Do you get angry when stores have a post-Xmas sale on a product you bought? What about the extra time you got using the software? If you needed the software a month ago, what use would it be waiting to buy it on sale? You would not get the use out of it when you needed it. this underlines one of the benefits of Macheist - it targets people who didn't feel they needed this software before, and might never have bought it. They may find they like the software and start using it. They may never use it - but the developers still get cash anyway.
you simply MUST read a book by Will Self called "The Book of Dave" - it's about a London cabbie who goes psychotic on "The Knowledge" of London streets. It's even part science fiction/fantasy. If you haven't read Will Self, it's time to start. He's the current master of British literature.
They could probably jump the sharks through hoops at Seaworld to get some extra funding $$$$$. But you'd really want the Fonz at the controls for maximum effect.
You can't make money writing applications for a platform that doesn't have a lot of users, and users don't adopt a platform that doesn't have applications.
Irrelevant. The Mac has lots of users - and a huge number of applications. Many people are making lots of money making/porting games for the Mac. Those who say "it's not big enough" are just throwing away extra profits they could be making.
Mac is kept alive by its coolness factor and the fact that Microsoft still writes applications for it.
Nonsense. People do not buy Macs because it is cool. They buy them because they work well, and have so many great applications. If Microsoft left the market, that would hurt a bit in the short-term, but overall would not matter. People could either keep using their old versions of Office for Windows, run Windows Office in virtualization (Parallels) or switch to something like Open Office - or whatever competition would arise to fill the gap left by Mac Office.
Basically, people don't buy Macs just to run Microsoft apps. It's something some people have to do, but not why they own a Mac. Those who have to will find a way, everybody else wouldn't be affected.
No, the demographic on the Mac that would buy games is higher. Most of the Windows machines that make up their market-share figure are office machines. Hundreds of millions of them, sitting in cubicles, which will never have a game (other than minesweeper or Tetris) installed. A greater percentage of Mac machines are owned by individual users. Add to this the lack of as much compeition in the Mac games market, and you have a winner if you port a good game to the Mac. Most Mac games are also sold for a higher price than their Windows counterparts, so this can make up for any porting costs.
Some companies make money, others consider the extra costs (which vary between companies and even games, a mostly directx one will need a lot of changes for example) simply not worth it.
This doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter how small a market is. If it can be profitable - why would you turn down the extra money? Why would you refuse a few extra million dollars? In economics, this is known as "leaving money on the table" - and only idiots leave money on the table to be taken by others.
I think you're onto something there. Could the basic unit of matter in the universe be the triangle? Still, I think we need to leave some room for old Pacman. Black Holes are made when Pacman swallows a Power Pill and goes around eating stars.
Currently, I perceive the dealbreaker that MS has built is: they have forced many companies to adopt them as a standard beyond simple document creation, but for secondary functions like exporting.
I think this is the real issue, which never gets the attention it deserves. The FSF and Open Source movement seem to be focused so much on the freedom of source code for applications. But most people have no need for source code, or to modify their apps. What everybody DOES need is interoperability of their documents. I think that open standards and file formats are much more important than Open source code. I'd much rather use proprietary software, with common open file formats, than use Open software with obscure file formats.
If something uses common open file formats, I can easily switch apps. This is good for competition, and more simply, makes life easier for users. This is what has always shit me about Microsoft. The anti-trust case went on about "bundling," which doesn't matter much to me - but never mentioned the Office file format conspiracy, which is so annoying. The number of times I have had to work with bad microsoft file formats that clients have given me is staggering. Sometimes Microsoft's products can't even handle their own file formats properly! They refuse to properly document them.
But I can use all the software I have as I see fit. I don't need to alter the source code. And they work perfectly for my intended needs. If I were to switch to currently available Free alternatives, I would not be able to use them as I see fit, as they do not have enough capability - and it would take a large team of programmers years to add those capabilities.
So, once again, I would suffer a loss of freedom if I tried to use Free alternatives as they currently stand.
The technologies that are in Vista specifically open up the path to allow MS/RIAA/FBI/CIA/whoever to prevent you from doing anything they want. Some day, somewhere, backdoored in some security update or patch will be changes that will prevent certain things from being done. By the all your documents and media will be in MS proprietary formats.
