Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OSx86 Shutdown Rumors Explained

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the needle-in-a-command-stack dept.

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.'"

53 of 600 comments (clear)

  1. Kind of Ironic... by sagefire.org · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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/Sosumi
  2. Apple please listen...... by pstreck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Apple please listen...... by brainnolo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately, selling platforms is Apple's main activity, they do not sell hardware and/or software. The Mac is a platform composed of Mac OS X and hardware tailored to make it run without glitches, this is what they offer, the fact you don't like it does not authorize you to use a component of their platforms with different hardware. Buying a copy of the OS is not enough even (because they do not make huge profits out of it, they mostly cover R&D costs), yet is probably is enough to shut that little voice saying "don't steal" up :)

    2. Re:Apple please listen...... by dwater · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Kind of funny when there's many of us who want their hardware, but don't want their OS :)

      --
      Max.
    3. Re:Apple please listen...... by SoTuA · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why don't they throw it out there for cheap with NO support;

      Because, even with no support, disclaimers, and all, badly running OSX on the crappiest hardware on earth is still bad publicity for Apple. For a company that's as image-driven as Apple, that spells "bad shit".

    4. Re:Apple please listen...... by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Please apple, please wake up. We will pay, lots of us will. But I don't want your desktop hardware.

      Maybe.. I have two ancient apples and my son has a new apple notebook. His rocks. And I'll probably buy one of those mac mini's this year.

      I would *like to* build a PC based OS X machine. I don't have any real problem with Apple hardware, but I would like to have a CHOICE when I do need to add/change some hardware. I wouldn't mind at all buy the OS and maybe some of the hardware too, if the price is COMPETITIVE and the hardware is good.
      I think it sucks to have to pay Apple $500 (like my son did) for a 300gb hard drive when I can get a perfectly good 300gb hard drive from New Egg for $129.

      What I do object to is being locked into buying 100% of everything from one company.

    5. Re:Apple please listen...... by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >But I don't want your desktop hardware.

      And Apple doesn't want your custom.

      Why do so many people think they have a right to dictate the terms of other people's businesses?

    6. Re:Apple please listen...... by CynicTheHedgehog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Haven't we been over this? Apple sells a computing experience. The only way that they can guarantee a stable, secure, and performant environment is to assert control over their hardware. They can't write drivers for everything, and if they opened up a driver API for third party vendors the result would be chaos, and then everyone would complain about instability and speed issues for the next ten years until all of the major third party vendors got their drivers sorted out. This is the same reason you can't buy XBox firmware for a Sony Playstation. Like videogame consoles, Apple computers are platforms consisting of hand-picked, thoroughly-tested sets hardware, firmware, and software. That is one of the primary factors in their reliability, and it isn't going to change any time soon.

      The experience is more than the software, and therefore costs more. If it is truly worth it to you, you will buy a mac. If not, enjoy the alternatives. Regardless, theft is theft and I believe Apple is perfectly within their rights, not only as it relates directly to profits but also with respect to their reputation. OS X is not going to run as well on random x86 chipsets and peripherals, and the resulting quirky behavior will be damaging to their image.

    7. Re:Apple please listen...... by PetiePooo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why do so many people think they have a right to dictate the terms of other people's businesses?

      That's easy. Those people have the checkbooks!

      Seriously, why do so many businesses think they can cram whatever garbage they want down our throats? I'm not saying Macs are garbage; I personally like them better than Windows boxen. However, many businesses, MS and Apple included, assume they know what's best for me. I disagree. And, since they don't have my checkbook, I get to take it elsewhere.

    8. Re:Apple please listen...... by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 1, Insightful

      >And, since they don't have my checkbook, I get to take it elsewhere.

      Then do so. Apple doesn't care about that, Apple is worried about the people who say "you're not selling me exactly what I want so you leave me no choice but to steal/copyright infinge your products."

    9. Re:Apple please listen...... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why do so many people think they have a right to dictate the terms of other people's businesses? He does. He's the customer.

      --
      My blog
    10. Re:Apple please listen...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And this is different from any other store how? "Gee we have this product here for $XXX, but you should go down the street and buy it there because it is cheaper and my employer does not need to make money to pay me to be here to tell the people to go somewhere else." Meet cluestick. Teach you children better and stop blaming the store.

    11. Re:Apple please listen...... by alienw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, the whole trick to business is knowing which customers should get the finger. The whole "the customer is always right" BS will get you bankrupt in a hurry. Let's see, apple can make $1500 off a few million people if they sell computers. Or they can make $20 off of a few thousand geeks if they sell Mac OS by itself. Which do you think they will choose?

    12. Re:Apple please listen...... by ebuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Companies grow up, they move away from their roots and strain the friendships they fostered. Apple extended to many people years of hacking fun, fostering an environment of computer understanding and comraderie. In return, that community extended it's friendship and remained vehementally loyal. A good friend is hard to find, hard to lose, and hard to forget.

      But Apple hasn't been true to it's garage hacking roots for many, many years. Some of their devices are specifically built to be hack unfriendly. Their audience isn't the same makeup and composition of the old "old-timers", and when you tell a new mac addict about building your own paddles / joystick for the II+, they sort of look at you and say "That's neat, I have a Sidewinder joystick". They're buying the mac for good reasons; security, ease of maintenance, (more) consistent UI design, etc. But, in the end, they are more likele to be consumers of the technology, and only possibly consumers of the few hacks that get created for those platforms.

      As a company, Apple has decided to cater to that crowd, and finiancially they may not have a choice. Their computers (and other devices) are coming pre-packaged in slick boxes with all of the image gimmicks that are usually reserved for high end perfumes. It's becoming even more about image than before. The image market will always have hordes of people who will be happy with knock-offs and pirated copies of the Mac OS, as it feeds into the "keeping up with the Jones'" mentality.

      Much of the Macintosh's product image is in the software, and Apple has decided that CPU and hardware details aren't vital to that formula. Losing control of the software means losing control of the Mac market.

      Things may change; the pendulum may swing back. These sites may go online again. People can find a happy medium. But human nature is not dismissable, and I'm sure a few people are thinking along the lines of this quote:

      "I think that if your friends don't like that you think a little different than they do, then maybe you shouldn't want them as friends. And, you should consider the loss of friendship their loss, not yours." --Chelsey Collinsdale

      I don't think Apple deserves to be demonized over this, but I hope they don't play their hand too strongly. Perhaps it is best not to befriend a company, as they "are always constant, except in (their) affections." -- Oscar Wilde (taken out of context, of course!)

    13. Re:Apple please listen...... by CyberDave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that's a miscalculation. People know what "no support" means. It wouldn't hurt Apple at all, and would probably help, with the free publicity from the "gotta build my own box" set.

      No, that's pretty mcuh dead on.

      We here on Slashdot know what "no support" means. And we're fine throwing OS X onto a spare partition in a box that already multiboots between XP, 2K, Gentoo, and NetBSD. And we like to brag about the challenges we had to go through to get it all to work ("I spent the afternoon recompiling my Xserver to use "march=pentium4" instead of "mcpu=pentium4" in my make.conf blah blah blah").

      But we here on Slashdot are not normal people (and a great many of our kin don't seem to understand that). What is easy and cool for us is difficult and scary for everyone else. We can deal with looking at system requirements and buying compatible hardware to use with our unsupport copy of OS X, but my parent's can't, and neither can the folks who walk into Best Buy and ask if 802.11b is compatible with 802.11g (and neither can the salesman there who answers that they don't work together).

      Joe Sixpack will hear from his friend that he can use OS X on a non-Apple PC. Even if the friend is very specifc about the details, most of those details are going to go in one of Joe's ears and out the other (much like I have no clue what most of the medical terminology means on House, M.D. or Grey's Anatomy). But they're still going to have "non-apple PC" and "OS X" stuck in their head, and then they'll try it and it won't work properly, and then they'll be one of the vocal minority of people who have problems, and post on every message board they can find that "Apple sux", etc., etc., and generally do a bad thing to Apple's image.

      Bottom line, what's great about the Mac is that it's more than just an OS, it's an entire platform that is guaranteed (well, almost guaranteed) to JUST WORK. And at this point in time, Apple is not going to do ANYTHING to jeopardize that, no matter how many people on Slashdot wish they would.

      I hope this post made some sense...running on very little sleep right now. I think I had some larger point to make, but it seems to have escaped me.

    14. Re:Apple please listen...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's nothing tailored about Mac hardware for compatibility. It's standard hardware, in proprietary enclosures. The operating system then has support developed for the hardware by Apple or the IHV responsible for it. This is an marginal expense because the hardware in Macs rarely changes in a manner that requires driver modifications outside of GPUs. Apple is like Dell if Dell designed its own software, instead of reselling Microsoft's. If you look at Apple's financials it makes a huge effing shitload of money off of its software.

    15. Re:Apple please listen...... by Znork · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "badly running OSX on the crappiest hardware on earth"

      Frankly, I dont think Apple cares about people running OSX on crap hardware at all.

      What Apple is worried about is people successfully running OSX on better and cheaper hardware without any problems. What Apple is worried about is getting a repeat of the old Mac clone days with associated collapse of profit margins.

      The image works to keep the current margin up for as long as people see the products as distinct and irreplaceable, but if consumers are suddenly able to, for all intents and purposes, get a 'cheaper, shinier and better "Mac"', the percieved extra value will alter.

      And that spells even worse shit.

    16. Re:Apple please listen...... by TallMatthew · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Haven't we been over this? Apple sells a computing experience.

      You mean like the Solaris computing experience? Ask Sun how that worked out. Really, you make exactly the same arguments as those zealots used to use. And ultimately, the company will go *poof* for the same reason. All it's going to take is one truly good Windows release, like all it took was one truly good server OS (Linux) to come out, and Mac will tank like Sun did. Fortunately for Apple, that hasn't happened yet.

      The reason Apple came down on these websites is that Apple makes their margins off of reselling hardware. They are a hardware monopoly, just like Sun used to be. If someone were to start distributing a version of OSX that ran on x86 , that would be a bad thing for their bottom line.

    17. Re:Apple please listen...... by IntlHarvester · · Score: 4, Insightful

      then they'll be one of the vocal minority of people who have problems, and post on every message board they can find that "Apple sux", etc., etc., and generally do a bad thing to Apple's image.

      One reason Apple has such a positive image and "brand value" is not just because of the design of their products, but because of the price/exclusivity factors. The Mac world is something one have to Buy Into, and once someone has made a commitment they are far less likely to start complaining about it.

      That's the main reason Apple products have good reputations even whey they suck. (Early slow/crashy versions of OSX were herlded; People had to fight Apple over the iBook motherboard issues and still are true blue customers, etc) People have a huge $$$ incentive to not talk down their own 'investment'.

      On top of that, consider that most computer users have *heard* of Macs, 90% of them have never sat down in front of one and used it. So you have a product with a huge word-of-mouth reputation, but only the true-blue loyalists have any hands-on experience with them.

      Now, you lower the cost of entry to $120 or $0, and the Mac is exposed to the masses. What happens? Do they all become Mac Believers? Or do they look at it soberly and come to a very different conclusion?

      When you get right down to it, what exactly is so great about the Mac? The herlded UI is flashy, but mainly just different than Windows, not really significantly better or worse. The included software is nothing all that special. A lot of people are going to (rationally) say "I tried the Mac, it's really not all that special." This attitude starts to percalate back to the loyal Mac purchsers, who start asking the same questions. (This happened in the Win95 era, when many loyal Mac buyers just changed their mind and walked.) The mystique is gone.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    18. Re:Apple please listen...... by thesandtiger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that's a miscalculation. People know what "no support" means. It wouldn't hurt Apple at all, and would probably help, with the free publicity from the "gotta build my own box" set.

      And anyway, without some hacking, Mac OS X would require an EFI logic board to boot out of the box - it wouldn't work on crappy old hardware, only new legacy-free stuff.

      And I think even Joe Sixpack knows that if you have to get a third party hack to make your OS boot, the company is not going to support you.

      That's a pretty naive assessment, frankly.

      I used to do support for a company that sold children's educational software to home users. This software had nothing to do with the Internet, our company name bore no relation what-so-ever to any ISP that I'm aware of, and our phone number was not, as far as I know, similar to any ISP's phone number.

      Yet, for some strange reason, at least 50% of our call volume was from people who wanted us to help them connect to the Internet (or, less freqently, wanted us to give them a quick phone tutorial on how to format stuff in Word or write formulas in Excel). When we explained that we didn't have *anything* to do with the Internet or MS Office, that we wouldn't even know where to begin, and that they really should just contact their ISP for help, the response was usually along the lines of "Fuck you! I'll tell everyone I know to stay away from your shitty company!"

      Expecting Joseph Pack, IV to be a reasonable person when it comes to this stuff is not a wise idea. He'll try to install the software, it won't work, he'll beat his head against the wall for hours and hours, and then tell everyone he knows that Apple is shitty. How do I know this? Because I can point out that the exact same thing happens with Linux... How many people have you met who think Linux is a steaming pile of shit because whatever distro they tried didn't install easily? How many people have you met who think Linux is a company with a shitty "free" product?

      Apple releasing OSX for anything other than their very specific hardware selection would be a catastrophic mistake - it isn't designed to work with "just anything" and I don't care how many disclaimers one puts on the box, people won't read them, they'll try to get it to work on stuff that specifically isn't supported, and then they'll bitch and moan to all and sundry that Apple sucks.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    19. Re:Apple please listen...... by localman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Huh? How is his use of custom hardware to run software that he buys dictating their business? If I buy a hairdryer and I use it to dry paint, am I dictating their business? What if I buy Excel and use the install CD as a frisbee? What gives?

      I can deal with businesses having ridiculous ideas about how the world should work: that they should control things after they've sold them. Businesses are always ridiculous. As long as they stay out of my house they can say and think whatever they want. But when individuals like yourself start siding with these draconian business ideas, I worry.

      BTW, I paid for my Powerbook G4, and for the latest boxed version of OSX. And I would say that anyone planning to run OSX on Intel should do the same. This is not about stealing. This is about personal choice, creativity, and exploration. Let's not lose sight of that.

      Cheers.

    20. Re:Apple please listen...... by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What? Did you even read the article? This is about people making OS X available for download. Of course Apple's copyright was violated. The OSx86 people do not have the right to redistribute the product to others.


      Yes, I did. Did YOU even read the article? I don't see anything at all about the projects making OS X available for download anywhere... please quote the relevant portions that say that.

      If they were, it would be simple copyright violation, no need for a DMCA threat.

  3. Bad link by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  4. One wonders... by hummassa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  5. Disgusting. by tpgp · · Score: 4, Insightful
    just days after they featured links to information on how to hack the software and run it on non-Apple PCs[emphasis mine]
    Links?

    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.
    1. Re:Disgusting. by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's immoral when you buy a product agreeing to certain conditions, then decide you don't like them so ignore them.

    2. Re:Disgusting. by nexcomlink · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Here is the difference.

      Sony installs a rootkit, they want to charge more, they are saying either put out or shut it.

      Microsoft while it tries to stop users from downloading there OS and from keeping it pirated there efforts fail. But again you don't see a site like "microsoftOSforfree.com" giving you accurate detail. You will need to find and hunt down the files.

      Apple while it just entered the arena want's to secure there OS but instead of suing the living shit out of you it's being reasonable by at least giving you a chance to remove those links. While other companies would rather just stick the lawyers on your ass drop down your site, and lock you up while there at it.

