×

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!

Safari 3.1 For Windows Violates Its Own EULA, Vulnerable To Hacks

Zonk posted about 6 years ago | from the you-have-chosen-poorly dept.

Security 368

recoiledsnake writes "The new Safari 3.1 for Windows has been hit with two 'highly critical'(as rated by Secunia) vulnerabilities that can result in execution of arbitrary code. The first is due to an improper handling of the buffer for long filenames of files being downloaded, and the second can result in successful spoofing of websites and phishing. This comes close on the heels of criticism of Apple for offering Safari as a update for approximately 500 million users of iTunes on Windows by default, and reports of crashes. There are currently no patches or workarounds available except the advice to stay clear of 'untrusted' sites." Further, Wormfan writes "The latest version of Safari for Windows makes a mockery of end user licensing agreements by only allowing the installation of Safari for Windows on Apple labeled hardware, thereby excluding most Windows PCs." Update: 03/27 17:23 GMT by Z : Dave Schroeder writes with the note that the license has been updated to correct this mistake.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

368 comments

It has begun... (4, Funny)

muffen (321442) | about 6 years ago | (#22880488)

Re:It has begun... (5, Funny)

Divebus (860563) | about 6 years ago | (#22880502)

"The latest version of Safari for Windows makes a mockery of end user licensing agreements by only allowing the installation of Safari for Windows on Apple labeled hardware, thereby excluding most Windows PCs."
Damn! Now, where did I put those Apple stickers?

Re:It has begun... (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | about 6 years ago | (#22881110)

You laugh, but a coworker of mine took one of those Apple stickers and stuck it over the logo on the back of his company-provided Dell. There was always a moment of confusion when you saw his Dell, because it looked like a PC, but the Apple logo appeared to be built-in.

He eventually moved on, but the person who inherited the laptop still has that sticker on there! :P

Barack the Magic Negro (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22881140)

To the tune of "Puff the Magic Dragon:"

Barack the Magic Negro lives in D.C.
The L.A. Times, they called him that
'Cause he's not authentic like me.
Yeah, the guy from the L.A. paper
Said he makes guilty whites feel good
They'll vote for him, and not for me
'Cause he's not from the hood.

See, real black men, like Snoop Dog,
Or me, or Farrakhan
Have talked the talk, and walked the walk.
Not come in late and won!

[refrain]
Oh, Barack the Magic Negro, lives in D.C.
The L.A. Times, they called him that
'Cause he's black, but not authentically.
Oh, Barack the Magic Negro, lives in D.C.
The L.A. Times, they called him that
'Cause he's black, but not authentically.

Some say Barack's "articulate"
And bright and new and "clean."
The media sure loves this guy,
A white interloper's dream!
But, when you vote for president,
Watch out, and don't be fooled!
Don't vote the Magic Negro in --

'Cause --
'cause I won't have nothing after all these years of sacrifice
And I won't get justice. This is about justice. This isn't about me, it's about justice.
It's about buffet. I don't have no buffet and there won't be any church contributions,
And there'll be no cash in the collection plate.
There ain't gonna be no cash money, no walkin' around money, no phoning money.
Now, Barack going to come in here and --

Re:It has begun... (0, Troll)

gilesjuk (604902) | about 6 years ago | (#22880510)

If you say so, but Apple doesn't make you download iTunes or Safari. You don't have to buy an iPod.

This is a different situation to Windows and IE.

Re:It has begun... (3, Insightful)

muffen (321442) | about 6 years ago | (#22880556)

If you say so, but Apple doesn't make you download iTunes or Safari. You don't have to buy an iPod. This is a different situation to Windows and IE.
If you want to continue that logic, you don't have to buy a computer at all, or any electronics for that matter. In fact, you could be a naturalist and live without even clothes.

Not that I dislike apple more now then I did before I RTFA, which is to say I have a fairly neutral view on them, but if you look at a lot of articles lately I do believe that in general, they are a little less liked now then they were when they initially released the iPod.

Anyways, going back to the article, I think the EULA is just a mistake and believe they will correct it. It does however bring up a valid point about the usefulness and legalities around EULA's.

