Hi everyone, is HW acceleration enabled/easy to enable in MyBootMgr?
I haven't install Opencore yet, so speak to me as if I was a kid.
I haven't install Opencore yet, so speak to me as if I was a kid.
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 RefindPlus|OpenCore by MyBootMgr
- Thread starter Dayo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- multi boot opencore refindplus
- Sort by reaction score
Well, that's the thing. There have been various issues on multiple machines (5,1s) with different versions of the scripts, and it's not consistent. Sometimes ConfigFactory may report an error (like the AppleALC error reported by others). or DeployConfig might fail with "Please run ConfigFactory before DeployConfig", even after ConfigFactory has been run seemingly successfully. And sometimes it just doesn't work and no error is given.
It could be a bug in the scripts, or it could be something unique to my setups that I could address if I knew what the scripts were doing and why they were failing. But without any insight into what's happening, it's difficult to investigate what went wrong.
I don't like submitting bug reports that amount to little more than, "it doesn't work". I much prefer to actually get a sense of what's going on and report in with something useful, or even contribute fixes. Are you just intent on keeping the source for these scripts closed?
You are in luck as any kid can easily follow the steps in Post 1 and when running ConfigFactory, such a kid will be able to enable GPU Acceleration or if they select the option to use defaults, it will do this for them.
Any bug report that provides background information is not just saying "it doesn't work" and you will either be guided if due to some user error or a fix applied if due to a bug. I don't see what the issue is.
It could be that your real issue is with the source being closed. As said, it was open for most of the life of the project but I have come to very much prefer having the source closed at this time.
This spares me wasting time dealing with issues arising from users tinkering with the code and also means users have to report issues so that they can be fixed as I have come to realise that some users must have come across certain issues, fixed them for themselves and kept quiet about such.
So yes, I have decided to close the source at this time.
Last edited:
I mentioned what the issue is here:
But where I come from, this would not be considered a very useful bug report, so I wanted to do more to diagnose the issue first. I suppose I'm just used to higher standards.
Most community based/focused projects I'm familiar with generally have issue templates users can follow to file useful bug reports, and/or expect contributors to put in at least a little work troubleshooting issues before reporting, which is why I asked for the source code for the scripts so I could figure out exactly what the issue was and file a proper report. (But even closed-source software usually have some other means to facilitate providing useful bug-reports to the developers)
I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this sentiment. This is a mac forum, after all. Most users here are probably content with running opaque, proprietary software, doing as they're told, and exercising little agency over the process.
My real issue is that I could not get the compiled scripts to work in any configuration (different machines, different macos versions, clean installs, etc.) so I came here seeking the script sources so I could figure out what was happening.
But yes, it is quite odd for an ostensibly community focused project like this, whose purpose is to configure and install other existing free and open source code, to itself be closed source, especially when you distribute it with a license that seems to imply the source is open or at least available:
"Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"),
to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation,
the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense,
and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom
the Software is furnished to do so"
a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"),
to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation,
the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense,
and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom
the Software is furnished to do so"
Take a look at the issue tracker on almost any open source project and it should be self-evident why this supposition doesn't hold any weight. For every hypothetical user who fixes a bug for themselves and keeps quiet about it, you'll have many who report those bugs and/or submit patches.
Conversely, when you close the source for the reasons you've cited, you don't suddenly convert those quiet, selfish bug-fixers into active bug-reporters. All you guarantee is that nobody in the community is fixing bugs, either for themselves or for submitting back upstream. And you also risk losing productive users who might otherwise have had the wherewithal and inclination to dive into the code and contribute to the project when they come across an issue, see there is no source available, then quietly move on (which I'm now realizing I should've done in the first place...)
And on that note, I digress. If you wish to keep the source closed, I'll leave you to it.
I'm not interested in spending time and contributing free labor reporting bugs to a closed-source project, nor am I keen on running opaque, unsigned scripts from unknown developers that require admin credentials and SIP to be disabled.
To your credit, you did provide fair warning. It's my own fault for not heeding it:
The free labour stuff and all that came before is a load of rich ironic nonsense that I best ignore.
To be fair to you though, the last statement is a valid concern that I must consider.
In the interim, all I can say is that this is obviously not for you.
Last edited:
RefindPlus is Open Source, if one wants to dig in deeper he can use his project without MyBootMGR.
I tried to install MyBootMgr v071a on my cMP 4,1-> 5,1 with Mojave 10.14.6 (18G9216) and got an error message stating
cp: /Volumes/MyBootMgrSetup/MyBootMgrSetup.app/Contents/Resources/Data//MyTools/ValidateOC.app: No such file or directory
Indeed, there is a VerifyOC.app in the MyTools folder, but no ValidateOC.app. What gives?
cp: /Volumes/MyBootMgrSetup/MyBootMgrSetup.app/Contents/Resources/Data//MyTools/ValidateOC.app: No such file or directory
Indeed, there is a VerifyOC.app in the MyTools folder, but no ValidateOC.app. What gives?
can 2nd this bug, it can be temp. bypassed by copying the installer to a disk with same name and renaming the app inside the package.
