5 ms·

That is utterly fucked up. How dare they say you can't look at the code that is running on the hardware you purchased.

rbanffy 15y ago
You know... You may have a point. Some people may have been spoiled by operating systems like Linux or BSD, where you can look up each and every line of code that comprises the whole software stack, but, in fact, most people don't really care about that. Still, OSX is more open than its main competitor - you can see most of it, but not all. The fact most people don't really care about what they are using is sad, but it's a fact of life.
- sjwright 15y ago
  Most people drive their car without knowing how an internal combustion engine works. Most people watch television without knowing that the picture is comprised of pixels (or scan lines). Is that also sad? Must everyone understand everything they use in sufficient detail? Why should a computer be different? Why should my mum need to understand what an operating system is, let alone care about it?
  - jarek 15y ago
    Most engines don't cut out if you do choose to pop the hood open.
    - slowpoke 15y ago
      I have no idea why you are being downvoted, because it's the truth. It's exactly what Apple does. While yes, no one should need to understand how a TV/Car/Computer/<insert everyday technology> works under the hood, how is that an argument to stop people who WANT to know?
      - eropple 15y ago
        You're free to learn. Just not with their software. You know that going in, it's not a secret if you've done your due diligence regarding these things about which you purportedly care. Personally, I grew out of computers-as-ideology a long time ago. I'll trade the ability to run GDB on my media player the zero times I'll ever want to do it for a fantastic user experience for the other 100% of the time I'm using my computer. (Okay, 90% or so, but for that 10%, I have Windows.)
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
        jarek 15y ago
        While I see your point, the frustrating thing is that blocking itunes from gdb in no way helps them deliver a fantastic user experience.
        eropple 15y ago
        Sure, but you know going in (again, if you've done your research) that they do it. So if it's important to you, don't buy it. I don't care about that, so I will.
        slowpoke 15y ago
        > Just not with their software. Again, why? It's still not an argument to hide what the program does on your computer. To put it bluntly, it's bullshit and you know it. > I'll trade the ability to run GDB on my media player the zero times I'll ever want to do it for a fantastic user experience That's completely besides the point - this has nothing to do with the "user experience" (which is quite the opposite of "fantastic", but that's my opinion), and everything to do with the fact that Apple restricts your freedom.
        eropple 15y ago
        > Again, why? It's still not an argument to hide what the program does on your computer. To put it bluntly, it's bullshit and you know it. Nope. The argument is simple: I don't care. I really don't--I just fundamentally don't care that I cannot run GDB on the iTunes executable. I have much more important things to be annoyed at than that. If you do your research into issues that are important to you, then you know, going in, that Apple does this. (Also, as noted elsewhere in the thread, you can still use GDB to view the executable if you really want to. It's possible. Just not via the conventional method.) If that decision is unacceptable to you, don't buy their stuff. It is acceptable to me, so I will. This really isn't that difficult a concept. I am not entirely unsympathetic to your viewpoint--a few years ago I went through a GNU-y phase of sorts. But from my perspective, there are things that matter, and this just isn't one. There are certainly things in technology to get all up in arms about. Things that the FSF and fellow travelers such as yourself think are important to get up in arms about are rarely, in my own estimation, in that set. This isn't, either. (This is not to say that the FSF does not sometimes have a valid point--even broken clocks are right twice a day.) You are entirely free not to buy a computer with OS X if you find their terms unacceptable, just as I am free to buy one if they are. So do so, and enjoy it. And I'll enjoy mine, and we can get on with more important things in our lives. =)
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    > Most people watch television without knowing that the picture is comprised of pixels (or scan lines). Is that also sad? That they don't know? A bit. That most don't want to know? Very, very sad. > Why should my mum need to understand what an operating system is, let alone care about it? To better be able to protect herself against malware, to be able to better understand a very important tool in our society, to be able to understand what your work is about when you tell her.
    - ericdschmidt 15y ago
      I'm sure virtually everyone would like to know about everything if they could. But they know they can't; they have to make choices about how they spend their limited time. So they would be delighted to learn about TVs and computers and VCRs if they could upload the knowledge instantly into their brain like in The Matrix; but they can't. So they focus on what particularly interests them. Some people prefer to learn about Japanese post-war cinema. Again, I'm sure most people would love to learn all about that if they could do so at no opportunity cost. Just based on the specificity of the subject I can guess that you are not particularly interested in Japanese post-war cinema and will not choose to learn about it in your lifetime. But that's not sad. No one can learn about everything.
      - AnthonBerg 15y ago
        True, that is indeed true. However, I see many people around me who just don't care to know. Some protect their ego and identity with the internal statement "I'm perfectly good enough! I don't need to know that stuff!" Some are lazy. Some were never shown the wonder of true learning, only stuffed with rote information in school ... So there is always some sadness in people not wanting to learn.
- slowpoke 15y ago
  > Some people may have been spoiled by operating systems like Linux or BSD, where you can look up each and every line of code that comprises the whole software stack I'm quite sorry, but what? Spoiled by having the freedom we should have for every technology? It's kind of like saying that "Some people are spoiled by having civil liberties, but most people don't care about those".
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    > It's kind of like saying that That was the point ;-)
    - slowpoke 15y ago
      I might have misunderstood you then. :)
ootachi 15y ago
It doesn't end there; look up encrypted binaries and Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext for more fun examples of DRM built into the kernel.
salgernon 15y ago
gdb /Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes (gdb) fb ptrace (gdb) run [ breaks at ptrace ] (gdb) return [ type 'y' to return to the parent, skipping the call ] pirate your music or whatever you wanted to do. I'm not sure who this was supposed to prevent from doing what, although I'm sure that it wouldn't be in there if there wasn't a contractual obligation to do something for the people providing them with content.
- jrockway 15y ago
  If you skip the ptrace call, you can't "pirate your music or whatever you wanted to do". The whole point of running GDB is to call ptrace.
  - Xuzz 15y ago
    You're not skipping gdb's ptrace, you're skipping when iTunes calls it. iTunes calls ptrace() with PT_DENY_ATTACH to disallow gdb from attaching to it, which this method easily skips to let you attach to iTunes without any issues.

You know... You may have a point. Some people may have been spoiled by operating systems like Linux or BSD, where you can look up each and every line of code that comprises the whole software stack, but, in fact, most people don't really care about that. Still, OSX is more open than its main competitor - you can see most of it, but not all. The fact most people don't really care about what they are using is sad, but it's a fact of life.

sjwright 15y ago
Most people drive their car without knowing how an internal combustion engine works. Most people watch television without knowing that the picture is comprised of pixels (or scan lines). Is that also sad? Must everyone understand everything they use in sufficient detail? Why should a computer be different? Why should my mum need to understand what an operating system is, let alone care about it?
- jarek 15y ago
  Most engines don't cut out if you do choose to pop the hood open.
  - slowpoke 15y ago
    I have no idea why you are being downvoted, because it's the truth. It's exactly what Apple does. While yes, no one should need to understand how a TV/Car/Computer/<insert everyday technology> works under the hood, how is that an argument to stop people who WANT to know?
    - eropple 15y ago
      You're free to learn. Just not with their software. You know that going in, it's not a secret if you've done your due diligence regarding these things about which you purportedly care. Personally, I grew out of computers-as-ideology a long time ago. I'll trade the ability to run GDB on my media player the zero times I'll ever want to do it for a fantastic user experience for the other 100% of the time I'm using my computer. (Okay, 90% or so, but for that 10%, I have Windows.)
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - jarek 15y ago
        While I see your point, the frustrating thing is that blocking itunes from gdb in no way helps them deliver a fantastic user experience.
        eropple 15y ago
        Sure, but you know going in (again, if you've done your research) that they do it. So if it's important to you, don't buy it. I don't care about that, so I will.
      - slowpoke 15y ago
        > Just not with their software. Again, why? It's still not an argument to hide what the program does on your computer. To put it bluntly, it's bullshit and you know it. > I'll trade the ability to run GDB on my media player the zero times I'll ever want to do it for a fantastic user experience That's completely besides the point - this has nothing to do with the "user experience" (which is quite the opposite of "fantastic", but that's my opinion), and everything to do with the fact that Apple restricts your freedom.
        eropple 15y ago
        > Again, why? It's still not an argument to hide what the program does on your computer. To put it bluntly, it's bullshit and you know it. Nope. The argument is simple: I don't care. I really don't--I just fundamentally don't care that I cannot run GDB on the iTunes executable. I have much more important things to be annoyed at than that. If you do your research into issues that are important to you, then you know, going in, that Apple does this. (Also, as noted elsewhere in the thread, you can still use GDB to view the executable if you really want to. It's possible. Just not via the conventional method.) If that decision is unacceptable to you, don't buy their stuff. It is acceptable to me, so I will. This really isn't that difficult a concept. I am not entirely unsympathetic to your viewpoint--a few years ago I went through a GNU-y phase of sorts. But from my perspective, there are things that matter, and this just isn't one. There are certainly things in technology to get all up in arms about. Things that the FSF and fellow travelers such as yourself think are important to get up in arms about are rarely, in my own estimation, in that set. This isn't, either. (This is not to say that the FSF does not sometimes have a valid point--even broken clocks are right twice a day.) You are entirely free not to buy a computer with OS X if you find their terms unacceptable, just as I am free to buy one if they are. So do so, and enjoy it. And I'll enjoy mine, and we can get on with more important things in our lives. =)
- rbanffy 15y ago
  > Most people watch television without knowing that the picture is comprised of pixels (or scan lines). Is that also sad? That they don't know? A bit. That most don't want to know? Very, very sad. > Why should my mum need to understand what an operating system is, let alone care about it? To better be able to protect herself against malware, to be able to better understand a very important tool in our society, to be able to understand what your work is about when you tell her.
  - ericdschmidt 15y ago
    I'm sure virtually everyone would like to know about everything if they could. But they know they can't; they have to make choices about how they spend their limited time. So they would be delighted to learn about TVs and computers and VCRs if they could upload the knowledge instantly into their brain like in The Matrix; but they can't. So they focus on what particularly interests them. Some people prefer to learn about Japanese post-war cinema. Again, I'm sure most people would love to learn all about that if they could do so at no opportunity cost. Just based on the specificity of the subject I can guess that you are not particularly interested in Japanese post-war cinema and will not choose to learn about it in your lifetime. But that's not sad. No one can learn about everything.
    - AnthonBerg 15y ago
      True, that is indeed true. However, I see many people around me who just don't care to know. Some protect their ego and identity with the internal statement "I'm perfectly good enough! I don't need to know that stuff!" Some are lazy. Some were never shown the wonder of true learning, only stuffed with rote information in school ... So there is always some sadness in people not wanting to learn.
slowpoke 15y ago
> Some people may have been spoiled by operating systems like Linux or BSD, where you can look up each and every line of code that comprises the whole software stack I'm quite sorry, but what? Spoiled by having the freedom we should have for every technology? It's kind of like saying that "Some people are spoiled by having civil liberties, but most people don't care about those".
- rbanffy 15y ago
  > It's kind of like saying that That was the point ;-)
  - slowpoke 15y ago
    I might have misunderstood you then. :)

ootachi 15y ago

It doesn't end there; look up encrypted binaries and Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext for more fun examples of DRM built into the kernel.

salgernon 15y ago

gdb /Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes (gdb) fb ptrace (gdb) run [ breaks at ptrace ] (gdb) return [ type 'y' to return to the parent, skipping the call ] pirate your music or whatever you wanted to do. I'm not sure who this was supposed to prevent from doing what, although I'm sure that it wouldn't be in there if there wasn't a contractual obligation to do something for the people providing them with content.

jrockway 15y ago
If you skip the ptrace call, you can't "pirate your music or whatever you wanted to do". The whole point of running GDB is to call ptrace.
- Xuzz 15y ago
  You're not skipping gdb's ptrace, you're skipping when iTunes calls it. iTunes calls ptrace() with PT_DENY_ATTACH to disallow gdb from attaching to it, which this method easily skips to let you attach to iTunes without any issues.