Many of you would rush condemn GPL violators but some of those same people do not seem to have a problem with Psystar violating the license agreement for OS X. Hypocrites!
Not only thatSo, this is violation of my authorship rights on pc efi v8.
pc_efi v8 now had been reloaded, and includes very basic license
which denies any commercial using. also updated with actual smbios.
"the minor tweaks needed to make OS X run on them" ? This is not supposed to be possible, AFAIK, but once it's possible Psystar may have a good defense.
Errm, no, Psystar is simply using the work of others, namely OSx86. If Apple wanted to avoid a trial, they'd buy them, not Psystar.
Several issues with your theory. First, if Apple buys Psystar to avoid a trial, along would come 3 others to do the same. Second, you are assuming that "Apple went with the settlement" - lets quote TFA:
Which party asked for this cannot be known at this point, or even if they did. Sometimes a judge will strongly urge the parties to enter into voluntary ADR.
From what I read from other sources, part of Pystar's argument is that they are buying MacOSX, then installing it on the same hardware as Apple itself uses. From their point of view, since the hardware is the same as any other Mac hardware minus the Apple case, it could be considered a Mac. After all, if I gut a Mac and put the parts in a 'PC' case, does it stop being a Mac?
"The same" with several things different - else they wouldn't have to jump through hoops to get things running. Hello? Why else would they need to rip off the osx86 guys?
Of course that would mean a party who knows they can't win because what they did was illegal from the start, will just spend the minimum amount they can get away with.
Reminds me a lot of SCO's PR trying to find investors by twisting how the trial was going. "Hush, we got them into ADR - but don't tell anyone we told you."
The article addresses this - a developer whose application was not approved for sale (due to Apple's 'duplicate functionality' standard, which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish) tried to skirt the ban through the method you described. And Apple shut them down there as well.
So clearly that isn't a viable alternative for distributing applications.
Well, it isn't a viable distribution method for more than a hundred sales, if you try to get around the terms of the SDK by pretending that the app you are selling is a different one for each hundred copies you sell.
But how long will that be available for? It feels to me like that model is similar to the "education" eMac that was sold alongside flat-panel iMacs for a while before being discontinued. I wouldn't count on that model being around for long.
Sure - but by that time the "brick" MacBook may already be 3rd generation, and come with Firewire again. Also, why would you care if a computer is available in 2 years when you want to buy one now?
Oh come on, it's not like you have to buy the new MacBook. Just wait to buy a new one until either your Firewire devices are obsolete, or Apple changes their mind and includes FW again (or rather until they get Nvidia or Intel to include it in their chipsets).
It's always amusing that the only people complaining louder about Apple than the Apple haters are the Mac fans.
But the instrumental data we do have is enough to tell us that something anomalous is going on, when compared to the various measured factors in the climate system which are normally responsible for climate change.
This I don't understand either. It's like how downloaders can say "Download speed is currently 150kb/s, download will be done in 5 minutes." In reality that 150KB/s was an instantaneous spike--the average is more like 80kb/s. With the amount of data we have, it seems like we're measuring the slope but we really don't know where we are on the curve? Given at most 100 years of solid data, do we REALLY know all that?
Remember kids: this is said in an discussion about an article that insinuates an upward trend from the fact that there is a slight slump in a long downward trend.
This crash was in 1988. Don't you think they might have fixed that bug by now?
So why did you bring it up now? Anyway: Lauda Air Flight 004 - Boeing 767-3Z9ER, all 223 on board dead, in flight thrust reverser deployment due to a bug in the new electronic system.
Slashdot Mirror
PS: If you mention osX86, I'll kill you.
Many of you would rush condemn GPL violators but some of those same people do not seem to have a problem with Psystar violating the license agreement for OS X. Hypocrites!
Not only that So, this is violation of my authorship rights on pc efi v8. pc_efi v8 now had been reloaded, and includes very basic license which denies any commercial using. also updated with actual smbios.
Yeah, you are right, works great.
A. you can buy ford crate engines, you can buy boxed copies of OSX
Sure, but what does a Ford crate engine cost compared to the Ford car?
But what would Apple WANT with Psystar?
"the minor tweaks needed to make OS X run on them" ? This is not supposed to be possible, AFAIK, but once it's possible Psystar may have a good defense.
