At the same time they try to convince us that Jobs hates DRMed music?
Jobs does dislike DRM'd music because it makes Apple lose money by reducing the number of iPod sales. On the other hand, he supports DRM'd video because that is making them more money (so far). Jobs currently opposes DRM on their OS registration because that costs them sales (inconvenient) but this legal decision could turn that around.
If Apple made a "non folding" desktop Mac, your analogy might actually make some sense.
My analogy makes perfect sense. Dahon doesn't make non-folding bikes. Apple doesn't make a low-end consumer tower. Buying a specialty product that costs extra money because it is engineered to be compact and trying to change it into a different product and compare that is just dumb. If you want to compare the prices of the mini to other ultra compact systems, go ahead, but they do very well in such a comparison.
Forced to add DRM. Yeah. FORCED to drive Psystar out of business by making their product less useful and screwing over customers of both companies and everyone who has to live with these broken laws.
Well, alternately they could abandon OS X. They sure can't bring it to market directly against Windows, which has a monopoly on the market.
No other alternatives. None. Psystar is going to make Steve Jobs, one of the richest and most powerful men, do something he'd hate to do. Just Psystar.
If Pystar wins in court, they sure wouldn't be the only one to try the business model. So by winning such a court decision, so they'd force Apple to change behavior.
By themselves they're bringing about a total reversal of Apple's nature, from a benevolent friend to a legal abuser like Blizzard.
Apple does whatever makes them money. This potentially changes what will make them money.
Think much?
Yes, a lot. I also took the trouble to educate myself. I suggest you do the same.
Apple could embrace capitalism - the same thing that lets them buy computer components and resell them - and tolerate the same thing being done to their products. But you are right on one thing, that'll never happen.
Monopolies break capitalism. That's why they're regulated. Until MS's desktop OS monopoly is broken, Apple can't make money selling a desktop OS separate from their hardware.
Brilliant. Let Apple win and further erode what little 'rights' software buyers have these days.
I didn't say Apple should win, I said it is going to be irrelevant to the end user either way for this particular case. If you think you can get the courts to agree that copying onto a hard drive or into RAM is not copying as far as copyright law is concerned, it would be a great boon to our society in general... but I don't see it happening given the precedent.
Actions like that might not be identical to MS but they're very much along the same lines - 'my way or the highway...to the court office'
That's the whole point of copyright. A party is given exclusive right to make copies and license others to do so. Copyright law is very broken in favor of anyone who holds it and has the money to go to court. But this is not at all the same thing MS is often bashed for, which is breaking antitrust law and abusing a monopoly to undermine other markets, something quite different from copyright.
I don't think Psystar losing is the best thing for the consumer. Them WINNING would put companies and their insane EULA's in check a bit.
But not in a way that helps people who want to run OS X.
If you're so worried about MS DRM filtering over to apple - consider that every generation of Windows has had the activation DRM defeated.
MS allowing their DRM to be defeated makes them money. For Apple, they need to keep it bundled to make money, at least for now. That means Apple will go as far as stopping to sell OS X in boxes and only sell upgrades via the Web to systems already running. That screws people with Hackintoshes and makes things harder for regular OS X users. Who does it benefit again?
It's just a matter of companies fighting to protect a business model that's out-dated and not in sync with actual consumer demand/desires.
In this particular case, they're going to keep the business model. The only question is how much it ends up annoying the end user.
That's interesting, I didn't know that Apple was making such headway in business environments. Something new everyday, huh?
It is probably confined to specific markets. I work in computer and network security and Apple has come out of nowhere to dominate the industry in just a few years. Conferences have oh so many MacBooks these days. One of the trial programs I mentioned was IBM, so that is again, not really mainstream business. I certainly would not take either as an indicator that Apple is gaining in the business sector in general.
I fully agree with the above above poster. Rate of failure seems higher to me too from personal experience. . And I trust that more than independent studies that are not done over long period of time.
Sorry, but Consumer Reports has a larger sample size tested over a longer period than you do I bet. They've been evaluating Apple systems alongside other vendors for a decade at least and Apple has consistently been at the top of the heap for low failure rates. Personally, I've had more Apple machines die on me than IBM, but when you look at the last company I worked for (a couple hundred of each) it goes the other way by quite a bit.
