The OS X *combo* updates tend to be large, but the incremental ones are small.
If you update frequently then you'll get the smaller patches. If you don't update for a very long time (or you do a nuke and pave and haven't saved the combo patcher before) you get hit with the big one.
The vast majority of OS X patches are nowhere near 800Mb.
I never said I was a fan of carbon trading or bio-fuels - I think both are a serious mis-step, but it doesn't mean that there aren't problems to be solved.
I know that both sides are charged with politically motivated agendas, and people looking to make a buck, and people who just don't care.
"Too late" isn't an extinction term here. A lot of the problem with the acceptance of climate change seems to be that the result if it's actually happening is something from a Micheal Bay film. What's more likely is that we'll have to severely change our lifestyle in ways that we'd really rather not.
If we hadn't stopped the widescale use of CFCs, we might have completely destroyed atmospheric ozone and ended up with a planet that receives considerably higher UV from the sun that it would otherwise have done. So Mr Smith can't go outside for quite as long - it doesn't bother him, but what about the plants he relies on for food? Or other parts of the ecosystem.
The fact that the earth's climate is so large makes "proof" of concepts very hard to nail down. We can design models (real and computer based) but testing full scale is very difficult. We have computer models that have produced some very accurate results in isolation that have been measured in the real world so we're reasonably sure we have the models right, but over much longer timescales they are obviously less accurate, and even then *they are still models*.
I don;t think we're ever going to see a definitive "this is the 100% story of anthropogenic effects on the earth's climate" and given the resistance to change by the big money that wants to keep things the way they are, it's going to take either a 100% proof (not possible) or some major climate event, like the loss of Greenland's ice, and even then proving that the cause of that was human activity is not easy.
You also shouldn't be listening to "alarmists" and treat them as speaking for the scientific community as a whole, unless "alarmist" is code for "someone who believes in climate change".
The time lag on the ice core data is still a source of debate - this is one of those times where sceptics will say "see, this time lag proves that temp comes before CO2", while other scientists have said that the time difference is very small in comparison to the timescale being measured for temperature variations, especially given the way the air is trapped in the ice in the first place - the air trapped in the ice has been determined to be up to 1000 years younger than the ice it is trapped in due to the porous nature of the ice when it forms. This is within the observed differences in the core data, but again it is not conclusive one way or the other - the porosity of the ice also changes at different time periods.
Sceptics want to paint this lag as clear proof, but they ignore the other data that could explain it.
I'm not saying either side of the debate is correct, just that "the CO2 conc lags temp by 800 years" is not a fact, it is an inference, and the actual correlation of the temperature and CO2 graphs is very difficult to nail down to a precise time - ±1000-2000 years seems to be the closest window it can be correlated so far. So maybe it lags behind, maybe it correlates exactly - we are unable to say conclusively.
The earth itself obviously deals with CO2 differently to lab scale experiments - a flask of CO2 and a flask of air obviously absorb IR at different rates, but in the atmosphere those gasses don;t react alone -there are other gasses to deal with, the oceans absorb CO2 too (changing their acidity), methane is also involved, as is water vapour. It's clearly not simple.
So in essence "it's probably on a geologic timescale if it's happening at all so it doesn't affect me, fuck my grandkids' grandkids though".
The "what are we going to do" is everything - people said the same thing about anti-knock additives to petrol - that it would be too expensive and what about all those old cars that need 4 star?! Oh woe, the economy! But we have managed it.
Changing the way we work industrially is going on all the time - greener solvents, more efficient processes (lower temps/pressures, or higher yield reactions etc), and CO2 is only a small part of that.
Moving towards different fuels for cars, or carbon neutral systems, carbon capture on industrial scales for power generation if we are serious about cutting emissions from coal plants that aren't going away soon.
Your only solution was "stop driving" but how about just "stop driving oil fired cars"? There are several useful technologies that could make an enormous difference that are expensive but just need a little funding. The oil industry spends *insanely huge* amounts of money annually on scouting for new sources of oil and gas and on extraction on previously unprofitable fields - some of this capital channeled elsewhere would be very well spent.