Errm, no, Psystar is simply using the work of others, namely OSx86. If Apple wanted to avoid a trial, they'd buy them, not Psystar.
Which party asked for this cannot be known at this point, or even if they did. Sometimes a judge will strongly urge the parties to enter into voluntary ADR.
So your argument is that it would be legal to buy a game, modify it so it can run with Wine, then resell it as the Linux version of the game.
From what I read from other sources, part of Pystar's argument is that they are buying MacOSX, then installing it on the same hardware as Apple itself uses. From their point of view, since the hardware is the same as any other Mac hardware minus the Apple case, it could be considered a Mac. After all, if I gut a Mac and put the parts in a 'PC' case, does it stop being a Mac?
"The same" with several things different - else they wouldn't have to jump through hoops to get things running. Hello? Why else would they need to rip off the osx86 guys?
Of course that would mean a party who knows they can't win because what they did was illegal from the start, will just spend the minimum amount they can get away with.
Reminds me a lot of SCO's PR trying to find investors by twisting how the trial was going. "Hush, we got them into ADR - but don't tell anyone we told you."
I'm sorry, Quayle was a couple of years at most, Biden has been making comments like those quoted above for 35 years.
Are you telling us Quayle made sense before he became VP?
If a post has been marked by sufficient number of mods as troll, it should be deleted.
At least it should be skipped by keyboard navigation.
The article addresses this - a developer whose application was not approved for sale (due to Apple's 'duplicate functionality' standard, which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish) tried to skirt the ban through the method you described. And Apple shut them down there as well.
So clearly that isn't a viable alternative for distributing applications.
Well, it isn't a viable distribution method for more than a hundred sales, if you try to get around the terms of the SDK by pretending that the app you are selling is a different one for each hundred copies you sell.
So, by the same rationale, should Mozilla get a kill switch to disable "incompatible" add-ons for Firefox?
on an iPhone, you can only* install applications via the appstore
Well, you know jack shit about ad-hoc distribution, but then we are used to you knowing jack shit.
Are you telling me the upgrade from Windows 5.0 (aka Windows 2000) to 5.1 (aka XP) to 5.2 (Server 2003) was free?
But how long will that be available for? It feels to me like that model is similar to the "education" eMac that was sold alongside flat-panel iMacs for a while before being discontinued. I wouldn't count on that model being around for long.
Sure - but by that time the "brick" MacBook may already be 3rd generation, and come with Firewire again. Also, why would you care if a computer is available in 2 years when you want to buy one now?
I see now how rage is just opposite side of the same fandom coin.
So all the Apple haters are just not-out-of-the-closet-yet fans?
It's always amusing that the only people complaining louder about Apple than the Apple haters are the Mac fans.
The person who is a Mac fan is the same person who cannot stand not having what his friends have when it comes to new overpriced things.
So they buy a GeForce 9950GFSLK just because.
So Google isn't trying to hide the kill switch, yet it took people longer to find than the one in the iPhone.
But the instrumental data we do have is enough to tell us that something anomalous is going on, when compared to the various measured factors in the climate system which are normally responsible for climate change.
This I don't understand either. It's like how downloaders can say "Download speed is currently 150kb/s, download will be done in 5 minutes." In reality that 150KB/s was an instantaneous spike--the average is more like 80kb/s. With the amount of data we have, it seems like we're measuring the slope but we really don't know where we are on the curve? Given at most 100 years of solid data, do we REALLY know all that?
Remember kids: this is said in an discussion about an article that insinuates an upward trend from the fact that there is a slight slump in a long downward trend.
Replacing 'steel' with 'balsa wood' doesn't mean the structure can hold up the same weight. i.e. polar bears.
Correct! Balsa wood *is* more buoyant than steel. That is what you were trying to say right. ~
So that's why they build ships out of balsa wood.
Oh, and how easy is it to override one reverse thruster engaging in flight?
This crash was in 1988. Don't you think they might have fixed that bug by now?
So why did you bring it up now? Anyway: Lauda Air Flight 004 - Boeing 767-3Z9ER, all 223 on board dead, in flight thrust reverser deployment due to a bug in the new electronic system.