Jump to content

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


  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

#61
GhostRaider

GhostRaider

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 382 posts
  • Gender:Male

Any changes about this in Mavericks 10.9 DP3 or is it the same?



#62
cwestpha

cwestpha

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Any changes about this in Mavericks 10.9 DP3 or is it the same?

People are reporting it works well, personally I just tried to update DP3 from my DP2 install and now it just craps out. Pretty sure its just not passing over to the update on reboot code and is just looping. Odd because I cant even get it to verbose output anything. Probably just an issue with Clover EFI or my install that I have instead of anything being locked down or a sign of horrible things to come™. This is just normal par for the course when it comes to beta software, sometimes it just putzes out for a dozen people for no visible rhyme or reason.

 

update: yep, just didn't set permissions correctly for a lot of files after update before it rebooted. rebooted into recovery, ran disk utility, all better now. No new console messages or warnings for the unsigned VoodooHDA or FakeSMC I use so obviously its still not being enforced. If I was Apple I wouldn't flip the switch on it until the last few updates since authenticating signatures and making sure it passes would be much lower on the priority list then making sure things like graphics drivers and framework, iCloud sync, and other recent fiascos aren't repeated in this release as with 10.8



#63
cay987

cay987

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Gender:Male

To those concerned, this is the official change.  'Things' are slightly different in this coming release.  One is left to wonder what's left to expect in DP4/GM; as some (or many) may have broken installation upon hasitly upgrading.  Things [surely] have been moved around and design-considerations (checks) implemented.  So far, the changes are not as "dramatic" as the thread has implied.  Work-arounds are still very possible. 

Attached Files

  • Attached File  New.zip   239.74KB   47 downloads


#64
GhostRaider

GhostRaider

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 382 posts
  • Gender:Male

To those concerned, this is the official change.  'Things' are slightly different in this coming release.  One is left to wonder what's left to expect in DP4/GM; as some (or many) may have broken installation upon hasitly upgrading.  Things [surely] have been moved around and design-considerations (checks) implemented.  So far, the changes are not as "dramatic" as the thread has implied.  Work-arounds are still very possible. 

Has Apple said anything about the AppleKextExcludeList.kext? Or was the exclusion list updated on 10.9 DP3?



#65
Crabhunter

Crabhunter

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 254 posts

So the question is, will it still be possible to build a hack? is this something that can be worked around?

Mike



#66
nyolc8

nyolc8

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Budapest, Hungary
We will know that only when they changes something.

#67
cay987

cay987

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Gender:Male

Has Apple said anything about the AppleKextExcludeList.kext? Or was the exclusion list updated on 10.9 DP3?

AppleKextExcludelist.kext has never been mentioned.  At least: best to my knowledge.  I did not know it existed till I came across this page.  However, it is officially stated "things" sure are moving around.  I do not think the white-listed plists were updated in DP3.  What I am certain is the uncertain/unexpectation in one of the upcoming iteration; only because the rules have changed, thus rendering non-Apple builds to be broken due to non-conpliance.

 

So the question is, will it still be possible to build a hack? is this something that can be worked around?

Mike

Mike, you have to isolate the mobile-computing from classical-computing; in other words, iPhones from iMacs/pros.  Apple may get away with iOS (to an extent).  There will be no phoning-home or desktop activation with Apple-servers.  I may/mayn't be wrong, however I presume the reason for all "these" is somewhat because of the deeper integration iCloud offers: integration with respect to password changer, quick-credit-card-entry and other personal credentials Apple expects its consumers to entrust to OS X.  Non-Apple builds will still be very possible. 



#68
JustFortehFun

JustFortehFun

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 41 posts

We have our own bootloaders, of course this won't lockdown OSX to Apple-only hardware.



#69
mendietinha

mendietinha

    mendi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:full hackintosh.

unless they buy amd and start with a new gen of ppc. hehehe



#70
pfilipp

pfilipp

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Warsaw, Poland

And how is it working with DP4/5? As I upgrade DP3 to DP4 and than 5 and system broke. I wonder if this can be the cause.

Also I dunno how those plist files looks right now but I've read 3 pages of this topic and I am afraid that - like someone mentioned before - the thing that there are 'our' kexts in exception list is that apple wants more developers and wider range of hardware tested. Maybe they want us to use DP as some kind of a 'trial' and will lock us down with GM/Final Release.

On the other hand... 

Were there problems with radeon gpu on normal macs? They solved it with Maverick and that is quite interesting.



#71
frankiee

frankiee

    InsanelyMac Geek

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

Maybe they want us to use DP as some kind of a 'trial' and will lock us down with GM/Final Release.

 

Yeah, I am still wondering what purpose this could have.

 

So the fact is that they are actually _targeting_ hacks in a way for the first time I ever recall. I mean that all these kext names are there not just for teh fun of it, right?