Just because the problem looks difficult doesn't mean it's unsolvable or that we just shouldn't bother.
The population of the earth is increasing at a huge rate and the pressure on the ecosystem as a whole is only going to go up. At current rates it is not sustainable (in terms of energy, food, living space etc, not just climate emissions). Something is going to have to change at some point, and I believe it is much closer than many people want to think.
Yes, but what about the food we eat and the air we breathe?
We may be able to use tools to survive in areas that would otherwise be outside of our survivable range, but we may end up in a situation where we just don't have enough arable land to grow food to sustain the population, or increased ocean acidity could affect the balance of O2 in the atmosphere due to sub-obtimal growth conditions for photosynthetic microorganisms, or affect the fresh water supply as rainfall patterns change drastically.
I'm not saying these things will happen, but we have proved on a couple of occasions that we can sustain some humans for some time in a hermetically sealed bubble with self sustaining water, oxygen, energy and so on, but not indefinitely. We, as a species, are *totally reliant* on the Earth's ecosystem as a whole to survive. We are adapted to live in it and right now we cannot survive as a species without it, even if we pack up a ton of biodomes and fire them off to mars (even with pauly shore excluded).
Well, 1 and 2 have been clearly proved - it's clear that CO2 is a very effective greenhouse gas, and that ice cores show that over the past 600,000 years or so the global CO2 concentration has varied, but remained relatively low. It's only since the industrial revolution that CO2 concentration has shot up so sharply, far, far higher than it has ever been over a timescale that makes human existence look tiny.
Knowing that high CO2 concentrations do affect temperatures, even at lab scale and we're changing the concentration in the atmosphere so drastically, do you not think it might be prudent to prevent it if we can, regardless of whether we know *for certain* that it is raising the temperature of the earth?
We have the ability to cut the levels of CO2 we emit, so it seems sensible to do so. Maybe it will all be for nothing and we later find that the earth was naturally warming anyway, but we might just find that it was the right thing to do. If we do nothing, it could be far too late.
I liken this to the widespread use of the "miracle" DDT; sure, it's a great pesticide... until we learned about accumulation in higher predators and the extreme persistence of organochlorines in the environment.
Or the use of CFCs - a fabulous set of molecules, but with a rather unpleasant effect on atmospheric ozone that wasn't discovered until later.
Decent scientists on the whole don't have agendas in the same way that oil companies, coal-burning energy companies and governments do (unless they're paid specifically to have an agenda) - it's pretty easy to spot a scientist with an agenda: just look at the research. There's a reason that peer-reviewed research carries weight - reproducible results, by different people, and even dissenting opinions.
Real scientists don;t mind you checking their data, and there is a lot of it about.
There's also a very large propaganda machine that is left over from the "more doctors smoke camels" days that is very well funded, whose sole job it is to make people with no scientific qualifications question the science - often with outright lies, or by using the terminology of science as a tool. Just look at the way the term "theory" is viewed by the general public in regard to evolution; not really understanding how science defines the term.
On the evidence I have seen, I am in the belief that human industrial processes are warming the earth and that we need to do something about it quickly before the damage is very severe. We're not going to die out, and the world isn't going to kill us all like some $100 million Micheal Bay film, but there will be some significant changes that are going to affect a large proportion of the human population if we don't work on the problem. It will likely be the poorest portion of the population in the least developed nations first of course, which is another reason why I think people just want to distance themselves from it: they just don;t think it will affect their daily life, or think it is too big to fix and thus don;t want to think about it.
