Apple Embeds Message to OS X Hackers

zentechno writes "Apple has confirmed it embedded a message in the form of a poem to those who would hack its version of OS X on Intel hardware." From the article: "The embedded poem reads: 'Your karma check for today: There once was a user that whined/his existing OS was so blind/he'd do better to pirate/an OS that ran great/but found his hardware declined./Please don't steal Mac OS!/Really, that's way uncool./(C) Apple Computer, Inc.'Apple also put in a separate hidden message, 'Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext,' in another spot for would-be hackers."

Sense of humor...

Seems Apple has a sense of humor - Bill Gates could learn a little from them.

Re:Sense of humor...

Apple has always had a sense of humor, unlike the darthwader of the sofware kingdom. One thing I remember specifically was when they had an internal code name called Sagan for a new Mac they were working on. When Carl Sagan heard of this, he threatned to sue Apple. Apple promptly renamed the project to BHA (Butt Head Astronomer).

Re:Sense of humor...

For those wondering who Darthwader is, he is the aquatic equivalent of darth vader.

This post brought to you by the Slashdot Spellchecker [TM]

huh

Would be hackers?

Given the fact that there are sites dedicated to porting OSX, the "Would be" is a matter of opinion.

Re:huh

BTW - Here's the site that Apple is pissed over

maxxuss [hotbox.ru]

Re:huh

their legal department did tell osx86project.org/ to close their forums and take down info about running OS X on non-Apple hardware and claimed DMCA as their justification. while there is the issue of people stealing OS X to try this, they also don't want it running on non-Apple hardware. there is more info on their now explaining their version of the story.

as a lot of Mac people have said...... if this is what makes Apple adopt MS-like security measures for the OS i will be unhappy. for those that don't use OS X, you have NEVER had to put in a serial number or do any authorization to install it. compared to some of the chaos MS users have had, i am thankful that Apple never had to worry about this so far. i buy every OS X release, but it's really nice not to have to deal with that. since i won't be trying to install Apple software of non-apple os i can be grumpy and say it would suck if they ruin it for us because they have to prove their extreme hacking skills.

Re:huh

Not exactly: Reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated... [osx86project.org]

Don't be

a prick. slashdot is a little late on stories because a) they have paid subscribers that get to the stories a little earlier and b) because slashdot actually has moderators. They come up with a good headline, a proper description to start off a meaningful discussion.

Basically, you come here for the discussion, go to digg.com for the speed.

From the Pretty please department...

Screw that this is straight from the hackers keyboard!

That's not bad...

Not bad, but I think a limerick would have been much better. Any creative hackers want to give it a try?

Here, I'll give you a start:
There once was a man from Nantucket...

Oh nevermind...

Re:That's not bad...

There once was a man from Nantucket...

Who saw another BSOD and said f..k it

Re:That's not bad...

Hey that's good.

There once was a man from Nantucket,
Who saw another BSOD and said fuck it,
He couldn't get any sex,
So he installed OS X,
With love that requires a mop and bucket.

Re:That's not bad...

Haiku:

Bad axe in apple tree
Please do not steal our fucking
OS you bastards

Dupe!

It's obvious that the Slashdot story approvers are applying for jobs at the USPTO :)

News: ScuttleMonkey Embeds Dupe Into Slashdot

At least, I could have sworn that this topic was posted to this site last week.

Translation

Dear Crackers,
In anticipation of the Intel switch, we believe we have made our legal department 4-5X faster too. We're actively looking to test and confirm those benchmarks.
XOXO, Steve

Re:Translation

Dear Apple:

There once was a rich man named steve-
For some reason he did believe,
That the very best way
Was keep hackers at bay
But we all know that soon he will grieve.

For squillions of geeks
'Tis but a few weeks
Till OSX runs on a dell
Eventually
This our steve will see
And 'twill be a cold day in hell.

Shareholders get mad
When their shiny doo-dad
Must learn to stand by itself.
But that day is here
And when dust has cleared,
I assure thee OSX on a shelf.

It's funny...

...because it's true (The content of the poem that is). I don't mind people playing around to see if they can get it running on their systems but when they go as far as the release the cracked versions with the intent to use them without even paying for it that is when it gets wrong.

And the Sequel:

There once was a geek who was bored
All other systems he'd explored
So he added one more to his hoard
Though against his methods the vendor implored.

Re:And the Sequel:

There once was a geek with some time
To write a few poems that did rhyme
But he butchered the meter
And then didn't delete 'er
Since he was apparently wholly unable to count the number of syllables on a line.
 

Cute, but...

It lacks balls, and it makes them sound very naive. What I like better is the Russian message that VAX's had embedded in their microchips for soviet engineers to find: "VAX: When you care enough to steal, steal from the best."

Now that's what I'm talking about.

When you care to quote correctly...

"VAX - when you care enough to steal the very best"

Forgot...

There is a lot of this type of chip art... Here's a link: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/creatures/pages/russia ns.html [fsu.edu] Don't feel bad, I couldn't remember it exactly as well, had to look it up!

Re:Cute, but...

Actually it is something like "When you wish good steal real the best" - VAX designers never cared to learn Russian :)

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/creatures/images/russi ans.jpg [fsu.edu]

And as far as I remember, Soviet Union was never much interested in VAXen.

