Jump to content

Permanently Banned From Tonymacx86

mnfesq

By mnfesq,
in Reader News and Reviews

 Share
752 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Derek12
Derek12
Posted
Posted

Please stop me from   :hysterical:  :hysterical:  :hysterical:

:lol:

 

LOL and the solution was using an older version of their USB setup program and I was redownloading ML tons of times because the responses of similar threads were "Your MAS package is corrupted, download again" really their new version was the only corrupt thing :whistle: .

 

And using MyHack or other tutorials always resulted in a KP or failure to get into installing screen.   :hammer:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Derek12
Derek12
Posted
Posted

there is nothing especial in those stolen softwares. if you open with pacifist you'll see.

 

i don't use since i learn to mount my own os x installer, and when i didn't know it, i use the original = myhack.

Nope but it was the only one which worked here so maybe there is something somewhat special .I am not defending Tonymac and I don't like what they are doing, but it's what happened here really.

 

Maybe it's because my Celeron CPU or some odd thing along my computer, but none other method worked here (yes I tried lots of tutorials, searching, myHack, forum help and so on) . Kernel Panics, Waiting for root device, hangs, reboots and shutdowns were my results. However with their software the OSX installer ran fine.

 

I still didn't managed to know why. If anyone knows what did tonymac do for it to work on my computer, tell me, learning is always a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Micky1979
Micky1979
Posted
Posted

this is what happens:

 

http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/279450-why-insanelymac-does-not-support-tonymacx86/

 

http://prasys.info/2011/01/tonymac-seriously/

 

http://public.xzenue.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11

 

And maybe you can agree that you are not using the tonymac work.
Perhaps you will also discover that you will not find anything that has been done by them.
Perhaps you will find that these problems
Kernel Panics, Waiting for root device, hangs, reboots and shutdowns

 

 
are easy to solve, and that everyone knows how to do here. just look for
Maybe you'll find that all those solutions, were not invented by tonymac, but maybe you're using solutions from Netkas.org, InsanelyMac, Olaria forum, lifehacker.com, Prasys blog, OSX86.net, xzenue.com, the voodoo team, etc. .
 
You can do a search, and tell me what things permit to run an hackintosh, and tell me what was invented by tonymac?
 
Aspect for your search, so after you tell me what are you using.
 
Micky
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MegaloDon
MegaloDon
Posted
Posted

I think what Micky is trying to say is that if you asked for help here and gave specifics of what the problem was, they could tell you what options / switches to try to make it work. The fact that TonyCrap worked only shows that their default installation options happened to work with your particular hardware setup. Their "programs" are stolen from other peoples hard work and they have certain options already set where it might not be set by default in the original author's work. The fact that they have an option already set by default that works for your hardware does not make their installer unique. It just means they have a unique setting. (One that is different from the stolen source.) Their work is by no means unique. It's more like stealing a Volkswagon and putting Fararri fenders on it and saying you invented a new car.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dan542
dan542
Posted
Posted

It seems that they've released "[url="http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/279450-why-insanelymac-does-not-support-tonymacx86/"]#####[/url]". I can't find its source code on their site, nor it is distributed with the package, either of which is required by APSL:

…

2.2 Modified Code. You may modify Covered Code and use, reproduce,

display, perform, internally distribute within Your organization, and

Externally Deploy Your Modifications and Covered Code, for commercial

or non-commercial purposes, provided that in each instance You also

meet all of these conditions:

( a ) You must satisfy all the conditions of Section 2.1 with respect to

the Source Code of the Covered Code;

 

( b ) You must duplicate, to the extent it does not already exist, the

notice in Exhibit A in each file of the Source Code of all Your

Modifications, and cause the modified files to carry prominent notices

stating that You changed the files and the date of any change; and

 

( c ) If You Externally Deploy Your Modifications, You must make

Source Code of all Your Externally Deployed Modifications either

available to those to whom You have Externally Deployed Your

Modifications, or publicly available. Source Code of Your Externally

Deployed Modifications must be released under the terms set forth in

this License, including the license grants set forth in Section 3

below, for as long as you Externally Deploy the Covered Code or twelve

(12) months from the date of initial External Deployment, whichever is

longer. You should preferably distribute the Source Code of Your

Externally Deployed Modifications electronically (e.g. download from a

web site).

