OSNews

I agree. I really have no problem with DRM. When you use things for what they were designed for, and inside the legal boundaries, you really don't run a foul of the DRM stuff.

I think that by having the TCPA stuff in there, it will bring more content to the platform faster. Which is a "good thing", unless you are an RMS worshipping GNU zealot.

- Kelson

full ack.

You don't have to worship RMS... but maybe just the US Constitution.

DRM is wrong, period, and the only way to enforce it is to destroy computers as we know them.

It's just plain stupid, and the sheep just bleat for more content at the expense of their rights.

It's a good link BUT it's copied 2 times. Cut the second part and it will work

there isn't a part of darwin that contacts the drm chip, it's within rosetta.. looks like the idea being to prevent the gui from running on non-apple hardware.. it'll be cracked XiSO already claims to have done so..
but for the majority it is enough.. not that big of a deal really

Ok, so how this impact Darwin? Are the DRM parts closed source modules or included in the Darwin source tree ? If so what would stop people from compiling their own kernel without all this stuff in it ?

Not saying they would, but couldn't Apple just stop letting people see their modified Darwin code? It is BSD licsenced isn't it?

It's really no secret that the P4 3.6ghz is very hot.

It has already been stated that the P4 is not what is going to be in MacinTels when they ship.

- Kelson

[LOLI][i]Now, the Apple zealots will shut the hell up, because their beloved Apple uses the technology. Hah![i][/LOLI]

I don't know - a lot of switchers, the geeky kind that switched because of OSX, will have issues and their pretty vocal too.

Personally I don't think DRM will get out of hand unless there is a true industry wide collaboration - it's just to easy a way to screw the competition out of customers by being "the good guy".

I disagree with Eugenia.

It wasn't the "Apple zealots" and "Linux zealots" creating all the histaria about Palladium. It was the Windows zealots. They realized that they couldn't pirate Windows anymore. Mac users didn't care. They already paid their OS tax. Linux users never cared. They didn't have an OS tax.

It wasn't the "Apple zealots" and "Linux zealots" creating all the histaria about Palladium. It was the Windows zealots. They realized that they couldn't pirate Windows anymore. Mac users didn't care. They already paid their OS tax. Linux users never cared. They didn't have an OS tax.

But it isn't just about the OS, it's about the hardware too. It's not inconceivable that there could one day be MS or Apple computers sold one day that won't let you install Linux, or other free software. This might not ever happen for economic or other reasons. But the possibility that it could happen should get Linux users upset.

"But it isn't just about the OS, it's about the hardware too. It's not inconceivable that there could one day be MS or Apple computers sold one day that won't let you install Linux, or other free software."

Thats a valid argument for open architecture PCs. But for closed architecture computers... the operating system is not a separate components its part of a single product which simply has the ability to be upgraded. It would be insanity if Microsoft passed legislation which disallowed any operating system not governed by Microsoft's DRM to be installed on PCs. As far as Macs are concerned, the argument is no different then me bitching about why Swatch doesn't allow me to install my own OS on the LED. Of-course the reason why they don't make it easy is because the OS on the watch is part of the watch. The same is true for the Mac. The OS is simply part of the computer. On a PC though, the OS is just one small component of a greater whole. The travesty is not DRM on Macs and that simply means Apple is doing business as they always have. OS X only for Macs. DRM on PCs has the potential to mean only WIndows on PCs.

I am tired of this Apple propaganda. As long as Apple does something it is okay, but if the PC industry does it it is not acceptable. The problem with this is that the Mac is a PC. It has been an open architecture since the around 1997. The current Macintosh does not use a ROM. Further, even when it did, it did not stop the installation of other operating system like Linux and NetBSD (at least on the sixty or so 68k and PPC 601/604e) machines that I worked with.

"I am tired of this Apple propaganda."

IO love how anything that contradicts PC fanbois populist opinion is somehow Apple propaganda


"The problem with this is that the Mac is a PC."