Pirate?

I'm not sure what it takes to be an English-language poet (as opposed to code poet) at Apple, but this one stinks. And running one OS, even a fully-copyrighted, commercial OS, on hardware its creator did not intend for it is not piracy -- it's fair use. I know we aren't supposed to have that anymore (after the distribution cartels bribed congress to pass the DMCA, but, hey look, there's still that pesky Supreme Court ruling that says we do), but we do. Fair use is taking the OS software I bought from Apple, even if bundled with one of their machines, and running it on any other hardware, software, combination thereof(, the record player if I want,) so long as I am not simultaneously (in time) running the software somewhere else. So, no mister/madam poet, this isn't piracy. This is, shock of shocks, innovation. Please stop name calling. We aren't children, even if you'd like to treat us like that. And we sure do not deserve to be compared to people who actually break the law. You should reserve those epithets for people who actually do pirate your software, as confusing the two lessens the meaning of the word when used in its proper context.

And, Apple, you are free to innovate by releasing updates that make any progress on this front obsolete. It'll be a fun race that way.

Re:Pirate?

"I'm not sure what it takes to be an English-language poet (as opposed to code poet) at Apple, but this one stinks. And running one OS, even a fully-copyrighted, commercial OS, on hardware its creator did not intend for it is not piracy -- it's fair use."

Actually, it's called a violation of their user license agreement.

Quote:

This license allows you to install, use and run one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.

Re:Pirate?

People keep explaining this, and the Apple folks keep refusing to listen. But here goes one more time. The clause "You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer" is, I believe, unlawful under EC competition and consumer protection law. I've never heard this seriously disputed. It does two things: it violates the prohibition on anti competitive linked sales, and it violates consumer protection legislation. If you want to see for yourself, look up the UK sales of goods acts.

Now, ask yourself, what is the legal and moral position of a company which is attempting to lead purchasers of its products to believe they have entered into an agreement which is unlawful in the jurisdiction of sale?

If this is wrong, please do cite a few EC cases or precedents showing it is. But no-one ever has, yet.

Re:Pirate?

Actually, it's called a violation of their user license agreement.

Which is nonsense, even if clickwrap licenses are nonsense the courts have decided to allow.

I already own a copy of the software before I ever see the license. If Apple wants me to license their software, rather than buy a copy, they can present me with the terms of the license before I pay and make agreement to the license a condition of the transaction. Since the implicit contract of purchase is complete before I see the license, Apple should not be able to add post-facto conditions, any more than I can put post-facto conditions on their use of the money I give them. The transaction, and the opportunity to place conditions on it, is over when payment has been rendered and the goods have entered my posession.

Re:Pirate?

Doesn't say THEY have to label it, though.

A Dymo Labelmaker [amazon.com] is one heck of a lot cheaper than an Intel iMac [apple.com].

Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS!

There is a very simple solution here that will alieviate a LOT of the reasons people will hack or want to get the hacked OS. Just sell it seperate. Yeah I know, that means a lot more hardware support, well, there is a VERY simple solution to that, leave the hardware support up to the hardware manufacturers, and let the customers know that if it is not on the "approved hardware" list, that it is unsupported and they are on their own to get it working, or SOL. The biggest reason that Apple has always had about not selling the OS itself is the fact that it only worked on their own hardware. In a sense, they did sell it, though, as upgrades to older systems. Well, guess what, now it runs on x86 hardware... why in the world would you want to limit your market? You have a product, and a good one, but you put an artificial limit of your own on what you will allow it to be used on, which effectively cuts you out of 99% of the market that would potentially purchase your product, and for what reason? Because you don't want to support all that different hardware? Guys get a clue from Sun Microsystems, Solaris 10 x86 is out there available for purchase, but if you don't have supported hardware, well you are SOL for that piece of hardware. You are free to hack away at it to see if you can get that hardware to work, but don't go crying to Sun if it doesn't because they warned you ahead of time. All Apple needs to do is the same thing and I am certain that there would be a LOT of sales generated, which to Apple is basically FREE MONEY!!! I mean, really, it is like they have their own money printing machines, but they stamp out CD's or DVD's and place them in boxes, which then get "exchanged" at the going exchange rate. It only costs a few dollars to make the copy of the physical media, box it, and ship it, why not bring in all the money they can? It is just assinine if they do not.

Re:Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS!

It would be easier to read your post if you used paragraphs.

Apple has two hurdles to overcome before they can successfully sell OS X for generic Intel hardware:

1) Convince manufacturers to write drivers for OS X. If 3/4 of he hardware out there RIGHT NOW lack OS X drivers for PPC, why would they magically have OS X drivers for Intel? So that means OS X won't be able to access your scanner, your TV tuner, your sound card, your mpeg accelerated video card, etc.

2) Create a reference platform of supported devices, after they convince manufacturers to provide drivers in step 1.

Without step 1, number 2 ends up being, more or less, an iMac or MacBook Pro. Which is more or less what they have right now, except that they haven't yet released OS X for Intel.

Re:Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS!

