Caluser2000 wrote on 2020-05-11, 04:51:

So you admit you were violating Apple Incs TOS?

No. Virtualization of macOS is not illegal.

Why are we talking about TOS for something that is not a service? Hasn't anybody heard of a EULA?

Bruninho wrote on 2020-05-11, 05:13:

Caluser2000 wrote on 2020-05-11, 04:51:

So you admit you were violating Apple Incs TOS?

No. Virtualization of macOS is not illegal.

No what I'm talking about and you know it. Stop playing dumb..

kolderman wrote on 2020-05-11, 05:29:

Why are we talking about TOS for something that is not a service? Hasn't anybody heard of a EULA?

Same thing..

Bruninho wrote on 2020-05-11, 05:13:

No. Virtualization of macOS is not illegal.

Complex subject! Warning: the following doesn't in any way constitute legal advice or a professional legal opinion.

• Breaking macOS copy protection mechanisms may be in violation of DMCA, your local equivalent, and related law.
• Running macOS is, I believe, in violation of Apple's TOS when not in combination with Apple hardware. This has been the case since they shut down the Mac clone market after Scully was shoved out the door.
• Breaking copy protection may be allowed in certain circumstances (for software preservation purposes, for interoperability, for education and experimentation, when you own a legitimate copy, etc.) depending on your local jurisdiction.
• Some elements of the TOS or EULA may be unenforceable if superseded by your local jurisdiction.

gdjacobs wrote on 2020-05-11, 06:01:

[*]Breaking copy protection may be allowed in certain circumstances (for software preservation purposes, for interoperability, for education and experimentation, when you own a legitimate copy, etc.) depending on your local jurisdiction.

Here, here, end of discussion.

Are we really going to ruin the topic about retro activities with THAT discussion? Can we move over now?

I think more properly any serious discussion would need to involve a lawyer and a hefty bill. There's no cookie cutter answer as the legal landscape is different in different jurisdictions.

Bruninho wrote on 2020-05-11, 06:04:

gdjacobs wrote on 2020-05-11, 06:01:

[*]Breaking copy protection may be allowed in certain circumstances (for software preservation purposes, for interoperability, for education and experimentation, when you own a legitimate copy, etc.) depending on your local jurisdiction.

Here, here, end of discussion.

Are we really going to ruin the topic about retro activities with THAT discussion? Can we move over now?

Well no it is not 🤣. But keep thinking that anyway.

Caluser2000 wrote on 2020-05-11, 06:18:

Well no it is not 🤣. But keep thinking that anyway.

None of us are qualified, so let's drop it.

I really think this topic dragged on way more than it should, how about knocking it off for now?

I'm still waiting for answers to two of my questions to another member wrt ttys in Darwin/OSX. I am genuinely interested in the replies to those.

Burnt the Descent 2 CD image onto a couple of CDs and was acting rather strange when installing and had to rename some files as the -'s were replaced with _'s (CDBurnerXP does that all the freaking time and it's annoying AF) so now I can play Descent 2 on my Packard Bell using either the Sound Blaster for both FM and digital sounds, General MIDI for music and Sound Blaster for digital sounds, or CD audio (redbook) by connecting the CD drive (CR-563-B being used at this time) to the mic jack on my sound card via the headphone jack. I'd use my other CD drive, but the headphone jack doesn't work and I couldn't find my MPC-4 to Sound Blaster (MPC-2) audio cord anywhere.

Finally got rid of some loose wiring "solutions" and replaced them with "proper" adapters…

I soldered/glued an adapter (game port <-> USB) for my Microsoft SideWinder Precision Pro and another adapter as a y-cable for connecting my Microsoft SideWinder 3D Pro and the Dreamblaster X2 to one game port.

Caluser2000 wrote on 2020-05-10, 18:37:

So you would use Mac OS/X in the command like on a day to day basis and not the GUI? SUUURE you would. Maybe if you were a progr […]
Show full quote

derSammler wrote on 2020-05-10, 18:26:

Where did I mention NT??? […]
Show full quote

Caluser2000 wrote on 2020-05-10, 18:09:

Nice try. NT based windows are self containing and don't rely on an underlying OS to operate.

Where did I mention NT???

Caluser2000 wrote on 2020-05-10, 18:09:

In OS/X can you completely boot directly to a commandline like the BSDs and Linux?

