I figured the GP was comparing Microsoft to Apple and not Vista to OS X
OK, let's assume this was true - how is Apple worse with DRM? Microsoft applies DRM to more products, and the DRM is more restrictive than Apple's.
But the interpretation that we were talking about companies and not OSes seems pretty silly - because the article/thread is about choosing an OS - not buying music online.
Can it? - I've upgraded my hardware quite a few times and reactivation has never failed (if required at all).
Yes, it can. It has happened to many people. As has the "Windows Genuine Advantage" problem of the DRM system falsely identifying your system as a pirated copy. MacOS does none of this.
I personally consider locking OS X to Apple hardware the ultimate DRM, but feel free to disagree...
How is it any worse than Windows tying you exclusively to x86 processors? At least Apple supports the PowerPC platform as well. Also, as said earlier, many people have run MacOS X on non-Apple boxes.
But, While Ubuntu might not run on the '64 Linux will run on a power PC
But will Ubuntu run on PowerPC, or just "some other" Linux?
Besides which, I think you're missing something here. Apple has always restricted you to THEIR hardware, essentially a "hardware key" for their software.
But it didn't do so via DRM. Which was my whole reason for posting - to rebut the idea that Windows has less DRM than a Mac. Windows has the same problem. Try running it on the Power PC (well, there was one obscure experimental version, but not mainstream releases).
owever, I know in the past that upgrading the hardware on an apple could be difficult due to their hardware lockdown, which retricts my rights as a consumer. This may have changed, I haven't worked on a Mac lately.
Well, Mac hardware is basically stock-standard now. I think the "rights as a consumer" thing is irrelevant. You would have chosen to use the hardware, and should have informed yourself before buying. Were the rights of a PC user being compromised because they can't use Apple NuBus cards or run MacOS? Or if they couldn't install an Amiga Video Toaster, and can't buy a PC equivalent? Every hardware choice has restrictions - you have to choose if they are acceptable to you before you buy.
Nothing is truly free and unlimited, except the Universe.
This is the point that I think is being argued here. I can't use my files like I want on M$ products, and I can't listen to my music on whatever player I want if I buy with Apple. These, among the many other restictions on these porducts is my (and many other/.er's reason for using Linux)
Well, the thread was not about music players - it was about Operating Systems having more or less intrusive DRM.
Make sure you know what you're talking about before you make a statement about someone else's software. I will validate my statement with my own experiance, you should try linux before you bash it.
I have never bashed Linux. I've tried it many times, and I support it. I think it's good for freedom and compeition. It just doesn't have the applications I need at the moment. Linux shouldn't even come into this thread, because it was a Windows/Mac DRM comparison.
But my OS does not prevent me from doing those things. So, how is using a proprietary OS making me give up those freedoms? If I switched to a different OS, I would give up my freedom to run my favorite applications. So, Linux or gNewSense or whatever results in a net loss of freedom for me.
I like my freedom to choose proprietary solutions that work for me. I dislike being told that I am somehow wrong because I don't use the OS that is philosophically favored by someone who had no idea about my needs or wants in a system. Yet, I get that kind of comment all the time from Free Software zealots, who say that what I want to do is not as important as the need to be free from proprietary software.
If I had've used exclusive Free Software over the years, I would never have had the freedom to create the artistic works I have made, and I would not have been able to further my chosen career very effectively. I've been empowered by what software has allowed me to do. I've never been harmed by proprietary software. F/OSS is great, and I use some of those tools - but I could not rely on them for all of my needs.
But what freedoms am I giving up? I'm not forced to use my computer, so it's nothing like being born into a fascist society, where you must comply without any choice.
Please explain what freedoms I am giving up by using my chosen OS.
What does that have to do with my use of the Operating System? It's only applied to music that one chooses to buy. It also works on Windows as well as MacOS. I'm failing to see the relevance, because the post that I was responding to said that MacOS had worse DRM than Windows. But Microsoft has several DRM schemes for media as well - PlaysforSure, and Zune store purchases, as well as DRM in the OS. The Microsoft DRM on media is also more restrictive than iTunes DRM.
So, I'd still like to see an explanation of how MacOS has worse DRM than Windows - which can stop working if you upgrade your hardware, or if WGA mistakenly thinks you are running a pirated version. I've yet to have my OS stop working because of DRM, or prevent me from doing anything I want to do.
And, how is that worse than Microsoft's DRM that prohibits it from running on software designed for the purpose - and can even stop it working on the same machine if you upgrade the hardware?
In any case, do you have any evidence that it is DRM doing this, and not BIOS/EFI issues?
It's probably perfectly possible - many people have run MacOS X on non-Apple x86 boxes. It doesn't matter to me anyway - since I use Apple hardware. The point is that there is no "product activation" or DRM that will shut down my OS installation if I upgrade my hardware.
Your complaint is almost like complaining that Ubuntu won't run on a Commodore 64. Or x86 Linux won't run on a PowerPC.
Using a computer that does what I want is hardly like living under fascism. I can choose to not use my computer, or switch to a different one. May computer does not restrict my freedoms - it enhances them. What are you referring to as a "free country" anyway - anarchy, libertarianism, democracy - and what are you comparing it to?
The grandparent's post point was: why don't you show users how to do it better under Linux? Why run a negative campaign if Open/Free software is a much better improvement? Just show people how things would be better. Show people how they would benefit from running different software - in a practical way.
No it isn't. Not by a longshot if you go by the FSF's beliefs.
We are talking about Joe Schmoe here. What is the likelihood of him subscribing to the FSF's beliefs? I'd say it's about nil. Joe just wants his computer to work, to play his games or whatever. Recommending a system that is more philosophically free, but more dificult to use, or harder to get software for, is not in Joe's interests.
Better then getting them locked into someone else, who is actualy worse as far as DRM goes then MS.
How so? I've never had any problems with MacOS and DRM. In fact, the OS doesn't even have any kind of "activation" or serial numbers. I can install a single copy on as many machines as I like, violating the EULA, and Apple would never even know, let alone prevent it. What might you be referring to?
It is an overall regression when you look at the most important aspect of owning and using a computer: your control over what it does.
I dunno, for me the most important thing about owning a computer is productivity - to be able to do the tasks I want to do. I could migrate to a non-proprietary system, but I would not benefit if it had fewer applications that I find useful. I can't write my own high-level applications. Nor do the Open Source and Free alternatives meet my needs yet. Of course, control is nice, but my proprietary OS (MacOS) gives me more control than I actually use, in addition to great applications. If it stopped me from working with those apps, or locked up the media I used, then it would be an issue.
An analogy might be automatic transmission on a car, or electronic systems in a car. It gives less control and serviceability - but most users find the benefits of automatic transmission and electronics to be worth it. I could buy an old Chevy that I could fix myself - but then I would suffer many drawbacks in actually using the vehicle. Or games consoles - they are not as customizable as a PC system, but most people just want to play games, and a console makes this goal a lot easier to accomplish.
It's rather annoying when people assume what the most important thing is to me.
I'm mainly considering NetVault because it was recommended by our Xserve vendor, and they said they could support it. But it's a tough decision, because a backup solution has to work flawlessly for years. And it's not easy to find people with experience in some of these Mac solutions apart from Retrospect.
I don't know about right now, but once Leopard comes out, I guess it would be Time Machine. Just wait until it starts shipping in the beginning of the next year.
I'd advise against doing this. Backup solutions should really be time-tested and proven. I would not adopt a newly-released backup solution. Especially one from Apple. As much as I love Apple software, their existing backup software, "Backup" is an absolute disaster. Given this track record, I see no reason to trust Time Machine.
