Slashdot Mirror
Cherry OS Claims Mac OS X Capability For x86
jediboytj writes "According to the MacWorld Article, Cherry OS, does what Virtual PC does for Macs, only the opposite. PC Users are now able to run Mac OSX at G4 Speeds (Company claims 80% of the speed of your PC). It also includes full hardware support: hard drive, CPU, RAM, FireWire, USB, PCI, PCMCIA bus, Ethernet networking and modem. The software is being distributed through electronic download at $49.99 USD..." Note: it does not come with a copy of any Apple OS. Anyone in Windowsland tried it to provide a thumbs up (or down)?
You've gotta wonder about the legitimacy of any MAC OS X Emulater who's website is running .net / IIS...
If they're smart enough to get Darwin running on x86, you'd think they'd be smart enough to use a REAL web server....
Why is this Flamebait? Jesus tap dancing CHRIST! Just because you may not like Macs and this guy does doesn't mean he's flame bait or a fucking troll! He brings up valid points without attacking any other OS. Seriously moderators, go eat a bowl of dicks. If you can't get over your hangup on Macs, ignore the story and move on with your bitter little life.
"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." - Patton
Ah, but this is only true if you actually would by the software. Most people would not go out and buy the software but they would gladly copy it if the opportunity came by.
In this case, whar are you stealing? An opportunity for Apple to sell a license to someone who isn't interested?
You're denying the owner the monetary compensation they deserve in return for you getting a copy of their software, so yes it is theft. You're not stealing the object, you are stealing the profit.
So if I download OS X, my bank account grows by $129?
1. Download OS X
2.
3. Profit!
Face the facts, copyright violation is not theft, it's an imaginary crime. Society (er, I mean an increasingly un-social Congress) has decided that this imaginary crime should be deterred. Regardless, nothing, whatsoever, has been actually "stolen".
If you look at it deeper, the crime isn't that you've stolen something. The crime is that you've threatened to undermine an economic system which depends on artificially restricting duplication. Apple, and copyright holders in general, aren't all that worried over someone copying a disc that they might not have purchased anyway. What they are concerned with is if this copying was so common that they'd only sell one disc which would be distributed to everyone else for free.
The person who made the distinction between "bad" and "theft" was trying to make a point that you've clearly missed. If you treat a fork like a spoon, you might be fine if you are eating jell-o, but if you try to eat tomato soup, you're gonna have a problem. Likewise, if you treat copyright infringement like theft, you are partially right (according to the current model) in that you will punish violators, but you will also enable the injustice of jailing someone who copies a CD. After all, if you equate the crimes, why shouldn't you equate the punishments?
The reason they don't get it is that they don't want to get it. It suits their petty and vengeful natures to have an emotionally-charged label they can use against others they dislike, whether those others' actions warrant such a label or not. It's the pseudo-intellectual adult version of a kid labelling someone they don't like a wanker, tosser, bitch, etc. They get to feel very righteous about themselves while they do it. It's all about appeasement of their egos, nothing more.
Regardless of whether someone committing copyright infringement is viewed as a heinously immoral sinner or not, the fact of the matter is that during intelligent discussion with adults, the phrase "copyright infringer" should carry sufficient weight in itself. If it doesn't, perhaps there's a message in that about how society views it relative to crimes like theft.