You can post all the anecdotes you want, but find me a real, professional study with a good sample size like those published by Consumer Reports to back up your opinion if you want me to take it seriously. I paid for the Consumer Reports study and our IT dept. paid for several other evaluations over the years. They were largely in agreement. I haven't seen even one that puts Dell above Apple for hardware reliability, even for laptops in the last year (Dell's strongest category).
I like Apple. But I hope they lose this one. It would be nice to see some reasonable legal limits on these damn click-wrap licenses.
I agree it would be nice, in general, if the courts authoritatively decided copying into RAM or onto a hard drive of one computer was not copyright infringement regardless of the terms in the license. Precedent, however, is leaning heavily the other way.
But at the same time, I'm not sure I would by a clone. I don't see anything that would legally obligate Apple to keep clones in mind when they upgrade MacOs. But I do see incentives to break compatibility.
You wouldn't have the option for long. Apple would be pretty much forced to use DRM to enforce said policies, or to stop selling their OS in boxed versions at all. Either way, it would just be a pain for Apple users and still kill Pystar.
All the same, if you paid for a copy of MacOs, you should be able to do as you damn well please with it.
Should you be able to make a hundred copies of it and go sell them on the street corner? Should you be able to make one copy and sell that copy on the street corner?
I don't know, at that point it can be considered a case of cognitive dissonance rearing its head. "I spent a month's salary on this computer, and I'm not an idiot, so I must have made a good purchase decision!"
This theory is fairly well put to rest by business use. I've worked at companies where Apple was an approved vendor for hardware and seen the rapid move of people to Macs and then watched them stay with them almost 100% of the time. In many cases it was skeptical people trying it out at work because they weren't spending a dime of their own money and with the option of wiping OS X and replacing it with Windows or Linux. People who try it are generally adamant about staying with it. There have even been a few stories here on Slashdot about companies running trial runs with them with similar results.
They make the vast majority of their profits from hardware sales, with a growing share attributed to iTunes royalties.
Wuzzah? Last I saw iTunes accounted for like 1%, with iPods about 45% and computers also about 45%. Apple is diversifying into other markets (pro software, mp3 players, settop devices, phones), but iTunes has always been a way to sell hardware, not a profit generator by itself.
I specced a functionally equivalent machine, and even gave Apple a break by not including the cost of the external hard drive case, external powered USB hub, and power strip that made the total size of the Mac mini solution pretty much the same as the low profile desktop, but I *did* count the firewire card in the cost of the PC!
I know just how you mean. The other day I was looking for a new bicycle. I wanted a bike that would not fold and looked at a Dahon folding bike, then gave Dahon a break by not including the cost of hiring some guy to weld the folding joints in place and it was still more expensive than regular bikes!
By tying their hardware so firmly to the OS, they aren't so much killing competition as denying themselves extra sales of the OS.
That would be the case in a free market, but not in a monopolized one. Trying to bring OS X directly into competition with MS's Windows monopoly is doomed to failure, regardless of the relative merits of the products. MS can and does easily introduce incompatibilities between the two, which hurt Apple more than MS (hurting relative to their market shares). Enforce the laws and fix the market and Apple will be forced by market forces to unbundle.
Even so, I would give my left nut for Apple to lose this lawsuit.
Why? So Apple implements restrictive DRM and registration instead of using an EULA? Even were Pystar would win, all it would do is force Apple to make OS X worse for end users to protect their revenue.
Complain about MS all you want...
Thanks, I will. MS has destroyed the desktop OS market and that is the only reason Apple makes money bundling a desktop OS with hardware. Otherwise, they'd make more money selling them separately. The best solution in my mind is to fix the root cause of this and hundreds of other problems. Break up MS into at least two companies both of which have the rights to Windows. You'll get real competition and real innovation in Windows again, and consumers will have choices. If Apple wants to compete in such a market, they'll pretty much have to license OS X to other OEMs.
...the fact it is impossible to build a Leopard computer on your own just Screams dictatorship.
Actually, it screams "monopoly" but the kind granted by the state, as in a monopoly on duplication granted by copyright. I'd be the first to say our copyright laws need reform, but this is not specific to Apple.
