You are right, the illegal thing being done is *copying* the software, whether they modified it or not.
How do you figure? By every account I've read, Psystar is buying copies of OS X and installing them. Each of their customers is getting their own boxed copy of legally-purchased OS X.
However, I don't believe Apple should be responsible for supporting their OS on another manufacturers hardware (that responsibility would fall on the manufacturer distributing the system) either.
Yep. They could do something like offer free support only to the initial retail purchaser of the product, which would continue coverage to pretty much 100% of the current users.
It just seems to me that if I purchase a license to an OS I should be able to do whatever I want with that OS as long as I do not violate copyright. Who is Apple to tell me that even though I purchased their software I cannot use it because I did not purchase their hardware?
Amen. Ford doesn't tell me what I'm allowed to do with their cars, and neither should Apple get to tell me what I can do with their software.
Preemptive note to the inevitable reading-impaired visitor: we're talking within the extent of copyright law. Some idiot always wants to come along and say that I think it's OK to upload it to Pirate Bay.
And being that OS X doesn't have drivers for all the different platform options and the hardware makers already grudgingly make the drivers for Microsoft. Will make OS X run more unstable and flakier then Windows. Thus having Apple to loose a competitive advantage.
And being that BMW doesn't have engine mounts for all the different car options and the automotive makes already grudgingly make mounts for their own engines. Will make BMW run more unstable and flakier than Ford. Thus having BMW to loose a competitive advantage.
I think Apple could kill the clone industry with a couple of commercials: "Do you buy a Ford to get a BMW engine? Then why buy a Dell to get OS X?"
How many times have I been pulled over for bullshit reasons?
If it makes you feel any better, I'm (almost pasty) white and I've been pulled over for stupid reasons, too. There are plenty of equal opportunity jerks.
They are illegally altering an existing, copyrighted product.
It is not inherently illegal to modify a copyrighted product. I can buy a book, use correction tape a sharpie to re-write parts I don't like, and re-sell it. This is allowed. What makes OS X special in this regard?
There are software checks in OSX to verify the hardware is Apple's, which means that Psystar would have to patch OSX to bypass those checks, and then distribute the modified code as their own OS.
Ignoring the sadly broken state of copyright law, can anyone present an argument why that would be ethically or morally wrong? They're not presenting it as their own OS, any more than a car customizer presents a modified BMW as their own design. In the latter, customers are buying a patched version of vehicle covered by who knows how many patents or copyrights, but no one seems to claim this is bad. What's the difference in patching OS X (again, ignoring weird ideas like EULAs) as long as Psystar buys each and every copy that they redistribute?
which might help to explain why a major law firm would take on what seems like a fly-by-night's case
I have no interest in Psystar's products but that doesn't mean they're illegitimate. The biggest allegation I've heard on Slashdot is of them pirating OS X, but I've seen no proof that they've sold more copies than they've bought. I don't get the double standard of why Compaq's cloning of the PC was good while Psystar's cloning of the Mac is bad, other than Steve's reality distortion field.
Yeah, that's all good and funny until some old person really DOES reach for an inhaler.
Well, the idea is that you'd only give them to people competent to actually own them. Joe Alzheimer's doesn't need to pack, but Bob Brokenhip might be perfectly capable of handling one safely.
It's kind of like the phrase "rule of thumb" which originally referred to the practice of being legally allowed to beat your wife with a stick no thicker than your thumb.
No, that's not what it meant, which goes exactly back to my original premise. People look for reasons to be offended by things that are not inherently offensive, apparently for the sake of being righteously offended.
What this means for you is that every time you've heard someone use that term in your life they are, most likely without knowing it, making racists statements just like the comment you replied to suggested.
That is utter bullshit. Racism does not exist without intent, at least at the subconscious level. Look at a list of ethnic slurs. Does your wife shop Ann Taylor? Bought anything by Apple? Like to eat brownies? Look at a celestial map? Ever chug a beer? Play eight ball? Drink gin? Each of those contains a word that some jackass or another is bound to find offensive in any context.
