Moo Bunny Amiga - thread "YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?"
bustout (1998)

YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?

Direct link to this message

YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
http://www.osnews.com/story/22333/EFF_Warns_TI_Not_to_Pursue_Legal_Threats_Against_Hobbyists

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?

Burger Flipping Bill. bill@McDonalds.com.

(193.200.150.152) [193.200.150.152]

I sometimes wonder how that remaining brain cell of yours actually works.

You have completely misread and misunderstood that article, but then that's nothing new for a self-proclaimed 'computer expert' such as yourself.

Now re-read it, and come back and tell all of us what you perceive the threat to be.
(Hint: Apples DMCA complaints were about people modifying the OS to run on other PCs, NOT about people installing another OS on their hardware.)

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Saturday, Oct 17, 2009, Burger Flipping Bill wrote:

> You have completely misread and misunderstood that article, but then that's

You mean I misunderstood:
"Just when you thought it couldn't get any more ridiculous than that, we have a hardware company trying to prevent people from installing operating systems on its hardware."



> nothing new for a self-proclaimed 'computer expert' such as yourself.
>
> Now re-read it, and come back and tell all of us what you perceive the
> threat to be.

You mean that from the above, you couldn't "connect the dots" and see that Apple could complain that MorphOS is being installed on APPLE HW, meant to run MAC-OS.

> (Hint: Apples DMCA complaints were about people modifying the OS to run on
> other PCs, NOT about people installing another OS on their hardware.)


Silly boy, if Texas Instruments could set a precedent, Apple would be ALL OVER them.

So, what did I not understand?

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?

.. ..

(80.239.242.126) [80.239.242.126]
On Saturday, Oct 17, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> On Saturday, Oct 17, 2009, Burger Flipping Bill wrote:
>
> > You have completely misread and misunderstood that article, but then that's
>
> You mean I misunderstood:
> "Just when you thought it couldn't get any more ridiculous than that, we
> have a hardware company trying to prevent people from installing operating
> systems on its hardware."
>

Oh for the love of all that's holy.

>
>
> > nothing new for a self-proclaimed 'computer expert' such as yourself.
> >
> > Now re-read it, and come back and tell all of us what you perceive the
> > threat to be.
>
> You mean that from the above, you couldn't "connect the dots" and see that
> Apple could complain that MorphOS is being installed on APPLE HW, meant to
> run MAC-OS.
>

And if you'd bothered to learn about the situation you would have realised that TI's lawyers quoted the DMCA which specifically states that reverse engineering (which is what happened in the case of the calculators) was completely ok.

Yes, you read that right, their lawyers send cease and desist letters out that stated in no uncertain terms that what they were doing was completely legit.

Sure, TI don't like it - because the reverse engineered software not only gives the particular models in question the same features as much more expensive ones, but also threatens various licensing requirements to do with education.

But regardless of all else, a graphing calculator is a completely different beast from a general purpose computer.

> > (Hint: Apples DMCA complaints were about people modifying the OS to run on
> > other PCs, NOT about people installing another OS on their hardware.)
>
>
> Silly boy, if Texas Instruments could set a precedent, Apple would be ALL
> OVER them.

Like hell they would. Newsflash: Most Apple users also run Windows. Either on a separate piece of hardware, or through parallels or through dual booting on the MacIntels.

Apple knows this all too well - if they attempted to stamp this out their customer base would have a complete shit fit about it. Further, the Mac Minis that MorphOS runs on are PPC - a platform that Apple abandoned years ago, they don't give a damn what people do with their hardware once it's not only out of warranty but not even in production on any level.

>
> So, what did I not understand?
>

The market, the customer base, the company and the legality of reverse engineering.

TL;DR

You're full of FUD.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?

Anon. .

(75.18.208.201) adsl-75-18-208-201.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net
On Saturday, Oct 17, 2009, . wrote:
> Apple knows this all too well - if they attempted to stamp this out their
> customer base would have a complete shit fit about it. Further, the Mac
> Minis that MorphOS runs on are PPC - a platform that Apple abandoned years
> ago, they don't give a damn what people do with their hardware once it's
> not only out of warranty but not even in production on any level.

You forgot to mention that even when PPC Macs were in production, Apple never lifted a finger against ports of various free UNIX operating systems to them (Linux, FreeBSD, etc).