My company is evaluating moving over to mac book pros. We have put 25 of them into use and are tracking their rate of hardware failure against the 200 Dell Latitudes we have in play. Guess what- the mac books experience hardware failures 6x as often. Its not like there is one mac mac book pro either, MOST of them have had issues, including replacements.
Gee, funny how several different independent testing companies have completely the opposite results you do. Now who should I trust to accurately and impartially test equipment, Muadib or Consumer Reports... it's such a tough call.
Dell has come a long way with their laptops over the last year, from below average to one of the most reliable. They still are below average for desktops. And Apple, well they've been at the top for relaibility rates for years now. Buying Apple hardware can be problematic since their selection is small compared to all the PC vendors combined and for end users you'll end up paying for features you don't want (or don't think you want anyway). That said, they make some of the most reliable hardware you can buy.
The big deal is people want to be able to run OS X without buying Apple hardware. This is an unfulfilled consumer demand. As such, both companies looking to make a profit and end users are willing to look really hard to find any legal excuse to do so.
In my opinion this all leads back to the root problem of the desktop OS market being completely broken. If it were healthy, Apple would make more money selling OS X unbundled from their hardware than they do selling it as a bundle. The only reason they make more money selling it as it bundled is because MS's monopoly has made sure there is no real competition.
Unfortunately, Psystar did much more egregious things than violate a silly EULA term. They, by their own public admission, modified a copyright-protected work, then redistributed these modifications without a license to do so. And they did it for commercial purposes, no less. Even under the traditional terms of copyright (as opposed to the mutilated corporate-serving terms we have now), that's just not cricket.
The EULA is the license to make additional copies of OS X. In order to take the copy on a disk and put it on a hard drive, you have to have a license. The EULA provides that license, if you follow the terms. Breaking the EULA is making copies that don't fit within that license. It's not like they are two, separate acts.
I will be absolutely stunned if Apple doesn't prevail on the Copyright and Trademark parts of their case, though I do hope that the judge will find that a license to run software on a particular kind of hardware is not binding.
Most of the precedent to date follows the theory that installing is making a copy. Heck, loading it into RAM has been ruled to be making a copy in some cases. It isn't "running software on particular hardware" that is illegal, but loading it onto that hardware in the first place, which the courts seem to think is making a copy without a license to do so.
Now Steve Jobs has to pull the same kind of antics that Microsoft was endlessly bashed for.
MS is mostly bashed for their illegal business practices, especially antitrust abuse. Apple enforcing onerous terms of the license for a product they own the copyright on is something else entirely. Sadly, from what I can see the best thing for consumers (who want OS X) that can come out of this is Pystar losing. Otherwise, Apple will become more like MS, being forced to add DRM and license keys to restrict installation, which will suck for those of us who prefer not messing with that crap.
Yes, if Apple wins. What however if Apple does not win? Don't be so sure. They thought long and hard before suing and may regret it deeply before this is all over.
Suppose for the sake of argument that Apple loses this lawsuit. Who does this benefit? Apple can and will just lock down their OS using DRM and by selling upgrades only via the net. Even if Pystar wins the end result is just Apple's customers being inconvenienced by a more restrictive method of licensing. Either way Pystar cannot continue with this as a long-term business plan so either they will cash out and move on or have to find some other gimmick.
The only time I ever have to restart my Airport Extreme is when I update the firmware.
I have to reboot mine because it is locked up once a year or so, certainly not every few days. It puts up with a lot of traffic from a lot of machines, both always on and laptops and all manner of traffic including bittorrent. My best guess is someone has a defective one or keeps it on top of a very hot server in a closed case.
You forgot, taxpayers, who will end up paying for purchases of MS Office because of government regulations requiring use of specific ISO standards, like OOXML, for particular uses. It will basically be used as a way to lock out everyone but MS for certain contracts and we'll be paying the bills.
2) Let them get away with it and have all their standardization efforts become meaningless.
