[arekkusu]

I really don't want to fan any more of these "is it GM?" flames, but could somebody with 6c115 *from ADC* take a look at this file and post the timestamp they see?

Mac OS X Install Disc 1:System:Installationackages:OSInstall.mpkg:Cont ents:Resources:French.lproj:ReadMe.rtf

is it:

Jul 22, 2002

or

Jul 30, 2002?


thanks

[Ohyeahz]

Hi,

Didn't get it thru ADC but what I have is dated July 30.

Cheers

[oeyvind]

Does the date rely on which time zone one in?

I got this:

Code:
[12] ivoire % ls -la /Volumes/Mac\ OS\ X\ Install\ Disc\ 1/System/Installation/Packages/OSInstall.mpkg/Contents/Resources/French.lproj/ReadMe.rtf
-rw-r--r--    1 oeyvind  unknown     10957 Jul 31 02:46 /Volumes/Mac OS X Install Disc 1/System/Installation/Packages/OSInstall.mpkg/Contents/Resources/French.lproj/ReadMe.rtf
[13] ivoire %

[Drizzt]

Here it's the 22nd

[pat++]

Mine is not from ADC... and it says July 23...

Strange... so we have 22, 23 and 30 ?

[piracy]

Originally posted by arekkusu:
I really don't want to fan any more of these "is it GM?" flames, but could somebody with 6c115 *from ADC* take a look at this file and post the timestamp they see?

Mac OS X Install Disc 1:System:Installationackages:OSInstall.mpkg:Cont ents:Resources:French.lproj:ReadMe.rtf

is it:

Jul 22, 2002

or

Jul 30, 2002?


thanks

It's July 30th. And yes, it does depend on what time zone you're in. And there's no such thing as 6C115a (not even internally; brainchild2b is misinformed), or it would be labeled as such (just as an Xserve displays 5T114e after Xserve Update 1.0).

I cannot speak to hacked builds, doctored images, etc; but ALL officially, properly obtained discs or disc images will be the same, and are all the one and only 6C115.

And how can you say you don't want to fan any flames when you've named the title of this thread as you did?

[Drizzt]

Originally posted by piracy:


It's July 30th. And yes, it does depend on what time zone you're in. And there's no such thing as 6C115a (not even internally; brainchild2b is misinformed), or it would be labeled as such (just as an Xserve displays 5T114e after Xserve Update 1.0).

I cannot speak to hacked builds, doctored images, etc; but ALL officially, properly obtained discs or disc images will be the same, and are all the one and only 6C115.

And how can you say you don't want to fan any flames when you've named the title of this thread as you did?

The time zone thing can't be right, because there is 24 time zones. That means, that there sould not be date lower or higher than the 29th and the 31st. Now we have a whole week of difference.. so there must be something else.

I suspect that they updated the documentation, without changing the binaries.. could that be?

[Ganesha]

Time zones don't make an 8 day differences .

So there may be an alleged 6c115 build floating around with a date BEFORE the ADC issue... Hmmm, very intresting...

[mikellanes]

downloaded from ADC on Wednesday July 31st.

that particular file says: July 30th 2002

By the way the Checksum of the CD is: CRC32 $5EB8B050


I would check that, you can use disk copy to do this.

[piracy]

Originally posted by Drizzt:


The time zone thing can't be right, because there is 24 time zones. That means, that there sould not be date lower or higher than the 29th and the 31st. Now we have a whole week of difference.. so there must be something else.

I suspect that they updated the documentation, without changing the binaries.. could that be?

Note I didn't say the time zones were causing in 8-day difference (but may cause a one day difference in people's dates). I simply said that all properly obtained builds will be the same. So it looks like we may have a doctored image of some sort floating around, which is not surprising. Apple has only seeded 6C115 through ONE channel: ADC, and it has not changed since its been posted.

All this proves is not that there is a 6C115a or some other ridiculous theory, but rather that some people may be getting duped by doctored builds they've pirated.*


* Note: there is no value to a claim someone might make that "but if there really are fake images out there, we just want to help people!Y@R!#" Well help yourself, and legally obtain it on the 24th.

[Drizzt]

Originally posted by piracy:


Note I didn't say the time zones were causing in 8-day difference. I simply said that all properly obtained builds will be the same. So it looks like we may have a doctored image of some sort floating around, which is not surprising. Apple has only seeded 6C115 through ONE channel: ADC, and it has not changed since its been posted.