The reason, apart from hardware support, is that they'd be their own competitors. Apple makes huge profits on the bundle of proprietary hardware and software. If they sold OSX to other manufacturers, their whole hardware business would be pointless: who'd buy a real Apple mac if he could get a comparable experience for half the price?

And Sun experienced this the same way. The x86 hardware they sell is undercutting their profits on their own architectures. That's ok only if they make more money this way.

Re:Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS!

So the argument is, Macs are about twice as expensive as comparable non-Mac systems, and the difference is Apple profits? Is that the argument?

Re:Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS!

See, I just don't think its true that the hardware business would be destroyed, and cannot see what evidence there is for it.

Often Mac advocates want to have it both ways, say that Macs are no more expensive AND say that selling the OS separately would destroy the hardware business and with it the company. I think the reality is, they are more expensive, particularly at the high end, but not so much more expensive that there would be mass flight or substitution. Apple buyers are prepared to pay a premium to get something certified by Apple to work well.

In fact, I don't think there is much evidence for a great suppressed demand for OSX on non-Apple labelled hardware. Its something people have always assumed was out there - and back in the days of Classic and Win 3.1, there probably was such a demand, but now, probably not. Obviously there would be incremental sales, as for unbundled Windows, and they would be useful because they would have 100% margin, but they wouldn't affect the main business.

All in all, its very hard to understand the strategy, other than that its some kind of cultural obsession in Cupertino.

Re:Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS!

Just one problem, though. To use a playground analogy, Apple is the kid on the playground who owns his ball and refuses to let you use his ball outside of a few games that Apple likes to play on the playground. Apple will let you loan (or license) his ball to play four square, but won't let you use the ball to attach to a tether to play tetherball. Sure, you can tie the ball to the tetherball, but Apple will get mad and call up the yard supervisors and have you sitting in detention, thanks to a law called the PTMPA (Playground Toys' Millenium Protection Act), created by the TMAA (Toy Manufacturers' Association of America). The PTMPA disallows balls made specifically for four square to be used for tetherball, basketballs to be used for bowling, and other combinations, and is punishable by a hefty fine.

In other words, Apple owns OS X, and has created rules about how you can use it. Because it uses DRM, you cannot legally install it under your brand-spanking new vanilla x86 machine, even if you ran out and purchased bought two MacBook Pros and owned tons of Apple stock, thanks to the DMCA. Yeah, I would love to purchase OS X for x86 and install it natively on my PC, but that isn't going to legally happen anytime soon. I don't feel like breaking laws to simply use an operating system; I would much rather use GNU-licensed or BSD-licensed software and not have to worry about the legality of running it on whatever hardware I feel fit to install it on. I also believe that installing OS X on a vanilla PC should constitute as fair use, but the DMCA overrides fair use. The best way to get legal OS X for x86 on a vanilla PC is to either write up your Congresscritter and ask him/her to pass a bill repealing the DMCA (or, better yet, since elections for Congresscritters are this November, vote for candidates who will repeal it), or talk to Apple and show them the $$$ in selling copies of OS X for x86 to an open market.

It's sad what we have to deal with today thanks to our growing loss of fair use rights, but we have to deal with it for now until the political landscape changes in the realm of copyrights and fair use. In the meanwhile, we'll be either saving up for a Mac or working on making *nix easier to use and almost comparable to OS X. I wonder what Apple is more afraid of; selling copies of OS X and them losing money because people aren't buying their machines, or having to compete with a Linux or BSD distribution that just as good or better than OS X?

Tiny correction here...

In other words, Apple owns OS X, and has created rules about how you can use it. Because it uses DRM, you cannot legally install it under your brand-spanking new vanilla x86 machine, even if you ran out and purchased bought two MacBook Pros and owned tons of Apple stock, thanks to the DMCA.

That should read "Because it uses DRM, you cannot legally install it under your brand-spanking new vanilla x86 machine, at least not under US law and other insane jurisdicitons with (also insane) DMCA-like regulations".

Law 9609/98 (Brasilian "Computer Programs Intelectual Property Act"), art 6: "It is NOT infringement to the rights of the author of a computer program: (...) IV - to integrate it, maintaining its characteristics, to an operating or application system, if it's technically indispensable to the use of the software, and it's promoted by the user". IOW: if you bought your copy of MacOS X, you can hack it to use on your computer.

Law 8078/90 (Brasilian "Consumer Defense Code"), art 39: "It is prohibited, to any supplier of products and services: I - to condition the supply of any product or service to the supply of another product or service" (this is called in Brasilian Consumer Law "venda casada" == "married sale", where one product/service only goes where the other goes). IOW: If I want to buy MacOS X, Apple cannot refuse to sell it to me, even if I don't own a Mac.

Re:Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS!

"Tell us again, why exactly would hardware sales collapse?"

It's quite simple. The PC market is much more price conscious than the Mac side of things. No one is going to pay the "Apple Tax" for hardware when they can build a PC for a few hundred bucks, or pay a small premium for someone to do it for them. Apple would still gain sales from style-concious consumers, but the overwhelming number of OS X users would drop the Mac in a heartbeat and go with something cheaper.

We know this because it happened once before already. Read up on your Apple history with regard to the mid-90s. That little episode was enough to bring the company to its knees.

Re:Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS!

