Mysticus C* Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 the whole efix thing is quite funny with all the claims and {censored} being talked... netkas maybe a good programmer/hacker etc... but he is a liar and cheater by using others works as well... i posted in his site many times saying some negative thoughts about how he reacted to pystar things with crying out loud for efi as if he did it himself he never published my comments... he knows he doesnt own efi project so he doesnt let people know it either... he is a good stealer indeed... he uses people's work and later acts as the owner of codes... and now efix got a sample and testing it is all {censored}... they are using efi standard in an emulation environment, and claiming copyrights and with the device they make a copy protection built-in... how ironic... the usb can only be the additional missing pieces that were not done through efi bootloaders... it is just adding (most likely) hacked code from real mac's efi and try to do business with it... isnt this the same netkas complained when pystar used (claimed to be) his efi version? now using the same technics... how ironic... So is EFiX just a usb device where I could copy the files to an existing USB thumb drive?Absolutely not! EFiX is neither a memory stick or thumb drive. It is a completely unique device with very intricate protection above and beyond your wildest imagination. just laughing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iSkylla Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Wrong, there's a reason why his stuff isn't open source. Support zef and open source Chameleon. It's open source and a better bootloader. It also supports AMD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davilla Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 So much discussion, so little real information Here's how I think it works; 1) Use the standard method that Apple provides for implementing RAID arrays using a EFI code addition. Search for root != boot. This gives a Apple supported method to gain control at the EFI firmware level and provide a hardware cert protection that prevents operation without the USB device. This method is already used for RAID arrays and encrypted hard disks where OSX lives on the RAID/encrypted disk. 2) This EFI code is a small segment that lives on the USB device and does a cert verify with the USB hardware device before decrypting and installing more EFI code that over-rides the main EFI boot loader. There are already existing USB devices that have a public partition and private partition that is encrypted. 3) The new EFI bootloader handles what PC_EFI/Chameleon does but much earlier in the boot process. Still need kext support for non-Apple hardware but I don't think that's a problem as there are existing OSX methods for this too. What is interesting is that netkas has one but is not revealing anything about how it works or even what it looks like. So either netkas is involved with these people or netkas wants to reverse-engineer it so he can use the same method to protect his work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysticus C* Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Wrong, there's a reason why his stuff isn't open source. Support zef and open source Chameleon. It's open source and a better bootloader. It also supports AMD. all the way chamelon...!!! hopefully it will become the main stream quicker.... bcoz i get tired of hearing people claiming copyright and etc where in the first place things are not owned by these people anyways... you hack and/or modify someone elses work and than later put a copyright or copy protection is just lame... i hope chamelon stays as friendly as possible unlike the current efi... bcoz otherwise it goes into commercial world and will not live long b4 actions taken... and everything will be doomed... What is interesting is that netkas has one but is not revealing anything about how it works or even what it looks like. So either netkas is involved with these people or netkas wants to reverse-engineer it so he can use the same method to protect his work. i dont think it is thinking work... this is 100% sure that netkas is involved!!! listen to what he is saying in the video... you will find the clues... in no way he will be willing to reveal what it is, bcoz he wants to make money out of it... but lets see, it will not live very long, in commercial means... bcoz of the nature of work done in it and what it does... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dantès Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 netkas, is Mysticus C* wrong ? Honest question. What did Mysticus C* say that was wrong or untrue. I would like to know all the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stellarola Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Hahaha. We are so busy dreaming about the possible features of efi-x that seems that nobody realised that stellarola, who talked to one of the devs, recommended to get a mobo with ALC889A because it will have the audio working natively. And that means that people with that mobos may have it working without any additional driver or kext! So maybe we should start looking for that motherboards (according to Taruga's site relation between chipset/mobo):GA-X38-DS5GA-P35-DS3RGA-P35-DS3 (rev 1)GA-G33M-DS2RHowever, that doesn't mean other sounds won't be supported.... -StellReally? My dream will come true, wow Mac OS on a PC, yay, wonderful, hurray :glare: :D :D -Stell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teknojunkie Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 the whole efix thing is quite funny with all the claims and {censored} being talked... netkas maybe a good programmer/hacker etc... but he is a liar and cheater by using others works as well... i posted in his site many times saying some negative thoughts about how he reacted to pystar things with crying out loud for efi as if he did it himself he never published my comments... he knows he doesnt own efi project so he doesnt let people know it either... he is a good stealer indeed... he uses people's work and later acts as the owner of codes... and now efix got a sample and testing it is all {censored}... they are using efi standard in an emulation environment, and claiming copyrights and with the device they make a copy protection built-in... how ironic... the usb can only be the additional missing pieces that were not done through efi bootloaders... it is just adding (most likely) hacked code from real mac's efi and try to do business with it... isnt this the same netkas complained when pystar used (claimed to be) his efi version? now using the same technics... how ironic... just laughing... he doesn't own the efi project but he started the PCEFI project. and the EFI-X is different pcefi you still need to work around patches and with their efi its all native with Mac Os X leopard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superhai Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 I think this is going way out. What about waiting one week and see what this really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
netkas Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 I never declined pc_Efi based on dfe's efi tables works, BUT, pc_efi is much more then just an emulated tables(got, fsb speed getting, device properties, etc) , so i'm not liar btw, dfe had no plans on making bootloader for hackint0shes, so, tell me big "Thank u" for making it possible and very usefull and be quite. ah about psystar, u r so naive, soooo.... try to guess what it is all was really for ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyper X Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Egads, can everyone calm down. Netkas has been nothing but nice to the community. It does not matter if he is involved or NOT. That said I wish Netkas would give us a bit more info on EFI-X... then just an install video. Please Netkas *give you puppy eyes* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
netkas Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 official announcement is on monday, as site says, can't we all jsut wait few days ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fagosu Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 official announcement is on monday, as site says, can't we all jsut wait few days ? EXACTLY!! It's just four days away. Although to be fair, Stell and Yourself did tease us all a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyper X Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 official announcement is on monday, as site says, can't we all jsut wait few days ? Dear god no, Do you think we are patient and rational people? I demand instant satisfaction! *Whine emo cry* Can't you just like give us a hint? Please? BEE UR BEST FWIEND 4EVA!!! 4REALZ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xlars Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 official announcement is on monday, as site says, can't we all jsut wait few days ? Are you under NDA ? If yes, why ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysticus C* Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 I never declined pc_Efi based on dfe's efi tables works, BUT, pc_efi is much more then just an emulated tables(got, fsb speed getting, device properties, etc) , so i'm not liar where in your efi description does it state dfe? and acknowledgement? in the first place it is intel's property and apple put sources for it and later changed its open source licence aggreement to be make it not available... but all I see is in your claims are about your pride making it (the way you say it) as all by yourself... after pystar case, you put together a duct taped together license as well nice btw, dfe had no plans on making bootloader for hackint0shes, so, tell me big "Thank u" for making it possible and very usefull and be quite. I already said I respect your work and modifications to the project and the work you put into it... which part it is not thankful enough? I am pointing out what it was, and what it became off... ah about psystar, u r so naive, soooo....try to guess what it is all was really for ? i already said I dont like them either... having said that pointed out you became the same... did the original apple license (or intel IP rights?) allowed you to use efi source commercially? this is what i m pointing out... this is why commercialization of efi will get you into trouble and so the osx86 project as a whole... if what efix claims are true, apple will be in big trouble so are you... so the osx86 project as a whole... apple does efi updates as u know... but knowing apple, it is not hard to make things harder... I am commenting on your claims and work... not denying they are usefull but be truthful as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninetto Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 EXACTLY!! It's just four days away. Although to be fair, Stell and Yourself did tease us all a bit. It's called foreplay. Makes you more interested than you stuffin it down your own throat with a mouse click. Breath in breath out. Enjoy. Two days until the longest day of the year, then 48 hrs later, you will be wiser and more relaxed. Not too often that one gets to predict the future, huh? regardz, ninetto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steadybootleggin Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 I can wait ...... As long as they are not too much $$$$$..... And as long as I can get one shipped here to the USA....