thelinuxlink.net

Mornin' I have a son at Texas A&M. He is a long time linux user. He is now working as a lab assistant and is having to convert to a mac. This is what the PHD that runs the lab insists on. The mac laptops are just way overpriced. I have read a lot about OSX86 and normal intel computers. It seems that this is working pretty well for most things with one of the notable exceptions being wireless. It seems like it could be overcome but this has caused me to wonder about the relationship of OSX and BSD. As I understand it these are closely related. I have no experience with either. How close are these OS's? Could drivers from BSD work with OSX? Since I don't have any experience with either I was thinking maybe some of the folks here have some knowledge they woul share.

David

The userland in OSX is taken from FreeBSD, however, the kernels are different so the drivers from FreeBSD will not work. I'm just curious why they are insisting on OSX, do they use administration/testing tools specific to OSX? Also, what kind of lab is it? Just a computer lab or some sort of science lab? I remember that a lot of scientific software and hardware in the past was specific to Mac, due in most part to SCSI and external SCSI being predominant in Macs and much more reliable in time critical testing. Of course that's no longer the case, but as they say, old habits die hard.

You can actually install osx on normal Intel or AMD hardware , as long as the cpu has the SSE3 extention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSE3#CPUs_with_SSE3

For more information on how to actually it can be found at the wiki :-
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

spotslayer wrote:Mornin' I have a son at Texas A&M. He is a long time linux user. He is now working as a lab assistant and is having to convert to a mac. This is what the PHD that runs the lab insists on. The mac laptops are just way overpriced. I have read a lot about OSX86 and normal intel computers. It seems that this is working pretty well for most things with one of the notable exceptions being wireless. It seems like it could be overcome but this has caused me to wonder about the relationship of OSX and BSD. As I understand it these are closely related. I have no experience with either. How close are these OS's? Could drivers from BSD work with OSX? Since I don't have any experience with either I was thinking maybe some of the folks here have some knowledge they woul share.

David

The "OSX86" that you are referring to is a "project" that attempts to circumvents Apple's restrictions on which computers Mac OS X can be installed on, and just so you know, it is illegal, under both traditional copyright law, and the DMCA.

Like adam said, the userland in Mac OS X is largely based off of FreeBSD, and parts of the kernel incorporates BSD APIs and stuff like that. However the kernel is mostly a Mach micro kernel, which is not the BSD UNIX kernel, even though it runs some BSD services. FreeBSD uses a monolithic kernel design with driver modules, similar to the Linux kernel. OS X uses a micro kernel, which is very different, which is why drivers absolutely cannot work on one or the other, because even though they have fed into each other, one is not the other and vice versa.

allix wrote:You can actually install osx on normal Intel or AMD hardware , as long as the cpu has the SSE3 extention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSE3#CPUs_with_SSE3

For more information on how to actually it can be found at the wiki :-
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

Just so we're clear here, this is a violation of the law and should you get caught, you can get quite a kick in the nuts for it.

Tsuroerusu wrote: Just so we're clear here, this is a violation of the law and should you get caught, you can get quite a kick in the nuts for it.

using MPEG 1,2,4 codecs and libdvdcss in america and japan without paying a patent license is a violation of the law yet loads of people do it.

allix wrote:

Tsuroerusu wrote: Just so we're clear here, this is a violation of the law and should you get caught, you can get quite a kick in the nuts for it.

using MPEG 1,2,4 codecs and libdvdcss in america and japan without paying a patent license is a violation of the law yet loads of people do it.

There's a difference between violating a patent license and copyright law. AFAIK, violating a patent license is not a crime, but more of a "business issue". Whereas say downloading an unauthorized copy of a Hollywood movie, an unauthorized copy of Windows, or Mac OS etc. are treated as actual crimes. I am not saying I agree with these laws, but I am simply reminding you that when you talk about running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, you're essentially doing the software equivalent of encouraging somebody to download a Hollywood movie, illegally. Treated by law, as a crime.

Well at this point I am just looking to enlighten myself. I have no experience with bsd or osx. I have seen the OSX86 project and that prompted my questions. I realized it was probably illegal. That prompts me to wonder what if you purchase OSX instead of DL an illegal copy. I know that would be a violation of the license. Would that be similar to using media codecs? Just asking.

He is a graduate and is working as a lab assistant. It is a medical research lab. The PHD that runs the lab that he is working for want's them to use apple since he does and is familiar with it. Chris does not have much choice. Like at my job I am required to use windows(spit) even though I hate it.