 

So, _if_ that has a purpose (and I am pretty sure it does), only two possibilities come to my mind:

 

1) Apple wants to _support_ hacks (sort of at least) by including some typical kexts in their list, so that they can be installed without errors

2) Apple wants to _prevent_ hacks (or at least make them harder to do), by excluding these kexts (later on)

 

And I really cannot imagine right now that 1) will apply - this would be sooooo "un-Apple". The only thing I could think of is that they actually do not care, but why would they do all that stuff then in the first place? Is it to prevent customers completely abandoning the platform, for example the ones (like me) who need a kind of machine ("Classic" Desktop) Apple does not offer anymore and therefore simply have to hack? Or do they try to force customers into buying an iTrash etc, just bc hacking will be so hard or even impossible in the future?

 

Maybe I am still missing something, but I have to admit that this uncertainity actually prevents me from jumping ship (from old Mac Pro to Hackintosh). So I will wait at least until the first final release of 10.9, but still - what will happen with 10.9.x then. ?



#72
pfilipp

pfilipp

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Warsaw, Poland

There is also another possibility but it is rather way too optimistic:

Apple thinks that - like it is with pirate software/games/music/video - hackintoshes are some kind of an advertize for them. I consider buying apple computer in the future if I will afford it! I think some of you would also like to have native support for this gr8 system. I wouldn't have opportunity to get familiar with osx if not hackintosh!

Maybe they think similar. In this case they might want us to hackintosh but they won't make it easier for us because the only reason we might consider buying apple - when hmac works as advert - is when we just want it to work out of box. 

 

Quite twisted idea anyway :P



#73
frankiee

frankiee

    InsanelyMac Geek

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

There is also another possibility but it is rather way too optimistic: Apple thinks that - like it is with pirate software/games/music/video - hackintoshes are some kind of an advertize for them.

 

Maybe I am too pessimistic, but I think you are too optimistic ;) This kind of strategy would more apply to M$ imho. (For example, back in time, Word was the only Textprocessor that had no copy protection or even serials at all, and I am very sure that helped to keep the competition down back then, when NOT everybody was using Office)

 

So, why would I want to buy an overpriced Mac Pro or even iMac, when I realize that I can have a relatively easy hack (even kind of supported by Apple!) on a more customized machine, which costs half and has more power than even a Mac Pro? Plus, if I manage to get a hackintosh running without too much problems, I also do not need any hardware support from Apple, bc then I would know my own machine much better, and should be able do my repairs on my own (which would be a big plus for me actually - ever had downtime bc of a fried motherboard? Good look waiting for Apple to repair your machine ....)

 

On the other hand, if Apple makes it a nightmare to hack OS X, and you never ever get a stable running system on your hack (if at all), would you really say: "Oh great, it runs like {censored} and crashes all the time, but I am sure it will be perfect on a "real" Mac, so I will shell out some serious extra $$$ just to find out if that is actually true?"

 

Also remember, Apple is still a hardware company to a large extent, they do not make any real money by selling you OS X for 20$. But they do selling you whatever hardware they produce.

 

So I really really hate to say it, but until somebody proves otherwise (or has at least a good reason / idea), I still think it is more probable that they do all that to prevent hacking, not enabling it.

 

Of course I hope the picture clears as soon as possible, maybe we are safe for a while if they do not lock down it with the first official release? But this uncertainity annoys me ... a lot.



#74
TheEnthusiast

TheEnthusiast

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 146 posts
So, why would I want to buy an overpriced Mac Pro or even iMac, when I realize that I can have a relatively easy hack (even kind of supported by Apple!) on a more customized machine, which costs half and has more power than even a Mac Pro? Plus, if I manage to get a hackintosh running without too much problems, I also do not need any hardware support from Apple, bc then I would know my own machine much better, and should be able do my repairs on my own (which would be a big plus for me actually - ever had downtime bc of a fried motherboard? Good look waiting for Apple to repair your machine ....)

 

 

You're not considering the whole picture here. Think about the millions of people who are not very tech savy. To them, the mere thought of buying parts to assemble a computer to run Windows, not OS X, seems like an overbearing task. For example, have you ever tried explaining to a typical consumer to consider building a computer instead of buying a pre-made one? I have many times and every time I try to explain, the responses always serve to defend buying a pre-built machine. To the casual consumer, buying an assembled machine is just way easier; go to a store or go online, buy the computer you like (in some cases be persuaded by tech jargon from store workers), set it up and it works. If it doesn't work, return it and get another one that works, done.

 

On the other hand, building a computer seems like too much work; research for and buy parts individually, assemble, install the OS, etc. With hardware there is the possibility of RMA and all that other stuff. Plus, with hackintosh you have to do some research about installing OS X, and dealing with individual updates, kernel panics, and the whole lot.  

 

Also, you can't ignore the stigma that goes with hacking. Just mention building a hackinotsh and one of the first questions would most certainly be: "Isn't that illegal?" or something to that effect. I won't go into depth about the whole EULA aspect, but the fact that you can't definitively answer yes or no would dissuade a lot of people from attempting. 

 

Also remember, Apple is still a hardware company to a large extent, they do not make any real money by selling you OS X for 20$. But they do selling you whatever hardware they produce.