You keep saying that word.... (3, Informative)

Nursie (632944) | about 6 years ago | (#22880652)

A naturalist is -

"A scholar or student of natural history, the science of the natural world; see also natural science. It may also refer to a Wildlife enthusiast or a Conservationist"

Not a naturist or nudist.

Re:You keep saying that word.... (1)

muffen (321442) | about 6 years ago | (#22880702)

A naturalist is -

"A scholar or student of natural history, the science of the natural world; see also natural science. It may also refer to a Wildlife enthusiast or a Conservationist"

Not a naturist or nudist.
Sorry, the funny part is I translated it from Swedish to English without really reflecting over it, and had to check the dictionary (in Swedish) and realized I was wrong even there.
Oh well, hope you still got the point :)

Re:You keep saying that word.... (2, Funny)

Nursie (632944) | about 6 years ago | (#22881134)

Not only did I get the point. I had a chuckle at the idea of naked naturalists, hanging out (literally) in the forest trying to spot wildlife...

Re:It has begun... (2, Insightful)

MMC Monster (602931) | about 6 years ago | (#22880580)

The EULA issue is a red herring. The real problem is they pushed Safari to everyone who has iTunes. Most individuals who are not tech-savy will install Safari, given the option.

If Safari becomes the default browser on these systems, you end up with critical vulnerabilities in a browser installed on non-tech-savvy individuals' computers.

Re:It has begun... (5, Interesting)

AvitarX (172628) | about 6 years ago | (#22880724)

The EULA is not a red herring.

People are having software that they have no license to use being automatically installed on their systems. I would think a term like that is not valid (non-obvious terms may not be valid in the US), but if it does hold, they will have millions of people in the US infringing on their IP. If they decide they are desperate and start suing (not likely any time soon) there are a lot of potential targets.

This is like the RIAA giving away MP3s on their website, saying "you agree to listen to this on only RIAA approved devices". When you suddenly have millions of people acting innocently illegally using your product it is not good for them.

Re:It has begun... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22880948)

It is just a oversight. They forgot to change the EULA, that is all. They are not going to be branding anyone a criminal or taking out cases against people for using Safari on Windows. Don't be such a cock. What is worse is that idiots like yourself are deflecting attention from the real problem of the security issues. Your analogy suck donkey balls but what is Slashdot without stupid analogies.

Re:It has begun... (2, Funny)

mini me (132455) | about 6 years ago | (#22881072)

It is just a oversight. They forgot to change the EULA

So, I think we can safely assume that they just forgot to change the same clause in the EULA for OS X also.

Re:It has begun... (1, Insightful)

Lussarn (105276) | about 6 years ago | (#22881102)

The security issues isn't the real problem here, all software has them from time to time. I'm sure there will be an update soon. But the real problem is Apple pushing unrelated software to people who bought an iPod. They need to stop doing that now.

Windows is a free for all platform, companies decide by themselves how pushy they can be. And Apple has crossed the line by a wide margin.

MS should have better guidelines, and an integrated updater for third party software. Only then will moves like this be resolved.

Re:It has begun... (5, Funny)

grahamd0 (1129971) | about 6 years ago | (#22881186)

If Safari becomes the default browser on these systems, you end up with critical vulnerabilities in a browser installed on non-tech-savvy individuals' computers.

Good god, man! We've got to get them back on Internet Explorer!

Re:It has begun... (-1)

MrMacman2u (831102) | about 6 years ago | (#22881228)

you end up with critical vulnerabilities in a browser installed on non-tech-savvy individuals' computers.

Sooooo... in other words you end up with EXACTLY what you had before with IE?

Safari is an excellent browser when compared to IE, it just happens to have a few holes in it, just like every other browser on the market, including but not limited to Firefox and Opera.

Also, they are not forcing you to install Safari, it's more of an offer to have a choice really...

I fail to see the problem here.

Re:It has begun... (4, Insightful)

Mattsson (105422) | about 6 years ago | (#22880624)

Also, if you do choose to buy an ipod, you don't have to use itunes.
You don't even have to use apple-firmware in your ipod. There's an upgrade-firmware [rockbox.org] that makes itunes totally obsolete.
It's not available for all ipod-models yet though...