David

You can buy osx separately. I do not see how it could be a copyright violation if you only ran it on only one machine. Years ago the Supreme court of these United States said (paraphrasing) that you can do what it takes to make a piece of software you have rights to on your system. I wish I still had that quote. I guess Apple and Microsoft are above the Supreme court.
Having worked for a college, sometimes they have site license agreements which are different than the typical off the shelf retail license, so you can depending on the contract run an os on either on a certain amount of machines or any machines that do the institution's work. We put xp on about anything that turned on. Microsoft also sold xp licenses to computing students for five dollars each. It would amaze me if Apple would be so generous. The IT department of Texas A & M Should be able to tell you specifically about possible site licenses or policies if any. With all the future computer wizards up at Aggieland, I am surprised one could not get any help, but then again they are kind of uppity there. They were never that way at Sam Houston State U. My computer wizard brother went there at Sam.

Apple licensing runs a bit differently, from what I recall. You cannot buy a "full version" license of OS X, they are all upgrades. The full version is what you get when you buy the system. What their license agreement is for the upgrade I am not sure, but I suspect that it says somewhere in there you have to have and Apple licensed device to install it on.

There other software, like iLife and iWorks, though you can get a site license for.

Now MS software, on the other hand, requires, depending on the license, that you include all systems greater than a 486 in your institution to be licensed.

With Apple you are dealing with both hardware and software in the totality of the license.

In case you haven't already thought about it, you should be able to find some G4 powerbooks on ebay at reasonable prices.

spotslayer wrote:Well at this point I am just looking to enlighten myself. I have no experience with bsd or osx. I have seen the OSX86 project and that prompted my questions. I realized it was probably illegal. That prompts me to wonder what if you purchase OSX instead of DL an illegal copy. I know that would be a violation of the license. Would that be similar to using media codecs? Just asking.

No, it's not legal, and even if it was, a retail copy of Mac OS X won't install on a standard PC. Apple intentionally locks Mac OS X to their hardware, and the versions of Mac OS X that are floating around on BitTorrent are heavily hacked and patched to install and run on BIOS-based PCs.

adam wrote:In case you haven't already thought about it, you should be able to find some G4 powerbooks on ebay at reasonable prices.

You're still overpaying for the hardware. Compare prices of 2005-ish PowerBook G4s to any recent PC laptop. They aren't worth the price, IMO. The PowerPC G4 pales in comparison to any of the current gen x86 chips out there, not to mention you're getting slower memory, graphics, etc.

As he says Ebay likely is probably the best solution. I have bought an Imac on ebay for as low as $20 dollars. but It runs debian now. Most but not all of the macs I have seen on ebay do not come with the os.

Fry's sells a version of os/x that is not an upgrade. I think even Microcenter did for a while also. People sell original disks of os/x on ebay all the time.

Well you can buy OS X from Apple, or pretty much any other online retailer. But keep in mind, Leopard requires an 867MHz G4 or better. No G3 support, either.

spotslayer wrote:Well at this point I am just looking to enlighten myself. I have no experience with bsd or osx. I have seen the OSX86 project and that prompted my questions. I realized it was probably illegal. That prompts me to wonder what if you purchase OSX instead of DL an illegal copy. I know that would be a violation of the license. Would that be similar to using media codecs? Just asking.

No, that would be a traditional copyright violation on the same level as modifying Windows system components. See, with media codecs (If they're free software like libmad, ffmpeg etc. not proprietary like the w32codecs) you are just violating a patent, which is merely "infringing upon somebody's invention" (Notice the quotes, because I wrote that reluctantly), but OS X in this case, you are violating copyright law. Plain and simple.

davijordan wrote:You can buy osx separately. I do not see how it could be a copyright violation if you only ran it on only one machine.

I don't know Apple's licenses, and I refuse to kill my brain by trying to read them, but it merely has to say something like "The software may be used only with Apple hardware", and BAM it's got you ballcuffed.

davijordan wrote:Years ago the Supreme court of these United States said (paraphrasing) that you can do what it takes to make a piece of software you have rights to on your system. I wish I still had that quote. I guess Apple and Microsoft are above the Supreme court.

"Thanks to" the music industry and their lobbying, copyright owners have gotten A LOT more power than they used to. If you own the copyrights for a program, you can say EXACTLY what can be done, and not be done with it, there is no mercy or "fair use" in this, because you are NEVER EVER "buying" the software, you are merely saying "Mighty developer here's money can I use your software" (I say "mighty" because of the whole "above" thing ), and then paying for the permission (Not the right!) to use it. So in this case, Apple merely has to say that OS X may not be allowed to be run on non-Apple hardware, or even that you are not allowed to modify any system files.

As a second note, to those who like satire and parodies, go to my blog, there's a good Apple related one on there, in regard to the whole "Apple being above other people" thing which I thought was really amusing.

To get back to the real issue:
I would like to ask the Aggie employee exactly why an Apple computer is required, then a real assessment can be done to resolve any issues. There has to be a better reason than you just have to have one. Sounds like possible peer pressure to me.