Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Links to "quasi-legitimate" procedures

Tags:
  • OS X
  • Tom's Hardware
  • Processors
Last response: in Forum Feedback
Share
August 8, 2014 11:26:34 PM

I am unhappy that Tom's is allowing links detailing "quasi-legitimate" procedures. I am referring to the 3rd post in this thread about installing OS X on AMD processors: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-2251749/instal...

When even specialist Hackintosh sites forbid discussion of this particular topic I don't think that I can, in all conscience, continue to participate in the OS X forum on Tom's.

(Note - I did report my concerns about this particular post, to no avail, before bringing the subject up here.)

More about : links quasi legitimate procedures

August 8, 2014 11:34:00 PM

Hackintoshs are "quasi-legitimate".
m
0
l
August 8, 2014 11:36:54 PM

Hackintosh is always a grey area. I don't know exactly what our policies are.

However, I don't see why installing OSX on an AMD processor is more taboo than on an Intel one. Can you provide a link to where these sites forbid it?

I was under the impression that it was just more difficult to install and even harder to support, rather than more shady.

From tonymacx86:
Quote:
AMD nor Atom CPUs and NVIDIA, ATI, VIA or SIS desktop chipsets are not supported by the methods and software on this site and will not work. Any post requesting help for or asking about these will be deleted.


I read that as meaning that they fundamentally can't do it (or it's too much work), not that they consider it forbidden.
m
0
l
Related resources
August 8, 2014 11:39:16 PM

Goodeggray said:
Hackintoshs are "quasi-legitimate".


That is another discussion.

I am only concerned with the fact that we are allowing links here that would not be allowed even on specialist Hackintosh sites. If they think that such links are questionable then perhaps Tom's should reconsider.
m
0
l
August 9, 2014 1:45:34 AM

Did you read my post?

I feel that it's not so much that the procedure is questionable (or at least no more so than on an Intel one), but that the tools are less stable and they don't want the workload.
m
0
l
August 9, 2014 2:46:19 AM

I did read your post. But I didn't necessarily agree with it.

I also read the link in the post I referred to, where it calls the procedures that it is describing "quasi-legitimate". We all have to decide for ourselves whether we wish to participate in a forum that encourages such discussion. Tom's is, of course, free to publish whatever they wish to; I, in my turn, am free to decide whether I wish to be associated with such topics.
m
0
l
August 9, 2014 3:19:33 AM

Hackintosh itself is quasi-legitimate. AMD does not change that.

However, that article suggests pirated distros, so IMHO does go over the line. That would be the case about Intel ones mentioning the same stuff too, however.

I'll PM kenrivers - that probably would have been the best approach in the first place, as mods prefer not to step on each other's toes.
m
0
l
August 9, 2014 7:26:40 AM

The link in question, and the problem, is not about the concept of a Hackintosh per se. The problem is the use of pirated distributions and/or modified kernels.

The whole subject of Hackintoshes is probably worth revisiting, especially now that it is quite difficult for a non-Mac owner to legally obtain a copy of OS X. I think it is pretty naive not to suppose that more than 50% of the posters asking here about Hackintoshes intend to use illegally obtained software.

But that is not the point that I raised; it is about the specific link mentioned, which describes the procedures it details as "quasi-legitimate".

Edit: I see that the post in question has now been removed, so problem solved.
m
0
l

Best solution

August 12, 2014 2:47:16 PM

Ijack said:
The link in question, and the problem, is not about the concept of a Hackintosh per se. The problem is the use of pirated distributions and/or modified kernels.

The whole subject of Hackintoshes is probably worth revisiting, especially now that it is quite difficult for a non-Mac owner to legally obtain a copy of OS X. I think it is pretty naive not to suppose that more than 50% of the posters asking here about Hackintoshes intend to use illegally obtained software.

But that is not the point that I raised; it is about the specific link mentioned, which describes the procedures it details as "quasi-legitimate".

Edit: I see that the post in question has now been removed, so problem solved.


I concur that well over 90% of hackintosh installations use pirated installation images but the moderation team needs to strike a balance so as to not seem overbearing. The balance that we've settled on (and indeed has been endorsed by joe) is that we prohibit discussion of matters that would be unlawful, dangerous, or in violation of the site's terms of service. We do allow discussions that may constitute a breach of contract with another company because there are simply too many different civil jurisdictions for us to come up with a comprehensive policy respecting it. With that said, we do exercise a high degree of moderator discretion when controversial subject matter arises.

Linking to pirated software, and asking for assistance with pirated software are both matters which we have zero-tolerance policies on. Despite this, we generally allow discussions on which torrent software to use and provide assistance with constructing economic mass storage solutions. We know damn well that an array of 4TB hard disk drives are going to be used to store pirated media, but we have no way to prove it and so when in doubt we err on the side of caution. We also allow discussion of emulators, but we do not allow discussion of where to obtain ROMs.

Hackintoshes are a particularly troubling topic because as you mentioned, Apple's EULA very clearly states what the software may be used for. On one hand, linking to or requesting a link to an OSX installation image would be a violation of the forum rules and would not be allowed, even indirectly (the post that you linked to has been deleted). On the other hand, a significant amount of the software underlying OSX (including the Darwin tools and XNU kernel) is open source, so I see no harm in discussing or linking to a modified kernel unless that kernel contains proprietary code not covered under the Apple Public Source Licence.
Share
August 12, 2014 11:25:31 PM

Fair and comprehensive answer. I would just add that distributing modified versions of the Darwin kernel without making the source code of those modifications available is itself a breach of licence. I don't think I've ever seen a link to such source code, but I haven't looked that hard.
m
0
l
August 25, 2014 9:54:39 PM

Ijack said:
I am unhappy that Tom's is allowing links detailing "quasi-legitimate" procedures. I am referring to the 3rd post in this thread about installing OS X on AMD processors: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-2251749/instal...

When even specialist Hackintosh sites forbid discussion of this particular topic I don't think that I can, in all conscience, continue to participate in the OS X forum on Tom's.

(Note - I did report my concerns about this particular post, to no avail, before bringing the subject up here.)


I made the mistake of posting that third answer and was informed of the concern over that response. I immediately deleted the response and will refrain from further posts regarding "Hackintoshes". I regret the post and am sorry I did it.
m
0
l
!