I agree its against the license to use OS X on non-Apple hardware.
I agree that its not the best way to use OS X.
I disagree that it's Apple right, in any small way to tell me how to use software I bought.
I disagree that supporting the OS X on generic-hardware community is "supporting a community that is essentially encourage piracy and/or illegal use (in some jurisdictions) of Mac OS X."
In a few years this is all going to become much more relevant. There's going to be loads of old, legal (jurisdictions, maybe, etc) copies of OS X floating around that will be extremely useful for people without access to Apple hardware to run in virtual environments (or whatever).
I don't like it when any company tries to prohibit fair use of the product it sells.
Throwing XP in on my part was really a bit Offthreadtopic, but fwiw, you can most certainly breach an XP license for installing it on a PC it was not sold with.
Hmmmmn, at the risk of going wildly offtopic - I actually think the macbooks look like really nice machines - I am almost certainly going to get one as soon as the linux driver support is a little better (and like you say, they're past the first trouble-prone generation - although considering the intel switch I will have to wait a little longer).
I really like the look of the motion sensor stuff (see here) - should be really cool when people start doing really useful stuff with it.
You mistake my pointing out problems with the first gen with disparagement of the line overall.
Oh - lastly, I agree that if you want to run OS X on a portable that a macbook of any description is (by far) the best choice, but I'm not sure that its the only legal choice (if I can move my copy of XP to a different PC, I feel the same way about OS X).
I think if we get into Consumer Reports' measures, then we're going to stray waaaay to far OT.
The only people that have a problem with windows security are people that open email attachments without examining them, or people that still plug their machines into their cable modem (eg. my parents and girlfriend).
Errr right OK. Maybe you should consider the fact that you don't have to stick a *nix box behind a firewall if you don't want to (although its more sensible to do so) because you can turn services off.
Also, would you care to explain to me how your beloved *nix servers dominated the server vulnerabilities in 2005? Oh. Again. perhaps because 85% of servers are *nix. Man those virus authors are smart!
They didn't. Windows did.
The virus authors might be smart - but you're sure as hell not.
The only real thing that makes YOU susceptible to get a virus is YOU. When you get a.vbs file or an unknown incoming bluetooth file transfer, it's your personal knowlege that is gonna be the key factor.
While I agree that user interaction is responsible for many problems, what if your OS picked up & executed executable attachments without user interaction? (see, the OS is important)!
BTW, what do you mean by a "decent O/S" ?
* One with good privilige seperation? * One where you don't run as superuser by default? * One where you can do most useful tasks (run an office suit, use usb devices) without being the superuser? * One which doesn't artificially seperate into a "Home" and "professional" editions - of which, the home edition has missing security features
Like OpenBSD is the greatest OS for running games...
If you want to play semantics, then it depends what you mean by "games" - openBSD is far more capable of running old dos games under emulation then windows XP...
You have the usianTHEN.32 virus that transforms any uses of than to then to make you look illiterate.
hahahaha:-)
Point taken. When I write quickly, I have trouble distinguishing between then/than (and also their/there, but I'm more concious of that).
I'm not from the US however. I presume you're from the UK - in which case you should know that there's illiterates everywhere people can read & write....
200 mobile phone viruses the problem is unlikely to get as bad as it has with PCs.
Sorry?
I wasn't aware that PCs had a virus problem.
As far as I can tell, running a Personal Computer does not make you susceptible, running windows makes you susceptible. People running a decent O/S on their PC (OS X / openBSD / linux / etc) seem to be no more susceptible to viruses then phones are.
Anway, back to the article, in addition to a platform that's more robust the windows, the network that malware will propagate on (ignoring bluetooth for the moment) is not a hostile network like the internet, but a far more controlled one & sms propagation could be stopped pretty quickly.
To go back to the windows analogy, if MS had controlled all email networks [shudder] back when Melissa / Lovebug / etc hit, it would not have been such a problem. Propagation could have been stopped by inspecting & disinfecting attachments as they passed through gateways.
Summary: -1 'Security Vendors scrambling to find new revenue, but other markets more secure then windows'
Yeah nice one, another scryer with his crystal ball. And by the way, I never said China was a slave owning culture, that was an exampli gratia of cultural low ground. Try harder. Try again.
Oh, right, I just imagined I read: Just because you were raised up in a community of slave owners doesn't make it right.
I note you haven't told us how much time you've spent in China yet.
As many others have noted in this forum before, the US ignored copyright, patents & trademarks as an emerging economy, right until its elite started to benefit from the trade monopolies granted by such IP.
It appears that China's elite is in a similar position to start benefitting more from the artificial market created by these laws.
On a slightly different note, it appears that Chinese journalists are more educated about internet copyright infringements than their western counterparts:
the uploading and downloading of Internet material without the copyright holder's permission. [emp mine]
Pity western journalists can't learn that. Every report on p2p I've ever read talks about "illegally downloading music" or "used for illegal software downloads" with no mention of copylefted / public domain / other non-infringing uses.
Depending on what open source license the standard's implementation is released with, of course. The most common license, (L)GPL pretty much blocks most other licenses.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I've never seen an open standard (documentation) released under a license designed for code. The free standards group (LSB & other free standards) release their licenses under the GNU free documentation license.
I'm not exactly an IP lawyer, but I don't see any obstacle to writing code to conform to a FDL specifcation under any license you choose.
To me Open Standards are much more important than Open Source. Open Standards allow Open Source solutions to be created that are compatible with the other solutions.
Works both ways - having standards in open source solutions allows other licensed software to be compatable with it:-)
So take National Review, which pushes one POV: conservatism. Or The Nation, which pushes one POV: liberalism. Both are on Google News.
No, they don't. Both cover a range of article and don't attempt to link each article they post back to a single issue. They also at least make some sort of attempt at non-bias. Something the sites covered in the article do not.
Now I see the source of YOUR confusion: you never actually understood what this story was about in the first place, not even reading (or not remebering) the article this whole discussion is about. (WND seems to be down right now, but the Google cache of it works.)
I asked for a statement from google, not an email allegedly from google printed on a kook site.
You might believe world nut daily, I don't consider them to be a credible source.
I think you're confusing my opinion (good on you google for kicking hates sites) with whatever google's motivation may be....
Again, I ask for a link from google where google says the sites were kicked for being 'hate sites'
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmmmn, daveschroeder, please ignore this AC - I will post in a second.
(although it was a bit clumsy, I'm sure you ignored it anyway)
I agree its against the license to use OS X on non-Apple hardware.
I agree that its not the best way to use OS X.
I disagree that it's Apple right, in any small way to tell me how to use software I bought.
I disagree that supporting the OS X on generic-hardware community is "supporting a community that is essentially encourage piracy and/or illegal use (in some jurisdictions) of Mac OS X."
In a few years this is all going to become much more relevant. There's going to be loads of old, legal (jurisdictions, maybe, etc) copies of OS X floating around that will be extremely useful for people without access to Apple hardware to run in virtual environments (or whatever).
I don't like it when any company tries to prohibit fair use of the product it sells.
Throwing XP in on my part was really a bit Offthreadtopic, but fwiw, you can most certainly breach an XP license for installing it on a PC it was not sold with.
Hmmmmn, at the risk of going wildly offtopic - I actually think the macbooks look like really nice machines - I am almost certainly going to get one as soon as the linux driver support is a little better (and like you say, they're past the first trouble-prone generation - although considering the intel switch I will have to wait a little longer).
I really like the look of the motion sensor stuff (see here) - should be really cool when people start doing really useful stuff with it.
You mistake my pointing out problems with the first gen with disparagement of the line overall.
Oh - lastly, I agree that if you want to run OS X on a portable that a macbook of any description is (by far) the best choice, but I'm not sure that its the only legal choice (if I can move my copy of XP to a different PC, I feel the same way about OS X).
I think if we get into Consumer Reports' measures, then we're going to stray waaaay to far OT.
Yes yes,
;-)
I know the original article said there would be a choice - that's why I wanted to know!
Us Mac Fanboys are of course rooting for the macbook hey?
Please post detailed instructions on how to stop the msrpc service.
(Not firewall, stop)
We all want to know what sort of laptop he's getting ;-)
(looks fantastic btw, job well done)
Do you mean firewalled or disabled? There is a difference you know...
I guess if you want to be fair, you can't exactly turn off IPC in *nix either, can you?
Interprocess communication & remote procedure call are completely different things (and RPC is off by default in my version of *nix)
FWIW:
nmap ubuntu_dapper:nmap xpsp2 (firewall on):nmap xpsp2 (firewall off)The only one of the above that has been changed since the install is the linux box, where SSH was turned on.
Perhaps you want to try again?
Care to name the windows services which you can't turn off?
RPC.
Don't you have anything better to do that sit around and reflame people that flamed your ignorant post?
Considering your entry to the thread included:
that *NIX users weren't completely ignorant.
I would say that you started flamin' first.
The only people that have a problem with windows security are people that open email attachments without examining them, or people that still plug their machines into their cable modem (eg. my parents and girlfriend).
Errr right OK. Maybe you should consider the fact that you don't have to stick a *nix box behind a firewall if you don't want to (although its more sensible to do so) because you can turn services off.
Also, would you care to explain to me how your beloved *nix servers dominated the server vulnerabilities in 2005? Oh. Again. perhaps because 85% of servers are *nix. Man those virus authors are smart!
They didn't. Windows did.
The virus authors might be smart - but you're sure as hell not.
*woosh*
/. too seriously!
:-)
Straight over my head.... *sighs* and I accuse others of taking
Thanks
The only real thing that makes YOU susceptible to get a virus is YOU. .vbs file or an unknown incoming bluetooth file transfer, it's your personal knowlege that is gonna be the key factor.
