Slashdot Mirror
OSx86 Shutdown Rumors Explained
n.e.watson writes "The AP has run an article that addresses recent rumors on the internet about Apple Legal shutting down the OSx86 Project, with a statement from an OSx86 administrator. From the article: 'The OSx86 Project Web site stated Apple had served it with a notice on Thursday citing violations of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the site was reviewing all of its discussion forum postings as a result. The site has always aimed to adhere to copyright laws and is working with Apple to ensure no violations exist, according to a statement by the site administrator.'"
Nothing better than to see a historical troll on a quiet sunday afternoon. ;)
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
I'm sitting here in front of a PDP-11/73 running RSX and trying to copy a 250 block file from this CDC-80 dishwasher 80MB hard drive to an RX08 8" floppy disk. It's taking freak''n forever! DEC addicts, go ahead and flame me, but why do you insist on using this ancient junk? Try something a little more modern. Like an Osborne. Or even a TRS-80. Sheesh!
There once was a dude with a Mac
Who's code he tried to attack
His grin was short-lived
When Jobs did not forgive
And gave him a boot in the sack.
...for the company that named one of it's System Beeps Sosumi (pronounced "So Sue Me") when Apple Records tried to shut them down a while back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SosumiHmm - we do something similar at AOL in terms of the poem (yes, I know - you're SHOCKED that big companies do similar misguided goofy things :P). I had just written about it on my blog given all the Apple press swirl about this.
:)
But we (AOL) are not really trying to prevent the random developer or user from doing anything - obviously this isn't about being secure TECHNICALLY. We just wanted to prevent giant business partners and competitors and the like profiting from doing things with our software and users we didn't authorize.
I'd imagine Apple's reasons are similar, though that doesn't really line up with this shutdown order. As I don't think anything like this has gone to court yet, it sounds like either they need to enforce their rights everywhere to keep them, or they're trying to force the precedent, or they've got some zealous/quasi-religious entitlement thing going, between their iPod protectionism, shutting down rumour sites, and now this... Ah, its ok, they're Apple - EVERYBODY loves Apple
graphically speaking
The real answer here is to run a real BSD or Linux. New Hampshire has it right, live free or die.
In the end, the free shall prevail.
Just because they would like to make money with the OS and the Hardware.. If we can hack the OS to run on a simple PC, they wont sell hardware anymore..
I don't want to steal your beautiful OS, I truly don't. I am more than willing to pay for it. I've owned Macs in the past, I loved my power book and my iMac, and i'll probably eventually by another power book. But truth be told I like building my own PCs and having the extra options that goes along with that. Don't your get that? A company that has its roots in a garage, you were born out of the hacker mentalitiy. When did you get so damn anal? Please apple, please wake up. We will pay, lots of us will. But I don't want your desktop hardware.
Later,
Phil
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act: Making it Easy to Be "Guilty until Proven Innocent" for Over 8 Years.
I see the /. editors have a new whore, I guess they got tired of the NYT and now hang with the W post.
For the cheap seats this time:
IF YOU CAN'T POST AN OPEN, PUBLIC LINK TO THE STORY, THEN DON'T POST IT AT ALL
How a company that is profiting exactly with "I want to buy and not just copy" (iTMS) fails to understand that.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
It's immoral when large companies like Microsft, Sony & now Apple try trying to limit our right to do whatever the hell we like with legally purchased goods.
But to issue a takedown over a link is just disgusting. Apple needs to take a good look at the ethics of other compapnies that do this sort of thing and ask itself - is this really where I want to go?
My pics.
Not all that odd, really, since there is no TFA. The link goes to the login form for some private site, and there seems to NOT BE A WAY to actually click through to the article.
form OSx86 site:
:)))
"Apple is certainly well within their rights to protect their OS and we have always supported them in this effort. Our first-class moderating staff has helped ensure that direct links to any patches are not allowed. We have in the past linked to the homepage of Maxxuss - but not to the offending 10.4.4 patches - in the interest of news, but we've removed those links just in case."
funny thing, they removed links to supposedly infriging site, but put name of this site on the front page - using it as google keyword will lead you to the same site from the first hit
how sad. The whois database says it doesn't belong to apple, yet.
OK, after reading TFA, this strikes me as more a SLAPP (Strategic lawsuit against public participation) lawsuit by Apple than any government intervention. It appears that Apple served their ISP with notice of a possible DMCA violation, and so the ISP (or the site administrators) shut the site down in order to verify the claims made by Apple. No judge has filed an order, however.
So: are links to remote sites which convey possibly nonviolent criminal information worth squelching in the public interest? And should a private entity have the inherent right to enforce their interest without a court order (as appears to be the case here)? Because that's what misuse of SLAPP is all about.
You know, I was trying to copy a 10k file from one tape to another on my ZX spectrum 16k and it took like half an hour...
Now, a little more seriously, my main machine was a Powerbook 2400 for a few years and copying a few hundred MB of a CD image never seemed to take more than a couple of minutes...
I'm wondering what else you're running to cause this slowdown (603e with 80MB on a Powerbook 2400).
Which apps are causing you problems? (Which versions are you running)?
[All Your Fish Are Belong To Us]
a Sun Enterprise 450, with four processors, 4 GBytes of memory and 10 SCSI drives... This is my HOME computer and I don't see that kind of poor performance. Maybe it is time for you to try Ultrix instead of RSX-11, at least you won't have the real-time interrupts bothering you... However, I do like my TRS-80 running NEWDOS-80!
Works great here. Are you using a pirated OS?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Oh, Microsoft already went there! "Where do you want to go today?"
I like my instruction/data fetch cycle on 16 bit word boundaries, thank you! So you think you're fancy 64 bit address range is all that. With your Sun Enterprise this, and your CG3 megapixel sbus card that. Well, when I need to access memory out of its 32KW boundary I have to set an offset vector. And I like it that way! So my RK05 only stores 2.5MB per removable pack. And it consumes more than 1 KW. And my house lights dim every time it spins up. Well, I like it that way!
What, I'm supposed to run some pansy Macintosh 8600 with all its fancy pictures of a dekstop with flippy disks and overlapping windows, and dialog boxes, and a mouse with only one button? BAH!
move your hosting/company from the USA to any of the other 191 countries where the dmca has as much authority as toilet paper
due to recent events USA is last place i would want to set up a company (never mind visit as a tourist)
Everytime i wonder when i see a valuable project taken down for DMCA violations i wonder: "why dont they just continue the job overseas where legislation is more reasonable?"
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
I dont own one but wish to purchase one in the future and understand the mac fanatics ;)
http://www.beckhamlive.com http://negativepenguin.com
Just so you know, that idea's as old as the 80s, and won't work.
t m
You're allowed to violate copyrights and trademarks if it's essential in order to interoperate with platforms.
