Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 18th Nov 2007 15:28 UTC, submitted by JCooper
Mac OS X "Ever since I got the eeePC I've loved how easy it is to tinker with. Since I'm not a Linux guy, I dumped the Xandros preload and opted for Windows XP so I could use my EVDO USB datacard and blogging software easier, but I wondered could I install OSX on it? And, after trial and error - you can! The only problem is that the eeePC only supports SSE2 instead of the SSE3 that Leopard is coded for. Kind of a bummer, and will require some extra tinkering to coax the OS on the eeePC."
Order by: Score:
interesting, BUT
by Adurbe on Sun 18th Nov 2007 15:59 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

Intersting that someone has done this, but should you really be linking to a blog tha is activly encouraging it readers to break the law and install OSX?

Reply Score: 3

RE: interesting, BUT
by drynwhyl on Sun 18th Nov 2007 16:08 UTC in reply to "interesting, BUT"
drynwhyl Member since:
2006-05-14

> encouraging it readers to break the law and install OSX?

Such a law is not valid outside of the US. Why should a site not based in the US respect whacked US laws?

Reply Score: 22

RE[2]: interesting, BUT
by Almafeta on Mon 19th Nov 2007 00:21 UTC in reply to "RE: interesting, BUT"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

> encouraging it readers to break the law and install OSX? Such a law is not valid outside of the US. Why should a site not based in the US respect whacked US laws?


Why should nations respect the laws of other nations?

Oh, I don't know, the desire to not descend into World War III?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: interesting, BUT
by HappyGod on Mon 19th Nov 2007 04:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: interesting, BUT"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

Why should nations respect the laws of other nations?

Oh, I don't know, the desire to not descend into World War III?


So, if I run a news blog, I should not show any pictures of women's faces in case I might upset the countries with Sharia law?

If a law is crap, I say we give it the dignity it deserves. i.e. Ignore it.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[4]: interesting, BUT
by losethos2 on Mon 19th Nov 2007 04:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: interesting, BUT"
v RE[5]: interesting, BUT
by kad77 on Mon 19th Nov 2007 07:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: interesting, BUT"
RE[3]: interesting, BUT
by Morgan on Mon 19th Nov 2007 04:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: interesting, BUT"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Well, if WWIII breaks out over a software license issue, we as a planet are more screwed than we ever imagined.

Granted, I get the sarcasm, but honestly it's not that big a deal. Hell, I'd love it if Apple would come out with something like this device running OS X, at somewhere between the original price and that of a Mac Mini, but I doubt that will happen for several reasons. After all, they wouldn't want to kill off sales of the MacBook, right?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: interesting, BUT
by Xaero_Vincent on Mon 19th Nov 2007 05:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: interesting, BUT"
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

So your saying pirating software from torrent sites is only illegal in the USA?

Thats essentially whats happening here in addition to violating Apple's EULA.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: interesting, BUT
by ThawkTH on Tue 20th Nov 2007 15:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: interesting, BUT"
ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, the US HAS gone after countries for stupider reasons...

Heck, the drums of war are sounding over Iran and we haven't even figured out a good reason for that yet.

World War III because one nation doesn't follow another's laws? You are being rather ignorant, don't you think? There are a ton of laws in other nations which the US would hate to be forced to follow.

See: Kyoto.

Reply Score: 2

RE: interesting, BUT
by google_ninja on Sun 18th Nov 2007 16:19 UTC in reply to "interesting, BUT"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Honestly, apple should be happy about this. Going the way of the hackintosh, especially on a laptop is kind of like a crippled demo, some things work really well, others dont work at all.

Personally, I have an ancient OS9 mac (IMHO still one of the best operating systems of all time), but I also have Tiger installed on a partition on my laptop. Tiger heats up the laptop REAL fast, is unable to give me an accurate readout of my battery, doesnt work with my WiFi (real dealbreaker there), doesnt work with my built-in mic or webcam or my usb mic (another dealbreaker there), and will not resume from sleep. I basically use it to become more competitant with the OS, and to learn obj-c and XCode.