All in all, though, an installer that offers the option of installing irrelevant software (like installers that offer "google toolbar" or "Safari" or "superduper spywareinstaller") should have that option unselected as default.

Re:It has begun... (0, Redundant)

Zaatxe (939368) | about 6 years ago | (#22880636)

You don't have to buy a computer either...

(Now I get modded "-1 troll" or "-1 flamebait", even using the same logic as the parent post)

Re:It has begun... (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | about 6 years ago | (#22880708)

Considering Apple's notorious heavy-handedness in their software updates and the aggressive way their software "takes over" your computer when installed, I wouldn't install a piece of Apple software on my computer if you put a gun to my head (I'd as soon install Realmedia player). I used to put Quicktime on my system, but I got so tired of putting up with that sneaky turd (would NOT let you completely uninstall it, insisted on always running in the background no matter what you did to stop it, would try to sneak its way back into your registry even if you deleted its entries, aggressively took over neutral file types, would constantly try to trick you into installing iTunes too, etc.) that I finally refused to even install that much (I use "Quicktime alternative").

Anyone who installs Apple software had better be prepared to join the cult, otherwise stay the hell clear of it.

Acidity (5, Funny)

n3tcat (664243) | about 6 years ago | (#22880498)

So Acid 4 will include security tests too now, right?

Re:Acidity (5, Funny)

MooseMuffin (799896) | about 6 years ago | (#22880546)

Yes. You pass if the website renders correctly. You fail if the website owns your machine.

Yet more proof (5, Funny)

an.echte.trilingue (1063180) | about 6 years ago | (#22880848)

Yes. You pass if the website renders correctly. You fail if the website owns your machine.
Yet another "standards" test designed to make IE fail. This is just more proof that the W3 has it out for Microsoft.

I can't believe... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22880770)

that a racist nigger is actually running for president.

Actually (0, Troll)

El Lobo (994537) | about 6 years ago | (#22880504)

Let's forget the ethical side of the question. Yes, we all know that you should not be "pushed" to install a software by budling it *as a default* option. Let's forget about that even if I am sure that many will defend that action just because it's from Abble.

The problem is that, what would happen if, for example, MS would now bundle a hypotethical new IE8 for Mac as default with, say, a popular Media Player coded for the Mak? The screams of "foul", monopoly", etc would be heard in the Artic.

Abble has a history of forcing it's products to Windows user (Quick Time pro bugging, anyone?) so this is no surprise for anyone, but it should be inacceptable , be it Abble, Google (yes, Google toolbar, it's about you!) or whoever does it.

Re:Actually (2, Funny)

jtev (133871) | about 6 years ago | (#22881272)

You mean, like.... Ummm.... I'm thinking here.... Windows Media Player for mac? That would be the sort of vindictive thing that would be awesome for MS to do in my not so humble opinion. Bonus points if they "forget" to fix their licence, and say that it has to be run under windows.

Some ideas are not so good (4, Insightful)

Miros (734652) | about 6 years ago | (#22880520)

Sometimes it's just really not a good idea to push a piece of software out to hundreds of millions of people on its first release just because they use/update your other products. This is the real way that it could come back and bite them, and it certainly seems to have.

Re:Some ideas are not so good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22880622)

Unless you've got websites that make use of those exploits, to make "pwnership" seem like it came from somewhere other than Apple...

In Soviet Russia... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22880526)

The software installation forbids the EULA!

I wonder... (5, Funny)

Fenice (1156725) | about 6 years ago | (#22880530)

...if Apple can sue itself for proposing illegal installs of safari on windows?

Thre real question is, who would win? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 6 years ago | (#22881250)

I am guessing that if our current set of laws has something to say about it, that apple will lose. Big.

It was bound to happen (4, Insightful)

downix (84795) | about 6 years ago | (#22880532)

EULA's have gotten to the point that they conflict with themselves. One can then assume that Safari is intended for the Windows install on Mac machines, *or* on machines to which someone has applied an Apple brand sticker.

I am waiting for the EULA that requires all users to declare the programmer their god and send off their first born child to him in sacrifice.

Re:It was bound to happen (3, Funny)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 6 years ago | (#22880554)

Only if the firstborn is female, and you don't need to send any for the first 18 years.