I currently use Retrospect, but recent versions haven't been too impressive either. I'd take the recommendations of checking out Super Duper and perhaps Carbon Copy Cloner. I've used CCC, but mostly for making disk images of bootable volumes. Not sure how appropriate it is for making archives and incremental backups.
I'm looking to replace Retrospect with a different system, but this is more of a Business/Enterprise solution I need - for use with larger RAIDs and tape backups. I've heard of one cross-platform (Mac/Linux/Windows) solution for workgroups and businesses that sounds good, but is probably pricey and overkill for the home user. It's called NetVault. I've got to start researching a Retrospect alternative next year. Does anyone have experience with Netvault? I'd love to hear your opinions.
even in its traditional strongholds (graphics, video), users have moved overwhelmingly to PCs.
Actually, video was never a traditional Mac stronghold (except for desktop multimedia - eg Quicktime) - video editing/effects was first the domain of custom systems (Quantel Paintbox, etc) and Amigas on the more experimental side. Then it went through a painful transition to awful PC systems. Today, the Mac is gaining share as people are ditching their awful PC/Avid systems in favor of Final Cut Pro. It's still dominant in publishing, and Photoshop. It's possibly even more dominant in music and audio production. Musicians, publishers and photographers have always gravitated to the Mac, and still do.
More, yes. But it's still single digit percentages.
I don't think the home share is in single-digit percentages. Nor is it in the graphics and video market. The problem is that the single-digit (3-4%) figure is based on ALL systems - which includes millions of boring office machines. Home users and niche professional users are MUCH more likely to own a Mac. The large market-share figures are simply because of the large base of corporate mass-purchases. When it comes to those who are passionate about their machines, and actually choose their machines, it's a different story altogether. The vast majority of Windows users don't "choose" their machine - it's just what their boss gives them at work.
Given that OS X is much less widespread than UNIX/Linux and has no significance outside the home market, there is little reason to invest much time in it; any time invested in learning Mac-specific stuff is neither going to be useful professionally
WTF? The Mac is used extensively in professional markets. In some markets it dominates, and is a tool of choice. During the "dark days" of Apple's history, it was used almost exclusively in professional markets and education. It's only relatively recently that home users have returned to the Mac.
It's actually funny how things have changed. For a while it was - if you want a cheap home machine, get a PC. If you want a professional machine, get a Mac. These days more people seem to be embracing the opposite attitude - use a PC at work, and a Mac at home.
The thing about MacOS is that it has tons of hidden modifier keys and keyboard shortcuts, that often provide the desired behavior (or close to it). The problem is that most users don't know about them. Apple really should document these things better. Even power users are continually discovering new modifiers they never knew existed.
Yarrrr! Give me all your boobies... I mean booty, or I'll send ye to Davy Jones' locker without a mizzenmast. While you're at it, would ye like a friendly game of naked Texas hold'em? Winner gets three wenches and an otter!
Slashdot Mirror
OK, let's assume this was true - how is Apple worse with DRM? Microsoft applies DRM to more products, and the DRM is more restrictive than Apple's.
But the interpretation that we were talking about companies and not OSes seems pretty silly - because the article/thread is about choosing an OS - not buying music online.
Can it? - I've upgraded my hardware quite a few times and reactivation has never failed (if required at all).Yes, it can. It has happened to many people. As has the "Windows Genuine Advantage" problem of the DRM system falsely identifying your system as a pirated copy. MacOS does none of this.
I personally consider locking OS X to Apple hardware the ultimate DRM, but feel free to disagree...How is it any worse than Windows tying you exclusively to x86 processors? At least Apple supports the PowerPC platform as well. Also, as said earlier, many people have run MacOS X on non-Apple boxes.
Also, show me proof that it is illegal.
I've already had dual 64 bit chips in my Macs for the last couple of years.
But will Ubuntu run on PowerPC, or just "some other" Linux?
Besides which, I think you're missing something here. Apple has always restricted you to THEIR hardware, essentially a "hardware key" for their software.But it didn't do so via DRM. Which was my whole reason for posting - to rebut the idea that Windows has less DRM than a Mac. Windows has the same problem. Try running it on the Power PC (well, there was one obscure experimental version, but not mainstream releases).
owever, I know in the past that upgrading the hardware on an apple could be difficult due to their hardware lockdown, which retricts my rights as a consumer. This may have changed, I haven't worked on a Mac lately.Well, Mac hardware is basically stock-standard now. I think the "rights as a consumer" thing is irrelevant. You would have chosen to use the hardware, and should have informed yourself before buying. Were the rights of a PC user being compromised because they can't use Apple NuBus cards or run MacOS? Or if they couldn't install an Amiga Video Toaster, and can't buy a PC equivalent? Every hardware choice has restrictions - you have to choose if they are acceptable to you before you buy.
Nothing is truly free and unlimited, except the Universe.
This is the point that I think is being argued here. I can't use my files like I want on M$ products, and I can't listen to my music on whatever player I want if I buy with Apple. These, among the many other restictions on these porducts is my (and many otherWell, the thread was not about music players - it was about Operating Systems having more or less intrusive DRM.
Make sure you know what you're talking about before you make a statement about someone else's software. I will validate my statement with my own experiance, you should try linux before you bash it.I have never bashed Linux. I've tried it many times, and I support it. I think it's good for freedom and compeition. It just doesn't have the applications I need at the moment. Linux shouldn't even come into this thread, because it was a Windows/Mac DRM comparison.
Of course, you repeat yourself. Blogs are infamous for bad design.
I like my freedom to choose proprietary solutions that work for me. I dislike being told that I am somehow wrong because I don't use the OS that is philosophically favored by someone who had no idea about my needs or wants in a system. Yet, I get that kind of comment all the time from Free Software zealots, who say that what I want to do is not as important as the need to be free from proprietary software.
If I had've used exclusive Free Software over the years, I would never have had the freedom to create the artistic works I have made, and I would not have been able to further my chosen career very effectively. I've been empowered by what software has allowed me to do. I've never been harmed by proprietary software. F/OSS is great, and I use some of those tools - but I could not rely on them for all of my needs.
Please explain what freedoms I am giving up by using my chosen OS.
So, I'd still like to see an explanation of how MacOS has worse DRM than Windows - which can stop working if you upgrade your hardware, or if WGA mistakenly thinks you are running a pirated version. I've yet to have my OS stop working because of DRM, or prevent me from doing anything I want to do.
In any case, do you have any evidence that it is DRM doing this, and not BIOS/EFI issues?
Your complaint is almost like complaining that Ubuntu won't run on a Commodore 64. Or x86 Linux won't run on a PowerPC.
My computer is a tool, not a political statement.
The grandparent's post point was: why don't you show users how to do it better under Linux? Why run a negative campaign if Open/Free software is a much better improvement? Just show people how things would be better. Show people how they would benefit from running different software - in a practical way.
No, you've just been trolled. That post was bashing Apple, not defending them.
We are talking about Joe Schmoe here. What is the likelihood of him subscribing to the FSF's beliefs? I'd say it's about nil. Joe just wants his computer to work, to play his games or whatever. Recommending a system that is more philosophically free, but more dificult to use, or harder to get software for, is not in Joe's interests.
How so? I've never had any problems with MacOS and DRM. In fact, the OS doesn't even have any kind of "activation" or serial numbers. I can install a single copy on as many machines as I like, violating the EULA, and Apple would never even know, let alone prevent it. What might you be referring to?
I dunno, for me the most important thing about owning a computer is productivity - to be able to do the tasks I want to do. I could migrate to a non-proprietary system, but I would not benefit if it had fewer applications that I find useful. I can't write my own high-level applications. Nor do the Open Source and Free alternatives meet my needs yet. Of course, control is nice, but my proprietary OS (MacOS) gives me more control than I actually use, in addition to great applications. If it stopped me from working with those apps, or locked up the media I used, then it would be an issue.