Its a PC in that it uses the same parts. But a Mac is a platform unto itself. The area where you are seeing this ioncorrectly is that the Mac is not a collection of billions of parts to eventually create a product. Its a single product with parts that were hand selected to be a specific way. Its not unlike a clock radio or a car stereo. It wasn't meant to but hand build and re-arrached in a million different ways. Once you accept that, then you will understand.

This is nonsense. A PC and a Mac are the same. They are utterly the same. This integrated concept of a software solution is a construct at best. There is nothing stopping an OSX install when running on supposed commodity hardware. This is why DRM is being utilized at the processor level (motherboard really) by the use of an extension. This is no different then the same technology that Microsoft will also employee.

It is very doubtful that Mac users will be able to use Windows. It likely will be locked to their own hardware. What happens when the boss wants a spreadsheet written in (saved) in Excel 12 and Office v.X is not compatible?

"PC fanbois populist opinion."

I take it by that statement that you are looking down on me. I am not a PC fan boy, I actually own a Mac. It does currently, however, run Linux. As for your opinion about me being a populist, its funny that you did not use some other political terminology. Do you even know what a progressive is?

Have you actually written software for the Macintosh, do you know someone that works at Apple in the OS design team? Neither do I, however, you can take a look at the frameworks that have been distributed on their developer website. You can for instance boot Darwin on a PC, the majority of their code is not hidden but rather available for public consumption.

This idea that the Mac is an integrated solution is only a company formulation. The conceptual framework of the platform is a microkernel (hybrid really) that boots a BSD personality, that is layered tthrough control services into Aqua interface with an underlining division of mix and mash of programming APIs.

Again, this is not my point of contention. I do not care about Apple in general, what I do not want to see is commodity hardware being rebranded with data encryption and hardware locking that is not overseen from a natural third party. Any company, whether it is Apple, Microsoft, or even Redhat (however unlikely) would manipulate the platform to lock users out.

Ehm, if you think indiscriminately calling people you don't agree with zealots is spot on, that tells us a lot about OSNews.

And about someone cracking this DRM stuff and publishing an illegal version of OSX for normal computer being your biggest fear, please, get a life, a grip or whatever. That might be something for Apple to worry about, but you make it sounds as if this is keeping you awake at night, which is, ehm, ridiculous, to put it mildly.

And about someone cracking this DRM stuff and publishing an illegal version of OSX for normal computer being your biggest fear, please, get a life, a grip or whatever. That might be something for Apple to worry about, but you make it sounds as if this is keeping you awake at night, which is, ehm, ridiculous, to put it mildly.

Erm, in the Apple paradigm, yes, then that is indeed my biggest fear. OS X being available on standard PC's means that OS X as a whole will recieve a serious dent in its reputation, which could be the beginning of the end of Apple as a computer company. And yes, I would find that a sad thing.

You are confusing matters. When I post a comment to an article, it is about the article, not about something far more important such as real life. The fact that you do not seem to differentiate between this, may speak volumes about you... .

"You are confusing matters. When I post a comment to an article, it is about the article, not about something far more important such as real life. The fact that you do not seem to differentiate between this, may speak volumes about you... ."

Please, are dumb and cheap personal shots really the way you want to discuss things on this site?

Please, are dumb and cheap personal shots really the way you want to discuss things on this site?

Really, you didn't notice the smiley? Come one people, get a sense of humour!

It's not my fault that Dutch humour is usually a lot sharper than other types of humour...

"Really, you didn't notice the smiley?"
Oh, I did, but one thing that really annoys me is when people think putting a smiley behind an insult automatically turns it into great humor.

"Come one people, get a sense of humour!"
I can't, sorry. I'm German.

I am an Apple zealot, but that doesn't mean that I will accept DRM. Quite the opposite. I would rather use an Apple II than put up with DRM.

