On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 18:57, Scot McSweeney-Roberts <[email protected]> wrote:
> No idea. Plenty of people seem to want to though. Hence the whole > Hackintosh community. Unsurprisingly, I think they're a bit nuts - but > the point is that Apple are not for tinkering and openness. Quite how we went from iPhones OS devices aren’t for tinkering” to “Not all of Mac OS X is open source and people can’t run it on any hardware they like!” is, frankly, beyond me. I don’t think _anybody_ claimed that Apple was “open”. Apple have, however, become far _more_ open than they were, and are continuing to do so. Do you actually use any Apple products or pay any attention to changes due to land in upcoming OS releases, or is your information almost exclusively based on news reports and anecdotes? Atom support in 10.6.0 - 10.6.1 worked because the kernel didn’t use anything which the Atom didn’t support. The Atom was never an explicitly supported processor and so there was no reason for Apple to _not_ implement something in an OS update just because it doesn’t work on an Atom. XNU itself has always had pretty strict CPU requirements (e.g., the CPU had to support SSE3 and everything which came before it). This is nothing to do with actively preventing people from running Mac OS X on machines they’re not licensed to, and everything to do with only supporting what they need to. Some releases of XNU prior to 1486.2.11 supported Atom by accident; it no longer did. XNU is completely and entirely open source: kext developers regularly run Mac OS X (on Macs) on custom-built modified kernels, and many Hackintosh users do similar. If you want Atom support, patch it yourself. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