 

2.3 Distribution of Executable Versions. In addition, if You

Externally Deploy Covered Code (Original Code and/or Modifications) in

object code, executable form only, You must include a prominent

notice, in the code itself as well as in related documentation,

stating that Source Code of the Covered Code is available under the

terms of this License with information on how and where to obtain such

Source Code.

…

They don't seem to satisfy Apple's requirements in 2.3 either. This is all the information that is included with their package...

[url="http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/279450-why-insanelymac-does-not-support-tonymacx86/"]#####[/url] is a quick installer for MacMan's xnu-2050.24.15 kernel enhanced to allow Haswell CPUs to boot and run OS X 10.8.4 only.

 

It will also delete GenericUSBXHCI.kext from /Extra/Extensions.

 

 

 

 

tonymacx86 & MacMan

1.0.0 www.tonymacx86.com

 

_______________________________

 

This tool was created for your personal use and may not be sold or re-distributed without the express written consent of tonymacx86 LLC.

 

This tool is provided "as is" without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The entire risk as to the quality and performance of this tool is with you. Should the tool prove defective, you assume the cost of all necessary servicing, repair or correction.

If this software has helped you, please consider making a contribution to support further projects by clicking here or at www.tonymacx86.com.

 

The copyright to the original works contained within are retained by the original creators.

I wonder if they want to get sued by Apple?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WilliamO7
WilliamO7
Posted
Posted

It seems that they've released "[url="http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/279450-why-insanelymac-does-not-support-tonymacx86/"]#####[/url]". I can't find its source code on their site, nor it is distributed with the package, either of which is required by APSL:

 

They don't seem to satisfy Apple's requirements in 2.3 either. This is all the information that is included with their package...

 

I wonder if they want to get sued by Apple?

They abused the APSL in all of the *Helpers (again, referring to http://prasys.info/2011/01/tonymac-seriously/ ) so this isn't really news. Why they would re-release open source software under a FREEWARE licence is beyond me. I would look into the package to see if MacMan actually stole it from someone though...

I don't know if they will get sued though...

 

And on the topic of licencing, what MacMan said about the FileNVRAM Module distribution just cracks me up...

 

macmanx86 2013-08-07 15:13:10 MDT

Then I would request that you have it removed from insanelymac.com too.

 

macmanx86 2013-08-15 15:12:16 MDT

Chameleon Wizard should also be classified as a commercial product too as it

contains Donation links.

 

macmanx86 2013-08-15 17:16:06 MDT

In addition http://www.osx86.net is distributing your dylib and has ads and

donation buttons.

:hysterical:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dan542
dan542
Posted
Posted (edited)

Okay, I had tried to politely ask them for the source code and almost immediately after posting that I got a response saying:
 

wow dan542... you could always goto the apple website and get the source yourself and do your own modifications your know.


Let's see for how long will my posts stay there :)

I'm just trying to help them avoid a legal action from Apple and they tell me to do the modifications myself?

Edited by fantomas1
no direct link please
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dan542
dan542
Posted
Posted

Well, it does seem that he has built the kernel himself at least… Whether he has used someone else's code in it, we don't know.

daniel-pc:Downloads daniel$ strings mach_kernel | grep "Darwin Kernel Version"
Darwin Kernel Version 12.4.0: Thu Aug 15 18:16:34 EDT 2013; root:xnu-2050.24.15/BUILD/obj//RELEASE_X86_64
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jamiethemorris
jamiethemorris
Posted
Posted

Isn't it possible to just use the 12.4.1 mach_kernel straight from a Haswell MBA?

I've been going on tonymac again recently due to the fact that there's a thread over there for the notebook i just got. I feel dirty though contributing to the thread lol. And I feel like I'm walking on eggshells. I think I'm going to contact the op and see if I can repost the original guide over here (with one slight modification, of course, which would be a manually created bootable installer). I'm just not sure how to credit the original thread since I don't really want to link to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dan542
dan542
Posted
Posted

Isn't it possible to just use the 12.4.1 mach_kernel straight from a Haswell MBA?