>The funniest thing about this whole DRM story was pointed out by Eugenia:

Eugenia's comment was nasty. ("I laugh at your face?") On her web page she dismisses criticism as merely being "stubborn." I think she only fools herself.

Mark

>The funniest thing about this whole DRM story was pointed out by Eugenia:

Eugenia's comment was nasty. ("I laugh at your face?") On her web page she dismisses criticism as merely being "stubborn." I think she only fools herself.

Mark

I´ll have to second that. I appreciate all the effort that Eugenia put on this website but she definetly needs to rethink some of her attitudes when answering people´s comments, specially in the case that she is/was the editor of the said website.

Even as a non-staff person, some of her comments towards other people opinions were so harsh that more than often she got nothing but knee-jerk reactions. And some of them were deserved, as I, for one, have engaged in one pointless discussion with her once.

I hope that the new staff isn´t really planning to follow that tradition... :-)

Cheers,

DeadFish Man

You're argument is sort of baffeling : "we shouldn't keep slaves in closed plantations, thay might run away. Let's chain them to the walls instead."

The solution is building a bond trust with your users and charging reasonable prices for your products (as opposed to the now popular 'bleed-em-dry' tactics)

Also you shouldn't be able to control how something is used after you sell it, even if it is bits and bytes.

Okay, I think I need to modify that last statement I made; in the end, there'll be less crap that is free ;^)

"I think that this is crazy. For people to support DRM in the name of keeping their elite platform safe from the masses smells almost of racism (ok, well *class ism*)."

Look at it like this... OS X is only for Macintosh systems. That's the way its been all that time. Apple subsadizes its OS development through hardware. DRM in Windows was upsetting to Windows users because it disallowed them from pirating it. DRM in Macs is simply a method to allow Apple to continue with its business model. To buy OS X for your generic white box PC is taking money away from Apple's OS X development costs because you're not buying Apple hardware.

Those that are protesting DRM are only those who want something that they did not pay for.

"Those that are protesting DRM are only those who want something that they did not pay for."

I think this is a very narrow minded statement. It is about as bad as, "if you don't have anything to hide, then you wouldn't use encryption." What if one does not want to have their life dictated to them. Clearly, both Microsoft and Apple are headed in this direction. I happen to have an utter contempt for people who stomp on individual rights of consumers and view this as one.

I am willing to support there proposal, as long as they give over power to another third party watch group to oversee implementation and control. They can receive a high profit margin, but they must be regulated heavily to keep a number of special interests at bay. Whether a consumer has a valid license needs to be determined by an outside interest and not Microsoft or Apple.

"What if one does not want to have their life dictated to them."

But the only thing thats being dictated is that you now don't have the option to take what does not belong to you.



"I happen to have an utter contempt for people who stomp on individual rights of consumers and view this as one. "

What rights are being stomped on? The DRM is in use to make sure that you buy the Mac they require the OS for. If you buy the OS for a PC, your taking money they would have otherwise garnered by you making the purchase. Its not your right to do this.


"I am willing to support there proposal, as long as they give over power to another third party watch group to oversee implementation and control"

Then lets lets make sure you say what you actually mean. Your concerned not about DRM in particular. your concerned about the potential for abuse. Sounds like the worse case scenareo is that Apple has the potential to never allow you to use OS X on your non-Apple PC. How's that different than what it is now?

You don't actually own software, you lease it. In the past, however, you owned your hardware. You could do with it what you pleased. I could install a new video card or sound card, but this could be a potential problem because if the hardware is locked down I am as a user out of being able to upgrade my PC and likely limited to buying only a newly licensed unit.

How would you like it if Apple made it impossible for you to boot another OS, upgrade your existing Mac, or run software that it did not feel that you should. Such as Photoshop because they had a competing product. This could be down by tying in extension to having control over the system, a key would be required to launch an application. Maybe you actually have a legitimate reason to use some capturing software or key logger (okay, maybe not the second) but it was at one point within your rights as a consumer.