There is a very simple solution here that will alieviate a LOT of the reasons people will hack or want to get the hacked OS. Just sell it seperate.

This makes no sense at all. The main reason people want a hacked OS is because they are cheap bastards. By definition they aren't interested in spending money. Trying to sell them something that they are already stealing is not an effective tactic.

heh...

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Oh yeah?

There once was a user that whined
The phone companies robbed him blind
He'd do better to phreak
With a 2600Hz beep
So a blue box was designed
Please don't steal phone calls!
Really, that's way uncool.

*saw this over at MacRumors

In light of this...

RIAA to sue Apple for use of copyrighted lyrical style, lack of DON'T STEAL MUSIC hidden message.

This is the UK sale of goods legislation

"An unfair term in a contract covered by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (UTCCRs) is not binding on you.

Test of fairness A term is unfair if: * contrary to the requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance inthe parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers."

"Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

"Consumer Sale of Goods Contracts

"Consumers cannot have their legal rights removed in sale of goods contracts. Furthermore, it can be an offence to mislead consumers about their legal rights. To do so could result in a criminal prosecution. For example, notices such as "We do not give refunds" are misleading and cannot be used. Enforcement is undertaken by local Trading Standards Departments."

These quotes are from Department of Trade and Industry Guidelines.

It must be very doubtful that a EULA which forbids you to do things with the product after you have bought it, that you can perfectly well do, and which you have some reasonable reason to want to do, can be lawful in the UK or the EC. In fact, putting clauses in a Eula which mislead the consumer about his rights under the law in this regard appears, from the above, to be criminal.

A bit hypocritical

The embedded poem reads: 'Your karma check for today: There once was a user that whined/his existing OS was so blind/he'd do better to pirate/an OS that ran great/but found his hardware declined./Please don't steal Mac OS!/Really, that's way uncool.

While I realise that Apple have to protect their technology, Steve Jobs' anti-hacking comments lately have been a bit hypocritical, given his history. Here is a more appropriate poem:

Your karma check for today:
There once was a user that whined
The phone companies robbed him blind
He'd do better to phreak
With a 2600Hz beep
So a blue box was designed.
Please don't steal phone calls!
Really, that's way uncool.

From Hackers to Apple

I know this may sound a tad taught
but I am sure you have all read Slash-dot
This hacking we do is not aimed at you
And we don't mind if we all get caught

we find the law a touch stringent
and pedantically we must say its not stealing..
but Copyright infringement .

Though we are sure that this is not always the case.
If we bought it then we own this ,so Face.
You the see problem with the EULA
is that when you pay
Its as binding as an plastic toupee

Endlessly expanding the definition of "stealing"

So let me get this straight: In the beginning, removing an item from a store without paying for it was considered "stealing". Then, simple copyright infringement became "stealing". Now, Apple is saying that if I go to the store, buy Mac OS X, and get it to work on my computer, I'm "stealing"? WTF?

Re:Endlessly expanding the definition of "stealing

You can't buy OS X for intel at the moment, pal.

In Soviet Russia...

Mac OS X Runs YOU!

Mac OS X crippled

So lets get this straight.

Apple takes FreeBSD which runs on just about any platform including Intel and put into Darwin/MacOSX then Apple cripples OS to run on DRM Intel board, and embed messages to be found by people who decripple the OS to run on any Intel board.

Now who's calling who uncool ? Decrippling is totally cool in my book while Crippling is not regardless of legality.

Apple! I'm calling you out. 3PM after school, by sandbox!

Re:Love your signature...

Well, actually, the ,8 was for the floppy; if you started out with the Dataset like I did, it was either ,1 or ,1,1.

If you didn't include the final ,1, then whatever you loaded was loaded into the 38k RAM block set aside for basic programs. If you did include it, it would load into RAM starting at the address the person saving it had designated.

Some programs loaded into the top half of the BASIC RAM, which was fine if you weren't running any BASIC programs, because that was the area BASIC used to store variables. However, there was a 4k block starting at 49152 which was set aside solely for user-initiated macine language programming and/or data storage (i.e. sprites, etc), so some programs would load in with ",8,1" or ",1,1" and then you'd type "sys 49152" to get them started.

Last, there was some set of registers just below the BASIC RAM that you could use to auto-start a program. I think that the way that these programs were written, they'd write a small basic program as a loader that would include a command similar to "LOAD 'MAINPROGRAM',8,1", and then they'd tack something on to the beginning of it which would be unintelligible if you loaded it right into BASIC RAM, but if you loaded it with the final ,1, the pre-pended stuff would fall into a register that said, "Execute the program that's just loaded", and the BASIC would be in the right place. I remember typing in a program from Compute's Gazette that let me create such auto-run files.

Ah, those were heady days!

Subject

That's pretty cool of Apple. I need to go find some download sites and see it for myself.

Stop writing poems, release OSX for normal PCs

Hey Apple, please stop writing poems and release OS X for normal x86 hardware. There's obviously a huge market for this. While I don't condone piracy, I do believe that what you're seeing is the merest indication of the size of the market you might be able to take advantage of if you were to simply get rid of the DRM crap in OSX.

Please... please... don't cripple this great OS.

GJC

Why would Steve do this?

