Re: [Fed-Talk] Cracking Intel OS X - Related to Closed Source
Re: [Fed-Talk] Cracking Intel OS X - Related to Closed Source
- Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] Cracking Intel OS X - Related to Closed Source
- From: Boyd Fletcher <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 14:48:18 -0400
- Thread-topic: [Fed-Talk] Cracking Intel OS X - Related to Closed Source
Title: Re: [Fed-Talk] Cracking Intel OS X - Related to Closed Source
actually since the PowerPC version of the kernel is still available and most of the kernel code is the same between the PowerPC and Intel versions. Removing access to the X86 variant is going to have little real impact hackers finding flaws in the operating system.
On 5/17/06 5:59 PM, "Michael Pike" <email@hidden> wrote:
> It looks like the Intel version of the OSX kernel might so closed source, I
> can understand the reasoning however I don't think it will solve the
> problem. If Apple is trying to limit what crackers can attack when trying to
> get it to run on generic hardware I think it might help a little but it will
> not solve the problem because people will still crack it.
I wanted to put this in a different thread since it doesn't really argue the closed source fact. I agree that anything is crackable, no matter what. And I believe we need that balance of power in life (not specific to cracking OS X), but if you didn't have the hacker/crackers you would be dictated to by the likes of Microsoft and the MPAA without choice which takes away the whole fundamental right to be free.
With that being said, even though they may crack a closed source OS X Kernel, the fact that it is closed source will make it more difficult to keep it cracked. Let's say that they crack OS X 10.4.6 to run on a Dell... when 10.4.7 comes out, Apple can make a change somewhere in the code that invalidates the previous crack. If the source were available, it would take nothing to re-do the crack.
If someone has the knowledge and wants to run OS X on a PC bad enough, they are going to do it... but closing the source stops the average joe from getting a copy and using it thereby violating Apple's rights to their OS. If you make it difficult enough to crack and stay cracked, they will throw in the towel and buy a mac if they like OS X that much.
I love open source, I always have, but there are certain things that open source is not optimal for. If you have innovated something you should be free to reap the benefits and credit for it. The open source community is good about that, but unfortunately when it comes to the OS game, there are those out there who will steal your ideas, change a few things and call it their own (cough Microsoft cough)... and it's in those cases that closed source is a better platform in my opinion.
I for one am sick and tired of seeing Apple get the shaft from others, so I have no problem what so ever with the closed source of the kernel. I'm glad the iPod is doing so well because now Apple gets to do the shafting while the whiney baby creative tries to say "wah! wah!".
Microsoft has done some ok things (ie the PocketPC), but that wasn't even really their idea (Newton).
mike
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden