might be a side-effect, but it's not an especially sympathetic one. Every software provider has to deal with copyright infringement. That doesn't justify or invalidate any position you hold toward copyright infringement, but if you've ever pirated anything, ever, you're a hypocrite. If you think it's any more acceptable to pirate anything else, then you're a hypocrite.

But piracy is obviously not the only incentive, and no unenforceable EULA changes that.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: hmm..
by alcibiades on Wed 15th Feb 2006 08:32 in reply to "RE[3]: hmm.."
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

"People also don't like speed limits or the price of gas. That doesn't mean you should go to whatever lengths to get your way."

Breaking the law, and breaking your contract, are two different things. Driving too fast is breaking the law and you can be prosecuted by the police/District Attorney/Crown Prosecution Service on behalf of the people.

Breaking your contract is perfectly legal, though it may be unwise. You cannot be prosecuted by the police/DA/CPS. You can be taken to court by your counterparty, and the court can impose penalties. Whether it will enforce the contract depends on its provisions.

Violating copyright is breaking the law.

Now, installing OSX on your Dell is not violating copyright. It is not breaking any law at all. It is not stealing. It may be violating a contract (the Eula), and the provision of that contractwhich forbids it may be enforceable in law in some jurisdictions.

Not, however, in Europe.

Now could we for goodness' sake have a calm and rational debate which starts from these facts.

And perhaps the editors could check, while they are at it, that the spectre of multiple registrations and modding up by Apple zealots has not returned? There is a strong smell of fish around some of these comments and mods.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: hmm..
by DevL on Tue 14th Feb 2006 23:34 in reply to "RE[2]: hmm.."
DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

I think your misinterpreted Thom.

He's not putting down the efforts of Maxxuss (for hacking 10.4.4) - he's questioning the reasoning behind trying to obtain a free lunch.

And no, the "freedom" to run Mac OS X on the hardware of your choise is NOT a human need and by implying it is you're making a mockery out of all the people in the world living under dictatorship!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: hmm..
by Get a Life on Wed 15th Feb 2006 08:13 in reply to "RE[3]: hmm.."
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

As long as you aren't causing physical harm to others or your environment, what are acceptable restrictions that sellers may place upon all goods sold? Do I get to tell you how to read your books? Where you hang your copy of my painting? What you can mix with my vodka? Do I get to dictate what you run on your Xbox? What arbitrary asinine restrictions are acceptable, knowing fully that I will apply them to any product you license or purchase.

You know, just because people suffer under incomprehensible hardships caused by a different concept of empathy and justice, doesn't mean that arbitrary restrictions in a more 'free' society are acceptable. If you live in a country that says that healthcare is a universal right and it's denied to someone, is your belief invalidated because someone is having their feet cut off by an oppressive government somewhere else?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: hmm..
by somebody on Wed 15th Feb 2006 00:46 in reply to "RE[2]: hmm.."
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Guess what, people don't like limitations or being told that you can only use this software on this hardware because I control you and what you can do.

So if you like some car and man owning that car doesn't want to sell i to you? What? You're legaly correct if you simply steal his car? And please spare me with excuse that software is different. It is different only until you don't start to live from writing it. After that your viewpoint changes with a U-turn. Suddenly, commercial becomes commercial and free becomes free.

The quest for freedom is a universal human need.

Yes, quest for freedom, yes. But hacking/pirating software is not different from stealing. In my case, if I (or any developer/company) want some software of mine (or theirs) to be free (and it accounts for about 30% in my case) I give it out and I'm prepared to help anyone. If not, then you have to buy it in order to use it. And no, you're no better than thief in my eyes if you avoid my wishes.

Any other kind of thinking just shows your lack of respect for work of others (and the fact that your ass is probably your personal horizon).

Edited 2006-02-15 00:57

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: hmm..
by rayiner on Wed 15th Feb 2006 00:56 in reply to "RE[3]: hmm.."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

So if you like some car and man owning that car doesn't want to sell i to you? What? You're legaly correct if you simply steal his car?

And that, folks, is what is known in discourse as a "strawman argument".

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: hmm..
by Johan on Wed 15th Feb 2006 04:45 in reply to "RE[2]: hmm.."
Johan Member since:
2005-06-30

The quest for freedom is a universal human need.

That's the biggest bullshit argument I've ever heard. If you're going to swindle Apple, just shutup and do it quietly. Don't hide behind the some idealism, trying to justify to yourself you're doing this for the good of mankind. There is no honour in breaking promises.