10.0 was public beta, and free upgrade to 10.1 was available, which was ok but not as mature as OS 9, and still lacking software support from major vendors. It really didn't help that Quark dragged their feet so spectacularly, keeping a large install base on OS 9 long after apple said "it's time to move". As it turned out, that backfired quite painfully for Quark and allowed PM >>>> InDesign to get more of a foothold than it otherwise would have. At least around here you would rarely ever see a file in anything other than Xpress format, now there are InDesign files floating around like so many painful jabs at Quark:)
Remember, Apple threw out *everything* and started again (at least in terms of the OS presented to customers and developers - I know it came from NextStep etc) - the switch from OS 9 to OS X was painful, but remarkably smooth for such a large change.
It's still not perfect at 10.6, but it's pretty damn good.
I have rolled out Snow Leopard on multiple machines of assorted vintage and consider myself well-versed in Apple tech support issues and I've not even heard a whisper of the issues you have mentioned.
Although "uncountable bugs and slowness" is a little bit catch all - care to list some of the "uncountable bugs" - you only need to rattle off, say 5. If there really are that many. It should be easy.
I have not heard of the user account deletion on guest login - are you sure you didn't mess with UIDs?
Snow Leopard has been excellent. I had some minor issues with it and Safari until Flashblock came out, and I have to update some of my migrated apps that were installed under 10.5 and weren't touched during the move to 10.6 (I can't remember if it was an A+I or an upgrade) - this was usually little things like my ToDo list sync app and some menu bar widgets and so on, but reinstalling fixed those right away.
I think your sig gives away your bias - it seems you think a list that doesn't agree with you is "prejudiced" because it doesn't savage Apple for made up tech problems with Snow Leopard.
There's plenty of *actual* Apple content you could go after them for without having to make shit up.
It takes away my right to copy the code, and redistribute it under a BSD licence, or to copy the code, put it in my closed product and sell it for profit and refuse to release the source.
That would be a pretty major blockage.
The EULA for OS X also contains information about redistribution of the software it protects, but the point is not to equate the two licences, it is to note that if you want to ignore the OS X EULA, you should also be able to ignore the GPL at will.
No, the manual that comes with your car suggests that you use Ford parts. When you bought the car you didn't agree to a legal document that made it illegal for you to use anything other than Ford parts.
In some areas, yes - especially given the iPhone, but in general they do the opposite: they put in iTunes restrictions at the behest of their media partners and have said publicly that it wasn't their idea, but have been reducing them ever since - removal of the burn limit, trivial-to-bypass copy protection, removal of DRM on the iTunes store.
They opened up the iPod to a wider audience and standardised the interface connector for third party devices, even shipped software with OS X that helps you dual boot windows - obviously both were for profit reasons, but they are all about user experience, so being able to just pop in the OS X disc and install without having to activate or use a serial is part of that.
They do have control freak tendencies sometimes, but no worse than most companies. They just get more press.
I'm not going to claim they're wholly good - I have taken issue with several decisions they have made, but in general they get demonised more than they should (and of course, praised more than they should in some cases - 2 edged sword).
In what sense? In the OS market, for example? ie, refusing to licence OEM vendors copies of XP if they also sold machines with Linux on them? In that case, yes because your OS is in a monopoly position and you are using that to inhibit your competitors unfairly.
If Apple were to try to do that, the vendors would just say "no problem, we just won't sell your software" - they simply don't have that choice when it comes to MS software (or, rather they do, but making that choice would severely affect their bottom line).
Possibly, but surely time time to do that would have been when they went Intel in the first place - there have been a couple of times they could have done so. As it stands though, they seem to be committed to the way OS x is delivered on disk - it's been the same since 10.0
So, how can Apple "attempt to monopolise" its own brand?
By restricting the sale/use of OS X how does this further their business goals? How does this increase their market share in another area?
Perhaps one or two people who were going to buy a hackintosh will buy an Apple box instead but I find that unlikely.
The monopoly issue with MS was very specific - they used their monopoly in the OS market to gain and maintain a monopoly in the browser market, and also used their monopoly in the OS market to force third party vendors to only carry MS products by the use of selective pricing or just flat out refusing to sell unless their terms were met.
