Apple Closes Kernel Source on OSX x86

Daily Tech ^ | May 17, 2006 11:36 PM | Tuan Nguyen

[Golden Eagle]

So much for those who claim opening your source code somehow makes it more secure.

[Golden Eagle]

ping

[isthisnickcool]

So much for those who claim opening your source code somehow makes it more secure...

Hey! I'm running open source and my blixnick scrabble numblix is totally OK!

[Golden Eagle]

LOL

[HAL9000]

Perhaps Apple will announce their policy on kernel source at the WWDC in August. The kernel source remains available for PowerPC Macs. The kernel for Intel Macs is likely to change when the PowerMac and XServe replacements are announced.

Also - Speculation is rampant that Mach, which is a component of the OS X kernel, will be axed from OS X 10.5 (Leopard).

[Golden Eagle]

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.

[HAL9000]

After Apple deploys a hypervisor with anti-piracy controls, the Intel kernel source will be published.

[Golden Eagle]

For what purpose?

[Swordmaker]

Mac techy PING... Apple closes Mac OSX86 Kernel...

If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.

[martin_fierro]

Thanx, but I'm more the iPod Ping guy.

[antiRepublicrat]

So much for those who claim opening your source code somehow makes it more secure.

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.

[kmiller1k]

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?

[Swordmaker]

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...

[SunkenCiv]

...and then there are some software colonels which shouldn't have been opened in the first place:

[TheBattman]

Won't work - The Mini has "integrated graphics", meaning that it won't live up to the heavy graphics needs of said games.

[Golden Eagle]

This has nothing to do with security. It's only about Apple maintaining its business model.

They go hand in hand, obviously, to anyone who isn't constantly pushing open source.

[antiRepublicrat]

They go hand in hand, obviously

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."

[antiRepublicrat]

The Core Dual are limited to 32 bit right now. When the Tower units are released, they will most likely be 64bit.

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.

[DesScorp]

"So much for those who claim opening your source code somehow makes it more secure."

Apples and Oranges. Opening the source makes the code more secure against malware and hack attempts. Thats not what this story was about, but thanks anyway for your Straw Man.

[Golden Eagle]

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?