But I'm not a Windows user, so those changes won't affect me.
You certainly have the freedom to choose to use a proprietary OS. But while users of Free OS will always have that choice, eventually those who today choose the proprietary path will lose any option to choose something else.
Why is it inevitable that all proprietary systems will go down this path? Seems like it would be a bad business decision, especially for those proprietary OSes which aren't from a monopoly-holder.
Even if they did do this to MacOS, how would I lose my option to use anything else? I could just switch to a F/OSS system when/if that happens. How can the company stop me from changing to a different system, or even using multiple OSes?
Apple, no DRM? You're kidding, right? Might need no serial, but what about the TPM module?
How does is affect me if I'm running the OS on authorized hardware? Does it affect my control over my files? Does it stop the OS from running? And that only exists in Intel versions of the OS. PowerPC versions don't have anything of the sort. I'm not sure it even counts as DRM, seeing as it does not use serial numbers, or bind to a specific user ID.
I never said Apple had no DRM. I was rebutting the argument that they had worse DRM than Windows.
(unless you crack it to run on other hardware, like you can crack windows to run on anything unlicensed, but that doesn't count).
So, why doesn't it count when Windows does it? The Windows activation scheme is full-fledged DRM, and can deactivate your OS.
Linux/BSD/Solaris/Windows will install on any Dell/HP/white box/whatever - including the new Mactels, but NOT the other way around. It's the most locked down/DRM'ed OS of 'em all.
How does any of this actually affect my freedom in using the OS on the hardware it was licensed for? And how can you claim it is more locked-down than Windows activation?
And Apple is also a single-vendor DRM monopoly (iTMS)
As is Microsoft. Microsoft is the only Vendor for Playforsure and Zune DRM. And their DRM is much more restrictive - i.e "worse" than Apple's PlaysforSure.
At least MS will let you license their DRM for your own stuff!
They won't let you license Zune DRM.
DRM is the reason why I'll NEVER buy or own a mac, and will stick to linux instead.
That's your perogative, but I don't see how it is a burden if you're using Mac hardware.
As in the "some" that is made by Apple and the rare ones that work by chance.
Not by chance. Based on the hardware configuration. And it seems to work on a range of modern hardware. I'm not sure how you think computers work. They don't roll dice, there is not a lucky rabbit's foot that you rub to get things to work. They are fairly deterministic, not much is up to chance.
I can install windows (XP) on just about any x86 computer from the last 6 years with no issues at all... How many computers can you install Mac OS on?
So, if you admit that Windows XP won't run on all x86 machines - then why do you ask MacOS to work on ALL x86 machines, even though it was designed for modern machines? Double-standard much? I don't know how many configurations MacOS runs on, and i don't see why I should care.
A 16 bit CPU? Next you are going to want Windows to install on a toaster, I guess.
YOU were the one who expected MacOS to work on all x86 machines. Now you're getting pissed off that I hold Windows to your own standards?
Really? So you are telling me, over less then 4 revs of hardware, the Mac OS STOPS RUNNING COMPLEATLY due to technical reasons? If so, then you have a whole different and worse issue!
Uhh, no. Can you point to where I ever said anything to that effect? i think that you might be having some reading comprehension problems.
100% of other OSes I have used were built so that applications would keep working over one or two OS updates.
Yeah, what's your point? I've got Mac apps that work over a great many more. You also can't claim that 100% of applications on other platforms don't break with updates. Because often they do.
That's easy when most of them are MADE by Apple. I don't exactly use Macs much, but I can tell you are at least going to be buying new software with each update. I guess this is why Photoshop comes out with new versions that add very little...
I'm at a loss as to where you are getting this BS from.
Most Mac applications are not made by Apple.
Most applications do not require new software with each update
Adobe Photoshop is not updated very often, and when it does, it usually has major changes (whether good or bad changes)
Your comments are so far from reality, i wonder if you are trolling.
I wasn't talking about CPUs or even motherboards (that there are tons of people who make). I was talking about COMPUTERS. Can you get a Mac (as in, runs OSX without any hacking) that ISN'T made by Apple? No? See my point?
No, you can't - but you can run MacOS on other hardware if you wish. But I don't really see your point. Why should I care if I have to buy Apple hardware? I like it. If you don't then don't use use MacOS, or run it on a 3rd party box.
I don't really see the advantage of being locked into the oligopoly of Dell, HP, Compaq, etc. They all use the same shitty proprietary components, anyway, so what's the big difference? So you're just locked into proprietary hardware with a few different brands. You can't move outside the Wintel proprietary system. Try running it on a Solaris box. Can't do it, huh?
Maybe slightly, but I have yet to see any non-Apple computer run it without a fight, normally based on overcoming the Apple hardware lock-ins (ie, DRM).
It's not DRM. It's just encryption. DRM is a different mechanism. It's best not to be sloppy with terms.
If it's so easy, care to show me the masses of people who have done it? An os as good as people say OSX is would be taken up very fast, IF it really worked out of the box on common hardware...
But why would you want to run it on common hardware, when you can get Mac hardware anyway? Oh - and something being popular o
Gee you don't ask much. Just that game developers abandon their existing code base and totally retrain their programmers, just to sell a few games to people who represent a tiny portion of the market
This is circular logic. The only reason that other platforms are seen as representing a tiny portion of the market - is because games aren't released on those platforms. If they did release for those platforms, they might find that they were a much bigger percentage than they thought. Some developers are smart enough to realize this, and have great success porting games to Mac and Linux. They get good sales, because there isn't as much competition from the millions of other Windows games.
No, you brought up the topic of running MacOS on x86 machines:
It's probably perfectly possible - many people have run MacOS X on non-Apple x86 boxes.
No, I didn't bring it up. I was responding to someone else's question about installing MacOS on a PC. Sorry, I didn't check to see if it was you.
I only pointed out that it would be illegal because of the DMCA.
But you don't provide evidence that it is.
The DMCA reads like so: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
Well, this has not been tested in court, so we can't say whether whatever MacOS does is considered an "effective access control."
None of this is relevant to the argument, anyway, because MacOS does not use DRM to achieve this. Encryption is not the same thing as DRM. I'd still like an answer to the question of how MacOS has "worse DRM" than Windows.
It seems to me you're drawing very fine distinctions here, and I want to make sure I understand. So between a computer that you do not control - but that happens to do what you want - and one that you do control, but that isn't capable of everything you want, you prefer the former?
Control is part of what I want. But I don't need to control everything, especially system internals.
Your dichotomy is too narrow. I want a computer that gives me control of everything I need to control, and does what I want productively.
You seem to be willing to (potentially) sacrifice future wants for current ones. This is fine, but I'm sure you can understand why many people would feel differently - and why people who don't know there's a choice to make might appreciate finding out.
Yes, but I don't understand why they are so zealous when it comes to software. You don't hear F/OSS people talking about "open source processors." You don't see them demanding that they are able to configure the number of transistors in their processor on the fly. They are stuck! Locked into proprietary processors! It's amusing how people talk about x86 being an "open platform" - when x86 machines are made up of proprietary components.
I don't see how I am sacrificing future wants - because I can always change to something else if my wants/needs change. Hell, I can even use multiple platforms! I don't see how I am locked in to anything. Certainly not in the sense of being locked into a fascist government as some people are saying.
Or possibly they're really not needs: in a subsequent reply you write, "I'm not forced to use my computer". The point being, if they're not needs, then you really do have a choice to make. You could use free software.
That's a difficult thing to define. I could always give up my job, but that would suck. It would suck much more than having to use a proprietary software tool. I could possibly use alternatives, but that's not practical. In the case of F/OSS, I doubt it's even possible now. I could maybe find a F/OSS video editing tool (Beuller?) - but I don't think I'd be able to keep up with my work. My life would probably suffer.
My freedom to control my computer in the future depends on free software today - even though I'm not using it.
Perhaps, if Free Software ever bothers to take my field of work seriously. I think Free Software is great, but it's just not practical right now. And that lack of practicality impinges on my freedom. Coming back to the political thing - one might, in theory, be free to "move to another country" if one doesn't like the government - but in reality, that is often so impractical as to be impossible. Sure, I could risk death, and having my family killed to flee a fascist regime. But if my choice is fleeing to somewhere I will starve to death, is it much of a choice?
