OSNews

Dell and other OEMs are happily shipping Ubuntu on their hardware, which requires a similar amount of "control" in respect of the hardware they select. Why would it suddenly be different for Apple? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that Dell would fall over themselves if Apple offered them to option to ship OS X on their machines.



I have no idea if that was aimed at me or just a general comment, but it's bizarre reasoning on your part either way.

What have they done for Ubuntu? there are still the same incompatibilities; they still are choosing to ship BroadCom even though their drivers are shonky, they continue to provide ATI GPU's with Linux laptop seven though the drivers are more or less a joke. Then there is the firmware itself - where as a nice, clean and efficient UEFI would do, they hobble it with a buggy BIOS.

I'd say that Dell did the least amount humanly possible.



It was a general comment; the feeling I get from some people here is if they can't get something - they'd sooner see Apple get destroyed. Its akin to saying, "I really want a Ferrari, but because they don't provide a cheap one or allow cheap clones - I want the to go bust instead". Call it the extension of the, "I want now" syndrome.

Part of the problem with Windows is that the hardware manufacturers write the drivers. With the crap drivers & software Dell installs on their machines, OS X would not be a pleasant experience on those machines.

Apple's engineers write the drivers for their systems, it adds to their costs, but also is part of the stability which most here apparently want.

Kelly

kawai, you say "what it is all about is envy and jealousy. I can't have that product so I'd sooner see the company get destroyed instead."

Not for me. I don't want the product. What its about for me is whether a company, any company, can sell a software package and then have you, during the installation or use process, agree to a further contract which restrains how you may use it.

I don't see any difference between Apple telling you what kind of hardware you may install on, and Apple telling you what books you may read with it, or what other software you may install with it. In the end this issue is about our intellectual freedom, its about whether we or the supplier own what we may access through the software. It touches on stuff like open file formats and similar forms of lockin. It touches on ability to migrate from one platform to another.

Here, let me give you a real concrete example. There is a software package in the UK which I deal with, which has no export facility, and which keeps the data a customer keys in, in binary and proprietary formats. Now, the files are hackable so I have helped a customer extract their own data. If Apple's method of operating is upheld, so would a clause in a EULA be that said that you agree not to access the file C:\etc\etc, that you agree not to decompress it, that you agree not to use awk perl or sed or similar products in conjunction with it - in short, that you agree to pay 100 Euro for the service every time you want to get your data out, and you agree not to then put your data in to any competitive product.

This is why this case is so important. And this is why the case is not even mainly about Apple and its business model or its fortunes. This is about us, this is about people being able to do what they want with the software they have bought, versus a point of view that says, I will sell it to you, and then I will dictate what you may or may not do with it, in any respect I care to name, and no, nothing you create with this software is yours, even if it is entirely your own intellectual property. It is mine, because you did it with my software package.

And if I take steps that are in my interests as a company and not in yours as a user, well that's tough.

You don't think it can happen? It can. It does. If Apple wins it will be everywhere. A very skilled professional, not very computer savvy, was told by this company, when she asked tech support how to get the data, her own data, out, that it was all industry standard stuff, all she had to do was learn to write XSLT transforms. They suggested she learn Saxon and wished her good luck with it. She asked me where to start. I said, don't bother, they are laughing at you.

This is what is at stake. It has nothing to do with envy and jealousy, it has to do with intellectual freedom. It has to do whether, in order to give Apple the powers that it wants, but should not want, and does not need to maintain its business model, we abridge the intellectual freedom of the whole computer using public. That is, all of us.

Hell no, is what we should all be saying.

Almost, but not quite. The case has nothing to do with whether *you* or *I* as consumers put OS X on a computer after we have purchased OS X. That is allowed by law already, and has nothing at all to do with this case. Apple has no say in that matter, and doesn't give a rats ass about it. This case has to do with whether a commercial entity can do so. Commercial entities such as Psystar are not consumers, as they are a computer manufacturer. The line is finely drawn, but it is there.