Updated MyBootMgr to v071b
See change log in Post 1 for details
See change log in Post 1 for details
It's a little bit funny. Because I downloaded the previous version yesterday, I cannot download the corrected version v071b today:
REQUEST DENIED
Item recently downloaded
It happens if you try to download more than once in the same browser session. That is, you haven't closed your browser in between download attempts.
It should work if you fully shut the browser and try again. Alternatively, use another browser or one of those "private windows" if you must maintain the browser session.
It should work if you fully shut the browser and try again. Alternatively, use another browser or one of those "private windows" if you must maintain the browser session.
Thank you, that worked right away. I would have been waiting for three days because I thought there is some kind of timer set.
I would have been waiting for three days because I thought there is some kind of timer set.
Hi, trying to install MyBootMgr, but after I select my Time Machine physical disk to deploy the config in (ESP mode), a popup tells me "the Disk node is not defined" (sorry, translating from italian).
Slightly corrected: The error message which comes up in DeployConfig.app states
"The variable diskNODE is not defined. (-2753)"
"The variable diskNODE is not defined. (-2753)"
Sorry, I forgot to mention that in the post before yours. It shows us immediately after "Bless config on completion?"
Last edited:
Sorry, I forgot to mention that, too. The error message showed up regardless whether I chose "Yes" or "No".
Hello Dayo,
Thank you for this work, this thread. Gives me hope to mutiboot my mp5,1 into Linux and keep it going to another decade!
I followed the instructions but didn't get very far. The error is "updatePlist Error: -- Set WIFI Patch 1 (Plus)". I couldn't find any match of this error with Google so I figured I try my luck here. Here's what I did:
1. I downloaded MyBootMgr 071c
2. Launched ConfigFactory and answered as follows:
Would you like to use ConfigFactory Defaults for your Mid 2010 Mac Pro where Possible? -- Yes
Are you running any 'DosDude' or similar patched Mac OS instances? -- No
FileVault? -- No
HFS+? -- No
Mac OS 11.x or newer? -- No
Linux? -- Yes
Windows? -- Yes
UEFI? -- No
Windows? -- Yes
HiDPI boot screen? -- No
UEFI? -- No
Thunderbolt 3? -- No
Windows? -- Yes
Boot OS on external drives via OpenCore? -- Yes
Nvidia? -- No
Auto run WrangleConfig after ConfigFactory? -- Yes
Choose default Mac OS volume
Choose rEFIndPlus/OpenCore volume
3. The build always fails at 60% with the error "updatePlist Error: -- Set WIFI Patch 1 (Plus)"
Below is my Mac's spec:
Any pointers would be much appreciated!
Paul
Thank you for this work, this thread. Gives me hope to mutiboot my mp5,1 into Linux and keep it going to another decade!
I followed the instructions but didn't get very far. The error is "updatePlist Error: -- Set WIFI Patch 1 (Plus)". I couldn't find any match of this error with Google so I figured I try my luck here. Here's what I did:
1. I downloaded MyBootMgr 071c
2. Launched ConfigFactory and answered as follows:
Would you like to use ConfigFactory Defaults for your Mid 2010 Mac Pro where Possible? -- Yes
Are you running any 'DosDude' or similar patched Mac OS instances? -- No
FileVault? -- No
HFS+? -- No
Mac OS 11.x or newer? -- No
Linux? -- Yes
Windows? -- Yes
UEFI? -- No
Windows? -- Yes
HiDPI boot screen? -- No
UEFI? -- No
Thunderbolt 3? -- No
Windows? -- Yes
Boot OS on external drives via OpenCore? -- Yes
Nvidia? -- No
Auto run WrangleConfig after ConfigFactory? -- Yes
Choose default Mac OS volume
Choose rEFIndPlus/OpenCore volume
3. The build always fails at 60% with the error "updatePlist Error: -- Set WIFI Patch 1 (Plus)"
Below is my Mac's spec:
Any pointers would be much appreciated!
Paul
Attachments
Hi,
Thanks for the report. The errors are internal to the App so will not show up in a web search.
Please try replacing your ConfigFactory file with this test version: (NOW DELETED)
I have tried spoofing a Mid 2010 for a test and it seems to work but do let me know how it goes on a real unit. It should give a more precise error message if it fails at least.
Thanks for the report. The errors are internal to the App so will not show up in a web search.
Please try replacing your ConfigFactory file with this test version: (NOW DELETED)
I have tried spoofing a Mid 2010 for a test and it seems to work but do let me know how it goes on a real unit. It should give a more precise error message if it fails at least.
Last edited: