Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

OSx86 Shutdown Rumors Explained

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the needle-in-a-command-stack dept.

600

n.e.watson writes "The AP has run an article that addresses recent rumors on the internet about Apple Legal shutting down the OSx86 Project, with a statement from an OSx86 administrator. From the article: 'The OSx86 Project Web site stated Apple had served it with a notice on Thursday citing violations of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the site was reviewing all of its discussion forum postings as a result. The site has always aimed to adhere to copyright laws and is working with Apple to ensure no violations exist, according to a statement by the site administrator.'"

cancel ×

600 comments

Seriously, why bother? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14754262)

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.

Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Re:Seriously, why bother? (3, Funny)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754266)

Nothing better than to see a historical troll on a quiet sunday afternoon. ;)

Fully agreed. I mean, why bother? (5, Funny)

maynard (3337) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754281)

I'm sitting here in front of a PDP-11/73 running RSX and trying to copy a 250 block file from this CDC-80 dishwasher 80MB hard drive to an RX08 8" floppy disk. It's taking freak''n forever! DEC addicts, go ahead and flame me, but why do you insist on using this ancient junk? Try something a little more modern. Like an Osborne. Or even a TRS-80. Sheesh!

Well, I am sitting in front of... (5, Funny)

MeatFlap3 (741121) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754342)

a Sun Enterprise 450, with four processors, 4 GBytes of memory and 10 SCSI drives... This is my HOME computer and I don't see that kind of poor performance. Maybe it is time for you to try Ultrix instead of RSX-11, at least you won't have the real-time interrupts bothering you... However, I do like my TRS-80 running NEWDOS-80!

Oh yeah? Well vector you! (5, Funny)

maynard (3337) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754390)

I like my instruction/data fetch cycle on 16 bit word boundaries, thank you! So you think you're fancy 64 bit address range is all that. With your Sun Enterprise this, and your CG3 megapixel sbus card that. Well, when I need to access memory out of its 32KW boundary I have to set an offset vector. And I like it that way! So my RK05 only stores 2.5MB per removable pack. And it consumes more than 1 KW. And my house lights dim every time it spins up. Well, I like it that way!

What, I'm supposed to run some pansy Macintosh 8600 with all its fancy pictures of a dekstop with flippy disks and overlapping windows, and dialog boxes, and a mouse with only one button? BAH!

Re:Oh yeah? Well vector you! (1)

laptop006 (37721) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754470)

From memory an e450 would take ~1KW as well (my Sun 670 does)

Re:Oh yeah? Well vector you! (2, Interesting)

maynard (3337) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754482)

The RK05 drive would take more than 1KW alone. But let's be honest here, we could go all the way back to ENIAC, each step finding systems which consumed more power then the last. Hell, at work we just dumped an AlphaServer 8600 which fit into several cabinets and took three phase into the back of the unit. Weeee!!!

Re:Seriously, why bother? (4, Interesting)

iezhy (623955) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754329)

form OSx86 site:

"Apple is certainly well within their rights to protect their OS and we have always supported them in this effort. Our first-class moderating staff has helped ensure that direct links to any patches are not allowed. We have in the past linked to the homepage of Maxxuss - but not to the offending 10.4.4 patches - in the interest of news, but we've removed those links just in case."

funny thing, they removed links to supposedly infriging site, but put name of this site on the front page - using it as google keyword will lead you to the same site from the first hit :)))

Speccy issues (PPC 603e seriously) (2, Funny)

Burning Plastic (153446) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754341)

You know, I was trying to copy a 10k file from one tape to another on my ZX spectrum 16k and it took like half an hour...

Now, a little more seriously, my main machine was a Powerbook 2400 for a few years and copying a few hundred MB of a CD image never seemed to take more than a couple of minutes...

I'm wondering what else you're running to cause this slowdown (603e with 80MB on a Powerbook 2400).

Which apps are causing you problems? (Which versions are you running)?

Re:Speccy issues (PPC 603e seriously) (1)

DarkVader (121278) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754386)

Now THAT was funny.

It's been a while since I've seen anybody pretend to fall for that ancient troll.

Re:Speccy issues (PPC 603e seriously) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14754406)

In all actuality, due to the cooperative multitasking of pre-OSX systems, you could cause the original problem to happen. If you were in the middle of a large file copy and changed the focus from the Finder to a different app, the copy would essentially halt. In order for the copy to complete in any sane amount of time, you would need to keep the focus on the 'copying files' status window.

Re:Seriously, why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14754425)

I really hope you're kidding, or at the very least, high. I'm sure we'd all like to "hear some intelligent reasons why" you'd run a 1997-model computer and then complain on a geek forum about its performance when you obviously haven't even taken the time to optimize its configuration.

Ancient troll copy/paste = 5 funny? (1)

Jayfar (630313) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754427)

That's about the umpteen thousandanth time the above troll has been posted to /. and elsewhere (google it). Does it really still rate 5 funny mods? I'm thinking maybe not.

Re:Ancient troll copy/paste = 5 funny? (1)

Uber Banker (655221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754469)

It surely is a classic piece of flamebait, but I found it very funny.