975 F.2d 832, 24 USPQ2d 1015
http://digital-law-online.info/cases/24PQ2D1015.h
Also case law in the Game Boy field (think that was Codemasters v. Nintendo), allowing them to violate the trademark on the Nintendo logo by putting it in the ROM.
Sony tried similar in the PlayStation's expansion port's header, which was shamelessly exploited by Datel, Future Console Design and others for the original Xploder cartridges and other similar things (GameShark); Sony gave up, and did not sue.
I reckon OS X on some shitty commodity PC will be less stable than ubuntu on the same box.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
I really hope you're kidding, or at the very least, high. I'm sure we'd all like to "hear some intelligent reasons why" you'd run a 1997-model computer and then complain on a geek forum about its performance when you obviously haven't even taken the time to optimize its configuration.
That's about the umpteen thousandanth time the above troll has been posted to /. and elsewhere (google it). Does it really still rate 5 funny mods? I'm thinking maybe not.
wiki is incorrect... the sound resource is from Crystal Quest a popuar game that preceded system 7
t al-Quest/
Apple called it sosumi because they were having fun teasing the Crystal Quest author and the beatles story is nonsence made up years after the fact.
Anyone with a copy of the tremendously popular 1987 Crystal Quest can verify it. The sound effect resources are not protected.
http://www.gamespot.com/mac/action/crystalquest/
the xbox 360 has a semi-faithful version of the 1987 game too!!! :
http://screenshots.teamxbox.com/screen/44521/Crys
someone should bitchslap the wiki poster that spreads the lies about sosumi (a recording of two zylophone keys on a synthesizer, but the specific two keys being used in Crystal Quest, the duration, etc shows that the Sosumi sound is stolen from the mac game Crystal Quest, not thin air.
Ah, its ok, they're Apple - EVERYBODY loves Apple :)
Not nearly as much as everybody hates AOL :)
As for NYT, just use this. Most likely, it will make a link that doesn't require to log in.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
The hacker ethic was born out of a model railroad club at MIT. At the time, hacking had nothing to do with computers, it had to do with model railroad track switch configurations. Stephen Levy's 'Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution' kinda drives this point home. Those who put hacking as a computer term are rather sorely misguided. It was all about hardware, not software, and even then, not hardware as we'd define it today. Read the book, it's a joyous, funny, and enlightening experience. I highly suggest reading the parts about the milliblat rating system of smell, and getting sledged and making computer games. Yes, they were drunk as shit when they made those games you so love. Nowdays, creativity thru intoxication takes a backseat to corporate crap. I hope the days Stephen Levy wrote about come back (to a point, I don't want to have to operate ping-pong or asteroid wars with five analog switches on a low-res CRT)
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Good god, these "I deserve to run OS X any way I like" arguments are tiresome. Go do something to make OSS better if you want to tinker. Or hack OS X to run on whatever you want, and then keep it to your damn self and enjoy it! Just for god's sake don't bring up that Apple I motherboards were made in a garage or that Woz futzed around with long distance calls more than 30 years ago - 30 years ago! - as reasons Apple should "chill out" about people using their software in ways they don't like.
Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
If you hack my code,
I'm going to kill you!
Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est - Sir Francis Bacon
And he makes the most valid point. WTF is the point of putting a story up without publically accessible links so we can digest the whole thing? My English teacher would be appalled at this restricted source, and would be doubly so if this were an actual paper about Apple. Way to follow your basic high-school education, editors.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
If you look at the OSX86project.org site you might notice that the only real change is that there are no longer any links to the patches at http://maxxuss.hotbox.ru/. So don't post a link and you should be fine.
Bookmarked. Nice going, Apple, wouldn't have found it without your threats.
What has this comment to do at all with the news?
First. The experiment. My old 6300 which is a lot slower than your 8600, and it is a well known flaw designed machine from Apple (maybe the worst Mac ever released) and it uses an old IDE disk and you should have a SCSI. However it sure does not take me 20 mins to copy a mere 17Mb folder.
- this depend on the nb of files and sizes of the files. Copying thousands of 1kb files or one big file is totally different, and this is not OS or FS related. Even if you are in the first case, this is too slow...
- your disk may be physically damaged
- your disk may be fragmented and especially the files u try to copy
- your system is polluted with a lot of crap (extensions?)
Second. What's the point?
- MacOS X does not share a single line of code with what is running your old computer.
- If you blame Apple's hardware then OSX86 is good news. You can buy a PC and run OS X on it.
- If you blame the OS, then why comment at all? You're obviously happy with whatever system u're running (Windows?) and this issue does not interest you.
Third. Productivity.
- There are hundred of points of comparisons for choosing which OS is the most productive. It depends on your usage and what you do, what may be true for you may not be for others.. for very different reasons. I do not want to criticize, but if the most important thing for your productivity is file copy speed, then maybe you should consider using a system like Linux with RaiserFS volumes (or smth else... ) that should be much faster than NT and NTFS on your old machine.
- Multitask. This was a major weakness of pre OS-X MacOS systems. But I think the issue has been solved for quite some time now. On OS X even with old hardware, you could copy your stuff use BBEdit and Firefox with no problem.
Correct me if I am wrong but don't windows NT let you start a copy even though there is not enough space on your destination drive? That is one of the things I personally consider counter-productive.
This is the same as if Sony BMG suddenly said its CDs are only for use on Sony CD players.
That is guessing that OS X for intel is available for purchase. I don't care much for Macs and havn't bothered to check if it is sold seperately from a new mac. If it is, people can(should be able to) do whatever they want with they buy, with the exception of distributing copies for free or for profit. If someone wants to go and spend $129 for OS X and wants run it on a PC then they should be allowed to do so. If it crashes as lot that's their problem and Apple doen't have to provide support. If there are no restrictions on what software can be run on a Mac then there shouldn't be any restrictions on the hardware that the software can be run on. If I go and buy an Intel Mac I should get the hardware and an OSX disk with a single user license. If I do that then I should be allowed to use that single user license on the machine of my choosing. I could choose to run Linux or even Windows, if someone's fould a way to do that, on the Mac and install OSX on generic PC hardware.
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
Let's be fair here, fellow /.'ers... if this was MSFT we were talking about, the flames and castigations would be vociferous and widespread. Apple is doing some of the same bullying activity that we all dislike Microsoft for here. Where are the shills?
Funny. I thought talking about crimes wasn't illegal in this country. There have been what I think is legal information about how to do things that are completely illegal for as long as I can remember. While you should never act on this information, it is only information.
