Jump to content

iWin32

iWin32

Member Since 21 Nov 2009
Offline Last Active Today, 02:13 AM
*****

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Permanently Banned From Tonymacx86

21 April 2014 - 03:27 AM

Oh, tonymacwannabex86 vs. the not-that-popular-anymore distro!

 

Just was googling around and stumbled across a post as to why tonymacwannabe doesn't support distros.  The OP made me laugh at this part:

DO NOT INSTALL THESE THINGS: Installing a hacked operating system onto your computer risks your personal information and your precious data. Anything could be in these .isos- keyloggers, spambots, viruses, who knows.

Yeah, because cybercriminals have smartened up their resources and have now realized the best way to infect computers is to put their malware in the ever-so-popular OSx86 distros!  That's what everyone is doing today instead of MS Windows piracy and WGA cracks!!   :hysterical:  :hysterical:  :hysterical:  :hysterical:  :hysterical:  :hysterical:  :hysterical:

 

And if the Hackintosh scene has "evolved" as they said, distros would be more so a n00b's resort.  It wouldn't be that hard to create one.  All one would have to do is download Mavericks from the app store, run the install image script, install a bootloader, modify OSinstall.mpkg to include post-install kexts installation, and slap the modded install image on some piracy site.

 

Plus, the mention of spambots?  If a spambot got ahold of Tonymacwannabex86's registration page, a user could find themselves unable to logon due to their clever IP blacklisting method for banned users.  Not to mention how many bots on that wannabe's forum ban the odd user more often than YouTube's content ID flagging false positives.

 

And, to top it all off, we have the n00bs who replied to that thread saying things like "Why use distros when Unimonster and Multimonster can load an official OS copy much better?"  Yeah, because it's not like that wannabe Tony infringed the copyright of other developers when developing Unimonster.  Oh, wait: MyHack...

 

Don't get me wrong: I have legally purchased copies of Mountain Lion and Leopard (that's right, version 10.5.6), so I don't really use distros all that much anymore.  While the OSx86 scene has changed a lot since the prevalence of distros, Hackintoshes are only getting better without that Chimealong Chameleon rippoff.  I mean, now we're using modded bios to host the bootloader in the firmware!  Tony, with all his progress in helping the scene would have come up with that idea (or steal the code from the developer) in, let's see... Never!

 

And with that, let's never use distros because of all the malware people are loading in them... NOT!!!  :hysterical:  :hysterical:

In Topic: Petition: Release Mac OS X for PC

21 April 2014 - 02:45 AM

If Apple would Open Source some of their older OS X, e.g Tiger etc, that would be the cream on the "Apple" Pie, one that I would like a "Slice" of...

Unlikely; the closest old thing to free Mac OS released by Apple is System 7, which is NOT open source.  It is still closed source (as seen in the italicized part):

 

 

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single computer at a time. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time. You may make one copy of the Apple Software in machine-readable form for backup purposes only; provided that the backup copy must include all copyright or other proprietary notices contained on the original. Except as and only to the extent expressly permitted in this License or by applicable law, you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof. THE APPLE SOFTWARE IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS, LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES OR OTHER EQUIPMENT IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE COULD LEAD TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.

What makes open source software "FREE software" is more so equal to free speech than free beer.  Here, it's just the opposite: Mac OS 7 downloads are free as in free beer, but not free as in free speech.

(Quote source: https://web.archive....ml?artnum=26275)

In Topic: [GUIDE] 1st Generation Intel HD Graphics QE/CI

30 March 2014 - 07:57 PM

I'm going out on a whim here and saying that our patches will NOT help you in your quest for QE/CI on VMware.  Before we discovered the patch, AppleIntelHDGraphicsFB.kext wasn't getting our display to work properly.  Sometimes there was a severely distorted display where we couldn't see what the heck we were doing, other times it was stuck at the gray apple screen or verboose text, and other times there wasn't any display at all.  Verteks discovered the patches that enabled the framebuffer to work with our displays.  The patches themselves didn't make QE/CI work.  You see, before, the only way to get a resolution than 1024x768 was to use a patched Resolution module (which I helped create a guide for), but that didn't enable any acceleration.  The framebuffer by itself enabled higher resolution and the ability to switch between them.  However, what enabled acceleration are the other kexts with the AppleIntelHDGraphics prefix.  There are 4, but I don't remember them off the top of my head.  Those drivers are what enable QE/CI, but they can't do anything unless the Framebuffer is running and active.

 

If I'm correct, VMsvga2 is also a framebuffer, but it won't enable QE/CI for the same reasons.  Did you check the other framebuffers in OS X to confirm that they are similar to other hardware?  The Intel HD Graphics 3000?  Other integrated Intel cards?  Maybe even dedicated ATI and NVIDIA Graphics Cards?  My guess is they would all appear similar to VMware's Framebuffer kext.  That's why they're of the same type and that's why their Info.plist files are similar.  But enabling QE/CI works differently on every other set of video hardware.  You would probably need more tests to see how similar the hardware is between our Intel HD Graphics and the card emulated by VMware.  I would be willing to help you with any tests you need on our integrated graphics card, but I couldn't tell you where to start figuring out how to test it.  Maybe using OS's that has full-fledged graphics acceleration on both our card and VMware's emulated card (Like Windows or maybe Linux)?    Once you confirm they are similar enough to enable QE/CI in the same fashion (my guess is that it won't), you could try making legacy kexts to inject VMware's Graphics Card ID into the Intel HD Graphics kexts.  Or reverse engineering the kexts to see how QE/CI can be enabled in OS X on our Intel HD Graphics, and then engineering kexts to do the same with VMware's Graphics Card?  But then again, I will stress that this will only work if the hardware is similar!  My best guess is that it won't, but I still wish you the best of luck!!