ISO standards may be meaningless to all rational people if they continue down this road. Sadly, there are a lot of powerful organizations that have a lot of influence on many of our lives that are not even close to rational. As someone who has occasionally had to deal with standards for products used by the US government, I can tell you right now there is nothing rational about the requirements or procedures. It is millions in consulting fees being handed to people for completely useless certifications, largely as a way to prevent competitors from bidding on contracts. I actually saw a Windows 95 based "device" win a contract we wanted to bid on, because that was the only OS "certified" for security for that use. The "certification" basically amounted to MS stating it was not guaranteed to be fit for any purpose and paying contractors to fill out a boatload of paperwork. Any vendor with a pile of money could get "certified" but it took time and cost a lot of money.
The problem with ISO and OOXML is that it won't be viewed rationally and it will likely be used as a way to make MS Office a legal requirement in certain government applications without any regard for the real merits of other software packages. Even if all rational people know ISO certification no longer means anything, that doesn't mean we won't be spending millions in tax dollars needlessly because of it.
Seems mirror validation is solved, it's just not widely adopted by default.
True enough, but most people don't end up picking a repository they know they can trust, as demonstrated by this study. I've seen very few free servers with HTTPS that I would know I can trust and most people let their system pick one for them.
At least for yum, the software will randomly pick and check a different mirror each time it is run so unless you have subverted a large fraction of mirrors, you've managed to delay the update for a short time period at best.
That's not really a good thing. Your machine picks a random mirror, which just happens to be a compromised one. It updates OpenSSH or whatever to fix that flaw, but at the same time knows your machine's IP and that it is running a vulnerable version, exploits it and loads a trojan which fires up later. Sounds like an easy way to compromise a significant number of systems. In fact, one of the recommendations in TFA is to choose a particular repository from someone you know and trust since it was so easy for them to get one running and people using it with no credentials.
Considering Fedora (at least) signs all packages, seems like the authors should have been clear if the attack still works if the packages are not signed.
The article seemed pretty clear to me. The most vulnerable systems don't have signed packages or metadata or expiring signatures. The least vulnerable systems have all of those, but are still potentially vulnerable for a window of time before the metadata signature expires but after a vulnerability is found and fixed in a package.
Slashdot Mirror
At the same time they try to convince us that Jobs hates DRMed music?
Jobs does dislike DRM'd music because it makes Apple lose money by reducing the number of iPod sales. On the other hand, he supports DRM'd video because that is making them more money (so far). Jobs currently opposes DRM on their OS registration because that costs them sales (inconvenient) but this legal decision could turn that around.
Sorry, but Consumer Reports has a larger sample size tested over a longer period than you do I bet.
Prove it then.
Pay for a subscription you mooch.
If Apple made a "non folding" desktop Mac, your analogy might actually make some sense.
My analogy makes perfect sense. Dahon doesn't make non-folding bikes. Apple doesn't make a low-end consumer tower. Buying a specialty product that costs extra money because it is engineered to be compact and trying to change it into a different product and compare that is just dumb. If you want to compare the prices of the mini to other ultra compact systems, go ahead, but they do very well in such a comparison.
Forced to add DRM. Yeah. FORCED to drive Psystar out of business by making their product less useful and screwing over customers of both companies and everyone who has to live with these broken laws.
Well, alternately they could abandon OS X. They sure can't bring it to market directly against Windows, which has a monopoly on the market.
No other alternatives. None. Psystar is going to make Steve Jobs, one of the richest and most powerful men, do something he'd hate to do. Just Psystar.
If Pystar wins in court, they sure wouldn't be the only one to try the business model. So by winning such a court decision, so they'd force Apple to change behavior.
By themselves they're bringing about a total reversal of Apple's nature, from a benevolent friend to a legal abuser like Blizzard.
Apple does whatever makes them money. This potentially changes what will make them money.
Think much?
Yes, a lot. I also took the trouble to educate myself. I suggest you do the same.
Apple could embrace capitalism - the same thing that lets them buy computer components and resell them - and tolerate the same thing being done to their products. But you are right on one thing, that'll never happen.
Monopolies break capitalism. That's why they're regulated. Until MS's desktop OS monopoly is broken, Apple can't make money selling a desktop OS separate from their hardware.
Brilliant. Let Apple win and further erode what little 'rights' software buyers have these days.
I didn't say Apple should win, I said it is going to be irrelevant to the end user either way for this particular case. If you think you can get the courts to agree that copying onto a hard drive or into RAM is not copying as far as copyright law is concerned, it would be a great boon to our society in general... but I don't see it happening given the precedent.