All this proves is not that there is a 6C115a or some other ridiculous theory, but rather that some people may be getting duped by doctored builds they've pirated.*


* Note: there is no value to a claim someone might make that "but if there really are fake images out there, we just want to help people!Y@R!#" Well help yourself, and legally obtain it on the 24th.

If I get a job, I'll gladly pay for it (that and some sharewares..)

I'm checksumming my CD right now..

[Drizzt]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
downloaded from ADC on Wednesday July 31st.

that particular file says: July 30th 2002

By the way the Checksum of the CD is: CRC32 $5EB8B050


I would check that, you can use disk copy to do this.

CRC32 $7402489C

hum.. D'OH?

[hew]

July 22nd I believe was 6C106, was it not?

[Drizzt]

Originally posted by hew:
July 22nd I believe was 6C106, was it not?

I thrased my CD (was a CD-RW)

[arekkusu]

piracy, others,

Thanks for the replies. I see that the correct 6c115 is the one with the July 30 date and the 5EB8B050 checksum. Any other checksum is the wrong Disk 1, even if it is labelled 6c115.

To clarify, I do have another build >labelled< 6c115, but it has the 7402489C checksum, and the French readme is the wrong one. It is the readme for the 10.2 Server. There are some other minor timestamp differences but the binaries seem the same. I think this was a last-second documentation change, and what Apple seeded through ADC is the 6c115a that my company was seeded directly.

[hew]

Originally posted by Drizzt:


I thrased my CD (was a CD-RW)

I just checked my 6C106 cd and it has the date of July 22nd.

[Drizzt]

Originally posted by hew:

I just checked my 6C106 cd and it has the date of July 22nd.

I had to trick the Installer because it wouldn't install over 6C106..

So it is not 6C106, but not the ADC 6C115 neither..

[tenchi71]

Originally posted by hew:

I just checked my 6C106 cd and it has the date of July 22nd.

hmmm...

my c106 cd has that French Readme.rtf dated July 17th. My c115 has the file dated July 22nd.
Hehehehe... the mystery continues!

[hellohello1]

what is the checksum for the proper disk 2?

hypothetically, if one were to make disk images of the first two 6c115 disks, what size would they be?

[Drizzt]

My theory is that there is a internal test version, and a ADC version with modified documentation including known bugs, etc..

Does that makes sense?

[Ganesha]

Originally posted by Drizzt:
My theory is that there is a internal test version, and a ADC version with modified documentation including known bugs, etc..

Does that makes sense?

My theory is some kid renamed an older build he had to 115, just so he could *show off* what he had and brag.

[mudzilla]

Originally posted by Drizzt:
Does that makes sense?

no. not one ounce of sense you daft loaf. you CANNOT make 2 builds that are different yet use the same build number, i mean, think it through, how bloody stupid would that be...

can you imagine the conversation at Cupertino

boss- "so you sent the latest build to Adobe, yeah?"

tech- "yep, i sent them the 6C115 build"

boss - "the 6C115? why didn't you send them the 6C115A build?"

tech - "we do A builds? you been reading macnn?"

[piracy]

Originally posted by mudzilla:


no. not one ounce of sense you daft loaf. you CANNOT make 2 builds that are different yet use the same build number, i mean, think it through, how bloody stupid would that be...

can you imagine the conversation at Cupertino

boss- "so you sent the latest build to Adobe, yeah?"

tech- "yep, i sent them the 6C115 build"

boss - "the 6C115? why didn't you send them the 6C115A build?"

tech - "we do A builds? you been reading macnn?"

Though you obviously grasp the ridiculousness of this, it's worth pointing out that there actually can be builds with letters after them (like 6C115a)...but when they exist, they are labeled as such (e.g., 5T114e on Xserve).

The point though, is this: there are NEVER two builds with the same number. It would violate every principle and means of quality control and software design. Think about it for two seconds.

[hellohello1]

i trust you piracy.....you seem to know what's up. just for curiosity sake, do you know the checksum on disk 2 of the adc build?

[piracy]

Originally posted by hellohello1:
i trust you piracy.....you seem to know what's up. just for curiosity sake, do you know the checksum on disk 2 of the adc build?

CRC32 (Disk Copy): $74E38A6D
MD5: 56898c809ed9dc29b1fd19b7d9e7e8fc

[mmj_ngen]

Originally posted by piracy:


Though you obviously grasp the ridiculousness of this, it's worth pointing out that there actually can be builds with letters after them (like 6C115a)...but when they exist, they are labeled as such (e.g., 5T114e on Xserve).

The point though, is this: there are NEVER two builds with the same number. It would violate every principle and means of quality control and software design. Think about it for two seconds.