...I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart...

Indeed. Perhaps there was some truth to that. I'm only kidding, but that's what made it funny right at this moment, on a story related to the OSx86 project. Good parody of an old cut-n-paste flamebait (most recent renditions have replaced the processor specs with recent ones, that's now not really possible).

Re:Seriously, why bother? (1)

jackjeff (955699) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754517)

What has this comment to do at all with the news?

First. The experiment. My old 6300 which is a lot slower than your 8600, and it is a well known flaw designed machine from Apple (maybe the worst Mac ever released) and it uses an old IDE disk and you should have a SCSI. However it sure does not take me 20 mins to copy a mere 17Mb folder.
- this depend on the nb of files and sizes of the files. Copying thousands of 1kb files or one big file is totally different, and this is not OS or FS related. Even if you are in the first case, this is too slow...
- your disk may be physically damaged
- your disk may be fragmented and especially the files u try to copy
- your system is polluted with a lot of crap (extensions?)

Second. What's the point?
- MacOS X does not share a single line of code with what is running your old computer.
- If you blame Apple's hardware then OSX86 is good news. You can buy a PC and run OS X on it.
- If you blame the OS, then why comment at all? You're obviously happy with whatever system u're running (Windows?) and this issue does not interest you.

Third. Productivity.
- There are hundred of points of comparisons for choosing which OS is the most productive. It depends on your usage and what you do, what may be true for you may not be for others.. for very different reasons. I do not want to criticize, but if the most important thing for your productivity is file copy speed, then maybe you should consider using a system like Linux with RaiserFS volumes (or smth else... ) that should be much faster than NT and NTFS on your old machine.
- Multitask. This was a major weakness of pre OS-X MacOS systems. But I think the issue has been solved for quite some time now. On OS X even with old hardware, you could copy your stuff use BBEdit and Firefox with no problem.

Correct me if I am wrong but don't windows NT let you start a copy even though there is not enough space on your destination drive? That is one of the things I personally consider counter-productive.

Poems (5, Funny)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754286)

There once was a dude with a Mac
Who's code he tried to attack
His grin was short-lived
When Jobs did not forgive
And gave him a boot in the sack.

Re:Poems (5, Funny)

cyberbian (897119) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754462)

The dashing young CEO Steve,
Has a TPM stashed up his sleeve,
He used it to track,
All the people that hack,
Or that's what he'll have you believe.

Kind of Ironic... (5, Insightful)

sagefire.org (731545) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754287)

...for the company that named one of it's System Beeps Sosumi (pronounced "So Sue Me") when Apple Records tried to shut them down a while back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi [wikipedia.org]

Re:Kind of Ironic... (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754412)

I always liked the 'Butt-Head Astronomer' codename for the 7100.

wiki is INCORRECT... the sound resource is from (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14754431)

wiki is incorrect... the sound resource is from Crystal Quest a popuar game that preceded system 7

Apple called it sosumi because they were having fun teasing the Crystal Quest author and the beatles story is nonsence made up years after the fact.

Anyone with a copy of the tremendously popular 1987 Crystal Quest can verify it. The sound effect resources are not protected.

http://www.gamespot.com/mac/action/crystalquest/ [gamespot.com]

the xbox 360 has a semi-faithful version of the 1987 game too!!! :

http://screenshots.teamxbox.com/screen/44521/Cryst al-Quest/ [teamxbox.com]

someone should bitchslap the wiki poster that spreads the lies about sosumi (a recording of two zylophone keys on a synthesizer, but the specific two keys being used in Crystal Quest, the duration, etc shows that the Sosumi sound is stolen from the mac game Crystal Quest, not thin air.

Parent is full of it (1)

McDutchie (151611) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754543)

I have played Crystal Quest for many hours and it doesn't have that sound in it at all.

Apple going overboard? LEGAL security (4, Interesting)

sreekotay (955693) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754288)

Hmm - we do something similar at AOL in terms of the poem (yes, I know - you're SHOCKED that big companies do similar misguided goofy things :P). I had just written about it [kotay.com] on my blog [kotay.com] given all the Apple press swirl about this.

But we (AOL) are not really trying to prevent the random developer or user from doing anything - obviously this isn't about being secure TECHNICALLY. We just wanted to prevent giant business partners and competitors and the like profiting from doing things with our software and users we didn't authorize.

I'd imagine Apple's reasons are similar, though that doesn't really line up with this shutdown order. As I don't think anything like this has gone to court yet, it sounds like either they need to enforce their rights everywhere to keep them, or they're trying to force the precedent, or they've got some zealous/quasi-religious entitlement thing going, between their iPod protectionism, shutting down rumour sites, and now this... Ah, its ok, they're Apple - EVERYBODY loves Apple :)

Re:Apple going overboard? LEGAL security (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14754413)

Just so you know, that idea's as old as the 80s, and won't work.

You're allowed to violate copyrights and trademarks if it's essential in order to interoperate with platforms.

