OSx86 demonstrates that Apple's not completely alone in the "Runs OSX" crowd
Where do you think Psystar got their OS from? You think they engineered it themselves. OSX86 is a cool project. I was running Tiger on an OptiPlex GX270 - and Apple never bothered them. If they get shut down, you can thank Psystar for that, by trying to profit from their hobby.
You have the order wrong. The Mac OS X that was "bought" for you cannot be installed as is on their hardware. It's modified before the install. The have a "hacked" image of Mac OS X that is installed on the computer, and then they ship a retail copy of Mac OS X along with it. The user that receives this computer will be unable to reinstall Mac OS X from the retail disc provided because the licensed copy will not install itself on non-Apple hardware. This is a limitation built into the Mac OS X installer utility.
When installing software updates on Mac OS X, either using the Software Update utility, or, by downloading them from Apple.com, you must agree to the terms before you are allowed to install them.
Just because the software is being legally purchased does not give the company to circumvent closed-source portions of the source code and then modify it to work on their hardware. If you want to do this, go download GPL licensed software. Mac OS X is not licensed in this way.
People aren't getting this. Psystar is being sued because they act as the "end user" when they install the software onto their hardware. There is no OEM license that anyone can obtain from Apple to install unless they buy an Apple computer. The EULA is then agreed upon by Psystar when they go to install Mac OS X on the PC. Psystar is the end-user.
The people who have purchased these computers have different rights than Psystar. Apple isn't suing those who have purchased the hardware from Psystar. However, they'll never be able to install the sealed retail version of Mac OS X that was purchased along with their Psystar PC - because the version that's on the computer is not the one that's in the box.
Actually, if you start a small business, and you wish to sell Windows on the computers you sell, then you need to buy OEM licences of Windows from Microsoft. A user then has the option of keeping the OEM license of Windows on the computer, or buying a retail version of the license and installing it over the OEM license. You have different rights and permissions depending on whether you have a retail or OEM version of Windows installed.
If your computer company wanted to sell PC's with Mac OS X, then you would need to buy an OEM license of Mac OS X. Unfortunately, Apple does not sell an OEM license. You only obtain an OEM license when you purchase an Apple computer.
This is why Psystar may not have too much of a chance with their case. And no software companies are going to going to come to Psystar's defense and rescue them, just because they might be competing with Apple.
The software that's on the computer is not a valid license. When you buy from Psystar, you are buying a PC with OS X installed, along with a sealed copy of Leopard. How can your "valid" licensed version be on the computer if you received a sealed box?
There's plenty of wiggle room here. Apple didn't wait several months just because they're slow. Get ready for Psystar to get skull-f@#$ed.
In most medium-to-large companies, security, auditing, network admin and system admin would be handled by different people.
And in big companies, auditing web logs is almost certainly done by low-skilled support who only run vendor-provided software and have no real understanding of what the software does or how it can produce incorrect results. A mid-level manager asks the vendor "can you get us a monthly list of who browses porn, sorted by number of sites?" The vendor says "sure", hacks up a script, and six hundred pages of documentation that won't be read. The mid-level manager gets his monthly report, and takes a report of the top three "culprits" to his boss, who is immensely pleased and gives him a bonus. The network admins, security admins, system admins and others who know why this is worthless as evidence probably won't even know what's happening, and most certainly won't be able to influence it.
Yes, but in the state of Massachusetts, this is probably mostly done by minimum wage interns... Seriously, as someone who has worked in IT for a government agency, state and local governments are falling so far behind in IT in both keeping up with current technology and hiring and keeping competent help that things like this will become common. Funds and attention are elsewhere in many state governments. If anything good comes from this, hopefully it will make someone somewhere take a second and think, "How did this happen and how do we prevent it from happening again?".
Raising the drinking age to 21 is probably a good idea. Laws are supposed to benefit society. Reducing fetal alcohol syndrome and damage to the brains of our developing youth - you know, the future... well, it sounds like a good idea to me.
If you're old enough to vote, enlist (or be drafted), purchase tobacco, and old enough to be legally considered an adult, then you should be old enough to legally purchase and consume alcohol. Simple as that.
People really seem to forget that the iPod, iTunes, and the iTMS all exist because of Microsoft's licensing policies, which clearly stated that Windows Media DRM playback can only be on Windows based computers and devices. To this day you are still unable to watch encrypted/secured Windows Media files on any computing platform other than Windows. Also, at that period of time, RealPlayer for the Mac was also a mess, so Apple decided to come up with their own product to fill in the gap, so Macintosh users were not left out of the portable music market.
So, think twice before chastising Apple for their "lock-in" and "DRM forever". There's another company with an accomplished record of being anti-competitive that forced Apple's hand, which lead to the current state of affairs. Is it really Apple's fault for it blowing up in everyone else's face?
