Jump to content

Mavericks - to be locked down (in the future)?


  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

#41
iWin32

iWin32

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Gender:Male

I wonder if Apple is considering a very generous donation to the forum (who knows, even Tony can get a buck of two, if Apple be generous enough) :hysterical:

Well, one thing I noticed when editing AppleKextExcludeList.kext's Info.plist is, well...

		<key>com.tidalpoolsoftware.macproxy.kext</key>
		<string>2.0.5</string>
		<key>com.tonymacx86.AHCI_3rdParty_SATA</key>
		<string>1111.0</string>
		<key>com.tonymacx86.AHCI_3rdParty_eSATA</key>
		<string>0.3</string>
		<key>com.tonymacx86.ALC8xxHDA</key>
		<string>1111.0</string>
		<key>com.tonymacx86.ATI48xxController</key>
		<string>9.0.2</string>
		<key>com.tonymacx86.JMicron36xSATA</key>
		<string>0.8</string>
		<key>com.tonymacx86.JMicron36xeSATA</key>
		<string>0.8</string>
		<key>com.tonymacx86.Legacy889HDA</key>
		<string>0.3</string>
		<key>com.tonymacx86.ati6570pm</key>
		<string>3.0</string>
		<key>com.tootoosoft.driver.Intel82566MM</key>
		<string>1111.0</string>

This forum may not support him, but Apple sure supports tonymacx86!!



#42
3.14r2

3.14r2

    The Round One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,333 posts
  • Location:Molvania

Well, one thing I noticed when editing AppleKextExcludeList.kext's Info.plist is, well...

This forum may not support him, but Apple sure supports tonymacx86!!

I can't believe this is happening!!! Next thing we know will be the official announcement of Apple buying Tony's (serious) business :hysterical:



#43
nyolc8

nyolc8

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Budapest, Hungary

What happens if we patch a signed kext with clover's on-the-fly kextpatching? Then we can add anything to the applekextexcludelist without losing it's codesign?



#44
jamiethemorris

jamiethemorris

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 519 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Rafael, CA

What happens if we patch a signed kext with clover's on-the-fly kextpatching? Then we can add anything to the applekextexcludelist without losing it's codesign?


I was wondering this too. Couldn't you also add any kext to that list, whether or not it actually exists natively, and then it wouldn't need a codesign?

#45
Pike R. Alpha

Pike R. Alpha

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Developers
  • 221 posts
  • Gender:Male

Apple isn't supporting anyone. This list was generated from support data.Wait for it to be removed. Like everything hack related.



#46
theconnactic

theconnactic

    Stubborn AMD user

  • Local Moderators
  • 2,917 posts
  • Gender:Male

Pike, honestly, do you think this code sign move, besides improved security issues, was also aimed on improper use ("hackintosh", EULA violation) of OSX? Like in Tiger days, when they made some attempts on it?

 

All the best!



#47
3.14r2

3.14r2

    The Round One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,333 posts
  • Location:Molvania

Apple isn't supporting anyone. This list was generated from support data.Wait for it to be removed. Like everything hack related.

I have no doubts that Apple isn't supporting anyone, it's just quite curious to see such a thing in the officially provided OS X versions (not some distro). Though it is only a DP (early) version (not yet the public release), but still why bother with the list (even if it's a trivial thing to make)? For security reasons? I guess Apple could create something much more complicated then this, if they would be all about security.

 

May be it's just to have more beta testers with very different hardware (more then only genuine Macs could offer)?



#48
Onixs

Onixs

    Since 2007

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 759 posts
  • Gender:Male

at the end of the day, we are just guinea pigs regarding this topic.



#49
frankiee

frankiee

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 215 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth
  • Interests:Everything

Are there any changes in DP2 regarding this topic?



#50
nyolc8

nyolc8

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Budapest, Hungary

Are there any changes in DP2 regarding this topic?

The same applekextexcludelist editing fixes the warning messages. Nothing changed.



#51
frankiee

frankiee

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 215 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth
  • Interests:Everything

Nothing changed.