While The Anarchist Cookbook is legally available in the United States, it is unlawful in many other countries. The information contained in the book includes instructions that, if followed, may be against the law (see felony for more details). Anarchist Cookbook
Apple, this is not something you can stop. Its NOT illegal to do what these folks are doing. The law allows for reverse engineering. IBM LOST this battle and you will too. What is this battle I speak of? Remember way back when all PC's were made by IBM?? IBM tried to sue the pants off of Compaq and others for reverse engineering BIOS. Granted, this is not the same time period or the same thing but case law seems to go in our hands in my humble opinion.
From Wikipedia:
Columbia copied the IBM PC and produced the first 'compatible' (i.e., more or less compatible to the IBM PC standard) PC in 1982. Compaq Computer Corp. produced its first IBM PC compatible a few months later in 1982 -- the Compaq Portable. The Compaq was not only the first "sewing machine-sized" portable PC but, even more important, was the first essentially 100% PC-compatible computer. The company could not directly copy the BIOS as a result of the court decision in Apple v. Franklin, but it could reverse-engineer the IBM BIOS and then write its own BIOS using clean room design.
Franklin and Columbia did the wrong thing but Compaq did a white room reverse-engineering of the BIOS. This is all the OSx86 project is doing too. Hello EFF??? You need to defend these guys.
In less then 10 years, there will be no Mac's or Apple will just give up preventing anyone from installing thier OS on other machines....can't Apple see that there are lot of people who ALREADY HAVE x86 machines that are perfectly capable of running thier OS but they can't or rather won't justify spending 3 grand on a new Mac. These same people would probably even consider a Mac when they do have the money just because they WANT to run your OS. Helloooo? Apple what are you thinkin?
Gorkman
I have played Crystal Quest for many hours and it doesn't have that sound in it at all.
Apple threatened a site, for talking about shit. That is just crap. These sites were just forums.
Glad to see the apple astroturfers in force.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
Maybe a compilation could be assembled:
Poems from My Childhood
1.To Heathkit
2.The fall of Dr. Norton
3.Shadows of UUNET
4.Borland, stop hurting youself
5.Have you seen my Atari today?
6.An Amiga I can't afford
7.Memories of a text adventure game
8.My talk with Hays (compatible)
9.He's not just my penguin anymore
Would a workplace have such a slow machine right now?
NO. PCs are unusable under 500mhz nowadays. Your mac is so old it hurts. You should get a decent mac, or revert to a faster os. (7.6.1 is fastest for that machine).
Not to flamebait, but it always astonishes me how Apple manages to get away with this stuff. Whenever any other company does this sort of thing, they get a lot of grief. When Apple does it, people get mad, but Apple somehow manages to keep an entirely undeserved reputation as nice people. Apple may make a nifty OS and a nice mp3 player, but they do all the bad stuff that Microsoft and company likes to do, but somehow people still think they're heros. Someday people are going to catch on that having less market share doesn't mean you're more ethical.
I dont buy computers, I build my own, I've been doing this for the past 7 to 8 years. With all the restrictions that apple puts in place for OSX I will never be able to try it. There could be lots of geeks who do this, may be they are minority which do not make any business sense for apple to sell OSX sans their hardware. Really, folks if a company do not want you to use their software on any of the custom machines you build why even BUY their software. This is nothing but ego clash between Apple and hackers. I think apple has every right to shut these people down. If you dont like their hardware DONT FUCKING BUY THEIR SOFTWARE EITHER
PCs are unusable under 500mhz nowadays...
I still get a lot of use out of a PII 300mhz machine... I guess it is all about what you are trying to do with it.
accurately define good according to a criteria and seek it out.
It looks like the OSX86 project must be getting close to being a practical option.
Even more interesting will be seeing how far Apple can use the DMCA outside of america.
Personally I think apples making a mistake here, plenty of us here would be interested in trying out OSX86 Seeing if it will meet our needs, probably will go on to evangelise OSX86
There is no reason for me to switch to OSX86 other than it'd be cool to try it. I have enough PC hardware as it is I might get hold of a compatible graphics card so I could run it.
Windows has one big asset which allows it to be run in so many homes across the world- us.
where would your parents be, other family and friends if you couldn't fix thier problems with windows or tell them howto fix them.
Right now I have no real mac experience what so ever anyone buys a mac and asks me for help well i have no idea. I can't support them to be honest I couldn't put them in touch with someone who could.
If apple want to grow then we are the people that will get them sales of apple hardware and apple software.
maybe apples just trying to get our attention. It might be time to try out an OSX86 install on our existing hardware.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
I'm trying to see why Apple would care if you dual-booted another OS on their hardware. The opposite situation, booting OS X on generic x86 hardware, I can understand their opposition.
You would think that if dual booting was possible, Apple would sell a lot more machines, especially to people like me who support them 5-10% of our time, but can only really justify one platform (I do keep an old, Blue & White that has been upgraded with a G4 CPU, but it's just too painful to use except when it's a necessity).
Good god, these "I deserve to run OS X any way I like" arguments are tiresome. Go do something to make OSS better if you want to tinker. Or hack OS X to run on whatever you want, and then keep it to your damn self and enjoy it! Just for god's sake don't bring up that Apple I motherboards were made in a garage or that Woz futzed around with long distance calls more than 30 years ago - 30 years ago! - as reasons Apple should "chill out" about people using their software in ways they don't like.
I have had this discussion with half a dozen people who are looking forward to being able to use OS.X on their low-end noname PC boxes and laptops with all the stability that it would run on a Mac. Running OS.X on regular PC systems will be possilbe, but it is also going to degenerate into a war between the Apple team working on the locking scheme and whatever crackers there are trying to make OS.X work on their PC boxes. Even if the crackers succeed keeping the OS running most of the time, OS.X on non Apple hardware will never be all that stable, I know that from experience having seen cracked OS.X installations in action (and this on a high end PC laptop, not some cheap-ass noname crapware). Furthermore even if you can run OS.X on your cheapo PC system you will not be able to patch it without worrying about your computer not booting because Apple has shipped a new counter patch to the latest hack with it's newest patch cluster. Basically you would be better off using Linux, yes you will still have to spend a few hours recompiling your kernel and tweaking drivers to get your WIFI to work and you will always have minor issues but at least you won't have to worry about your computer not booting after installing a patch cluster. I would trust my data to Linux long before I would entrust it to a hacked OS.X version running on a Dell laptop.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Having 3 PC's and 2 macs in my house, I can say that the macs preform much, much better under stress than the PC's do.
.... doing whatever you please to do with the computer.
System Stats
optiplex G1 p450 512mb ram, 40 gig hdd
homebuilt AMD XP 2400+, 1 gig ram, 2x160gig hdds, geforce 6800
homebuilt AMD sempron 3200, 1 gig ram, 1x 34 gig raptor 10krpm hdd, 1x300gig sata2 hdd.