Re:It was bound to happen (4, Interesting)

peipas (809350) | about 6 years ago | (#22881064)

Case in point: the Mozy online backup EULA [mozy.com], which requires you to use the service only for good and for awesome, and warns against taunting the happy fun ball.

See paragraphs 2 and 3 in the LIMITATION OF LIABILITY section.

But but but Microsoft! (1, Troll)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | about 6 years ago | (#22880538)

Apple is the new Microsoft. Even the Apple zealots agree. Point out some flaw with Apple products, and they will invariably link to a similar example by Microsoft. I don't know why they are so quick to make the association, but I think it is similar to how Republicans like to ingratiate themselves to the public by showing how similar they are to Bill Clinton.

Nonsensical headline (3, Insightful)

Idaho (12907) | about 6 years ago | (#22880540)

Can someone please explain to me how software could possible "violate its own EULA" (even theoretically, not necessarily restricted to this case)?

I agree that the EULA makes no sense, assuming that Apple wants as many Windows users as possible to use Safari. But that's an entirely different matter.

In fact, the EULA can be adhered to without any problem: afterall, you can install Windows just fine on Mac hardware these days. So you can actually run Safari for Windows on "Apple labeled hardware".

I seriously doubt the way it is stated in the EULA is really Apples intention though ;)

Re:Nonsensical headline (1)

ajcham (1179959) | about 6 years ago | (#22880564)

I seriously doubt the way it is stated in the EULA is really Apples intention though ;)

We all know that just about no-one reads EULAs anyway. That includes the developers, it seems.

I think you're not reading closely enough (5, Informative)

hassanchop (1261914) | about 6 years ago | (#22880576)

"The latest version of Safari for Windows makes a mockery of end user licensing agreements by only allowing the installation of Safari for Windows on Apple labeled hardware, thereby excluding most Windows PCs."


I got Safari as part of the iTunes update. I have a non-Apple Windows machine, running Safari. They basically forced the software on me, and the EULA says I can't use it.

Does that answer your question?

Re:I think you're not reading closely enough (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | about 6 years ago | (#22880868)

Was there a way to read the license agreement before installing the update? If there was then surely Apple are in the 'clear', as you can run Windows on an Apple and so it's not their fault that you installed something that you shouldn't technically have done.

How are they to know the difference between Windows on a Mac and Windows on any other PC to determine whether to disable the 'bonus feature' or not?

Re:I think you're not reading closely enough (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 6 years ago | (#22881164)

You really don't think they have a way to identify the hardware they manufactured?

Re:I think you're not reading closely enough (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | about 6 years ago | (#22881222)

Potentially, but it'll be hellish invasive and a number of intrusion tools might pick it up. Most software just checks Windows version. Linux makes access to architecture and a couple of other bits easy. They could find that it's a dual-core Pentium, and that someone has set the vendor to "Apple", but does that mean it's an Apple?

The only other way is that the updater maintains a list of what hardware configs Apple has, and then they'll need to keep updating that list and potentially get in to the situation where someone gets told they can't have something because their rig isn't identified as an Apple machine, but is a normal Windows install on any other machine.

I think you're missing the point though (1)

hassanchop (1261914) | about 6 years ago | (#22881198)

It's not about my ability to read the EULA.

Apple sends you the software, that if you install on a Windows box, will violate it's own EULA.

They're giving you something that, when you use it for the purposes Apple would like you to, still violates it's own EULA.

If there was then surely Apple are in the 'clear', as you can run Windows on an Apple and so it's not their fault that you installed something that you shouldn't technically have done.


No. They sent it to ME, I did not request it. I did not ask for it, it was part of the iTunes update, which was a decision on Apple's part.

Now, I'm not "blaming" Apple for anything, because it's just a silly oversight, but they screwed up by sending it to people who neither requested it nor were able to use it legally.

Re:I think you're not reading closely enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22881286)

As moronic fanboy trolls go, yours is among the worst I've ever seen.

Tell me this fandouche, WHY THE FUCK WOULD APPLE SEND ME A PIECE OF SOFTWARE THEY DON'T WANT ME TO USE?

Shut up now fancunt, you're embarrassing your idiot self.