Apple is not doing any of those things in this case. They are not telling Psystar it;s ok as long as they don;t sell Windows, or using their monopoly in the PC industry (they don't have one, clearly) to create a monopoly elsewhere. It just doesn't apply here.
Going after a company who is profiting by breaking your software licence by redistributing your software in breach of that licence is not "attempting to monpolise" a market.
You don't need cracks - the OS X install disc is not encrypted or obfuscated in any way, nor are there any serial numbers or DRM. You have to remove about 5 plaintext lines of text from the image and then you can use it for installing on a hackintosh.
There is one check - it's a kernel extension called "Don't Steal OS X" (it really is). Remove that and problem is solved.
Apple didn't make it hard to do, or resort to DRM or any of that garbage, since it doesn't really have to. It doesn't care if you build a hackintosh for yourself. It will only care if you start selling them for profit.
Are you telling me if you were going to write an OS from the ground up you wouldn't start on top of BSD code? (Whether you then agree that Nextstep is a precursor or something they acquired and adapted is an exercise for the reader).
The rules change when you're a monopoly that abuses its power to defeat your competitors in a market that you are not a monopoly in: eg, OS monopoly >>>>>> abuse >>>>>>> browser monopoly.
Like it or not, the rules *literally are different* for MS (or any company in MS's position).
Slashdot Mirror
Ah bacon: the cornerstone of any Islamic fundamentalist terrorist breakfast!
No, neither have I - even a 10.2 base install (no incremental patching) with the combo updater I very much doubt would be 800Mb.
Original poster was making assertions that OS X patches are "800Mb+ level" which is clearly not true.
The OS X *combo* updates tend to be large, but the incremental ones are small.
If you update frequently then you'll get the smaller patches. If you don't update for a very long time (or you do a nuke and pave and haven't saved the combo patcher before) you get hit with the big one.
The vast majority of OS X patches are nowhere near 800Mb.
I never said I was a fan of carbon trading or bio-fuels - I think both are a serious mis-step, but it doesn't mean that there aren't problems to be solved.
I know that both sides are charged with politically motivated agendas, and people looking to make a buck, and people who just don't care.
"Too late" isn't an extinction term here. A lot of the problem with the acceptance of climate change seems to be that the result if it's actually happening is something from a Micheal Bay film. What's more likely is that we'll have to severely change our lifestyle in ways that we'd really rather not.
If we hadn't stopped the widescale use of CFCs, we might have completely destroyed atmospheric ozone and ended up with a planet that receives considerably higher UV from the sun that it would otherwise have done. So Mr Smith can't go outside for quite as long - it doesn't bother him, but what about the plants he relies on for food? Or other parts of the ecosystem.
The fact that the earth's climate is so large makes "proof" of concepts very hard to nail down. We can design models (real and computer based) but testing full scale is very difficult. We have computer models that have produced some very accurate results in isolation that have been measured in the real world so we're reasonably sure we have the models right, but over much longer timescales they are obviously less accurate, and even then *they are still models*.
I don;t think we're ever going to see a definitive "this is the 100% story of anthropogenic effects on the earth's climate" and given the resistance to change by the big money that wants to keep things the way they are, it's going to take either a 100% proof (not possible) or some major climate event, like the loss of Greenland's ice, and even then proving that the cause of that was human activity is not easy.
You also shouldn't be listening to "alarmists" and treat them as speaking for the scientific community as a whole, unless "alarmist" is code for "someone who believes in climate change".
The time lag on the ice core data is still a source of debate - this is one of those times where sceptics will say "see, this time lag proves that temp comes before CO2", while other scientists have said that the time difference is very small in comparison to the timescale being measured for temperature variations, especially given the way the air is trapped in the ice in the first place - the air trapped in the ice has been determined to be up to 1000 years younger than the ice it is trapped in due to the porous nature of the ice when it forms. This is within the observed differences in the core data, but again it is not conclusive one way or the other - the porosity of the ice also changes at different time periods.
