" For a company which will obviously get sued by Apple which is known to have very, very evil lawyers, the legal costs will be very high."
Psystar's owners could well be facing a lot more than simply litigation costs. Commercial piracy that involves more than ten copies or $2500 is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison (10 years if it isn't a first offence) together with a hefty fine, and being convicted doesn't mean they can't be sued in civil court for damages (double jeopardy doesn't prevent one from being sued). Of course, the upside to this is that the defendant gets the all the protections of criminal law, including guilt having to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
"The derived work argument is difficult to support."
It is not, because the law is very clear about it.
" you bought a copy of my book and replaced a page with one containing some better description, would you then be able to sell the modified copy?"
You would be entitled to sell _that_ copy because doing so would be a clear transference of ownership (you would not have your own copy anymore). You could not however make one or more copies of your altered version and distribute them, even if you included a legitimate original copy with them, because selling a legitimate copy does not give you the right to distribute a non-legitimate copy.
"Unfortunately, there was a case last year related to DVD censorship that might have set a relevant precedent here, where a manufacturer was selling DVDs edited to remove certain portions along with a copy of the original."
It didn't set any precedent, but was a clear case of ruling based on what copyright law says. First sale doctrine (which is enshrined in copyright law through fair use provisions) lets you do pretty much what you like with stuff you buy _within the law_, and in the case of copyrighted materials, the laws you have to be within say that you can make archival copies and derived works for your own purposes, but are prohibited from distributing them to third parties. The text of the act clearly says that any copies apart from the original _must be destroyed_ when transferring ownership to somebody else -- there is no provision for transferring ownership of any other copy except the original to a third party under any circumstances.
"Long story short, to make copies to install and run a program (eg disc to HDD, HDD to RAM, RAM to CPU cache) does NOT require a license because it is expressly PERMITTED by 17 USC 117."
Redistributing those files to others isn't permitted, however, and Psystar are clearly redistributing such files to others for commercial gain.
"The GPL itself acknowledges that you do NOT need to agree to it to use the software, or to do anything that is within your default end-user rights under copyright law."
And Psystar's rights under copyright law do not include distributing copies of derivative works without permission from the original copyright holder. Selling a legitimate copy of OS X with the derivative work does not change the fact that Psystar are illegally distributing the derived work.
"Only if you plan to do things that the Government gives the copyright holder the ability to restrict, do you need to choose between going without, accepting the GPL, or breaking the law (and opening yourself up to an infringement lawsuit)."
And the government clearly gives copyright holders the ability to restrict the distribution of derived works, hence the fact that the GPL also restricts it (a work derived from a GPL work, or that incorporates portions of a GPL work itself becomes a GPL work).
"In the case of a retail boxed MacOS, the doctrine of first-sale should trump any EULA."
It does indeed, but this clearly isn't a first sale, because you can't run the legal Apple copy of OS X you bought from Psystar on the machine they sell you -- you're running a copy of a derivative version that Psystar themselves install on that machine's hard-disk without permission from the copyright holder to make and sell that derived work, and first sale doctrine doesn't apply to things which are sold (or otherwise obtained) illegally.
Copyright however isn't in the least "iffy" in law. Psystar are installing a modified copy of OS X (a derivative work under copyright law) on the hard-disks of their machines, and then selling that derivative work without specific permission from the copyright holder to do so. Whether they sell a license to a stock OS X copy alongside the derivative copy has no relevance whatsoever to the act of distributing a derivative work for commercial gain without permission, which for all Psystar's bluster, is a crime (non-commercial distribution would be a civil law matter).
Compaq also had to produce a clean-room version of the IBM BIOS, which was copyrighted. There were companies who chose to make clones by simply copying IBM's BIOS chips, and they got sued into oblivion.
"people believe in god because others believe in god, and because we're all crazy and lazy enough to accept what someone else went to all the trouble of printing off in a book"
And we believe in science because we're all crazy and lazy enough to accept what someone else went to all the trouble of printing off in a book. 99.999% of the people on both sides of the debate are simply arguing about which set of books fits in with their preferred world view, because anybody who hasn't observed and measured the phenomena that are accepted as science for themselves is just as guilty of believing what others have written as religious people are.
"The problem remains, when God exists and acts like you describe it, there are two possibilities why he doesn't intervene more often (I mean, it's not like we're exactly what he'd call perfect, ya know?). Either he lost interest and decided to put us onto the shelf, to look at us every couple millenia to see how we develop, or we're really just some sociology project."
Or perhaps the simulation is running immensely quickly on "god" time scales, so tens of billions of years passes inside it while he's eating breakfast.
"Ps and such still have to collect the data, but it's not centralized? Don't the ISPs do this now?"
The EU date retention directive requires ISPs to keep logs of the fact that a communication occurred between specific individuals at a certain date and time for up to 2 years. Legal authorities can request these logs, but they must specify whose logs they require, and the range of dates involved, and cannot demand the contents of messages or other communications (which service providers are in any case not obliged to keep) because, as the directive clearly states, this would contravene European human rights legislation which guarantees the right to private correspondence.