. I worked for a company that actually did do that for builds. Build numbers were milestones. You could have many "builds" of the same code base, hence the same build number, until "blessed". Once "blessed", it was never touched again. Granted, this was only with 40 or so developers, so communication was good enough. They still do it this way in fact. I guess one could argue that it is just versioning without the build numbers, but it wasn't. The numbers weren't just versioning. It was more like an ideal build number. Version numbers described functionality, build's were milestone/code freezes, everything else was just churning for a better product. Actually, it really was an internal version number, but it was considered a build number. Hell, you could argue that the date was the real build number, but that wasn't the perception. I've also seen successful projects with no build number where anything checked in should work for all regression and stress tests. The idea was that if you needed to mark a build besides the release, then you were being lazy. These were only 100,000 to 300,000 lines of codes projects though. They weren't really large projects.

How stupid was it? I was always a little annoyed by it, but it worked. The product always did well in the market, and it really wasn't confusing. Build numbers served as minor merge points. There were many "builds" with the same number, but only one official build. Failures were fixed or trashed.

I'm by no means saying Apple does this. I don't know, nor do I care about how they build products or about your crusade for the correct build number. I'm just stating that different companies have different procedures. I know this isn't the "ISO" standard as mentioned in another, related thread. Actually, it's not a common case as far as I can tell, but it worked.

To state such a broad assertion such as a bad build number convention violates every principle of software design is absurd. What is your reasoning that would cause you to state such a thing. Are you a student?

[oeyvind]

piracy is right... there's only 1 build, 6C115.

And the date/time on the file at

/Volumes/Mac\ OS\ X\ Install\ Disc\ 1/System/Installation/Packages/OSInstall.mpkg/Contents/Resources/French.lproj/ReadMe.rtf

is Jul 30, 2002 1646 hrs GMT

[FLASH1296]

I have been running the developer' seed 6C_115 of JAG' for a few days now; and I can say with absolute certainty, that all new features and appl's are operative and the OS is stable. I operate a 24/7/365 Private KDX Server on a Quicksilver G-4 via cable modem.



Dates and checksums be damned.

[hellohello1]

and piracy--what do you say the checksums and md5 are for disk one? how about file size?

just trying to get this all straightened out. who would take the time tomess with files and put them out? wierd.

[AKcrab]

What is wrong with the font size in this thread??
Is it just me?

[metfoo]

i have 6c115 installed, and acording to that file, its july 22nd. the system profiler tells me that i have build 6c115.

my guess is apple updated the text file after the build was posted and rereleased the image

[hellohello1]

would that change the checksum?

anyone (piracy?) have the checksum for the official disk 1?

[piracy]

Originally posted by hellohello1:
would that change the checksum?

anyone (piracy?) have the checksum for the official disk 1?

Disk 1 CRC32: $5EB8B050
Disk 1 MD5: ad5b66c82ccd1d15311c557950f3515a

Disk 2 CRC32: $74E38A6D
Disk 2 MD5: 56898c809ed9dc29b1fd19b7d9e7e8fc

[ericwass]

Pardon my igonrance here... I get & accept that there is only one 6C115. I happen to have gotten my hands on the "other" version - the one that has 7/22/02 as the date and the other checksum number. Given that it is not the official ADC release, what is it? I can accept that some pirate changed the name when he uploaded it, but it does show itself as 6C115 in the Apple System Profiler. Is that a hack too? Is this thing totally bogus or what? Is anyone offering any explanations besides the bunk 6C115a thing? Just curious...

[kmkkid]

It seems every major release for any major OS, people tend to squabble about how there is some secret build of the final, and they go off and start labelling it *a then eventually a *b comes out..... people just can't accept when a build goes final Same deal happened for XP. It's going to have bugs final or not, I mean if they didnt name it final untill it was bug free.... it would be a ongoing beta. The only thing that would stop them from naming a final would be major showstoppers. 6C115 is final, deal with it

Chris

[arekkusu]

Re: metfoo,

Correct. This is what happened:

Apple seeded 6c115 to select companies. This was FC1. This build leaked, and some people obtained it illegally.

6c115 was found to have some problems. At least one of them, the French readme mentioned at the top of this thread, was serious enough to warrant seeding another build. If you have the leaked build, you can install it, and it will tell you you have 6c115, but if you look at the French readme it is instructions for installing 10.2 Server, which is obviously wrong. Compare it with any of the other language readmes to see.