Apple only wants to sell OSX to people their hardware, that's the only way they can cover the costs and make a profit out of the enormous financial investments they put into developing the OS. They just can't justify the costs of development if the hardware costs are not included. If everyone bought OSX but not Apple machines, Apple will lose money. So theres an agreement that you can only install osx into Apple computers.

We all know this. You can argue the legality till the cows come home. If the current law cannot uphold this basic agreement, than its the failure of the system. But by actively trying to break this agreement, its ethically wrong. So don't try to claim some moral reason for dishonouring that agreement.

Apple is free to sell their products in any way they choose, and they do not force it upon anybody. You are free to not buy their products. But by dishonouring the agreement, and making them lose money, you are infringing on their freedom to make a living.

One does not have the freedom to infringe upon the freedom of others.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: hmm..
by archiesteel on Wed 15th Feb 2006 04:59 in reply to "RE[3]: hmm.."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Apple is free to sell their products in any way they choose, and they do not force it upon anybody. You are free to not buy their products. But by dishonouring the agreement, and making them lose money, you are infringing on their freedom to make a living.

I'm sorry, but if Apple choses the wrong business model, it is their own problem. They are free to sell their products any way they choose, but that doesn't mean that the model they chose is sound...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: hmm..
by rayiner on Wed 15th Feb 2006 05:16 in reply to "RE[3]: hmm.."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

They just can't justify the costs of development if the hardware costs are not included. If everyone bought OSX but not Apple machines, Apple will lose money. So theres an agreement that you can only install osx into Apple computers.

If I were Apple, I'd be hesitant about basing my entire business model on a pseudo-contract that is on shakey legal ground even in the US, and is obviously not valid in some countries around the world. Of course, Apple is smarter than that. They count on the vast majority of users simply accepting that what's on the box is the law, and never challenging that idea. History suggests that they are right in believing this. However, that does not change the fact that there is thus nothing wrong with taking advantage of what you are legally allowed to do.

We all know this. You can argue the legality till the cows come home. If the current law cannot uphold this basic agreement, than its the failure of the system.

You speak as if having copyright holders dictate the terms of use is a good thing. Pesonally, I'm glad the system fails to uphold such a policy! I'm glad I live somewhere where, at least in theory if not in practice, the power of people over the actions of others is limited as much as possible. It's basic western thinking, though consumerism has diluted the power of the ideas somewhat.

Of course, at the very lowest level, its not a matter of ideology, but one of reality. The law is what it is. Apple maximizes its profit as much as it can within the law. I am, therefore, perfectly entitled to maximize my utility as much as I can within the law.

But by actively trying to break this agreement, its ethically wrong.

What is ethically wrong is basing your business model on the coercion of your customers.

But by dishonouring the agreement, and making them lose money, you are infringing on their freedom to make a living.

In the United States, people are not granted to make a living however they choose. They are granted the right to do so within the bounds of the law. If your business model depends on your customers obeying terms that they have no legal obligation to, that's your problem. Society is not obliged to make your business model work for you. I could very well start a bakery based on the "take a cookie, leave a dollar" model. Hell, I'd even have more legal standing to take people to court for violating that policy than Apple would for violating their EULA. But my business would likely not succeed, and society would not be obliged to see that it did.

Edited 2006-02-15 05:20

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: hmm..
by kaiwai on Thu 16th Feb 2006 01:15 in reply to "RE[2]: hmm.."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, lets skip the bit about control and maybe lets assume the guy wanted a challenge? hell, he probably has NO interest in running the operating system itself, he just probably finds the whole idea of studying software security an interesting past time.

Some people tweak their cars, others like to play role playing games, and in his case, he likes disecting software and trying to work out how it ticks - and personally, I think its a good thing.

As for the viability of this; I'd say that Apple has only put some very rudamentry software protection in it, just enough to piss people off and simply work to fix the issues with each service pack - in otherwords, if one were to run it on their own machine, they would always be behind the eight ball.

With MacOS X 10.5 around the corner, this is probably the time where Apple will really push up the notch when it comes to security, they would have had over 18 months to come up with a security stratergy that takes advantage of all the features - lets remember guys, there are only limited things you can do in 6months in respects to getting MacOS X up and running, and secure on the x86 platform.

Couple that with the fact that there are limited drivers, and basically you're reliant on using the same motherboard and processor specifications as what the Mac uses, the 'great freedom' people herald on about is nothing more than a fictional fantasy; It would be a hard pressed task to find that same components as Apple and put them together in a beige box cheaper than Apple can, because unlike Joe Basement Geek, Apple gets volume discounts.

Reply Parent Score: 1