If I upgrade my PC (I own both) I have to often justify my upgrades because Windows XP, at least in the past would require me to reauthorize my computer. However, being that the main brain was not upgraded (the CPU) one could not consider this to be against the terms and conditions. They did issue me a new serial, but it showed that as a consumer I did not own my hardware anymore because the operating system dictates control of the system, and therefore access to my information. This is not acceptable under any circumstances.

It is a fundamental infrastructure to the computer. Individual software packages and content media are not and therefore do not raise, or less likely, the need for oversight on the part of a competing interest.

Those that are protesting DRM are only those who want something that they did not pay for.

No, they are people who want control of their computer. they don't want their hard drive data approved by whoever is powerful enough for the congress to legistlate for.

if I buy a song, I expect it to play on any player supporting the format, not on any computer on which the people in power allow me to play it on.

"I think that this is crazy. For people to support DRM in the name of keeping their elite platform safe from the masses smells almost of racism (ok, well *class ism*)."

How is Apple making their that their OS is only used on their hardware even related to racism or the like? The PROBLEM with racism is that it was based entirely on prejudice with no rational reasoning for it at all. However here we're talking about objects MADE to fit together. When Apple starts firing black employees for being black, then we can start talking racism. Apple making Apple software for Apple computers, that's completely unrelated. And relating this to third world countries? There are plenty of other computing platforms available outside of Apple's computers. The simple fact is it's not poor third world countries that want OS X on their PCs, it's random people in general that just want it because they do and don't want to buy Apple's computer. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with Apple wanting their product to be a package deal.

International companies have too many SIG that lobby for them in a particular government. Therefore an international organization that was headed by a not for profit organization would be established to oversee all use of DRM hardware on any platform, anywhere in the world. It would be similar to a number of international accords and would be overseen by international law.

I would delete it (only my opinion). I would not bother hacking something and trying to provide some form of community support for a company that does not respect its end user. The same advice that I would give to anyone who downloaded Microsoft Windows illegally.

What's the point of fighting a system that is bent on enforcing regulations like this. The best thing you can do is discourage anyone from support them. If they want a closed platform they can find somewhere else to promote their agenda (again only my opinion).

"Or maybe those who who think they should have the final say as to how to operate their computers?"

Ok. Thats a fair argument. Make sure then to subsidize the cost you want to deplete from Apple by first sending them a minimum of $500 (the cost of the most inexpensive Mac) before you continue making it then.

Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea. You would have to do a cost benefit analysis and Apple would be required to provide proof of residence on units produced and then formulate an overall cost analysis. I think likely, however, it would be determined that the subsidization would take place as a block grant and be determined by overall PC industry factors. They likely would not get anything close to $500 per computer, more likely $15-55 dollars per until when compared against a standard economic analysis of highend pc hardware.

"more likely $15-55 dollars per until when compared against a standard economic analysis of highend pc hardware."

Apple makes more than that per computer. While many assume Apple's large margins come about as a result of higher prices, thats not true. They come about as a result of limiting selection. Apple requires that you buy more gear than what you might have otherwise done. As a result, you pay more because you're getting more.... whether you like it or not. Many people say that Apple's computers are a few hundred dollars higher than PCs. Well, its not that they're high... again, they require you to buy more and thus pay more. Without getting into all of that, the average margin Apple gets on all their hardware is probably around $370. If you tack on the price of OS X software itself ($130), you're back at the $500 that was previously mentioned.

Would you pay $500 for an OS X license for your generic PC? This price would inevitably come down as OS X become more popularized, but you would be helping subsidize the cost of OS development in exchange for no DRM... which is only being used to keep that subsidization.

Up until now, the PPC hardware Apple used might as well have been this DRM because you couldn't install it on your PC.

No you are not. The cost benefit analysis would take the industry as a whole. They would be up against Dell and Alienware and profits from Windows XP sales. They would be viewed as commodity hardware like everyone else.

You are correct, however, to assume that Apple did come over to the "commodity" hardware side so increased profits. With DRM that will control their hardware and have an increased profit margin because PC hardware is cheaper. They, however, do have to come up with another line of propaganda to replace their failed PowerPC "RISC is superior."

because PC hardware is cheaper

There is no such thing as "pc hardware" or "ppc hardware". The hardware components used in a PPC Mac aren't different from components used in normal computers.

The cost of the PSU, CPU, and mobo is more expensive on the Mac side. One can not often even find the hardware. This is likely why it is more expensive (supply and demand).

The cost of the PSU, CPU, and mobo is more expensive on the Mac side. One can not often even find the hardware. This is likely why it is more expensive (supply and demand).

Yes, but nor for Apple. They for instance got huge cuts from IBM. For individuals, PPC equipmet can be quite expensive, but for Apple it wasn't. The rest of the components in a Mac aren't special at all, ie. videocards, soundcards and NICs etc.

There is a lot of PPC code that makes a PPC machine work. For example, all the BIOS chips must be PPC code. All chips/code that depend on data being in a certain endian order are also suspect.

If Apple can keep the changes they make on Intel to a minimum, it will lower costs as many of these pieces will not have to be specially built for PPC. Remember that data is not portable between PPC and Intel due to endian differences.

Also Apple has had many non-PC parts in its machine which result in marginal/zero customer benefit but add tremendously to cost and often degrade performance. Apple Display Connector (ADC) would be a good example here. As you know, ADC is not used in the PC world.

We'll know how much Apple has learned in well under a year. That Apple claims its machines will run Windows/Linux does imply the hardware for an Apple machine will be very similar to a normal PC. But of course, shipping machines will tell the real story.

There is quite a bit of difference between an Intel PC architecture and a PPC Mac. The Mac is a better architecture.

Only the 64-bit AMD systems come close to the Mac design in that both systems use HyperTransport. They diverge otherwise.

DRM is fine in my opinion, but not to the point of Windows XP

anyone here tried to change an XP licence key to make it legal (after using ghost or other similar program) its just silly!

I do hope apple licence the OS again, the only reason they stopped first time was because people like UMAX were building cheaper/faster boxs!

as much as it gauls me to say it... someone like dell would be ideal, ie someone with enterprise connections and someone who apple can outshine on design

"No, they simply PRETEND that. The real intention is to disable your iTunes songs periodically so that you must buy it more than once. "

And how do you know this?

You do realize that it is very easy to take AAC protected files and convert them to a format with no DRM protection?

Did you consider the possibility that he was making a silly claim to counter a silly claim?

x86: don't really care as I plan to wait for 2 complete sets of motherboards for every product line, plus hopefully two public OS releases before I buy another mac product. Hopefully by that time some sort of workaround for the DRM will have been worked out if it is to be used as more than a mechanism to prevent operation of OSX on non-Apple x86 hardware...

Kiddies: I'll take their word on it, 9 out of 10 times. If they're right, I'd go that way: an OSS re-compiled Darwin kernel w/o Rosetta as I plan to make a complete hardware break and won't thank ISVs for FAT binaries(twice the bloat), or VM machine language based "native" executables.

Apple OS upgrades: Yes, Apple really needs to address their upgrade policies or extend the development time of the OSX releases. They also need to REALLY examine their academic pricing, as WinXP Pro is $10 academic, linux basic CDs are in the same price range or the cost of a CD-R/DVD-R if self dled/burned.

only redeeming feature of x86: easier to use one machine as a work machine AND a game platform, as hopefully WINE will be even better, "emulators" will allow near complete access to hw at low level for "guest" OSes, or in the worst case a complete Windows install plus multi-booting. (i.e. I seriously doubt that there will suddenly be massively more native OSX games, or that they will appear in a timely and cost comparable(to org. windows version) manner.)