So once again we have a very British law which will probably be blamed on Europe by the Daily Mail and its jingoistic "everything bad about Britain is the result of a conspiracy by foreigners" ilk despite the fact that most of what's in it is actually in direct contravention of current EC data retention directives, which specifically prohibit blanket surveillance of this type.
if we ignore all the other palaeoanthropolical evidence, i.e:
1) Bones burned at high temperatures found in caves show that Homo Erectus was regularly cooking food 1.5 million years ago. This is unsurprising because we know they used fire, and and it doesn't take very long for those sitting around a fire to accidentally drop some food in it, fish that food out with a stick, and after eating it, discover that it tastes better than the raw variety.
2) Humans didn't display any technological superiority over H. Erectus, and were technologically inferior to H. Neanderthalenis until around 40,000 years ago. That 40,000 year figure is crucial, because this is the period when we began to produce art, and our tool technology started to incorporate various innovations that H. Erectus and Neanderthal tools didn't have.
3) H. Erectus kept evolving, and eventually developed a brain similar in size to our own (i.e. their brains doubled in size) long before modern humans appeared, while H. Neanderthalensis had a bigger brain than modern humans. It should be noted that H. Erectus is by far the most successful human species, having survived for almost 2 million years (followed by Australopithecus Aforensis, who was around for a million years).
3) H. Neanderthalensis had a more sophisticated culture than ours until 40,000 years ago (again, the 40,000 year break point). They buried their dead, had production lines for tools, and maintained a trading network over long distances while H. Sapiens was spending the first 100,000 years of our existence being primitive aboriginal bushmen in Africa.
The best theory I've seen to explain why humans changed from a very long period in a static, very primitive state is that the climate changes caused by the Indonesian super volcano which led to the "bottleneck event" that nearly destroyed our species favoured the brightest and most innovative people who were able to formulate survival strategies that didn't occur to less imaginative individuals. The ice age which the event caused also wiped out the majority of H. Erectus and H. Neanderthalensis, so those newer, brighter humans were able to expand into new territories without having to compete with significant numbers of other human species who had been technologically, culturally, and physically superior to them before the bottleneck event occurred.
The bottleneck event happened around 60,000 years ago. By the time its effects had completely disappeared, H. Erectus was extinct, H. Neanderthalensis had been depleted to a level they never recovered from completely (they lived in Europe and Asia, both of which were especially badly hit by the after-effects of the super volcano), and the entirety of H. Sapiens was represented by as little as 2,000 individuals living in small, scattered groups whose entire intellectual capacity was dedicated to the difficult business of survival. The fact that it took us another 20,000 years to reach a point where our culture and technology went beyond the levels that other human species had reached hundreds of thousands of years previously is an indication of how difficult the job of merely surviving was during that time, and how close we came to following H. Erectus and H. Neanderthansis into the oblivion of extinction.
"NPD doesn't publicly list their numbers, and yet people quote them all the time. They're supposed to be the industry standard for actual machines out."
The figures I quoted are from IDC, not NPD. NPD provides primarily (but not exclusively) US-based retail information from stores, so it doesn't cover online sales, which means that Dell aren't represented at all, and it also doesn't include corporate contract sales, which dwarf the number of machines sold at retail.
"The numbers you quoted were one source I've never heard of"
Google for IDC -- they're extremely well known, and widely quoted in the computing media.
"and only list new PC sales for the quarter. I'm not sure if those PC sales include laptops or not."
They are are aggregates for all PCs, i.e. desktops and laptops. The new low-end "netbooks" aren't included however, although this may change in the future.
"Browser usage shows the number of PCs connected to the internet"
It measure what specific browsers reported themselves as when hitting the sites that one organisation collects statistics on. This is not the same as the number of machines connected to the Internet, because:
1) Not all Internet-connected machines use browsers. Some are only for EMAIL, others use distributed "thin client" applications, and still others are dedicated servers of various types.
2) Those that do use browsers may not browse any of the sites that a particular organisation collects statistics for. There are hundreds of millions of sites out there, and any organisation that claims to have figures for more than a very small subset of them is quite frankly lying.
3) Some browsers have the capability to "spoof" other browsers to prevent being blocked by (for example) sites that only claim t o work with IE. It's quite common for Linux browsers to be set up to report themselves as being IE 6 on Windows for this reason.
"Global browser usage shows Apple with a close to 8% market share"
It shows Apple with 8% of the hits on the sites that one organisation collects statistics on. This is not the same as having 8% of global browser usage, and global browser usage does not measure what percentage of computers _in use_ are Apples, and the percentage of computers in use does not measure market share, which is nothing more or less than the number of machines sold over a defined period compared to those from other manufacturers in the same sector.
"which mimics the claims I've seen from multiple sources that Apple has a 7% share of the global market right now."
I've not seen any _market research_ source (including Apple's) claim that they have anything like what you're saying. A market is measured by sales, not how many hits on a tiny subset of the world's Internet sites were from Apple machines.