And I can install OSX on any compatible (see x86) computer without any type of restructions?
Well, it works on some x86 hardware. Just like Windows only works on some hardware. You're not going to be able to install XP on a 286. There's no DRM to prevent you from doing this - which is the topic of discussion.
Where do I sign up for this magical deal??
Huh? Again, this sentence makes no sense.
Yes, they just have where you are forced to buy a new OS to run new(er) apps and that older OSes refuse to run on newer hardware.
What does this have to do with DRM? This is common to many OSes, not just Apple. Some applications take advantage of different OS features. But most applications I have are available in versions for many different MacOS versions. Theres' no DRM preventing people from wiriting their apps for older or newer versions.
Simple. Anyone is free to make x86(_64) hardware.
But only Intel and AMD do. Not much of an improvement.
Only Apple can make a mac.
But MacOS also runs on x86 systems made by others. Windows doesn't run on PowerPC hardware made by anybody. And what does any of this have to do with DRM?
This has to do with DRM because...? You did remember that was the subject of this conversation, right?
Yes, but you for some reason brought up the topic of running MacOS on Windows. Which also has nothing to do with DRM. Windows' copy protection does, because it is explicitly DRM - and affects the system when running as intended on legal owners' platforms.
How? With a DMCA notice.
Why? Apple has encrypted some of the binaries that must be modified to get OSX to run on non-Apple systems.
Again, what evidence is there that it would be illegal to modify it? From what I understand, the DMCA refers to breaking encryption that is part of a copy-protection mechanism. But the encrypted parts in MacOS are not part of a copy-protection mechanism. After all, I can use it on as many different Macs as I like - making many different copies, and it won't stop me. It's not using unique serial codes or anything to prevent unlicensed copying. So, wouldn't running MacOS on a vanilla PC fall under reverse-engineering exemptions?
Ask an ad company: awareness is the first stage, to precede use. People "receive exposure", then think about it, check with friends, read up, etc.
The ad companies have it wrong - in their typical egocentric way. First comes the idea - then that idea is made into a product. You need to have a product to sell before you advertise it. There's no point in advertising if you have no product. Yes, marketers do like to think the world revolves around them - but they only fulfil an ancilliary function.
I'd say: "build it and they will come," not "talk about it and maybe we'll build it someday."
Large swaths of the Pro-Microsoft posts here run: "Give me my Functionality, and I'll live with some social nuisance intangibles". Here's two areas to ponder.
I hope you're not talking about me, because I am not pro-Microsoft. You also misrepresent my position. I do not live with any nuisances in my choice. I've never had a problem I couldn't solve on my chosen OS, and I do not believe it to be ethically or socially wrong in any way. However, if I switched to an alternative product, I would suffer from nuisance.
What I'm saying is that I'm not suffering at all. Everything works great.
The other trend is that "Vista may be barely okay now, but look at the trend". MS *does* have a history of sneaking in undesirable elements, and only backing off at the last minute if they are sufficiently pressured. There may be a real issue with Today's Productivity, but there could be trouble in the future arc mapped out
Sure, I agree microsoft is shit, and increasingly harms the user. That's why I never use Microsoft products. But the FSF would also be against me using MacOS, simply because it is proprietary. Even though Mac users get treated better than basically any other OS around, IMO. Mac developers have usually been much more focussed on the user than either microsoft, or F/OSS developers.
Basically, why should F/OSS be the only option? I don't believe proprietary software is inherently evil - even though I do recognize that there are many "evil" proprietary developers who screw their users. But I don't use that software.
The question I would ask that crowd is "*if* the apps *were* available in Linux, would you choose Microsoft because you actually approve of their corporate policies?"
I certainly would not.
Unfortunately, I do see it as 8 years and not 3, because the sprawling scope of Linux's philosophy seems to dissipate some energy away from tight focused delivery.
Indeed. And I don't think the FSF rhetoric helps that. they don't even seem to acknowledge things like usability or user friendliness, or support - other than from the perspective of someone who wants to tinker with software themselves. They barely acknowledge the end user as anything other than a political pawn in their agenda.
No, but a "Mandatory Security Update" could be released, because Microsoft or other proprietary OS producer decides that the user shouldn't be able to, that could restrict those freedoms.
And how would they make it mandatory? If Apple did this - then I would quickly choose not to be an Apple user any more. It would only hurt the company, so I don't see why they'd do it. I also would refuse the mandatory update.
You aren't really the one in control when the OS producer has more power (legally and practically) over your OS, and any patches applied, and the ability to change how you use the OS without your choice.
Again, how can Apple force me to apply a patch? i choose whther or not to run an update, and I have to give the software permission to install. They can't just do it against my will.
With Open Source you have, at the very least, the LEGAL ability to do what you want with the internals of the OS, and to add whatever functionality or usability changes you want.
Again, how does being able to tinker with system internals benefit me, if the OS doesn't have the applications I want? I use applications to do work, the OS is only a way of running those applications and managing files. I have no need to tinker with the OS internals. They work just fine the way they are.
Slashdot Mirror
I, for one, denounce the Catholic Church overlords.
Do you get angry when stores have a post-Xmas sale on a product you bought? What about the extra time you got using the software? If you needed the software a month ago, what use would it be waiting to buy it on sale? You would not get the use out of it when you needed it. this underlines one of the benefits of Macheist - it targets people who didn't feel they needed this software before, and might never have bought it. They may find they like the software and start using it. They may never use it - but the developers still get cash anyway.
True, that was an understatement, but only Intel and AMD compete on the powerful stuff. Other vendors are basically a footnote.
you simply MUST read a book by Will Self called "The Book of Dave" - it's about a London cabbie who goes psychotic on "The Knowledge" of London streets. It's even part science fiction/fantasy. If you haven't read Will Self, it's time to start. He's the current master of British literature.
They could probably jump the sharks through hoops at Seaworld to get some extra funding $$$$$. But you'd really want the Fonz at the controls for maximum effect.
Damn. I wish taxi drivers would grow more brain cells in the region of driving ability, or in the "direction finding and map reading" area.
Irrelevant. The Mac has lots of users - and a huge number of applications. Many people are making lots of money making/porting games for the Mac. Those who say "it's not big enough" are just throwing away extra profits they could be making.
Mac is kept alive by its coolness factor and the fact that Microsoft still writes applications for it.Nonsense. People do not buy Macs because it is cool. They buy them because they work well, and have so many great applications. If Microsoft left the market, that would hurt a bit in the short-term, but overall would not matter. People could either keep using their old versions of Office for Windows, run Windows Office in virtualization (Parallels) or switch to something like Open Office - or whatever competition would arise to fill the gap left by Mac Office.
Basically, people don't buy Macs just to run Microsoft apps. It's something some people have to do, but not why they own a Mac. Those who have to will find a way, everybody else wouldn't be affected.
This doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter how small a market is. If it can be profitable - why would you turn down the extra money? Why would you refuse a few extra million dollars? In economics, this is known as "leaving money on the table" - and only idiots leave money on the table to be taken by others.
I think you're onto something there. Could the basic unit of matter in the universe be the triangle? Still, I think we need to leave some room for old Pacman. Black Holes are made when Pacman swallows a Power Pill and goes around eating stars.
I think this is the real issue, which never gets the attention it deserves. The FSF and Open Source movement seem to be focused so much on the freedom of source code for applications. But most people have no need for source code, or to modify their apps. What everybody DOES need is interoperability of their documents. I think that open standards and file formats are much more important than Open source code. I'd much rather use proprietary software, with common open file formats, than use Open software with obscure file formats.
If something uses common open file formats, I can easily switch apps. This is good for competition, and more simply, makes life easier for users. This is what has always shit me about Microsoft. The anti-trust case went on about "bundling," which doesn't matter much to me - but never mentioned the Office file format conspiracy, which is so annoying. The number of times I have had to work with bad microsoft file formats that clients have given me is staggering. Sometimes Microsoft's products can't even handle their own file formats properly! They refuse to properly document them.
So, once again, I would suffer a loss of freedom if I tried to use Free alternatives as they currently stand.
But I'm not a Windows user, so those changes won't affect me.
