Hacker News Reader

Comment by Wowfunhappy | Hacker News Reader

Exactly.

In the event that the entire concept of kernel extensions is removed (which seems unlikely), Hackintosh developers could just recompile the kernel. Or have the bootloader patch the kernel binary. (Fun fact: Clover already allows any user to do Find ==> Replace on aribitrary strings or hex sequences in the kernel.)

You can do this stuff on a real Mac too btw, as long as SIP is off.

Now, if Apple actually put a concerted effort into screwing Hackintosh users, they could probably kill the scene relatively easily. But, they don't seem interested in doing that. Their attitude since the initial Intel release of Tiger has seemingly been indifference.

View on HN

> Hackintosh developers could just recommpile the kernel.

No, not really. macOS's kernel, and especially its kernel extensions, are closed source.

Darwin is open source. AMD Hackintosh users frequently compile custom Darwin kernels in order for macOS to run (although within the past year or so, this has fallen out of favor compared to binary patches).

Many kernel extensions are closed source, but that's not relevant here. What matters are Hackintosh kernel extensions like FakeSMC, which could absolutely be integrated into the kernel if necessary.

Edit: I just realized who I was talking too, you're more knowledgeable about iOS and macOS internals than I am! Are you referring to something different? I know absolutely that you can compile custom versions of Darwin, because as I mentioned it's done frequently for Hackintosh stuff.

> Darwin is open source.

This is why I specifically said that macOS is closed source. Darwin is kinda open source, but it becomes less and less relevant as Apple fails to update it and leaves parts out.

> Many kernel extensions are closed source, but that's not relevant here.

Of course it's relevant: if you don't have those extensions, your custom compiled kernel isn't booting on your genuine Mac hardware. You can try to rip the binary extensions from the OS, but no guarantees on how well that's going to work.

...are we talking about different things? I don't understand why that matters.

The question was: in a world where kexts don't exist, could Hackintosh still work?

I'm saying, yes, as long as it's still possible to compile custom versions of the kernel, because you could just make whatever adjustments you wanted to the kernel directly.

As of today, it is absolutely possible to compile your own version of Darwin and use it to boot up a Hackintosh, or a real Mac. Perhaps in this theoretical world where kexts don't exist, this would cease to be true, but that would be a separate change, no?

> ...are we talking about different things?

Yes, we are, I lost track of the argument. Sorry about that: you're right.

>I specifically said that macOS is closed source

But you said:

>macOS's kernel, and especially its kernel extensions, are closed source

Yes, I forgot the "kernel" part there. But I don't think that changes my point?

I think the biggest problem in the future will be the apple’s security chip every new macOS hardware includes one it gets integrated more with every version of macOS. My assumption is that at some point essential parts of the OS and macOS programs will be dependent on the presence of the security chip and apple will cut off support to hardware without one. Just a matter of time. The questions is how will the hackintosh community solve this problem?

Run it in a very thin hypervisor that sort of looks like bluepill and emulate the security chip's API?

Not for a while, at least. There’s a number of Macs that don’t have the chip that Apple is still selling.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com