Slashdot Mirror
MS Requiring More Expensive Vista if Running Mac
ktwdallas writes "Mathew Ingram from Canada's Globe and Mail writes that Microsoft will require at least the $299 Business version of Vista or higher if installing on a Mac with virtualization. Running the cheaper Basic or Premium versions would be a violation of their user agreement. According to the article, Microsoft's reasoning is 'because of security issues with virtualization technology'. Sounds suspiciously like a 'Mac penalty' cost that Microsoft is trying to justify."
Old news, that is a requirement for running virtual on any machine not just Macs. Beside, Mac doesn't let you run OSX under virtualization anywhere!
If sounds like a Mac penalty because you didn't listen. They require the pricier version of Vista for ALL virtualization, not just on Macs. If you want to run Vista in a VM on a PC you're under the same requirement by the EULA.
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
Sooooo does that also include their virtualization products? Hmmmm?
This seems sort of counter productive to me, i would think they would want peopele to run vista on as many machines as they can.. Especially if there is a chance they can push a user away from another OS. But then again, they are a monopoly, they dont always have to do what makes sence.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Any of your doubts as to why your software continues to be pirated, cracked, or otherwise made available to those who you think have no desire to pay is in part directly because of your continued arbitrary restrictions against otherwise legitimate users.
What kind of Vista-exclusive software are you gonna run? (Especially under virtualization)
... was never so appropriate.
"Security vulnerabilities?" You mean how you can isolate a VM away from the rest of the world and if it gets infected with a virus, you can just shut it off, blow it away and start over?
THAT kind of security vulnerability? How incredibly, incredibly lame.
+++ATH0
Really, how many times are you planning to run this "story"? Maybe the plan is to stop once the FUD meme is spread to your satisfaction like all the others before?
There are enough things to criticize Microsoft over. These FUD campaigns are going to backfire one of these days. You can only claim you're being FUD'ed for so long before everyone realizes you're no better.
First of all this story is weeks if not months old, and a dupe to boot. Second of all this applies only if you run vista in/as a virtual machine not if you install on a mac that also has virtulization (for another OS say). In other words you can use boot camp to boot to your heart's content but can't run the cheaper Vista version in a VM under OS X just like everyone else in the fucking world who wants to run vista under a VM.
I mean what the hell is up with Apple users and their inferiority/persecution complexes? This applies to all VMs and likely the number of non-mac users running windows under a VM (developers, linux users, etc.) is far larger than the number of Mac users who'd be doing it.
Someday, you wont have a choice. Expect the HSD at some point to require you to run an 'approved operating system' if you want to get online, or even worse if they go door to door ( dont laugh, its been done before ). All in the name of 'national security and safety' of course.
And you get 2 guesses on what will be approved and what wont.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You know, you're not required to buy anything from Microsoft, if that's the way you feel. And if it bothers you that much, ignore them and think about something else.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Who are the consumer-level users who want virtualization going to be?
Go ahead, you can take as much time as you want to think about it.
+++ATH0
And what, Apple lets you virtualize OS X?
The anti-virtualization clause is likely unenforceable anyway *. However, most businesses that use Windows buy volume license agreements under contract, and the contract states that they will obey the EULA. That brings the EULA from the gray area into enforceability for them.
* They know that their DRM system can be cracked easily by virtualization. They might be able to win under the DMCA because of this.
I'm not a lawyer, I just read a lot.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
If your going to install visa using virtualization whats stopping you from using basic?
Assuming you bought the software and hardware you can do whatever you want with them.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
XXX#######
That's because the Microsoft agreement states that anyone running Parallels can't use the $199 basic or the $239 premium edition of Vista. Instead, they have to buy the $299 business version or the $399 ultimate version of the long-anticipated OS.
/. don't read TA.
So is there something besides the EULA that is going to stop people, like some kind of detection software or warning? Because most people don't read the EULA or care much about it. Like most
Evolution is a state-sponsored, state-protected religion.
One word: Students.
I consider that to be a consumer use of Vista in virtualization.
This has been known and written about since back when Vista was first released for business customer's at the end of last year. It doesn't suck any less, but why are we talking about this today?
Someone beat him to this "news". Hell, it was even discussed on Slashdot before. You can read the *first* article about this here.
bork bork bork!
cpu as it's 2 of them and home can only use 1 cpu.
I have tried running a legitimate XP copy (SP1) on Ubuntu with Innotek's VirtualBox - and the WGA gets the idea I am running an illegimate version of Windows even after I input my key into it (stored bought boxed version). Instead of explaining why it's bad (perhaps the license isn't pricey enough but this is only an SP1 disk so it shouldn't count should it? I didn't agree to those term on the Eula back then:) - they bring up a Survey that was extremely offensive - asking me how I felt having an illegimate copy of windows, what I would do with an illegimate copy of windows, and so on and so forth (they made sure to say "illegimate copy" in every question and generally treat you like a 5 year old idiot).
None of this makes me want to go out and buy MS products more - the ones I have apparently don't work even though the terms on the EULA back then have never mentioned virtualization.
They won't allow even Security upgrades based on this. I can forsee lawsuits coming from network owners and ISP because they are refusing to patch their own defective software and allowing so many computers to get compromised and botnets to form, etcetera. Fine, don't let me get upgrades for greater functionality, but at least give me those security patches.
Like the RIAA, the tighter MS grasps, the more will slip through there fingers. I refuse to be extorted to pay a higher price for software than what I already paid for it just because it is running in a situation they have not forseen 4 years back when the copy was new.
Microsoft is scared of virtualization. All of a sudden, there is no longer a requirement to have Microsoft software driving your real hardware. Especially with Parrallels able to run Windows Apps on your desktop without even looking at a Virtual Machine window, MS, I'm sure, can feel it all slipping away.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
THIS JUST IN - APPLE requiring MORE EXPENSIVE PC if running MAC OS!
Microsoft wanted to penalize Mac users over the use and development of Microsoft Office, and this really isn't much different - except that there is no point for a Mac user to use Vista.
I use Parallels desktop to run Windows XP, which runs all current software that I use on Windows (no surprise), and to test web designs in Internet Explorer when I don't want to go to a regular Windows PC.
So since Windows XP can already serve to run the apps anyone would need to run, other than the news factor, Vista s of no consequence to any Mac user.
I am open source, and Linux baby!
What difference does it make to MS if Windows Vista is installed on a Mac or Dell? A customer buying Vista at retail for a Mac sends more dollars to MS than Dell does for an OEM copy. It's a good deal for MS.
Never let facts stand in the way of a juicy conspiracy theory.
Enjoy your stay.
Take off the tinfoil hat and be realistic. Besides, the U.S. government has never officially acknowledged the existence of 0S/2 WARP concentration camps.
You can run Vista Home Basic on a Mac with Boot Camp, if you so desire. Just not from wthin OS X.
Nothing like a barely comprehensible paranoid rant to make your point really stick.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
What about XP? What about question marks?
#6495ED - cornflower blue
...when virtualization can be called a security problem.
This is like saying that having a chroot "jail" for BIND opens up a hole.
Or like saying black is white.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
This is old news, and not Mac-specific, but since it was re-posted anyway: What extra features does the $299 Business version offer to protect Windows against security issues with virtualization technology, and why aren't these features in the Basic and Premium versions?
If it does offer something extra then I'm interested to know, but the linked article basically states that Microsoft has "restricted the use of Vista to versions that it assumes are likely to be run either by corporations or by sophisticated users."
So in other words, assuming this is correct, they're openly using higher pricing as a security defence? (ie. "Let's make our product more secure by charging more money for it!") If so, then that's a new one and it seems kind of backwards.
Who says you have to be a consumer-level user to want to install a consumer-level version of Vista?
It would be nice to be able to test whether an app works on all versions of Vista without having to have them all on physical boxes.
Remember this in 10 years.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Boot Camp is not virtualization; it's a set of tools (firmware patch, driver CD creator, NTFS formatter with nondestructive partitioning) that allow Apple hardware to boot Vista directly. You won't violate the cheap Vista license if you use it under Boot Camp. You only need the expensive version for Parallels, which lets you run an OS in a window as an OS X app (real virtualization).
First of all, this only matters if you think EULAs have worth outside of toilet paper. Second, the actual language of the EULA is
"USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system"
So if I install it on a real machine and then run it within a virtual machine on that device, I'm violating the license. But if I install it on a virtual machine to begin with, the license ends up being self-contradictory.
You can not run the host and guest OS of Vista Home using the same key. Microsoft gives you extra permissions to run several copies of Vista business on the same machine using only one license. Nobody is stopping you from running Vista Home Basic under Parallels if you bought a dedicated license for this purpose. In fact, it would be dubious since Mac+OSX+Parallels can be viewed as simply another computer and, for all its ills, Microsoft is not practicing hardware lock-ins.
Fortunately in America we have the right to decided whats done with our own intellectual property
Fortunately, in America copyright holders only have a right to control how copies of their intellectual property are distributed to other people. They have no business whatsoever to control what one does with their own copy. In fact, if Microsoft was to much with my copy of Vista, I will have grounds to sue them for theft and tresspassing, which is far more serious than copyright infringement.
Microsoft sees virtualization as something businesses are willing to pay for. They don't want businesses cheaping out buying the less expensive versions.
As a home user, a very good reason to run my OS in a VM is hardware portability. If my PC dies or I upgrade my motherboard, I want any reinstall to be painless. With some motherboard upgrades, Windows crashes and burns.
Give me a stripped-down Linux or BSD with just a kernel, a VM layer, a boatload of device drivers, and some way to install more device drivers and install, manage, and launch a single guest OS and I'll be happy. I should be able to install this VM host OS, install Vista, then move that drive to any modern PC on the planet and have it "just work." When bootable USB memory sticks and USB-booted motherboards become commonplace, portable pocket Vista becomes a reality.
Just don't make me pay more than an OEM license for Vista Home Basic.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Who are the consumer-level users who want virtualization going to be?
A large number of Mac users.
If you want to use a strict definition of virtualization... no processor since the Pentium 1 can run the cheap version of Vista because the processor core is RISC and all instructions are translated from IA32 to RISC. Good move, Microsoft.
The only security issue I can see is from Microsoft's perspective: if Windows is merely a guest OS hosted on Mac OS X, Linux, BSD, or other, it is obviously not the users' primary operating system. Since it is not their primary operating system it is clear they are either not a fan of Microsoft, or even worse, are loyal to a competitor's product, be it free/OSS or proprietary. Since the days are numbered for earning revenue from that customer, what better way to maximize profits from that customer by requiring them to buy the products with the highest profit margin, despite the fact that the customers do not need the eye candy and other non-features the premium versions provide?
It's all about short term gains. Rather than focusing on maintaining long-term growth (Microsoft has already grown as much as they can and they know it) Microsoft has turned from being one of the most customer-friendly companies around to being one of the most hostile; revoking your first sale doctrine rights (e.g., you cannot transfer a COMMODITY PRODUCT from an old PC to a new PC), spying on your computing activities (genuine advantage) and jacking up prices when the customer is receiving LESS value with the new OS (it hogs RAM and processor, boasts slower I/O AND is DRM-heavy). Also, they claim that F/OSS is bad because it does not come with a warranty or support. Well, have you ever read the Microsoft EULA? It comes with no support, and warranties and liabilities are EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED.
Where is the value in the backing of a big company again?
My company has developed custom software solutions for customers, one of which is an interesting software registration (Windows activation-like - well, more like Adobe CS's, but about three years before Adobe implemented theirs) architecture. We back these works for higher with a warranty, e.g., if a genuine bug is found, we fix it and issue the fix at no charge. Feature requests, of course, are billable (time/materials, basically the cost of doing business) but we don't waive warranty.
IMHO all software companies should back their products with support and bug fixes. Period. Microsoft doesn't; they downplay the impact of bugs (see yesterday's
Again, where is the value of Windows over F/OSS solutions?
Is it any shock they are requiring you to buy the high-end product to run as a guest OS? Of course not; Microsoft has nowhere to go but down, and they are fully aware of it so they are scramling to profiteer as much as they can before they collapse.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Depends on how you look at it.
:)
If you are a corporate customer, the price tag is nothing for a copy of Vista Business. So corporate customers are not going to have a problem.
For a non-corporate user thinking of a switch to Mac but is scared of needing an occassional Windows application, the extra expense might dissuade from a switch attempt.
Win win if you ask me...
I don't really care. I switched to Mac a few yars ago (from Linux, though; I never used Windows), and I just today orderd one copy of Parallels, and also one copy of WindowsXP -- before MS discontinues it. As I upgrade my hardware over the years, I'll just keep moving the (virtual machine) WinXP image from one machine to the other. Because I use Parallels, the underlying hardware will appear to never change, so WinXP should run "forever", no matter how often I upgrade the actual hardware. So with any luck, I wont ever have to deal with Vista, virtualized or not.
On a separate note, is anyone seeing a spike in retail WinXP sales? Just curious...
Huh? Um... what are the Business users who want this virtualization? Seems to me one of the biggest markets would be consumers who want their desktop computer to be a Mac but still be able to use Windows (especially for games).
~nog_lorp
If you erase your Apple box and install a non-Apple OS on it, I think you are allowed to run an Apple OS in a VM on that box.
Who would want to do that? Me.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Come now, this is silly paranoia. If you don't buy MS stuff anyway, then this has no effect on you. Just ignore it! But the article/summary are themselves silly. Microsoft has put particular requirements on licensing Vista for ANY kind of virtualization. It has nothing to do with Macs. If you virtualize Vista under Windows, you're still supposed to use higher editions. This is the first I've heard anyone claim some kind of conspiracy theory connecting this to a Mac.
I love my sig.
Coming soon to a country near you
Burma's Computer Science Development Law 1996 is a perverse model for
authoritarian regimes to follow in this era of globalisation. Far from
''developing computer science", it inhibits this by establishing extensive
controls on the ownership of computers and computer links. Basically, a
government licence is needed to own a computer and to operate a computer
network. Those deemed to be undermining national security, face 10 years
imprisonment.
This will have to happen here if we are to remain on our current course. There can be no other way.
What?
So if you need to run the business version, that must be more secure. But reality is that it probably has more components and therefore more parts to break.
It's the article writers, submitters, and Slashdot admins. Loaded, misleading headlines and articles--especially ones mentioning Apple--tend to generate the most attention, which gets them lots of ad revenue.
By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
>If you are a corporate customer, the price tag is nothing for a copy of Vista Business.
If I am a corporate customer, the last thing I want to hear from a vendor is that my money they want for their product is "nothing."
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Windows has always been a guest OS - on top of DOS. =) The biggest problem I have with M$ and security is the required reboots after updating. You have no choice in this, if you don't you are nagged to death by the OS or worse rebooted forcibly. The other issue I have is with automatic updates checking for new updates everytime you boot. This goes not just of Windows but for Norton as well. if you are dilligent you can get away turning these off, and updating once a week manually, but for the common user their systems are turned into bricks for the first five minutes of use, because you have X number of programs phoning home, on a network connection that hasn't even come up. I know you can schedule times for updates, but if you miss that time, it checks as soon as you boot. add this, plus the spyware you find on a lot of systems, and you get frustration.
Like anyone cares about user agreements.
One guess - A Linux based operating system with the security extensions that the NSA wrote (a.k.a. SE-Linux). But then (adjusting my tinfoil hat) what other "enhancements" did they make to the kernel while they were dinking around in there? Only saving grace is that it's open source and all my tinfoil hat wearing brethren would be crying foul (or fowl even) if something was amiss.
Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
"They have no business whatsoever to control what one does with their own copy."
Perhaps someday EULA's will be ruled illegal by the courts. In the meantime, they are have as much legal validity as any other agreement. Copyright isn't the only law in play.
It's the US Government we're talking about. The approved OS solution will probably be Prime-OS or something whacked-out supplied by Lockheed-Martin, with all apps coded in ADA-95, or else. If Hollywood starts throwing money around, it'll be MacOS 9, the last version they thought they understood.
the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
it's quite simple, this will be a footnote in history, as MS crackers remove any DRM which prevents it, and release it to the p2p nets.
so.. where is the button to moderate the story flamebait?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Of course not; Microsoft has nowhere to go but down, and they are fully aware of it so they are scramling to profiteer as much as they can before they collapse.
... Microsoft would like to own it. Nothing they've done so far is likely to keep them in the gravy, but taken together, who knows? Never forget that that company wants to have us all by the short and curly so as to extract maximum dollars from us, and they'll do it by any means they can.
Would that were true. Oh, I agree, they're really putting the screws to their customers (changes in the past couple years to corporate pricing and forced upgrade cycles are more obvious examples of that behavior than this VM licensing issue) but Microsoft is not a company to be counted out. Absolutely, I agree, as a dominant monopoly they've achieved such a high degree of market penetration (at least in the U.S.) that they are hard-pressed to keep the growth curve pointing in the right direction and the stockholders happy.
However, what they are doing is scrambling to try and find other means of support, so that when their core markets of Windows and Office do finally succumb to the open source onslaught, they'll be firmly in charge of something else that we can't live without. What that might be I don't know: I doubt Microsoft does, either, at this point. What do you think Microsoft's continual forays into other markets are all about? Television, embedded systems, search, email, Web services, game consoles, MP3 players, you name the market
Don't let the current focus on Windows and Office distract us from what it might be doing in other areas. Microsoft has vast resources and the will to use them.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Umm no, its not 'nothing'.. Agreed its not high in large enough volumes, but its not free. Have you ever dealt with Microsoft on an enterprise volume license agreement before? Sounds like you haven't.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
No, but it does replace a lot of it..
One can argue that bios isnt a true OS anyway. Its only by really stretching the rules is it considered one.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Try running Virtual PC under XP Home. Nope...not supported. So it's not surprising that Vista would be any different.
Specifically, Mac users. That's what I was driving at.
+++ATH0
OK dumb question. What's to stop you from virtualizing the cheapest version of windows vista you can get anyways?
Fuck it right in the ear.
There's a new game in town, greasy emo kid. It's called UNIX. We're here to stay, and no amount of wrist-slicing is going to change that.
+++ATH0
Wow, people really take things literally here... Just saying it is not a lot of money in the scheme of things for a business license. That's all...
Developers are the business users. Mac users are the consumers.
This is the reason why this really IS an MS swipe at Apple.
+++ATH0
You want to run one of the most insecure systems on the market, which also comes with all kinds of rediculous restrictions and deliberately broken features, has shoddy driver support, breaks all backwards compatability, and by the looks of it will be replaced within a few years. You also want to use the version which has had most of the features stripped from it in order to save money ( when there are free alternatives available ). You furthermore want to run this in a virtual machine on a restricted hardware platform... I mean, the virtualization restriction in Vista is lame, but seriously, you're asking for it when you literarely go and hand pick all the worst bits you could possibly find for your system. This is a bit like using software developed in Visual Basic to implement a software based DRM system for selling mediocre songs encoded at 64 bit mp3 using a WEP "secured" network charging your customers using "one click transfer" investing the revenue in SCO stock and basing your offices in the US. Seriously, why not just sell your hardware on e-bay instead, at least that way you get to keep some of the investment...
Do you have a more credible cite for this law? Burma did not call itself "Burma" in 1996.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Actually, yes I have. So if needed a specific item, just buy it. A couple hundred is nothing... Just saying it is not a lot of money in the scheme of things for a business license. That's all...
Most of the time when Microsoft talks about security, they are talking about the security of their income flow from intellectual property. Malware installed in their operating system is a risk to their IP, so they go after malware too, from time to time. But mainly it has to do with protecting their IP, and the income it provides.
When seen in that light, most of their statements about security make perfect sense.
On the other hand, it's their operating system. They can do anything they want with it. Does it have to make sense? Not particularly, since they are effectively a monopoly in that market.
I couldn't agree more. I'm disgusted by every aspect of Microsoft, yet capitalists love to say what a great business model they are. ...still disgusted...
Relocating to San Francisco / Palo Alto... Hire me?
When MS talks about 'security' you have to ask 'Is this security in the computer systems meaning of the word or in the financial security sense of the word?'
In this case its fairly clear that MS is mainly concerned with financial security.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
they are have as much legal validity as any other agreement
In the other words, none. Legal contracts and rental agreements have to be done in a very specific way to be binding, and impose obligations on both parties. Microsoft will not want to get stuck with giving a 30 day notice to terminate rental, give user access to their data in platform-neutral format after eviction, bring Windows in compliance with software building codes...
The assumption is that only corporations will have the desire to run virtualized Windows, and they certainly have the cash to afford to pay extra for Windows. Lots of products have a corporate tax - last minute air fares, flashy hotel rooms, box seats at sports venues, etc. If something seems ridiculously overpriced then chances are corporations have a need for it.
Those aren't Mac users. If you find yourself needing to run Windows, and I can't even imagine why (no Mac port of Dweebinator 2000, perhaps?), then you're what I would consider a PC user in denial.
Make Slashdot readable! See journal.
Can you not use TurboTax? It works just fine on a Mac.
There are online tax solutions, and there's the good old fashioned pen and paper approach. You aren't "required" to use anything. Myself, I use WifeOS to do my taxes, and WifeOS always handles my taxes with the pen and paper approach, this includes the messy self-employment tax schtuff, but WifeOS hasn't had a problem yet!
I love my sig.
the problem is that WifeOS always comes bundled with the hardware, and the hardware doesn't always allow the software to work as the user wishes.
This is part of the license. It's not locked in the software. Who actually bothers to read EULAs anyway? Hell, more damage has probably been caused by publicizing this issue since now some people are going to pay more to feel safer, even though there's no way for Microsoft to actually enforce this policy since a trademark of good virtualization is that the thing being virtualized doesn't know it. I don't know why MS did this, but I severely doubt Bill Gates is hunched in his office, cackling maniacally over a defaced picture of Steve Jobs right now. With the move to Intel, Apple has become a hardware vendor, which Microsoft likes. I know there's been an adverserial relationship there, but I really don't see Microsoft trying to jack up the price of their product just to spite Mac users. That article is sensationalist garbage.
The first post can be Redundant even if it's the first time it's been stated in the discussion. This can happen if it's the same crap we hear in every discussion about a topic (the topic in this case being Microsoft) without adding anything meaningful to the discussion or that has elsewise been discussed to death. I know perfectly well that this definition would make a lot of Slashdot posts Redundant (though a tiny handful being non-Redundant is quite an exaggeration). However, if you look at it, a lot of Slashdot posts *are* redundant anyway, so I don't see that as a problem.
Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
Vista can run in a VM? I didn't think processors were fast enough yet to run a virtual Vista machine.
Yeah, they call themselves Marimar, or something like that. That's not to say that outsideers didn't conntinue to call it Burma. BTW, Here ya go
What?
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 1999 8:41 AM
[...]
Subject: ACPI extensions
One thing I find myself wondering about is whether we shouldn't try and make the "ACPI" extensions somehow Windows
specific.
It seems unfortunate if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works great without
having to do the work. Maybe there is no way to avoid this problem but it does bother me.
Maybe we could define the APIs so that they work well with NT and not the others even if they are open.
Or maybe we could patent something related to this. This is clear evidence that they (at least) considered using patents and deliberately creating incompatibility to hurt competitors, even under the guise of being "open". Don't you think this virtualization pricing thing just might be less a concern about security (?) and more an attempt to do something similar via the EULA?
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
You do know that you can run Internet Explorer under linux? Slashdot covered this a while ago ... - quick and easy to set up, so that takes caree of many sites that require explorer;
Also, many windows programs run just fine under wine, including debuggers, etc.
And there's nothing preventing you from using xp instead of vista when running on a mac, if you're that desperate to get your "fix" ... its not like companies want to switch from xp to vista (quite the contrary).
I think I'll remember government efficiency first. I've known illegal aliens who've driven and have had jobs for years without getting caught. Not to mention drug laws that go ignored. And as a prime example, sodomy laws and laws against vibrators that are on the books yet do nothing.
And besides, it'll be Microsoft and other software/hardware companies that force the upgrade, not the government.
I don't get it.
[/humor]
I laughed at this. It is a bit insightful but it is certainly funny too.
t m
On another note the OS X licence agreement states:
"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. "
So you can't even legally run a normal OS X in virtualization on a PC unless Apple made it. This is a much harsher license if you ask me.
source - http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/MacOSX.h
I sense within you much jealous spirit. Calm you must your feelings. Then only talk we can.
:P
dayo
Isn't Turbo Tax from the company who were installing spyware in your boot sector awhile back? I always use Tax Cut instead because of that.
Microsoft: You need to pay more to run Vista under virtualization.
Slashdot's response: God I hate Microsoft!
Apple: You may never, under any circumstances, on any hardware, at any time, for any reason, ever run OS X under virtualization. Period.
Slashdot's response: God I hate Microsoft!
Microsoft isn't specifically targeting Mac users, they're targeting everyone that does virtualization, which is a pretty sizable group these days. I don't support the practice, but apparently I must point out that Apple is specifically targeting Mac users, and their terms are much more onerous than Microsoft's in this case.
Besides, can't you run the entry level Vista Home with Boot Camp?
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
I bought an OEM copy of Windows 2000 with some hardware awhile back.
I also bought a Toshiba Laptop at a University surplus auction recently. They make a point at that particular auction of saying 'the hard drives are removed or wiped.' This particular laptop had Windows 98 installed on it, and it had the Windows 98 installer CD still in the CD drive. I found it really weird, but heck, I don't mind it, the laptop didn't cost any more because of it (I think it was $10 or $20)
Can't say I'll ever buy another system with Windows bundled, though.
I think I still have a few 'rainbow' Apple stickers from the old Macintosh days. I could slap that on the side of any laptop I wanted to install OS X on.
come the Fuck on ./ how many times are you going to run this bs with the same FUD'd out omg m$ hates da mac users title??
this is a well known story with vista and virtualization there is no fucking need for this
in fact running this over with such as bs slant is kinda pissing me off at this point.
good day.
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
"God, I just really hate people that hate microsoft."
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm not God.
"Running the cheaper Basic or Premium versions would be a violation of their user agreement."
Yea, and we shouldn't rip that sticker off the mattress either.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
That was more than obvious. :P
VMWare would already support virtual OS X sessions under OS X, however VMWare has not done so because of concerns about just this very reason.
Horns are really just a broken halo.
There are many 3D/CG apps out there which come in one version alone; one does not simply shift a workflow overnight. I keep an old Win2k instance (under Virtual PC) around on my PowerMac in case I come across an old file I want to bring into a current project (it's easier to open VPC, fire up Rhinoceros, load the old .3dm file, then export it to .obj - than it would be to completely rebuild a an old proprietary-formatted NURBS-based high polycount-equivalent mesh from scratch). I realize you newbie types aren't familiar with such things, but trust me - it happens.
Finally? If someone coughs up the cash to buy a Mac, then fuck you - he or she is a Mac User, and I for one am more than happy to help any of 'em transit to using OSX primarily when/if they're ready. Same with Linux; if they took the time to install it and learn to do things on it, I don't give a flying shit if they have Crossover, Win4Lin, Xen, Cedega, or old-school WINE running some (or even most) of the apps they still want and/or need... at least they're willing to make the effort, which is a damned sight better than the majority out there.
In short - your bullshit elitist attitude is not welcome. You should've posted AC.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I now have two Macs. They're shiny... pretty... beautiful operating system. Put MS software on 'em? It'll be a cold day in hell. Second thing I do after dragging the terminal applet to the dock is to drag the MS office demo software to the trash can. Microsoft could be offering to pay me to install Windows on my Macs. It still wouldn't happen.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
What's the "Dell penalty" that Apple charges for running OS X on an Inspiron?
If anything, this only shows how Microsoft is far less predatory and monopolistic than Apple.
It's amazing to me the number of posts that A. Say the EULA is unenforceable or B. Say Software licensing doesn't exist, you are actually buying a product, or C. Claim no one abides by the EULA.
In the US, EULA's were given legal weight by Congress a number of years ago, there is a big chunk of Case Law that backs up that congressional action. Second, without EULA applicability the GPL isn't worth a dime as it IS an EULA. You don't sign a contract you don't own the software, you have a license to use it, that license is the GPL. It's no different than anything Microsoft does, except they actually present the opportunity to read the EULA when you run software the first time, how much GPL software presents the opportunity to read the contract you are agreeing to by using the software? Third, the GPL and Microsoft's EULA are nothing more than a contract to use the software, they have different terms, but without that contract you have no legal right to use the software. Again, the GPL and the Microsoft EULA are no different in this respect. Fourth, contract law governs EULA's, if you don't agree to the EULA then you are can't use the software anymore, if you breach the EULA you are liable for Statutory damages or damages determined by a Jury.
The fact is, if you don't like the terms of your license with Microsoft, DON'T USE THE SOFTWARE. If more people voted with their feet and started using Linux exclusively then Microsoft WOULD feel the pinch financially. But when you all act like children claiming you don't have to abide by contracts then no one will take you seriously, as you are acting like nothing more than a spoiled child.
Microsoft included the virtualization clause in Vista for a reason that only they know. But it's part of the contract so if you actually feel you need to abide the law and respect other peoples work then you won't use the versions of Vista prohibited from running in a VM if you intend to run Vista in a VM, and this had NOTHING to do with Apple all you little whiny apple children as the clause doesn't even mention apple. The likely target was VMWare and the other big VM groups.
The mac pro is dual dual-core or dual-quad core
You do know that every time someone starts this whole 'lower UID' business, someone with a four-or-fewer-digit UID who never posts except to flaunt his UID will come in and rain on your parade, right?
... The BSA announces plans for a series of raids to be conducted on a million registered home users of Microsoft Windows Vista to check for violations of the user agreement not to run Vista under virtualization. The raids will begin shortly after the end of a 60 day amnesty period during which users may uninstall their BSD, Linux, or OS X systems and install Vista directly on their PC. "No one ever needs more than one operating system", said Bill Gates in a message left after inquiries for an interview.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
The last company I worked for has some sort of crappy Enterprise web mail for those of us sitting off site. It used Active X controls and seemed to require IE. I didn't research it too much. It was basically an excuse for me to not check my work email... ;-)
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
You mean the one where the Government said Microsoft was guilty of being a monopoly and gave them a slap on the wrist. Yeah, they really showed them who's boss...
I heard about it.
Please tell us about the penalty imposed after the conviction, and tell us how it affected Microsoft's ability to maintain their monopoly and the 85% profit margins which went with being an abusive monopoly.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Why would anyone give a flying fuck what the license agreement says?
How would they even begin to enforce this? Why would I even have the slightest reason to worry about it?
Believe it or not, Microsoft actually cares a lot more about that stuff than it looks like from the outside. I worked for Microsoft for a couple of years when they acquired my former employer, and I was surprised by the extent to which Microsoft beats the security drum. We had a senior programmer on our team whose responsibility was nothing but security and code review.
Do they tend to execute poorly on stability, and especially security, anyway? Without doubt. But believe it or, it isn't because they don't care.
Slashdot's response: God I hate Microsoft!
Apple: You may never, under any circumstances, on any hardware, at any time, for any reason, ever run OS X under virtualization. Period.
Slashdot's response: God I hate Microsoft!
Linux: It's free. Run it on whatever hardware you want. Run as many instances on as many machines as you damn well feel like. Treat it like it's yours to keep.
Slashdot's response: God I hate Microsoft!
Beginning to understand yet?
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
I just don't get why people think "Apple does it" is an excuse. It's still absurd, and most likely unenforceable legally. The only real difference is that, so far, Apple doesn't seem likely to make any real attempt at enforcement, while MS has spent countless man-hours coding trojan horses into their own products to allow them to enforce such terms extra-legally.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Yeah, but trolls will be trolls.
Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
It isn't a penalty on Windows systems normally. Basically under the XP scheme, you had to have a license for each and every VM you had. This could get kinda expensive for doing prototyping and such. With Vista, if you have a system running Vista Business, that automatically gives you the right to install it in 4 VMs running on the host. More or less it is licenced per system, not per instance. So basically it ends up being cheaper and easier for most. I suppose it is more expensive for Mac users, in theory, but then if you wanted to run both a bootcamp copy and a VM copy of XP you technically needed to buy two licenses.
Seems like much ado over nothing to me. MS is (in my opinion) improving their virtualization licensing, but they aren't doing it with their cheap versions. Well, I'm fine with that. Also I haven't checked real carefully, but you might discover that indeed you can run the cheap editions in VMs, you just have to buy a copy per instance and treat it as real hardware.
Our university employment system. If I ever want vacation I need IE. Some Cisco products I must use at work only work with IE. There are real world situations where people are forced to use IE. I'm encountering them less and less, but they do still exist.
Is it to limit liability? The standard end user license agreement already disclaims any liability in case of data loss or corrruption so requiring certain versions of the software to avoid data loss actually seems like a legally weaker argument. It sounds like the operating system was designed with known security holes in it. If someone claimed data loss from running under a virtualized environment, this double standard in the EULA might get a judge to throw it out altogether.
Nope, I'm going to quit while I'm ahead. MS obviously got a silly little span on the wrist - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Micr osoft is a decent read. Sorry, I was wrong. What a joke. :(
Horns are really just a broken halo.
If you need to test an app on Vista then presumably you are developing an app for Windows. If this is true then you probably already have a MSDN subscription. This subscription provides you with MSDN versions of M$ software so that you can have test enviroments to vet your software. This MSDN software comes bundled with its own license so this does not apply anyways.
$diff terrorists hippies
$
$rm -rf *terrorists *hippies
It would be nice to be able to test whether an app works on all versions of Vista without having to have them all on physical boxes.
Same goes for OSX, but alas.
And if you at any point just express the desire to upgrade the hardware - to say nothing of the software - suddenly half your money will be spent on supporting legacy hardware.
Talk about vendor lock-in...
Ignore this signature. By order.
Apple tries to prevent people from using OS X on other hardware at any price. So even if this "Mac Tax" were real, Microsoft would still be treating people far better than Apple does.
...and that also works on a Mac.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
I don't see why they shouldn't charge more for the right (not just ability) to run virtualised on a system. It applies to ALL virtualisation options (VirtualPC, VMWare, not just Macs) and virtualisation is in fact more a business than it is a home user's domain.
So why not tell people they need the business version, and only offer real support for the business version?
As for the security issues of virtualisation, sure.. well.. I can't think of any, but if I could, there are probably issues you could easily skirt around by using the disk encryption features inside the virtualisation (therefore your virtualised disk is not prone to attack from the host OS's myriad bugs and trojans) and other cute features they dropped from the Home and Home Basic edition.
Mac users are paranoid, that's all. Linux users too. Anything that costs more than what came free with their OS is a "rip off". Sorry, but people have to make money, and you guys have to spend it to get all the features.
... so any version of Vista can run on a Mac without any kind of penalty. Only VMs are affected, and then on all platforms, not just Mac. Can we go on or do we really have to repeat this every five minutes?
on all points. Even though I was just playing the same game the troll was for fun. :p I love my C2D MBP and run Windows on it only very irregularly. Don't really need it except to play exactly one game and interface with my phone.