It has changed because the nature of the infrastructure has changed. It does not matter if the outcome has not. The potential to do harm is there. This is very important. Constructs in life are important. If anything is important, the foundational structure of change is.

As for your comment about a Mac is a Mac and a Beige is a Beige. Most PC computers are not beige anymore. There are a number that have interesting styles and design. This was what I was referring to when I referred to racism. Not likely someone for an irrational reason. You do not like PC users because they are different from you and therefore somehow inferior to you, by your very own definition you are a racist. Elites attitudes can be a form of racism (snobbish subcultures).

No one is getting huffed up about not being able to run OS X on beige boxes. They are getting huffed up about possibly being told what software they can and can't run on their computer.

Apple is the kind of company that sues who try to pass paid songs from the iTunes music store to its non-iPod player, and try to remove from the internet all the applications that make these paid songs playabe on other portable devices.

This scares me. Doesn't this scare you?

"Apple is the kind of company that sues who try to pass paid songs from the iTunes music store to its non-iPod player"

Yes, because that measn that if such as system was popularized, Apple solution would simply be a vehicle to make it convenient to buy a songe once and then distribute it illegally all over the place.

Its not like theres not a precident already set for this..

"Yes, because that measn that if such as system was popularized, Apple solution would simply be a vehicle to make it convenient to buy a songe once and then distribute it illegally all over the place."

Ah, you mean like a CD?

Indeed, you are right, that would be terrible...

"Ah, you mean like a CD?"

Yes, exactly. A CD was initially not meant to be able to have music ripped from it. It's ok that it does, but we now see where that got us. Rampant piracy.


"Indeed, you are right, that would be terrible."

Yes, rampant piracy *IS* terrible.

"Yes, exactly. A CD was initially not meant to be able to have music ripped from it. It's ok that it does, but we now see where that got us."
Where did it get us? Me exercizing my right to make private copies?

Oh, no, I see:
"Rampant piracy."
Yes, all those terrible pirates (which are of course not real pirates, but people infringing copyright, but hey, pirate does sound so much more menacing, doesn't it?). This terrible piracy that according to independend studies financed by the RIAA is killing the music industry, music itself and western civilisation as a whole?

Btw., it's an amazing logic to call something bad because it could potentially also be used to do something illegal.

""Where did it get us? Me exercizing my right to make private copies?"

No, just your right to make copies of copies and copies of copies and copies of copies and copies of...


"Yes, all those terrible pirates (which are of course not real pirates, but people infringing copyright, but hey, pirate does sound so much more menacing, doesn't it?). This terrible piracy that according to independend studies financed by the RIAA is killing the music industry, music itself and western civilisation as a whole? "

No matter how you spin it, theft is theft.

Just say what you really mean. You want iTMS to support for MP3 players that are not the iPod. You don't need to add all this nonsense to achieve that goal.


"it's an amazing logic to call something bad because it could potentially also be used to do something illegal."

No, its not bad because it *could* be used illegally. Its bad because *people do* use it illegally.

Yes things are really bad for the music industry. All those millionaire musicians and music executives are starving to death because of the lack of encryption on CDs. Give me a break!

Oh, and copying something is NOT theft. You really need to get out more and read something other than RIAA propoganda.

Yes, because that measn that if such as system was popularized, Apple solution would simply be a vehicle to make it convenient to buy a songe once and then distribute it illegally all over the place.

people should not be allowed to move freely because they may commit a crime.

read also The Right to Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Software should be free!? Do you mean lIbre or gratis? Unfortunately, it seems everyone wants both, which is why there are a loads of unemployed programmers.

If you don't like it, stick with Linux, afterall it's free [sic].

Yes, that is exactly what we are doing. GNU/Linux IS Free. Apple can keep their wolf in sheeps clothing.

DRM (TCPA) is now used for restricting OS X to Apple kit. What will be next? Will OS X only accept iPods to be connected to a Mac? What kind of content will be made "watch and you pay and pay and pay"? What kind of content will be "forbidden from the start"?