975 F.2d 832, 24 USPQ2d 1015
http://digital-law-online.info/cases/24PQ2D1015.ht m [digital-law-online.info]

Also case law in the Game Boy field (think that was Codemasters v. Nintendo), allowing them to violate the trademark on the Nintendo logo by putting it in the ROM.

Sony tried similar in the PlayStation's expansion port's header, which was shamelessly exploited by Datel, Future Console Design and others for the original Xploder cartridges and other similar things (GameShark); Sony gave up, and did not sue.

Re:Apple going overboard? LEGAL security (5, Funny)

P. Niss (635300) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754438)

Ah, its ok, they're Apple - EVERYBODY loves Apple :)

Not nearly as much as everybody hates AOL :)

Run Linux (0, Troll)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754289)

The real answer here is to run a real BSD or Linux. New Hampshire has it right, live free or die.

In the end, the free shall prevail.

Re:Run Linux (1)

Briareos (21163) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754541)

The real answer here is to run a real BSD or Linux. New Hampshire has it right, live free or die.

In the end, the free shall prevail.

ITYM "In the long run even the free will die..."

np: Biosphere - Manicure (Man with a Movie Camera)

Why Bother? (2)

Sharp Rulez (799059) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754290)

Just because they would like to make money with the OS and the Hardware.. If we can hack the OS to run on a simple PC, they wont sell hardware anymore..

Apple please listen...... (5, Insightful)

pstreck (558593) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754299)

I don't want to steal your beautiful OS, I truly don't. I am more than willing to pay for it. I've owned Macs in the past, I loved my power book and my iMac, and i'll probably eventually by another power book. But truth be told I like building my own PCs and having the extra options that goes along with that. Don't your get that? A company that has its roots in a garage, you were born out of the hacker mentalitiy. When did you get so damn anal? Please apple, please wake up. We will pay, lots of us will. But I don't want your desktop hardware.

One wonders... (2, Insightful)

hummassa (157160) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754319)

How a company that is profiting exactly with "I want to buy and not just copy" (iTMS) fails to understand that.

Re:Apple please listen...... (2, Interesting)

Sepodati (746220) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754324)

And Apple doesn't want to have to support you when the OS craps out because of some crazy hardware setup you've got.

That being said, though, why don't they throw it out there for cheap with NO support. You buy it, you install it, you figure it out, on your own. Or you pay extra for support? They still make some money on a product already developed (which is what businesses need to do in order to survive) and the do-it-yourself type gets something to play with and hopefully enjoy.

We'll see...

---John Holmes...

Re:Apple please listen...... (4, Insightful)

SoTuA (683507) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754357)

why don't they throw it out there for cheap with NO support;

Because, even with no support, disclaimers, and all, badly running OSX on the crappiest hardware on earth is still bad publicity for Apple. For a company that's as image-driven as Apple, that spells "bad shit".

Re:Apple please listen...... (1)

DarkVader (121278) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754416)

I think that's a miscalculation. People know what "no support" means. It wouldn't hurt Apple at all, and would probably help, with the free publicity from the "gotta build my own box" set.

And anyway, without some hacking, Mac OS X would require an EFI logic board to boot out of the box - it wouldn't work on crappy old hardware, only new legacy-free stuff.

And I think even Joe Sixpack knows that if you have to get a third party hack to make your OS boot, the company is not going to support you.

Re:Apple please listen...... (1)

ioErr (691174) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754475)

And I think even Joe Sixpack knows that if you have to get a third party hack to make your OS boot, the company is not going to support you.

I think you're giving Joe Sixpack too much credit. He's just as likely to tell all his friends Mac OS X is shit because he had to use a third party hack (not that he would those words) to make the OS boot. And then bitch loudly because he feels he is entitled to support for his computar because he paid for the OS dammit!

Re:Apple please listen...... (4, Insightful)

CyberDave (79582) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754531)

I think that's a miscalculation. People know what "no support" means. It wouldn't hurt Apple at all, and would probably help, with the free publicity from the "gotta build my own box" set.

No, that's pretty mcuh dead on.

We here on Slashdot know what "no support" means. And we're fine throwing OS X onto a spare partition in a box that already multiboots between XP, 2K, Gentoo, and NetBSD. And we like to brag about the challenges we had to go through to get it all to work ("I spent the afternoon recompiling my Xserver to use "march=pentium4" instead of "mcpu=pentium4" in my make.conf blah blah blah").

But we here on Slashdot are not normal people (and a great many of our kin don't seem to understand that). What is easy and cool for us is difficult and scary for everyone else. We can deal with looking at system requirements and buying compatible hardware to use with our unsupport copy of OS X, but my parent's can't, and neither can the folks who walk into Best Buy and ask if 802.11b is compatible with 802.11g (and neither can the salesman there who answers that they don't work together).

Joe Sixpack will hear from his friend that he can use OS X on a non-Apple PC. Even if the friend is very specifc about the details, most of those details are going to go in one of Joe's ears and out the other (much like I have no clue what most of the medical terminology means on House, M.D. or Grey's Anatomy). But they're still going to have "non-apple PC" and "OS X" stuck in their head, and then they'll try it and it won't work properly, and then they'll be one of the vocal minority of people who have problems, and post on every message board they can find that "Apple sux", etc., etc., and generally do a bad thing to Apple's image.