Actions like that might not be identical to MS but they're very much along the same lines - 'my way or the highway...to the court office'
That's the whole point of copyright. A party is given exclusive right to make copies and license others to do so. Copyright law is very broken in favor of anyone who holds it and has the money to go to court. But this is not at all the same thing MS is often bashed for, which is breaking antitrust law and abusing a monopoly to undermine other markets, something quite different from copyright.
I don't think Psystar losing is the best thing for the consumer. Them WINNING would put companies and their insane EULA's in check a bit.
But not in a way that helps people who want to run OS X.
If you're so worried about MS DRM filtering over to apple - consider that every generation of Windows has had the activation DRM defeated.
MS allowing their DRM to be defeated makes them money. For Apple, they need to keep it bundled to make money, at least for now. That means Apple will go as far as stopping to sell OS X in boxes and only sell upgrades via the Web to systems already running. That screws people with Hackintoshes and makes things harder for regular OS X users. Who does it benefit again?
It's just a matter of companies fighting to protect a business model that's out-dated and not in sync with actual consumer demand/desires.
In this particular case, they're going to keep the business model. The only question is how much it ends up annoying the end user.
That's interesting, I didn't know that Apple was making such headway in business environments. Something new everyday, huh?
It is probably confined to specific markets. I work in computer and network security and Apple has come out of nowhere to dominate the industry in just a few years. Conferences have oh so many MacBooks these days. One of the trial programs I mentioned was IBM, so that is again, not really mainstream business. I certainly would not take either as an indicator that Apple is gaining in the business sector in general.
I fully agree with the above above poster. Rate of failure seems higher to me too from personal experience. . And I trust that more than independent studies that are not done over long period of time.
Sorry, but Consumer Reports has a larger sample size tested over a longer period than you do I bet. They've been evaluating Apple systems alongside other vendors for a decade at least and Apple has consistently been at the top of the heap for low failure rates. Personally, I've had more Apple machines die on me than IBM, but when you look at the last company I worked for (a couple hundred of each) it goes the other way by quite a bit.
You can post all the anecdotes you want, but find me a real, professional study with a good sample size like those published by Consumer Reports to back up your opinion if you want me to take it seriously. I paid for the Consumer Reports study and our IT dept. paid for several other evaluations over the years. They were largely in agreement. I haven't seen even one that puts Dell above Apple for hardware reliability, even for laptops in the last year (Dell's strongest category).
I like Apple. But I hope they lose this one. It would be nice to see some reasonable legal limits on these damn click-wrap licenses.
I agree it would be nice, in general, if the courts authoritatively decided copying into RAM or onto a hard drive of one computer was not copyright infringement regardless of the terms in the license. Precedent, however, is leaning heavily the other way.
But at the same time, I'm not sure I would by a clone. I don't see anything that would legally obligate Apple to keep clones in mind when they upgrade MacOs. But I do see incentives to break compatibility.
You wouldn't have the option for long. Apple would be pretty much forced to use DRM to enforce said policies, or to stop selling their OS in boxed versions at all. Either way, it would just be a pain for Apple users and still kill Pystar.
All the same, if you paid for a copy of MacOs, you should be able to do as you damn well please with it.
Should you be able to make a hundred copies of it and go sell them on the street corner? Should you be able to make one copy and sell that copy on the street corner?
I don't know, at that point it can be considered a case of cognitive dissonance rearing its head. "I spent a month's salary on this computer, and I'm not an idiot, so I must have made a good purchase decision!"
This theory is fairly well put to rest by business use. I've worked at companies where Apple was an approved vendor for hardware and seen the rapid move of people to Macs and then watched them stay with them almost 100% of the time. In many cases it was skeptical people trying it out at work because they weren't spending a dime of their own money and with the option of wiping OS X and replacing it with Windows or Linux. People who try it are generally adamant about staying with it. There have even been a few stories here on Slashdot about companies running trial runs with them with similar results.
They make the vast majority of their profits from hardware sales, with a growing share attributed to iTunes royalties.
Wuzzah? Last I saw iTunes accounted for like 1%, with iPods about 45% and computers also about 45%. Apple is diversifying into other markets (pro software, mp3 players, settop devices, phones), but iTunes has always been a way to sell hardware, not a profit generator by itself.
I specced a functionally equivalent machine, and even gave Apple a break by not including the cost of the external hard drive case, external powered USB hub, and power strip that made the total size of the Mac mini solution pretty much the same as the low profile desktop, but I *did* count the firewire card in the cost of the PC!
I know just how you mean. The other day I was looking for a new bicycle. I wanted a bike that would not fold and looked at a Dahon folding bike, then gave Dahon a break by not including the cost of hiring some guy to weld the folding joints in place and it was still more expensive than regular bikes!
By tying their hardware so firmly to the OS, they aren't so much killing competition as denying themselves extra sales of the OS.
That would be the case in a free market, but not in a monopolized one. Trying to bring OS X directly into competition with MS's Windows monopoly is doomed to failure, regardless of the relative merits of the products. MS can and does easily introduce incompatibilities between the two, which hurt Apple more than MS (hurting relative to their market shares). Enforce the laws and fix the market and Apple will be forced by market forces to unbundle.
Even so, I would give my left nut for Apple to lose this lawsuit.
Why? So Apple implements restrictive DRM and registration instead of using an EULA? Even were Pystar would win, all it would do is force Apple to make OS X worse for end users to protect their revenue.
Complain about MS all you want...
Thanks, I will. MS has destroyed the desktop OS market and that is the only reason Apple makes money bundling a desktop OS with hardware. Otherwise, they'd make more money selling them separately. The best solution in my mind is to fix the root cause of this and hundreds of other problems. Break up MS into at least two companies both of which have the rights to Windows. You'll get real competition and real innovation in Windows again, and consumers will have choices. If Apple wants to compete in such a market, they'll pretty much have to license OS X to other OEMs.
...the fact it is impossible to build a Leopard computer on your own just Screams dictatorship.
Actually, it screams "monopoly" but the kind granted by the state, as in a monopoly on duplication granted by copyright. I'd be the first to say our copyright laws need reform, but this is not specific to Apple.
My company is evaluating moving over to mac book pros. We have put 25 of them into use and are tracking their rate of hardware failure against the 200 Dell Latitudes we have in play. Guess what- the mac books experience hardware failures 6x as often. Its not like there is one mac mac book pro either, MOST of them have had issues, including replacements.
Gee, funny how several different independent testing companies have completely the opposite results you do. Now who should I trust to accurately and impartially test equipment, Muadib or Consumer Reports... it's such a tough call.
Dell has come a long way with their laptops over the last year, from below average to one of the most reliable. They still are below average for desktops. And Apple, well they've been at the top for relaibility rates for years now. Buying Apple hardware can be problematic since their selection is small compared to all the PC vendors combined and for end users you'll end up paying for features you don't want (or don't think you want anyway). That said, they make some of the most reliable hardware you can buy.
So what's the big deal?
The big deal is people want to be able to run OS X without buying Apple hardware. This is an unfulfilled consumer demand. As such, both companies looking to make a profit and end users are willing to look really hard to find any legal excuse to do so.
In my opinion this all leads back to the root problem of the desktop OS market being completely broken. If it were healthy, Apple would make more money selling OS X unbundled from their hardware than they do selling it as a bundle. The only reason they make more money selling it as it bundled is because MS's monopoly has made sure there is no real competition.
Unfortunately, Psystar did much more egregious things than violate a silly EULA term. They, by their own public admission, modified a copyright-protected work, then redistributed these modifications without a license to do so. And they did it for commercial purposes, no less. Even under the traditional terms of copyright (as opposed to the mutilated corporate-serving terms we have now), that's just not cricket.
The EULA is the license to make additional copies of OS X. In order to take the copy on a disk and put it on a hard drive, you have to have a license. The EULA provides that license, if you follow the terms. Breaking the EULA is making copies that don't fit within that license. It's not like they are two, separate acts.
I will be absolutely stunned if Apple doesn't prevail on the Copyright and Trademark parts of their case, though I do hope that the judge will find that a license to run software on a particular kind of hardware is not binding.