That's a nice try, actually. That's just a startup configuration, and you should know that. You can in fact boot MacOS X into a command line. Just like you can add "win.com" to your autoexec.bat to boot directly into Win3.x. No valid point here.

So you would use Mac OS/X in the command like on a day to day basis and not the GUI? SUUURE you would. Maybe if you were a programmer. 99% of the rest of the population using Mac OS/X certainly wouldn't.\
I mentioned NT to put things in their correct context. Lest we forgot....
No I have never run Mac OS/X and don't intend to hence the question. Is that too hard to figure out? Linux gives me all the *nix kicks I want without forking out a dime to Apple Inc.
Bty how many virtual ttys do you have access to in Darwin?

I do. Hell, I sshed into my Mac Mini to run a few systems administration tasks - in fact if you have homebrew installed on your machine you can do practically everything you can do on Linux (assuming that you RTFM via the manpages), and when I need a GUI I can use xvnc (which is basically what Apple Remote Desktop turned out to be under the hood) or spawn an X11 session. Just because most MacOS users don't touch the terminal on a regular basis doesn't mean there aren't those who do, and do so on a regular basis who isn't a programmer - the same argument can be leveled against Linux newbs on Ubuntu. That's almost as obnoxious as hearing someone say that no one uses Windows via command prompt or powershell.

Second of all, Darwin is the open source component of MacOS - the kernel and some of the framework. It's not MacOS since it doesn't include Cocoa (the framework that most modern MacOS apps are built upon), Aqua (the UI) and all the other stuff that Apple wrote and kept closed-source. And no, MacOS, OpenDarwin/PureDarwin (open source derivative OSes based on the Darwin stuff Apple pushed out) does not do virtual terminals. But then, neither does NextStep (what modern MacOS is derived from), and I don't remember seeing them on AIX, SunOS/Solaris, HP-UX or Irix machines. It's a nice-to-have, but not a universal feature of UNIX based OSes. Not every Linux machine has to have a graphics card - my Cobalt Qube 3 certainly doesn't. That being said, those OSes almost always provide actual serial console access (and yes, you can spawn serial consoles in MacOS. That's one of the 3 ways you admin an XServe - serial, Lights-Out Management (LOM) and ssh/x11). /etc/gettytab on MacOS still contains serial console access for XServe even though XServe support was dropped from MacOS Sierra (10.12) 3 releases ago.

That entire discussion since the get-go was off-base - There is a standard, Computer Science school definition of what an operating system is (A piece of software that manages, mediates and provides standardized access to underlying hardware and services) - most of the other definitions out there are just reworded variations on the concept - DOS count as an OS, just a single tasking one that grants privileged access to that one user and limits support to the initial PC environment, requiring TSRs and extenders to grow its limited capabilities, Windows 3.1 is a legit OS (it uses DOS as a fancy boot loader to springboard into protected mode much like a DOS32 extender, at least it does that on 386 mode, and a similar analogue exists with Open Firmware on PowerPC New World Macs), and no, Win 3.x is not merely a GUI layer since you cannot run Win3.1 completely isolated in a DOS box in Windows NT. And no, no one mentioned Windows NT because the original discussion was to compare MacOS Classic System 9 with Windows 3.x, and the analog stands due to various factors leading to MacOS classic's demise, mostly its archaic architecture and the failure of 2 projects to replace it.

Installing Win98 on a Nexterm RT500 Geode LX thin client, finding drivers for it is probably not happening, maybe vbemp works on it...

lolo799 wrote on 2020-05-11, 14:13:

Installing Win98 on a Nexterm RT500 Geode LX thin client, finding drivers for it is probably not happening, maybe vbemp works on it...

See if the driver bundle referenced in this blog entry will work -> http://www.toughdev.com/content/2015/03/explo … le-motherboard/

ragefury32 wrote on 2020-05-11, 14:21:

See if the driver bundle referenced in this blog entry will work -> http://www.toughdev.com/content/2015/03/explo … le-motherboard/

Thanks for the link!
I'm using Windows 98 1st edition, audio refuses to install, network does but complains it doesn't work and the Geode graphic driver pretends it's installing but upon reboot the system still uses the original vga driver.
I'll install the 2nd edition of Win98 and try those drivers again.

