I'd advise everyone to check out this webpage. The blogger totally rips apart Cherry OS leaning on a number of sources and there's proof that it's not JUST PearPC he's ripped off....
Evidence here
Cherry OS - The Evidence!
Moderators: Cat_7, Ronald P. Regensburg
I wouldn't worry about that - Dan Foesch certainly doesn't seem concerned, as he stated in the thread on 'that other site'.
I think the fact that there are plenty copies of the original release out there in the wild is the main point. Hell, someone at Wired news even has that beta copy Arben gave them back in Autumn last year - when it was REALLY blatant.
I think the fact that there are plenty copies of the original release out there in the wild is the main point. Hell, someone at Wired news even has that beta copy Arben gave them back in Autumn last year - when it was REALLY blatant.
Unfortunately my post made it sound like I was being sarcastic and blaming you for pointing out the article (to Arben). I did not mean it that way.
I'm aware of the earlier beta build that was shown to be a hack of PearPC. Arben cleared all those tell-tale signs for this public release, but now this article points out more signs, which Arben will undoubtably fix (if he can) for the next release.
I'm aware of the earlier beta build that was shown to be a hack of PearPC. Arben cleared all those tell-tale signs for this public release, but now this article points out more signs, which Arben will undoubtably fix (if he can) for the next release.
You mean for some criminal to reverse engineer CherryOS and create a patch to show PearPC symbols in the resulting patched CherryOS executable? It could be done, if not in hours, then in days by a skilled software hacker.
But I believe there are enough witnesses who can take an oath that the CherryOS binary that they downloaded from the Maui site matched much of the code in PearPC.
I guess it would depend on what country the court was in. I imagine there are certain courts somewhere where GPL violations have been disputed in the past.
But I believe there are enough witnesses who can take an oath that the CherryOS binary that they downloaded from the Maui site matched much of the code in PearPC.
I guess it would depend on what country the court was in. I imagine there are certain courts somewhere where GPL violations have been disputed in the past.
-
The Balance Of Judgement
- Apple Corer
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2002 6:53 am
Cherry OS's parent company is based in the US, so this would be interesting to see if GPL would stand up in court.
In the past it's only been due to a corporate decision to enfoprce the GPL, such as the time when an MPEG-4 codec was released that contained Xvid source code.
We've seen debates as to whether the GPL and other licenses could stand up in court. Now we will see what happens. And if people have enough money to defend it.
In the past it's only been due to a corporate decision to enfoprce the GPL, such as the time when an MPEG-4 codec was released that contained Xvid source code.
We've seen debates as to whether the GPL and other licenses could stand up in court. Now we will see what happens. And if people have enough money to defend it.
-
CaptainValor
- Forum All-Star
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 11:57 pm
8)reub2000 wrote:This guy needs a defense fund so he can sue these ****ers into bankrupcy. Anyone know where to donate?
http://sourceforge.net/donate/index.php?group_id=108675
-
danboarder
- Space Cadet
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 5:17 am
- Location: Phila
- Contact:
he can win.
I contributed to the defense fund. I think PearPC can win.
Here is an article describing a similar case where the GPL won.
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/48833.htm
--
Here is an article describing a similar case where the GPL won.
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/48833.htm
--
CherryOS page
The CherryOS test was taken from March 28th 2005 using CherryOS 1.2 and OS X 10.3. The results show that the CherryOS overall CPU score was a 5.44 (roughly 11 times faster than PearPC). In addition you will note that there is an Altivec Basic score of 6.38. CherryOS registers a score in this category because it is a G4 emulation not a G3 emulation like PearPC. Finally please note that the Bus Frequency registers at 458MHz (almost 8 times faster than the PearPC).
Could this bench be true? The fastest PearPC emulation gives 1/15th perfomance.
If CherryOS is 11 times faster (as would be the consequence of their PearPC is 11 times slower-statement), you'd get near-real time emulation of OS X on x86 with this new 1.2 CherryOS built...
Actually:
1/15*11=0.73 speed OS X emulation, which would still be V E R R Y cool if true.