Bottom line, what's great about the Mac is that it's more than just an OS, it's an entire platform that is guaranteed (well, almost guaranteed) to JUST WORK. And at this point in time, Apple is not going to do ANYTHING to jeopardize that, no matter how many people on Slashdot wish they would.

I hope this post made some sense...running on very little sleep right now. I think I had some larger point to make, but it seems to have escaped me.

Re:Apple please listen...... (1)

p00ya (579445) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754391)

You buy it, you install it, you figure it out, on your own.
If something goes wrong, you debug it, you patch it... Oh, wait.

Re:Apple please listen...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14754327)

All successful business will end up like this... google... apple... it is a consequence of that fact that in order to be successful, a business must abandon good ideals.

Re:Apple please listen...... (5, Insightful)

brainnolo (688900) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754328)

Unfortunately, selling platforms is Apple's main activity, they do not sell hardware and/or software. The Mac is a platform composed of Mac OS X and hardware tailored to make it run without glitches, this is what they offer, the fact you don't like it does not authorize you to use a component of their platforms with different hardware. Buying a copy of the OS is not enough even (because they do not make huge profits out of it, they mostly cover R&D costs), yet is probably is enough to shut that little voice saying "don't steal" up :)

Re:Apple please listen...... (2, Insightful)

dwater (72834) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754346)

Kind of funny when there's many of us who want their hardware, but don't want their OS :)

Re:Apple please listen...... (3, Interesting)

m50d (797211) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754348)

When did you get so damn anal?

That one's easy. When they stopped having Woz.

Re:Apple please listen...... (1, Insightful)

pair-a-noyd (594371) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754365)

Please apple, please wake up. We will pay, lots of us will. But I don't want your desktop hardware.

Maybe.. I have two ancient apples and my son has a new apple notebook. His rocks. And I'll probably buy one of those mac mini's this year.

I would *like to* build a PC based OS X machine. I don't have any real problem with Apple hardware, but I would like to have a CHOICE when I do need to add/change some hardware. I wouldn't mind at all buy the OS and maybe some of the hardware too, if the price is COMPETITIVE and the hardware is good.
I think it sucks to have to pay Apple $500 (like my son did) for a 300gb hard drive when I can get a perfectly good 300gb hard drive from New Egg for $129.

What I do object to is being locked into buying 100% of everything from one company.

Re:Apple please listen...... (2, Informative)

HowIsMyDriving? (142335) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754396)

Istalling a HD into a G5 tower does not void the Apple Warranty, since Apple itself states that Memory, PCI cards, and Hard drives are user servicable. Many places do have outragous prices on hardware upgrades, but your son was pretty dumb to go along with Apple for this.

Re:Apple please listen...... (1)

pair-a-noyd (594371) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754433)

He had to buy an external for his notebook.
He's 800 miles away in college and he doesn't call home before making decisions.
He's not a technician or computer expert. He acted on information the local Apple dealer provided him with.

Re:Apple please listen...... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14754464)

And this is different from any other store how? "Gee we have this product here for $XXX, but you should go down the street and buy it there because it is cheaper and my employer does not need to make money to pay me to be here to tell the people to go somewhere else." Meet cluestick. Teach you children better and stop blaming the store.

Re:Apple please listen...... (1)

CyberDave (79582) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754491)

He had to buy an external for his notebook. He's 800 miles away in college and he doesn't call home before making decisions. He's not a technician or computer expert. He acted on information the local Apple dealer provided him with.

Well, some of us are quite capable of buying that $129 hard drive and making it work in a Mac, whereas some of us still have 12:00 blinking on our VCRs and would rather just spend the extra $100 on what they dealer says is guaranteed to work straight out of the box. Mac users, by and large, fall into the latter category (though that's not always the case).

Re:Apple please listen...... (4, Insightful)

Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754382)

>But I don't want your desktop hardware.

And Apple doesn't want your custom.

Why do so many people think they have a right to dictate the terms of other people's businesses?

Re:Apple please listen...... (4, Insightful)

PetiePooo (606423) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754403)

Why do so many people think they have a right to dictate the terms of other people's businesses?

That's easy. Those people have the checkbooks!

Seriously, why do so many businesses think they can cram whatever garbage they want down our throats? I'm not saying Macs are garbage; I personally like them better than Windows boxen. However, many businesses, MS and Apple included, assume they know what's best for me. I disagree. And, since they don't have my checkbook, I get to take it elsewhere.

Re:Apple please listen...... (1, Insightful)

Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754428)

>And, since they don't have my checkbook, I get to take it elsewhere.

Then do so. Apple doesn't care about that, Apple is worried about the people who say "you're not selling me exactly what I want so you leave me no choice but to steal/copyright infinge your products."

Re:Apple please listen...... (3, Informative)

asdfghjklqwertyuiop (649296) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754530)


"you're not selling me exactly what I want so you leave me no choice but to steal/copyright infinge your products."


Nobody was violating Apple's copyright. Apple is (ab)using the DMCA to shut these guys down.