Re:Nonsensical headline (3, Insightful)

SpeedyDX (1014595) | about 6 years ago | (#22880600)

Good points, though I think it can be explained in a much easier manner.

As someone who regularly uses the functions "copy" and "paste", I can tell you that there are many times where I c/p a blob of text and forgot to change something crucial in it. This happens to many people. Apparently, the folks at Apple are not immune to human flaws.

It's probably just an oversight. A HUGE oversight. But there's really no need to make a circus out of it. Then again, this is Slashdot, right?

Re:Nonsensical headline (1)

zehaeva (1136559) | about 6 years ago | (#22880838)

i agree with you, however if we are to take the EULA's seriously as a legal document shouldn't they have some lawyer going over it and making sure its correct? I can't see any lawyer who copyapastas too much and can keep a judge from laughing at him

Should be fixed! (1)

atcsharp (1257538) | about 6 years ago | (#22880550)

I can't believe that this issue slipped through to production. Safari is an excellent application but this does not speak well for the developers. People need to take the time to watch closely to what they are doing. I think that there should be more time spent on beta-testing and code reviews before a deployment. I once invented the roller blade but I showed a few friends the prototype. A few weeks later someone got the patent before I did. It is human nature to want to get something done as fast as possible. It cost Safari a major security issue. It cost me a lifetime of money and unlimited roller blades.

Violating the EULA (4, Interesting)

sm62704 (957197) | about 6 years ago | (#22880566)

How can you violate an agreement that you never agreed to? Does Microsoft have a copy of a contract with my signature on it saying I'll accept its terms of use for XP? If I had Safari would Apple have a signed contract?

When I go to best buy I don't "license" an OS or piece of software; I pick a box up off the shelf, pay money for it and am delivered a purchase reciept. I then own the goods that I just BOUGHT. I am under no statutory obligation to read anything or sign anything. I tear open the box and do what I want with it, short of violating copyright law.

Your EULA is fiction, and until I see one stand up in court I'm going to ignore it.

-mcgrew

Re:Violating the EULA (5, Insightful)

ari_j (90255) | about 6 years ago | (#22880608)

You are mistaking "signature" and "agreement." Signatures are not a prerequisite to a valid contract, they are merely very good evidence of agreement. You can get out of some contracts you signed and you can be held to some contracts you didn't. The lack of a signature is not the reason EULAs are of questionable enforceability.

Re:Violating the EULA (1)

HuguesT (84078) | about 6 years ago | (#22880900)

In certain jurisdictions, yes a signature is requested, sometime even with extra handwritten approval (such as "I have read and I approve") otherwise the contract is not binding.

Re:Violating the EULA (1)

sm62704 (957197) | about 6 years ago | (#22880914)

It doesn't matter; I DO NOT AGREE nor do I believe that I have to. I bought the damned thing and copyright law doesn't give them the right to enforce a EULA.

Re:Violating the EULA (1)

Ngarrang (1023425) | about 6 years ago | (#22880628)

I then own the goods that I just BOUGHT.
If Microsoft has their way, this won't be true for the next versions of Windows.

Re:Violating the EULA (3, Interesting)

IBBoard (1128019) | about 6 years ago | (#22880774)

It's not even that. Microsoft have their way in that regard now. What you own is the media with a binary copy of the application/operating system. What you license by agreement to the EULA is the rights to then install and use that software as a running process (or processes) on compatible hardware.

Yes, it sucks, but that's what free software is for.

You can stop ignoring them (5, Interesting)

hassanchop (1261914) | about 6 years ago | (#22880638)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD%2C_Inc._v._Zeidenberg [wikipedia.org]

"ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir., 1996), is a United States contract case involving a "shrink wrap license". The issue presented to the court was whether a shrink wrap license was valid and enforceable. Judge Easterbrook wrote the opinion for the court and found such a license was valid and enforceable."

They've been held up in court. The issue isn't totally decided, with other cases dealing with more specific issues, but your "nah nah nah MARY HAD A LITTLE LAMB nah nah nah" fingers in the ears stance may not be legally prudent.

Re:You can stop ignoring them (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | about 6 years ago | (#22881162)

...but you can ignore it if it gives you no opportunity to read the licence *before* accepting, and you can ignore it if it gives you no opportunity to refuse

So an automatic update with no interaction is very invalid ?