Reply Score: 4

RE: interesting, BUT
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 18th Nov 2007 16:35 UTC in reply to "interesting, BUT"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Intersting that someone has done this, but should you really be linking to a blog tha is activly encouraging it readers to break the law and install OSX?


Breach of contract (the EULA is a contract) is not breaking the law. It's just that - breach of contract.

In addition, I'm Dutch, and live there too.

Edited 2007-11-18 16:36 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: interesting, BUT
by Adurbe on Sun 18th Nov 2007 18:20 UTC in reply to "interesting, BUT"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

You are correct it IS a breach of contract

My point still stands though, why did you link directly to a blog that encourages breaching a contract? As a 'journalist' (a word you use to describe yourself in http://osnews.com/story.php/18941/Common-Usability-Terms-pt.-VI-the...) why did you not take the important information from the blog and turn it into impartial article that does not encourage the breaking of contracts.

I am a fan of this website but feel it was a poor, and somewhat 'lazy', choice to link to such a blog directly

Edited 2007-11-18 18:20

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: interesting, BUT
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 18th Nov 2007 18:27 UTC in reply to "RE: interesting, BUT"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I am a fan of this website but feel it was a poor, and somewhat 'lazy', choice to link to such a blog directly


Err, it's how we roll, baby. We link, we don't often do Ars-like stuff where we write our own mini-article for each item. I don't have the time for that, and nor do I get paid to do that (seeing I don't get paid at all).

I live in a country where this stuff isn't illegal - it *might* be a breach of contract, but there is no jurisdiction whatsoever on the only-on-Apple-computers clause (in fact, the clause might even invalidate the EULA in my country), so it's kind of impossible to make any claims about this one.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: interesting, BUT
by pythonguy on Mon 19th Nov 2007 07:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: interesting, BUT"
pythonguy Member since:
2005-07-22

Agree with Thom here. Take a look at this. It clarifies the legal position of EULA, taking Microsoft EULA as an example.

http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html

Point: A EULA is not a law, it is just an end-user contract and it is not even legally valid in most countries.

Read the last line in the article...

"The European Software Directive (adopted by the UK in 1992) gives users the freedom to copy, run, modify, and reverse-engineer lawfully acquired programs."

There you are. It is perfectly legal to do almost anything on your lawfully acquired programs. As long as you shelled out a dime to acquire that CD or DVD, it is upto you what you do with it in your personal time. Redistribution comes under copyright law, not under the EULA.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: interesting, BUT
by StephenBeDoper on Sun 18th Nov 2007 22:19 UTC in reply to "RE: interesting, BUT"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

My point still stands though, why did you link directly to a blog that encourages breaching a contract?


Which begs the question: what reason would he have *not* to link to it?

why did you not take the important information from the blog and turn it into impartial article that does not encourage the breaking of contracts.


What purpose would that serve?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: interesting, BUT
by Adurbe on Sun 18th Nov 2007 23:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: interesting, BUT"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

Which begs the question: what reason would he have *not* to link to it?


In my opinion it is not responsible journalism to link to, and thereby condone, acting an illegal manner, especially from a site that is held in as high regard as this one is

why did you not take the important information from the blog and turn it into impartial article that does not encourage the breaking of contracts.

What purpose would that serve?


would it be acceptable for links to be posted to a blog that detailed how to circumvent windows licence keys? Again, in my opinion, no.
The fact it can be done is the story. I feel telling you how it is is crossing into a very grey area

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: interesting, BUT
by Chicken Blood on Mon 19th Nov 2007 02:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: interesting, BUT"
Chicken Blood Member since:
2005-12-21

In my opinion it is not responsible journalism to link to, and thereby condone, acting an illegal manner, especially from a site that is held in as high regard as this one is

LOL!

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: interesting, BUT
by Adurbe on Mon 19th Nov 2007 12:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: interesting, BUT"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

In my opinion it is not responsible journalism to link to, and thereby condone, acting an illegal manner, especially from a site that is held in as high regard as this one is

LOL!


I do hold this site in high regard. In general I find it very informative and fun. It caters to my needs very well generally.