Sceptics want to paint this lag as clear proof, but they ignore the other data that could explain it.
I'm not saying either side of the debate is correct, just that "the CO2 conc lags temp by 800 years" is not a fact, it is an inference, and the actual correlation of the temperature and CO2 graphs is very difficult to nail down to a precise time - ±1000-2000 years seems to be the closest window it can be correlated so far. So maybe it lags behind, maybe it correlates exactly - we are unable to say conclusively.
The earth itself obviously deals with CO2 differently to lab scale experiments - a flask of CO2 and a flask of air obviously absorb IR at different rates, but in the atmosphere those gasses don;t react alone -there are other gasses to deal with, the oceans absorb CO2 too (changing their acidity), methane is also involved, as is water vapour. It's clearly not simple.
So in essence "it's probably on a geologic timescale if it's happening at all so it doesn't affect me, fuck my grandkids' grandkids though".
The "what are we going to do" is everything - people said the same thing about anti-knock additives to petrol - that it would be too expensive and what about all those old cars that need 4 star?! Oh woe, the economy! But we have managed it.
Changing the way we work industrially is going on all the time - greener solvents, more efficient processes (lower temps/pressures, or higher yield reactions etc), and CO2 is only a small part of that.
Moving towards different fuels for cars, or carbon neutral systems, carbon capture on industrial scales for power generation if we are serious about cutting emissions from coal plants that aren't going away soon.
Your only solution was "stop driving" but how about just "stop driving oil fired cars"? There are several useful technologies that could make an enormous difference that are expensive but just need a little funding. The oil industry spends *insanely huge* amounts of money annually on scouting for new sources of oil and gas and on extraction on previously unprofitable fields - some of this capital channeled elsewhere would be very well spent.
Just because the problem looks difficult doesn't mean it's unsolvable or that we just shouldn't bother.
The population of the earth is increasing at a huge rate and the pressure on the ecosystem as a whole is only going to go up. At current rates it is not sustainable (in terms of energy, food, living space etc, not just climate emissions). Something is going to have to change at some point, and I believe it is much closer than many people want to think.
Yes, but what about the food we eat and the air we breathe?
We may be able to use tools to survive in areas that would otherwise be outside of our survivable range, but we may end up in a situation where we just don't have enough arable land to grow food to sustain the population, or increased ocean acidity could affect the balance of O2 in the atmosphere due to sub-obtimal growth conditions for photosynthetic microorganisms, or affect the fresh water supply as rainfall patterns change drastically.
I'm not saying these things will happen, but we have proved on a couple of occasions that we can sustain some humans for some time in a hermetically sealed bubble with self sustaining water, oxygen, energy and so on, but not indefinitely. We, as a species, are *totally reliant* on the Earth's ecosystem as a whole to survive. We are adapted to live in it and right now we cannot survive as a species without it, even if we pack up a ton of biodomes and fire them off to mars (even with pauly shore excluded).
Well, 1 and 2 have been clearly proved - it's clear that CO2 is a very effective greenhouse gas, and that ice cores show that over the past 600,000 years or so the global CO2 concentration has varied, but remained relatively low. It's only since the industrial revolution that CO2 concentration has shot up so sharply, far, far higher than it has ever been over a timescale that makes human existence look tiny.
Knowing that high CO2 concentrations do affect temperatures, even at lab scale and we're changing the concentration in the atmosphere so drastically, do you not think it might be prudent to prevent it if we can, regardless of whether we know *for certain* that it is raising the temperature of the earth?
We have the ability to cut the levels of CO2 we emit, so it seems sensible to do so. Maybe it will all be for nothing and we later find that the earth was naturally warming anyway, but we might just find that it was the right thing to do. If we do nothing, it could be far too late.
I liken this to the widespread use of the "miracle" DDT; sure, it's a great pesticide... until we learned about accumulation in higher predators and the extreme persistence of organochlorines in the environment.
