Because it legally runs a supported copy of OS X. Clearly you do not think it is worth the money, so you are free to not buy it and run Linux or windows on a vanilla PC. Having used both, and having maintained PCs with both Windows and Linux on them for 15+ years, I believe it *is* worth that much.
Apple OS X upgrades are like paying software maintenance. If you steal a car, and then pay for servicing, it does not make theft of the car OK. Similarly, not paying for apple hardware to run the apple software on deprives apple of their revenue stream - and it is not OK.
Another example... are you saying that if I (for example) take a copy of say, Lord of the Rings, and photocopy/re-bind it with a different cover, that I am all good and its totally fair to the official publisher? because work/R&D wise, its probably about the same level of effort involved.
Oh, and the reason Microsoft EULAs come under flack - is because they're typically a click through on PC start up, with NO REFUND possible after having used/activated the software. This is why the microsoft preinstalled OS refund thing was such a big deal a couple of years ago.
I cbf re-typing it again: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1444114&cid=30103914. Legally, it could well have been Psystar's CUSTOMERS being liable. I'm glad the court saw fit to punish the company who was misleading users into breaking the license agreement, and trying to make money out of it.
Did psystar REALLY think pulling this shit was a sustainable business model?
whether you like apple or not - what psystar was doing was effectively taking all of apple's R&D, and selling it for peanuts having done very little actual work of their own.
OS X is not "on sale" for $29 for anyone to use on any hardware. The software license explicitly states:
A. Single use. This license allows you to instal, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labelled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.
Its pretty fucking clear about what you can and can't do with it. If you do not agree with the license, you are entitled to a full refund upon return of the software, from your place of purchase.
My bet is that Psystar were hoping that this license would make their CUSTOMERS accountable, as THEY would be the ones clicking through the license agreement and ignoring it. Good on the court for holding Psystar accountable, and not forcing apple to start going after hobbyist users who are running OS X on their PCs.
except it doesn't just work like the mac. yet. whilst the mac interface has remained pretty consistent since 2001, and hardware "just works", the linux desktop is continually changing for no good reason, introducing severe breakage and usability degradation in the process (eg, KDE 3.5 vs 4).
Don't get me wrong, linux, bsd, etc are good things, but until people pull their heads out of their arses and focus on making things "just work" rather than "ooh shiny", linux will continue to be a pain in the arse to maintain and get things done on.
I say that as a guy who was a die hard "linux on the desktop" user between 1996 and 2004 or so. Its just not there yet and I don't see any real progress in many areas that matter.
I like the unix shell. I like hardware to "just work" so i can get on with other things. Hence, i've switched to OS X.
If the free desktop can maintain a stable API for a few years, and actually get it to work as advertised in a consistent and bug-free manner, i'll be sold, but until then i have better things to do than root around trying to get the new beta version of package XXX to work with the rest of the stuff on my system because i want to use one obscure feature.
This is not CSS. This is the same as allowing people to upload any javascript to your site and the embedding it in your webpage for users to run. If it was an EXE file, a perl script, a java applet or whatever - it would have the same result. Its not a flash problem. Its a web-app problem.
Its not adobe's problem to fix. If you allow users to upload executable content to your web-server, and then have your web-app present that un-sanitized executable content to other users, you're a fucking idiot.
I read that to mean "i can execute scripts in the security context of your domain on the client's browser". E.G. - you have foosite.com as a site trusted to run active content - some guy can upload a malicious flash object and it will run as if authored/published by the website owner in you browser as a trusted site object. My server for example, has no flash installed, so how is a flash object going to run there?
Allowing users to upload flash is fucking retarded anyway. Its like allowing users to upload any javascript or activeX object they like, and then having your user's browsers execute it.
This isn't a flash problem - its an active content problem - flash just happens to be the most common, easy to abuse active content provider out there that people actually trust to run (but shouldn't).
OS X doesn't run on my Powerbook either. I think i'll bitch and complain to apple about it. What do the system requirements on the box say? I'm guessing it is "An apple XXX with YYY mb ram"? If your system doesn't fulfill the requirements ("apple macintosh" being one of the requirements), then don't be shocked that it doesn't work.
If you can get in house technical support available 24x7 that has the programmers of the product on hand to deal with it in a timely fashion, sure - go for it.
and with all the "M$ is evil!" fanbois here continually claiming that UAC is nothing like sudo - they've even got some (albeit) flimsy support for their claim.
Slashdot Mirror
So they're following the lead set by KDE with KDE 4.x vs 3.x?