      The situation I believe is that of course Apple does not want to see it's OS being ran on other hardware but frankly most of us will not care even a Mac supporter like me would love to run it on my AMD Duron box at home. Of course though if you hack the OS they won't mind if you keep it for yourself and provide instructions I suppose just don't provide a fully modified version with the files that belongs to Apple.

    3. Re:Disgusting. by goldspider · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you don't like a company's business philosophy, you send a much more pointed to them by simply NOT BUYING THEIR PRODUCT. You aren't shackled to them if you don't do business with them in the first place!

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    4. Re:Disgusting. by iCEBaLM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's immoral for a company to expect me to adhere to licence agreements that I can't look at before I pay for the product.

      It's immoral for a company to expect the general public to be able to read and fully understand mounds of legalese that most lawyers would cringe at.

  6. Give it a rest by admo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Give it a rest by tyahand · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What if Apple only ships upgrade CDs for 10.5 retail, and the only full 10.5 installer is the restore CDs from 10.5-era Macs? Are you then entitled to pirate 10.4 or someone's 10.5 restore CD because "it's your business" and "Apple's fighting a battle they cannot win" in your opinion? Inquiring minds would like to better understand this logic.

    2. Re:Give it a rest by admo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pity the modern computer user....stuck with using only Microsoft or Apple products! If only there was some Other Software Solution....!

  7. CD: only for use on Sony CD players by E8086 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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
  8. Irony by squidguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  9. Mark my words.... by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Mark my words.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One MAJOR problem with your argument...

      They copied IBM's hardware. Apple owns the hardware and the software! When you bought an IBM you purchased the hardware and someone else licensed an OS to you (someone more than happy to sell it to ANYONE). The second you open that nifty copy of OS X software you are trying to hack (you did actually go buy the OS right?) you agreed to the terms of the License Agreement.

      I'll admit I never actually read that thing but I'm looking at it now and the very first term is going to pretty much start killing this argument.

      1. General. The software ... are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple") for use only under the terms of the License, and Apple reserves all right not expressly granted to you. ... You own the media on which the Apple Software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple licensor(s) retain ownership of the Apple Software itself.

      2. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.

      These nifty two clauses mean you can't do anything with this software because you agreed not to when you opened it.

      Also, a lot of people seem to be comparing this to MSFT. There is a big difference. Microsoft makes money by selling its OS to anyone. If you can make it work they'll sell it to you. Apple makes money by selling hardware and an experience.

    2. Re:Mark my words.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The thing is how can Apple prevent this from happening? I don't give a rat's ass what the EULA says.....people are going to do what they want to do, legal or not and it's going to be a neverending battle that just might kill Apple. How can Apple proove anything when you run it on other hardware. This is no different then the RIAA or MPAA.....no matter what you say.....besides, Darwin ALREADY RUNS on any Intel box. Darwin is the core of OS X in case you did not know. The Apple platform is now PC compatible for the most part and it's going to take alot in the future to prevent hackers/crackers from making this work on non Apple hardware. I just think it's a bad business decision. Apple hardware is, for the most part, better in quality and design then alot of other PC hardware. This vector coul dvery well get USERS for them.....user who I am sure would BUY Apple hardware after they try it out on non-apple hardware.

  10. Apple can do no wrong by voice+of+unreason · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Run Linux by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The real answer here is to run a real BSD or Linux. New Hampshire has it right, live free or die.

    Well, if the choice is between running an open source operating system or running a pirated operating system then the correct answer is to run the open source operating system. Just because you're too cheap to buy a Mac to run MacOS X doesn't give you the right to try to pirate it onto another X86 box. You could always run Darwin if you really want the BSD UNIX underneath the Aqua interface, but you'll be stuck using X11 apps if you want a GUI.