In Topic: [GUIDE] 1st Generation Intel HD Graphics QE/CI

29 March 2014 - 02:33 PM

@GhostRaider or anyone who might know

 

What changes were made to the drivers? I'm trying to enable QE/CI on VMware, and I thought this might help since the drivers appear to be similar.

 

Thanks! :)

 

What makes you think that the drivers are similar enough that the QE/CI patches for VMware will be the same or similar to our first generation Intel HD Graphics.  Not that I want to be a doubting Thomas on this, but I'm not sure if they will work.

 

Basically, verteks here discovered a way to patch the framebuffer on Snow Leopard 10.6.8, and created a patcher to get it done for ourselves.  That patcher included a readme explaining what the patches were doing in an assembly sense.  I'm no programmer in any language, so you can just say that it was like gibberish to me.  But it may help you.  I'm not sure if the patcher can help you itself.  The one with the GUI by  was reprogrammed to do the patches with find/replace, while vertek's command line one patches it by offsets.  Here is a link to the original post by verteks: http://www.insanelym...-fixed-sl-1068/

 

There, download hdgraphics_patcher.zip, which is attached in the original post.  Extract it, and you'll find a README.txt that may or may not help you in your search.  However, I wish you the best of luck!

In Topic: Petition: Release Mac OS X for PC

26 March 2014 - 08:22 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reason why Pystar went under was because they were making a profit off installing Os X on their machines? 

 

Yes and no.  Yes - they were making profit, but no, it wasn't just because the computers they sold had OS X on.  From the court documents, you see the exact same way I described it above was outlined.  Once more, while the judge who gave the verdict cited the part of a single license for one Apple labeled computer, it did not cite the continuation where it bars people from installing OS X on non-Apple labeled computer.  Remember, this was in the days of Leopard, and the first boot 132 swap CD was still relatively new technology.  Therefore, we still were relying on patches to run OS X on our PC, with most users here encouraging the use of a pre-patched, pirated distro.  But that's beside the point.  The judge also stated that what made the installation illegal was the number of copies, but not the part of the hardware not being Apple-labeled.  While this doesn't necessarily make it illegal, it also does not make it legal, either.  Therefore, I still call hackintoshing a gray area, with my belief of fair use stated above.

 

Again like most users here you don't understand "fair use".. Apple requires Mac OS to only be used on Apple Hardware and sets means for that to be enforced. It is one thing to disregard an EULA for your own beliefs that you consider fair, its a completely different issue to circumvent known protection set to restrict the use and install of software that the EULA is representing. The illegal part comes when you knowingly exploit encrypted binaries to achieve what is supposed to not be possible.

First, you've never addressed why my understanding of fair use is not valid.  The circumvention part I get and will talk about later, but in and of itself, fair use is an exemption when referring to copyright infringement.  While still only a doctrine to be used by the courts, Congress enacted it into the copyright act in the 1970s, long before the first Mac or PC computer was ever sold.  Therefore, the argument that it can't be a fair use because I circumvent copy protection means is invalid and does not bar a fair use finding.  However, if I am missing something in my fair use finding, I certainly would be eager to hear it.

 

Second, onto the copy protection thing: The violation of the EULA I'd argue cannot be considered a computer security legality issue because I'm not harming anything of value in the process.  However, back in the Psystar case, Apple added a DMCA violation to the whole suit against Psystar.  The issue lies in that the DMCA makes it illegal to bypass copy protection, like DRM, Macrovision, or in this case, a binary protection layer, usually called DSMOS (after Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext).  However, the courts have ruled before that (in a somehow unrealistic way) it is legal to bypass copy protection if you are doing it for purposes that fall under Fair Use (I believe the case was with the CSS encryption on DVDs), but the sale or distribution of any tools whose sole purpose is to bypass copy protection is illegal.  That makes certain bootloaders like Chameleon and Clover in the gray area (they typically are only used to boot OS X on non-Apple hardware, but it can be used to chainload other bootloaders/OS), but others would probably be, under this case alone, illegal (namely FakeSMC).  Notice it doesn't say that using these distributed tools themselves is illegal, but it does say the distribution does.  I'd argue that this ruling doesn't make sense for the same reason I'm against gun control: How the heck can the lay user bypass circumvention if gaining access to the tools of others are illegal?  They won't be able to do it, and the whole ruling for the case just goes down the drain!

 

However, the US Copyright Office did make certain exemptions that they would recognize as legal and a potential fair use.  One of them is jailbreaking, making iPhone lovers rejoice while Apple mourns a loss.  Granted, hackintoshing isn't quite like jailbreaking, but it does show the copyright office isn't slow to allow mods like Hackintoshing.  To the OP and other users interested in this topic: Maybe instead of trying to petition Apple to release OS X for PC's, maybe a petition to the US Copyright Office to extend the exemption to cover this OS-hardware tying DRM circumvention (Hackintoshing is the only one I know of, but I think there may be others) would be a better option?

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