"I'm not sure how you are trying to deny that (link to US figures)"
I didn't deny anything about the US market. What I denied was your claim that they're the world's #3 laptop maker, because they're not -- Lenovo are, followed by Acer, followed by Toshiba. If Apple's growth continues at its current rate, they could well end up displacing Toshiba for #5 spot in a year or two, but that would still only put them in 5th place, not third.
NB: the US has always been a much better market for Apple than any other country except Switzerland. They're now doing fairly well in some European countries (but by no means all of them), but have only a tiny share of the Asian market.
"Slashdot itself had an article not too long about Apple reaching #3."
The article was about US figures, not global ones.
"The link was a few posts above, exactly like I said."
That's one company's figures based on browsers (there are many other equivalent ones from other sources which tell a completely different story). Not every computer out there has access to the Internet -- indeed, corporates, who are by far the biggest buyers of computers, are being more and more restrictive about it every day because of security concerns, so no measure of web hits can provide a picture of real-world computer usage.
NB: my figures are based on those from IDC, who use each company's own measure of PCs shipped to define their share of the current computer _market_ (a market is a place where things are bought and sold, not one where they're used for a single specific application).
"the above link of global statistics confirms what I'm reading everywhere"
What link to global statistics would this be? I can't see one in your post.
"Apple has jumped to 7% market share since the release of Vista."
Apple just announced record sales of around 2.5 million computers in a quarter when total world sales were 79.5 million units, which means they accounted for less than 3.2% of global sales. They would have needed to ship 6 million computers in that quarter to attain 7% of the market.
The global top 5 for the most recently published quarter is as follows:
"Apple is the #3 seller of laptops on the planet right now"
They're the #3 seller in the US. Worldwide, Apple's market share of computers is around 3%, which isn't enough to put them in the top 5 global laptop manufacturers.
But they began selling the Vista Express Upgrade scheme with OEM systems in October 2006. As MS used these in their original "we sold 60 million Vista licenses in the first 100 days" figures, it's reasonable for me to count October 06 as the day OEMs began selling Vista licenses to people.
"DX10 systems began entering the market only in late spring and summer of 07"
And this makes a difference in what way when most of the PCs sold are laptops, and the bulk of those have crummy Intel chipsets that can't take advantage of DX 9, let alone DX 10?
"OEM Vista sales have been strongest at the Vista Premium level. That implies an investment in hardware equivalent to the mid-line Mac."
The Dell Inspiron 1525 laptop with dual-core CPU (i.e. not the bottom-end celeron one) comes with Vista Premium, and is currently being sold for $599; the Inspiron 530 desktop with Home Premium is $629 with a 19" monitor. That's the price of a Mac Mini, which is the bottom end of Apple's range, not the middle of it, and as is the case with the Mini, both Dell systems use Intel graphics, so neither will gain any notable benefit from DX 10.
Which is quite frankly a pathetic figure given the fact that Vista comes pre-installed on just about every machine sold by a whole bunch of vendors (including HP and Dell, who between them account for about 57% of US PC sales), whereas OS X only comes pre-installed on Apple computers (8.5% of US PC sales).
No matter which way MS and their supporters try to spin things, there's something severely wrong when an OS that's been pre-installed on 90% of the PCs sold for for the last 2 years can only boast twice the user base of one that requires an expensive dongle from a minority manufacturer to run.
Punched cards and punched paper rolls were being used to store information of various types long before computers appeared, e.g. the Jacquard loom, pianolas and other early automated music systems, and the IBM tabulating machines that the parent was obviously referring to.
I've seen a lot of that tripe on Slashdot from pathetic people who label anyone whose own social ineptitude didn't force them to spend large portions of their lives sitting at home playing with technological toys as stupid. It doesn't matter whether they're a renowned scientist or a brain surgeon -- if they haven't spent every hour wanking themselves blind over CPUs, graphics cards, and FOSS, then they're stupid sheeple who must be reviled by the massed congiscenti who are not only capable of assembling their own computers from bits of electronic Lego (no soldering required!), but can install a Linux distro on it, and almost get the sound and video working properly after only a few weeks of dredging around the Internet.
"I don't approve of the MS hate, but many do."
There's a major difference between hating the way a company behaves, and hating everyone who works there, is a customer, reseller, software developer, or has any other connection with the company, irrespective of how tenuous it may be. But then there's also a difference between a person who looks at things with a sense of perspective and the tunnel vision of a hate-filled zealot who wants to destroy anything and anyone who doesn't conform to their idea of the way things should be.
"Zealots only become zealous when they have really good reason."
Zealots only become zealots when they _believe_ they have a good reason. This is not the same as actually having a good reason.
"Take away the reason for their beliefs, and they go away."
You cannot remove the reason for a belief that isn't founded in reason, and I've et to encounter any zealot whose "reason" isn't really "everyone must do what we say, because we say so".
"I don't necessarily believe that all software should be Free, but there's certainly a lot of basics that should be."