In fact, not only did they not lift a finger, they actively aided one of the biggest providers, Terrasoft (the company behind the Yellow Dog Linux distribution). Terrasoft was one of the rare Apple VARs (Value Added Resellers). Meaning that Terrasoft got to buy Mac hardware from Apple at wholesale prices, install Linux on it, and resell it to end users at a profit (who would go to Terrasoft for software support, naturally).

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?

Burger Flipping Bill. Bill@McDonalds.com.

(193.200.150.82) mail82.anonymouse.org
On Saturday, Oct 17, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:

> Silly boy, if Texas Instruments could set a precedent, Apple would be ALL
> OVER them.
>
> So, what did I not understand?

The reasons behind TI + Apples DMCA complaints.

Installing another OS on someone elses hardware isn't a cause for a DMCA complaint in itself.
As someone else pointed out, you can install BSD, Linux,Windows etc on Apple hardware. People have been doing this for years without a single hint of a threat from Apple.

Apples complaint was about someone selling a modified OSX.

TIs complaint was about someone cracking the keys that signed their OS, so that they could install (and sign) their own one on TIs hardware.

MorphOS on the Mac mini has done neither of these, so where exactly is the threat?

You're "joining the dots" where there are no dots to join.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?

megol. .@..

(78.72.158.56) [78.72.158.56]
On Sunday, Oct 18, 2009, Burger Flipping Bill wrote:
> On Saturday, Oct 17, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
>
> > Silly boy, if Texas Instruments could set a precedent, Apple would be ALL
> > OVER them.
> >
> > So, what did I not understand?
>
> The reasons behind TI + Apples DMCA complaints.
>
> Installing another OS on someone elses hardware isn't a cause for a DMCA
> complaint in itself.
> As someone else pointed out, you can install BSD, Linux,Windows etc on
> Apple hardware. People have been doing this for years without a single hint
> of a threat from Apple.
>
> Apples complaint was about someone selling a modified OSX.
>
> TIs complaint was about someone cracking the keys that signed their OS, so
> that they could install (and sign) their own one on TIs hardware.
>
> MorphOS on the Mac mini has done neither of these, so where exactly is the
> threat?
>
> You're "joining the dots" where there are no dots to join.
>
Texas instruments tries to stop people from hacking devices they own for the purpose of modifying those devices. The DMCA allows reverse engineering/hacking in those cases, however that has AFAIK not been tested in court.
If TI would succeed in stopping this legally that could stop people installing other operating systems on some hardware, possibly Apples Mac mini.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?

Anon. .

(75.18.208.201) adsl-75-18-208-201.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net
On Sunday, Oct 18, 2009, megol wrote:
> Texas instruments tries to stop people from hacking devices they own for
> the purpose of modifying those devices. The DMCA allows reverse
> engineering/hacking in those cases, however that has AFAIK not been tested
> in court.
> If TI would succeed in stopping this legally that could stop people
> installing other operating systems on some hardware, possibly Apples Mac
> mini.

I think that you are confused about what the DMCA does.

The DMCA does not ban reverse engineering in any general sense. It prohibits circumvention of copy protection technology. I don't remember this for sure, but I seem to recall that in theory, it's still legal to do all the reverse engineering you like on a copy protection mechanism, so long as you never take the step of creating a 'circumvention device' to defeat it (circumvention devices can be software, hardware, or both).

But regardless of whether my memory is correct on that point, the DMCA doesn't apply here. There is no copy protection mechanism which must be circumvented in order to install a non-MacOS operating system on a Mac mini.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Sunday, Oct 18, 2009, Anon wrote:
> But regardless of whether my memory is correct on that point, the DMCA
> doesn't apply here. There is no copy protection mechanism which must be
> circumvented in order to install a non-MacOS operating system on a Mac
> mini.


_However_, although it's not copy protection as such, they _don't_ reveal how to install another OS on Apple produced computers _easily_, do they?

If a no-name brand computer is sold, do they hide any information about the insides?

In a way they do, for instance nVidia asks for money to be able to utilize their video cards fully. Nintendo won't allow the DSi to be recoded. Sony pursues people that mod their PlayStations....

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?

Bernd Meyer. moo@umilator.net.

(67.152.80.232) [67.152.80.232]
On Monday, Oct 19, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:

> If a no-name brand computer is sold, do they hide any information about the
> insides?

Yes. Usually, not just any, but nearly all information....

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?

AdmV. AdmV.

