Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 25th Oct 2009 12:51 UTC
Editorial A couple of years ago, a professor at my university had a very interesting thought exchange with the class I was in. We were a small group, and I knew most of them, they were my friends. Anyway, we had a talk about language purism - not an unimportant subject if you study English in The Netherlands.
Thread beginning with comment 390973
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Thom has a point...
by wirespot on Sun 25th Oct 2009 16:55 UTC in reply to "Thom has a point..."
wirespot
Member since:
2006-06-21

How nice of you to repeat Thom's "arguments" for him.

So let me sum it up: Apple, a company that keeps pricing their stuff high on a very competitive market is actually cowering in fear, and the people who keep buying their expensive stuff are not actually enjoying the higher quality, they're just brainwashed idiots.

Oh, and breaking copyright law and undermining another company's business is ok because it's "freeing OS X". Rules be damned, the masses want their OS X! Hail Psystar, the champion of the people!

That's an opinion. You're entitled to yours, but that doesn't mean it holds any water just 'cause you say so.

I happen to believe otherwise. Common sense dictates that Apple products have at least some quality to them that makes people buy it. Other than straight out brain-controlling waves, that is. Common sense dictates that if Apple's products were just trendy hype they would have gone under a long time ago. Because trends come and go, but quality endures. Finally, common sense also says that if you go head-to-head with established law you should be prepared to assume the consequences. "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time", remember?

Smart and decent people don't go for straight out breaking the law every time they don't like it. They don't break copyright for OS X or Windows, they pay or they use an alternative. They don't break copyright for music or movies, they pay or they find stores that sell cheaper or find music/movies when/that are cheaper. They don't throw rocks at Adobe's HQ windows, they create alternative technology. Yeah I think we need free software and open standards and a completely different approach to showbiz publishing, but going against the law like a dumb ox is just that, dumb. You're free to do it, but no definition of freedom is complete without the part that says "assuming consequences".

As for Thom, publishing this as a normal OSNews piece has no excuse. Opinions belong in editorials and should be marked as such, with disclaimers. I don't fault Thom either for stating his opinion, in comments. But doing it from a position that implies it is endorsed by OSNews is not nice.

Edited 2009-10-25 17:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Thom has a point...
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 25th Oct 2009 17:17 in reply to "RE: Thom has a point..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

As for Thom, publishing this as a normal OSNews piece has no excuse. Opinions belong in editorials and should be marked as such, with disclaimers.


This IS marked as an editorial, in two ways actually. But maybe you couldn't see it through the foam accumulating around your mouth ;) .

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Thom has a point...
by wirespot on Sun 25th Oct 2009 17:30 in reply to "RE[2]: Thom has a point..."
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Then you need to mark it better, because yes, I haven't seen it. In spite of my eyes being located well above my mouth and all the foam. Wait, there's a lightbulb icon. Which clearly means "editorial". If only I'd have inferred that earlier I wouldn't have made such a fool out of myself.

Not to mention that I appear to be touched by the rabies. Apparently the fact that I just took apart your rants is a clear sign of madness. Whereas leveraging a non-personal website to push your personal beliefs against any common sense, and then failing to address the criticism, is the epitome of sanity and good sense. I stand corrected.

Edited 2009-10-25 17:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Thom has a point...
by Buck on Sun 25th Oct 2009 17:50 in reply to "RE: Thom has a point..."
Buck Member since:
2005-06-29

Very well written.
But hey, it's Sunday and Thom couldn't be bothered to write anything but a dreamy opinion piece on a subject that's BOUND to polarize the audience (and then hide behind the 'editorial' tag, so smart).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Thom has a point...
by koki on Mon 26th Oct 2009 21:07 in reply to "RE[2]: Thom has a point..."
koki Member since:
2005-10-17

Very well written.
But hey, it's Sunday and Thom couldn't be bothered to write anything but a dreamy opinion piece on a subject that's BOUND to polarize the audience (and then hide behind the 'editorial' tag, so smart).


And polarized audiences generate more comments and page views. Thom is smart, and must have learned this trick...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAWDYaWAVQQ

...from John C. Dvorak. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Thom has a point...
by alcibiades on Sun 25th Oct 2009 18:28 in reply to "RE: Thom has a point..."
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Smart and decent people don't go for straight out breaking the law every time they don't like it
No. But when they find a company imposing conditions on the use of stuff they have bought from that company that they consider unfair, anti competitive, probably contrary to consumer protection legislation, they...hold up two fingers, and get on with doing what they want with what they have bought.

Good on them!

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Thom has a point...
by Manik on Sun 25th Oct 2009 20:40 in reply to "RE[2]: Thom has a point..."
Manik Member since:
2005-07-06

Class actions have been prohibited ?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Thom has a point...
by wirespot on Sun 25th Oct 2009 21:46 in reply to "RE[2]: Thom has a point..."
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

they...hold up two fingers, and get on with doing what they want with what they have bought.