Vbemp works great though, just played some silent Half-Life Uplink in 1024*768 software mode, it slows down with transparent surfaces and explosions, but it's playable.

ragefury32 wrote on 2020-05-11, 13:45:

I do. Hell, I sshed into my Mac Mini to run a few systems administration tasks - in fact if you have homebrew installed on your […]
Show full quote

Caluser2000 wrote on 2020-05-10, 18:37:

So you would use Mac OS/X in the command like on a day to day basis and not the GUI? SUUURE you would. Maybe if you were a progr […]
Show full quote

derSammler wrote on 2020-05-10, 18:26:

Where did I mention NT???

That's a nice try, actually. That's just a startup configuration, and you should know that. You can in fact boot MacOS X into a command line. Just like you can add "win.com" to your autoexec.bat to boot directly into Win3.x. No valid point here.

So you would use Mac OS/X in the command like on a day to day basis and not the GUI? SUUURE you would. Maybe if you were a programmer. 99% of the rest of the population using Mac OS/X certainly wouldn't.\
I mentioned NT to put things in their correct context. Lest we forgot....
No I have never run Mac OS/X and don't intend to hence the question. Is that too hard to figure out? Linux gives me all the *nix kicks I want without forking out a dime to Apple Inc.
Bty how many virtual ttys do you have access to in Darwin?

I do. Hell, I sshed into my Mac Mini to run a few systems administration tasks - in fact if you have homebrew installed on your machine you can do practically everything you can do on Linux (assuming that you RTFM via the manpages), and when I need a GUI I can use xvnc (which is basically what Apple Remote Desktop turned out to be under the hood) or spawn an X11 session. Just because most MacOS users don't touch the terminal on a regular basis doesn't mean there aren't those who do, and do so on a regular basis who isn't a programmer - the same argument can be leveled against Linux newbs on Ubuntu. That's almost as obnoxious as hearing someone say that no one uses Windows via command prompt or powershell.

Second of all, Darwin is the open source component of MacOS - the kernel and some of the framework. It's not MacOS since it doesn't include Cocoa (the framework that most modern MacOS apps are built upon), Aqua (the UI) and all the other stuff that Apple wrote and kept closed-source. And no, MacOS, OpenDarwin/PureDarwin (open source derivative OSes based on the Darwin stuff Apple pushed out) does not do virtual terminals. But then, neither does NextStep (what modern MacOS is derived from), and I don't remember seeing them on AIX, SunOS/Solaris, HP-UX or Irix machines. It's a nice-to-have, but not a universal feature of UNIX based OSes. Not every Linux machine has to have a graphics card - my Cobalt Qube 3 certainly doesn't. That being said, those OSes almost always provide actual serial console access (and yes, you can spawn serial consoles in MacOS. That's one of the 3 ways you admin an XServe - serial, Lights-Out Management (LOM) and ssh/x11). /etc/gettytab on MacOS still contains serial console access for XServe even though XServe support was dropped from MacOS Sierra (10.12) 3 releases ago.

That entire discussion since the get-go was off-base - There is a standard, Computer Science school definition of what an operating system is (A piece of software that manages, mediates and provides standardized access to underlying hardware and services) - most of the other definitions out there are just reworded variations on the concept - DOS count as an OS, just a single tasking one that grants privileged access to that one user and limits support to the initial PC environment, requiring TSRs and extenders to grow its limited capabilities, Windows 3.1 is a legit OS (it uses DOS as a fancy boot loader to springboard into protected mode much like a DOS32 extender, at least it does that on 386 mode, and a similar analogue exists with Open Firmware on PowerPC New World Macs), and no, Win 3.x is not merely a GUI layer since you cannot run Win3.1 completely isolated in a DOS box in Windows NT. And no, no one mentioned Windows NT because the original discussion was to compare MacOS Classic System 9 with Windows 3.x, and the analog stands due to various factors leading to MacOS classic's demise, mostly its archaic architecture and the failure of 2 projects to replace it.

That is the type of answer I was after. Your part of the 1%. Thank you. Win 3.1 does indeed use Dos calls for certain functions and therefore not would opperate without Dos. Try running Win3.1x without Dos installed and for that matter Win9X,,,
Classis Mac OS does not have that.. And yes I have used that in a Professional setting before using Dos/Win3.x
When Dave Cutler and his team were putting NT together they wanted the option to go completely cli. Bill said no so here we are....That is documented.

Started restoring what is the most dusty PlayStation 2 I've ever seen.

gdjacobs wrote on 2020-05-11, 06:01:

Complex subject! Warning: the following doesn't in any way constitute legal advice or a professional legal opinion. […]
Show full quote

Bruninho wrote on 2020-05-11, 05:13:

No. Virtualization of macOS is not illegal.