My original post was against what this paticular artical linked to, NOT the site as a whole nor a personal/general assult on Thom, this should not be confused

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: interesting, BUT
by StephenBeDoper on Mon 19th Nov 2007 15:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: interesting, BUT"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

In my opinion it is not responsible journalism to link to, and thereby condone, acting an illegal manner, especially from a site that is held in as high regard as this one is


It's not an "illegal manner" unless a court finds that it is - otherwise, the strongest accurate pejorative you use would be "acting in a manner that violates an EULA." Of course, it's already been pointed out numerous times that said EULA isn't even legally-valid in a large of part (most?) of the world. And even in the places where it's considered a valid contract, the actual legal-enforceability is pretty questionable.

would it be acceptable for links to be posted to a blog that detailed how to circumvent windows licence keys?


Not a valid comparison - that would be a clear-cut violation of copyright law. A more comparable situation would be if someone posted instructions for (E.g.) using a VM to run a version of Vista which doesn't "allow" that usage in the EULA.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: interesting, BUT
by ThawkTH on Tue 20th Nov 2007 15:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: interesting, BUT"
ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

See, this is where I disagree.

Information is free. It belongs to mankind. Period.

No ifs. No ands. No buts.

To restrict access is censorship and hampers the human race. Thom is not saying people in the US should run out and torrent a copy of OSX and install it on a PC...

Still, the job of the media IS NOT TO CENSOR - it's to inform.

Just because you find something in bad taste does not mean it should be restricted.

Reply Score: 2

More to come...
by Buck on Sun 18th Nov 2007 16:02 UTC
Buck
Member since:
2005-06-29

Coming next on OSNews: The ultimate guide to jailbreaking and unlocking the iPhone!
Or: The Quick and Dirty Guide to Installing the MacOSX Server on a Dell server! (unlimited license key will be provided as a free bonus)

Edited 2007-11-18 16:02

Reply Score: 3

Rather pointless
by milles21 on Sun 18th Nov 2007 18:08 UTC
milles21
Member since:
2006-11-08

I think the whole idea of hacking the system to put osx on it is pointless why not just use Linux. If you love OSX so much then get a mac, but the whole idea seems rather pointless.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Rather pointless
by SlackerJack on Sun 18th Nov 2007 20:59 UTC in reply to "Rather pointless"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Well because Linux is not OS X, may as well go as far and say mod your OS like OS X and not buy or get the real thing . Mod your OS like OS X all you like, non of them capture the feel of OS X, they really dont.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Rather pointless
by Xaero_Vincent on Sun 18th Nov 2007 22:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Rather pointless"
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

I think I got pretty close.

http://img453.imageshack.us/img453/1807/linuxosxfk2.png

Not perfect but decent.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Rather pointless
by aesiamun on Mon 19th Nov 2007 02:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Rather pointless"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

Yeah it looks like OSX...that's about it probably.

Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: Rather pointless
by SlackerJack on Mon 19th Nov 2007 09:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Rather pointless"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Yes you did but it does look rather ugly compared to the real thing, nice try.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Rather pointless
by heron on Mon 19th Nov 2007 19:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Rather pointless"
heron Member since:
2005-08-07

Wow, it's interesting to see the good looks of Mac OS X imitated with absolutely none of the elegance that lives behind it.

I find it very interesting that people place such a high value on looks, and such a low value on how it's actually done behind the scenes.

GJC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Rather pointless
by bornagainenguin on Wed 21st Nov 2007 05:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Rather pointless"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

That's one of the reasons why I no longer bother with Stardock software anymore, or change my MS-Style beyond Royalle these days. I want something that is able to change the system from top to bottom. I used to be able to manage this with shell replacements and a variety of utilities, but under Win2000 and XP the returns from doing so have been vanishingly smaller and smaller each time.

The future seems to be more with alternative OSes, not in emulating the look of another OS while suffering without the all important feel of that OS...

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 2

RE: Rather pointless
by bornagainenguin on Mon 19th Nov 2007 07:48 UTC in reply to "Rather pointless"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

If you love OSX so much then get a mac, but the whole idea seems rather pointless.