When you get a
While I agree that user interaction is responsible for many problems, what if your OS picked up & executed executable attachments without user interaction? (see, the OS is important)!
BTW, what do you mean by a "decent O/S" ?
* One with good privilige seperation?
* One where you don't run as superuser by default?
* One where you can do most useful tasks (run an office suit, use usb devices) without being the superuser?
* One which doesn't artificially seperate into a "Home" and "professional" editions - of which, the home edition has missing security features
Like OpenBSD is the greatest OS for running games...
If you want to play semantics, then it depends what you mean by "games" - openBSD is far more capable of running old dos games under emulation then windows XP...
Frankly, I think there are more illiterates where people can't read or write.
Illiterate in the sense the GP used - people who can write, but don't correctly use then/than.
You pick that up, but not my mispelling of conscious? :-)
You have the usianTHEN.32 virus that transforms any uses of than to then to make you look illiterate.
:-)
hahahaha
Point taken. When I write quickly, I have trouble distinguishing between then/than (and also their/there, but I'm more concious of that).
I'm not from the US however. I presume you're from the UK - in which case you should know that there's illiterates everywhere people can read & write....
200 mobile phone viruses the problem is unlikely to get as bad as it has with PCs.
Sorry?
I wasn't aware that PCs had a virus problem.
As far as I can tell, running a Personal Computer does not make you susceptible, running windows makes you susceptible. People running a decent O/S on their PC (OS X / openBSD / linux / etc) seem to be no more susceptible to viruses then phones are.
(Interestingly enough, this ties into my latest journal - "Why is Apple afraid of being PC")
Anway, back to the article, in addition to a platform that's more robust the windows, the network that malware will propagate on (ignoring bluetooth for the moment) is not a hostile network like the internet, but a far more controlled one & sms propagation could be stopped pretty quickly.
To go back to the windows analogy, if MS had controlled all email networks [shudder] back when Melissa / Lovebug / etc hit, it would not have been such a problem. Propagation could have been stopped by inspecting & disinfecting attachments as they passed through gateways.
Summary: -1 'Security Vendors scrambling to find new revenue, but other markets more secure then windows'
Yeah nice one, another scryer with his crystal ball. And by the way, I never said China was a slave owning culture, that was an exampli gratia of cultural low ground. Try harder. Try again.
Oh, right, I just imagined I read: Just because you were raised up in a community of slave owners doesn't make it right.
I note you haven't told us how much time you've spent in China yet.
It appears that China's elite is in a similar position to start benefitting more from the artificial market created by these laws.
On a slightly different note, it appears that Chinese journalists are more educated about internet copyright infringements than their western counterparts:Pity western journalists can't learn that. Every report on p2p I've ever read talks about "illegally downloading music" or "used for illegal software downloads" with no mention of copylefted / public domain / other non-infringing uses.
Just because you were raised up in a community of slave owners doesn't make it right.
The G.P. is correct. You have spent virtually no time in China & have no understanding of Chinese culture.
Utterly incorrect. I wrote: Either way; open source implementation of an open standard does not necessarily result in better interoperability.
Noone said that - the idea is that if there's an standard used to create open software, anyone (open or not) will be able to follow said standard.
Depending on what open source license the standard's implementation is released with, of course.
The most common license, (L)GPL pretty much blocks most other licenses.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I've never seen an open standard (documentation) released under a license designed for code. The free standards group (LSB & other free standards) release their licenses under the GNU free documentation license.
I'm not exactly an IP lawyer, but I don't see any obstacle to writing code to conform to a FDL specifcation under any license you choose.
To me Open Standards are much more important than Open Source. Open Standards allow Open Source solutions to be created that are compatible with the other solutions.
:-)
Works both ways - having standards in open source solutions allows other licensed software to be compatable with it
So take National Review, which pushes one POV: conservatism. Or The Nation, which pushes one POV: liberalism. Both are on Google News.
No, they don't. Both cover a range of article and don't attempt to link each article they post back to a single issue. They also at least make some sort of attempt at non-bias. Something the sites covered in the article do not.
Now I see the source of YOUR confusion: you never actually understood what this story was about in the first place, not even reading (or not remebering) the article this whole discussion is about. (WND seems to be down right now, but the Google cache of it works.)
I asked for a statement from google, not an email allegedly from google printed on a kook site.
You might believe world nut daily, I don't consider them to be a credible source.
I think you're confusing my opinion (good on you google for kicking hates sites) with whatever google's motivation may be....
Again, I ask for a link from google where google says the sites were kicked for being 'hate sites'
Well done for saying that - it's good someone did.
:-/
But it won't make any difference - we'll get the same sort of drivel next time a story on China, or India, or Europe, or Australia comes around
Intel hasn't (to my knowledge) killed anyone protesting against it, in full view of the world's cameras, just because it can.
Good point.
You're quite right that China has behaved far more atrociously than intel.