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stravaganza Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 While this is an interesting development, I am not quite interested in the device itself. In the end, one still needs to find a motherboard and components as compatible to Machintosh as possible if he aims for perfection. I am sure that at most one or two patches (sound and possibly LAN) will result in perfect Hackintoshes for most Intel motherboards that we already have. I just hope that this does not discourage those who develop the drivers for incompatible components. I'd like to see the unnecessary traffic for redundunt Q&A threads on this forum to be dramatically reduced. Hope only Hackintosh enthusiasts are left. P.S. I hope this device puts Psystar out of business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Regarding the whole netkas - EFI business - Chameleon thing, I would like to make a few comments. First of all, its well known that both Chameleon and PC_EFI are both based on David Elliot's (dfe) EFI emulation, however the difference comes that netkas doesn't state anywhere (at least that I can find) that he did use dfe's code, but in the Chameleon page it quite clearly states that the Chameleon project is based on dfe's work. They both use the code, but the difference is when it comes to giving appropriate credit. On the other hand, I support open source and I have switched all my machines to Chameleon, and I can say its working beautifully. All I did was overwrite the existing PC_EFI v8 with Chameleon and it works great. Chameleon has more support than PC_EFI, and I don't know if its just me, but my machine boots somewhat faster with Chameleon than PC_EFI. However, Mysticus, you are wrong in the sense that EFI-X is a commercialization of netkas' work nor is it dfe's work, or even software based. It clearly states on the EFI-X page that it is hardware based and NOT software based. People should really get that fact into their minds before making these really out-of-whack predictions. So in that sense, its not an attempt to make a quick buck off others' work, and the reason why netkas is concealing the information is unrelated to that fact. Who knows, maybe EFI-X TOLD netkas not to tell more than what was necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kinkster Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 I assume that would be true. At any rate if he got a free trial before others he probably wouldn't be inclined to tell us much until its officialy released, unless they expressly told him they didn't care if he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbonkers Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 one thing about Chameleon bootloader. does it support guid/gpt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Envying Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 one thing about Chameleon bootloader. does it support guid/gpt? I love it, it's open source! Do your own reading here---hxxp://chameleon.osx86.hu/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysticus C* Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Regarding the whole netkas - EFI business - Chameleon thing, I would like to make a few comments. First of all, its well known that both Chameleon and PC_EFI are both based on David Elliot's (dfe) EFI emulation, however the difference comes that netkas doesn't state anywhere (at least that I can find) that he did use dfe's code, but in the Chameleon page it quite clearly states that the Chameleon project is based on dfe's work. They both use the code, but the difference is when it comes to giving appropriate credit. On the other hand, I support open source and I have switched all my machines to Chameleon, and I can say its working beautifully. All I did was overwrite the existing PC_EFI v8 with Chameleon and it works great. Chameleon has more support than PC_EFI, and I don't know if its just me, but my machine boots somewhat faster with Chameleon than PC_EFI 100% agreed and this is what i was talking about... however... However, Mysticus, you are wrong in the sense that EFI-X is a commercialization of netkas' work nor is it dfe's work, or even software based. It clearly states on the EFI-X page that it is hardware based and NOT software based. People should really get that fact into their minds before making these really out-of-whack predictions. So in that sense, its not an attempt to make a quick buck off others' work, and the reason why netkas is concealing the information is unrelated to that fact. Who knows, maybe EFI-X TOLD netkas not to tell more than what was necessary? I do not agree to this part for the following reasons: if efix is another company not related to netkas at all, and have/had enough knowledge to do hardware solution, I dont think they would first send it to netkas only... there are many more far more popular places to send a test... for example insanelymac directly, bcoz IM website gets far more hits than netkas' own site... if this thing is/was legal obviuosly, everything would be different... apple is smart enough to put efi into their macs, i think they would be smart enough to change/modify/encrypt the efi to different levels and dont think it is widely/freely open and available to everyone anymore... now to avoid conflicting with the REAL TRUTH of making efi commercialy available everywhere is the deal breaker... obviously they (netkas and efix team or whoever involved in it) are aware of this and clever enought to put it into markets where legal system has somewhat deficient or missing pieces to deal with dmcas... so it is sort of making quick buck out of this efi project as much as they can get away with it w/o being detected or being sued... i dont mind they are having money out of it either... as long a it is usefull to majority... also as you pointed out open source, it is not hard to imagine some missing pieces being taken from chamelon to be implemented into efix (since it is software upgradable) and later being named with it all together... why bother to credit people will know WHO DID IT (a little sarcasm) last but not least, usb device has to be (can be a network device with pxe rom built in as well to point another storage area to be able to boot) first storage device based which can be in this case flash disk or memory so usb boot call can be passed onto and read from the usb device to be able start the boot process or emulate it somehow until it initially loads some drivers (which efi has and advantage over bios, which can load a particular function w/o loading entire OS)... all in all it is a software placed in a usb form... since it canot be the efi chip itself??? it has to be emulating it, to do that it has to be in a storage area and load as normal hdds does... it is hardware based so a HDD put chamelon on the hdd or usb flash device it becomes emulated hardware, and software upgradable as well i am only pointing out my opinion as a third person, about what is/was/(maybe) will become later... people may or may not agree like how i agree or disagree but no needed additional war this is just thinkering not fighting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one_7 Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 guys how to try chameleon? can i just install this on top of my existing osx install that use pcefi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 100% agreed and this is what i was talking about... however... I do not agree to this part for the following reasons: if efix is another company not related to netkas at all, and have/had enough knowledge to do hardware solution, I dont think they would first send it to netkas only... there are many more far more popular places to send a test... for example insanelymac directly, bcoz IM website gets far more hits than netkas' own site... if this thing is/was legal obviuosly, everything would be different... netkas is the developer of the original PC_EFI and therefore more people look to his site than InsanelyMac for news on EFI, GFX strings, etc. That makes him the perfect candidate to spread the news. apple is smart enough to put efi into their macs, i think they would be smart enough to change/modify/encrypt the efi to different levels and dont think it is widely/freely open and available to everyone anymore... now to avoid conflicting with the REAL TRUTH of making efi commercialy available everywhere is the deal breaker... obviously they (netkas and efix team or whoever involved in it) are aware of this and clever enought to put it into markets where legal system has somewhat deficient or missing pieces to deal with dmcas... so it is sort of making quick buck out of this efi project as much as they can get away with it w/o being detected or being sued... i dont mind they are having money out of it either... as long a it is usefull to majority... Actually they are only selling it in those European and Asian countries because they cannot find appropriate resellers in North America. If they do find resellers it will come here, and if not, we can still get it through the internet anyway. last but not least, usb device has to be (can be a network device with pxe rom built in as well to point another storage area to be able to boot) first storage device based which can be in this case flash disk or memory so usb boot call can be passed onto and read from the usb device to be able start the boot process or emulate it somehow until it initially loads some drivers (which efi has and advantage over bios, which can load a particular function w/o loading entire OS)... all in all it is a software placed in a usb form... since it canot be the efi chip itself??? it has to be emulating it, to do that it has to be in a storage area and load as normal hdds does... it is hardware based so a HDD put chamelon on the hdd or usb flash device it becomes emulated hardware, and software upgradable as well No, like I said, it is completely hardware based. "Software Upgradeable" means that you can upgrade the firmware/software stored on the ROM (you know, just like you can upgrade Mac firmware through Software Update, and thats hardware too isn't it?). If it was software based it would get dd'ed and it would be flying through the net the day it comes out. This is a completely hardware based solution (other than the drivers system) and that is what you have to keep in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts