The biggest part of internet security is paying attention to where you go. I used IE from the day I started using the internet until the day Chrome was released, and in those years, I got a virus/spyware exactly once: by stupidly going to a keygen site my friend suggested, which was full of malware. The rest of the time, I was fine.
This isn't to say that the technology side should be ignored, but if people actually used their damn heads on the internet, it wouldn't matter much at all which browser they used.
What the hell are you on about? First, Windows runs on AMD processors as well. More importantly, though, I don't hold it against Apple that they choose not to make Mac OS for anything but x86 processors, that's reasonable. Picking a processor architecture and sticking with it is fine, but then the OS had better damn well work on any machine with that architecture--which Mac OS doesn't, because Apple arbitrarily chooses to not let it.
And no, Apple isn't developing a "complete experience" or some bullshit justification, they're just a bunch of greedy control freaks. Always have been. There's no real reason for them to restrict Mac OS, they just want to.
The customers want it? My ass. The customers want DRM on media to work. The customers either don't know about the DRM Apple puts on their OS, or care a great deal, because it means they have to use an Apple machine to use the OS.
Apple's customers are either apathetic towards their DRM or actually dislike it, and either way, it hurts their customer... yet Apple continues to DRM their OS up. Their claim of disliking DRM is bullshit.
So, in your world, businesses never go belly-up? Sorry to break it to you, but I could go from here to the opposite wall with names of computer hardware and software companies that didn't make it. Apple was very nearly one of them, back when they were allowing other companies to make Mac clones.
And? The fact that other companies have failed doesn't mean Apple will fail. Other companies have succeeded as well, so if Apple failed in such a market, it would be their own damn fault, not the fault of it being impossible.
You have yet to show an example of Apple lying. Try again.
Are you serious? Wow. You go to great lengths to deny the truth that confronts you. I'll spell it out. Again. Apple has claimed to be opposed to DRM. However, Apple puts DRM into their main product, with no one forcing them to do so, and to their customers' detriment. This makes their claimed opposition to DRM a lie. There is no way around this, they lied, plain and simple. It's not unexpected, or even uncommon, companies lie to make themselves look good all the damn time. That doesn't mean we shouldn't call the lie what it is, though.
What I don't do, is make shit up to bitch about as you're doing.
Lying to make yourself look good is not nothing. And the facts are readily apparent here. If you are seriously prepared to claim that Apple isn't lying when they claim to dislike DRM, you must be the most rabid Apple fanboy yet, because it's in clear contradiction of well-established facts.
Apple would stay in business just fine, just like every other hardware/software manufacturer does. There's nothing unique and special about Apple that would cause them to fall apart in that mode, they just don't want to do it.
Furthermore, you've dragged this so far off-point it's not even funny. Whether or not Apple would be able to cope without their DRM is not my point. My point is that they choose to utilize DRM (to the detriment of their customers, I might add), without being forced. This makes their claim that they dislike DRM pure, unmitigated bullshit... as I said before. I wasn't trying to bitch about Apple tying their OS to their hardware, that's been discussed to death without either side ever saying a word to convince the other. I was bitching about Apple lying to look good.
Wishing doesn't make it so, sunshine. Apple doesn't have the luxury that MS does of getting paid for every unit out the door, whether there's an OS installed on it or not.
MS sold operating systems just fine before they were in the enviable market position they're in now. Apple could get by just fine if they sold their OS and hardware separately.
Grow up.
If you aren't willing to call companies out on their bullshit, and just buy into everything they tell you, you're the one that needs to grow up. Apple's claim is clearly bullshit, and I'm calling them on it. You can protest it isn't, but as you said before, "Wishing doesn't make it so, sunshine."
Apple's primary business is to sell hardware, always has been. The fact that the are willing to sell a new copy of their superior (yeah, I said it) OS to their existing client base, people that own Apple hardware, thereby allowing them an upgrade path (hardware specification willing) to the latest OS. I'm sure it's seen as a "value-add" or at least a way to open a revenue stream from a customer that has already made a significant purchase and may or may-not be likely to spend money on a new machine when their old one will run the latest OS to what is possibly (to them) an acceptable level.
I firmly disagree. First of all, if their primary business was to sell hardware, they'd just sell hardware, and not dick around with an OS. Second, if their primary business was to sell hardware, the OS isn't what they'd push to customers. When you see ads for Macs, you don't see them pushing how great their hardware is, you see them pushing how "great" (yeah, I said it) their OS is. This is the real indicator of what their primary business is. They're in the OS business, and their actions clearly demonstrate that... they're just in denial about what they do.
I'm thankful they originally designed their OS to run on their hardware. If not, who else would have done it? Microsoft? Xerox? Remember back then it was almost inconceivable that anyone would actually want a home computer.
Many people custom-made operating systems in those days, but now, we have achieved interoperability among operating systems and computers (Apple excluded). This is a Good Thing (TM), and while Apple needed to roll their own at the time, they don't need to do so now.
And if you buy a copy of Mac OS you, if you can, should be able to install it on your toaster if you want to -- just don't expect Apple to support it.
I would never expect Apple to support it. I do expect them, however, not to hinder it, which is what they do. I don't even hate them for it because I want to run their OS--I hate their OS, but this is a matter of principle. Companies should be engaged in a win-win business relationship with their customers, not the win-lose relationship that so many companies are fixated on these days.
The fact of the matter is that an Intel Mac offers you the _most_ choices of supported OS'es out there, bar none.
I won't deny that, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple is arbitrarily using DRM to tie one of their products to another. The action makes sense from the perspective of trying to maximize their profits, but it makes their claimed dislike of DRM sheer bullshit (not to mention the fact that I don't think it should be legal to begin with to tie their OS the way they do).
Apple is not required to do such a thing to turn a profit. Other companies that sell hardware do so without tying an OS to it. Other companies that sell operating systems do so without tying hardware to it. Apple's use of DRM is in no way required to turn a profit. It is strictly optional, and thus, their proclaimed dislike of DRM is hypocrisy.
Well, I don't know about other countries, but in the US, at least, you'll go to jail for not paying taxes. Jail isn't death, but it is the threat of force to get you to do something.
You can't run Mac OS on a non-Apple machine without stripping the DRM. This is well-known. Just because it doesn't involve media doesn't make it less DRM. If any media company tried to tell you that you could only play their media on their hardware, because they arbitrarily decided it should be that way, people would rightly call it DRM. So, too, should it be called DRM when Apple pulls the same bullshit.
Apple is a hardware company. Were you gone that day?
Not when they make an OS, they're not. They're in the OS and the hardware business, and they choose to tie their products together with DRM. And if they're in the hardware business, how come all their advertisements for their computers aren't actually for the computers, but how much better their OS is? Right, because they only claim to be in the hardware business, but that claim is only part of the truth.
Apple did not invent DRM and OS X is not copy-protected. You can copy it a zillion times and install it with no problems, activation, etc. to any supported Apple computer in existence an unlimited number of times.
And? The point is Apple puts DRM on their OS. This flies directly in the face of the claim that they dislike DRM. If they disliked it, they wouldn't actively choose to use it.
I never said a damn thing about the music. I'm talking about the OS. No one is forcing them to put DRM on Mac OS, they choose to do it. As I said, if they disliked DRM so damn much, they wouldn't DRM their own product. I can at least forgive enabling the media companies' DRM: the media companies hold the keys, unfortunately, and it just harms the consumer if Apple tries to hold out on that. But no media company forces Apple to DRM Mac OS, they do it of their own volition... disproving the claim that they dislike DRM.
If they don't like it, then they can stop putting it in of their own volition. I'm not talking about media DRM, I'm talking about the damn DRM they put on the OS. There is no excuse for that, they want to put that in there, or else it wouldn't be in there.
The DRM I was speaking of was the measures Apple takes to try to keep you from running OS X on a non-Apple machine. They do that of their own free volition, yet claim to dislike DRM. It's sheer hypocrisy.