Tony Snow obviously and clearly did not mean that he did not "want to hug [a black child] of trying to comment on the program", and neither does Apple Computer mean to disparage American Indians. I ate an Oreo yesterday, but if you draw racist undertones from that or any of the other examples, then the problem is yours and not mine.
I agree with your larger point, I'm just flabbergasted that you'd never heard tar-baby in a racist context.
Not even once, and that's with growing up in a relatively southern state. I had to look it up to know what it was even supposed to mean (outside the Uncle Remus metaphor).
I'd prefer not to, thanks. The bigger point is that even if a small group of people co-opts a term, society doesn't automatically discard it. Even if PETA uses "meat" as a deliberate epithet, I'll still eat it and find it tasty.
There's latent racism. It's in no way malignant. It's when someone honestly doesn't think about races or and differences between them, but they can accidentally say something stupid or offensive. Like when Tony Snow made his "tar baby" comment.
There's also "invented racism", like then people got worked up over Tony Snow's use of "tar baby". I have never, not once, heard that used as a racial epithet. Instead, I'd always heard it used exactly like Snow meant it: as a metaphor to the Uncle Remus story. It never would have occurred to me that someone could have interpreted that any other way. Same with "niggardly" which was never racist until someone decided to be offended by it.
1) Provider A must give provider B at least X days notice of intent to depeer (say 180 days)
If that's law, then provider B gets free unlimited bandwidth for 6 months every time they decide not to renew a contract. If the law says you have to take my traffic, then you'll be handling roughly 100% of it until the legal period is over.
For extra credit, try wording the law to include an objective definition of "abuse of the intent of the agreement" that would allow provider A to depeer more quickly, but only under those abusive conditions.
For double-extra credit, write the rationale which provider A will always use to demonstrate those conditions, thereby mooting the original law.
Originally developed at the University of California, Berkeley, the BSD distribution is the foundation of most UNIX implementations today. Mac OS X Server is based largely on the FreeBSD distribution and includes the latest advances from this development community.
While that doesn't mean they don't also inherit from other sources (and explicitly mention the Mach kernel in the same paragraph), they speak rather highly of their FreeBSD lineage.
Arguing Apple is stupid because it cannot grab 10% market share in the computer market makes just as much sense as arguing Rolex is stupid because it cannot grab 10% market share in the watches market, or Porsche is stupid because it cannot grab 10% market share in the cars market. Problem is - do these companies need to?
While I don't disagree with your premise, that's not a good analogy. Cars are pretty much completely standardized: you can buy gas for your Porsche anywhere, have its oil changed at almost any shop, and drive on any road. This is largely because there are so many brands of cars and each car is designed to these standards. Now, imagine if Ford recently had a 95% market share. Would it be easy to buy non-Ford tires or a gas formulation that Ford cars didn't need?
So in that sense, yes, Apple needs market share to remain viable. Without it, no one will write Mac software or make sure their peripherals are Mac-compatible, and lacking software and peripherals no on will want to buy a Mac. They've fought long and hard to overcome those obstacles and reach a sustainable point.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right, the illegal thing being done is *copying* the software, whether they modified it or not.
How do you figure? By every account I've read, Psystar is buying copies of OS X and installing them. Each of their customers is getting their own boxed copy of legally-purchased OS X.
But the publisher / author haven't included EULA terms to prevent you from changing your copy of the book and reselling it.
They used to, until the first sale doctrine was established against the practice.
Correct. By the same token, that's not a reason to disallow Psystar, presuming they're also adhering to any applicable licensing terms.
However, I don't believe Apple should be responsible for supporting their OS on another manufacturers hardware (that responsibility would fall on the manufacturer distributing the system) either.
Yep. They could do something like offer free support only to the initial retail purchaser of the product, which would continue coverage to pretty much 100% of the current users.