You certainly have the freedom to choose to use a proprietary OS. But while users of Free OS will always have that choice, eventually those who today choose the proprietary path will lose any option to choose something else.Why is it inevitable that all proprietary systems will go down this path? Seems like it would be a bad business decision, especially for those proprietary OSes which aren't from a monopoly-holder.
Even if they did do this to MacOS, how would I lose my option to use anything else? I could just switch to a F/OSS system when/if that happens. How can the company stop me from changing to a different system, or even using multiple OSes?
I have a +8 turd of bullshit artistry. If I win a battle against a coprophiliac, how much bullshit do I have left?
But I was trying to yell.
It's a good idea not to rely on D&D for your mathematics education.
I knew it! The universe is shaped like a game of Pacman. I didn't waste the 80s on nonsense time-wasting after all.
How does is affect me if I'm running the OS on authorized hardware? Does it affect my control over my files? Does it stop the OS from running? And that only exists in Intel versions of the OS. PowerPC versions don't have anything of the sort. I'm not sure it even counts as DRM, seeing as it does not use serial numbers, or bind to a specific user ID.
I never said Apple had no DRM. I was rebutting the argument that they had worse DRM than Windows.
(unless you crack it to run on other hardware, like you can crack windows to run on anything unlicensed, but that doesn't count).So, why doesn't it count when Windows does it? The Windows activation scheme is full-fledged DRM, and can deactivate your OS.
Linux/BSD/Solaris/Windows will install on any Dell/HP/white box/whatever - including the new Mactels, but NOT the other way around. It's the most locked down/DRM'ed OS of 'em all.How does any of this actually affect my freedom in using the OS on the hardware it was licensed for? And how can you claim it is more locked-down than Windows activation?
And Apple is also a single-vendor DRM monopoly (iTMS)As is Microsoft. Microsoft is the only Vendor for Playforsure and Zune DRM. And their DRM is much more restrictive - i.e "worse" than Apple's PlaysforSure.
At least MS will let you license their DRM for your own stuff!They won't let you license Zune DRM.
DRM is the reason why I'll NEVER buy or own a mac, and will stick to linux instead.That's your perogative, but I don't see how it is a burden if you're using Mac hardware.
As in the "some" that is made by Apple and the rare ones that work by chance.
Not by chance. Based on the hardware configuration. And it seems to work on a range of modern hardware. I'm not sure how you think computers work. They don't roll dice, there is not a lucky rabbit's foot that you rub to get things to work. They are fairly deterministic, not much is up to chance.
I can install windows (XP) on just about any x86 computer from the last 6 years with no issues at all... How many computers can you install Mac OS on?
So, if you admit that Windows XP won't run on all x86 machines - then why do you ask MacOS to work on ALL x86 machines, even though it was designed for modern machines? Double-standard much? I don't know how many configurations MacOS runs on, and i don't see why I should care.
A 16 bit CPU? Next you are going to want Windows to install on a toaster, I guess.
YOU were the one who expected MacOS to work on all x86 machines. Now you're getting pissed off that I hold Windows to your own standards?
Really? So you are telling me, over less then 4 revs of hardware, the Mac OS STOPS RUNNING COMPLEATLY due to technical reasons? If so, then you have a whole different and worse issue!
Uhh, no. Can you point to where I ever said anything to that effect? i think that you might be having some reading comprehension problems.
100% of other OSes I have used were built so that applications would keep working over one or two OS updates.
Yeah, what's your point? I've got Mac apps that work over a great many more. You also can't claim that 100% of applications on other platforms don't break with updates. Because often they do.
That's easy when most of them are MADE by Apple. I don't exactly use Macs much, but I can tell you are at least going to be buying new software with each update. I guess this is why Photoshop comes out with new versions that add very little...
I'm at a loss as to where you are getting this BS from.
Your comments are so far from reality, i wonder if you are trolling.
I wasn't talking about CPUs or even motherboards (that there are tons of people who make). I was talking about COMPUTERS. Can you get a Mac (as in, runs OSX without any hacking) that ISN'T made by Apple? No? See my point?
No, you can't - but you can run MacOS on other hardware if you wish. But I don't really see your point. Why should I care if I have to buy Apple hardware? I like it. If you don't then don't use use MacOS, or run it on a 3rd party box.