 

 

Again, consider the full picture. What you stated implies that Apple is similar to a company that would sell only hardware (motherboard, PSU, CPU) and solely makes it profit off of that. While Apple certainly touts the hardware that its products use, they also market their software. Without OS X, they're selling empty shells. Just look at whenever they promote a product, hardware is always discussed, but so is software and how it makes the Mac experience complete. As they've always stated: OS X is what makes a Mac a Mac. So even though they may not make a significant amount of money by selling OS X directly, they make up for it by marketing and selling it with their hardware. 

 

I do agree with a few of your points, but I am willing to bet a significant amount of money that if Apple really wanted to prevent hacking, then they would have made a concerted effort to do so by now. And in any case, in my opinion, things can remain locked down for so long. Eventually, with effort and persistence, someone always finds a way. This is especially true if the great minds within the hackintosh community are willing to put forth the effort, as they have been doing for a long time in the grand scheme of things. 



#75
frankiee

frankiee

    InsanelyMac Geek

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

You're not considering the whole picture here. Think about the millions of people who are not very tech savy.

 

Well, I did not say I look at the whole picture ;) But on the other hand, I think that does not invalid my argument - that I do not think Apple will make hacking easier to attract more people to the Mac camp via the hackintosh route. Me too thinks that Apple wants to sell the "whole experience" and not just the OS. So it is more likely they will close down the system further in contrast to opening it, also to prevent People having bad experiences with hacks - well, see how caring Apple is, isn't it? Well, there is of course also the money that can be made, and that is not achieved with selling only the OS. And yes, I think almost no money is made just by OS X. Even services like itunes are NOT exclusively tied to OS X, and I do not speak of anything iOS (which is the REAL money maker nowadays, and of course you can use these devices with windows, too)

 

And that's the whole point _I_ care about right now (and imho you should, too!): Why is Apple doing this? What's the goal?

 

I know that most Apple customers are just eating  what Apple serves them, but I do not want to be one of those people (anymore) ...

 

I do agree with a few of your points, but I am willing to bet a significant amount of money that if Apple really wanted to prevent hacking, then they would have made a concerted effort to do so by now.

 

Well, maybe (maybe!) they are doing this right now. I hope not, but ... it _seems_ so to me right now.

 

And in any case, in my opinion, things can remain locked down for so long. Eventually, with effort and persistence, someone always finds a way. This is especially true if the great minds within the hackintosh community are willing to put forth the effort, as they have been doing for a long time in the grand scheme of things. 

 

Sure, but the point is IMHO not really IF you can make a hack despite Apple's efforts, but how much work, money, time (and nerves) it will you cost then. I am sure Apple could make this a nightmare, if they really want to.



#76
Maniac10

Maniac10

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,070 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Apple could care less about this or any other hacking community (unless someone starts selling millions of computers with OSX). They simply created this new system as a mean to increase their os's security, and meanwhile they will whitelist known kexts (from system reports, probably) so their real customers (Mac owners) won't face any issue with their 3rd party hardware.



#77
frankiee

frankiee

    InsanelyMac Geek

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

Apple could care less about this or any other hacking community (unless someone starts selling millions of computers with OSX). They simply created this new system as a mean to increase their os's security, and meanwhile they will whitelist known kexts (from system reports, probably) so their real customers (Mac owners) won't face any issue with their 3rd party hardware.

 

And why are there names of kexts that are only used for hackintoshes? If that really is a whilelist (and remains so!) that would mean that Apple is actually supporting hacks (in a way).

 

Problem: I can try as hard as I want, but I simply cannot believe that. That would be very very very contrasting to the Apple I know (since 20+ years).



#78
TheEnthusiast

TheEnthusiast

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 146 posts
And why are there names of kexts that are only used for hackintoshes? If that really is a whilelist (and remains so!) that would mean that Apple is actually supporting hacks (in a way).

 

If I heard/read correctly, the list includes an extensive number of kexts, not exclusively hackintosh kexts. 

 

 

I am sure Apple could make this a nightmare, if they really want to.

 

 

That's what I said  :P
 
Why is Apple doing this?

 

As previously stated, one possibility would be to improve security on the part of OS X. Currently, all kexts are mixed with vanilla OS X kexts so this would be a way to create separation while not preventing the use of 3rd party kexts. At this point however, everything is just speculation and there isn't any reason to do so at this moment. Many things could change between now and GM release. Then, we will know for sure. 



#79
Hii_

Hii_

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

I am starting to worry if they are using this to distract us or just make a list of people with un-official macs to hunt down later and charge...
PS its not a good idea to write all there errors that help us, that would just help them fix it.



#80
Long Cat

Long Cat

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 94 posts

^ I think you might just be a little paranoid there mate. Do you think Apple actually worries about the fact that I'm running OSX on a PC... I sure don't (especially after I bought that MPB anyway :lol:). The way I see it, they're way to busy making billions selling iPads and iPhones to care about a few guys messing around with their computers.

 

While I'd like to think that this in some way relates to us or to apple trying to make it easier for people to hackintosh as past of some long term commercial strategy... the logical part of my brain says - no - it's just a feature the same as any other. If by chance it helps us out, great. If not, I'm sure the developers out there will find a way around as they always do.







1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 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