Re:Apple please listen...... (2, Insightful)

alienw (585907) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754498)

Well, the whole trick to business is knowing which customers should get the finger. The whole "the customer is always right" BS will get you bankrupt in a hurry. Let's see, apple can make $1500 off a few million people if they sell computers. Or they can make $20 off of a few thousand geeks if they sell Mac OS by itself. Which do you think they will choose?

Re:Apple please listen...... (1)

McFadden (809368) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754435)

> Why do so many people think they have a right to dictate the terms of other people's businesses?

And why do so many companies think they don't have to listen to what their customers want. The parent thread was a consumer voicing his opinion about a product he would like to buy. When, why, where and how was that wrong? He wasn't dictating anything. Don't get so precious. It might actually do Jobs & Co. some good to listen to people like him. If it weren't for ipod/itunes, Apple would still be going backwards. For all the fanfares about Jobs' genius, he's managed to actually increase sales of Apple's core product (personal computers) not a bloody lot.

Re:Apple please listen...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14754453)

And why do so many companies think they don't have to listen to what their customers want.

Because they don't? It's much more profitable and easy to sell to the sheep who accept being told what they want instead.

Re:Apple please listen...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14754441)

They're shareholders?

Re:Apple please listen...... (2, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754452)

Why do so many people think they have a right to dictate the terms of other people's businesses? He does. He's the customer.

Re:Apple please listen...... (1)

asdfghjklqwertyuiop (649296) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754536)


And Apple doesn't want your custom [hardware].


No problem - they don't have to take it.


Why do so many people think they have a right to dictate the terms of other people's businesses?


How the hell were these guys dictating terms to apple? What exactly were the terms they were dictating? The only one dictating terms here is Apple.

Re:Apple please listen...... (5, Insightful)

CynicTheHedgehog (261139) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754398)

Haven't we been over this? Apple sells a computing experience. The only way that they can guarantee a stable, secure, and performant environment is to assert control over their hardware. They can't write drivers for everything, and if they opened up a driver API for third party vendors the result would be chaos, and then everyone would complain about instability and speed issues for the next ten years until all of the major third party vendors got their drivers sorted out. This is the same reason you can't buy XBox firmware for a Sony Playstation. Like videogame consoles, Apple computers are platforms consisting of hand-picked, thoroughly-tested sets hardware, firmware, and software. That is one of the primary factors in their reliability, and it isn't going to change any time soon.

The experience is more than the software, and therefore costs more. If it is truly worth it to you, you will buy a mac. If not, enjoy the alternatives. Regardless, theft is theft and I believe Apple is perfectly within their rights, not only as it relates directly to profits but also with respect to their reputation. OS X is not going to run as well on random x86 chipsets and peripherals, and the resulting quirky behavior will be damaging to their image.

Re:Apple please listen...... (0, Troll)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754478)

theft is theft

I suppose your car dealership tells you where you can drive your car too. (A Lexus isn't for off-roading!) BTW, how's the kool-aid?

Re:Apple please listen...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14754528)

"The experience is more than the software, and therefore costs more. "

I got a question for you. What has the experience to do with paying 50% or more for standard HDD/RAM/whatever? Really educate me.

OS X on dell will be shitty (1)

Werrismys (764601) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754422)

Come on. One of the reasons OS X is nearly rock-solid is the fact the drivers are written for known hardware by Apple itself.

I reckon OS X on some shitty commodity PC will be less stable than ubuntu on the same box.

Re:OS X on dell will be shitty (1)

Ph33r th3 g(O)at (592622) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754476)

What Apple sells now is just a "shitty commodity PC" -- albeit in a pretty case. So they only have to write one set of drivers. Windows could be pretty rock solid with that constraint, I bet, but Microsoft doesn't have the luxury of supporting only one shitty commodity PC like Apple does.

Re:OS X on dell will be shitty (1)

anicca (819551) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754537)

Less stable than Ubuntu? I have had no trouble at all with ubuntu. The last machine I had with it was solid as a rock. It got replaced with an iMac(P3 to G5 is a pretty good jump) that can't really do all the same stuff (no separate desktop for dvi out to tv). So far my Mac experience has been positive. A few programs have crashed but this did not bring the computer screeching to a halt or require a restart.

Re:Apple please listen...... (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754429)

When did you get so damn anal?

Back around 1984, when the first Macintosh came out.

Re:Apple please listen...... (1)

phooka.de (302970) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754439)

You want to by the OS at the prize that can only be achieved because the sake of the OS is tied to the profits from the sale of the hardware.

Would you pay 149,- plus whatever margin there is for apple on the average computer they sell? No? That's why they won't sell the OS without the hardware.