And a lot of basics (plus plenty of other stuff) already is free. The fact that there are also alternative paid versions of the same things does not alter the fact that the free ones are there for those who wish to use them.
"I'm not an ends-justifies-the-means kind of guy, but it's hard to suggest good ways of getting big companies to listen to the little guy."
The way to get big companies to listen to the little guy is by finding ways to affect their bottom line, not indulging in activism that inconveniences their customers without costing them anything. Add in the fact that the FSF is a small group mostly composed of young males, and the net result of this sort of activism will be to make many people who'd never heard of the FSF label it as yet another youth-driven extremist group who'll "get over it when they grow up".
NB: free technical support costs a company exactly the same amount to run irrespective of whether they're handling a genuine enquiry or a buffoon who wastes his own time (because the staff still get paid either way, so their time isn't being wasted) voicing his (the chances of a FOSS zealot being a girl are, to be kind, remote) beliefs to people who no power to affect any changes whatsoever in the organisation they work at, have no access to those who can make policy decisions. Such acts therefore achieve nothing whatsoever for whatever cause the trolls support.
Is it also cool to hate people who happen to have bought a computer with an MS OS on it (i.e just about everything out there), and require assistance? Because they're the only ones who suffer from stupid stunts like these. Microsoft's support staff get paid irrespective of whether they're dealing with an annoying troll or a genuine technical issue, and the call logging systems will also show the troll calls as tech. support calls. And the trolling won't ever be reported to anyone remotely senior at the company, so nobody who matters will ever hear about it.
The similarity is that both are denying a service to _customers_.
"*If* the DBD crowd said something like "let's write to badmofo@hotmail.com to express our views on the issue" would that be a DOS?"
No, because it doesn't negatively affect customers.
"When some years ago a movement was created to coordinate the asking of MS Windows refunds for OEM purchases, is that also a DOS? "
Again, not a negative affect on customers. For somebody who claims not to see the similarity in the parent poster's example, you seem to be an excellent source of examples which bear absolutely no similarity whatsoever to what the FSF are doing.
"Again, it seems to me that this is only a issue because it is Apple."
It's an issue because it affects customers who wish to use a service, and are being denied that service.
"The DBD website has some specific questions to ask Apple, and I have yet to see them tackled by those who dismiss the action"
Then go and protest them outside Apple's headquarters in Cupertino, or politely hand out leaflets outside Apple stores.
"What I have read in this threads was a FSF guy answering that this follows lack of will from Apple to talk about this issues at a higher level."
In other words, a bunch of people who decided they were important got told in no uncertain terms that they aren't, so as is the case with the immature when their egos get bruised, they've decided to do something spiteful that will result in the customers they're affecting writing them off as a typical bunch of shouty teenagers whose inevitable ejection from the Apple store by security staff will be greeted by cheers from those waiting in line.
Effect on Apple: zero.
Effect on Genius Bar staff: zero, because they still get paid.
Effect on customers: some silly teenagers who were ranting about something or other to do with Apple clogged up the system for a couple of minutes, after which security staff escorted them from the premises, and things then returned to normal. There were also some convenient vacant slots because a lot of people who booked didn't turn up.
Effect on FSF: zero, because the only thing most people notice about intrusive, ranting boors is the fact that they're intrusive, ranting boors, and the very small number outside "the cause" who pay any attention to what's being ranted about will forget everything beyond the fact that some people were ranting after a few minutes.
"The company providing the clone is already getting their fireproof suits on for the lawsuits because everyone knows that the contract does not allow installation on non-Apple hardware."
I don't see what Apple could sue them for, because the company isn't installing any Apple software, and their machines don't contain any Apple firmware. IMO they know this, so their claims about preparing to be sued are actually nothing more than a publicity exercise by what would otherwise be yet another boring assembler of off-the-shelf components with nothing to distinguish themselves from the many similar boring assemblers of off-the-shelf components out there.
"I am an Apple software/hardware user, but I still fall on the freedom side of the fence. So I'm okay with clone makers."
I also have a Mac (among other things), and feel the same way you do. I also knew that this sort of thing would happen the moment Apple switched from largely self-designed computers with processors that they owned some of the IP on to what are to all intents and purposes fairly standard PC clones in nice boxes with some added goodies.
"In any case, if people start installing on non-Apple systems, they'll probably just raise the price or something."
Or simply make it clear that the product is an upgrade on the box, and use the measures that other software companies selling upgrades do, i.e. require proof of having purchased a Mac capable of running the upgrade to buy it, or check for an existing, working, non-hacked prior version of OS X on the target system during installation (Apple already do the latter with with some applications, e.g. Logic upgrades).
Slashdot Mirror
" For a company which will obviously get sued by Apple which is known to have very, very evil lawyers, the legal costs will be very high."
Psystar's owners could well be facing a lot more than simply litigation costs. Commercial piracy that involves more than ten copies or $2500 is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison (10 years if it isn't a first offence) together with a hefty fine, and being convicted doesn't mean they can't be sued in civil court for damages (double jeopardy doesn't prevent one from being sued). Of course, the upside to this is that the defendant gets the all the protections of criminal law, including guilt having to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
"The derived work argument is difficult to support."
