5 ms·

A Canonical employee releasing a wrapper to download and run unlicensed MacOS, and shipping it via Ubuntu's explicitly for-profit app store? There is noooo way

A Canonical employee releasing a wrapper to download and run unlicensed MacOS, and shipping it via Ubuntu's explicitly for-profit app store? There is noooo way this was approved "Sofireme" seems way more appropriate, or maybe "Sosumyemployer" edit: double eek: https://github.com/popey/sosumi-snap/blob/master/snap/local/bin/launch#L3 https://github.com/popey/sosumi-snap/blob/master/snap/local/...

userbinator 6y ago
As pointed out in the other comments here, the EULA definitely allows you to run macOS in Ubuntu if you're using Apple's hardware.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jabberwcky 6y ago
  Pretty sure the EULA does not cover copying essentially a DRM key from the SMC and checking it into GitHub, conveniently set up in such a way as the repo does not in fact require Mac hardware
  - userbinator 6y ago
    You may find the reasoning here interesting: https://github.com/kholia/OSX-KVM https://github.com/kholia/OSX-KVM The "secret" Apple OSK string is widely available on the Internet. It is also included in a public court document available here. I am not a lawyer but it seems that Apple's attempt(s) to get the OSK string treated as a trade secret did not work out. Due to these reasons, the OSK string is freely included in this repository. That repo has been around for many years.
    - eyelidlessness 6y ago
      Every so often I encounter a key in React (Preact, but preserved for compatibility) titled something like PRIVATE_DO_NOT_USE_OR_YOU_WILL_BE_FIRED and I appreciate the cutesy tongue in cheek acknowledgement that it’s not private and will likely be used anyway
      - franga2000 6y ago
        As someone not at all familiar with modern JS: why the hell would a UI library have a key of any kind??
        aethertron 6y ago
        Not a crypto key (I hope). In JS, objects (dictionaries) are key-value pairs.
        franga2000 6y ago
        Fair enough, and I see how "private" might mean "inaccessible" and not "secret" as I originally assumed. I hope at least...
        scaladev 6y ago
        Because there are some really terrible projects out there made by guys who think that a two week "bootcamp" is enough to make you a competent developer. An SPA needs to access a third party resource of some sort (in my case it was Power BI), and fetching the necessary authentication information from your server with proper authorization is apparently too complicated. I ain't rewriting that shit, I have too much work already.
        eyelidlessness 6y ago
        I meant... a property name. Like `{ [key]: value }`
        franga2000 6y ago
        Yeah, that makes sense. I automatically assumed you were talking about "secret" keys because of the parent post.
        philplckthun 6y ago
        It's not a cryptographic key or a secret of any kind. In the case of React (or other JS libraries) export identifiers are chosen to expose private APIs for integration purposes with things like developer tooling and other functionality that isn't part of the publicly documented API. Instead of choosing something like `__PRIVATE` the React library in particular chose something more eye catching: `__SECRET_INTERNALS_DO_NOT_USE_OR_YOU_WILL_BE_FIRED`, which is definitely sure to get people's attention when they look into it, but is essentially just a joke.
kodah 6y ago
> shipping it via Ubuntu's explicitly for-profit app store Can you clarify "explicitly for-profit"? I don't think that's true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_(package_manager) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_(package_manager) Snap is practically the opposite of that. It's a package manager that is almost entirely out of the hands of Canonical, which was one of the criticisms of apt. If you mean to criticize that some of Snap is proprietary, that is legitimate, but that doesn't seem to be the aim here.
- j16sdiz 6y ago
  He refers to the snapcraft, not the snap manager https://snapcraft.io/ https://snapcraft.io/ , https://snapcraft.io/sosumi https://snapcraft.io/sosumi
  - kodah 6y ago
    I am still not seeing how snapcraft.io is "explicitly for-profit". eg: https://snapcraft.io/thunderbird https://snapcraft.io/thunderbird
    - dannyw 6y ago
      A private company is for-profit by definition. They may not be monetising it now, but that’s because they’re in the growth phase.
      - kortilla 6y ago
        Except for non-profit companies, which are...
      - kodah 6y ago
        You don't get to make assertions based on speculation. Across Linux there have been an infinite number of package managers, sometimes ones that integrate each other's protocols like how the PopOS store integrates flatpak. Is PopOS or the PopStore now explicitly for profit despite the fact that it doesn't sell a single thing?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
xkcd-sucks 6y ago
The name reflects this observation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi
panpanna 6y ago
There are fully working osx vagrant images on GitHub, so why should this surprise you?
You-Are-Right 6y ago
You good law and order man! Earth is such a nice planet because many of you exist!