(195.11.197.194) london.stagetech.com
On Monday, Oct 19, 2009, Bernd Meyer wrote:
> On Monday, Oct 19, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
>
> > If a no-name brand computer is sold, do they hide any information about the
> > insides?
>
> Yes. Usually, not just any, but nearly all information....

A no name brand - open the case, and you are very likely to find:-

Motherboard make and model, including revision.
Hard drive make, model, type.
Ram, usually marked by make, model, and rating.
The processor is usually readable at boot time.

Unless off course, youve in Bernd's paranoid world where these things must have been filled off the items and are 'unreadable'.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?

megol. .@..

(90.233.223.191) [90.233.223.191]
On Sunday, Oct 18, 2009, Anon wrote:
> On Sunday, Oct 18, 2009, megol wrote:
> > Texas instruments tries to stop people from hacking devices they own for
> > the purpose of modifying those devices. The DMCA allows reverse
> > engineering/hacking in those cases, however that has AFAIK not been tested
> > in court.
> > If TI would succeed in stopping this legally that could stop people
> > installing other operating systems on some hardware, possibly Apples Mac
> > mini.
>
> I think that you are confused about what the DMCA does.
>
No.
> The DMCA does not ban reverse engineering in any general sense. It
> prohibits circumvention of copy protection technology. I don't remember
> this for sure, but I seem to recall that in theory, it's still legal to do
> all the reverse engineering you like on a copy protection mechanism, so
> long as you never take the step of creating a 'circumvention device' to
> defeat it (circumvention devices can be software, hardware, or both).
>
> But regardless of whether my memory is correct on that point, the DMCA
> doesn't apply here. There is no copy protection mechanism which must be
> circumvented in order to install a non-MacOS operating system on a Mac
> mini.
>
Hence my use of "possibly". This case can only be relevant iff TI succeeds in making the reverse engineering currently allowed by the DMCA forbidden (not likely) _and_ the installation of a foreign operating system on a Mac mini requires sidestepping any kind of digital protection. As the requirements for protection by the DMCA is rather low I'd think something like a checksum would be enough.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?

g.i.joe. ..

(67.159.44.51) [67.159.44.51]
morphos is pretty dead now by doing this move to the macmini, appel will never accept this misusage of their hw.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?

Alkis Tsapanidis. ezyyaat@nottingham.ac.uk.

(128.243.220.41) cache3-out.nottingham.ac.uk
On Monday, Oct 19, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> On Sunday, Oct 18, 2009, Anon wrote:
> > But regardless of whether my memory is correct on that point, the DMCA
> > doesn't apply here. There is no copy protection mechanism which must be
> > circumvented in order to install a non-MacOS operating system on a Mac
> > mini.
>
>
> _However_, although it's not copy protection as such, they _don't_ reveal
> how to install another OS on Apple produced computers _easily_, do they?
>
> If a no-name brand computer is sold, do they hide any information about the
> insides?
>
> In a way they do, for instance nVidia asks for money to be able to utilize
> their video cards fully. Nintendo won't allow the DSi to be recoded. Sony
> pursues people that mod their PlayStations....
>

Well, they were using a standard firmware on PPC, OpenFirmware, instead of going the custom way they could have used, used to support Linux development in years past and they specifically distribute a BIOS emulator for EFI plus Windows drivers for their hardware, to install Windows on it. So, they might not be readily releasing the documentation to their hardware but they are more supportive of OS development for their hardware than some other companies.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?

.. ..

(80.239.242.126) [80.239.242.126]
On Monday, Oct 19, 2009, Alkis Tsapanidis wrote:
> On Monday, Oct 19, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> > On Sunday, Oct 18, 2009, Anon wrote:
> > > But regardless of whether my memory is correct on that point, the DMCA
> > > doesn't apply here. There is no copy protection mechanism which must be
> > > circumvented in order to install a non-MacOS operating system on a Mac
> > > mini.
> >
> >
> > _However_, although it's not copy protection as such, they _don't_ reveal
> > how to install another OS on Apple produced computers _easily_, do they?
> >
> > If a no-name brand computer is sold, do they hide any information about the
> > insides?
> >
> > In a way they do, for instance nVidia asks for money to be able to utilize
> > their video cards fully. Nintendo won't allow the DSi to be recoded. Sony
> > pursues people that mod their PlayStations....
> >
>
> Well, they were using a standard firmware on PPC, OpenFirmware, instead of
> going the custom way they could have used, used to support Linux
> development in years past and they specifically distribute a BIOS emulator
> for EFI plus Windows drivers for their hardware, to install Windows on it.
> So, they might not be readily releasing the documentation to their hardware
> but they are more supportive of OS development for their hardware than some
> other companies.
>

The as far as the newer macs go, other OS's only have to look to running a bios emulation layer and the rest is standard PC. The older ones had (as I understand it) custom northbridges but fairly standard southbridge chips. Apple made a lot of effort to support linux on their PPC gear, especially in light of OSX's pathetic server performance.