6c115a was seeded with the correct readme, to select companies. Only Disk 1 was changed. This build was declared GM, and then seeded through ADC >as 6c115.<

So, if you have 6c115, and the French readme's date is July 22 (assuming Cupertino PDT time) then your Disk 1 .dmg checksum is 7402489C, and although it is the same codebase, what you have is not the GM.

If you have 6c115 from an official source, then the French readme's date is July 30, the .dmg checksum is 5EB8B050, and it is the GM.

[piracy]

Again, I can't speak to illegally obtained builds, but 6C115 was not seeded anywhere external to Apple before ADC (either individually to companies, or via Customer Seeding).

[superfula]

how do i check the checksum of the disks?

[mudmonkey]

Originally posted by piracy:
Again, I can't speak to illegally obtained builds, but 6C115 was not seeded anywhere external to Apple before ADC (either individually to companies, or via Customer Seeding).

Aaaah, wonderful piracy.

You are like the little Dutch Boy with his finger in the dike attempting to keep the ignorant fools from flooding and killing us all.

Thank you. I don't have your patience or wherewithal to continually fight the battle as you do. Kudos.

[OSTenning]

------
"You are like the little Dutch Boy with his finger in the dike "
------

I once put my finger in a dike, but she just slapped me -- it stung a little but I kinda liked it...

[Troll]

Originally posted by OSTenning:
------
"You are like the little Dutch Boy with his finger in the dike "
------

I once put my finger in a dike, but she just slapped me -- it stung a little but I kinda liked it...

Glad someone else spotted the mistook (was it intentional?). I was rolling on the floor thinking about the Dutch boy with his finger in a dike!

For reference - little Dutch boys dream about sticking their fingers in dikes, but when it comes to saving little Dutch towns, they prefer to stick their fingers in 'dykes'!!

[Drizzt]

I still stand by my internal test and ADC version theory.

I mean, Apple can't know what issues there is with the OS before having it tested, and they put that information in the documentation on the CD, why can't it be? It doesn't change the build ID because there is no rebuild, and it's still simpler than the theory of a hacker that changed the files and repackaged the CD.

Also, I know that what I have is not 6C106, because I had bugs fixed with it.

[El Mariachi]

I had to dl 4 different images before I got the one with the right checksum.

There are allott of people dl'ing the wrong images and installing them beliving they have installed the GM. The servers all say they got the 6C115 GM release.

Now wonder so manny are saing something is wrong, and the next minute someone replies that it is working on their machines.

[piracy]

Originally posted by Drizzt:
I still stand by my internal test and ADC version theory.

I mean, Apple can't know what issues there is with the OS before having it tested, and they put that information in the documentation on the CD, why can't it be? It doesn't change the build ID because there is no rebuild, and it's still simpler than the theory of a hacker that changed the files and repackaged the CD.

Also, I know that what I have is not 6C106, because I had bugs fixed with it.

Well you can stand by it, but that's not how it works. There is a lot that happens to a build while it's being built, and there is not a "test" version of a build...that's the purpose of the builds themselves.

As to changing documentation: yes, that has happened in the past. However, since 6C115 was only seeded officially once (not, as someone else said, to companies first), only via ADC, and never changed, there's only one real 6C115 image out there - that's all that matters.

When you obtain software illegally, you have no idea what you might get. Instead of theorizing how there might be multiple 6C115's, why don't you put that wasted energy into saving up for an ADC membership so you can obtain builds legitimately.

[Drizzt]

Originally posted by piracy:


Well you can stand by it, but that's not how it works. There is a lot that happens to a build while it's being built, and there is not a "test" version of a build...that's the purpose of the builds themselves.

Also, I don't think anyone's saying someone changed the French readme and repackaged the CD...the more likely is that someone took an earlier build (and it doesn't necessarily have to be 6C106) and labeled 6C115. I'm not sure what motivation someone would have to do that, but warez kiddies have done some pretty strange things - claiming there are dozens of 4K78's comes to mind.

As to changing documentation: yes, that has happened in the past. However, since 6C115 was only seeded once (not, as someone else said, to companies first), only via ADC, and never changed, there's only one real 6C115 image out there. When you obtain software illegally, you have no idea what you might get. Instead of theorizing how there might be multiple 6C115's, why don't you put that wasted energy into saving up for an ADC membership so you can obtain builds legitimately.

This is NOT what I said..

OK.. let's say I build Explorer 6.1b2 (or whatever), and there's people wanting to test their products againts mine.. I'll build it, test it myself, and give it to them with a new documentation regarding issues with this build. This means there is 2 different installers for the same build. It's the same binaries, same build, same things in it.. but the Online Documentation is different.