Most of the precedent to date follows the theory that installing is making a copy. Heck, loading it into RAM has been ruled to be making a copy in some cases. It isn't "running software on particular hardware" that is illegal, but loading it onto that hardware in the first place, which the courts seem to think is making a copy without a license to do so.
Now Steve Jobs has to pull the same kind of antics that Microsoft was endlessly bashed for.
MS is mostly bashed for their illegal business practices, especially antitrust abuse. Apple enforcing onerous terms of the license for a product they own the copyright on is something else entirely. Sadly, from what I can see the best thing for consumers (who want OS X) that can come out of this is Pystar losing. Otherwise, Apple will become more like MS, being forced to add DRM and license keys to restrict installation, which will suck for those of us who prefer not messing with that crap.
Yes, if Apple wins. What however if Apple does not win? Don't be so sure. They thought long and hard before suing and may regret it deeply before this is all over.
Suppose for the sake of argument that Apple loses this lawsuit. Who does this benefit? Apple can and will just lock down their OS using DRM and by selling upgrades only via the net. Even if Pystar wins the end result is just Apple's customers being inconvenienced by a more restrictive method of licensing. Either way Pystar cannot continue with this as a long-term business plan so either they will cash out and move on or have to find some other gimmick.
It seems like the low-hanging fruit would be to copy the parts of Linux and OS X where Windows is still behind. This would include:
The only time I ever have to restart my Airport Extreme is when I update the firmware.
I have to reboot mine because it is locked up once a year or so, certainly not every few days. It puts up with a lot of traffic from a lot of machines, both always on and laptops and all manner of traffic including bittorrent. My best guess is someone has a defective one or keeps it on top of a very hot server in a closed case.
Who are the losers here?
You forgot, taxpayers, who will end up paying for purchases of MS Office because of government regulations requiring use of specific ISO standards, like OOXML, for particular uses. It will basically be used as a way to lock out everyone but MS for certain contracts and we'll be paying the bills.
2) Let them get away with it and have all their standardization efforts become meaningless.
ISO standards may be meaningless to all rational people if they continue down this road. Sadly, there are a lot of powerful organizations that have a lot of influence on many of our lives that are not even close to rational. As someone who has occasionally had to deal with standards for products used by the US government, I can tell you right now there is nothing rational about the requirements or procedures. It is millions in consulting fees being handed to people for completely useless certifications, largely as a way to prevent competitors from bidding on contracts. I actually saw a Windows 95 based "device" win a contract we wanted to bid on, because that was the only OS "certified" for security for that use. The "certification" basically amounted to MS stating it was not guaranteed to be fit for any purpose and paying contractors to fill out a boatload of paperwork. Any vendor with a pile of money could get "certified" but it took time and cost a lot of money.
The problem with ISO and OOXML is that it won't be viewed rationally and it will likely be used as a way to make MS Office a legal requirement in certain government applications without any regard for the real merits of other software packages. Even if all rational people know ISO certification no longer means anything, that doesn't mean we won't be spending millions in tax dollars needlessly because of it.
Seems mirror validation is solved, it's just not widely adopted by default.
True enough, but most people don't end up picking a repository they know they can trust, as demonstrated by this study. I've seen very few free servers with HTTPS that I would know I can trust and most people let their system pick one for them.
At least for yum, the software will randomly pick and check a different mirror each time it is run so unless you have subverted a large fraction of mirrors, you've managed to delay the update for a short time period at best.
That's not really a good thing. Your machine picks a random mirror, which just happens to be a compromised one. It updates OpenSSH or whatever to fix that flaw, but at the same time knows your machine's IP and that it is running a vulnerable version, exploits it and loads a trojan which fires up later. Sounds like an easy way to compromise a significant number of systems. In fact, one of the recommendations in TFA is to choose a particular repository from someone you know and trust since it was so easy for them to get one running and people using it with no credentials.
Considering Fedora (at least) signs all packages, seems like the authors should have been clear if the attack still works if the packages are not signed.
The article seemed pretty clear to me. The most vulnerable systems don't have signed packages or metadata or expiring signatures. The least vulnerable systems have all of those, but are still potentially vulnerable for a window of time before the metadata signature expires but after a vulnerability is found and fixed in a package.