But again this is all Apples (fnar!) and Oranges here. There was no super secret drm scheme on macs preventing installation of other OS's. They aren't like modern games consoles that have specific systems in place to prevent anything that the console maker doesn't want installing being put on there.

Even if by some miricle (and it'd have to be) that TI get away with banning the release of customised systems for their calculators, this would have absolutely no bearing on the Macs, PPC or otherwise.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?

Bernd Meyer. moo@umilator.net.

(63.146.69.17) [63.146.69.17]
On Monday, Oct 19, 2009, AdmV wrote:
>
> A no name brand - open the case, and you are very likely to find:-

...that you have already handed over the money. Which is just a tad late to find out whether that magic box you just bought actually contains the ingredients you wanted to buy.

Of course, once you have the box to open, you don't need to open it, anyway. This is the age of PCI, USB, SATA and so on --- hardware self-identifies in standardised ways[1], on just about any platform. On those oh-so-secret Macs it takes all of three mouse clicks to bring up the system profiler under MacOS, which will happily tell you all about the machine, just like a simple "lspci" or "lsusb" (or appropriate commands for other self-identifying busses) will under linux --- that is if you prefer not to peruse the graphical system info which comes with most distributions.

Presumably, the same information can be gathered under Windows, too.

However, none of that will do you any good if you are standing in the shop, looking at a shrink-wrapped packet which says "3 GHz Computer, 4GB memory, 1TB hard drive".

> Unless off course, youve in Bernd's paranoid world where these things must
> have been filled off the items and are 'unreadable'.

Welcome to the real world, where asking salesdroids to open up the box for you to look at model numbers on chips is hit-and-miss at best, and where pulling off the "FreakoVision Enhanced Super Duper Feature" sticker which FreakoVision, Inc. stuck smack bang on top of that all-important model number is clearly a no-go until you hand over the money.


Don't get me wrong, I fully agree that 95+% of people don't give a damn whether the NetGear router they are about to buy has the same hardware in it as the same model NetGear router they bought a week ago, as long as it behaves the same way, and that the other 5-% are not enough to warrant paying for better salesdroids. But don't pretend the problem doesn't exist.


[1]: The notable exception being the venerable I2C bus(es) that things like sensors are attached to. Pain in the butt, that one.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?

AdmV. AdmV.

(94.194.202.229) [94.194.202.229]
On Monday, Oct 19, 2009, Bernd Meyer wrote:

Snipped. Cue the usual Bernd bullshit.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Monday, Oct 19, 2009, . wrote:
>
> The as far as the newer macs go, other OS's only have to look to running a
> bios emulation layer and the rest is standard PC. The older ones had (as I
> understand it) custom northbridges but fairly standard southbridge chips.



"but *fairly standard* southbridge chips."

SO WAS MAI!!!!!!!!!!!

And how hard was THAT to work with???

If Apple don't tell, it ain't easy, ya knows?

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Monday, Oct 19, 2009, . wrote:
> The as far as the newer macs go, other OS's only have to look to running a
> bios emulation layer and the rest is standard PC. The older ones had (as I
> understand it) custom northbridges but fairly standard southbridge chips.
> Apple made a lot of effort to support linux on their PPC gear, especially
> in light of OSX's pathetic server performance.


A-ha! So they had a selfish need to fulfill! That doesn't mean that they were'nt, otherwise, opposed to alternate OSs being foisted onto _their_ HW. And if there's a law, maybe even a bit vague, that they wouldn't want it enforced.

Try and re-OS the iPhone, see what happens.

> But again this is all Apples (fnar!) and Oranges here. There was no super
> secret drm scheme on macs preventing installation of other OS's.

They weren't open to _any one_ making an OS, though.

> They
> aren't like modern games consoles that have specific systems in place to
> prevent anything that the console maker doesn't want installing being put
> on there.

Agreed.

