The legitimacy of my personal use is questionable, since I have no programming talent and am weaning myself from the OS... ultimately I expect to be totally windows-based again.
The legitimacy of people using PCs to run OS X basically would have to fall within the DMCA 7 exceptions. Someone looking to test the security of the system, including whether the encryption on the OS can be broken. I assume some malware that mimics TPM interoperability may be able to achieve privileged functions. I also don't know how someone can verify that a given lockup/freeze/hang is caused by bad software or by the TPM having a snit.
Law enforcement officials, and I think the GSA in general, will not trust a 3rd party to encrypt OS functions. uNIVAC would have been thrown out on their ear had they insisted they keep secret all these things about the systems on board submarines etc.
My chief point however is I do not support censoring URLs because they represent a potential threat to a copyright holder. The law is not broken the moment the link is followed (with exception of course of URL links to copyrighted files). In Maxxuss' case, you need to pirate some data (gigs worth) he does not supply, and then apply patches, follow procedures, etc. Censoring him definitely crosses the line for me.
My second complaint is we have an unacknowledged Apple Copyright Protector built into every x86 Mac. The hardware and software to implement this function can conceivably, after a malware attack, hoist a valid user in Apple's petard, which honestly is about the worst punishment an OS X user will experience. Microsoft "loses" millions a time-unit in unregistered Windows licenses, but you don't see them locking the OS down with a hardware key and making the computer come to a complete halt if the OS believes it has been pirated. They offer non-nagging safe mode, and 30-day-grace real mode. Apple gives you not even a commandline prompt to get at your files once the TPM checks fail.
What case, if one exists, for me is that I honestly do not have a legal path to OS x86, because I cannot afford the hardware. Ask AMD if they created their chip totally in a vacuum, knowing nothing about the Pentium instruction set. Ask Amdahl if they made interoperable IBM mainframe equivalent products without using reverse engineering. Ask them again if they certified VMS on their mainframes without violating IBM's End-User License Agreement for that OS.
What is the difference between a pirate and an innovator? Some of it is simply the opinion of a copyright holder, at least one with nasty lawyers. By isolating OS X to Apple hardware alone, we are going to lose some efforts of hackers who may code up a nice free works-better-than-Toast CD burning program, or port some Open Source project that is basically undoable or undesirable on Darwin.
I know there's a threat to Apple if the press starts sensationalizing "Any PC can run Mac OS X." because that is a huge exaggeration. AMD processors and lack of PAE, SSE3, and even dual core, as well as a lack of compatible peripherals (my Azalia sound doesn't work), makes OS X for a PC a hacker's system, NOT a replacement for Joe Consumer looking to get a PC for his use.
If IBM had had their druthers, they'd have a better monopoly on mainframe market than they do today. Apple is trying to duplicate this success by locking down and obfuscating core components of their OS, without regard to how it may possibly affect their honest, paying customers down the line. The way the code acts upon the written-in presumption of guilt is a powderkeg. I know if I was an angry hacker, that's exactly the virus I'd create - something to bollux TPM whenever it's found, making OS X useless on ALL machines. Then maybe Apple would get enough yelling and screaming directed at them to relax the sphincter muscles a bit.
The legitimacy of people using PCs to run OS X basically would have to fall within the DMCA 7 exceptions. Someone looking to test the security of the system, including whether the encryption on the OS can be broken. I assume some malware that mimics TPM interoperability may be able to achieve privileged functions. I also don't know how someone can verify that a given lockup/freeze/hang is caused by bad software or by the TPM having a snit.
Law enforcement officials, and I think the GSA in general, will not trust a 3rd party to encrypt OS functions. uNIVAC would have been thrown out on their ear had they insisted they keep secret all these things about the systems on board submarines etc.
My chief point however is I do not support censoring URLs because they represent a potential threat to a copyright holder. The law is not broken the moment the link is followed (with exception of course of URL links to copyrighted files). In Maxxuss' case, you need to pirate some data (gigs worth) he does not supply, and then apply patches, follow procedures, etc. Censoring him definitely crosses the line for me.
My second complaint is we have an unacknowledged Apple Copyright Protector built into every x86 Mac. The hardware and software to implement this function can conceivably, after a malware attack, hoist a valid user in Apple's petard, which honestly is about the worst punishment an OS X user will experience. Microsoft "loses" millions a time-unit in unregistered Windows licenses, but you don't see them locking the OS down with a hardware key and making the computer come to a complete halt if the OS believes it has been pirated. They offer non-nagging safe mode, and 30-day-grace real mode. Apple gives you not even a commandline prompt to get at your files once the TPM checks fail.
What case, if one exists, for me is that I honestly do not have a legal path to OS x86, because I cannot afford the hardware. Ask AMD if they created their chip totally in a vacuum, knowing nothing about the Pentium instruction set. Ask Amdahl if they made interoperable IBM mainframe equivalent products without using reverse engineering. Ask them again if they certified VMS on their mainframes without violating IBM's End-User License Agreement for that OS.
What is the difference between a pirate and an innovator? Some of it is simply the opinion of a copyright holder, at least one with nasty lawyers. By isolating OS X to Apple hardware alone, we are going to lose some efforts of hackers who may code up a nice free works-better-than-Toast CD burning program, or port some Open Source project that is basically undoable or undesirable on Darwin.
I know there's a threat to Apple if the press starts sensationalizing "Any PC can run Mac OS X." because that is a huge exaggeration. AMD processors and lack of PAE, SSE3, and even dual core, as well as a lack of compatible peripherals (my Azalia sound doesn't work), makes OS X for a PC a hacker's system, NOT a replacement for Joe Consumer looking to get a PC for his use.
If IBM had had their druthers, they'd have a better monopoly on mainframe market than they do today. Apple is trying to duplicate this success by locking down and obfuscating core components of their OS, without regard to how it may possibly affect their honest, paying customers down the line. The way the code acts upon the written-in presumption of guilt is a powderkeg. I know if I was an angry hacker, that's exactly the virus I'd create - something to bollux TPM whenever it's found, making OS X useless on ALL machines. Then maybe Apple would get enough yelling and screaming directed at them to relax the sphincter muscles a bit.
Reply
Leave a comment