It is not, because the law is very clear about it.
" you bought a copy of my book and replaced a page with one containing some better description, would you then be able to sell the modified copy?"
You would be entitled to sell _that_ copy because doing so would be a clear transference of ownership (you would not have your own copy anymore). You could not however make one or more copies of your altered version and distribute them, even if you included a legitimate original copy with them, because selling a legitimate copy does not give you the right to distribute a non-legitimate copy.
"Unfortunately, there was a case last year related to DVD censorship that might have set a relevant precedent here, where a manufacturer was selling DVDs edited to remove certain portions along with a copy of the original."
It didn't set any precedent, but was a clear case of ruling based on what copyright law says. First sale doctrine (which is enshrined in copyright law through fair use provisions) lets you do pretty much what you like with stuff you buy _within the law_, and in the case of copyrighted materials, the laws you have to be within say that you can make archival copies and derived works for your own purposes, but are prohibited from distributing them to third parties. The text of the act clearly says that any copies apart from the original _must be destroyed_ when transferring ownership to somebody else -- there is no provision for transferring ownership of any other copy except the original to a third party under any circumstances.
"Long story short, to make copies to install and run a program (eg disc to HDD, HDD to RAM, RAM to CPU cache) does NOT require a license because it is expressly PERMITTED by 17 USC 117."
Redistributing those files to others isn't permitted, however, and Psystar are clearly redistributing such files to others for commercial gain.
"The GPL itself acknowledges that you do NOT need to agree to it to use the software, or to do anything that is within your default end-user rights under copyright law."
And Psystar's rights under copyright law do not include distributing copies of derivative works without permission from the original copyright holder. Selling a legitimate copy of OS X with the derivative work does not change the fact that Psystar are illegally distributing the derived work.
"Only if you plan to do things that the Government gives the copyright holder the ability to restrict, do you need to choose between going without, accepting the GPL, or breaking the law (and opening yourself up to an infringement lawsuit)."
And the government clearly gives copyright holders the ability to restrict the distribution of derived works, hence the fact that the GPL also restricts it (a work derived from a GPL work, or that incorporates portions of a GPL work itself becomes a GPL work).
"In the case of a retail boxed MacOS, the doctrine of first-sale should trump any EULA."
It does indeed, but this clearly isn't a first sale, because you can't run the legal Apple copy of OS X you bought from Psystar on the machine they sell you -- you're running a copy of a derivative version that Psystar themselves install on that machine's hard-disk without permission from the copyright holder to make and sell that derived work, and first sale doctrine doesn't apply to things which are sold (or otherwise obtained) illegally.
"EULAs are a very very iffy subject in law."
Copyright however isn't in the least "iffy" in law. Psystar are installing a modified copy of OS X (a derivative work under copyright law) on the hard-disks of their machines, and then selling that derivative work without specific permission from the copyright holder to do so. Whether they sell a license to a stock OS X copy alongside the derivative copy has no relevance whatsoever to the act of distributing a derivative work for commercial gain without permission, which for all Psystar's bluster, is a crime (non-commercial distribution would be a civil law matter).
Compaq also had to produce a clean-room version of the IBM BIOS, which was copyrighted. There were companies who chose to make clones by simply copying IBM's BIOS chips, and they got sued into oblivion.
"people believe in god because others believe in god, and because we're all crazy and lazy enough to accept what someone else went to all the trouble of printing off in a book"
And we believe in science because we're all crazy and lazy enough to accept what someone else went to all the trouble of printing off in a book. 99.999% of the people on both sides of the debate are simply arguing about which set of books fits in with their preferred world view, because anybody who hasn't observed and measured the phenomena that are accepted as science for themselves is just as guilty of believing what others have written as religious people are.
"The problem remains, when God exists and acts like you describe it, there are two possibilities why he doesn't intervene more often (I mean, it's not like we're exactly what he'd call perfect, ya know?). Either he lost interest and decided to put us onto the shelf, to look at us every couple millenia to see how we develop, or we're really just some sociology project."
Or perhaps the simulation is running immensely quickly on "god" time scales, so tens of billions of years passes inside it while he's eating breakfast.
"Ps and such still have to collect the data, but it's not centralized? Don't the ISPs do this now?"
The EU date retention directive requires ISPs to keep logs of the fact that a communication occurred between specific individuals at a certain date and time for up to 2 years. Legal authorities can request these logs, but they must specify whose logs they require, and the range of dates involved, and cannot demand the contents of messages or other communications (which service providers are in any case not obliged to keep) because, as the directive clearly states, this would contravene European human rights legislation which guarantees the right to private correspondence.
So once again we have a very British law which will probably be blamed on Europe by the Daily Mail and its jingoistic "everything bad about Britain is the result of a conspiracy by foreigners" ilk despite the fact that most of what's in it is actually in direct contravention of current EC data retention directives, which specifically prohibit blanket surveillance of this type.