> Even if by some miricle (and it'd have to be) that TI get away with banning
> the release of customised systems for their calculators, this would have
> absolutely no bearing on the Macs, PPC or otherwise.


SCO vs. IBuM.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?

.. ..

(80.239.242.126) [80.239.242.126]
On Monday, Oct 19, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> On Monday, Oct 19, 2009, . wrote:
> >
> > The as far as the newer macs go, other OS's only have to look to running a
> > bios emulation layer and the rest is standard PC. The older ones had (as I
> > understand it) custom northbridges but fairly standard southbridge chips.
>
>
>
> "but *fairly standard* southbridge chips."
>
> SO WAS MAI!!!!!!!!!!!
>

MAI produced the northbridge - Articia-S, a buggy piece of shit which was made worse by being coupled with the VIA 82C686B - a chip that had gone down in PC land infamy as being one of the worst southbridges ever to have graced a production motherboard.


> And how hard was THAT to work with???

When you deliberately choose known defective parts, you get what you deserve.

>
> If Apple don't tell, it ain't easy, ya knows?
>

But, and here's the thing you have missed (or ignored) They *do* tell, Yellowdog linux was running for years and years on Apple brand hardware, not only with the knowledge of Apple, but with their active support.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?

.. ..

(80.239.242.126) [80.239.242.126]
On Monday, Oct 19, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> On Monday, Oct 19, 2009, . wrote:
> > The as far as the newer macs go, other OS's only have to look to running a
> > bios emulation layer and the rest is standard PC. The older ones had (as I
> > understand it) custom northbridges but fairly standard southbridge chips.
> > Apple made a lot of effort to support linux on their PPC gear, especially
> > in light of OSX's pathetic server performance.
>
>
> A-ha! So they had a selfish need to fulfill! That doesn't mean that they
> were'nt, otherwise, opposed to alternate OSs being foisted onto _their_ HW.
> And if there's a law, maybe even a bit vague, that they wouldn't want it
> enforced.
>

Yellow dog wasn't the only OS that benefited from Apple's openness. And forgive me for saying so, but Companies generally speaking only do things they view to be in their best interest. Trying to write this up as something Apple specific is ludicrous.

Fact is, you could run any number of operating systems on Mac hardware (and still can) as a result of Apples policy of allowing people access to the specs.

> Try and re-OS the iPhone, see what happens.
>

The iPhone is DRM'd up to the hilt. Further there are contractual issues (at least in the US) regarding the iPhone that simply do not apply to a desktop PC - again apples and oranges. In principle one could run Palm's WebOS on an iPhone since they both run the same hardware.

> > But again this is all Apples (fnar!) and Oranges here. There was no super
> > secret drm scheme on macs preventing installation of other OS's.
>
> They weren't open to _any one_ making an OS, though.
>

Again, this is clearly in error. See Yellowdog linux and others.


> SCO vs. IBuM.
>

Grow up.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Monday, Oct 19, 2009, . wrote:
> On Monday, Oct 19, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> > On Monday, Oct 19, 2009, . wrote:
> > >
> > > The as far as the newer macs go, other OS's only have to look to running a
> > > bios emulation layer and the rest is standard PC. The older ones had (as I
> > > understand it) custom northbridges but fairly standard southbridge chips.
> >
> >
> >
> > "but *fairly standard* southbridge chips."
> >
> > SO WAS MAI!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
>
> MAI produced the northbridge - Articia-S, a buggy piece of shit which was
> made worse by being coupled with the VIA 82C686B - a chip that had gone
> down in PC land infamy as being one of the worst southbridges ever to have
> graced a production motherboard.

IBuM sent Eyetech there.


> > And how hard was THAT to work with???
>
> When you deliberately choose known defective parts, you get what you
> deserve.

_IBuM_ sent Eyetech there.

>
> >
> > If Apple don't tell, it ain't easy, ya knows?
> >
>
> But, and here's the thing you have missed (or ignored) They *do* tell,

If they tell....

> Yellowdog linux was running for years and years on Apple brand hardware,
> not only with the knowledge of Apple, but with their active support.


.... errr, yeah, and Eyetech could have gone and bought southbridge chips from Apple and built a properly functioning (in your eyes) motherboard with a G3/4 CPU?

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?

.. ..