Mac Powerbook G4 1.67ghz, 1.5gig ram, 80gig 7200rpm hdd, radeon 9700
Mac Mini 1.54ghz, 1 gig ram, 80 gig 5400rpm hdd
I can say that for the past 9 months that I have used the powerbook exclusively for web design and program, that it has worked utterly flawlessly while I often sit and wait on my PC's to do something, I am busy working and being productive with my mac.
Anyone such as yourself can compare two machines that are completely off balanced and get bad results.
For one, the machine you are 'testing' on does not run OS X, which is the main point of this entire thread. Secondly, OS 8,which you are probably running, and OS X are worlds, galaxies apart in performance and stability.
In some 8 months I haven't ever once had to switch off the power to my macs because they locked up due to a system problem. I do it quite frequently on my PC's. This alone speaks volumes about the stability.
From your own statements are you about as clueless as most politicians are on real life issues facing their jurisdictions.
Not to mention that on most windows machines a vast portion of the resources is devoted to security and virus scanning, where as on an OS X system the vast majority of resources is devoted to
I'm glad we agree that the facts are not in dispute.
The bottom line is Apple does not want anyone to run their OS on non Apple hardware. I personally prefer they do it this way than having to go through entering some registration code. If you can't afford their hardware, don't buy it. If you like their product and can't afford it, why even consider it? A lot of people want a Ferarri but can't afford one. You don't see them trying to test drive one, let alone steal one because they think it's overpriced.
Re: Sony v Connectix regarding the Virtual Game Station Playstation emulator.
Right now the only way to legally get OS X for Intel is to buy an Intel based Mac. Once Leopard (OS X 10.5) starts shipping then people can really start using the interoperability lines to justify running OS X on white box systems. It should be interesting to say the least.
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.
http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx104.html
While I think this is crap from an "exploration" point of view, this is completely legit from a business/legal point of view. However I dont see how this could prevent you from running MSFT or other OS on the hardware unless it is stated as an EULA on the box/manuals.
Although, when I get my new MacBook I am really interested in Dual Booting MSFT for ease of having both OS's on one machine, and the power of the Apple hardware. I would think they would champion this advancement not run from it. Bad Move Apple! BAD MOVE!
Too many comments to read the whole tree, but did anyone catch the fact in the two Apple articles posted this morning had the same paragraph near the end of each story?
It's not that I'm asking the big questions, it's that I'm asking lots of small ones.
Look around my friend squidguy - the shills are EVERYWHERE. They are mixed in with the people who agree with apple's actions here, but they are most certainly there.
I must wonder what your motivation for posting this obviously flawed statement is.
Well, this isn't Microsoft. Why is it that there are Slashdotters who always have to bring up MSFT in every non-MSFT story, saying: "LEt's face it, folks!! If this were Microsoft, we'd write crap like lunatics! Give me insightful points now!"
8600? Are you insane? Maybe you should drive nails in to your forehead, it would be less painful then either your ancient Mac or your ancient PC. Try a dual core G5 or a P4 3Ghz or something from the later half of the 20th century.
The ironic part of this is how the Mac became popular. When Apple's Mac team started to market the Mac, they figured there were three programs any home user would want: word processor, spreadsheet, and database. So that's all they marketed. Sales were mediocre at best, despite what was arguably one of the world's best TV commercials.
The Mac really took off when a little company called Aldus wrote a desktop publishing program called PageMaker.
Source: Keynote speech by Guy Kawasaki, former 'evangelist' for Macintosh.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
Want to see _real_ Apple fanbois?
Look at the jacknuts in this thread supporting Apple's use of the DMCA. These assholes really are approving of use of the DMCA.
Back in the day, Compaq built an reverse-engineered BIOS in order to run IBM-DOS on Compaq systems. They won the legal fight, and it opened up a new era in computing.
In this day and age, the DMCA would prevent that from ever occuring, because you would never be allowed to crack the TPM. And these Apple fanbois are actually supporting them.
I'm an Apple fan. I have a powerbook, two mac minis, and I was thinking about buying a powermac G5. But I sure as hell don't support any usage of the DMCA.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
I've seen quite a few posts on this but here are few links in particular that I found to be good. I will finish up by saying that Apple cannot win this battle. The x86 market is far too large for people not to tinker.
1. OSX 10.4.4 Works on AMD and SSE2 CPUs Check out the "related posts" entries for more info.
2. After OSX86 Project recieved it's DMCA shut down notice, people are moving discussion to the OSX86 China Forums
3. For immediate questions, IRC Channel is availabe.
4. To search old posts go to the 360 Online Forums
5. 10.4.4 restore disc has already been released on bittorrent
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Note to self, find more recent posts to copy
You REALLY must be new here...
But that was before new law made such tricks illegal.
the correct irc channel link is
irc://irc.r-type.ca/win2osx
Server: irc.r-type.ca
channel: #win2osx
Joe Sixpack understands hotrods/cars and modding from that perspective. They know you are going to have to jump through hoops to put a V-8 into an econobox, etc. He will be totally able to understand and appreciate why your computer hardware hack does or doesn't work. And building systems from scratch is now an across the board experience.
In essence-guess what? 2006 snuck up on you! This is not 76 or 86 or even 96, it's two thousand and six. Building/using/understanding computers is no longer leet! It's common and mundane. Even jocks can do it now.....
Have any of the 100's of people replying to this actually bothered to visit www.osx86project.org and look for themselves to find out what's been going on? Doesn't bloody seem like it. The Washington Post article was hopelessly wrong and inflammatory, and n.e.watson is a jerk for not checking it out either before making himself look like a complete ass!
At no time during all of this was the OSX86 Project shutdown, nor was there any chance it was going to. It was THE FORUM only. And only for as long as it took the moderators long enough to find and remove the links to "patches" that violated the DMCA and got Apple's attention.
I guess some people don't want to know the truth. Too busy lathering at the mouth over how some big bad corporation has stomped over the little guy. When in this case it didn't.
...they're under the impression that they're a hardware company (iPod, etc.) but then they charge for that OS and it's upgrades (which should probably be free if they're "just a hardware company"...).
Go figure.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Dude, screwing a cheap-crap chinese motherboard into a case and pushing some parts into sockets isn't building, it's assembling.
Apple, can you stop us from doing this? No!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx_tCSxYA4U
This is a video of a person dual booting windows XP and Max OSx on a Dell. Very nice.
This is the link to the so called forbidden site Last I checked posting a link wasn't illegal.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
OK:
You missed the "yo" off the word "you" in several places.