So the Altivec builts are faster than normal PearPC. I understand that the Altivec simulate G4 instead of G3. First there was PearPC, which was 1/500th speed (...), then JITC was implemented which boosted PPC-emulation to ca. 1/15th speed, right?willhart wrote:They are comparing the Altivec capabilities of CherryOS, which has Altivec to PearPC (non-Altivec). In a fair competition between CherryOS and PearPC Altivec, PearPC is about 3 times faster.
Question#1
But why is Altivec faster (since I assume PearPC has to emulate this MMX/SSE/#D-Now! equevalant on top of emulating the PowerPC processor, right?)?
Q#2
& how do I enable this? Is is just a matter of selecting an altivec built in my PearGUI or do I have to alter/add something in it's config file?
Then there's SDL, which is supposed to use your graphics card. Isn't this much faster? The SDL builts I've downloaded contain an SDL.dll file.
Q#3
Is it sufficient to just have this file extracted to the PearPC.exe directory, or does one have to make the emulator aware of this option through config file too? And how do I do this?
CherryOS supposedly emulates G4 too.
Q#4
Does that mean it is based on a PearPC Altivec built?
Btw CherryOS is announced to become open source starting from may this year. Does that suggest it'll gonna be free from now on
(as it should have from the start, being the PearPC rip-off GUI+HFSExplorer it is).
Your mileage may vary, but the Altivec emulation doesn't bring much (if any) overall speed increase to PearPC. In fact I think it makes booting a little slower, but I don't benchmark...wiebeest wrote:So the Altivec builts are faster than normal PearPC. I understand that the Altivec simulate G4 instead of G3. First there was PearPC, which was 1/500th speed (...), then JITC was implemented which boosted PPC-emulation to ca. 1/15th speed, right?
Question#1
But why is Altivec faster (since I assume PearPC has to emulate this MMX/SSE/#D-Now! equevalant on top of emulating the PowerPC processor, right?)?
It is a different build, so you have to get a binary from Prasys' site or one of the other binary sites. Or install Cygwin and build it yourself. You do need to change the configfile too, though: changeQ#2
& how do I enable this? Is is just a matter of selecting an altivec built in my PearGUI or do I have to alter/add something in it's config file?
cpu_pvr = 0x00088302
to
cpu_pvr = 0x000c0000
That's the SDL library, used by PearPC to draw the screen if you are using an SDL build. It is reputedly better than the Win32 build (which uses DirectX/OpenGL) for built-in graphics cards like Intel Extreme, as opposed to your GeForces and Radeons and whatnot.Then there's SDL, which is supposed to use your graphics card. Isn't this much faster? The SDL builts I've downloaded contain an SDL.dll file.
No - SDL is another build option, so you need a PearPC binary built to use SDL. No configuration is needed.Q#3
Is it sufficient to just have this file extracted to the PearPC.exe directory, or does one have to make the emulator aware of this option through config file too? And how do I do this?
We can neither confirm nor deny this at this time, but Daniel Foesch who does the Altivec branch was certain enough to call his lawyers...CherryOS supposedly emulates G4 too.
Q#4
Does that mean it is based on a PearPC Altivec built?
Watch this space. Daniel has stated that, as CherryOS's 'developers' have already violated the GPL licence of PearPC, their rights to redistribute it under said licence are withdrawn. Even if a court considers this not to be automatically the case, Daniel is entitled to revoke those rights from them because of their violation.Btw CherryOS is announced to become open source starting from may this year. Does that suggest it'll gonna be free from now on
(as it should have from the start, being the PearPC rip-off GUI+HFSExplorer it is).
Do you mean that SDL= better with the built-in graphics.Havin_it wrote:That's the SDL library, used by PearPC to draw the screen if you are using an SDL build. It is reputedly better than the Win32 build (which uses DirectX/OpenGL) for built-in graphics cards like Intel Extreme, as opposed to your GeForces and Radeons and whatnot.Then there's SDL, which is supposed to use your graphics card. Isn't this much faster? The SDL builts I've downloaded contain an SDL.dll file.
So for my AMD64/ Geforce6600 combo I should use the Win32 build???