Except Psystar doesn't fall within that category. They have no right to do what they're doing.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Thom has a point...
by twitterfire on Mon 26th Oct 2009 15:06 in reply to "RE[2]: Thom has a point..."
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

I only raised one finger when I installed os x on my PC. Which even if it has better cpu, ram, video etc than apple alternatives and even if I found drivers for all the harware is a piece of crap because it wasn't Apple branded. ;)

I won't tell which finger I used.

I raised two fingers when I wiped os x from my poor PC who from that moment happily dual boots Linux and Windows. Well, I must be insane, you may think, if I dared to erase such a good os. Not the case, since even if I have better hardware, the only thing I miss is the "integration". I'm heading right now to an apple dealer to pay 1500€ for that nice "integration". ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Thom has a point...
by BallmerKnowsBest on Mon 26th Oct 2009 01:21 in reply to "RE: Thom has a point..."
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

How nice of you to repeat Thom's "arguments" for him.


How nice of you to reply to a post without actually responding to most of the points raised in it.

So let me sum it up: Apple, a company that keeps pricing their stuff high on a very competitive market is actually cowering in fear, and the people who keep buying their expensive stuff are not actually enjoying the higher quality, they're just brainwashed idiots.

Oh, and breaking copyright law and undermining another company's business is ok because it's "freeing OS X". Rules be damned, the masses want their OS X! Hail Psystar, the champion of the people!


Careful, you'll make yourself dizzy by putting that much spin on a strawman argument.

I happen to believe otherwise. Common sense dictates that Apple products have at least some quality to them that makes people buy it.


And you could say the same thing about microwave dinners or Miley Cyrus albums.

Common sense dictates that if Apple's products were just trendy hype they would have gone under a long time ago. Because trends come and go, but quality endures.


I'm sure that Stephen King and Madonna would be happy to hear you say so.

Finally, common sense also says that if you go head-to-head with established law


There's an established law stating that an OS vendor can legitimately use an EULA to enforce post-sale restrictions on the brand of computer that can be used to run their OS?

you should be prepared to assume the consequences. "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time", remember?


Don't look now, but Psystar doesn't seem to be having much problem dealing with the consequences.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Thom has a point...
by wirespot on Mon 26th Oct 2009 09:08 in reply to "RE[2]: Thom has a point..."
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

There's an established law stating that an OS vendor can legitimately use an EULA to enforce post-sale restrictions on the brand of computer that can be used to run their OS?


No and please don't try to twist things around. Apple is not placing restrictions on the "brand of computer used to run their OS". They're placing restrictions on WHO can bundle OS X with ANY computer and WHAT they can and cannot do with it. And for that yes, there is legal precedent. Look up MDY vs Blizzard.

Don't look now, but Psystar doesn't seem to be having much problem dealing with the consequences.


Has the lawsuit ended? We'll talk when it does. But I suggest in the meantime you look at how well troll lawsuits worked out for SCO. They're currently bankrupt and the pieces are being taken apart by a judge-appointed overseer.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Thom has a point...
by kurtlinux on Mon 26th Oct 2009 01:50 in reply to "RE: Thom has a point..."
kurtlinux Member since:
2006-06-20

I really think this is a nice "editorial". I for one would want to install OSX on a non-apple computer. I love OSX but a mac is always too expensive. I love my PC but I really don't like windows as much. I also use Linux but my wife, kids, and I use some apps for work/school that are only available in mac or win (Microsoft Office, Photoshop, etc). OSX on (cheap) PC hardware is really a no-brainer. I would definitely buy a Psystar if it proves to be LEGAL. Why pay double for THE SAME hardware specs? Psystar is offering what a lot of us (*Nix users) are obviously hoping that Apple would take into consideration: RELEASE THEIR GREAT OS FOR USE ON CHEAP HARDWARE. I think this would make a huge impact in the operating system scene (increased competition, lower prices).

On the language purism thing, in my opinion Thom has a point. I also speak Japanese as a third language (English is my second language) and it is really liberating to be able to communicate with someone in his/her native tongue. I think operating systems should also be constructed in this manner. A good operating system should be able to communicate with a lot of different hardware (as possible). What Apple is doing (hardware purism, if you like) is greatly limiting its otherwise graceful operating system. It's always been a joy using OSX.

Reply Parent Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Maybe you could point to the case law which shows that Psystar is in fact committing criminal acts through the breaking of copyright law... cause.. I'm not seeing any definitive ruling out of that case yet nor am I seeing any past case law that strongly indicates it. Last I checked, courts where still deciding if Psystar is in fact an illegal business. Maybe we should wait until that claim is made by law before we make that claim; be if fact or opinion.

One may not agree with Psystar is doing and that's fine but claiming a legal ruling where non has been made does not help the opinion.

Reply Parent Score: 2