It just seems to me that if I purchase a license to an OS I should be able to do whatever I want with that OS as long as I do not violate copyright. Who is Apple to tell me that even though I purchased their software I cannot use it because I did not purchase their hardware?
Amen. Ford doesn't tell me what I'm allowed to do with their cars, and neither should Apple get to tell me what I can do with their software.
Preemptive note to the inevitable reading-impaired visitor: we're talking within the extent of copyright law. Some idiot always wants to come along and say that I think it's OK to upload it to Pirate Bay.
As far as I want. There are no laws whatsoever to prevent this.
And being that OS X doesn't have drivers for all the different platform options and the hardware makers already grudgingly make the drivers for Microsoft. Will make OS X run more unstable and flakier then Windows. Thus having Apple to loose a competitive advantage.
And being that BMW doesn't have engine mounts for all the different car options and the automotive makes already grudgingly make mounts for their own engines. Will make BMW run more unstable and flakier than Ford. Thus having BMW to loose a competitive advantage.
I think Apple could kill the clone industry with a couple of commercials: "Do you buy a Ford to get a BMW engine? Then why buy a Dell to get OS X?"
Psystar's cloning was selling the work of the hackintosh community (pissing them off in the process).
So? Apple sells the work of the FOSS community, so does that mean they should have to stop?
How many times have I been pulled over for bullshit reasons?
If it makes you feel any better, I'm (almost pasty) white and I've been pulled over for stupid reasons, too. There are plenty of equal opportunity jerks.
They are illegally altering an existing, copyrighted product.
It is not inherently illegal to modify a copyrighted product. I can buy a book, use correction tape a sharpie to re-write parts I don't like, and re-sell it. This is allowed. What makes OS X special in this regard?
There are software checks in OSX to verify the hardware is Apple's, which means that Psystar would have to patch OSX to bypass those checks, and then distribute the modified code as their own OS.
Ignoring the sadly broken state of copyright law, can anyone present an argument why that would be ethically or morally wrong? They're not presenting it as their own OS, any more than a car customizer presents a modified BMW as their own design. In the latter, customers are buying a patched version of vehicle covered by who knows how many patents or copyrights, but no one seems to claim this is bad. What's the difference in patching OS X (again, ignoring weird ideas like EULAs) as long as Psystar buys each and every copy that they redistribute?
which might help to explain why a major law firm would take on what seems like a fly-by-night's case
I have no interest in Psystar's products but that doesn't mean they're illegitimate. The biggest allegation I've heard on Slashdot is of them pirating OS X, but I've seen no proof that they've sold more copies than they've bought. I don't get the double standard of why Compaq's cloning of the PC was good while Psystar's cloning of the Mac is bad, other than Steve's reality distortion field.
Yeah, that's all good and funny until some old person really DOES reach for an inhaler.
Well, the idea is that you'd only give them to people competent to actually own them. Joe Alzheimer's doesn't need to pack, but Bob Brokenhip might be perfectly capable of handling one safely.
On Slashdot, "grammar nazi" is spelled "[sic]".
"Why, I always fill my pipes with phosgene when going on vacation. Doesn't everyone?"
I like the fact that they are naming filesystems after characters in South Park.
I like the fact that they're naming filesystems after common household items that have existed for millenia. In South Park, "Butters" is plural.
It's kind of like the phrase "rule of thumb" which originally referred to the practice of being legally allowed to beat your wife with a stick no thicker than your thumb.
No, that's not what it meant, which goes exactly back to my original premise. People look for reasons to be offended by things that are not inherently offensive, apparently for the sake of being righteously offended.
What this means for you is that every time you've heard someone use that term in your life they are, most likely without knowing it, making racists statements just like the comment you replied to suggested.