An analogy might be automatic transmission on a car, or electronic systems in a car. It gives less control and serviceability - but most users find the benefits of automatic transmission and electronics to be worth it. I could buy an old Chevy that I could fix myself - but then I would suffer many drawbacks in actually using the vehicle. Or games consoles - they are not as customizable as a PC system, but most people just want to play games, and a console makes this goal a lot easier to accomplish.
It's rather annoying when people assume what the most important thing is to me.
I'm mainly considering NetVault because it was recommended by our Xserve vendor, and they said they could support it. But it's a tough decision, because a backup solution has to work flawlessly for years. And it's not easy to find people with experience in some of these Mac solutions apart from Retrospect.
I keep a fanboy chained to my server for when I need him. I think I'll feed him this week, out of appreciation for this article.
I think there are some users of Apple's Backup who would disagree...
I'd advise against doing this. Backup solutions should really be time-tested and proven. I would not adopt a newly-released backup solution. Especially one from Apple. As much as I love Apple software, their existing backup software, "Backup" is an absolute disaster. Given this track record, I see no reason to trust Time Machine.
I currently use Retrospect, but recent versions haven't been too impressive either. I'd take the recommendations of checking out Super Duper and perhaps Carbon Copy Cloner. I've used CCC, but mostly for making disk images of bootable volumes. Not sure how appropriate it is for making archives and incremental backups.
I'm looking to replace Retrospect with a different system, but this is more of a Business/Enterprise solution I need - for use with larger RAIDs and tape backups. I've heard of one cross-platform (Mac/Linux/Windows) solution for workgroups and businesses that sounds good, but is probably pricey and overkill for the home user. It's called NetVault. I've got to start researching a Retrospect alternative next year. Does anyone have experience with Netvault? I'd love to hear your opinions.
Actually, video was never a traditional Mac stronghold (except for desktop multimedia - eg Quicktime) - video editing/effects was first the domain of custom systems (Quantel Paintbox, etc) and Amigas on the more experimental side. Then it went through a painful transition to awful PC systems. Today, the Mac is gaining share as people are ditching their awful PC/Avid systems in favor of Final Cut Pro. It's still dominant in publishing, and Photoshop. It's possibly even more dominant in music and audio production. Musicians, publishers and photographers have always gravitated to the Mac, and still do.
More, yes. But it's still single digit percentages.I don't think the home share is in single-digit percentages. Nor is it in the graphics and video market. The problem is that the single-digit (3-4%) figure is based on ALL systems - which includes millions of boring office machines. Home users and niche professional users are MUCH more likely to own a Mac. The large market-share figures are simply because of the large base of corporate mass-purchases. When it comes to those who are passionate about their machines, and actually choose their machines, it's a different story altogether. The vast majority of Windows users don't "choose" their machine - it's just what their boss gives them at work.
Requirement #42.(a): No person who has ever held a slashdot account shall be allowed to travel in space.
WTF? The Mac is used extensively in professional markets. In some markets it dominates, and is a tool of choice. During the "dark days" of Apple's history, it was used almost exclusively in professional markets and education. It's only relatively recently that home users have returned to the Mac.
It's actually funny how things have changed. For a while it was - if you want a cheap home machine, get a PC. If you want a professional machine, get a Mac. These days more people seem to be embracing the opposite attitude - use a PC at work, and a Mac at home.
The thing about MacOS is that it has tons of hidden modifier keys and keyboard shortcuts, that often provide the desired behavior (or close to it). The problem is that most users don't know about them. Apple really should document these things better. Even power users are continually discovering new modifiers they never knew existed.
Yarrrr! Give me all your boobies ... I mean booty, or I'll send ye to Davy Jones' locker without a mizzenmast. While you're at it, would ye like a friendly game of naked Texas hold'em? Winner gets three wenches and an otter!