There's no such thing as bad publicity. Who knows what the hell Apple wants to do longterm... Making 'surgical' legal strikes at site to slow down the innevitable progress toward making their OS run on garden variety PC's keps their options open. It makes us aware that Apple is aware of the possibilities. It's like a muscle flex more than a move of desperation. If Apple did nothing, they'd options related to protecting their licenses, copyrights, and patents. Like crypto software in the 1990's, this may simply move the focus of OSX86 hacking offshore. For Apple, it buys time and allows them to assess the impact of their enforcement tactics. It's like a political trual balloon. Watch for the reaction and adjust tactics appropriately. Notice that they have not taken such action toward other folks intent upon running Windows on the x86 macs. Or Linux on their iPods. Apple got a lot of useful work out of open source programmers with their Darwin project.
Please, try to read the comments you're responding to. The Mac is a platform. That's what the person you responded to was saying. Apple is uninterested in supporting the BIGNUM number of combinations of hardware in homebuilt PCs. Drivers and support are really expensive. Mac OS machines would lose the "it just works." Apple's almost certainly unwilling to sacrifice that advantage over XP.
And as for all those "web shops" that want to run OS X but don't want to buy an "entire computer," a mini is $500. Any shop that can't afford that probably wouldn't be buying a standalone copy of OS X.
Cthulhu loves you.
They would have much more clients on iTMS if they just offered FairPlay or whatchmacallit to the other manufacturers... They already profit big, and they could be profiting bigger -- and they are blind for not seeing something so obvious.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Where are mod points when i need them. Funniest most on topic post this week/month/year IMO! lol...
>> Too busy lathering at the mouth over how some big bad corporation has stomped over the little guy. When in this case it didn't.
They forced a site to shutdown it's forums because of a LINK!!!!
When did a link become illegal? If this isn't a corporation stomping on a little guy, I don't know what is.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
As to the guy who asked "who cares, it's free, use bogus info to register blah blah blah", the problem with that approach is I end up with a Brazilian logins to remember -- unless I use the same user/pass for each one, which is a bad idea for reasons we all know. Maybe half a dozen times a year I have any incentive to read a NYT story, and most of those times it turns out that it's an AP story that the submitter could easily have linked from a better (read: more easily accessible) source by doing a quick Google News search.
-- Old Man Kensey
Good point - I'd better make sure I never accidentally link to http://maxxuss.hotbox.ru/ . After all, Apple might not like it if I link to http://maxxuss.hotbox.ru/ , because then people could go to http://maxxuss.hotbox.ru/ and find information on how to use the software they paid for.
:)
Obviously, we can't have that, so I'll make sure not to link to http://maxxuss.hotbox.ru/ . Thanks for reminding me that http://maxxuss.hotbox.ru/ is bad voodoo - I'll make sure that none of my websites contains a link to http://maxxuss.hotbox.ru/ , too!
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
"If you don't like it, don't buy it". This advice is becoming rather repetitive. It's also not an efficient way of "signaling" to a company that the XYZ they do sucks and they should stop.
If someone regularly (once a month?) spends around $100K or $1M on stuff from a given company and suddenly stops, then that might raise an eyebrow and perhaps trigger the company to question why the person stopped the regular spending of money. Anything less will *not* react much of attention.
On the other hand, a person whose opinion is voiced (blog, newspaper etc.) will generate a *much* larger impact. Especially since most larger companies have entire departments scouring the web and other media for tidbits about them. Also, by voicing their opinion, the company gets to know *what* they did wrong. Just stopping the money spending tells them little to nothing about what's wrong.
So, don't kid your self that a single person "not buying an i-pod" for $200 will result in any specific change at companies like Apple.
In a society that believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda ~ Bill Durodié
No, it was the forums (for approximately 48 hours) and the wiki (which is still offline). Yes, the frontpage news was up, no the content that visitors seek was not. Considering that the formums and wiki are at least 90% of the site, it was an accurate description. If the Slashdot commenting system was down for several days, I don't think that you would argue that the site was operational.
It takes longer to boot than OS X does on the same hardware, and when he tries to reboot the system so he can boot OS X, Windows takes so long to shut itself down he gets frustrated with it and hits the power button... THEN Windows decides to get moving again, but it intercepts his power button press and tries to put the system into hibernation instead of rebooting.
I got a nice chuckle out of that.
Links don't violate the DMCA, tool. Apple is employing the usual misrepresentation of the law to oppress the little guy.
Fuck you for buying in to it, you Macintard.
You're pretty good... but it's Hayes, with an E.
And what else are they supposed to do? Just sit back and ignore it? Corporations have obligations to their shareholders, to their employees and even to their customers to make sure that they look after their assets, try to build their market share and stay in business. Whether you (or I) like it or not they have chosen to stick to a business model that is working for them and to keep OSX running on Apple systems only. If they don't defend that model now and ignore attempts by people to undermine it, then they won't be able to defend it effectively later if an underground hacked OSXx86 movement gathers momentum. The computer business is cut throat and harsh. That's the game that has to be played to survive in it.
When Apple announced their Mac mini last week for US$499, it caught my eye. Wanting to buy/build a small PC for my already cramped breakfast bar, I started pricing out similar PC hardware. The results startled me. It was very difficult to price a PC as small (6.5" x 6.5" x 2") as the Mac mini with comparable equipment cheaper than the Mac mini. Indeed, most of the configurations I found were more than the humble $499 of the Mac, often much more. To match price I often had to configure with a much bigger shuttle-style case. What computers are currently on the market to compete with this? When my wife asks for the 'cute little Mac', what PC can I buy instead that will take up as little space and do as much for the same price (or less)?" How long do you think it will take PC manufacturers to answer Apple's latest entry into the market?
Thanks for the catch. I sometimes proofread, but must have missed it.
Tried to get in one about the 300 baud acoustic coupler, but couldn't work it into an appropriate title. TRS-80 doesn't roll off the tounge easily.
There's lots of titles that could have been...
Apple clearly expects to lose the technical battle to keep OS X from running on non-Apple hardware. Calling out the lawyers means they are accepting defeat, at least for the moment on the locking the software front. In a way, this is good news for those who want to run OS X on non-Apple hardware. The information will migrate to being hosted in country without the absurd DMCA.
Like it or not, OSX86 and OSX are not precisely the same operating system. A license to one is not a license to the other. Rosetta, for example, is a new piece of software.
You cannot currently buy OSX86. If you have a PPC Mac or you've bought retail OSX, you do not have a license or ownership in any form of the Rosetta software. The only people who currently have any kind of fair-use standing to bitch about this are people who have purchased an Intel Mac. Even they only have the license to run one copy of the software.
So if you've purchased an Intel iMac, installed Linux on it, and you would now like to install OSX on a commodity PC... have at it. Yell at Apple all you like. I somehow doubt that even one individual is in precisely that position right now. All this complaining is hypothetical.