Steve/Apple doesn't do things without a good reason. Posting poetry to try and disuade hackers from their tasks has some entertainment value---it mad the news didn't it? I think this is a way Apple can keep track of the progress the hackers have made. With all of the code obfuscation in the OS. the revelation of the poetry tells Apple which sections of the OS have beeen compromised, and where Apple has to tighten up the security. I believ announcemnts of this and further Apple poetry will help Apple keep the OS more secure. So what do you think?

way lame

ok if you are going to hide something in your software it has to at least be cool. This is one of the dumbest things that I have read and what's * way uncool * is that Apple's people couldn't come up with something better. At least the easter egg was funny at the time ...

Roses Are Red...

Violets are semi-blue...

Who does the OS belong to?

Certainly not you!!! ;P

XOXO Steve.

Apple needs a little look at its China operation..

It seems that Apple's US operations seem to be running a little behind the times... because here in China, while I can get an iPod Shuffle 512MB for $70 (not a typo), the software comes along much cheaper (like I can buy iLife for about $5), and this is at an APPLE STORE. Also, while they didn't tolerate hacking as much in the US (witness this legal threat), they have done nothing to the main OSx86 BBS (I mean forum, to non-Chinese people) in China, OSx86 China [osx86china.com] and people at the Apple Store have directed me to that web site once they knew that I wouldn't complain to them if I couldn't make it work.
On a related note (disclaimer)... I have been using an example of an official Apple Store where I live to and what it does, but this store may not necessarily be official, just that they look official, and they say that they are official, and have sufficiently proved to me that they are official (showed me that they have access to internal Apple systems and all that).
What I mean is that they should not be trying to deter hackers, but rather encourage those who are smart enough to hack it, and discourage those who can't.

Change of heart

I remember when Apple used to help me hack their OS. I've got an Apple II manual with a listing of the ROM source code - including comments - that let me add some cool features like printing text on the graphics screen.

Now, you're a "pirate" if you try to "decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof."

Whatever happened to "1984 won't be like 1984"?

What's an apple?

Something to eat?

And if the hackers don't want to pirate the OS?

What if they just want to be free to one day move the OS they own from an old Apple/Intel computer to a new Dell/Intel PC? What if they're used to moving all their existing software onto a new computer from a new vendor, just like copyright law and the free market allows? What if they've seen Apple, Inc. financially saved by customers exercising free use rights to copy CDs onto iPods, and they're pissed off that Apple wants to take those rights away when someone else might see the benefit?

There once were some vendors who thought
They still owned what their customers bought.
Were there contracts we signed?
Cause if not, never mind.
I don't agree, so their EULAs are not.

Hmm...

Would it ever occur to them that there are _many_ people who are willing to _actually_ buy the product if only they would release it for regular computers?

another limerick

There once was a man named jobs
he blew some redmond snobs
with his business near ruin
he agreed to the tune
of a large wad of cash for the doin'

The point is...

I honestly don't think Apple cares about if single users here and their hack OS X and put it on their generic PC hardware. Big deal. I'm sure they don't care too much about if those people use a pirated or purchased copy of OS X. Seriously, they don't care too much. That's a handful of people. The losses are in thousands of dollars at worst.

What they do care about though, is if people take that hacked OS X that runs on generic PC hardware and give it to the masses. Why? Why is this the crucial point that makes the big difference? Because once that happens, people are able to run OS X and get the most important part of the Apple experience without paying anything to Apple. ANYTHING. At least if people pirate the genuine OS X version, they will run it in Apple hardware and Apple doesn't suffer too bad from the losses of the lost OS X sale. But if the hacked-to-run-on-generic-PC-hardware OS X gets out, Apple loses significant income.

Even if only 1% of Mac users would decide to run the hacked OS X version on generic PC's, that's still hundreds of thousands of people! That's millions lost in hardware sales! And there's no reason to think that only 1% would do it. More likely, it would be tens of percent and the impact could be very serious on Apple's bottom line. That's why they care.

Now as far as all the bullshit goes about how this is just like if a baker said you can't feed bread to the birds; only eat it yourself. Come on. That's nothing at all like this is. The baker will not lose any money or have any risk with you feeding birds. And if you honestly think that people will go out and buy a copy of OS X and then use some downloaded kit to modify the OS X installation to run on generic PC, then you're insane. Maybe one person in a thousand will do that. Everyone else will just get it pirated.

It's illegal in many countries, but worse, it's immoral in every country.

We'll see what happens, but I for one will have a hard time stopping myself from slapping people I see running OS X on generic PC hardware. I seriously might smack people that do that!

Peppe

Recognize it for what it is...

Apple embedded a marker in the code to help prove literal copying of Apple code. While hidden signatures in code may have roots in the authors' pride, they also serve a useful purpose in infringement cases. This snippet of text is completely irrelevant to the operation of OS/X, and the courts would presume that nobody except Apple would put it there. Apple isn't the first company to use them, nor will they be the last.

please stop the whining

OS X is a combination of an open source kernel (Mach), an open source kernel interface (BSD), open source command line tools (BSD), and open source compiler (GNU). It's a GUI that was bought from NeXT, which originally took the language and much of the library design from Stepstone and Xerox, and the imaging model and imaging system from Adobe. And for the last decade, Apple has not invested much at all in research--pretty much every "innovation" they have shipped was invented elsewhere.

Yes, Apple has the copyright on the whole thing, and BSD doesn't disallow what they are doing, but it's not like OS X is some hugely innovative piece of software that was entirely created by Apple. So, assert your rights in court if you like, but stop the whining--it's inappropriate.

I would buy OS X if it would run on my PC.

What Apple apparently doesn't clearly see is that there is actually people out there who would like to _buy_ OS X if it would run on their Windows PC. I am one of them.

If I had the choice of OS X and Windows Vista for a new machine, I would pick OS X. Unfortunately I cannot currently afford a Mac, so I won't. I would also buy it for my current desktop, and move the XP license to a gaming machine which needs it.

As Apple is already moving its business to the iPod, this might acutally make more money!

So it's like that...

There once was a moderator from slash
who had a whole lot of crack in his stash
he smoked up his crack
forgot how to hack
and threw his iMac in the trash

What kind of monster...

Who rhymes "pirate" withe "ran great"? Who, I ask you?

At least this OSx86 issue will finally answer ...

... that infamous question of debate....

is Win really worth as good as its "popularity" claimed by the monotholic?

Or now that the primary rival of the easiest to copy software since (yes, and that contributed to the very success of aforementioned monotholic) is on release, will marketshare of actual installed machines be redefined in the near or far future?

Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext

Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext is a kernel extension and is not so much of a message as an extension designed to protect Apple's copyright.

Two for two

That's now two stories that I had submitted and had rejected which now, mysteriously, appear. Don't believe me, go check my Journal. Here's the rejection notice:

Apple uses poetry to dissuade hackers Friday February 17, @08:30AM Rejected

I do have to give the editors a bit of credit. This time it only took 2 1/2 days to get the story posted compared to the 3 days for the story about armor for skiers. Yeah, that one has been in my Journal as well.

Seems that for all the talk by Taco and Company about how things are done they haven't changed at all.

Re:late again

Missing stories too.

Like the worm crawling around for unpatched Apples.

If you look thru what they've listed so far - there's only one story for two Apple security hacks.

Re:late again

Yep. I submitted this story to /. over 24 hours ago only to have it rejected.

You don't think it had anything to do with CmdrTaco not wanting to splash your username on the front page, would it?

Re:late again

Already linked to this a while back. Same with the OSx86 forums going down due to a DMCA letter. Bah. Oh well. Let it be late.

Re:./ just commited a fed. crime.

nah, since the copyright notice is intact, and they gave full disclosure that it was a quote. (IANAL, however)

Re:Lame

"And no, artificially tying the product to their lackluster hardware offerings is NOT acceptable. Yes I said lackluster. Sure they are pretty but as PC hardware they just ain't all that. Cheap plastic cases with wimpy power supplies and little expansion for the desktop and useless one button laptops. Gimme a big manly box made of 2mil aluminum and a big ass stable power plant to start, then let me pick out a premium motherboard and memory and an drives of my choice. Why should the OS vendor get to make all of my hardware choices for me? And never forget the insane markup they get for their pretty but bland specced hardware."

Where do you get this sense of self-entitlement? Apple spent their money creating Mac OS X. They get to decide how they want to sell it. If you don't like how they sell it, you don't have to buy it. You're not morally, much less legally, entitled to do what you want with their hard work, just because you can.

Apple isn't denying that people are capable of breaking their copy-protection. They're asking that people don't, out of respect for their right as producer of the software to sell it under their terms.

I don't understand this attitude, where people think that they are fucking entitled to pirate music, movies, software, or whatever. They actually get offended when you tell them that it's immoral!

I mean, I can understand the attitude of "Yeah, I know it's wrong, but I don't care." I don't agree with it, but I understand it. But I don't understand the people who truly don't see what's immoral about, for example, running Mac OS X in a way that Apple expressly asks you not to.

They don't have the moral right to dictate HOW

> But I don't understand the people who truly don't see what's immoral about, for example, running Mac OS X in a
> way that Apple expressly asks you not to.

Because I don't recognize their moral authority to tell me HOW to use their product. Their Copyright only gives them the right to control making copies. Yea I'd violate the letter of that if an iso appeared that would boot on my hardware simply because of curiosity. I wouldn't adopt it for daily use and certainly wouldn't use it at work without buying a copy. (Although until the first upgrade hits retail I'd probably have to buy the PPC copy and call it close enough.)

And I don't recognize any right for them to say their copyrighted work can ONLY be accessed on their brand of player. That is the same sort of bullshit arguments the MPAA and the DVD-CCA use to tell me I can't play DVDs I own on a DVD drive equipped PC I own because they refuse to bless a player for my preferred platform. By your logic I should just forego DVD on Linux or be a good lemming and install Windows. Wrong, I didn't 'license' my season sets of South Park, I BOUGHT copies and I'll read them wherever I damned well please and if I want to skip the trice damned commercials for Drawn Together and the Daily Show I will. And if I ever decided to install OS X I'd BUY a copy of it and do whatever I damned well wanted to with it as well and Steve could just go perform an improbable act of self procreation if he didn't like it. It is just a fscking product people, you don't have to join Steve'e cult and lose all sense of right and wrong.