Or the use of CFCs - a fabulous set of molecules, but with a rather unpleasant effect on atmospheric ozone that wasn't discovered until later.
Decent scientists on the whole don't have agendas in the same way that oil companies, coal-burning energy companies and governments do (unless they're paid specifically to have an agenda) - it's pretty easy to spot a scientist with an agenda: just look at the research. There's a reason that peer-reviewed research carries weight - reproducible results, by different people, and even dissenting opinions.
Real scientists don;t mind you checking their data, and there is a lot of it about.
There's also a very large propaganda machine that is left over from the "more doctors smoke camels" days that is very well funded, whose sole job it is to make people with no scientific qualifications question the science - often with outright lies, or by using the terminology of science as a tool. Just look at the way the term "theory" is viewed by the general public in regard to evolution; not really understanding how science defines the term.
On the evidence I have seen, I am in the belief that human industrial processes are warming the earth and that we need to do something about it quickly before the damage is very severe. We're not going to die out, and the world isn't going to kill us all like some $100 million Micheal Bay film, but there will be some significant changes that are going to affect a large proportion of the human population if we don't work on the problem. It will likely be the poorest portion of the population in the least developed nations first of course, which is another reason why I think people just want to distance themselves from it: they just don;t think it will affect their daily life, or think it is too big to fix and thus don;t want to think about it.
Assorted vintage being the earliest intel Macs right up to the current generation.
It's a descriptor for age difference, not necessarily that the machines themselves need to be old.
I still don't use Exposé to this day, even in 10.6 - just because the window manager doesn't suit you doesn't make it "poor".
But yes, I did forget the numbering - users of the public beta got $30 off or something for 10.0
Hmm, that is a new one on me. Although looking at the date, I can see why I missed it; I was in labs.
Or it can be a U, or an H, or a flat, or a Deltic...
Where can I get my Deltic-powered Mustang?
That's a bit unfair - 10.2 was pretty damn good.
10.0 was public beta, and free upgrade to 10.1 was available, which was ok but not as mature as OS 9, and still lacking software support from major vendors. It really didn't help that Quark dragged their feet so spectacularly, keeping a large install base on OS 9 long after apple said "it's time to move". As it turned out, that backfired quite painfully for Quark and allowed PM >>>> InDesign to get more of a foothold than it otherwise would have. At least around here you would rarely ever see a file in anything other than Xpress format, now there are InDesign files floating around like so many painful jabs at Quark :)
Remember, Apple threw out *everything* and started again (at least in terms of the OS presented to customers and developers - I know it came from NextStep etc) - the switch from OS 9 to OS X was painful, but remarkably smooth for such a large change.
It's still not perfect at 10.6, but it's pretty damn good.
I'm sorry, what?
I have rolled out Snow Leopard on multiple machines of assorted vintage and consider myself well-versed in Apple tech support issues and I've not even heard a whisper of the issues you have mentioned.
Although "uncountable bugs and slowness" is a little bit catch all - care to list some of the "uncountable bugs" - you only need to rattle off, say 5. If there really are that many. It should be easy.
I have not heard of the user account deletion on guest login - are you sure you didn't mess with UIDs?
Snow Leopard has been excellent. I had some minor issues with it and Safari until Flashblock came out, and I have to update some of my migrated apps that were installed under 10.5 and weren't touched during the move to 10.6 (I can't remember if it was an A+I or an upgrade) - this was usually little things like my ToDo list sync app and some menu bar widgets and so on, but reinstalling fixed those right away.
I think your sig gives away your bias - it seems you think a list that doesn't agree with you is "prejudiced" because it doesn't savage Apple for made up tech problems with Snow Leopard.
There's plenty of *actual* Apple content you could go after them for without having to make shit up.
It takes away my right to copy the code, and redistribute it under a BSD licence, or to copy the code, put it in my closed product and sell it for profit and refuse to release the source.
That would be a pretty major blockage.