+++ATH0
Actually no. Even if Mac OS X might not be the best operating system, it's hard to say that it doesn't do much other than look "cool". It is in fact a very advanced operating system. What I think most Mac users are thrilled about is that it is finally possible to run Windows at a decent speed on their computers. That doesn't mean that they are switching to Windows, only that they are curious to find out that it works.
why anybody wants to buy a mac and install windows on it still beats me
The fact is that not all agreements are technically contracts and agreements can be binding without any signature required. Unlike your silly false analogy, most people are aware of EULAs before they buy and have the simple remedy of not purchasing a license if they don't like it. As I said before, someday a court may agree with your position but it hasn't happened yet.
Yes, it would be quite amusing if you tried to defend violating a EULA in court and started talking about building codes.
see here: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/85914
It is not allowed to limit the Home edition to phyiscal machines. (at least in Germany, probably everywhere in the EU)
What, you mean the part at the end where MS got off scott free, after they were supposed to endure all sorts of punishments?
See my confession at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=230833&cid=187 38087
Sorry, I was dreaming.
Horns are really just a broken halo.
I'm consistently amazed at how fast slashdotters will rip you for violating EULAs, as they spool up another terrabyte of bittorrent or Usenet music files or while they are watching any one of their 1000 blockbuster movies. The moral issue for me with this would be to buy the cheaper Vista version, take it home, and install it on my Mac. Ok, so I bought it for my pc and with the intention of putting it on my pc...oops I guess something happened between the front door and my PC. Seriously, until they make it NOT WORK, I could care less what the EULA says (for home use). My concern, as a consumer, would be taking the cheaper version home, only to find it doesn't work during the "activation" phase, because I'm violating the EULA. In this case, caveat emptor, mia culpa.
at least they're not Gator corporation.
The usual mac media/hype/blame/pr/fanboy lot are again throwing up a stink over nothing. You are not allowed to Virtualize some editions of Vista, whether it be PC or PC(Mac). Simple as that, its not descrimination, as you mac users aren't Windows users at all it would be stupid of MS to put up extra barriers in your way. BTW this will not count if you are multi-booting, only if your running inside Parallels (on a Mac) or even VMWare (on a PC).
Or those damn proprietary fools at apple... *ducks and runs for cover*
Horns are really just a broken halo.
I even have 6 Apple "White" stickers. Two came with my Shuffle, two with my wifes Nano and one with my iBook G3 (which is long dead by now). So, I can build 6 Apple labelled computers! Sweet! :-D
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Same at my work: vacation requests need to be filled out in an IE only web-application. It's the only thing I use IE for ;-)
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
I think the point was: No matter the subject, Microsoft-hate is the modus operandi for /.
Researcher: We have developed a cure for cancer!
Slashdot: God I hate Microsoft.
Some day, either Apple will someday address the technical and legal issues of virtualizing OS X or they will face the commercial consequences - unlike Microsoft who have a 95%+ monopoly and can give commercial consequences the finger.
I'm sure that VMWare and/or Parallels would be delighted to work with Apple on implementing some safeguards to ensure that it will only run on VMs hosted on Mac hardware - if they see a demand. However, the main reason for wanting to virtualize OS X are:
The last two are the important markets but are "academic" until there is a stable, mature virtualization product for Mac. Personally, I'm happy with Parallels as a way of running Windows apps, trying out Linux distros etc. but, looking at the support forums, I wouldn't trust it for "production" yet. Both Parallels and VMWare are capable of delivering an industry strength product but are, clearly, currently concentrating on the big market, which is a consumer product for running Windows.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
I received an office doc the last week without any checks to see if I had MS Office to open it with. FROM APPLE! Training purchase confirmation no less!
I..was...shocked...
I opened it just fine. In Office. Yes, I hate t too, but everyone in my corp has a copy, just like everyone in every corp it seems.
But, you have to admit, Office is waaay better than Excel! (*end of back-handed compliment*)
Do not mistake understanding for realization, and do not mistake realization for liberation
Has Apple said "never, ever" to virtualization, or is it just that negotiating with Apple over how to do it legally is not on Parallels/VMWare's "TO DO" list (while they're busy racing to grab the lucrative windows-on-Mac market)?
Anway, if you don't like Apple's policy then it is incredibly easy to avoid buying a Mac because Apple do not have a 95%+ monopoly in the personal computer market - the only problem is which alternative you choose because Microsoft have a 95%+ monopoly in the PC market so even if you plump for Linux or BSD you'll find that lots of people take for granted that you can run Windows software.
A lot of good software is Windows only because, what with Microsoft having a 95%+ monopoly in the PC market its quite hard for software houses to justify supporting other platforms.
So, if a demand for virtualized Mac OSX does develop and Apple continue to block it then Apple will lose business. Microsoft, however, have a 95%+ monopoly in the PC market and can get away with all sorts of customer-hostile tricks - forbidding virtualization of the cheaper Vista versions doesn't impact on their income from the "Microsoft tax" on new computers and it doesn't really affect the big, corporate, volume licensing clients much. The people who it affects disproportionately are those using Macs and Linux who need to use a few Windows apps - not only do they (technically) have to fork out for a "full version" of Windows - already 2-3 times the retail price of the OEM version - they now have to buy the most expensive version too (or will do when XP is no longer easily available).
P.S. did I mention that Microsoft have a 95%+ monopoly in the PC market - which is why slashdot (plus the authoriities in every country that has any sort of monopoly/antitrust legislation) apply different standards to Microsoft and Apple.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Since they have control over it, and they are a governmental agency, they can just include "required binary only modules'.
So sure, thats an option.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Almost everything you want about Microsoft, applies to most proprietary software vendors. In Microsoft's defense, at least they don't require a hardware dongle that costs a minimum of $600. Also, the Ultimate and Enterprise versions include rights to use multiple copies of them in a VM on the machine. They may be limiting options to specific versions, but that's what you get when governments demand things.
If 76 Trombones really led the big parade, why did they have anyone else in it?
Punish my karma or not, beside some engineering folks (Read:Autocad), I don't get the purpose of running to Apple.com to get bootcamp and buying/pirating MS OS on Apple.
Why on earth would anyone *want* to run Vista rather than XP virtualised on the Mac? The supposed advantages of Vista, Aero and DirectX 10, won't work well or at all under virtualization, and who needs "protected mode" when you can turn the entire virtual machine into a *real* sandbox. All Vista gives you in a virtual environment is more overhead and inconvenience.
What they mean by "security issues" is "if you run Vista in a virtual environment, you'll be able to intercept our 'secure audio path' and 'secure video path', so we're going to make you pay extra to discourage people from using Vista in a virtual environment to make a digital recording".
Since Apple doesn't produce low end machines we can't do much comparison - but high-end Macs are actually cheaper than Dells with comparable specs. So who's paying more?
Besides we're all Intel slaves now - so the real premium is for the OS and hardware extras. I personally love the fact that my aluminium MBP case comes with stuff like [user programmable] light sensors, Sudden Motion Sensor accelerometer, magnetic trip-safe power connector etc. Other PCs might have some of them (or all) but the package Apple offers is superb. And the second hand value is far better - not to mention that they last longer for most users.
Besides I don't mind paying for Windows if I have to - but I would pay twice that for OS X any day. The only thing the Mac platform is missing is games - and we're getting them now...
"Has Apple said "never, ever" to virtualization, or is it just that negotiating with Apple over how to do it legally is not on Parallels/VMWare's "TO DO" list (while they're busy racing to grab the lucrative windows-on-Mac market)?"
Both companies have made statements to the effect that they've explored the option, but can't do it commercially as long as Apple forbids it.
"Anway, if you don't like Apple's policy then it is incredibly easy to avoid buying a Mac because Apple do not have a 95%+ monopoly in the personal computer market - the only problem is which alternative you choose because Microsoft have a 95%+ monopoly in the PC market so even if you plump for Linux or BSD you'll find that lots of people take for granted that you can run Windows software."
a) OS X is not easier to avoid if you want a Mac, which seems to be the crowd making the most noise over this.
b) You can still dual boot quite easily.
"So, if a demand for virtualized Mac OSX does develop and Apple continue to block it then Apple will lose business."
The demand is already here, people are doing it illegally. It's enormously useful for anyone doing administration (testing patches before they're deployed) or developing software (testing against different OS revisions), on servers (where things are rapidly approaching the point where you can't be taken seriously without it). It does cost Apple business.
"P.S. did I mention that Microsoft have a 95%+ monopoly in the PC market"
I think you may have touched on it.
"which is why slashdot (plus the authoriities in every country that has any sort of monopoly/antitrust legislation) apply different standards to Microsoft and Apple."
Antitrust legislation makes shitty behavior legally actionable in the right circumstances, it doesn't make shitty behavior acceptable for everyone else.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
why the hell would M$ want to inhibit sales of Vista, REGARDLESS of the platform? Hardware is not their domain of interest here (and don't tell me about IntelliMice and Xboxes and Zunes). Parent is absolutely correct. Calm down.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
Also, the cardboard cartons that Apple hardware comes in is ripe for use by case modders. 'Is that an iPod shipping carton you've installed an ITX motherboard in? Are you running OSX on it?'
Mac users can run Vista Home Basic legally all they want, you know. It just has to be the host OS, with OS X as the virtualized client -- not the other way around.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Could you elaborate on what you mean by loophole?
I can imagine that it could be something like XP's license being tied to a physical machine. This could be interpreted as you're allowed to run several instances (virtualisation) of the same OS as long as you do it on the same machine. Am I right?
Well, the correct term is "prefer", not "want".
Look at it logically: If a Mac user can buy a Mac and use virtualization to use the operating system they have to use, then switching has become a little easier.
On the other hand, if a Mac user feels compelled to only run one operating system at a time, then whatever their preferences, they're going to feel compelled to run the OS they have to use all the time. Which means, in practice, people will either pay over the odds, or they'll end up using their Mac to run Windows pretty much exclusively.
What Microsoft wants is for you to use Bootcamp and end up not running Mac OS X at all, or if at all, then rarely. They don't want you virtualizing it. In the long term, they're better off and will get more sales if you buy Windows Vista Basic and use it all the time than if you buy a virtualization-capable Vista, and use it as a migration platform to get away from Windows, by only starting it up when you absolutely have to.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Or they can just use Bootcamp, a boot manager won't run afoul of even the Home Basic EULA.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Actually, it's mostly users of Parallels. It's perfectly within the EULA to install the most basic version of Vista using boot camp.
Now THAT's a big old load of baloney right there. I'm willing to bet that the reason you hate Microsoft has a lot more to do with this: they're big enough and successful enough to make their own rules, and you're not.
But, since you seem to like percentages, let me put it this way: 90% of Linux fanboys would pull 90% of the same tricks as Microsoft does if they had the ability. And then, the same tactics would be justifiable.
-
Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
No, I'm sure that wouldn't happen.
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
This has nothing to do with security. Microsoft wants Windows to be the primary OS on home users computers. They already get the sale of a single-user license but they want more. They want to be able to sell license to prorietary formats that IE, WMP, and the like use to content-provider. For that to be successful, they have to guarantee that the audience is using Windows and the default content applications. If Windows is running as just a guest OS, then they lose the control because the user is probably using other alternatives. The don't need that control with business because delivering content isn't a selling point and they have a good lockin with Office.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
You're wrong, badly wrong, on two counts
1.
- the poster claimed "Neither GPL or BSD put *any* sort of restriction about what you do with the software !"
- Redistribution is something you can do with gpl software - but it IS restricted - you must comply with the restrictions laid down in the gpl.
Or are you now going to claim that redistribution is somehow not something you can do with gpl and bsd software? Even the original posters' "hint that the gpl is a distribution license" implies that there are some "restriction(s) about what you do with the software".2
Think about what you wrote - its probably not what you meant, and its certainly not true, in any country, even the former Soviet Russia, where copyright distributes YOU.
Microsoft isn't supporting the sales of copies of OSX? Heaven forfend!
I don't see anything preventing Mac owners from using the cheaper OEM versions of Vista, though.
-Rich
This is not true. A contract can be considered conditional, in that you can execute provisions of it BEFORE signing it (example, my contract with my employer is required to be returned to them 10 days after my start date. Basically, I begin work with them before returning the contract - during this time I have the right to terminate the employment without notice and be paid pro-rata for the work done over this period). An EULA is similar to this. I can choose to reject the EULA, and return the software for a full refund. If the store says you cannot do this, feel free to quote the EULA which issues the explicit right to return the software for a full refund (I am tempted to test this with a copy of the new Battlefield from EA - I'm pretty sure I would find the EULA on that piece of spyware disagreeable)
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
And the poster was correct. Neither the BSDL nor GPL put any sort of restrictions on what you do with the software. Period, end of story.
Both serve only to give you permission to do things that copyright law prohibit by default. You can twist and turn and torture your phrasing all you want, it's still the truth, and you're still just spreading FUD. And, to return to the actual point which was being made to begin with, it doesn't pretend to or attempt to limit your rights to *use* the software, the rights that copyright law recognises but the proprietary licenses under discussion purport to do away with.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I must point out that Apple is specifically targeting Mac users, and their terms are much more onerous than Microsoft's in this case.
The terms someone stated before were that you can run one copy of the OS, on an Apple-labeled computer.
Right?
Mac users are, by definition, using Apple-labeled computers, so I fail to see how this license is at all onerous (burdensome) to them, unless they want to run OS X within virtualization on OS X, or install some other OS and run multiple instances of OS X simultaneously within virtualization under that... neither of which any more than a vanishingly small minority ever want to do.
It's sort of like the arcane/weird/funny laws on the books some places, banning things that basically nobody ever wanted to do anyway. Illegal to ride your bicycle through a fountain? Help, help, I'm being suppressed!
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
....If I write software or music I own it not you......
No you DON'T own it. It's called CopyRIGHT. That give you certain rights to exclusively COPY or DISTRIBUTE your creation. It does NOT give you any rights as to how the buyer makes USE of it. If I want to listen to your song while sitting on the toilet, there is no way you can prevent that. This license BS only applies to copying and distributing. You may, as copyright HOLDER (not owner) grant your rights to others as you wish. If you read copyright laws carefully, you'd notice that the word owner is not there at all. You don't own your IP either. All that society has done is given you the exclusive right to copy and distribute for a certain amount of time. However even the distribution right you have is limited. If I buy say 10000 copies from you or a legal re-seller, I can distribute these any way I want, subject to a written sales agreement (license) between us. If there is no agreement other than a mere sale, I can do whatever I want with those copies I bought from you.
All theory is gray
Copyright law does NOT do what you said. You wrote:
No matter how much you try to twist and turn, that statement is a total untruth. Just to make sure you don't accuse me of misquoting you, here again is what you said, word for wordEither you really don't have a clue, or you're a troll (and a pretty lame one at that).
Again, I challenge you to find ONE country, just ONE, where "Copyright law prohibits distribution of copyright material and derived works entirely." - your words, not mine. Or did you mis-speak. Or are you going to hide behind a "you know what I meant," imputing that its other people's responsibility to read your mind as well as what you wrote?
Its the same with the question of the GPL and restrictions. The post didn't say "USE" of the software. You keep harping about how "it doesn't pretend to or attempt to limit your rights to *use* the software" which is NOT what the post said ... it went much further. Read it again:
There's a world of difference between using software on your computer, and "no restriction about what you do with the software", which would include not-so-incidental things like redistribution - where the GPL does in fact impose its requirements. The post goes on to contradict itself, acknowledging this in a back-handed way by then saying that the GPL is a distribution license. Distribution is something you do with software, and the statement that the GPL imposes no restrictions on what you do with software is therefore false on its face.So is you broad assertion that the GPL "does not add restrictions - it functions entirely to remove them." Again, your words, not mine. SCO would be very happy to believe that the GPL doesn't impose any restrictions - IBM is countersuing them for SCO's violations of redistributing IBM's copyright GPL material outside of the restrictions imposed by the GPL. Perhaps you're confusing the GPL with the BSD license? The original poster mentioned both ...
Anyway, why not provide some concrete evidence to back up your claims? Where is this mythical country where "Copyright law prohibits distribution of copyright material and derived works entirely"?
The GPL does not prohibit distribution. Copyright law prohibits distribution. The GPL grants permission to distribute subject to certain conditions. It takes nothing away. It only grants MORE than you have by law. That's the bottom line.
Back under your bridge, troll.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I'll say it again - you aren't getting off that easily for trying to BS your way out of it:
You said:
This is SO wrong.
Again, show me ONE country where this is true. Just ONE.
Oh, you can't.
Because you were wrong, but you can't admit it. And yet, after being caught pulling factiods out your rectum, you still have the temerity to post this:
Hmmmm ... methinks the "gentleman" doth protest too much ...
Look, just admit that copyright law doesn't "prohibit distribution of copyright material and derived works entirely" before everyone starts laughing at you. I mean, really, are you still going to persist in claiming something that is so obviously not true? Everyone else here knows about the fair use, first sale doctrine, editorial review, parody as derived work, and educational exceptions, just to name just five off the top of my head. Even ONE exception is enough to show you're wrong.
Again, show us just ONE country where "Copyright law prohibits distribution of copyright material and derived works entirely"
Just.
. one
. . . lousy
. . . . . . country.
Heck, I'll make it easier for you - lets make it one lousy country, county, state, province, city, town, borough, district, or municipality where "copyright law prohibits distribution of copyright material and derived works entirely." Some little backwater of 5,000 people. Out of a population of 6-1/2 billion, certainly you can find one ...
Let's also add that Window on Mac has been a commercial product for many years.. since before Windows XP. In fact Microsoft actually BOUGHT one of the companies that provided PPC support and provided that product for several years with no version restrictios. So, now that intel macs don't need TWO Microsoft products to run Windows, Microsoft wants to jack up the prices to preserve their monopoly status in the OEM market. After all, if Apple users can buy Intel hardware AND legally run 3 OSes that puts Microsoft's OEM contracts in serious jepordy.. remember how they fought BeOS back in 99 when BeOS tried to get installed, for free to any OEM that would have them. With all the press about Apple and Linux, OEMS are chompping at the bit for something else they can't have.
but according to Microsoft's own OEM rules and the EULA for transfering the PC ownership, you were entitled to the version of the Windows OS on the certificate label.
those who want to just run a few windows programs. Right now there's no software that I know of that reqires ONLY windows XP pro that isn't network related. Most programs run in some fashion on the basic windows and I'd assume no software maker would be stupid enough to tie their product to ONLY business or ultimate unless they were arm-twisted into it. Most of those wanting to use virtual windows because they want to only use it sometimes, on the side with their chosen OS Mac OS. Why would I want to pay for anything but the minimum version as I'm doing all my "real" work somewhere else. I could get away with Vista Basic on my home laptop after seeing it.. why would I buy more than I need unless they change the rules?
I'm curious about parallels. They created a version that allows you to run from the Boot Camp installed OS while inside OSx... I wonder how that will work as the OS isn't truly "virtual" and it's on the same licensed machine.
is, of course, Windows Genuine Advantage. (Isn't that name terrible? Perfectly accurate if by "Genuine" your mean "Real" and by "Advantage" you mean "Pain in the Ass." Parallels worked fine with Boot Camp. It even took a second install for the virtual machine version in Parallels. Both authenticated or "sucked up to teacher," or whatever you call it. But then, Parallels came out with the Beta for the version that worked from your boot camp install, and used the coherence trick, so I could now run the CNN player, for example, floating on top of OS X, with no Windows in sight. Yippee. Only-- each time a new Beta arrived, Windows thought it had been installed on a new machine, and started freaking out. Well, four beta versions later, and two phone calls to get the 25-digit number, everything quieted down. Now, I threw away my virtual hard drive and just booted into XP, or ran OS X but kept access to Windows apps from the Boot Camp partition. No additional installs, right? One install runs it all. Good? But then the new VMware for the Mac arrives Mac Fusion Beta, and this too supports boot camp. I hesitated, thinking it might screw up the Parallels boot, but it didn't. I booted right up into Boot Camp in VMWare -- but wait a minute, what's this? You got it: Windows Genuine Advantage thinks I'm moved it to another machine. So I booted into boot camp, and found that I was a button press away from authentication. Panic forestalled. Users should simply not accept this degree of pain in the ass. If y'all crusade about music and movies and DRM, you're just letting Microsoft ream you. This is ridiculous.
The copyright owner can sell me a 'license' to modify (extend) my rights to it regarding -distribution and reproduction- (after all that's what copyright should be all about) of such work, but in no way what I can do with it in the privacy of my own house. It's MY copy and I'll use it for whatever I fucking like.
...OR ELSE FUCKING WHAT?
I asked a similar question the first time this story was reported here on Slashdot, and never did get a satisfactory answer. So, any lawyers or law students out there, or people who've been sued for violating EULAs, please, enlighten us all on this issue.
Say Company X (MS in this case) owns some copyrights and some patents and some trademarks, and some physical equipment and resources and facilities (land). This covers about everything they can legally own - all they can exercise exclusive control over. So, they exercise their right to use their patents in designing some software, exercise their copyrights to create (or pay someone to create) a bunch of copies of that software using equipment they legally own and materials (blank CDs, cardboard and paper for boxes, etc) they legally own in facilities they own or lease, and then market it using their trademarks, in storefronts they or someone else legally owns, on on websites they legally own, etc.
Now, I legally walk into a brick-and-mortal store, or legally go to CompanyXStore.com, and I legally purchase a disc from them, with legitimate money from my legitimate bank account that I legitimately earned, and on that disc I now legally own is a legally-made copy of Company X's software, and I take it back to the home that I own or rent, stick it in the computer that I legally own, launch the installer, and suddenly up pops a whole bunch of legalese which says, in effect, that I may not use their software in such-and-such a way (say, I can't run it under virtualization). And the first thing that comes to my mind is...
Lets see... I own the disc? Check. Copy of the software on it was legally made by the copyright holder or a licensee? Check. I own the computer and all associated hardware it's going on? Check. I own or otherwise legally occupy the place the computer and I are in? Check. I'm not trying to sell anything under Company X's trademarks? Check, I'm not selling anything, I'm just using it. I'm not trying to create anything using a patented technique? Check, I'm not creating anything, I'm just using it.
So on what fucking planet, under what crazy-assed law, am I under any obligation to do what some scary digital note that an installer pops up says? Ooh, watch me now, here I go, I'm installing Vista consumer edition under virtualization(*)... oh there it is, heavens no! Ok Microsoft, come and get me for stealing your property! Wait no, all property concerned here, I own. Oh, so it's copyright infringement? Except you made the fucking copy yourself. Patent infringement? I'll admit I'm a little hazier here, but I'm pretty sure my lawnmower manufacturer, who surely has some patents on their lawnmower designs, can't dictate what type of grass I can mow with the damn lawnmower, so it looks like you're up shit creek here too. Trademark infringement maybe? Except nothing is being traded, and even if it were, I can sell a legitimate MS Windows CD as a legitimate MS Windows CD all I want, so long as I don't try to pawn my own OS off as new MS Windows Omega Edition. So come on, you say I'm not allowed to do this, and now I'm calling you out on it. I can't do that... OR ELSE WHAT? You'll cry? Or write me an angry letter?
(*) Disclaimer - above account is fictional, as I wouldn't touch Windows with a 10-foot pole.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
You can buy WOW for the MAC: store.apple.com
All this 'I can't play games on the MAC' talk sounds like FUD to me.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
New punctuation update "~" (no quotes) at the end of a line to indicate sarcasm. ~
Sounds suspiciously like a 'Mac penalty' cost that Microsoft is trying to justify.
No, it sounds suspiciously like a Mac zealot is under the impression that people only use virtualisation on Macs, and wrote up a misleading propaganda article about it that somehow got accepted.
It was not spyware. In one version (2003 I think) they implemented product activation. The protection was stupidly implemented because of it writing to the boot sector, but it was not spyware.
AFAIK the backlash was such that they moved to a defferent form of protection or did away with protection completely.
People should always buy tax software rather then pirate it since you can deduct it's cost, and you need a real receipt for records.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
Oh, you mean the one where Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, having one of the most winnable atitrust cases in the last fifty years, f*cked the deck by shooting his yap off in court and to the press? The one where he acted so unprofessionally that he gave MS the upper hand in appeals and, by word and deed, made the best evidence against MS unusable in a court of law? Yeah, what about it?
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
I was wrong and you are right. I already made my confession/admission of guilt at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=230833&cid=187 38087
Horns are really just a broken halo.
I knew that when I said goodbye to you and you disappeared it must have been too good to be true. Just can't bear to let anyone have the last word, can you APK?
(Also, "I said X to mess with your head" does rather a piss-poor job of painting someone as a "liar," but I suppose that ship sailed several millenia ago.)
I think I hear your daddy calling, Alex. Better run back downstairs.
+++ATH0
Die in a fire, APK.
+++ATH0
Not a threat. Really. I think you should give dying in a fire a try.
+++ATH0
That does not change the fact you lied about being a woman, by admitting you did lie starkruzr, you nimwit. A liar is a liar once you are branded as one and you did that to yourself.
The sky is red. I AM A LIAR FOREVER OMG
What a dipshit you are. What does the inside of your own asshole smell like, APK? You are the only person I know who would know since you constantly have your head shoved up your ass.
Anyway. What kind of beer should I get for my birthday party on Friday? Just about every hot undergrad chick I know is coming, so, you know, I want to purchase to impress. The ladies do love their lambics, but the damn things are so bloody expensive. Thoughts?
Oh, and you appear to still be banninated from TPU. LOLZ.
+++ATH0
I know that as a narcissist you have no sense of humor, but please at least try to be funny, or I'll have to stop replying to what you say entirely.
+++ATH0
but you're still banned from everywhere you've ever posted. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh, and you're pushing 50 and still live with your dad.
+++ATH0
Big news today..
Linux is still free.
Ubuntu 7.04 was released yesterday!
I'm psyched. I think I might totally blow away XP on this machine and stick it on there. I wonder if it has Beryl enabled by default. Hmmm.
Oh, also, you're an idiot. No one thinks I'm a "liar" other than you.
+++ATH0
especially consistently. See also "APK."
You haven't managed to do anything at all to me yet, APK. What are you going to do? Send threatening letters to MY ISP?
I love how upset I can make you simply by not taking you as seriously as you take yourself. Truly, this is the ultimate in trolling.
BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!!!! APK IS A GIANT LOSER WHO EATS TOO MANY POP TARTS AND LIVES WITH HIS DAD! LOLZ!