Re:Violating the EULA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22880680)

When does the Flat Earth Society hold its next meetings?

Re:Violating the EULA (5, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | about 6 years ago | (#22880806)

Your EULA is fiction, and until I see one stand up in court I'm going to ignore it.
I guess you better close your eyes and hum real loud then. I'm not saying it's universal, but to take a few examples from the wikipedia page in Brower v. Gateway "the Supreme Court of New York ruled that the terms of the shrink-wrapped license document were enforceable because the customer's assent was evident by his failure to return the merchandise within the 30 days specified by the document." And regarding click-wraps: "Click-wrap licenses have met with more support in the courts, though notable counterexamples exist. In ProCD v. Zeidenberg, the license was ruled enforceable because it was necessary for the customer to assent to the terms of the agreement by clicking on an 'I Agree' button in order to install the software."

The whole section on enforcability starts with "The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard. Some courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found some EULAs to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C." If you read between the lines, it says "No court has rejected EULAs outright". If you're outside the US, it seems to be much the same. Yes, Germany declared the bundling with Windows to be unenforcable, but the EULA as such still remains. In short, you're talking about the way you want it to be not legal reality except possibly in Kansas where there was a ruling agreeing with you.

Re:Violating the EULA (1)

djfake (977121) | about 6 years ago | (#22880852)

But good luck arguing any of that in a court of law.

When you install and use the software, you agree to the terms of the software license, whether you agree with it or not. That's how the license is written and that's how they're enforced. When you buy "the box" you buy a copy of the software and license to use it.

Why do you think people make such a big deal about open-source software? Just because???

Hillary Clinton is a carpetbagger (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22880922)

Raise your hand if you believed for an instant that her run for Senate was anything other than a stepping stone back into the White House, only this time to be #1 instead of merely the co-president.

Re:Violating the EULA (1)

mini me (132455) | about 6 years ago | (#22881124)

If you do not agree to the license, you do not have a right to use said software. If, as you claim, a signature was required for the license to be valid, you would not have the right to use any software (except, perhaps, BSD-style and artistic licensed work) without giving your signature to Microsoft, Apple, etc.

Long filenames... (-1, Offtopic)

ThisIsAnonymous (1146121) | about 6 years ago | (#22880584)

Windows 3.1 also had issues with long filenames. Maybe there is a curse on that version number -- we should skip 3.1 and go directly to version 95.

Fine by me (5, Funny)

asc99c (938635) | about 6 years ago | (#22880590)

My iPod came with a big Apple sticker which for some reason I did stick on my PC. Guess I'm OK to use Safari then.

Re:Fine by me (2, Funny)

AioKits (1235070) | about 6 years ago | (#22880660)

My iPod came with those as well. Too bad there was not enough space left on my laptop after the Mozilla folk were nice enough to give me a sheet of Mozilla stickers for purchasing a few t-shirts and a laptop tote...

This is a good thing (1)

bignetbuy (1105123) | about 6 years ago | (#22880616)

The more eyes that are put on Safari, the more bugs/holes that will be exposed. Ultimately, Safari will become a better, some might say decent, browser as a result.

I already have this update... (-1, Offtopic)

BobMcD (601576) | about 6 years ago | (#22880630)

...except on my PC it has called itself 'Firefox'.

In all seriousness, excepting the spiffy Apple skinning, this is Firefox's illegitimate twin. Has anyone done a code comparison??? :P

Re:I already have this update... (2, Informative)

SigILL (6475) | about 6 years ago | (#22880668)

In all seriousness, excepting the spiffy Apple skinning, this is Firefox's illegitimate twin. Has anyone done a code comparison??? :P

Yeah, and they found that it's based on Konqueror, not Firefox. Something that Apple widely acknowledges, too.

Re:I already have this update... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22880736)

No wonder it's so bad.

Re:I already have this update... (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | about 6 years ago | (#22880678)

Considering both WebKit and Gecko (the rendering engines in Safari and Firefox) are available under the LGPL, it's quite possible that some Gecko code seeped into WebKit or vice versa. I'd highly doubt it, however.