I'm all for the Amazon mp3 store. I think it's great that it exists, and I've bought more tracks from there than I have the iTMS. However, let's not bullshit ourselves here... the only reason the Amazon mp3 store exists is because the iPod/iTMS is/was such a success. Otherwise, it would have been just another lame-o online store using Windows Media or some other proprietary DRM. Perhaps when Amazon gets a bigger foothold, the other music companies will finally budge and let Apple start selling more DRM free tracks.
Remember everyone... Apple IS a hardware company. Everything they do, whether software publishing or music sales, is to make sure that Apple hardware sells. If other companies/sites are selling music, Apple really isn't going to care too much, especially when the purchased music can be played on their hardware.
First Microsoft/Yahoo, then EA/Take-Two, and now UTC/Diebold. Are there always this many unsolicited take overs going on, or for some reason are these being more publicized than most? Is a generally depressed stock market causing this, with many companies share prices being undervalued, and in turn provoking some of these offers?
I just can't remember three such high profiles offers being made in such close proximity to each other. Not that I follow the financial markets closely...
If the RIAA associated labels go down to selling only ~1,000,000 units per year (the amount of vinyl sold last year according to Time, yes I would be pleased.:-)
I think you hit on the main point of this "Windows Vista Capable" discussion. I think its understandable to turn off features to get the performance you need on a computer you already own, running XP (or whatever). However, it's shameful to buy something with a Vista sticker and then have to turn off features that are being advertised as part of the reason you want this operating system in the first place. I think its amazing how many people don't find this rather silly. If a Vista sticker is on it, then all of Vista should work, not just part of it.
In any case, Windows Vista Capable means just that -- it'll come up, but that doesn't mean it'll work well or that 100% of features will work. I don't see what all the fuss is about. For what it's worth (not nearly what I paid for it!) I bought a retail copy of Ultimate, it runs acceptably on my Capable ultra-portable even though the machine performs like a 7 year old desktop, though I did turn off the sidebar.
Hold on, your kidding right? How was anyone supposed to know what Windows Vista Capable meant before Vista was actually released? Microsoft started letting hardware makers throw this silly marketing scheme out there several months before Vista was officially released. So Yes, I would expect that "Windows Vista Capable" would mean that all of Vista works on this computer that I am purchasing. We're talking about new, on the shelf, at the store, computers here- not some one or two year old computer that someone already owns, and is looking to upgrade to Vista. If the OEM and Microsoft can't tell you what hardware Vista would work on fully, then who can?
Of course someone could make the argument that purchaser of the computer should have waited until Vista was released to be sure. Well then, why even bother with this "Windows Vista Capable" marketing campaign before Vista's full RTM?
Listen, the whole thing was a scam by the OEM's and Microsoft to kick up PC sales at the time of the marketing campaign. Sales were sluggish, customers were holding of on hardware purchases until Vista was released, and the OEM's were not too happy with the Vista delay, which was hurting their bottom line. So now they've been caught in their lie, some folks will get fired, and they'll settle out of court.
But please don't shrug this off like its not a big deal. It was deliberately misleading on a scale we haven't seen before in terms of Windows marketing.
The RIAA has come a long way since they were setup to regulate and maintain the technical standards on how vinyl records should be manufactured. Hopefully they will go the way of the vinyl record real soon...
Boot it up in target disk mode (which essentially makes it an oversized external drive), connect to another Mac via USB cable, re-image. Or, boot the MacBook Air off an USB external drive (I already do this routinely with other Macs). This isn't a huge problem to overcome, though lack of Ethernet will make imaging interesting. I'm guessing someone (Apple or third party) will market a USB/Ethernet adapter for this purpose.
You just made the original posters point. If the reference to an entire article is some blog entry or whack-ball website, then, it's probably not a good source. This is no different using an opinion piece in a newspaper or some type of propaganda flyer as a source.
The point still is that there was a source listed. The person doing the research would need to judge whether they feel the source is reliable enough to investigate and use in their paper. If they are a student at the high school or college level, and they think that referencing that blog or web site in their paper will get them a good grade, so be it. In lower age/grades, it's up to the teacher to guide a student on what is an acceptable resource for use with a paper.
The fact that Wikipedia may contain articles or topics that don't have reliable sources of information doesn't preclude it from being used in a students research. Students should be encouraged to investigate and discover all useful resources they can. It can't hurt them. If a teacher can't be bothered to help a student sort out what is an acceptable source or an unacceptable source for their paper, whose fault is that?
Wikipedia can be a good resource for any student of any age. It's an encyclopedia, which means its a condensed article with general knowledge of a topic, with information from other sources. If a teacher allows a student of any age to write a paper and use an encyclopedia as a reference (if the work needs references), then the teacher doesn't know what they are doing.