Interesting point of view, but I don't think that applies to Apple. In the case of taxes, there is more or less a gun held to your head that forces you to do such a thing. Not so with Apple.
Is this the deal they had to make to get NBC back?
It seems likely enough to me. I guess I have no proof either way, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least to find that this was NBC's idea.
Is this a deal breaker for Apple?
No.
Will fans just ignore it to get their hands on the pretty new machines?
Yes. Just like they always do.
Is this a new opportunity for Linux?
No, since it won't hurt Apple.
And what happened to Jobs not liking DRM?
Nothing. That was a lie then, and is still a lie. Apple puts DRM in their flagship product, and you actually believe them when they spout bullshit about disliking DRM?
If you are saying one is better than the other, I think that's just wrong either way - you definitely need a balance of both.
Time to kill my own joke... I wasn't saying any one was better. If the submitter hired more 23-year-olds, that would increase my chances of finding a job, hence the joke.
"Here's a completely unsupported idea - disprove it people! If you can't my unsupported idea is true,"
The GP didn't say this. Moreover, while many Christians are guilty of this, many atheists are guilty of the equally ludicrous "Here's an idea that I don't believe is true (but can't disprove)! Unless you can prove it, it's 100% false!". Until something is proved or disproved, its status remains in limbo, and those who try to push it in either direction without proof are morons.
And? My point isn't that it was unconscionable for the scientists of the day to hold that the earth was flat. My point is that if you hold it against the preachers that their claims have changed as our understanding of the world changed, so too must you hold the same thing against the scientists. Be consistent.
And scientists used to be positive that the earth was flat, so by your implied logic, we shouldn't listen to those morons today either. This just in: people refine their ideas about our universe as their understanding of the universe changes. More at 11.
Slashdot Mirror
The biggest part of internet security is paying attention to where you go. I used IE from the day I started using the internet until the day Chrome was released, and in those years, I got a virus/spyware exactly once: by stupidly going to a keygen site my friend suggested, which was full of malware. The rest of the time, I was fine.
This isn't to say that the technology side should be ignored, but if people actually used their damn heads on the internet, it wouldn't matter much at all which browser they used.
What the hell are you on about? First, Windows runs on AMD processors as well. More importantly, though, I don't hold it against Apple that they choose not to make Mac OS for anything but x86 processors, that's reasonable. Picking a processor architecture and sticking with it is fine, but then the OS had better damn well work on any machine with that architecture--which Mac OS doesn't, because Apple arbitrarily chooses to not let it.
And no, Apple isn't developing a "complete experience" or some bullshit justification, they're just a bunch of greedy control freaks. Always have been. There's no real reason for them to restrict Mac OS, they just want to.
The customers want it? My ass. The customers want DRM on media to work. The customers either don't know about the DRM Apple puts on their OS, or care a great deal, because it means they have to use an Apple machine to use the OS.
Apple's customers are either apathetic towards their DRM or actually dislike it, and either way, it hurts their customer... yet Apple continues to DRM their OS up. Their claim of disliking DRM is bullshit.
So, in your world, businesses never go belly-up? Sorry to break it to you, but I could go from here to the opposite wall with names of computer hardware and software companies that didn't make it. Apple was very nearly one of them, back when they were allowing other companies to make Mac clones.
And? The fact that other companies have failed doesn't mean Apple will fail. Other companies have succeeded as well, so if Apple failed in such a market, it would be their own damn fault, not the fault of it being impossible.
You have yet to show an example of Apple lying. Try again.
Are you serious? Wow. You go to great lengths to deny the truth that confronts you. I'll spell it out. Again. Apple has claimed to be opposed to DRM. However, Apple puts DRM into their main product, with no one forcing them to do so, and to their customers' detriment. This makes their claimed opposition to DRM a lie. There is no way around this, they lied, plain and simple. It's not unexpected, or even uncommon, companies lie to make themselves look good all the damn time. That doesn't mean we shouldn't call the lie what it is, though.
