If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 05/18/2006 5:33:02 PM PDT by Golden Eagle
Apple tells hacks to stay out of its kernel
Since before its release, Apple's OS X for the Intel platform had been circulating the Internet in many places, and many had been running the operating system for months ahead of Apple's own release schedules.
Thanks to cunning hackery by famed OS X hacker Maxxuss, many were able to install the protected operating system on generic machines. Apple had implemented a check for a trusted platform module (TPM) chip that was integrated on specific Intel motherboards, which when detected, allowed the installation of OS X. When Apple had finally released a the full fledged x86 version of OS X, the company had switched from BIOS support over to EFI, Intel's new firmware model. This move put a major roadblock in for pirates and those who installed OS X without proper licenses.
Now, Apple has decided to remove the source kernel from OS X for the x86 platform. Because OS X is based on the BSD platform, and most *nix OSes have their kernels open, it was possible for people to modify and recompile OS X's mach kernel. In the *nix universe, kernels are often modified and recompiled for various reasons such as security, speed and reliability. Due to the sheer number of people running illegal copies of OS X x86, Apple lawyers have found it necessary to close the kernel down.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailytech.com ...
ping
Hey! I'm running open source and my blixnick scrabble numblix is totally OK!
LOL
I don't see any advantages to keeping their kernel open source, no matter what it's comprised of in the future. It only allows their competitors and distractors to steal their technology and put it in pure freeware products that threaten Apple's position and market, if not pirate the entire O/S.
After Apple deploys a hypervisor with anti-piracy controls, the Intel kernel source will be published.
For what purpose?
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
This has nothing to do with security. It's only about Apple maintaining its business model.
On one hand they took from open source and now refuse to give anymore back. On the other hand, I (unlike you) respect right of the original authors to release their source under whatever license they wish. If they're happy with Apple's actions (and they should be given they released their software under a license that allows this), then I have no real say in the matter.
Do you know of anyone who has purchased a dual core mini and running XP games???? I desperately want a Mac but my teenage son has to have a 64 bit AND processor to run his faves. Would it work?
The 64bit is the killer at the moment. The Core Dual are limited to 32 bit right now. When the Tower units are released, they will most likely be 64bit. Go ahead and buy the Mac and just tell the kid he has to play 32 bit games...
Won't work - The Mini has "integrated graphics", meaning that it won't live up to the heavy graphics needs of said games.
They go hand in hand, obviously, to anyone who isn't constantly pushing open source.
No, they don't. Security through obscurity is a fallacy. This has its foundation all the way back to Kerckhoffs' Law in the 1800s. It is at most a light short-term speedbump to attackers.
I know, time for you to Google again to figure out what I'm talking about. Too bad Google uses the communist Linux extensively. In case your Googling skills are lame at the moment, the importance of the law can be summed up as:
"A system must not be required to be secret. It must be able to fall into the enemy's hands without inconvenience."
They definitely will be. The big question is when Apple will replace the Core Duo in its laptops with the 64-bit Core 2 laptop chip ("Merom"). The chip release date is August, so any time after that. I'm sure Apple is in a hurry to get everything back to 64-bit since they were pushing it so hard with the G5.
Closed source is by nature less accessible than open source. To argue otherwise is to claim you magically know what's behind door #3 without having actually seen what's there. So are you a superior being, or are your claims the usual bunk?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