(80.239.242.126) [80.239.242.126]
On Monday, Oct 19, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> On Monday, Oct 19, 2009, . wrote:
> > On Monday, Oct 19, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> > > On Monday, Oct 19, 2009, . wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The as far as the newer macs go, other OS's only have to look to running a
> > > > bios emulation layer and the rest is standard PC. The older ones had (as I
> > > > understand it) custom northbridges but fairly standard southbridge chips.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "but *fairly standard* southbridge chips."
> > >
> > > SO WAS MAI!!!!!!!!!!!
> > >
> >
> > MAI produced the northbridge - Articia-S, a buggy piece of shit which was
> > made worse by being coupled with the VIA 82C686B - a chip that had gone
> > down in PC land infamy as being one of the worst southbridges ever to have
> > graced a production motherboard.
>
> IBuM sent Eyetech there.

Which doesn't change the fact that the failings of the Articia and the VIA chips were public knowledge. They weren't even the only vendor that were supplying chipsets for PPC motherboards in the class that Eyetech wanted.

>
>
> > > And how hard was THAT to work with???
> >
> > When you deliberately choose known defective parts, you get what you
> > deserve.
>
> _IBuM_ sent Eyetech there.
>

And Eyetech, even when told of the defective parts not only ignored the people pointing it out went one stage further and actively colluded with others to stop their customers knowing.

None of which was IBM's fault. MAI were not the only ones in the market at the time.

> >
> > >
> > > If Apple don't tell, it ain't easy, ya knows?
> > >
> >
> > But, and here's the thing you have missed (or ignored) They *do* tell,
>
> If they tell....
>

Documented fact that they do supply the information.

> > Yellowdog linux was running for years and years on Apple brand hardware,
> > not only with the knowledge of Apple, but with their active support.
>
> .... errr, yeah, and Eyetech could have gone and bought southbridge chips
> from Apple and built a properly functioning (in your eyes) motherboard with
> a G3/4 CPU?
>

That would have been up to Apple as the vendor. However it should be pointed out that Yellowdog made quite a tidy profit for themselves buying in Apple hardware at wholesale costs and selling them on with YDL on.

None of this however changes the fact that your initial statement is full of FUD.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: YIKES! Strange Threat to Future of MorphOS?

Anon. .

(75.18.208.201) adsl-75-18-208-201.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net
On Monday, Oct 19, 2009, . wrote:
> Fact is, you could run any number of operating systems on Mac hardware (and
> still can) as a result of Apples policy of allowing people access to the
> specs.

Let's not go too far. Apple doesn't release the type of detailed hardware documentation which would be useful to developers porting an operating system.

That doesn't mean they try to completely lock down information either.

They did (and still do) release source code for some of their drivers (back in the PPC era, that would've been MkLinux source, today it's Darwin kernel source). Reading driver source can substitute as HW documentation for kernel developers. (Sometimes it's worse than docs, and sometimes it can actually be better -- for example, docs often fail to properly document HW bugs, but driver source might have workarounds, and if you're lucky it will have informative comments about them...)

Intel Macs use very few Apple-specific chips. Their motherboards contain mostly off the shelf Intel (and, over the past year or so, NVidia) parts. Thus, some documentation is available from other channels.

The same was true of PPC Macs. Despite what's been said in some previous messages, PPC Macs generally had custom north _and_ south bridges. However, custom didn't mean that Apple designed everything in-house, just that the chip as a whole was unique to Apple. In particular, the peripheral devices such as Ethernet, serial, USB and SCSI integrated into their bridge chips were almost always licensed intellectual property from other companies, and it was often possible to get documentation directly from them.

You can also find CHRP documentation. It doesn't all apply: after CHRP died as a potential industry standard Apple didn't bother making sure their new designs complied with it (and actually I don't think they ever made a 100% CHRP Mac anyways). However, they never completely diverged from CHRP either.

Reply to this

Short list view

Previous thread - Next thread

Back to Moo Bunny

It is now: 11:55:56 GMT.
Moo Bunny brand Message Boards
[General Stuff (10:30:54)] [Space (Aug 2009)] [Anime (2007)]
[WalkingFish (Oct 3)] [Cabinet of Curiosities (2007)] [Portland (2008)]
Retro and Exotic Computing
[Atari ST (2007)] [WeirdMac (Jan 2009)]
Amiga Boards
[Amiga Section (11:37:14)]
John Shepard's Projects
[Rastport (Tuesday)] [Squid's Amiga Page & Rumor Mill (n/a)] [Art by John Shepard (Sep 2009)]