People are ready to be pissed off when retail OSX86 is available for sale but restricted from running on PCs. Well, who knows? Maybe Apple will stop selling OSX retail. That's a valid approach to this situation... they could just sell it with the hardware, and _give it away_ to people who have the hardware. Buying a Mac could be a license to use whatever the newest version of OSX is on your Mac as long as your model is still supported. This isn't unusual. It's the way firmware IP works. It might be the only way for them to grow on x86 hardware.
For now, nobody has the legal standing to run x86 on commodity hardware without first taking it off of a nicer, genuine Apple first. This is true even if you believe in every variant of fair use any forum fanboy can imagine.
Early versions of OS X were heralded because they showed such extraordinary potential. At last, a company showed an operating system simple enough for novices while retaining its complexity for masters. A company wedded the *nix experience with a slick GUI. The same machine could easily run MS Office, Adobe programs and a myriad of open source code. Decent developer tools came free in every box. Even if the beta and 10.0 releases of OS X were slow and crashed frequently, a lot of people looked at them and saw the future. That vision was even more radical because Macs in the 90's were so horrendous by comparison.
Prior to OS X, Apple did not have a good reputation. People legitimately predicted their death. If they were mentioned on tech sites at all, it was with appropriate derision. Although some Mac users display the kind of religious zealotry you describe, your argument is still a straw man. There is no "mystique" for most of us. In the Win95 era, Apple had a crappy operating system and so did Microsoft, so a lot of new computer buyers bought Windows systems. More people still do. But Apple now offers a compelling line up. That's why they get respect on Slashdot. The company is far from saintly, as their DMCA threats show, but they are better than Microsoft and easier to use, particularly for laptops, than Linux. OS X turned the company around. It's a good operating system. That's why people use it. That's why people saw the early versions and said "wow."
It's not coincidence that I type this from a PowerBook that originally ran 10.3.
I have a PII/400 server that gets by just fine.
+++ATH0
So, to sum up the sentiments in regard to this news, predominantly people claim that since DMCA is evil and Apple are using it to shut down the forums, where hardworking, freedom loving hackers were trying to liberate Mac OS X for the benefit of all humanity, this makes them evil too.
However, I did not see anybody considering the possibility, that the all pervasive, all restricting DMCA is simply the easiest, cheapest, most hassle free way for Apple to protect their rights, as opposed to an attempt to harass people or deny them the right of freedom (of speech or of whatever else). I also could not find many people, who understand that Apple protecting their rights is no different than you, an ordinary person, protecting your rights. And before you say it, no, you do not have the right to run Mac OS X on whatever hardware you want, as long as you legally purchased it. Nobody, except Apple, has any right over most of Mac OS X. You get only the rights that Apple decides to give you, no more, no less. That is the whole idea behind proprietary vs. free/open source software. The first is developer centric, while the second is user centric. And as for the open source parts of Mac OS X, Darwin or WebKit/WebCore for example, you can download them for free, with all their source code, and you can modify and install them on whatever hardware you fancy.
Many people call the guys behind OSx86 project hackers or hobbyists and defend their deeds. I ask, though, if these guys are such good coders/hackers and are motivated solely by their altruism, why don't they employ their skills in a more constructive and beneficial for everybody way. Don't you think that, although being not at all that glamorous, but also no that suspiciously resembling publicity exercise, these guys could partake in the development of, off the top of my head, openstep, KDE 4, GTK+ port of WebKit/WebCore, etc.? These, and a lot more similar projects, can produce a free (and legally so) equivalent of Mac OS X (or Windows, or whatever desktop OS (or part of) you can think of).
Ultimately, my rant ca be distilled in the following two sentences: You can't justify breaking laws or contractual agreements with your desire to have a cool, flashy OS, nor you can demand or expect a company to change their business model and practices for the same reason. However, you can donate your time and skills or support in some other way a F/OSS project that aspires to give you just that - cool, flashy, but also free OS.
Nasty sh*t happened here!
I don't understand why Apple has restricted their OS.
Unless they have a "deal" with Microsoft (non-compete), they stand to gain a large market share of users by simply providing their OS separate from hardware. Imagine running OS/X on Sun, Intel, AMD... etc?
Apple, "do the math" -- you have a good product, let people use it legitimately (they're going to anyway!).
8 megs of ram? you must be running windows 3.11! Time to upgrade buddy!
Mac OS X for Intel is not legally available for purchase by itself, and will not be until The only way
should read
"Mac OS X for Intel is not legally available for purchase by itself, and will not be until OS X 10.5. The only way..."
Good point. When I think of the successful and profitable products we've seen in BeOS, NeXTstep, OS/2, Solaris, and DRDOS, I honestly cannot figure out why Apple doesn't want to get into the OS sales market.
>>> Too busy lathering at the mouth over how some big bad corporation has stomped over the little guy.
>> They forced a site to shutdown it's forums because of a LINK!!!!
>> When did a link become illegal? If this isn't a corporation stomping on a little guy, I don't know what is.
> I agree with you, a link should not be illegal.
> And what else are they supposed to do? Just sit back and ignore it?
So you're argument changed from, "this isn't some corporation stopping on a little guy" to
stomping on a little guy is legal, and profitable. Therefore it's the only thing to do.
I hope at least you are no longer wondering why having your rights to free speech violated might make someone "lather at the mouth"
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
Perhaps:
Talking Trash-80
Man the lengths a lot of the TRS-80 guys would go to say their system was the most elite system in existence...
Sapere aude!
I don't agree with your views with the DMCA and Apple's draconian restrictions, but I agree with your point that it will be much better if the people trying to get OS X running on vanilla x86 boxen spent their time coding and building a better opposition to OS X.
Frankly, I find OS X and Macs in general to be overrated, especially since the Intel switch. Anything that I can do with an OS X box I can also do under Windows or under Linux/BSD, except OS X has a prettier interface. I've used OS X machines and I think that they are very good, but OS X isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread; it isn't that compelling. However, the only major advantage that OS X has compared to Windows and *nix is the coherency, the ease of use, and the overall design of the interface in general, not to mention that Apple is the only manufacturer of laptops (besides Sun) that come with a Unix-derivative preinstalled (I'm looking around for laptops currently). However, KDE and GNOME has improved remarkably with its interfaces, and certain Linux distributions are almost as easy to install and to use as a typical Windows or OS X installation.
However, there is still a lot of work that needs to be done in order to get *nix on Joe Average's desktop. Applications need some more polishing, and needless bloat needs to be removed. Interfaces can be a bit better. However, *nix has all of that applications that 90% of the people need to do their work, and the interfaces has gotten to the point that most people can use it without too much trouble. Heck, I know a few people who were using Linux boxes without being aware that they were using Linux, and they were surfing the Internet, chatting with their friends, and typing their homework without any problems. That's progress. Give the OSS community a few years, and by then, nobody will be hyping about OS X on vanilla PCs because we have already upped our standards, as one signature on Slashdot says.