Re:They don't have the moral right to dictate HOW

I know I've posted this same comment several times already, but here it is again:

"What's your opinion on academic or personal-use licenses, then?

I can buy a copy of IntelliJ IDEA for academic use for $99, or a license for personal use for $199. They charge (I think) $599 for the commercial license. All have equal functionality. So, you think it's moral for me to buy the personal license for $199, and then use it to create commercial software? After all, what right do they have to tell me what to do with the software I've purchased? I should be able to do whatever I want with it, regardless of what the terms of the sale were."

You are a slave

Imagine that a company like shell told you what you could and could not do with the fuel bought at their points of sale. Oh you want to put our petrol in a lawnmower? You can't do that, we developed it only to be put into V8's.

Image you went to your local baker and bought a loaf of bread and then were threathened with jail time for hacking it up into little bits and feeding it to the ducks when clearly the baker decided it was only to be used for human consumption.

But computers are different. It causes people like you to behave like slaves who lick their masters asses and swallow everything they deliver.

Apple sells software. Once it made the sale I can do with it what I want for my personal use. If I decide to take it apart and chance it to run on other hardware or to function in a way different then it was before then that is my right.

Oh but wait of course, I get it. Games were never intended to run with trainers. So trainers are illegal. They also never meant for you to use someone elses savegame so savegames are illegal. They also do not come with a walkthrough so clearly walkthroughs are illegal.

Running say program X on a emulator is obviously clearly illegal.

But then I got a bit of bad news for you. Your lord and master Steve Jobs is breaking his own laws. By allowing windows software to run in emulation he is hacking that software to run on platforms it was never intended to run on. Could every windows developer sue whenever a mac user runs a bit of windows software?

No, Apple has a right to cry foul when people give away its software for free but when I buy a copy of Mac OS X in the shops I am then free to use it in anyway I please. I can use it as a coaster. I can run it on mac hardware and I can hack it and run it on whatever I like. As long as I respect the fact that I got right to 1 copy of it running at anyone time I am in the clear.

Anyone who tells you different is a fucking tool.

Re:Lame

I don't understand why you think you have the right to do what you want with Mac OS X, just because you're not happy with the conditions that Apple sells it under.

They wrote OS X. They get to decide how to sell it. If you don't like the conditions, don't buy it.

It is immoral to say "I don't like the conditions they're selling it under, so I'm going to violate them." How can you not respect the fact that they, as authors of the software, have the right to sell it under the terms they prefer?

Let's say you write a book. You spend ten years of your life writing it, living off your savings. At the end of the ten years, you're almost broke, but your book is done, and it's a masterpiece. You go to a publisher, and say "I will sell you the rights to my book, if you give me 50% of the profits it makes." They agree.

The book goes on to make several millions of dollars in profits for the company, and they give you jack shit. When you complain, they say "Giving you 50% of the profits is NOT acceptable."

It's not exactly the same, but the situation is similar. Apple, as author of Mac OS X, can set the conditions under which it is sold. Even if you can come up with some legal loophole that lets you violate those conditions, doing so is still morally wrong. No one is forcing you to buy OS X. If you don't like the conditions, don't buy it.

Why should the OS vendor get to make hardware choices for you? Because that's how they want to do business. If you don't like it, don't buy from them.

Re:Lame

"They wrote OS X. They get to decide how to sell it. If you don't like the conditions, don't buy it."

Question: do you think the same applies to MS Office? They wrote it, they get to decide whether you run it under Wine or not. If you don't like the conditions, don't buy it? Or to Windows. They charge OEMs for all computers sold regardless of whether they have Windows installed. You are an OEM. They get to decide how to sell it...

Fact is, companies cannot set any conditions they like, because there is in most Western jurisdictions both competition law restraints, and consumer protection restraints.

This is not an argument about whether they should sell OS X or not, its just an argument about whether they have the legal right to impose these kinds of restrictions on use, post sale. Don't believe so.

Re:Lame

This product that apple sells, includes the hardware, deal with it. You're the whiny bitch.

Re:Lame

What? So now it's okay to steal something if someone won't give it to you?

If you won't give me your credit card info, I'll just take it from you instead! In case you don't get it, you are the publisher of your credit card info, and since you refuse to publish that info, I'll just bootleg it instead.

Re:Lame

you're the whiny bitch.

Apple is approaching this with a lot of common sense, respect for legitimate users, and humour.

you're acting like a childish prick because everything doesn't go your way. wah! Han shot first! wah! I can't afford a Mac! wah! stealing makes me a hero! wah!

grow up and get a life.

Re:Lame

And no, artificially tying the product to their lackluster hardware offerings is NOT acceptable. Yes I said lackluster.

Michael Dell, is that you!?

Re:Lame

you sound like the whiny baby. it is not like Steve Jobs took food off your plate and kicked your grandmother in the teeth. they created OS X and they have the right to do with it as they please. if you want full control over hardware and software, build a PC and install OSS. done. problem solved.

some of us like having machines that run really well to use as tools to do work and not spend our days working on them.

Re:Lame

"Mac hardware supports two buttons?"