Why wikipedia is an excellent resource is the requirement for articles to have some type of references listed for accuracy and peer review. I've seen more references to other books and articles on Wikipedia than I have in printed or online encyclopedias (such as World Book, Britannica, etc). The immense amount of references alone gives students a great place to start their research.
Firefox is suspect on the Mac, in comparison to the stability it achieves on Linux and Windows operating systems. Although I love it, and have it installed, I have moved away from Firefox 2.x over time. I would check out Camino instead. Almost the same rendering with Gecko, but, rock solid in terms of crashing and such. Optimized versions specific to your processor, along with some useful add-ons (extensions unfortunately don't work with Camino) can be found at PimpMyCamino.com. I use the UserAgent add on to set Camino to be the latest version of Firefox for websites that want to exclude it.
Slashdot Mirror
Where do you think Psystar got their OS from? You think they engineered it themselves. OSX86 is a cool project. I was running Tiger on an OptiPlex GX270 - and Apple never bothered them. If they get shut down, you can thank Psystar for that, by trying to profit from their hobby.
You have the order wrong. The Mac OS X that was "bought" for you cannot be installed as is on their hardware. It's modified before the install. The have a "hacked" image of Mac OS X that is installed on the computer, and then they ship a retail copy of Mac OS X along with it. The user that receives this computer will be unable to reinstall Mac OS X from the retail disc provided because the licensed copy will not install itself on non-Apple hardware. This is a limitation built into the Mac OS X installer utility.
When installing software updates on Mac OS X, either using the Software Update utility, or, by downloading them from Apple.com, you must agree to the terms before you are allowed to install them.
Just because the software is being legally purchased does not give the company to circumvent closed-source portions of the source code and then modify it to work on their hardware. If you want to do this, go download GPL licensed software. Mac OS X is not licensed in this way.
People aren't getting this. Psystar is being sued because they act as the "end user" when they install the software onto their hardware. There is no OEM license that anyone can obtain from Apple to install unless they buy an Apple computer. The EULA is then agreed upon by Psystar when they go to install Mac OS X on the PC. Psystar is the end-user.
The people who have purchased these computers have different rights than Psystar. Apple isn't suing those who have purchased the hardware from Psystar. However, they'll never be able to install the sealed retail version of Mac OS X that was purchased along with their Psystar PC - because the version that's on the computer is not the one that's in the box.
Actually, if you start a small business, and you wish to sell Windows on the computers you sell, then you need to buy OEM licences of Windows from Microsoft. A user then has the option of keeping the OEM license of Windows on the computer, or buying a retail version of the license and installing it over the OEM license. You have different rights and permissions depending on whether you have a retail or OEM version of Windows installed.
If your computer company wanted to sell PC's with Mac OS X, then you would need to buy an OEM license of Mac OS X. Unfortunately, Apple does not sell an OEM license. You only obtain an OEM license when you purchase an Apple computer.
This is why Psystar may not have too much of a chance with their case. And no software companies are going to going to come to Psystar's defense and rescue them, just because they might be competing with Apple.
The software that's on the computer is not a valid license. When you buy from Psystar, you are buying a PC with OS X installed, along with a sealed copy of Leopard. How can your "valid" licensed version be on the computer if you received a sealed box?
There's plenty of wiggle room here. Apple didn't wait several months just because they're slow. Get ready for Psystar to get skull-f@#$ed.
I'm still waiting for Mr. Fusion to generate my 1.21 GW of power...
Yes, but in the state of Massachusetts, this is probably mostly done by minimum wage interns... Seriously, as someone who has worked in IT for a government agency, state and local governments are falling so far behind in IT in both keeping up with current technology and hiring and keeping competent help that things like this will become common. Funds and attention are elsewhere in many state governments. If anything good comes from this, hopefully it will make someone somewhere take a second and think, "How did this happen and how do we prevent it from happening again?".
Rich men hire a ball washer...
I think the comment refers to Photo Booth, not .Mac.
If you're old enough to vote, enlist (or be drafted), purchase tobacco, and old enough to be legally considered an adult, then you should be old enough to legally purchase and consume alcohol. Simple as that.
So, think twice before chastising Apple for their "lock-in" and "DRM forever". There's another company with an accomplished record of being anti-competitive that forced Apple's hand, which lead to the current state of affairs. Is it really Apple's fault for it blowing up in everyone else's face?
I'm all for the Amazon mp3 store. I think it's great that it exists, and I've bought more tracks from there than I have the iTMS. However, let's not bullshit ourselves here... the only reason the Amazon mp3 store exists is because the iPod/iTMS is/was such a success. Otherwise, it would have been just another lame-o online store using Windows Media or some other proprietary DRM. Perhaps when Amazon gets a bigger foothold, the other music companies will finally budge and let Apple start selling more DRM free tracks.