Also, changing the build ID inside the package and fixing the ATSUI font display problem brought by MSN and 6C106 is not in the powers of a small warez kiddie

I am NOT saying the builds are different, and as I said, there's no way I'm going to save for ADC membership.. I don't have the money to buy Jaguar at all right now..

So instead of destroying theories without proofs.. let's put some on the table. Give me the output of uname -a, and the created date and modified date of the finder and mail.app

Here's mine :

uname -a :

Darwin Guenhwyvar.menzoberranzan.qc.ca 6.0 Darwin Kernel Version 6.0: Sat Jul 27 13:18:52 PDT 2002; root:xnu/xnu-344.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc

Finder dates :

Created 22/07/2002 @ 2:21
Modified 29/07/2002 @ 4:27

Mail.app dates :

Created and modified : 14/07/2002 @ 7:33

If you have the same dates with your legit build, than my theory stands up.

[piracy]

Drizzt:

The point here is not whether it's possible to have another CD that has the same binary codebase on it (of course it is). The point is not whether or not Apple can change documentation on an OS X install CD (it can). The point is where people are getting their builds is what is causing all this uncertainty in the first place.

[Drizzt]

Originally posted by piracy:
Drizzt:

The point here is not whether it's possible to have another CD that has the same binary codebase on it (of course it is). The point is not whether or not Apple can change documentation on an OS X install CD (it can). The point is where people are getting their builds is what is causing all this uncertainty in the first place.

Look.. if I had a job, I'd pay for Jaguar in a heart beat..

You can't always question WHY people pirate, there is economical and political reasons behind (political = why I'd never pay for a M$ product).

Why don't you just post the damn dates? I think you're trying to get away with it.. I'm just trying to understand what's going on at Apple.. personnal knowledge that's all..

[piracy]

Originally posted by Drizzt:


Look.. if I had a job, I'd pay for Jaguar in a heart beat..

You can't always question WHY people pirate, there is economical and political reasons behind (political = why I'd never pay for a M$ product).

Why don't you just post the damn dates? I think you're trying to get away with it.. I'm just trying to understand what's going on at Apple.. personnal knowledge that's all..

I'm curious why you think if the kernel, Finder, and Mail are the same, that somehow that means your theory is correct? There are tens of thousands more binary files that could be different.

[Drizzt]

Originally posted by piracy:


I'm curious why you think if the kernel, Finder, and Mail are the same, that somehow that means your theory is correct? There are tens of thousands more binary files that could be different.

Very simple..

The kernel as been recompiled at every build, We know the Finder had a huge bug in 6C106 with FTP, so it must have been changed.. and Mail.app is a random choice..

Is it so hard to give some dates?

[piracy]

Originally posted by Drizzt:


Very simple..

The kernel as been recompiled at every build, We know the Finder had a huge bug in 6C106 with FTP, so it must have been changed.. and Mail.app is a random choice..

Is it so hard to give some dates?

Yes, they're the same, I thought that was already established. I'm trying to avoid further discussion because I'm not sure you grasp the full import of the fact that people will this think that somehow this proves that there are multiple builds associated with a single build number, which there in fact are not.

Apple has already started shipping Jaguar with new machines. The build? 6C115. For most people, that's proof enough. But for these forums however, it wasn't even enough that both 4K78 CDs had the same MD5 checksum. Somehow, some way, people insisited they were still different. With 6C115, the checksum of the final CD may not match anything, because of slight formatting changes. Drizzt, you may be smart enough to understand that this doesn't mean there's multiple 6C115s, but it seems a significant number of people here aren't. Again, for the record (and not aimed at you Drizzt): there is one 6C115, notwithstanding minor CD formatting changes. There is no 6C115a or b. (Note, though, Drizzt: I wasn't claiming that your build was 6C106 relabeled 6C115 - there have been other builds in the interim. Also, truth be told, the two 6C115's that are floating around, even the one with the errant French readme, are both valid 6C115 images, with minor formatting changes. Now some will ask, "But how can I REALLY make sure I've got a 'good' copy of 6C115?" The only real answer, I'm sure you'll agree: obtain it legally.)

All I've been trying to get across for a year and a half now is that binary codebases are unique to each individual build number - otherwise there would be no purpose for version control. It was easy with 4K78, because the CDs happened to actually BE literally identical. I suppose you're wondering, if 99.9% of people will understand that any 6C115 obtained from an official source is the same as the final retail version, why I even bother to attempt to convince the remaining 0.1% with wild, outrageous conspiracy theories. I'm afraid I don't have an answer to that question. Perhaps I'm insane.