"this legislation is now required due to an EU directive"
Please cite the EU directive that permits (let alone requires) blanket snooping into _the contents_ of messages by any party, including a government.
if we ignore all the other palaeoanthropolical evidence, i.e:
1) Bones burned at high temperatures found in caves show that Homo Erectus was regularly cooking food 1.5 million years ago. This is unsurprising because we know they used fire, and and it doesn't take very long for those sitting around a fire to accidentally drop some food in it, fish that food out with a stick, and after eating it, discover that it tastes better than the raw variety.
2) Humans didn't display any technological superiority over H. Erectus, and were technologically inferior to H. Neanderthalenis until around 40,000 years ago. That 40,000 year figure is crucial, because this is the period when we began to produce art, and our tool technology started to incorporate various innovations that H. Erectus and Neanderthal tools didn't have.
3) H. Erectus kept evolving, and eventually developed a brain similar in size to our own (i.e. their brains doubled in size) long before modern humans appeared, while H. Neanderthalensis had a bigger brain than modern humans. It should be noted that H. Erectus is by far the most successful human species, having survived for almost 2 million years (followed by Australopithecus Aforensis, who was around for a million years).
3) H. Neanderthalensis had a more sophisticated culture than ours until 40,000 years ago (again, the 40,000 year break point). They buried their dead, had production lines for tools, and maintained a trading network over long distances while H. Sapiens was spending the first 100,000 years of our existence being primitive aboriginal bushmen in Africa.
The best theory I've seen to explain why humans changed from a very long period in a static, very primitive state is that the climate changes caused by the Indonesian super volcano which led to the "bottleneck event" that nearly destroyed our species favoured the brightest and most innovative people who were able to formulate survival strategies that didn't occur to less imaginative individuals. The ice age which the event caused also wiped out the majority of H. Erectus and H. Neanderthalensis, so those newer, brighter humans were able to expand into new territories without having to compete with significant numbers of other human species who had been technologically, culturally, and physically superior to them before the bottleneck event occurred.
The bottleneck event happened around 60,000 years ago. By the time its effects had completely disappeared, H. Erectus was extinct, H. Neanderthalensis had been depleted to a level they never recovered from completely (they lived in Europe and Asia, both of which were especially badly hit by the after-effects of the super volcano), and the entirety of H. Sapiens was represented by as little as 2,000 individuals living in small, scattered groups whose entire intellectual capacity was dedicated to the difficult business of survival. The fact that it took us another 20,000 years to reach a point where our culture and technology went beyond the levels that other human species had reached hundreds of thousands of years previously is an indication of how difficult the job of merely surviving was during that time, and how close we came to following H. Erectus and H. Neanderthansis into the oblivion of extinction.
"NPD doesn't publicly list their numbers, and yet people quote them all the time. They're supposed to be the industry standard for actual machines out."
The figures I quoted are from IDC, not NPD. NPD provides primarily (but not exclusively) US-based retail information from stores, so it doesn't cover online sales, which means that Dell aren't represented at all, and it also doesn't include corporate contract sales, which dwarf the number of machines sold at retail.
"The numbers you quoted were one source I've never heard of"
Google for IDC -- they're extremely well known, and widely quoted in the computing media.
"and only list new PC sales for the quarter. I'm not sure if those PC sales include laptops or not."
They are are aggregates for all PCs, i.e. desktops and laptops. The new low-end "netbooks" aren't included however, although this may change in the future.
"Browser usage shows the number of PCs connected to the internet"
It measure what specific browsers reported themselves as when hitting the sites that one organisation collects statistics on. This is not the same as the number of machines connected to the Internet, because:
1) Not all Internet-connected machines use browsers. Some are only for EMAIL, others use distributed "thin client" applications, and still others are dedicated servers of various types.
2) Those that do use browsers may not browse any of the sites that a particular organisation collects statistics for. There are hundreds of millions of sites out there, and any organisation that claims to have figures for more than a very small subset of them is quite frankly lying.
3) Some browsers have the capability to "spoof" other browsers to prevent being blocked by (for example) sites that only claim t o work with IE. It's quite common for Linux browsers to be set up to report themselves as being IE 6 on Windows for this reason.
"Global browser usage shows Apple with a close to 8% market share"
It shows Apple with 8% of the hits on the sites that one organisation collects statistics on. This is not the same as having 8% of global browser usage, and global browser usage does not measure what percentage of computers _in use_ are Apples, and the percentage of computers in use does not measure market share, which is nothing more or less than the number of machines sold over a defined period compared to those from other manufacturers in the same sector.
"which mimics the claims I've seen from multiple sources that Apple has a 7% share of the global market right now."
I've not seen any _market research_ source (including Apple's) claim that they have anything like what you're saying. A market is measured by sales, not how many hits on a tiny subset of the world's Internet sites were from Apple machines.