I don't really see the advantage of being locked into the oligopoly of Dell, HP, Compaq, etc. They all use the same shitty proprietary components, anyway, so what's the big difference? So you're just locked into proprietary hardware with a few different brands. You can't move outside the Wintel proprietary system. Try running it on a Solaris box. Can't do it, huh?
Maybe slightly, but I have yet to see any non-Apple computer run it without a fight, normally based on overcoming the Apple hardware lock-ins (ie, DRM).
It's not DRM. It's just encryption. DRM is a different mechanism. It's best not to be sloppy with terms.
If it's so easy, care to show me the masses of people who have done it? An os as good as people say OSX is would be taken up very fast, IF it really worked out of the box on common hardware...
But why would you want to run it on common hardware, when you can get Mac hardware anyway? Oh - and something being popular o
This is circular logic. The only reason that other platforms are seen as representing a tiny portion of the market - is because games aren't released on those platforms. If they did release for those platforms, they might find that they were a much bigger percentage than they thought. Some developers are smart enough to realize this, and have great success porting games to Mac and Linux. They get good sales, because there isn't as much competition from the millions of other Windows games.
No, I didn't bring it up. I was responding to someone else's question about installing MacOS on a PC. Sorry, I didn't check to see if it was you.
I only pointed out that it would be illegal because of the DMCA.But you don't provide evidence that it is.
The DMCA reads like so: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."Well, this has not been tested in court, so we can't say whether whatever MacOS does is considered an "effective access control."
None of this is relevant to the argument, anyway, because MacOS does not use DRM to achieve this. Encryption is not the same thing as DRM. I'd still like an answer to the question of how MacOS has "worse DRM" than Windows.
Control is part of what I want. But I don't need to control everything, especially system internals.
Your dichotomy is too narrow. I want a computer that gives me control of everything I need to control, and does what I want productively.
You seem to be willing to (potentially) sacrifice future wants for current ones. This is fine, but I'm sure you can understand why many people would feel differently - and why people who don't know there's a choice to make might appreciate finding out.Yes, but I don't understand why they are so zealous when it comes to software. You don't hear F/OSS people talking about "open source processors." You don't see them demanding that they are able to configure the number of transistors in their processor on the fly. They are stuck! Locked into proprietary processors! It's amusing how people talk about x86 being an "open platform" - when x86 machines are made up of proprietary components.
I don't see how I am sacrificing future wants - because I can always change to something else if my wants/needs change. Hell, I can even use multiple platforms! I don't see how I am locked in to anything. Certainly not in the sense of being locked into a fascist government as some people are saying.
Or possibly they're really not needs: in a subsequent reply you write, "I'm not forced to use my computer". The point being, if they're not needs, then you really do have a choice to make. You could use free software.That's a difficult thing to define. I could always give up my job, but that would suck. It would suck much more than having to use a proprietary software tool. I could possibly use alternatives, but that's not practical. In the case of F/OSS, I doubt it's even possible now. I could maybe find a F/OSS video editing tool (Beuller?) - but I don't think I'd be able to keep up with my work. My life would probably suffer.
My freedom to control my computer in the future depends on free software today - even though I'm not using it.Perhaps, if Free Software ever bothers to take my field of work seriously. I think Free Software is great, but it's just not practical right now. And that lack of practicality impinges on my freedom. Coming back to the political thing - one might, in theory, be free to "move to another country" if one doesn't like the government - but in reality, that is often so impractical as to be impossible. Sure, I could risk death, and having my family killed to flee a fascist regime. But if my choice is fleeing to somewhere I will starve to death, is it much of a choice?
What the hell is that sentence supposed to mean?
And I can install OSX on any compatible (see x86) computer without any type of restructions?Well, it works on some x86 hardware. Just like Windows only works on some hardware. You're not going to be able to install XP on a 286. There's no DRM to prevent you from doing this - which is the topic of discussion.
Where do I sign up for this magical deal??Huh? Again, this sentence makes no sense.