Imagine you bought a GM engine management unit from their spares department, and then used it to power your own models of car, after hacking on it.
I'm quite certain GM would be quite pissed at you.
Because it legally runs a supported copy of OS X. Clearly you do not think it is worth the money, so you are free to not buy it and run Linux or windows on a vanilla PC. Having used both, and having maintained PCs with both Windows and Linux on them for 15+ years, I believe it *is* worth that much.
I reckon they were betting on their customers being legally liable for the fall-out. Nice folks, it would appear...
Another example... are you saying that if I (for example) take a copy of say, Lord of the Rings, and photocopy/re-bind it with a different cover, that I am all good and its totally fair to the official publisher? because work/R&D wise, its probably about the same level of effort involved.
Oh, and the reason Microsoft EULAs come under flack - is because they're typically a click through on PC start up, with NO REFUND possible after having used/activated the software. This is why the microsoft preinstalled OS refund thing was such a big deal a couple of years ago.
I cbf re-typing it again: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1444114&cid=30103914. Legally, it could well have been Psystar's CUSTOMERS being liable. I'm glad the court saw fit to punish the company who was misleading users into breaking the license agreement, and trying to make money out of it.
whether you like apple or not - what psystar was doing was effectively taking all of apple's R&D, and selling it for peanuts having done very little actual work of their own.
OS X is not "on sale" for $29 for anyone to use on any hardware. The software license explicitly states:
Its pretty fucking clear about what you can and can't do with it. If you do not agree with the license, you are entitled to a full refund upon return of the software, from your place of purchase.
My bet is that Psystar were hoping that this license would make their CUSTOMERS accountable, as THEY would be the ones clicking through the license agreement and ignoring it. Good on the court for holding Psystar accountable, and not forcing apple to start going after hobbyist users who are running OS X on their PCs.
someone please enlighten me as to why teh mayan calendar running out is a problem? didn't we run out of mayans ages ago?
Don't get me wrong, linux, bsd, etc are good things, but until people pull their heads out of their arses and focus on making things "just work" rather than "ooh shiny", linux will continue to be a pain in the arse to maintain and get things done on.
I say that as a guy who was a die hard "linux on the desktop" user between 1996 and 2004 or so. Its just not there yet and I don't see any real progress in many areas that matter.
I like the unix shell. I like hardware to "just work" so i can get on with other things. Hence, i've switched to OS X.
If the free desktop can maintain a stable API for a few years, and actually get it to work as advertised in a consistent and bug-free manner, i'll be sold, but until then i have better things to do than root around trying to get the new beta version of package XXX to work with the rest of the stuff on my system because i want to use one obscure feature.
Then your content checking in your web-app is broken.
This is not CSS. This is the same as allowing people to upload any javascript to your site and the embedding it in your webpage for users to run. If it was an EXE file, a perl script, a java applet or whatever - it would have the same result. Its not a flash problem. Its a web-app problem.
AC needs modding up...
Its not adobe's problem to fix. If you allow users to upload executable content to your web-server, and then have your web-app present that un-sanitized executable content to other users, you're a fucking idiot.
Wrong. See: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1441958&cid=30081730
Allowing users to upload flash is fucking retarded anyway. Its like allowing users to upload any javascript or activeX object they like, and then having your user's browsers execute it.
This isn't a flash problem - its an active content problem - flash just happens to be the most common, easy to abuse active content provider out there that people actually trust to run (but shouldn't).
OS X doesn't run on my Powerbook either. I think i'll bitch and complain to apple about it. What do the system requirements on the box say? I'm guessing it is "An apple XXX with YYY mb ram"? If your system doesn't fulfill the requirements ("apple macintosh" being one of the requirements), then don't be shocked that it doesn't work.
a UPS does not protect against CPU/motherboard/ram hardware failure. This sort of HA does.
If you can get in house technical support available 24x7 that has the programmers of the product on hand to deal with it in a timely fashion, sure - go for it.
and with all the "M$ is evil!" fanbois here continually claiming that UAC is nothing like sudo - they've even got some (albeit) flimsy support for their claim.
And if downtime costs you 100k/hr, its a bargain. The support is also excellent, which is worth the price of admission, if FT is important to you.
+1 to this. And vmware support is *actually good*.
beaten. ESX 4.0 has vmware FT, and "lockstep" is patented i believe...
... is google evil this week, or not?
Buy a mini then - they come with the iphone dev tools and can compile iphone apps just fine.