Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 28th Oct 2009 14:09 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Hardware, Embedded Systems When Psystar announced it Rebel EFI package, the company was quickly accused of simply taking open source code, repackaging it, and selling it for USD 50. While selling open source code is not a problem, not making the source code available if the license demands it is. Netkas, famous OSX86 hacker, and a Russian site are now claiming they have found the smoking gun.
Thread beginning with comment 391647
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by bousozoku on Wed 28th Oct 2009 20:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
bousozoku
Member since:
2006-01-23

well, if you make an agreement that you're not going to use macosx on a non-Apple computer and then you use macosx on a non-Apple computer, you are breaking your agreement.

Apple isn't interested in open hardware. So why not just leave them alone and reward those that *are* interested?


How many times do we have to remind people that Apple is a hardware company? Of course, they're not interested in someone else selling competing hardware.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by ari-free on Wed 28th Oct 2009 23:10 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

They also don't want to have to deal with 5 zillion hardware/driver configurations.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai
by boldingd on Wed 28th Oct 2009 23:16 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

I've never really bought that argument. I don't see why OS X should ever have worse driver availability than Free BSD. (I'm not trolling; seriously!) It just doesn't make sense to me. I mean, I can already use any nVidia card, and any arbitrary RAM and SATA drive, right? How many on-board networking and sound chipsets are out there that FreeBSD doesn't have a working driver for?

Edit: Hell, for that matter, they could just have some kind of "Apple Compatible!" branding scheme, so that customers would know up-front at-a-glance when they buy a component if it'd work well with OS X. Then, Apple could sell OS X and let you install it on any machine, and you'd be able to pick hardware you'd know would work well - you'd just be limited to the narrow selection of third-party components that get certified. Point being, if Apple won't sell OS X independant of their hardware, I doubt it's because they're deathly afraid of driver problems.

Edited 2009-10-28 23:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 28th Oct 2009 23:24 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

They also don't want to have to deal with 5 zillion hardware/driver configurations.


Ah, that old scare tactic: "Now Apple must support every piece of hardware and every combination of them!!1!1!!1"

It does not. Apple has no obligation to support installing Mac OS X on non-Apple labelled machines - it just shouldn't use legally dubious tactics (EULA) to prevent it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by alcibiades on Thu 29th Oct 2009 08:53 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

How many times do we have to remind people that Apple is a hardware company? Of course, they're not interested in someone else selling competing hardware.


How many times do we have to remind people that Microsoft is a software company? Of course they're not interested in someone else selling competing software.

This is why they should not be obliged to allow anyone to install competing products on Windows, like different browsers, or OpenOffice.

Oh, sorry, for a moment I forgot. This is Apple, so of course the rules are different. Different matter altogether. Sorry about that.

Reply Parent Score: 3