I'm pretty sure it is and in fact, if I was building a Haswell hack I would use that or some development build of 10.8.5. But tonymac would consider that piracy, unless you happen to have a Haswell MBA. Yet he doesn't release the source of his modification to the kernel as requested by its license… Who's a pirate now? Someone who downloads a pirated kernel, but has bought OS X from Mac App Store? Or someone who modifies Apple's open source kernel, disrespecting it's license (not releasing the modified source code, not distributing a copy of that license along his product) and even makes money of it (the license actually allows him to do that, but I think he has to meet its requirements, too…).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jamiethemorris
jamiethemorris
Posted
Posted

I'm pretty sure it is and in fact, if I was building a Haswell hack I would use that or some development build of 10.8.5. But tonymac would consider that piracy, unless you happen to have a Haswell MBA. Yet he doesn't release the source of his modification to the kernel as requested by its license… Who's a pirate now? Someone who downloads a pirated kernel, but has bought OS X from Mac App Store? Or someone who modifies Apple's open source kernel, disrespecting it's license (not releasing the modified source code, not distributing a copy of that license along his product) and even makes money of it (the license actually allows him to do that, but I think he has to meet its requirements, too…).

Damn dude, they took your posts down pretty quick... Seriously though, what reason do they have NOT to release the source unless they are pirating someone else's work? They know damn well they're supposed to do it. I swear they're moving towards Psystar territory here, if they keep this up it's only a matter of time. Sure it's not as blatant as selling pre-built hackintoshes, but it's not exactly discreet either.

 

I wonder if this kernel works properly with other system definitions or what difference in usability there would be vs. the MBA kernel. How do I go about integrating something like that into a kernel? I've never built a kernel before from the source (not an OS X kernel at least), and I don't even own a Haswell machine, but it would be a cool learning experience. How come nobody makes specialized/ high performance OSX kernels like they do with Linux and Android?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dan542
dan542
Posted
Posted

Damn dude, they took your posts down pretty quick... Seriously though, what reason do they have NOT to release the source unless they are pirating someone else's work? They know damn well they're supposed to do it. I swear they're moving towards Psystar territory here, if they keep this up it's only a matter of time. Sure it's not as blatant as selling pre-built hackintoshes, but it's not exactly discreet either.

Yeah, maybe they are ex-Psystar employees… They were thinking, we can't sell computers with OS X installed on them, but what if we sell the components (amazon and newegg affiliate links…) along with some (stolen) software to assist our users (or customers should I say?) with installing OS X and let them build the computer themselves? Plus we get free support for our customers by some more tech savvy users on our forum.

 

I wonder if this kernel works properly with other system definitions or what difference in usability there would be vs. the MBA kernel.

They've said that you need NullCPUPowerManagement.kext or something like that, so your CPU will be running at full speed all the time with their kernel unlike the one from MBA…

 

How do I go about integrating something like that into a kernel? I've never built a kernel before from the source (not an OS X kernel at least), and I don't even own a Haswell machine, but it would be a cool learning experience. How come nobody makes specialized/ high performance OSX kernels like they do with Linux and Android?

No idea… I don't even see why does the kernel need to be changed since the instruction set stays the same… Perhaps it has to communicate with the CPU somehow and that's what needs to be changed? But if you need to use NullCPUPowerManagement.kext then that communication would only be asking the cpu what type is it… Am I missing something?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RehabMan
RehabMan
Posted
Posted

Hey guys, hate to be the one to stop all the tonymacx86 bashing with the facts, but...

(trying to be the guy to walk the middle ground here...)

 

See here: http://macmanx86.blogspot.com/2013/08/enhanced-1084-kernel-for-haswell.html

 

Also note (from APSL license, emphasis mine):
"© If You Externally Deploy Your Modifications, You must make Source Code of all Your Externally Deployed Modifications either available to those to whom You have Externally Deployed Your Modifications, or publicly available. Source Code of Your Externally Deployed Modifications must be released under the terms set forth in this License, including the license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you Externally Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial External Deployment, whichever is longer. You should preferably distribute the Source Code of Your Externally Deployed Modifications electronically (e.g. download from a web site)."

 

So, MacMan has released the details of his modifications, and has done so well within the time requirements of the APSL license.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dan542
dan542
Posted
Posted

Hey guys, hate to be the one to stop all the tonymacx86 bashing with the facts, but...

(trying to be the guy to walk the middle ground here...)

