I fully agree. In my case, I know what OCLP is and have used it on computers that don't belong to me, but I can't give useful advice on its operation. Most OCLP users that come here for help don't even bother to read post #1, where they would see that this thread is about something different than they would wish.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MP 1,1-5,1 Manually Configured OpenCore on the Mac Pro
- Thread starter cdf
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Or maybe "Configure OC Manually on MacPro" might be a better title?
I bet that doesnt help. For ages also MacBook Pro users post in the Mac Pro forums.
I have to agree with @Macschrauber. I wonder if people aren’t just assuming that “OpenCore” is shorthand for “OpenCore Legacy Patcher”. I’d be curious to hear from those who were first exposed to OC through OCLP about how, or even if, they came to understand the distinction. In particular, is it clear to them that OCLP configures and installs OC, a tool that stands entirely on its own?
In fact, the OCLP project documentation could be a bit clearer in making the distinction. At first glance, it is not obvious that OC is a separate undertaking led by different developers. In the past, I’ve had to clarify this fact to a well-seasoned unsupported-Mac aficionado:
Of course, OCLP is an open source project, so anyone motivated enough could amend the documentation, maybe with something along the lines of what I mentioned in the linked post. Perhaps that would be better than changing the title of the thread here…
In fact, the OCLP project documentation could be a bit clearer in making the distinction. At first glance, it is not obvious that OC is a separate undertaking led by different developers. In the past, I’ve had to clarify this fact to a well-seasoned unsupported-Mac aficionado:
Of course, OCLP is an open source project, so anyone motivated enough could amend the documentation, maybe with something along the lines of what I mentioned in the linked post. Perhaps that would be better than changing the title of the thread here…
If I can chime in ... I would tend to agree that OCLP don't always super-clearly distinguish themselves from OC. However.... OCLP on the MacPro clearly (?!) is a case of OC on the MacPro; even though (ofc!) not all cases of OC on the MacPro are cases of OCLP on the MacPro. Which is a slightly long-winded way of saying I'd vote for some sort of title change, and/or at least some additional wording right at the top of p.1.
One issue, ofc, is that some non-trivial part (though far from all) of the findings and research which have made this thread's approach work so well have come out of research by the OCLP team. (And therefore some discussion of OCLP, in that context, is and would remain welcome, I believe.)
So maybe something like this (new title, and added text right at the top):
One issue, ofc, is that some non-trivial part (though far from all) of the findings and research which have made this thread's approach work so well have come out of research by the OCLP team. (And therefore some discussion of OCLP, in that context, is and would remain welcome, I believe.)
So maybe something like this (new title, and added text right at the top):
If the majority thinks that changing the title is best, I'll respect that and change it. Because this thread's success precedes OCLP by a couple of years, it's important not to use a title with a cheap-imitation connotation. Adding "OCLP" in the title needs to be balanced with emphasis on this thread's originality. Perhaps something like this:
OpenCore on the Mac Pro (the original approach without OCLP)
What do you all think?
This is perfect!
I think I need to explain why this is a bit of an overstatement. As far as I know, there are two elements used here that have come out of OCLP research:
- ASPP-Override.
- Large-base-system firmware feature bit.
I certainly don't wan't to diminish any of the OCLP research (those people do amazing work), so if I have failed to give proper credit, please let me know! However, I must again stress that the success of the approach described here was established well before OCLP came along. I'm sure some people will roll their eyes at this and even wish it wasn't true, but it's a fact. The configuration strategy presented here for Catalina and Big Sur and part of Monterey did not rely on any OCLP research. Thus the overstatement.
Absolutely.
🤙 Looks great. Could emphize "without" with underline: without
👍 Agree. I would add an appropriate acknowledgement to the OCLP team.
👍 Agree. I would add that "claim" in the first post.
As you said earlier, all this will not stop some folks asking for OCLP support. They would click on the last page first and post their question without reading the 1st post but at least there are enough "police" where to bat them off to the 1st post 😉
Keep up the great work !
Thanks. Not sure about the underlining though: it might give an impression of negativity towards OCLP, which is not the intention at all.
Just a clarification: I have always tried my best to include proper attribution. Both khronokernel and dhinakg (the main OCLP developers) have been mentioned in the credits section ever since the adoption of those elements mentioned above that come from OCLP. I was just asking people to let me know if I have omitted something here.
Last edited:
I think the revised title you suggested, @cdf, probably without any added emphasis, is also perfect.
Based on all you said, I think there's general agreement that not _all_ discussion of OCLP is off topic, but that OCLP support requests definitely are. As hopefully captured already (or close enough) in the revised title and revised extra blurb. I don't think there's any requirement for any additional credits.
Based on all you said, I think there's general agreement that not _all_ discussion of OCLP is off topic, but that OCLP support requests definitely are. As hopefully captured already (or close enough) in the revised title and revised extra blurb. I don't think there's any requirement for any additional credits.
@cdf,
I would defer to your judgement.
I did want to say that I don't mind the OCLP posts - they are people seeking help and I have received so much help here.
That being said this is not the best place for them to be helped with OCLP so a change in title would help keep this thread more focused on the manual approach to OpenCore and hopefully help those seeking help with OCLP get help more quickly and expertly.