  12. Hear me, Slashdot! by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Hear me, Slashdot! by kwerle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      http://www.jmusheneaux.com/01.htm#1

      They also took the legal approach: 2 team cleanroom engineering. Legal then, and probably legal today. While I have not looked at the OSX hack sites, I doubt that's what they're doing. They're probably taking the OS, disasembling it, patching it, and releasing the patches.

      The correct approach would be to start from scratch and write an OS that could load and execute OSX programs (which would be similar to the WINE project, I imagine), or load the whole OS without modifying it.

  13. Re:Seriously, why bother? by AC-x · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Note to self, find more recent posts to copy

  14. Re:Run Linux by rainman_bc · · Score: 1, Insightful

    No, but if you hold a legitimate license for OSX, you should be able to run it on whatever hardware you choose.

    Truth is, Apple is no better than Microsoft, no matter what the zealots will tell you.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  15. Re:Run Linux by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That works great, until you want the OSX interface, or want to run a commercial application that isnt offered to anything other then OSX and Windows. ( which is most that *businesses* need )

    Sure it would be nice if you could do it, but OSS is no where near offering mainstream business an alternative *desktop*. And by the time it does, PC's will be so locked down that all we will get to run will be force fed us by the 'big players' that have bought in to the DRM control syndicate.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  16. Re:Topic is complete FUD .. it was only the FORUMS by lubricated · · Score: 2, Insightful

    >> 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.
  17. Re:Apple appears not to want anyone to link to Max by slavemowgli · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  18. Re:Nope, and that's exactly the point. by RatPh!nk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To be honest, I tried to find some data on how many people who have iPods use the iTMS, but to no avail. I would guess that most people with iPods (>50%) don't use the iTMS, nor do they use any music store. My iPod is filled with mostly ripped CD's, and yes some d/l stuff from back in the day. I may have purchased... checks....66 songs (2 albums + single purchases), but to put it in perspective I have about 5k songs in my library.

    I think Apple says the iPod is better, and I think consumers agree (for the most part***). I have never heard anyone say, "Man, if only the RIO had better music store integration I would buy it."

    That said as a user, I think the integration is part of what makes the iPod better. But all in all, the store is mostly a bone to the users (where you can pick up the latest and greatest (or nor so greatest) quick and cheap and fast, immediate gratification, and a compromise to the industry as an answer to the question "where is the music coming from and how can we get a piece of that"

    ***Also, at this stage of the argument, one can also ask are people using the iPod because it is the best or best known? The old Windows analogy of why do you keep using windows, b/c that is what everyone else uses.
    </stream of consciousness>
    --
    Argh. The laws of science be a harsh mistress.
  19. Treating the OS like firmware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  20. I don't buy that by ThousandStars · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Early slow/crashy versions of OSX were herlded (sic)

    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.

    1. Re:I don't buy that by IntlHarvester · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let me ask you something. Do you ever wonder why Apple keeps their OS node-locked to a small handful of carefully positioned computer models? Do you ever wonder why they barely advertise OS X or Mac hardware?

      Don't kid yourself, Apple knows full well what I am saying is 100% correct, and their entire sales strategy is based around it -- there's just very little broader appeal for Macs, so the name of the game is optimizing revenue from the installed base. Steve Jobs even spelled out this strategy in an interview years before he came back to Apple.

      Macs are nice systems, I own them, I use them. But as time goes on, they become more and more oriented towards brainwashed cultists (see all the wierd ACs and their jibberish replys to my posts), and less and less relevant to mainstream computing. Joe Average doesn't want a Mac because Apple simply doesn't want to make Macs relevant to Joe Average.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
  21. To sum up... by lurch_mojoff · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  22. Re:Run Linux by iluvcapra · · Score: 2, Insightful
    No, but if you hold a legitimate license for OSX, you should be able to run it on whatever hardware you choose

    The EULA binds you to only run it on Macintoshes, in the same way the Linux EULA (aka the GPL) binds you from distributing modified copies without the source.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  23. Re:Topic is complete FUD .. it was only the FORUMS by lubricated · · Score: 2, Insightful

    >>> 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.