+++ATH0
You are.
Alex, I want you to take a moment to think, here. Just construct a thought experiment in your head.
You probably recall that a couple weeks ago I said "goodbye" and you stopped posting in response to me, yes? It could have been finished there, but you chose to resume your silly comments a week later.
Now, ask yourself this: Why would I or anybody else actually believe that a third party could be so profoundly invested in a random, stupid flamewar between two strangers on SLASHDOT of all places that they would actually start attacking ME over me trolling YOU? Why would some random person who "happened" to "stumble" across all these ridiculous conversations take so much of their own time to engage in your usual copy-and-paste rant sessions? Why would random individuals online care SO MUCH about what either you or I said to each other on Slashdot?
Answer: They wouldn't. That, combined with your inability to disguise your writing due to profound mental retardation, is why I know alllll of this has only been you shouting at me and me laughing at you.
You lose again, APK. Checkmate.
X GETS THE SQUARE!!!!!!111eleventyfive!!~
+++ATH0
You failed to address anything I said, because you know I'm right.
You lose AGAIN, APK. This must be getting enormously frustrating for you.
+++ATH0
OK, Alex, here we go:
... are you, like, a MySpace investor or something? They haven't changed one whit since 2002. The developers have been cruising on their existing codebase for 5 years. The social networking features don't work -- as anyone who looks at anyone else's profile and sees "so and so is in your 'Extended Network'" can attest to. The site is in desperate need of a redesign. For an example of social networking done CORRECTLY, see Facebook. Why do you care so much about one offhanded comment about MySpace?
"Okay, seriously. Let's drop the act. Okay? Yes? Let's quit pretending. I am quite male. I only said I was female to mess with your head." - by StarKruzr (74642) on Monday April 02, @08:18PM (#18581257)
We've been over this. Why does it matter again? Why do you keep coming back to this? Are you THAT freaked out by being unable to determine someone's gender online? Recall that YOU were the one who originally suggested I might be female, I just went along with it. You poor, poor insecure little boy stuck in a balding 47-year-old's body.
Are you proud of this, in your being caught as a liar with your own words and also turning up a TOTAL blowhard?
Yes. In fact, Mommy put this entire exchange on her refrigerator!
You also did this kind of critique with no merits and lies towards myspace.com as well, you outright disgusting liar.
Lol, you cry like a beyotch.
Lol, when did I lol cry like an lol beyotch lol?
you with no accomplishments in this field of good note or repute online period, lol
lol absence of evidence is not evidence of absence lol. Look up the definitions of "necessary condition" and "sufficient condition," then come back and try again.
You started this all up Yes? don't try to bullshit anyone reading here I'm not? The only people who have read any of this are you and me, APK, with the exception of whoever modded me down like... three weeks ago. You were also caught lying as well. About something that doesn't matter? Why do you care? How does me fucking around with you by saying I'm female have anything to do with... anything? Did you major in non sequiturs at LeMoyne or what?
Where apk was modded up +4, and you got a lol, -1 for trolling & flaming (which means nothing)
T,FTFY
Now. Let me educate you a little bit on why your "Registry Cleaning Engine" is what we in the computer science industry like to call "fucking worthless."
The Windows Registry, as I hope to God you know since you've written software that edits it, is organized in a tree data structure. Now, even assuming that Windows needed to search through the registry file every time it needed to look something up, the time complexity (i.e., the order of magnitude of how long it takes) of searching through a tree is approximately equal to log(n), where n is the number of entries in the tree. This is VERY, VERY FAST. Linear (n) scans of things are very fast already. log(n) is even faster. Your "Registry Cleaning Engine" removed 300-some-odd entries (on my test box, since I wouldn't put your software on a machine that mattered if my life depended on it) from a file that contains TENS OF THOUSANDS of items. This means that it reduced search time by log(300something). This is maybe a couple clock cycles. MAYBE.
Now, let's get out of the realm of the theoretical and get into real life. The Registry is NOT searched through every time Windows needs information from it. Instead, it is read from the file once, at boot, and loaded into memory into a static data structure which is a hybrid of a tree and an array. Windows keeps index pointers to important information and can do search through the tree for anything it doesn't have pointers to (naturally, the higher the branching factor at any level, the faster the search is). This means your "Engine" is even MORE worthless, because anything impor
+++ATH0
I don't expect anyone to listen to me at all. And no one is. No one is paying any attention to any of this other than you.
Fail, APK. Massive, massive fail.
+++ATH0
You're not fooling anybody, crackbaby.
+++ATH0
Maybe it's because you're a massive antisemite?
+++ATH0
What a schlemiel this APK is! Truly a shandah for the goyim.
-----
Oh. My. God. I can't even tell you how hard I laughed after reading these two insane screeds of yours. Either one of two things is going on here:
1) You're kidding around and trolling, which would be funny all by itself because it REALLY seems like you're serious
2) YOU'RE ACTUALLY SERIOUS, which is possibly the most lol thing I can imagine
You have managed to singlehandedly wipe out any credibility you've ever had, alllll by yourself. And you have the nerve to call ME "paranoid" simply for calling you out on your little case of multiple personality disorder? As a philosopher from the late 40's might say (Daffy Duck, of course), "It is to laugh!" Wow. What are you going to do for your next trick, Alex? Start quoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
Hey, if nothing else, Jews are hot. Come on, APK! Embrace your inner bagel nosh!
Sincerely,
StarKruzr McRubenstein
+++ATH0
I've been busy, but ultimately I couldn't miss out on the potential for lulz.
... how does this have ANYTHING to do with system security? So much for your rebuttal, alleged person-with-an-IQ-greater-than-75.
Briefly, however:
Is this a savings/improvement, or not? Yes it is.
Do you know what the word "negligible" means? That is the kind of improvement your program produces. It is not at all noticeable by the user. There is no change in responsiveness or boot time. Everything is exactly as fast as it was before, for all intents and purposes.
Now - Can you gain anybody that much in a program you wrote that needed NO ALTERATION TO RUN ON Windows 9.x, Windows NT/2000/XP/Server 2003, all the way since the date of its birth back as far as 1997??
Uh, well. Sure. I could write something that looks for unnecessary system services and other things that don't strictly need to run (yes, I know there is no such thing as "services" on Win9x), and turns them off. That would actually be an order of magnitude better than your program. But, see, I know how to use Microsoft Management Console (and how to configure my Mac, and my Linux machine), so I don't need to do that. Because I'm not stupid. The way you are. See?
(In that it cleans up tracks of apps and installers that should not have been left behind and were after uninstalls or programs I used to use and still do, leaving entries of things they accessed that no longer exist on disk - another benefit it offers, albeit in security AND ONE BENEFIT YOU MISSED TOTALLY (so much for your analysis, alleged student)).
I'm kind of sad you didn't try anything else to justify the existence of your stupidly-designed, horribly-written application, because it would have been fun to shoot it down, too.
+++ATH0
"Jews are hot? Yea, when they get tossed into ovens, this is certain (humor)."
I think pointing this out is all I have to say about that.
Sincerely,
StarKruzr DeMalleystein
+++ATH0
An improvement, is an improvement. A gain, however small, is a gain. Nuff said on that account and thanks for seconding it along with its other users noted on its downloads page here
If I paint my car in Teflon to reduce its air resistance, but discover that the decrease in friction is some tiny fraction of a percent, it probably wasn't worth the effort of doing in the first place.
What does this mean?
It means that you are worthless.
you wont even answer if you are jewish or not, I wonder why that is.
Are you for real? This has nothing to do with anything. The fact that you even brought it up makes no sense whatsoever. I'm not going to answer your question because it's irrelevant and you are a tool.
You lose, APK. Again. But you're used to that, aren't you?
As you have committed the final step in your own self-degradation and abasement, I have nothing left to say to you, having successfully exposed you as human filth. Have a great life!
+++ATH0
Fail.
+++ATH0
Fail^2.
You pathetic piece of antisemitic trash.
+++ATH0
Boring. Now that you've revealed yourself as a bigot you can't possibly top yourself.
NOW HEAR THIS, INTERNETS: APK HAS OFFICIALLY JUMPED THE SHARK.
+++ATH0
Fail again, APK.
+++ATH0
you don't see the irony here. That's unsurprising. Narcissists are often incapable of distinguishing subtleties. I mean, hell, look at the president!
+++ATH0
RegFlushKey isn't supposed to be used like that. I'm not even a Win32 programmer and I know that. It's for flushing the write buffer cleanly before exiting a program, not for maintaining coherence between the state of the program and the registry.
+++ATH0
Congratulations on finding isolated verses which show that some Talmudic scholars were assholes.
I can find you verses in the Bible which affirm the goodness of slavery and the subjugation of women. Same for the Q'uran.
The only major world religion that isn't lightly sprinkled with evil is Buddhism, and I'm not even TOTALLY sure about that.
Fail again, APK. Please don't slit your wrists, I'd hate to have your blood on my conscience.
+++ATH0