Regards,
sfalatko
Based on how many posts I've seen created from confused users within the general Mac Pro forum (created by owners of: iMacs, iMac Pro, Macbook Pros, and cMPs), they are indeed assuming that both OC and OCLP are the exact same thing -- and the devs really should have thought about that when they decided to name both...
It also doesn't help when people go into those confused threads and say that OCLP and OC are the same thing (i've been attacked by members for pointing out that OC and OCLP are different) HERE is an example <-- look at how many people are attacking me in that thread, even Dayo...
Although the devs could still rename OCLP to something else... "Mac Legacy Patcher" for example...
OCLP is vastly more common than the manual approach specific to the cMP. It would make much more sense to rename this thread rather than OCLP.
I’m not sure what those numbers mean, but it is clear to me that the popularity of OCLP is definitely uncontested, and it absolutely wouldn’t make sense to rename it.
I will rename the thread here, but I also think some clarification in the OCLP documentation about OC being a separate undertaking led by different developers wouldn’t hurt, as the confusion about OC and OCLP being equivalent seems very real.
I will rename the thread here, but I also think some clarification in the OCLP documentation about OC being a separate undertaking led by different developers wouldn’t hurt, as the confusion about OC and OCLP being equivalent seems very real.
Great. I appreciate the openness. Here are some suggestions:
The OCLP documentation starts off with a very brief subsection “What is OpenCore?”, but it lacks the obvious follow-up section “What is OpenCore Legacy Patcher?”. Consequently, people may not grasp the distinction. To describe OCLP, I would suggest mentioning something like
Moreover, the description of OpenCore lacks explicit attribution. So even if a distinction is imagined, people may simply assume that OpenCore is due to the OCLP team. Therefore, in “What is OpenCore”, I would suggest adding something like
Note: Whether GitHub names or real names are used is something to consider carefully.
Similarly, in “What is OpenCore Legacy Patcher”, I would suggest adding
Another comment: The source project page mentions that OCLP is “A Python-based project revolving around Acidanthera’s OpenCorePkg…”. I find this description a bit vague. I would suggest being more precise here. Maybe state “A Python-based project for dynamically setting up OpenCore…”.
I hope these suggestions make sense to you. Let me know if you need any additional clarifications.
Indeed. My supposed attack was where I wrote:
In response to:
Which, in the context, was effectively saying anyone trying to use the OCLP is not trying to set OpenCore up.
Anyway, catching up on the debate, I think the new title is not the best and the OCLP should not be mentioned at all.
To put it bluntly, it appears defensive in much the same way, worse IMO, as originally made in response to the suggested title by @Bmju (which I think is better).
If the appearance of "OLCP" drives a need to set some things straight, then just drop it altogether:
Manually Configured OpenCore on the Mac Pro
Short and sweet title case.
The stuff about the OCLP in the intro can either stay, or as probably best, simply zap all the stuff about other approaches (OCLP, MyBootMgr, whatever).
On the other hand, the intro might allow explaining what "manually configured OpenCore" is; vis a vis other options
EDIT: Corrected "The stuff about the OpenCore". Meant "The stuff about the OCLP"
Last edited:
Since we're going down this route, at least provide your full quote, instead of the doctored one you just added to make me look like the idiot:
Obviously, my quote above was not directed at you, but you responded to it in that thread...
Here is your attack at me, saying that I am the one that is confused:
Nonetheless, reiterating my point above that users very easily confuse both OCLP and OC, and it doesn't help when people like me post saying that they are not the same to try to separate the two (and clear up any confusion)... The reason I place so much emphasis on this is because when people choose to use OC, users can get direct support on these very forums, i.e. within this thread. Again pointing to that thread I linked above, that user posted ON THESE FORUMS asking for help, and he never mentioned OCLP in his OP.
Whereas, using OCLP > there is a better chance of users getting support through the Discord channel, which neutralizes the point of them posting here asking for help in the first place...
And I am attacked for that...
Last edited:
I see @Bmju has added the paragraph but FWIW, I think perhaps @cdf should take a look and tweak.
Few notes
Following all that, my suggestion is:
Edit: Tweaked later
Few notes
This is not strictly correct. "From scratch" means opening a blank file, adding every single config option yourself and deciding what they each should be set as. This is not the case here.
This perpetuates that the OCLP is an equivalent tool to OpenCore to an extent, rather than "merely" a tool for setting it up.
Suggest removing value judgment.
Could be tweaked a bit but fine
Following all that, my suggestion is:
Edit: Tweaked later
Last edited:
To be honest, I’m uneasy about “OCLP” in the title, too. It almost feels like “Blockbuster” changed its name to “Blockbuster (the traditional way without Netflix)” as a last ditch attempt of asserting itself in a changing landscape. It feels submissive and defensive at once. Of course, the motivation for changing this thread’s title is different. It’s the constant support requests from people who don’t know any better.
Manually Configured OpenCore on the Mac Pro
There have been a few suggestions in this direction. While it might not be as effective at reducing OCLP support requests (the initial goal), it avoids polarization (and perhaps that’s more important). In this case, I think a paragraph at the beginning post #1 is all the more important. People requesting OCLP support could simply be pointed to it. They will then understand why their request is misplaced and be directed to the proper help channel. Win-win.
Thanks for the input. I’m leaning in this direction now, but I’ll digest these ideas a bit and give the opportunity for more input before making the changes.