The EULA for OS X also contains information about redistribution of the software it protects, but the point is not to equate the two licences, it is to note that if you want to ignore the OS X EULA, you should also be able to ignore the GPL at will.
No, the manual that comes with your car suggests that you use Ford parts. When you bought the car you didn't agree to a legal document that made it illegal for you to use anything other than Ford parts.
It is not the same thing.
In some areas, yes - especially given the iPhone, but in general they do the opposite: they put in iTunes restrictions at the behest of their media partners and have said publicly that it wasn't their idea, but have been reducing them ever since - removal of the burn limit, trivial-to-bypass copy protection, removal of DRM on the iTunes store.
They opened up the iPod to a wider audience and standardised the interface connector for third party devices, even shipped software with OS X that helps you dual boot windows - obviously both were for profit reasons, but they are all about user experience, so being able to just pop in the OS X disc and install without having to activate or use a serial is part of that.
They do have control freak tendencies sometimes, but no worse than most companies. They just get more press.
I'm not going to claim they're wholly good - I have taken issue with several decisions they have made, but in general they get demonised more than they should (and of course, praised more than they should in some cases - 2 edged sword).
In what sense? In the OS market, for example? ie, refusing to licence OEM vendors copies of XP if they also sold machines with Linux on them? In that case, yes because your OS is in a monopoly position and you are using that to inhibit your competitors unfairly.
If Apple were to try to do that, the vendors would just say "no problem, we just won't sell your software" - they simply don't have that choice when it comes to MS software (or, rather they do, but making that choice would severely affect their bottom line).
So you think companies that take GPL code, close it up and sell it, refusing to release the source are also doing just fine.
Got it.
Ok, so when Psystar made their copy of OS X, took out the 4 lines of code in the image so they could install it and then installed it...
How is that not redistribution of someone else's modified software without their permission?
Possibly, but surely time time to do that would have been when they went Intel in the first place - there have been a couple of times they could have done so. As it stands though, they seem to be committed to the way OS x is delivered on disk - it's been the same since 10.0
So, how can Apple "attempt to monopolise" its own brand?
By restricting the sale/use of OS X how does this further their business goals? How does this increase their market share in another area?
Perhaps one or two people who were going to buy a hackintosh will buy an Apple box instead but I find that unlikely.
The monopoly issue with MS was very specific - they used their monopoly in the OS market to gain and maintain a monopoly in the browser market, and also used their monopoly in the OS market to force third party vendors to only carry MS products by the use of selective pricing or just flat out refusing to sell unless their terms were met.
Apple is not doing any of those things in this case. They are not telling Psystar it;s ok as long as they don;t sell Windows, or using their monopoly in the PC industry (they don't have one, clearly) to create a monopoly elsewhere. It just doesn't apply here.
Going after a company who is profiting by breaking your software licence by redistributing your software in breach of that licence is not "attempting to monpolise" a market.
You don't need cracks - the OS X install disc is not encrypted or obfuscated in any way, nor are there any serial numbers or DRM. You have to remove about 5 plaintext lines of text from the image and then you can use it for installing on a hackintosh.
There is one check - it's a kernel extension called "Don't Steal OS X" (it really is). Remove that and problem is solved.
Apple didn't make it hard to do, or resort to DRM or any of that garbage, since it doesn't really have to. It doesn't care if you build a hackintosh for yourself. It will only care if you start selling them for profit.
Are you telling me if you were going to write an OS from the ground up you wouldn't start on top of BSD code? (Whether you then agree that Nextstep is a precursor or something they acquired and adapted is an exercise for the reader).
So the GPL is not legally binding either?
Cool. I'm off to take some GPL code, modify it and then make it closed source and profit off the results!
The rules change when you're a monopoly that abuses its power to defeat your competitors in a market that you are not a monopoly in: eg, OS monopoly >>>>>> abuse >>>>>>> browser monopoly.
Like it or not, the rules *literally are different* for MS (or any company in MS's position).