What I don't do, is make shit up to bitch about as you're doing.
Lying to make yourself look good is not nothing. And the facts are readily apparent here. If you are seriously prepared to claim that Apple isn't lying when they claim to dislike DRM, you must be the most rabid Apple fanboy yet, because it's in clear contradiction of well-established facts.
Apple would stay in business just fine, just like every other hardware/software manufacturer does. There's nothing unique and special about Apple that would cause them to fall apart in that mode, they just don't want to do it.
Furthermore, you've dragged this so far off-point it's not even funny. Whether or not Apple would be able to cope without their DRM is not my point. My point is that they choose to utilize DRM (to the detriment of their customers, I might add), without being forced. This makes their claim that they dislike DRM pure, unmitigated bullshit... as I said before. I wasn't trying to bitch about Apple tying their OS to their hardware, that's been discussed to death without either side ever saying a word to convince the other. I was bitching about Apple lying to look good.
Wishing doesn't make it so, sunshine. Apple doesn't have the luxury that MS does of getting paid for every unit out the door, whether there's an OS installed on it or not.
MS sold operating systems just fine before they were in the enviable market position they're in now. Apple could get by just fine if they sold their OS and hardware separately.
Grow up.
If you aren't willing to call companies out on their bullshit, and just buy into everything they tell you, you're the one that needs to grow up. Apple's claim is clearly bullshit, and I'm calling them on it. You can protest it isn't, but as you said before, "Wishing doesn't make it so, sunshine."
Apple's primary business is to sell hardware, always has been. The fact that the are willing to sell a new copy of their superior (yeah, I said it) OS to their existing client base, people that own Apple hardware, thereby allowing them an upgrade path (hardware specification willing) to the latest OS. I'm sure it's seen as a "value-add" or at least a way to open a revenue stream from a customer that has already made a significant purchase and may or may-not be likely to spend money on a new machine when their old one will run the latest OS to what is possibly (to them) an acceptable level.
I firmly disagree. First of all, if their primary business was to sell hardware, they'd just sell hardware, and not dick around with an OS. Second, if their primary business was to sell hardware, the OS isn't what they'd push to customers. When you see ads for Macs, you don't see them pushing how great their hardware is, you see them pushing how "great" (yeah, I said it) their OS is. This is the real indicator of what their primary business is. They're in the OS business, and their actions clearly demonstrate that... they're just in denial about what they do.
I'm thankful they originally designed their OS to run on their hardware. If not, who else would have done it? Microsoft? Xerox? Remember back then it was almost inconceivable that anyone would actually want a home computer.
Many people custom-made operating systems in those days, but now, we have achieved interoperability among operating systems and computers (Apple excluded). This is a Good Thing (TM), and while Apple needed to roll their own at the time, they don't need to do so now.
And if you buy a copy of Mac OS you, if you can, should be able to install it on your toaster if you want to -- just don't expect Apple to support it.
I would never expect Apple to support it. I do expect them, however, not to hinder it, which is what they do. I don't even hate them for it because I want to run their OS--I hate their OS, but this is a matter of principle. Companies should be engaged in a win-win business relationship with their customers, not the win-lose relationship that so many companies are fixated on these days.
The fact of the matter is that an Intel Mac offers you the _most_ choices of supported OS'es out there, bar none.
I won't deny that, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple is arbitrarily using DRM to tie one of their products to another. The action makes sense from the perspective of trying to maximize their profits, but it makes their claimed dislike of DRM sheer bullshit (not to mention the fact that I don't think it should be legal to begin with to tie their OS the way they do).
Apple is not required to do such a thing to turn a profit. Other companies that sell hardware do so without tying an OS to it. Other companies that sell operating systems do so without tying hardware to it. Apple's use of DRM is in no way required to turn a profit. It is strictly optional, and thus, their proclaimed dislike of DRM is hypocrisy.
Well, I don't know about other countries, but in the US, at least, you'll go to jail for not paying taxes. Jail isn't death, but it is the threat of force to get you to do something.