That is utter bullshit. Racism does not exist without intent, at least at the subconscious level. Look at a list of ethnic slurs. Does your wife shop Ann Taylor? Bought anything by Apple? Like to eat brownies? Look at a celestial map? Ever chug a beer? Play eight ball? Drink gin? Each of those contains a word that some jackass or another is bound to find offensive in any context.
Tony Snow obviously and clearly did not mean that he did not "want to hug [a black child] of trying to comment on the program", and neither does Apple Computer mean to disparage American Indians. I ate an Oreo yesterday, but if you draw racist undertones from that or any of the other examples, then the problem is yours and not mine.
I agree with your larger point, I'm just flabbergasted that you'd never heard tar-baby in a racist context.
Not even once, and that's with growing up in a relatively southern state. I had to look it up to know what it was even supposed to mean (outside the Uncle Remus metaphor).
I find it a bit sad that a device which, essentially, hasn't changed in 20 years isn't re-used more often.
You know this why? I'm using a several-year-old Microsoft trackball and Model M keyboard on a three-month-old Dell Vostro.
Remember when the "bus mouse" was the cool upgrade over a crappy serial-port mouse, and you had that extra 8-bit ISA card with the funny port on it?
No, but I remember plugging a mouse into my Amiga 1000 in 1985 and having it Just Work. Just think of all the geek S&M fun I missed.
Nostalgia: the Amiga mouse was not managed by the CPU. You could (and I did, on accident) move the pointer around on a system with no CPU installed.
You need to hang out with more racists.
I'd prefer not to, thanks. The bigger point is that even if a small group of people co-opts a term, society doesn't automatically discard it. Even if PETA uses "meat" as a deliberate epithet, I'll still eat it and find it tasty.
There's latent racism. It's in no way malignant. It's when someone honestly doesn't think about races or and differences between them, but they can accidentally say something stupid or offensive. Like when Tony Snow made his "tar baby" comment.
There's also "invented racism", like then people got worked up over Tony Snow's use of "tar baby". I have never, not once, heard that used as a racial epithet. Instead, I'd always heard it used exactly like Snow meant it: as a metaphor to the Uncle Remus story. It never would have occurred to me that someone could have interpreted that any other way. Same with "niggardly" which was never racist until someone decided to be offended by it.
1) Provider A must give provider B at least X days notice of intent to depeer (say 180 days)
If that's law, then provider B gets free unlimited bandwidth for 6 months every time they decide not to renew a contract. If the law says you have to take my traffic, then you'll be handling roughly 100% of it until the legal period is over.
For extra credit, try wording the law to include an objective definition of "abuse of the intent of the agreement" that would allow provider A to depeer more quickly, but only under those abusive conditions.
For double-extra credit, write the rationale which provider A will always use to demonstrate those conditions, thereby mooting the original law.
OSX is a descendant of Mach, which shares a distant common ancestor with FreeBSD
And yet Apple disagrees with you:
While that doesn't mean they don't also inherit from other sources (and explicitly mention the Mach kernel in the same paragraph), they speak rather highly of their FreeBSD lineage.
Arguing Apple is stupid because it cannot grab 10% market share in the computer market makes just as much sense as arguing Rolex is stupid because it cannot grab 10% market share in the watches market, or Porsche is stupid because it cannot grab 10% market share in the cars market. Problem is - do these companies need to?
While I don't disagree with your premise, that's not a good analogy. Cars are pretty much completely standardized: you can buy gas for your Porsche anywhere, have its oil changed at almost any shop, and drive on any road. This is largely because there are so many brands of cars and each car is designed to these standards. Now, imagine if Ford recently had a 95% market share. Would it be easy to buy non-Ford tires or a gas formulation that Ford cars didn't need?
So in that sense, yes, Apple needs market share to remain viable. Without it, no one will write Mac software or make sure their peripherals are Mac-compatible, and lacking software and peripherals no on will want to buy a Mac. They've fought long and hard to overcome those obstacles and reach a sustainable point.
FreeBSD is experiencing infinite growth. Its death has rendered it omnipotent.