userbinator 6y ago

As pointed out in the other comments here, the EULA definitely allows you to run macOS in Ubuntu if you're using Apple's hardware.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jabberwcky 6y ago
Pretty sure the EULA does not cover copying essentially a DRM key from the SMC and checking it into GitHub, conveniently set up in such a way as the repo does not in fact require Mac hardware
- userbinator 6y ago
  You may find the reasoning here interesting: https://github.com/kholia/OSX-KVM https://github.com/kholia/OSX-KVM The "secret" Apple OSK string is widely available on the Internet. It is also included in a public court document available here. I am not a lawyer but it seems that Apple's attempt(s) to get the OSK string treated as a trade secret did not work out. Due to these reasons, the OSK string is freely included in this repository. That repo has been around for many years.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    Every so often I encounter a key in React (Preact, but preserved for compatibility) titled something like PRIVATE_DO_NOT_USE_OR_YOU_WILL_BE_FIRED and I appreciate the cutesy tongue in cheek acknowledgement that it’s not private and will likely be used anyway
    - franga2000 6y ago
      As someone not at all familiar with modern JS: why the hell would a UI library have a key of any kind??
      - aethertron 6y ago
        Not a crypto key (I hope). In JS, objects (dictionaries) are key-value pairs.
        franga2000 6y ago
        Fair enough, and I see how "private" might mean "inaccessible" and not "secret" as I originally assumed. I hope at least...
      - scaladev 6y ago
        Because there are some really terrible projects out there made by guys who think that a two week "bootcamp" is enough to make you a competent developer. An SPA needs to access a third party resource of some sort (in my case it was Power BI), and fetching the necessary authentication information from your server with proper authorization is apparently too complicated. I ain't rewriting that shit, I have too much work already.
      - eyelidlessness 6y ago
        I meant... a property name. Like `{ [key]: value }`
        franga2000 6y ago
        Yeah, that makes sense. I automatically assumed you were talking about "secret" keys because of the parent post.
      - philplckthun 6y ago
        It's not a cryptographic key or a secret of any kind. In the case of React (or other JS libraries) export identifiers are chosen to expose private APIs for integration purposes with things like developer tooling and other functionality that isn't part of the publicly documented API. Instead of choosing something like `__PRIVATE` the React library in particular chose something more eye catching: `__SECRET_INTERNALS_DO_NOT_USE_OR_YOU_WILL_BE_FIRED`, which is definitely sure to get people's attention when they look into it, but is essentially just a joke.

kodah 6y ago

> shipping it via Ubuntu's explicitly for-profit app store Can you clarify "explicitly for-profit"? I don't think that's true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_(package_manager) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_(package_manager) Snap is practically the opposite of that. It's a package manager that is almost entirely out of the hands of Canonical, which was one of the criticisms of apt. If you mean to criticize that some of Snap is proprietary, that is legitimate, but that doesn't seem to be the aim here.

j16sdiz 6y ago
He refers to the snapcraft, not the snap manager https://snapcraft.io/ https://snapcraft.io/ , https://snapcraft.io/sosumi https://snapcraft.io/sosumi
- kodah 6y ago
  I am still not seeing how snapcraft.io is "explicitly for-profit". eg: https://snapcraft.io/thunderbird https://snapcraft.io/thunderbird
  - dannyw 6y ago
    A private company is for-profit by definition. They may not be monetising it now, but that’s because they’re in the growth phase.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      Except for non-profit companies, which are...
    - kodah 6y ago
      You don't get to make assertions based on speculation. Across Linux there have been an infinite number of package managers, sometimes ones that integrate each other's protocols like how the PopOS store integrates flatpak. Is PopOS or the PopStore now explicitly for profit despite the fact that it doesn't sell a single thing?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

xkcd-sucks 6y ago

The name reflects this observation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi

panpanna 6y ago

There are fully working osx vagrant images on GitHub, so why should this surprise you?

You-Are-Right 6y ago

You good law and order man! Earth is such a nice planet because many of you exist!