Yes, as my current computer is running a multi-button Logitech using Apple's drivers. And in fact, they even sell a multi-button mouse. (Mighty Mouse [apple.com]) Though you are right, there should be a school...

Re:WTF??

It just doesn't matter.

Re:ATTENTION: Appler users answer me this

Do some research on user interfaces. In particular, read up on Fitts' Law. Then come back and tell us why the Windows "every menu bar attached to its own window" is superior to the Mac's single menu bar at the top of the screen.

On a Mac, the user just needs to swipe the mouse toward the top, and he'll hit the menu bar. The pointer is "trapped" at the top of the screen, even if he overshoots. Essentially, he's aiming for a very LARGE space that extends beyond the boundary of the screen.

On Windows machines, however, you've gotta really *aim* for those menu bars. They're in the middle of the screen, and you can easily overshoot them. It doesn't matter how much closer they are: they're still tougher to hit.

Re:ATTENTION: Appler users answer me this

Simple.

When Apple first ran on PPC it was clock for clock better than anything Intel had. G3 is better than PIII and G4 and G5 is better than P4.

Things changed.

Intel now has caught up and is able to produce a dual core, low power (=low heat = silent cooling) chip. This is something that IBM couldn't give them (couldn't or wouldn't)...so Apple jumped ship to the company that had a better CPU roadmap (and whose recent offerings are actually something really good).

Re:ATTENTION: Appler users answer me this

I've never had to run any anti-spyware utilities to remove trash from my OS. I don't update virus definitions three times per minute to keep my computer from getting infected and turning into a botnet-drone.

That's the simple reality of it - you (Windows users) spend a non-trivial amount of time each day dealing with problems that Mac users don't have to worry about.

I will dare to answer

You always claim Apple is better. Pre-OS X you claimed Mac OS was faster because it wasn't Windows and wasn't on Intel. OS-X PPC era, you claimed Apple was faster because it wasn't Windows and wasn't on Intel. Now that Apple is on Intel you claim Apple is faster.

The claim now is that MacBooks and iMacs with Intel inside are faster than Powerbooks and iMacs with PPC inside. That's it. I haven't seen a single claim that an Intel Mac is faster than an Intel PC. If you have, please link to it.

You claim that OS-X has the best designed GUI in the world. However, on large wide screen s users have to scroll more to get to menus that are all on the upper-left side of the screen when their windows are on the right side. How is that a better designed GUI. It is like putting the gas peddle of a car in a fixed location above the dash-board because a committee decided that that was the best place to put it.

One of the ways OS X is better designed is that the menus are not nearly as important as they are in Windows. Almost everything can accomplished with buttons on the app, key combinations, or floating palettes. In fact this is the primary driver behind the wide screen format on Macs, because it gives you maximum flexibility in palette placement.

In addition, in a program that will have multiple windows open, the Mac system is better because all the windows can float on the desktop. On a Windows machine they sit inside a "super window" that you have to maximise anyway!

Finally, because the menus are always in the same place on the edge of the screen, using them develops muscle memory. Whereas on a Windows machine you always have to spot them first then move to them. This is where I'll point out that the gas pedal IS in a fixed location--it is in the same place on every car.

Re:Welcome to mid-January.

I think it's a trip.

Re:A few comments...

Where's the morality in forcing your wills upon another person?

So what are you doing when you tell Apple that you want something they've produced but don't want to pay for it or otherwise meet their terms? You're forcing your will upon them.

The difference is that Apple has actually put some time, money, and effort into making something that you want to use. You're just sitting there talking about morality, and hoping that you can sneak a justification for forcing your will upon Apple under the wire.

Re:Lame

It's really difficult to take your position seriously since you're so angry and raving and insulting. Do you possess any social skills as far as holding a mature debate goes?

And no, artificially tying the product to their lackluster hardware offerings is NOT acceptable.

Sure, it is. Gillette can make razor blades that only fit their razor. Apple can make operating system specifically for their hardware.

Why should the OS vendor get to make all of my hardware choices for me?

If you don't like their "bland hardware" that kicks the butt of anything in the break-in-six-months PC world, don't buy it! Another whiney issue solved with personal choice.

You and other people on Slashdot just want OS X to be cracked for generic PCs so that you can pirate it and not pay Apple for a dime. All this distraction to try to portray Apple as the immoral one is a red herring to distract from that fact.

Still not sure why Apple went with 32 bit cpus

I still don't get why Apple made their new hardware based around the 32 bit x86 chip. Intel and AMD already have 64 bit chips. Why does it seem like Apple keeps taking steps backwards?

Let's review:
G4 - 128 bit cpu
G5 - 64 bit cpu
x86 - 32 bit cpu (WTF!?)

So now they've move to an architecture that has been kludge'd to oblivion and can only rely on increasing cpu clock speeds to keep going. At least if they moved to a 64 bit architecture they'd have (a) an architecture that hasn't already maxed out it's addressable memory; (b) some clout to push instruction set changes on this still new cpu to reduce the overall pipeline size; and (c) less concern about piracy because 64 bit systems are still the exception rather than the rule.

Oh well, at least their universal binary format means they can keep architecture hopping without stranding their users like they did when they jumped to the PPC.