Yes, they just have where you are forced to buy a new OS to run new(er) apps and that older OSes refuse to run on newer hardware.What does this have to do with DRM? This is common to many OSes, not just Apple. Some applications take advantage of different OS features. But most applications I have are available in versions for many different MacOS versions. Theres' no DRM preventing people from wiriting their apps for older or newer versions.
Simple. Anyone is free to make x86(_64) hardware.But only Intel and AMD do. Not much of an improvement.
Only Apple can make a mac.But MacOS also runs on x86 systems made by others. Windows doesn't run on PowerPC hardware made by anybody. And what does any of this have to do with DRM?
Yes, but you for some reason brought up the topic of running MacOS on Windows. Which also has nothing to do with DRM. Windows' copy protection does, because it is explicitly DRM - and affects the system when running as intended on legal owners' platforms.
How? With a DMCA notice. Why? Apple has encrypted some of the binaries that must be modified to get OSX to run on non-Apple systems.Again, what evidence is there that it would be illegal to modify it? From what I understand, the DMCA refers to breaking encryption that is part of a copy-protection mechanism. But the encrypted parts in MacOS are not part of a copy-protection mechanism. After all, I can use it on as many different Macs as I like - making many different copies, and it won't stop me. It's not using unique serial codes or anything to prevent unlicensed copying. So, wouldn't running MacOS on a vanilla PC fall under reverse-engineering exemptions?
The ad companies have it wrong - in their typical egocentric way. First comes the idea - then that idea is made into a product. You need to have a product to sell before you advertise it. There's no point in advertising if you have no product. Yes, marketers do like to think the world revolves around them - but they only fulfil an ancilliary function.
I'd say: "build it and they will come," not "talk about it and maybe we'll build it someday."
Large swaths of the Pro-Microsoft posts here run: "Give me my Functionality, and I'll live with some social nuisance intangibles". Here's two areas to ponder.I hope you're not talking about me, because I am not pro-Microsoft. You also misrepresent my position. I do not live with any nuisances in my choice. I've never had a problem I couldn't solve on my chosen OS, and I do not believe it to be ethically or socially wrong in any way. However, if I switched to an alternative product, I would suffer from nuisance.
What I'm saying is that I'm not suffering at all. Everything works great.
The other trend is that "Vista may be barely okay now, but look at the trend". MS *does* have a history of sneaking in undesirable elements, and only backing off at the last minute if they are sufficiently pressured. There may be a real issue with Today's Productivity, but there could be trouble in the future arc mapped outSure, I agree microsoft is shit, and increasingly harms the user. That's why I never use Microsoft products. But the FSF would also be against me using MacOS, simply because it is proprietary. Even though Mac users get treated better than basically any other OS around, IMO. Mac developers have usually been much more focussed on the user than either microsoft, or F/OSS developers.
Basically, why should F/OSS be the only option? I don't believe proprietary software is inherently evil - even though I do recognize that there are many "evil" proprietary developers who screw their users. But I don't use that software.
The question I would ask that crowd is "*if* the apps *were* available in Linux, would you choose Microsoft because you actually approve of their corporate policies?"I certainly would not.
Unfortunately, I do see it as 8 years and not 3, because the sprawling scope of Linux's philosophy seems to dissipate some energy away from tight focused delivery.Indeed. And I don't think the FSF rhetoric helps that. they don't even seem to acknowledge things like usability or user friendliness, or support - other than from the perspective of someone who wants to tinker with software themselves. They barely acknowledge the end user as anything other than a political pawn in their agenda.
And how would they make it mandatory? If Apple did this - then I would quickly choose not to be an Apple user any more. It would only hurt the company, so I don't see why they'd do it. I also would refuse the mandatory update.
You aren't really the one in control when the OS producer has more power (legally and practically) over your OS, and any patches applied, and the ability to change how you use the OS without your choice.Again, how can Apple force me to apply a patch? i choose whther or not to run an update, and I have to give the software permission to install. They can't just do it against my will.
With Open Source you have, at the very least, the LEGAL ability to do what you want with the internals of the OS, and to add whatever functionality or usability changes you want.Again, how does being able to tinker with system internals benefit me, if the OS doesn't have the applications I want? I use applications to do work, the OS is only a way of running those applications and managing files. I have no need to tinker with the OS internals. They work just fine the way they are.