Re:I already have this update... (2, Informative)

Dak RIT (556128) | about 6 years ago | (#22880896)

You're free to do one yourself if you want, since Safari's engine, WebKit, is open-source. It's kind of odd though that a "rip off" of Firefox would be scoring so much higher than it on the Acid3 (100/100 now as of the latest nightly), and (compared to FF2) on Acid2.

You must not come here much, do you?

The EULA snafu can only mean one thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22880666)

That Apple themselves interpret the clause in OSX EULA as meaning it can be installed or run in a VM on whitebox PCs. Thanks for the confirmation Apple.

Switch? (3, Funny)

blankoboy (719577) | about 6 years ago | (#22880670)

Sheesh, I'm on the verge of finally switching from Microsoft to Apple (just been waiting on the new rev of the Mac Mini to appear) and they go and pull the funny business of trying to slip Safari on to Windows desktops that use Itunes. On top of that there is now this report of the security flaws found in Safari. So now Apple is carelessly pushing a security risk browser onto unsuspecting client PC's. This is really underhanded and has be getting cold feet. Ubuntu perhaps....then?

Apple, these sort of tactics really are not necessary. Don't take the low road please...you can win it by going on the high way.

Re:Switch? (3, Insightful)

Shados (741919) | about 6 years ago | (#22880716)

Apple has gotten where it is almost exclusively by taking the low road, with borderling false advertising and Microsoft-style tactics. They originally make an excellent product (MacOSX, Ipods, etc), get a name from it, then push it further using the low road. Its always been that way. If you're going to move away from Microsoft because of shady marketing as one of your primary reasons, stay clear from Apple. Jobs makes Balmer look like a saint in that department.

Re:Switch? (1)

skeletor935 (790212) | about 6 years ago | (#22880760)

I have a macbook. I love it, but Apple ain't even close to the "saint" company image it sometimes has. But, as a laptop I tote around for work and pleasure-- it's basically just a giant ipod with unix on it, you can't beat its functinoality

some comments (3, Informative)

nguy (1207026) | about 6 years ago | (#22880878)

I think you should seriously consider Ubuntu: for all those things that people usually use a Mac Mini for (music, video, photos, web browsing, text processing, Skype, etc.), it's actually probably a better choice. Ubuntu supports more audio, video, and file formats, it's easier to keep updated, and all the applications are preinstalled. Oh, and Ubuntu will talk just fine to your iPod, and unlike iTunes, will let you copy both to and from the iPod.

(I have a Mac Mini, an iMac, and several iPods, but I now mostly use my Ubuntu systems for everything)

so confused (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | about 6 years ago | (#22880686)

Could someone please explain to me why anyone wanting an interface that uses Kon.. er QT.. er Safari would be using Windows in the first place?

Re:so confused (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | about 6 years ago | (#22880820)

I think there's two target audiences:

1) Apple fanbois who can't afford an Apple, or don't know about Boot Camp, or don't want to keep jumping between two different OSes, or just want a browser that looks like their iTunes.

2) Web devs who want their sites to look reasonable for any Mac visitors.

There's probably also a small number of people who might see it and be tempted to check out a full Apple computer because of it, but given that it'll stick out like a sore thumb in Windows then I doubt it.

Re:so confused (1)

Shados (741919) | about 6 years ago | (#22880830)

2 reasons.

A) Web developers.
B) Steve Jobs worshippers.

B is a freagin huge group of people.

Re:so confused (0, Troll)

mini me (132455) | about 6 years ago | (#22881196)

Windows was in desperate need of a WebKit-based browser as it has pretty much become the de-facto standard for rendering engines. Since nobody else was stepping up to the plate, Apple did it themselves.

Profit? (5, Funny)

crt (44106) | about 6 years ago | (#22880738)

Step 1: Install Safari on millions of unsuspecting Windows PCs
Step 2: Sue non-Mac owning PC users for violating EULA
Step 3: ???

The EULA says... (2, Interesting)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | about 6 years ago | (#22880752)

...I can install one copy of Safari on an Apple-branded computer

It doesn't say how many I can install on non Apple-branded machines...

Why is this bad? (1)

argent (18001) | about 6 years ago | (#22880794)

The latest version of Safari for Windows makes a mockery of end user licensing agreements

I am trying to figure out why this is a bad thing, and I'm coming up dry. Help me here.

