Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 9th Nov 2009 23:55 UTC
Permalink for comment 393759
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-12
Were Microsoft to do that, there would be an outcry, and it would be justified. That would be a change in business practices. It is very reasonable to expect Microsoft to support updates to their OS on all previously supported hardware. They have always done this. This is why Windows was successful.
As with every doomsday scenario, TPM never happened. I don't think there ever was even the slightest danger.
Same with such a GPL change. It is so fundamentally different from the GPL's philosophy that it would rightfully receive criticism. GPL doesn't govern use; it governs distribution. This is why the GPL was successful as a license.
Apple is in a completely different situation. Nobody expects such openness. Nobody expects unsupported hardware to work. Apple did not disable previously supported hardware. The fact that Snow Leopard previously worked is inconsequential. Merely working on hardware is not the same as being supported.