Not to sound technical, but.. (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754480)

The hacker ethic was born out of a model railroad club at MIT. At the time, hacking had nothing to do with computers, it had to do with model railroad track switch configurations. Stephen Levy's 'Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution' kinda drives this point home. Those who put hacking as a computer term are rather sorely misguided. It was all about hardware, not software, and even then, not hardware as we'd define it today. Read the book, it's a joyous, funny, and enlightening experience. I highly suggest reading the parts about the milliblat rating system of smell, and getting sledged and making computer games. Yes, they were drunk as shit when they made those games you so love. Nowdays, creativity thru intoxication takes a backseat to corporate crap. I hope the days Stephen Levy wrote about come back (to a point, I don't want to have to operate ping-pong or asteroid wars with five analog switches on a low-res CRT)

Re:Apple please listen...... (4, Insightful)

ebuck (585470) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754500)

Companies grow up, they move away from their roots and strain the friendships they fostered. Apple extended to many people years of hacking fun, fostering an environment of computer understanding and comraderie. In return, that community extended it's friendship and remained vehementally loyal. A good friend is hard to find, hard to lose, and hard to forget.

But Apple hasn't been true to it's garage hacking roots for many, many years. Some of their devices are specifically built to be hack unfriendly. Their audience isn't the same makeup and composition of the old "old-timers", and when you tell a new mac addict about building your own paddles / joystick for the II+, they sort of look at you and say "That's neat, I have a Sidewinder joystick". They're buying the mac for good reasons; security, ease of maintenance, (more) consistent UI design, etc. But, in the end, they are more likele to be consumers of the technology, and only possibly consumers of the few hacks that get created for those platforms.

As a company, Apple has decided to cater to that crowd, and finiancially they may not have a choice. Their computers (and other devices) are coming pre-packaged in slick boxes with all of the image gimmicks that are usually reserved for high end perfumes. It's becoming even more about image than before. The image market will always have hordes of people who will be happy with knock-offs and pirated copies of the Mac OS, as it feeds into the "keeping up with the Jones'" mentality.

Much of the Macintosh's product image is in the software, and Apple has decided that CPU and hardware details aren't vital to that formula. Losing control of the software means losing control of the Mac market.

Things may change; the pendulum may swing back. These sites may go online again. People can find a happy medium. But human nature is not dismissable, and I'm sure a few people are thinking along the lines of this quote:

"I think that if your friends don't like that you think a little different than they do, then maybe you shouldn't want them as friends. And, you should consider the loss of friendship their loss, not yours." --Chelsey Collinsdale

I don't think Apple deserves to be demonized over this, but I hope they don't play their hand too strongly. Perhaps it is best not to befriend a company, as they "are always constant, except in (their) affections." -- Oscar Wilde (taken out of context, of course!)

Mmm...tastes like insurrection... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14754304)

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act: Making it Easy to Be "Guilty until Proven Innocent" for Over 8 Years.

Isn't it odd that... (-1, Redundant)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754315)

none of the previous posters seem to have RTFA?

Re:Isn't it odd that... (1)

The Cisco Kid (31490) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754326)

Not all that odd, really, since there is no TFA. The link goes to the login form for some private site, and there seems to NOT BE A WAY to actually click through to the article.

Re:Isn't it odd that... (1, Troll)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754368)

Works great here. Are you using a pirated OS?

Bad link (4, Insightful)

The Cisco Kid (31490) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754316)

I see the /. editors have a new whore, I guess they got tired of the NYT and now hang with the W post.

For the cheap seats this time:

IF YOU CAN'T POST AN OPEN, PUBLIC LINK TO THE STORY, THEN DON'T POST IT AT ALL

Re:Bad link (1)

etrnl (65328) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754447)

Washington Post never requires me to log in. And the last thread I saw this mentioned in, other people said the same thing.

Not like you can't use BugMeNot.com to get past it anyways. I've never received spam from NYT, which I do have my own account for since I do use it for news reading when I'm bored and between slashdot posts.

Washington Post link worked for me without cookies (2)

antdude (79039) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754474)

As for NYT, just use this [blogspace.com] . Most likely, it will make a link that doesn't require to log in.

MOD THIS STATEMENT UP UP UP!!! (2)

Khyber (864651) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754503)

And he makes the most valid point. WTF is the point of putting a story up without publically accessible links so we can digest the whole thing? My English teacher would be appalled at this restricted source, and would be doubly so if this were an actual paper about Apple. Way to follow your basic high-school education, editors.

Mirror (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14754317)

Mirror of the offending content can be found on the net information mirroring proxy (nimp)

OSX cracked on intel [nimp.org]

Disgusting. (4, Insightful)

tpgp (48001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754321)

just days after they featured links to information on how to hack the software and run it on non-Apple PCs[emphasis mine]
Links?

It's immoral when large companies like Microsft, Sony & now Apple try trying to limit our right to do whatever the hell we like with legally purchased goods.

But to issue a takedown over a link is just disgusting. Apple needs to take a good look at the ethics of other compapnies that do this sort of thing and ask itself - is this really where I want to go?

Re:Disgusting. (3, Insightful)

Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754333)

It's immoral when you buy a product agreeing to certain conditions, then decide you don't like them so ignore them.

Re:Disgusting. (0, Troll)

tpgp (48001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754389)

It's immoral when you buy a product agreeing to certain conditions, then decide you don't like them so ignore them.