YEAH! Absolutely! I'll run right out and get that 7 inch portable Mac UMPC right away...

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 2

surprised
by MamiyaOtaru on Sun 18th Nov 2007 18:11 UTC
MamiyaOtaru
Member since:
2005-11-11

It's been an open secret for a while that OSX can be installed on PCs, but it seems like we've avoided discussion of that here. Does this mean it's open season?

Like it or not, for many people hackintosh provides that midtower option Apple refuses to. A computer without a built in screen with serviceable parts for less than the 2,500$ of a Mac Pro.

I was just discussing it with my dad, and he was of the opinion that while the Mac Mini (like my granddad just bought) is a nice machine, but he'd never use a computer in the office that had to be sent off somewhere to be worked on (swap hard drive, etc) and he couldn't imagine a lot of other businesses using them if the in house IT guys couldn't work on them. Of course in house guys could learn to use a putty knife (like I did installing my granddad's memory upgrade) but I don't see that being widespread.

Now I'm not saying businesses will use hackintoshes ;) I'm just illustrating what IMHO is a hole in Apple's lineup, and it's hardly a surprise that some hobbyists are going to fill it, even if it involves a little contract breaking.

I'm still surprised to see the howtos discussed (or linked to from here) so openly.

Reply Score: 4

RE: surprised
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 18th Nov 2007 18:17 UTC in reply to "surprised"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm just illustrating what IMHO is a hole in Apple's lineup, and it's hardly a surprise that some hobbyists are going to fill it, even if it involves a little contract breaking.


Apple had filled the whole in their line up with the Cube... Sadly, they overpriced it, and it was a massive flop. Still by far the best looking compute ever. I still have hope they return the Cube, around 800-900 EUR.

Reply Score: 1

RE: surprised
by Buck on Mon 19th Nov 2007 06:27 UTC in reply to "surprised"
Buck Member since:
2005-06-29

If you're a business you're very likely to either - use FileVault (which renders the data unusable to anyone but you) or use the networked home directory which skips the hard drive entirely. The first case protects you from data being read when you have to send one for repairs and the second means you can very easily swap the computers around.
Actually there's no reason you should be tinkering with the insides - just have a spare computer handy at all times. If you're serious about the continuity of your business of course...

Reply Score: 2

......
by islander on Mon 19th Nov 2007 03:30 UTC
islander
Member since:
2007-04-11

Now this is when do gooders get out of hand.Osnews is a geek news website.We are geeks and the article is news.However you slice it.What you choose to do with it is your discretion.Not anyone else's.

When top security researchers publish how to exploit machines on news websites isn't that the same thing?

Reply Score: 3

Mac OS X demo
by sagum on Mon 19th Nov 2007 04:21 UTC
sagum
Member since:
2006-01-23

One of the strange things about Mac OS X is most people have never actually used it. This may seem weird to a lot of people who grew up in schools and colleges that were pro Apple Mac, but the schools and colleges I've been to the only few Mac machines they had were used were for video editing and not something they let you 'try', and I don't even think they were mac os x at the time.
So unless you knew someone who had a Apple machine (mainly due to them needing it for video editing at schools) there was little chance of exploring Mac OS.

Even now, there aren't very many Apple stores in the UK and the only other options is to view a Mac in one of the larger retail stores such as pcworld (or any of the other dixons group) were they'll have the machine passworded or as most of the time not even powered on, mainly due to the mac expert not being in store, or other employees not wantin to deal with it.

Where do you get to try Mac OS X. Certainly Apple haven't introduced a 'demo' of the OS, so for most who're truely intrested in tryin Mac OS X (without some store assistant showing you how cool the icons are) they'll want to be installing Mac OS X equivalent/versions of the kind of software they want to use.

Suck it and see, we do it all the time with software and installing Mac OS X on a PC is allowing people to do just that.

Reply Score: 1

Illegal?
by lemur2 on Mon 19th Nov 2007 05:37 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Are people saying that in some country or another I can buy OS X, and I can buy an ASUS EeePC, but I am breaking the law if I install the first to run on the second?

Why, for goodness sake?

If it really is illegal to do that, then I have two questions:

(1) What insane country passed such a law, and
(2) Why would I ever even consider running commercial software of any kind in such a country? (especially when I have the option of running highly functional Linux instead).

Come to think of it, I have the exact same questions about playing DVDs.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Illegal?
by jal_ on Mon 19th Nov 2007 09:47 UTC in reply to "Illegal?"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Are people saying that in some country or another I can buy OS X, and I can buy an ASUS EeePC, but I am breaking the law if I install the first to run on the second?

(1) What insane country passed such a law, and


It has little to do with the laws of any country, but like Thom H. already said, with the EULA. The EULA (end user licence agreement) is a legal contract that you 'sign' by opening the OS X package. In that EULA, Apple grants you certain rights and denies you certain other rights, one of these denied rights being to install OS X on something else than a Mac. Microsoft does something similar, denying you the right to run Vista on a virtual PC.

(2) Why would I ever even consider running commercial software of any kind in such a country?

Whether you personally would or would not I cannot answer, but in general people are not intersted in installing an OS, let alone on another platform (or a virtual machine, for that matter).


JAL

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Illegal?
by lemur2 on Mon 19th Nov 2007 11:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Illegal?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Apple grants you certain rights and denies you certain other rights, one of these denied rights being to install OS X on something else than a Mac.


It is legal in the US for Apple to sell me computer software but deny me the "right" to run it on a machine that I own?

Since when did Apple get to dictate my rights?

Crazy. Absolutely crazy.

I wonder if the US would next consider a law that allowed a bicycle manufacturer to forbid me (a citizen, with voting rights) to ride on my own property a bike I bought from a bicycle shop.

Software is intended to be run, is it not?

One would consider that when I buy it (and I can buy it separately) then I intend to run it, no?

A computer is intended to run software, is it not?

"The European Software Directive (adopted by the UK in 1992) gives users the freedom to copy, run, modify, and reverse-engineer lawfully acquired programs."

Precisely so.

Even in un-free America, this should be the case.

What should be forbidden is the selling of copies. Everything else ... well I did legally acquire the software, so that copy should be mine to use how I would wish (bar selling copies).

Edited 2007-11-19 11:50

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Illegal?
by lemur2 on Mon 19th Nov 2007 12:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Illegal?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Apple grants you certain rights and denies you certain other rights, one of these denied rights being to install OS X on something else than a Mac.

It is legal in the US for Apple to sell me computer software but deny me the "right" to run it on a machine that I own?

Since when did Apple get to dictate my rights?


Just to clarify ... Apple is the copyright holder. That position does give Apple certain rights ... it lets Apple dictate who may, or may not, copy their software for the purpose of sale.

That is it. That is the extent of "rights" which Apple hold in my copy of the software once they have sold it to me, under copyright law.

Apple can legally prevent me from making further copies of the software for sale.

Anything else I might do with the software ... is not constrained by the fact that Apple hold copyrights on it.

I am not a lawyer & all that ... but I do know that I have rights when I buy something, and I do know that the rights granted by copyright law are limited to the right to control the copying of a work.

Edited 2007-11-19 12:16

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Illegal?
by heron on Mon 19th Nov 2007 19:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Illegal?"
heron Member since:
2005-08-07

You're wrong.

They don't transfer ownership of that copy of OS X to you. They license you to use it. Therefore it's restrictions as to use can be dictated by the since they own the software.

GJC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Illegal?
by jal_ on Mon 19th Nov 2007 12:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Illegal?"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

It is legal in the US for Apple to sell me computer software but deny me the "right" to run it on a machine that I own?

The thing is, software companies don't seel you their software, but the right to use the software. And in that way, they are allowed to dictate what the terms of use are.

I wonder if the US would next consider a law that allowed a bicycle manufacturer to forbid me to ride on my own property a bike I bought from a bicycle shop.

It's better to compare it to a rent or lease: if you lease a bike, it's not yours. You may use it, but only to the extent of your contract with the one who rents the bike. The same goes for software.

"The European Software Directive (adopted by the UK in 1992) gives users the freedom to copy, run, modify, and reverse-engineer lawfully acquired programs."

Yes, but there are additional laws describing what "copy", "run", "modify" and "reverse-engineer" means. E.g. you can only make a copy for back-up purposes, not to run it on a different machine (at least not simultaneously). And the "freedom to copy" does not mean the "right to copy", so software manufacturers are perfectly withint their rights from preventing you to do so.


JAL

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Illegal?
by mallard on Mon 19th Nov 2007 16:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Illegal?"
mallard Member since:
2006-01-06

The actual text of the European Software Directive is available here: http://wiretap.area.com/Gopher/Gov/Other/copyrigh.ec .

The relevant articles are 4 & 5.

(5)(a) States that
"In the absence of specific contractual provisions, the
acts referred to in Article 4 (a) and (b) shall not require authorization by the rightholder where they are necessary for the use of the computer program by the lawful acquire in accordance with its intended purpose, including for error correction."

Meaning: Unless expressly forbidden by a legally binding contract you may perform the acts in (4)(a) (copy) & (b) (translate) for the purposes of running the program.

The only issue therefore, is whether or not a EULA is a contract.

There are three key elements to the creation of a contract:
These are offer and acceptance, consideration (usually payment), and an intention to create legal relations.

In the case of a EULA:

Offer: The usage of the program (under certain conditions).
Why it is not valid:
Since you almost always encounter a EULA after purchase, you already have the right to use the program under the ESD. The ESD give provisions for contracts that forbid the usage of a program, but do not require a contract to allow id.
You cannot be offered something you already have.

Consideration: None. You have already purchased the software.
Why it is not valid:
No consideration == no contract.

Intention to create legal relations: Yes.

Since EULA's fail 2/3 of the requirements of contracts, the ARE NOT CONTRACTS. Thus, they cannot forbid usage of software.

Note, IANAL. These views are based on UK law.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Illegal?
by Adurbe on Tue 20th Nov 2007 23:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Illegal?"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

"In the absence of specific contractual provisions, the
acts referred to in Article 4 (a) and (b) shall not require authorization by the rightholder where they are necessary for the use of the computer program by the lawful acquire in accordance with its intended purpose, including for error correction."


can you legally acquire OSX to run it on a system other than a mac?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Illegal?
by lemur2 on Mon 19th Nov 2007 23:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Illegal?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The thing is, software companies don't seel you their software, but the right to use the software. And in that way, they are allowed to dictate what the terms of use are.


This is nothing other than an excellent reason for not purchasing that software.

If I have a need to run software (especially if I am going to make my living from running such software), then I will obtain software that I am free to run, thankyou very much, without any reliance on the good graces of some other company.

End of story. Any other choice is business insanity.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Illegal?
by jal_ on Tue 20th Nov 2007 09:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Illegal?"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

If I have a need to run software (especially if I am going to make my living from running such software), then I will obtain software that I am free to run, thankyou very much, without any reliance on the good graces of some other company.

End of story. Any other choice is business insanity.


Well, I admit that nowadays, good alternatives to most MS software are available. But that hasn't always been the case, and still FOSS for e.g. Visio (heavily used by my company) or Outlook/Exchange is not available.


JAL

Reply Score: 1

performance
by Different on Tue 20th Nov 2007 08:33 UTC
Different
Member since:
2007-07-03

So how is the performance of OSX under eeePC ?

Reply Score: 3

RE: performance
by ThawkTH on Tue 20th Nov 2007 15:50 UTC in reply to "performance"
ThawkTH Member since:
2005-07-06

Hahaha! Modded up for actually changing the subject...

I'd guess not very well, given the specs...

Reply Score: 2

are there really so many lawyers on here?
by Rugxulo on Wed 21st Nov 2007 00:22 UTC
Rugxulo
Member since:
2007-10-09

C'mon, why does it always turn into a long argument whenever someone says, "I want to do this" and "No, you can't do that, we don't want you to"? I didn't realize OS News was a stomping ground for bands of lawyers aching to argue every last obscure law (even if, as mentioned, some countries couldn't give a flip). Too many laws, too many arguments! It's not worth it!

Reply Score: 1