Complex subject! Warning: the following doesn't in any way constitute legal advice or a professional legal opinion.

• Breaking macOS copy protection mechanisms may be in violation of DMCA, your local equivalent, and related law.
• Running macOS is, I believe, in violation of Apple's TOS when not in combination with Apple hardware. This has been the case since they shut down the Mac clone market after Scully was shoved out the door.
• Breaking copy protection may be allowed in certain circumstances (for software preservation purposes, for interoperability, for education and experimentation, when you own a legitimate copy, etc.) depending on your local jurisdiction.
• Some elements of the TOS or EULA may be unenforceable if superseded by your local jurisdiction.

Eh, several things -
a) Scully was shown the door in 1994 - the Apple CEO who made the decision to open up clones was Michael Spindler (who was also responsible for the failure of MacOS 8 Copland). He also made the entire Apple product line much more complex than before (in a silly attempt to market segment) and Apple got eaten alive by the clones (who did better machines cheaper). He was...not viewed positively in Apple folklore.

b) Yeah, of course doing it violates the DMCA and the EULA and all the legalese. At the end of the day you still have a small but vocal community who is willing to chance that, much like abandonware and/or console emulaton. You might even make the argument that the hackintosh community kept interest in Darwin alive (most of the tips and tricks Hackintosh folks used to keep ahead of Apple were derived from leveraging Darwin knowhow). I don't condone it, but I am not going to pretend it doesn't exist OR not acknowledge its place in the MacOS userbase...I ran legit Macs since 2001 but I messed with Hackintoshes in my past. Of course, I am also a loyal Macintosh customer and made large purchasing decisions on Apple hardware in my last 4 gigs

c) While Apple can in theory take a very strong tack against Hackintoshers, they very rarely do so since the Streisand effect will probably hurt Apple more than pretending that a few geeks who run Apple on non-Apple hardware doesn't exist. The ones who got the Apple lawyers on their butts were the ones actively profiting off the entire endeavor (psystar being a good example, but if you try to sell Hackintoshes on evilBay you will eventually get busted). Chances are, if you like MacOS enough to keep it around, you'll eventually pick up a Mac (a used one from 2009-2015 is a fairly good value as a tinker toy) and not deal with the headaches associated with running Hackintoshes. This is also not the first time a bunch of hobbyists skirt the lines of legality with a commerical *ix based OS...just look at Juniper's JunOS. You can easily take a FreeBSD 10 VM, run the JunOS installer on top (provided that you unpack it and modify the install script) and get yourself a JunOS Olive just to learn the ins-and-outs. Are you supposed to do it? No...Does Juniper know about it? Yes...But they turn a blind eye because they prefer a user community messing with their OS and building goodwill (plus those people move up the career chain and view Juniper more positively). The same also happens with Arista's Linux based EOS.

d) Speaking of headaches, Hackintoshes are often not worth the hassle. You'll need to source the right set of hardware that mimics (as closely as possible) a Mac equivalent, you'll need to load the right combinaion of kexts (that's kernel extensions, or drivers), mess with the installer ISO, and deal with a virtual Apple SMC (Apple system management controller is a chip that is found on Apple hardware and needs to be emulated on hackintoshes). And every time you see Apple publish an update it's a gamble on whether the update will add or change something that will break your Hackintoshes (or with the recent slip in Apple software quality...your actual legit Macs), often in ways you cannot anticipate. Even virtualized MacOS in VMWare was a pain - it's definitely 100% legal on Apple hardware and you don't even need to use MacOS as the underlying hypervisor host (XServes and MacMinis can run VMWare Fusion/Parallels/VirtualBox/Qemu, Linux+KVM or VMWare ESXi up to version 7, MacBooks and MacPro/iMacs can run KVM/VMWare Fusion/Parallels/VirtualBox/Qemu), but not everything will work. There's no such thing as metal/OpenGL support for virtualized MacOS, so apps requiring it will not work correctly. You could also unlock VMWare so the virtualized mac will work on non-Apple hardware, but eeeeeh same headaches, no real resolution. My take is that there are no free way of running MacOS (PureDarwin/OpenDarwin doesn't count) short of stealing it, but if you are a career sysadmin (like me), chances are, you touched a little bit of everything, and somewhere in your hardware pile is at least one Powerbook 0r MacBook. I have way more than one.