I guess you're the sort of person who believes that you can sell yourself into slavery? Or you have no recourse to sue a drunken doctor after a botched operation if you'd signed a no-sue waiver?

If I want to I'm going to:

  • Rip RIAA CDs to mp3s & listen to them on my phone
  • Use my old Xbox as a media player
  • Use cheaps razor blades on my gilette razor
  • Watch DVDs under linux (or even with a projector)
  • Skip ads with my PVR
  • Transfer DRMd AAC files to my cheapie MP3 player
  • Extract text from protected ebooks so I can use read them with my (ancient) palm)

So you think I should be able to do none of these things and just accept the shackles blindly?

Re:Disgusting. (4, Insightful)

goldspider (445116) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754496)

If you don't like a company's business philosophy, you send a much more pointed to them by simply NOT BUYING THEIR PRODUCT. You aren't shackled to them if you don't do business with them in the first place!

Oh no you d-idn't! (1)

springbox (853816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754372)

and ask itself - is this really where I want to go?

Oh, Microsoft already went there! "Where do you want to go today?"

Re:Disgusting. (1)

HowIsMyDriving? (142335) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754420)

Since Apple sells the software along with their new computer, that is not for purchase in a store, you either have to download the software illegally, or install the same software on multiple computers without a license for all of them. Both of them in both cases are illegal. So Apple wants to prevent people from downloading a pirated version of the software and running it on a computer that doesn't have a valid license? What is wrong with that? For the past 15 years I have been dealing with software that is not open source, installing the software on multiple computers with a single license is illegal, and there has never really been an arguement against it that holds up. They have every right to stop people from illegally pirating OS X or using the software on multiple machines, since Intel based 10.4 is not available for resale.

Re:Disgusting. (1)

Kuciwalker (891651) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754423)

Someone posts a link, Apple sends a letter saying, essentially, "delete the post," they do it. They're trying to make sure there's nothing else there. Apple didn't take down the site; the administrators did so that they wouldn't be flooded with posts about the issue, and so they could review all 60k forum posts.

Also, I recall the OSx86 admin saying that he wanted to work with Apple, not that he was currently. (I was looking over his shoulder as he wrote the letter to the AP writer.)

Re:Disgusting. (1)

Mikey-San (582838) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754449)

It's computer software. That's all it is.

Could we please not use the word "immoral" to describe a software company (possibly) acting within their legal rights? You are seriously overblowing this entire scenario.

Immoral. ROFLCOPTER. What is this, church?

Re:Disgusting. (2, Insightful)

nexcomlink (930801) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754473)

Here is the difference.

Sony installs a rootkit, they want to charge more, they are saying either put out or shut it.

Microsoft while it tries to stop users from downloading there OS and from keeping it pirated there efforts fail. But again you don't see a site like "microsoftOSforfree.com" giving you accurate detail. You will need to find and hunt down the files.

Apple while it just entered the arena want's to secure there OS but instead of suing the living shit out of you it's being reasonable by at least giving you a chance to remove those links. While other companies would rather just stick the lawyers on your ass drop down your site, and lock you up while there at it.

The situation I believe is that of course Apple does not want to see it's OS being ran on other hardware but frankly most of us will not care even a Mac supporter like me would love to run it on my AMD Duron box at home. Of course though if you hack the OS they won't mind if you keep it for yourself and provide instructions I suppose just don't provide a fully modified version with the files that belongs to Apple.

www.osx86.com - apple.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14754339)

how sad. The whois database says it doesn't belong to apple, yet.

SLAPP (4, Interesting)

maynard (3337) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754340)

OK, after reading TFA, this strikes me as more a SLAPP [wikipedia.org] (Strategic lawsuit against public participation) lawsuit by Apple than any government intervention. It appears that Apple served their ISP with notice of a possible DMCA violation, and so the ISP (or the site administrators) shut the site down in order to verify the claims made by Apple. No judge has filed an order, however.

So: are links to remote sites which convey possibly nonviolent criminal information worth squelching in the public interest? And should a private entity have the inherent right to enforce their interest without a court order (as appears to be the case here)? Because that's what misuse of SLAPP is all about.

Macs (1)

michaelbeckham (955698) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754407)

I dont own one but wish to purchase one in the future and understand the mac fanatics ;)

Re:SLAPP (1)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754411)

Maybe you should actually really read the article. Which fucking lawsuit?

Re:SLAPP (3, Interesting)

maynard (3337) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754450)

Oh, I read it. From TFA:

"The OSx86 Project Web site stated Apple had served it with a notice on Thursday citing violations of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the site was reviewing all of its discussion forum postings as a result."

They were served with a notice, meaning threat of legal action. While a lawsuit may or may not have been filed, certainly Apple's lawyers are threatening legal action. If you read the article on SLAPP, you'll see that since the goal is to squelch public participation, expensive court proceedings are a final option. Often SLAPP suits fail in court for the corporate entity, because most hinge on specious legal grounds. Spend your opponent into oblivion and make specious legal claims in the press... that's the weapon of choice for corporate lawyers.

the answer is simple (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14754401)


move your hosting/company from the USA to any of the other 191 countries where the dmca has as much authority as toilet paper

due to recent events USA is last place i would want to set up a company (never mind visit as a tourist)

outsource it (4, Interesting)

scenestar (828656) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754402)

Everytime i wonder when i see a valuable project taken down for DMCA violations i wonder: "why dont they just continue the job overseas where legislation is more reasonable?"