"I'm not sure how you are trying to deny that (link to US figures)"
I didn't deny anything about the US market. What I denied was your claim that they're the world's #3 laptop maker, because they're not -- Lenovo are, followed by Acer, followed by Toshiba. If Apple's growth continues at its current rate, they could well end up displacing Toshiba for #5 spot in a year or two, but that would still only put them in 5th place, not third.
NB: the US has always been a much better market for Apple than any other country except Switzerland. They're now doing fairly well in some European countries (but by no means all of them), but have only a tiny share of the Asian market.
"Slashdot itself had an article not too long about Apple reaching #3."
The article was about US figures, not global ones.
"The link was a few posts above, exactly like I said."
That's one company's figures based on browsers (there are many other equivalent ones from other sources which tell a completely different story). Not every computer out there has access to the Internet -- indeed, corporates, who are by far the biggest buyers of computers, are being more and more restrictive about it every day because of security concerns, so no measure of web hits can provide a picture of real-world computer usage.
NB: my figures are based on those from IDC, who use each company's own measure of PCs shipped to define their share of the current computer _market_ (a market is a place where things are bought and sold, not one where they're used for a single specific application).
"the above link of global statistics confirms what I'm reading everywhere"
What link to global statistics would this be? I can't see one in your post.
"Apple has jumped to 7% market share since the release of Vista."
Apple just announced record sales of around 2.5 million computers in a quarter when total world sales were 79.5 million units, which means they accounted for less than 3.2% of global sales. They would have needed to ship 6 million computers in that quarter to attain 7% of the market.
The global top 5 for the most recently published quarter is as follows:
Hewlett Packard: 19%
Dell: 14.6%
Acer: 9.6%
Lenovo: 7.6%
Toshiba: 4%
"Apple is the #3 seller of laptops on the planet right now"
They're the #3 seller in the US. Worldwide, Apple's market share of computers is around 3%, which isn't enough to put them in the top 5 global laptop manufacturers.
"The OEM Vista install began in late January 07."
But they began selling the Vista Express Upgrade scheme with OEM systems in October 2006. As MS used these in their original "we sold 60 million Vista licenses in the first 100 days" figures, it's reasonable for me to count October 06 as the day OEMs began selling Vista licenses to people.
"DX10 systems began entering the market only in late spring and summer of 07"
And this makes a difference in what way when most of the PCs sold are laptops, and the bulk of those have crummy Intel chipsets that can't take advantage of DX 9, let alone DX 10?
"OEM Vista sales have been strongest at the Vista Premium level. That implies an investment in hardware equivalent to the mid-line Mac."
The Dell Inspiron 1525 laptop with dual-core CPU (i.e. not the bottom-end celeron one) comes with Vista Premium, and is currently being sold for $599; the Inspiron 530 desktop with Home Premium is $629 with a 19" monitor. That's the price of a Mac Mini, which is the bottom end of Apple's range, not the middle of it, and as is the case with the Mini, both Dell systems use Intel graphics, so neither will gain any notable benefit from DX 10.
"MS Vista has twice the market share of OSX."
Which is quite frankly a pathetic figure given the fact that Vista comes pre-installed on just about every machine sold by a whole bunch of vendors (including HP and Dell, who between them account for about 57% of US PC sales), whereas OS X only comes pre-installed on Apple computers (8.5% of US PC sales).
No matter which way MS and their supporters try to spin things, there's something severely wrong when an OS that's been pre-installed on 90% of the PCs sold for for the last 2 years can only boast twice the user base of one that requires an expensive dongle from a minority manufacturer to run.
"Punch card systems were computers."
Punched cards and punched paper rolls were being used to store information of various types long before computers appeared, e.g. the Jacquard loom, pianolas and other early automated music systems, and the IBM tabulating machines that the parent was obviously referring to.
"Sadly, that is how a lot of MS opponents feel."
I've seen a lot of that tripe on Slashdot from pathetic people who label anyone whose own social ineptitude didn't force them to spend large portions of their lives sitting at home playing with technological toys as stupid. It doesn't matter whether they're a renowned scientist or a brain surgeon -- if they haven't spent every hour wanking themselves blind over CPUs, graphics cards, and FOSS, then they're stupid sheeple who must be reviled by the massed congiscenti who are not only capable of assembling their own computers from bits of electronic Lego (no soldering required!), but can install a Linux distro on it, and almost get the sound and video working properly after only a few weeks of dredging around the Internet.
"I don't approve of the MS hate, but many do."
There's a major difference between hating the way a company behaves, and hating everyone who works there, is a customer, reseller, software developer, or has any other connection with the company, irrespective of how tenuous it may be. But then there's also a difference between a person who looks at things with a sense of perspective and the tunnel vision of a hate-filled zealot who wants to destroy anything and anyone who doesn't conform to their idea of the way things should be.
"Zealots only become zealous when they have really good reason."
Zealots only become zealots when they _believe_ they have a good reason. This is not the same as actually having a good reason.
"Take away the reason for their beliefs, and they go away."
You cannot remove the reason for a belief that isn't founded in reason, and I've et to encounter any zealot whose "reason" isn't really "everyone must do what we say, because we say so".