I know, we are all loonies wearing tinfoil hats. Just don't come whine when we loonies were right all along.

Hey, Apple maybe restricting the living daylights out of your computing experience, but at least you can brag about "thinking different" and point to your "elite plastic status symbol" in the corner of your living room.

The price for being cool and hip is your personal Freedom. That is a small price to pay, considering you can brag about owning a Mac }:-)

Apple isn't dumb enough to assume they can start restricting their user's computing experience and still be successful. The market will dictate the Mac's success. I choose to use Macs because they offer me the best computing experience. If Linux ever makes computing as enjoyable as using a Mac then I will gladly switch to Linux. What bothers me about most arguments against Apple is they are hammered because they use OS X to sell Macs. People need to quit bitching because they don't like Apple's business model.

Most people bitch about Apple either due to the high prices of the hardware (which inhibits growth at the same time it keeps margins high) or the crappy attitude Apple has towards anyone who is not of the "faithful". And if you ask a question the wrong way, you are immediately not of the faithful...

If Microsoft is the cruelty the computing world is used to, Apple is the "new cruelty".

The people I know who use Mac don't use it because it is better than anything else. They use it because it is a status brand and through purchasing the elite brand think they are better than other people.

It is sad to see some otherwise good people get caught up in the mythology of the Apple cult.

I don't know any Mac users who buy because they think it's an elite brand that will somehow make them cooler than other people. Remember, the world isn't full of dorks. "Gee, I really hope Johnny the computer dork thinks my iMac is cool" People buy Macs because they like what they have to offer. They do everything they want, they do it in an easy to use manner, and they do it without viruses or spyware. If users are looking for a easy to use and secure OS then they will naturally be intersted in buying a Mac. One of these days maybe people will realize that this "cult" status you speak happens for a reason. Maybe there are millions of people that actually really enjoy their Macs and want others to share the same experience? But I'm sure that you're right and there are simply millions of people who spend their hard earned money on a computer just to impress people. Maybe I should start taking my PowerBook to clubs and see what happens?

You mean like the majority of the software fondation to OSX which was developed for free outside of Apple. Darwin uses code from FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and Mach. All of three were either developed in an academic setting or outright in opensource.

"It's their product and they can do what they want with it!!!"

You really are uneducated, please post someplace else if you can not understand the implications of how much they have taken from the opensource community. This is the type of response that I would expect of some rightwing talk radio show but not here. I would expect a better argument. I pitty you and those of that have to put up with you in their day to day life.

You pity him and those who have to put up with him? What a douche bag. I pity anyone who has to deal with somebody who can get this worked up over an operating system. Yes, Apple has built their OS upon open source Unix, nothing wrong with that is there? They've used that base and added their own technologies on top of it and have chosen to sell this product. All of this is perfectly legal, is it not?? If you don't like it nobody is forcing you to buy it. Apple brought Unix to the masses in an elegant and user friendly OS and have every right to sell their product in any way they see fit. Since you appear to be the uneducated one let me give you a simple lesson in how our economy works. If you legally develop a product that people are willing to pay for then you have every right to sell said product and attempt to make a profit off of it. Apple has developed a product that people are willing to pay for and have every right to sell this product however they want. If they want to tie OS X to their hardware then that's their choice. This has been their business model since the first Mac was released in 1984 so why the fuss now that they are using Intel processors? And why does it bother you so much? Darwin is free so why not just run that? It's a free download on Apple's site, feel free to download it and run it on any X86 PC out there. Oh wait, we're not talking about Darwin, we're talking about OS X. Only geeks care about the Unix core and I guarantee you it's not what's selling OS X to Aunt Bethany. Don't worry, I'm sure it's just a matter of time before someone comes up with an illegal hack that will allow OS X to run on non-Mac hardware. Then you can illegally download the torrent and run it on your Dell.