Re:outsource it (1)

randomErr (172078) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754499)

You got a suggestion of a place with reasonable laws that I can host @ $10/month and isn't a scam?

Re:outsource it (4, Informative)

Zedrick (764028) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754532)

Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands. Plenty of options there, starting at about $1.25 euro if you don't need a server to host large files on (=pay extra for bandwidth).

Give it a rest (4, Insightful)

admo (955700) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754490)

Good god, these "I deserve to run OS X any way I like" arguments are tiresome. Go do something to make OSS better if you want to tinker. Or hack OS X to run on whatever you want, and then keep it to your damn self and enjoy it! Just for god's sake don't bring up that Apple I motherboards were made in a garage or that Woz futzed around with long distance calls more than 30 years ago - 30 years ago! - as reasons Apple should "chill out" about people using their software in ways they don't like.

why not... (5, Funny)

wormnet.org (955561) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754495)

Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
If you hack my code,
I'm going to kill you!

Re:why not... (1)

cyberbian (897119) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754522)

you forgot to 'throw a chair' in there somewhere...

Apple appears not to want anyone to link to Maxxus (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14754508)

If you look at the OSX86project.org site you might notice that the only real change is that there are no longer any links to the patches at http://maxxuss.hotbox.ru/ [hotbox.ru] . So don't post a link and you should be fine.

Re:Apple appears not to want anyone to link to Max (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14754513)

Bookmarked. Nice going, Apple, wouldn't have found it without your threats.

CD: only for use on Sony CD players (1, Insightful)

E8086 (698978) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754526)

This is the same as if Sony BMG suddenly said its CDs are only for use on Sony CD players.

That is guessing that OS X for intel is available for purchase. I don't care much for Macs and havn't bothered to check if it is sold seperately from a new mac. If it is, people can(should be able to) do whatever they want with they buy, with the exception of distributing copies for free or for profit. If someone wants to go and spend $129 for OS X and wants run it on a PC then they should be allowed to do so. If it crashes as lot that's their problem and Apple doen't have to provide support. If there are no restrictions on what software can be run on a Mac then there shouldn't be any restrictions on the hardware that the software can be run on. If I go and buy an Intel Mac I should get the hardware and an OSX disk with a single user license. If I do that then I should be allowed to use that single user license on the machine of my choosing. I could choose to run Linux or even Windows, if someone's fould a way to do that, on the Mac and install OSX on generic PC hardware.

Irony (2, Insightful)

squidguy (846256) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754534)

Let's be fair here, fellow /.'ers... if this was MSFT we were talking about, the flames and castigations would be vociferous and widespread. Apple is doing some of the same bullying activity that we all dislike Microsoft for here. Where are the shills?

Is this really illegal? (4, Interesting)

thisislee (908426) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754539)

Funny. I thought talking about crimes wasn't illegal in this country. There have been what I think is legal information about how to do things that are completely illegal for as long as I can remember. While you should never act on this information, it is only information.

While The Anarchist Cookbook is legally available in the United States, it is unlawful in many other countries. The information contained in the book includes instructions that, if followed, may be against the law (see felony for more details). Anarchist Cookbook [wikipedia.org]

Mark my words.... (4, Insightful)

Chanc_Gorkon (94133) | more than 8 years ago | (#14754542)

Apple, this is not something you can stop. Its NOT illegal to do what these folks are doing. The law allows for reverse engineering. IBM LOST this battle and you will too. What is this battle I speak of? Remember way back when all PC's were made by IBM?? IBM tried to sue the pants off of Compaq and others for reverse engineering BIOS. Granted, this is not the same time period or the same thing but case law seems to go in our hands in my humble opinion.

From Wikipedia:

Columbia copied the IBM PC and produced the first 'compatible' (i.e., more or less compatible to the IBM PC standard) PC in 1982. Compaq Computer Corp. produced its first IBM PC compatible a few months later in 1982 -- the Compaq Portable. The Compaq was not only the first "sewing machine-sized" portable PC but, even more important, was the first essentially 100% PC-compatible computer. The company could not directly copy the BIOS as a result of the court decision in Apple v. Franklin, but it could reverse-engineer the IBM BIOS and then write its own BIOS using clean room design.

Franklin and Columbia did the wrong thing but Compaq did a white room reverse-engineering of the BIOS. This is all the OSx86 project is doing too. Hello EFF??? You need to defend these guys.

In less then 10 years, there will be no Mac's or Apple will just give up preventing anyone from installing thier OS on other machines....can't Apple see that there are lot of people who ALREADY HAVE x86 machines that are perfectly capable of running thier OS but they can't or rather won't justify spending 3 grand on a new Mac. These same people would probably even consider a Mac when they do have the money just because they WANT to run your OS. Helloooo? Apple what are you thinkin?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...