Remember everyone... Apple IS a hardware company. Everything they do, whether software publishing or music sales, is to make sure that Apple hardware sells. If other companies/sites are selling music, Apple really isn't going to care too much, especially when the purchased music can be played on their hardware.
Because the iTunes Music Store exists. That's why.
Perhaps Microsoft Sync caused the explosion. Zing!
:-)
It doesn't surprise me at all that Ford and Microsoft paired up with each other. As if Ford automobiles didn't have enough issues...
Actually, the only reason I've noticed is because they've shown up in articles here on Slashdot. :^).
First Microsoft/Yahoo, then EA/Take-Two, and now UTC/Diebold. Are there always this many unsolicited take overs going on, or for some reason are these being more publicized than most? Is a generally depressed stock market causing this, with many companies share prices being undervalued, and in turn provoking some of these offers?
I just can't remember three such high profiles offers being made in such close proximity to each other. Not that I follow the financial markets closely...
If the RIAA associated labels go down to selling only ~1,000,000 units per year (the amount of vinyl sold last year according to Time, yes I would be pleased. :-)
I think you hit on the main point of this "Windows Vista Capable" discussion. I think its understandable to turn off features to get the performance you need on a computer you already own, running XP (or whatever). However, it's shameful to buy something with a Vista sticker and then have to turn off features that are being advertised as part of the reason you want this operating system in the first place. I think its amazing how many people don't find this rather silly. If a Vista sticker is on it, then all of Vista should work, not just part of it.
Hold on, your kidding right? How was anyone supposed to know what Windows Vista Capable meant before Vista was actually released? Microsoft started letting hardware makers throw this silly marketing scheme out there several months before Vista was officially released. So Yes, I would expect that "Windows Vista Capable" would mean that all of Vista works on this computer that I am purchasing. We're talking about new, on the shelf, at the store, computers here- not some one or two year old computer that someone already owns, and is looking to upgrade to Vista. If the OEM and Microsoft can't tell you what hardware Vista would work on fully, then who can?
Of course someone could make the argument that purchaser of the computer should have waited until Vista was released to be sure. Well then, why even bother with this "Windows Vista Capable" marketing campaign before Vista's full RTM?
Listen, the whole thing was a scam by the OEM's and Microsoft to kick up PC sales at the time of the marketing campaign. Sales were sluggish, customers were holding of on hardware purchases until Vista was released, and the OEM's were not too happy with the Vista delay, which was hurting their bottom line. So now they've been caught in their lie, some folks will get fired, and they'll settle out of court.
But please don't shrug this off like its not a big deal. It was deliberately misleading on a scale we haven't seen before in terms of Windows marketing.
The RIAA has come a long way since they were setup to regulate and maintain the technical standards on how vinyl records should be manufactured. Hopefully they will go the way of the vinyl record real soon...
All new Apple keyboards (not just on the MacBook Air) have eliminated the Apple on the Command key. I don't know what the reasoning is behind it.
Boot it up in target disk mode (which essentially makes it an oversized external drive), connect to another Mac via USB cable, re-image. Or, boot the MacBook Air off an USB external drive (I already do this routinely with other Macs). This isn't a huge problem to overcome, though lack of Ethernet will make imaging interesting. I'm guessing someone (Apple or third party) will market a USB/Ethernet adapter for this purpose.
You just made the original posters point. If the reference to an entire article is some blog entry or whack-ball website, then, it's probably not a good source. This is no different using an opinion piece in a newspaper or some type of propaganda flyer as a source.
The point still is that there was a source listed. The person doing the research would need to judge whether they feel the source is reliable enough to investigate and use in their paper. If they are a student at the high school or college level, and they think that referencing that blog or web site in their paper will get them a good grade, so be it. In lower age/grades, it's up to the teacher to guide a student on what is an acceptable resource for use with a paper.
The fact that Wikipedia may contain articles or topics that don't have reliable sources of information doesn't preclude it from being used in a students research. Students should be encouraged to investigate and discover all useful resources they can. It can't hurt them. If a teacher can't be bothered to help a student sort out what is an acceptable source or an unacceptable source for their paper, whose fault is that?
Why wikipedia is an excellent resource is the requirement for articles to have some type of references listed for accuracy and peer review. I've seen more references to other books and articles on Wikipedia than I have in printed or online encyclopedias (such as World Book, Britannica, etc). The immense amount of references alone gives students a great place to start their research.
Firefox is suspect on the Mac, in comparison to the stability it achieves on Linux and Windows operating systems. Although I love it, and have it installed, I have moved away from Firefox 2.x over time. I would check out Camino instead. Almost the same rendering with Gecko, but, rock solid in terms of crashing and such. Optimized versions specific to your processor, along with some useful add-ons (extensions unfortunately don't work with Camino) can be found at PimpMyCamino.com. I use the UserAgent add on to set Camino to be the latest version of Firefox for websites that want to exclude it.