Re:Why is this bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#22881046)

Why would you think it's supposed to be a bad thing?

Hardly surprising (4, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | about 6 years ago | (#22880858)

Anyone who has ever tried to REALLY uninstall one of their apps (or get Quicktime to stop running in the background or sneaking back into your registry) should not be surprised. Apple software is sneaky, aggressive, and not to be trusted.

And the heavy-handed tactics they use to push said software is truly amazing. If MS did half of the underhanded stuff Apple does, they would be dragged back into court in a heartbeat. Why Apple continues to get a free pass on such crap is beyond me.

I will NOT install Quicktime, iTunes, Safari or any other Apple software on my computer. And I always advise others not too as well. It's just not worth the hassle (if Apple really wanted your business, and not just to sleaze their way onto your computer, they would sell iTunes songs through their website and not require a software download).

Re:Hardly surprising (4, Interesting)

Shados (741919) | about 6 years ago | (#22881034)

B...b....but Apple is not a monopoly! That means they can and SHOULD do this!!! /sarcasm.

Seriously though, Apple is allowed legaly for said reason, but I never understood why people accept it... I mean, last I checked, when Microsoft -started- doing that crap, they weren't a monopoly either...and look where it got us.

That being said...watching a media player (iTune)conflict with a RAID (I swear Ive seen that happen) is quite amusing... Just exactly WHAT is that stupid thing doing anyway?

Re:Hardly surprising (1)

street struttin' (1249972) | about 6 years ago | (#22881108)

An interesting side note, if you run that software on OSX it is actually very easy to identify the running processes and disable them. Granted, things that depend on that functionality might quit working, but it is way easier to disable these things on OSX than it is on Windows. It might be that Apple just doesn't want to take the time to write software for Windows that works properly. Can't say I blame them...

Re:Hardly surprising (1)

Shados (741919) | about 6 years ago | (#22881230)

Maybe not as easy, but its extremely easy to find the running process and get rid of it on Windows too. The problem is that Apple's software for Windows works almost like a spyware. It has so many entry points, and its so carefully integrated to everything, that getting rid of all its components is quite tough. Its multiple components, not just one, plus it not always running, so....

The tricks would be different, but similar things can be done on OSX too. You just need different tactics, and (almost) no one bothers.

Nobody reads them (3, Funny)

Zelos (1050172) | about 6 years ago | (#22881070)

Proof that nobody reads EULA, not even the people that write them?

More likely, some tired programmer just copied the string resource across from another project without checking it.

GPL Violation? (3, Interesting)

lky (246353) | about 6 years ago | (#22881254)

IANAL but....

The offending section seems to have an even bigger issue in it.

It reads:
B. Certain components of the Apple Software, and third party open source programs included with the Apple Software, have been or may be made available by Apple on its Open Source web site
(http://www.opensource.apple.com/) (collectively the "OpenSourced Components"). You may modify or replace only these OpenSourced Components; provided that: (i) the resultant modified Apple
Software is used, in place of the unmodified Apple Software, on a single Applelabeled computer; and (ii) you otherwise comply with the terms of this License and any applicable licensing terms
governing use of the OpenSourced Components. Apple is not obligated to provide any updates, maintenance, warranty, technical or other support, or services for the resultant modified Apple
Software.
You expressly acknowledge that if failure or damage to Apple hardware results from modification of the OpenSourced Components of the Apple Software, such failure or damage is excluded from
the terms of the Apple hardware warranty.
---

Now, one of the open source components used in Safari was/is Khtml which is licensed under the GNU LGPL. Now this clause allows you to modify & use the open source components ONLY if you use them on a single system (assuming the apple-labeled part has been fixed as i've heard).

Re:GPL Violation? (1)

lky (246353) | about 6 years ago | (#22881312)

Oops hit submit when I meant preview....comment continued.

Now isn't this limitation a violation of the LGPL? Or am I reading too much into it?

Bootcamp? (1)

HUKI365 (1113395) | about 6 years ago | (#22881328)

I run a Bootcamped MacBook in Vista 98% of my time. Its an Apple labelled machine, and thus surely that is within the EULA to use Safari?
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...