"I don't necessarily believe that all software should be Free, but there's certainly a lot of basics that should be."
And a lot of basics (plus plenty of other stuff) already is free. The fact that there are also alternative paid versions of the same things does not alter the fact that the free ones are there for those who wish to use them.
"I'm not an ends-justifies-the-means kind of guy, but it's hard to suggest good ways of getting big companies to listen to the little guy."
The way to get big companies to listen to the little guy is by finding ways to affect their bottom line, not indulging in activism that inconveniences their customers without costing them anything. Add in the fact that the FSF is a small group mostly composed of young males, and the net result of this sort of activism will be to make many people who'd never heard of the FSF label it as yet another youth-driven extremist group who'll "get over it when they grow up".
NB: free technical support costs a company exactly the same amount to run irrespective of whether they're handling a genuine enquiry or a buffoon who wastes his own time (because the staff still get paid either way, so their time isn't being wasted) voicing his (the chances of a FOSS zealot being a girl are, to be kind, remote) beliefs to people who no power to affect any changes whatsoever in the organisation they work at, have no access to those who can make policy decisions. Such acts therefore achieve nothing whatsoever for whatever cause the trolls support.
"That's because it is "cool" to hate Microsoft."
Is it also cool to hate people who happen to have bought a computer with an MS OS on it (i.e just about everything out there), and require assistance? Because they're the only ones who suffer from stupid stunts like these. Microsoft's support staff get paid irrespective of whether they're dealing with an annoying troll or a genuine technical issue, and the call logging systems will also show the troll calls as tech. support calls. And the trolling won't ever be reported to anyone remotely senior at the company, so nobody who matters will ever hear about it.
"I'm not sure what is the similarity."
The similarity is that both are denying a service to _customers_.
"*If* the DBD crowd said something like "let's write to badmofo@hotmail.com to express our views on the issue" would that be a DOS?"
No, because it doesn't negatively affect customers.
"When some years ago a movement was created to coordinate the asking of MS Windows refunds for OEM purchases, is that also a DOS? "
Again, not a negative affect on customers. For somebody who claims not to see the similarity in the parent poster's example, you seem to be an excellent source of examples which bear absolutely no similarity whatsoever to what the FSF are doing.
"Again, it seems to me that this is only a issue because it is Apple."
It's an issue because it affects customers who wish to use a service, and are being denied that service.
"The DBD website has some specific questions to ask Apple, and I have yet to see them tackled by those who dismiss the action"
Then go and protest them outside Apple's headquarters in Cupertino, or politely hand out leaflets outside Apple stores.
"What I have read in this threads was a FSF guy answering that this follows lack of will from Apple to talk about this issues at a higher level."
In other words, a bunch of people who decided they were important got told in no uncertain terms that they aren't, so as is the case with the immature when their egos get bruised, they've decided to do something spiteful that will result in the customers they're affecting writing them off as a typical bunch of shouty teenagers whose inevitable ejection from the Apple store by security staff will be greeted by cheers from those waiting in line.
Effect on Apple: zero.
Effect on Genius Bar staff: zero, because they still get paid.
Effect on customers: some silly teenagers who were ranting about something or other to do with Apple clogged up the system for a couple of minutes, after which security staff escorted them from the premises, and things then returned to normal. There were also some convenient vacant slots because a lot of people who booked didn't turn up.
Effect on FSF: zero, because the only thing most people notice about intrusive, ranting boors is the fact that they're intrusive, ranting boors, and the very small number outside "the cause" who pay any attention to what's being ranted about will forget everything beyond the fact that some people were ranting after a few minutes.
"The company providing the clone is already getting their fireproof suits on for the lawsuits because everyone knows that the contract does not allow installation on non-Apple hardware."
I don't see what Apple could sue them for, because the company isn't installing any Apple software, and their machines don't contain any Apple firmware. IMO they know this, so their claims about preparing to be sued are actually nothing more than a publicity exercise by what would otherwise be yet another boring assembler of off-the-shelf components with nothing to distinguish themselves from the many similar boring assemblers of off-the-shelf components out there.
"I am an Apple software/hardware user, but I still fall on the freedom side of the fence. So I'm okay with clone makers."
I also have a Mac (among other things), and feel the same way you do. I also knew that this sort of thing would happen the moment Apple switched from largely self-designed computers with processors that they owned some of the IP on to what are to all intents and purposes fairly standard PC clones in nice boxes with some added goodies.
"In any case, if people start installing on non-Apple systems, they'll probably just raise the price or something."
Or simply make it clear that the product is an upgrade on the box, and use the measures that other software companies selling upgrades do, i.e. require proof of having purchased a Mac capable of running the upgrade to buy it, or check for an existing, working, non-hacked prior version of OS X on the target system during installation (Apple already do the latter with with some applications, e.g. Logic upgrades).
"People use the Internet only because it's easy and safe."
Arthur Dent: "This is obviously some strange usage of the word "safe" that I hadn't previously been aware of".