So, yes, there are a few people like myself who aren't interested in pirating OS X and aren't interested in getting it working on their PCs. We already have an equivalent to OS X: free *nix and KDE/GNOME. We just have some more work to do; then we'll see you in about two or three years.
And then Apple would have to cut jobs, they'd start losing money as 99% of PC manufacturers bundle MS Windows with their machines (cause it's cheaper), then Apple would close and we'd all have no support for our iPods anymore. Then all the 3rd party companies making hardware and software for iPods/Apples would also have to move on and possible most of them couldn't survive either. So hacking OSX and "freeing" it, is stupid as it would negativly impact a lot of people and companies. Long and short of it is that piracy is a sucky thing.
Then Osz86, OSw86, OSt86, etc
And I can guess with near certainty that those x86 boxen are running win32. I propose that the improved performance under strain is not mac hardware but the *nix base of OS X.
Our diversity is our strength
bullsh*t. a "cottage industry" of you (the brave and few?) will offer to setup as many ppl as you can... fort small fee i'm sure. you will, of course, support them. why? as per: YOU CAN and you're proud of it. secondly, don't kid us about you "buying" as copy of the OS... when you KNOW you'll download it via torrent or any other means you have access to!
"Apple's margin on iTMS purchases is, for all intents and purposes, zero. Not much profit there."
You're saying that with a billion dollars in revenue, they haven't been able to turn a good profit on iTMS. All it is is some servers and some software. It's not like they actually need to write the songs. They would need to be completely incompetent to not be able to make money on iTMS.
Vote for Pedro
Gonna burn some karma to tell you that was hillarious! Reminds me of a McSweeney's list :0]
"It's immoral when you buy a product agreeing to certain conditions, then decide you don't like them so ignore them."
You mean like buying a CD and ripping it for your iPod? Or is the RIAA good now too.
Vote for Pedro
Apple. Crash different.
"What does slashdotting mean?"
"You've never heard of slashdot?"
"I know it makes websites not work."
"When I buy a piece of software ,,,
If I want to put extra ones and zeros in it, while forfeiting any warranty, that's MY damn business. "
Alas, your point has a kind of validity, in that Apple would be hardly able to show
any 'damage' done to them in a civil suit.
Note, however, the Apple communication referred to DMCA, which is a federal criminal
statute and which DOESN'T require Apple to be there in court at all. Some prosecutor,
who collects a salary at public expense, would be your opponent.
DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) is a piece of relatively obscure, not easily
tested, law, which Apple's lawyers have LOTS of expertise in dealing with.
It might be they are giving a friendly warning here, and not hinting at impending
lawsuit at all.
Most open-software principles are violated by the sort of obscurity that DMCA is
intended to protect. Most folk reading this site are probably saddened at this
development, and maybe Apple is, too.
And how all those American web sites got sued for posting links to it.
Vote for Pedro
Yes, yes it is windows XP.
I know that Linux is more stable for the standard PC platform, I use it for our webserverl
That said, between OS X and Windows XP, I find OS X to be more stable by a wide, wide margain.
Remember the mac clones? Apple was loosing money because the license fees the clones makers paid and the price of bundled mac OS sold to those OEMs were not enough to pay for the increased support and development costs.
Apple hoped the clones would expand the market but they just ended up cannibalizing their hardware sales. The same thing would happen if Apple tried to make your nerdish wet dream come true because OS X development and support is subsidized mostly by hardware sales.
People often use MSFT as an example to justify their "wish" but they fail to realize that when MSFT started out, the market was much smaller and the hardware was less diverse on X86. They also had a less complex OS whereas OS X is built of several decades of technology from NeXT and Apple. As the complexity of software increases the cost of development and support go up as well.
Do I really need to remind everyone of NeXTStep for generic intel or BeOS? What about the lawsuit Be Inc won against MSFT posthumously for blocking entrance into the OEM market.
Look at the Macbook Pro or Intel iMac and compare with Core duo systems from the likes of Toshiba or Sony. Intel macs are competitively priced at least where I live in Canada. The Macbook Pro is perfectly capable as a desktop replacement as it has a dual link DVI port allowing you to drive even a 30" Cinema Display and yet it still offers light weight portability.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
If the free and open software community was capable of producing Mac OS X, then it would have happened by now. And I say this as someone who is an active member of the free and open software community.
It's not just the consistent user interface (though we haven't managed that), or the slick user interface (though the open source "flashy" interfaces that I've seen so far are pretty nasty), it's the standard ABI that's consistent across versions and releases that allows vendors to distribute software in binary format and the reputation that allows them to trust that it's going to be supported long enoug for them to develop a product line and a business.
If it was just a "cool, flashy" OS, then Linux would have been a hit since Enlightenment was ready for use... and the latest versions of KDE and Gnome are pretty spiffy looking. But there's KDE and Gnome and there's 14 variants of Linux and BSD and Linux has had enough Red Flag Days to kill ten operating systems. Even if it had the market share, the only commercial software for Linux would still be limited to back-office products and companies doing it for altruistic and promotional purposes.
The problem is that Apple's refused to sell a decent ordinary desktop computer since they dumped the Beige G3, and their laptops favor style over comfort. I bought a Mac mini because the Powermac G5 is ludicrous for my purposes (I have to limit how much I use my computer in the summer as it is because the A/C can't handle the heat), but I'd have paid a few hundred more for something with a couple of PCI-E slots and drive bays, even if it wasn't a barnstormer. Or, for a copy of OS X I could use on a PC with those characteristics.
So, the open source software community can't produce the OS, and Apple refuses to take my money to run theirs on hardware I find more than barely acceptable. Me, I'm putting up with the mini and hoping they get their act together over 2006 and come up with a REAL desktop... but I don't have any problem understanding why other people are less patient.
The bandwidth is not just for purchases but also for previews and movie trailers.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
The clones drained away hardware sales without increasing the overall market. Those clone users also cost Apple money in terms of increased technical support and software maintenance costs.
Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_clone
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Who else sees the Irony of that post? Hope Apple does not come after slashdot. :)
Ok, so if you release some software under GPL, you don't mind if I download it, modify it a bit and sell it as my own in binary format? After all, I made the changes "after" I downloaded it which would be equivalent of a purchase right? If the Apple EULA is just a license and you are so willing to ignore it why should heed the GPL? It's my code after I download it right? No? It's licensed? But possession is 9/10ths of the law right?
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Heh. You're funny AND you have a funny name - this MUST be slashdot :P
graphically speaking
He has a clue.
qz
It's time to orchestrate a letter writing campaign to the FTC complaining about Apple's bundling practices.
It should probably mention iTunes and iPod while you are at it.