 

Really curious if that still will be true with the release ....



#52
nyolc8

nyolc8

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Budapest, Hungary

I think they'll change something (if they change something) in the last DP, or in the GM.



#53
frankiee

frankiee

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 215 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth
  • Interests:Everything

Don't think it will be as late as the GM, since this "feature" must also be tested in it's changed form. More like one of the last DPs.



#54
Pike R. Alpha

Pike R. Alpha

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Developers
  • 221 posts
  • Gender:Male

Pike, honestly, do you think this code sign move, besides improved security issues, was also aimed on improper use ("hackintosh", EULA violation) of OSX? Like in Tiger days, when they made some attempts on it?

 

All the best!

No. Apple is not trying to block Hackintosh users, but this kind of security changes will eventually make it (a bit) more difficult for us to use a hack, or some of the features we may like may no longer work. The thing is this list was generated from support data and will get cleaned up over time, and too much noise will trigger more attention so pssst ;)



#55
jamiethemorris

jamiethemorris

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 519 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Rafael, CA

No. Apple is not trying to block Hackintosh users, but this kind of security changes will eventually make it (a bit) more difficult for us to use a hack, or some of the features we may like may no longer work. The thing is this list was generated from support data and will get cleaned up over time, and too much noise will trigger more attention so pssst ;)

Is it possible to make a thread only visible to members? The cat may already be out of the bag though...

#56
PoisonApple666

PoisonApple666

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Donators
  • 115 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Is it possible to make a thread only visible to members? The cat may already be out of the bag though...

methinx the kat has been outta da bag for quite some time.... :hysterical:



#57
dolphans1

dolphans1

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts

What I don't understand is this, why does apple want everyone to install itunes and safari on a a regular PC and not their software?

 

Why is the iPhone compatible on a regular PC and Linux?

 

If Apple wanted to kill the Hackintosh community, couldn't they do so be creating a Mac OS that could be loaded onto any machine and sell it for $200.00 or so...?

 

d-1



#58
Crabhunter

Crabhunter

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 254 posts

 

 

If Apple wanted to kill the Hackintosh community, couldn't they do so be creating a Mac OS that could be loaded onto any machine and sell it for $200.00 or so...?

 

d-1

That way they wouldn't make as much money as people wouldn't buy "real mac" and chances are most people wanting to install osx on a $200 pc would probably download it anyway.

Mike



#59
dolphans1

dolphans1

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts

That way they wouldn't make as much money as people wouldn't buy "real mac" and chances are most people wanting to install osx on a $200 pc would probably download it anyway.

Mike

What I meant was, sell a Mac OSX OS for $200.00 that could be installed on any PC.

 

d-1



#60
digital_dreamer

digital_dreamer

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri USA

What I meant was, sell a Mac OSX OS for $200.00 that could be installed on any PC.

 

d-1

Crabhunter's answer still applies.

Apple's profits are mostly from hardware sales. If Apple were to shift to selling the OS for PCs, its revenue would drop significantly, because most would not buy Apple-branded systems. Why would they? If Apple released a revolutionary new product line running OS X, like the MBA, it would only be a manner of time before the PC industry copied it (Ultrabooks) and installed OS X on it. Additionally, as Crabhunter mentioned, many would simply install pirated copies of OS X, resulting in even less revenue for Apple.

 

Less revenue means less R&D, and therefore, less "insanely cool" things from Apple.

 

We are fortunate that Apple doesn't have a DRM enabled OS and offers a family pack for those who wish to install it on multiple systems - no questions asked.

If Apple were to start selling OS X for PCs (to say nothing of the added support headaches that would arise from making it work with the multitude of motherboards available) or actually shift to a OS-software-only model, you can bet Apple would add DRM to its OS - it would be forced to.

 

MAJ







0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

© 2014 InsanelyMac  |   News  |   Forum  |   Downloads  |   OSx86 Wiki  |   Mac Netbook  |   PHP hosting by CatN  |   Designed by Ed Gain  |   Logo by irfan  |   Privacy Policy