You can't run Mac OS on a non-Apple machine without stripping the DRM. This is well-known. Just because it doesn't involve media doesn't make it less DRM. If any media company tried to tell you that you could only play their media on their hardware, because they arbitrarily decided it should be that way, people would rightly call it DRM. So, too, should it be called DRM when Apple pulls the same bullshit.
Apple is a hardware company. Were you gone that day?
Not when they make an OS, they're not. They're in the OS and the hardware business, and they choose to tie their products together with DRM. And if they're in the hardware business, how come all their advertisements for their computers aren't actually for the computers, but how much better their OS is? Right, because they only claim to be in the hardware business, but that claim is only part of the truth.
Apple did not invent DRM and OS X is not copy-protected. You can copy it a zillion times and install it with no problems, activation, etc. to any supported Apple computer in existence an unlimited number of times.
And? The point is Apple puts DRM on their OS. This flies directly in the face of the claim that they dislike DRM. If they disliked it, they wouldn't actively choose to use it.
I never said a damn thing about the music. I'm talking about the OS. No one is forcing them to put DRM on Mac OS, they choose to do it. As I said, if they disliked DRM so damn much, they wouldn't DRM their own product. I can at least forgive enabling the media companies' DRM: the media companies hold the keys, unfortunately, and it just harms the consumer if Apple tries to hold out on that. But no media company forces Apple to DRM Mac OS, they do it of their own volition... disproving the claim that they dislike DRM.
If they don't like it, then they can stop putting it in of their own volition. I'm not talking about media DRM, I'm talking about the damn DRM they put on the OS. There is no excuse for that, they want to put that in there, or else it wouldn't be in there.
The DRM I was speaking of was the measures Apple takes to try to keep you from running OS X on a non-Apple machine. They do that of their own free volition, yet claim to dislike DRM. It's sheer hypocrisy.
Dear Apple fanboy:
If Jobs didn't like DRM, he wouldn't put it in his OS just to arbitrarily tie it to his hardware.
Apple has been putting DRM in Mac OS for years. Any claim they don't like DRM is pure, unmitigated bullshit.
Interesting point of view, but I don't think that applies to Apple. In the case of taxes, there is more or less a gun held to your head that forces you to do such a thing. Not so with Apple.
Is this the deal they had to make to get NBC back?
It seems likely enough to me. I guess I have no proof either way, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least to find that this was NBC's idea.
Is this a deal breaker for Apple?
No.
Will fans just ignore it to get their hands on the pretty new machines?
Yes. Just like they always do.
Is this a new opportunity for Linux?
No, since it won't hurt Apple.
And what happened to Jobs not liking DRM?
Nothing. That was a lie then, and is still a lie. Apple puts DRM in their flagship product, and you actually believe them when they spout bullshit about disliking DRM?
If you are saying one is better than the other, I think that's just wrong either way - you definitely need a balance of both.
Time to kill my own joke... I wasn't saying any one was better. If the submitter hired more 23-year-olds, that would increase my chances of finding a job, hence the joke.
As a 23-year-old IT professional, I strongly recommend you interview more of them. ;)
"Here's a completely unsupported idea - disprove it people! If you can't my unsupported idea is true,"
The GP didn't say this. Moreover, while many Christians are guilty of this, many atheists are guilty of the equally ludicrous "Here's an idea that I don't believe is true (but can't disprove)! Unless you can prove it, it's 100% false!". Until something is proved or disproved, its status remains in limbo, and those who try to push it in either direction without proof are morons.
And? My point isn't that it was unconscionable for the scientists of the day to hold that the earth was flat. My point is that if you hold it against the preachers that their claims have changed as our understanding of the world changed, so too must you hold the same thing against the scientists. Be consistent.
So? It's also what well-practiced use of language is. Saying that's what religious belief is doesn't alter my point.
And scientists used to be positive that the earth was flat, so by your implied logic, we shouldn't listen to those morons today either. This just in: people refine their ideas about our universe as their understanding of the universe changes. More at 11.