Last I heard, bundling was illegal.
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
That is why free software is invented - because people did not accept that vendors have automatic "rights" to impose absolutely any arbitrary EULA restriction on how a copy of said software, purchased legally, might be used.
If you accept that vendors can impose conditions like this, then you can easily see a series of ever more onerous conditions that an Apple or Microsoft can impose on proprietary software, and which can now be enforced through Treacherous Computing and Digital Restrictions Managament. For example, you might get a license to use software a bit cheaper if it was restricted to only be used at the weekend, say, or only to connect to approved URL's, or only for a few months till your course ended, say with training materials.
Maybe you accept a world like that - I know I certainly don't, and that's why I use free software. Even, I'd go further than that, and say that proprietary vendors have no natural "right" to impose EULAs and should have no automatic right to impose any conditions on how a single legally purchased copy of their software is used. A restriction to being used on no more than one machine at any one time might be reasonable, since that's the single copy paid for - but no more than that, and any other end-use should fall under fair use provisions, so that if I want to take my copy and load it on different hardware (unsupported, at my own risk), then that should be possible without let or hindrance.
Imagine buying a car, for example, with a EULA along with it that said I couldn't visit, for example Cornwall, without paying an extra license fee to the vehicle manufacturer! Outrageous, obviously - but that's the style of restriction that becomes possible with hardware and software DRM capabilities.
Seriously, AOL sucks, you can shutup now.
http://maxxuss.hotbox.ru/
The OSX project need not put any links to maxxuss' website or anything else. All they need to do is post who made a patch and what version.
Google will do the rest.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Why don't you actually READ what the site moderators have to say about it all. They don't portray themselves as poor helpless victims of being stomped on, and I agree with them. Seeing as you obviously haven't bothered so far, let me post a couple of paragraphs from their front page about all this.
You may not like the way corporations have to behave. But its the real world pal. And as far as your rights to free speech goes; well I don't live in the US, but from what I've heard and read over recent years, its a lot less free than you seem to think it is.
ah pagemaker :) used that to do the highschool magazine back in the day.. anyway, most basic business can be run off of processing spreadsheets and databases.. oh how I hate the world of marketing. Wonder how many great products we dont have today because of poor marketing. And how many non-computer equivalents there are to Microshaft, who triumphed because they are too good with the social engineering and the money making and the smiling and pandering to the masses *cries* I love you betamax (I remember we used to have a Betamax player, wonder how many recorded (non DRM) movies we lost when we had to make the transition..)
which is totally what she said
For all you clod-hoppers out there who say they don't give a flying poo about Apple, you certainly waste a whole ton of words on them. Yes, indeed, it must be envy.
Karma Schmarma
The experience is more than the software, and therefore costs more. If it is truly worth it to you, you will buy a mac.
Yup... that's pretty much why I don't own a mac.
1. Gates offered the ranch to Steve Jobs to make his Mac OSX x86 branch go
j ect_dmca_claim/
away
2. Jobs reacted swiftly and arranged a shutdown of the OSx86 community
website :
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/02/17/osx86_pro
3. Gates installed Mac OSX x86 10.4.3 on a couple of Intel PC's and got
white behind the nose and did have liquid diareee for 3 days.
4. Mac OSX x86 10.4.3 on a AMD64 runs so blinding fast that all iMAC gear
and faster is smacked into the corner.
5. Vista's DRM and total surveillance hookups are demanded by US and UK
government. Stevie Jobs Mac OSX x86 10.4.3 doesn't have this onboard
currently.
6 if it turns out that Stevie Jobs, after dealing with Gates, used that
DMCA violation claim as cover to shutdown the OSx86 Project forum,
www.win2osx.net, Jobs might not be able to make any keynote speech for a
long time to come. It seems Jobs is nowadays mostly doing hollywood pixar
business.
7. Jobs and Gates supposedly made some dealings , which forsee the future
of the coming years... Vista as i have seen it, is a rather weak offering,
which seems to be trunkloaded with life and active DRM under the hood.
8. well no kidding here... THIS is the real news of this week and the
coming weeks..... they might orchestrate a hunting accident to smooth
things out, but be sure to be prepared for some major bullcrap, which will
ignite many people to hunt and search for a last working iso of Mac OSX
x86
9. Mac OSX x86 is so f..king good and fast, it would have killed both
linux _AND_ Vista. Muchos Kudos for this goto the community crowd of OSx86
with its forum on www.win2osx.net.
10. a friend has a working iso, and his jaws dropped through his keyboard,
after installing it on a P4 2.4GHz compaq deskpro. Its blinding fast and
polished. He had to debug a downloaded install iso of Mac OSX x86 10.4.x ,
and did 3 installs within 50 minutes on that compaq deskpro
Robert
What really concerns me about all of this DMCA crap is do I really own what I purchase to do with what I please? According to the pro-DMCA jokers, I do not. Apple needs to realize that regardless of all of its pandering of being the PC-alternative, it is just a Sun Microsystems with a smaller budget and different hardware. I have got 2 Ultra 30s (came out in 1997) that run rings around anything Apple has ever put out up to today. A G5 is a 2-cycle lawn mower engine by comparison. I guess the real question is why should we waste our time porting OS X non apple hardware with Linux available? Porting Linux to apple hardware is more important that porting a commerical OS. VM environments are much more of value anyway. It would be nice for M$ to built in support for OS X for its Virtual Server product, or VMware. I do give Apple credit for using Unix as a backend. It is regretable M$ did not do it first with NT.
You know what cracks me up? The fact that on this story, and every other one like it, EVERY GODDAMN POST starts out like "Why does Apple get away with this, any other company would get so much shit for doing this, but nobody complains about Apple... Complain complain complain!" And the whole discussion is nothing but bitching and moaning - the very same that the bitchers and moaners are complaining that doesn't exist! LOL!
If this isn't a corporation stomping on a little guy, I don't know what is.
But what if were the reverse? What if it were a little guy forcing Big Evil(tm) Apple to remove copyright violating links from its site?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
links are just signposts. They can't violate a copyright.
Perhaps where they are pointing to can violate it. Even in this case it doesn't. The guy just has patches. It only violates the DMCA. The links themselves though are not in violation of anything.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
It only violates the DMCA.
The DMCA IS Copyright! But even in pre-DMCA copyright law, you're still not allowed to willfully facilitate copyright infringement (just as you're not allowed to willfully facilitate any crime).
Granted, these are patches and copyright probably hasn't been violated on the other side of the link. But the key word is "probably", and legal prudence says to take the links down rather than listen to the ranters on Slashdot.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Because we all no the western money can't affect anything in Russia. Somehow I'm think it cost Apple less to have that site taken down than it did to pay the lawyer to send a cease and desist