 

See here: http://macmanx86.blogspot.com/2013/08/enhanced-1084-kernel-for-haswell.html

 

Also note (from APSL license, emphasis mine):

"© If You Externally Deploy Your Modifications, You must make Source Code of all Your Externally Deployed Modifications either available to those to whom You have Externally Deployed Your Modifications, or publicly available. Source Code of Your Externally Deployed Modifications must be released under the terms set forth in this License, including the license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you Externally Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial External Deployment, whichever is longer. You should preferably distribute the Source Code of Your Externally Deployed Modifications electronically (e.g. download from a web site)."

 

So, MacMan has released the details of his modifications, and has done so well within the time requirements of the APSL license.

I'm not a native speaker nor a lawyer, but I believe that "Source Code of Your Externally Deployed Modifications must be released under the terms… …FOR as long as you Externally Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial External Deployment, whichever is longer." means that you can either:

1. deploy the binary for longer that 12 months (e.g. you have the binary on your website for 2 years) and keep its source public for the same amount of time (2 years in this case)

or 2. if you deploy the binary for less then 12 months (e.g. you release it today and remove it from your website next week), you must keep the source public for 12 months (e.g. on your website)

 

I think that Apple simply wants to be able to get the source code for any binary that they find on the internet, even if it's creator has already removed it from his/her website, provided that the binary been released for less than 12 months.

 

____________________________________________

 

BTW As I can see he has made a whole lot of changes. :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RehabMan
RehabMan
Posted
Posted

I'm not a native speaker nor a lawyer, but I believe that "Source Code of Your Externally Deployed Modifications must be released under the terms… …FOR as long as you Externally Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial External Deployment, whichever is longer." means that you can either:

1. deploy the binary for longer that 12 months (e.g. you have the binary on your website for 2 years) and keep its source public for the same amount of time (2 years in this case)

or 2. if you deploy the binary for less then 12 months (e.g. you release it today and remove it from your website next week), you must keep the source public for 12 months (e.g. on your website)

 

I think that Apple simply wants to be able to get the source code for any binary that they find on the internet, even if it's creator has already removed it from his/her website, provided that the binary been released for less than 12 months.

 

____________________________________________

 

BTW As I can see he has made a whole lot of changes. :)

True.  It does appear I read that section incorrectly and there may be no "grace period."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dan542
dan542
Posted
Posted

True.  It does appear I read that section incorrectly and there may be no "grace period."

Anyway I'm happy that he has released at least the modifications. When I wrote my posts on their forum they weren't yet released, that post you linked is from yesterday…

 

And as for that sentence, it could have been constructed either:

 

1. this way: "Source Code must be released ((for as long as you Externally Deploy the Covered Code) OR (twelve (12) months from the date of initial External Deployment)), whichever is longer." - that's what your interpretation is based on.

However, I think that the "whichever is longer" part wouldn't work in this case because how can one point in time ("twelve (12) months from the date of initial External Deployment") be compared with a time interval "for as long as you Externally Deploy the Covered Code"? The time interval would be longer all the time…

 

2. or (my interpretation) - "Source Code must be released for ((as long as you Externally Deploy the Covered Code) OR (twelve (12) months from the date of initial External Deployment)), whichever is longer."

I think it only makes sense in this case, since you would be comparing two time intervals now: "FOR as long as you Externally Deploy the Covered Code" and "(FOR) twelve (12) months from the date of initial External Deployment"

 

____________________________________

 

The kernel was posted in downloads section on 16/08/13 and the above post on his blog is from number of hours ago, isn't it?

Great news!

 

Oops, sorry, I misread your post, I read "The kernel SOURCE was posted…".

Yes, you're right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AsusFreak
AsusFreak
Posted
Posted

Hey guys, hate to be the one to stop all the tonymacx86 bashing with the facts, but...

(trying to be the guy to walk the middle ground here...)

+1  Trashing TM has been going on here for so long there really should be a link on the home page, yet it's interesting how many people here got their feet wet at TM.  (Yes, I have read all the links to the "who did what to who" stuff). If the dev's and coders have an issue with macman and tm, certainly it's their right to respond however they chose. Permitting a thread like this may be a little over the top (imo) and doesn't accomplish anything of value that I can see. I also can't seem to find the "I Got Banned" thread for other OS X Sites? Hell, I know I can easily get banned from anywhere...   :)

 

Also, when I see RehabMan and toleda posting here I give them a lot of credit and kudos as they must feel like being in the enemies camp.  Clearly they are "gifting" their time and efforts to help everyone, without prejudice... Three cheers to them for being above all the nonsense... 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...