Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 14th Feb 2006 22:49 UTC, submitted by jayson.knight
Mac OS X It seems like flee-in-Apple's-fur, cracker 'Maxxuss', has succeeded in cracking Mac OS 10.4.4 for Intel. "We were just about to hunker down and wait through the cold winter and a wet spring until we saw some results on the OS X 10.4.4 for Intel hacking efforts, but it looks like we're getting a little Valentines present from 'Maxxuss' who has already broken through Apple's heightened security that is present in their shipping version of the OS. It's just a preliminary release, not all hardware is supported and it requires a bit of futzing around to get it to work, but seeing as we weren't expecting this kind of breakthrough this early, we really can't complain."
Thread beginning with comment 95653
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: hmm..
by somebody on Wed 15th Feb 2006 00:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hmm.."
somebody
Member since:
2005-07-07

Guess what, people don't like limitations or being told that you can only use this software on this hardware because I control you and what you can do.

So if you like some car and man owning that car doesn't want to sell i to you? What? You're legaly correct if you simply steal his car? And please spare me with excuse that software is different. It is different only until you don't start to live from writing it. After that your viewpoint changes with a U-turn. Suddenly, commercial becomes commercial and free becomes free.

The quest for freedom is a universal human need.

Yes, quest for freedom, yes. But hacking/pirating software is not different from stealing. In my case, if I (or any developer/company) want some software of mine (or theirs) to be free (and it accounts for about 30% in my case) I give it out and I'm prepared to help anyone. If not, then you have to buy it in order to use it. And no, you're no better than thief in my eyes if you avoid my wishes.

Any other kind of thinking just shows your lack of respect for work of others (and the fact that your ass is probably your personal horizon).

Edited 2006-02-15 00:57

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: hmm..
by rayiner on Wed 15th Feb 2006 00:56 in reply to "RE[3]: hmm.."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

So if you like some car and man owning that car doesn't want to sell i to you? What? You're legaly correct if you simply steal his car?

And that, folks, is what is known in discourse as a "strawman argument".

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: hmm..
by somebody on Wed 15th Feb 2006 01:04 in reply to "RE[4]: hmm.."
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

And that, folks, is what is known in discourse as a "strawman argument".

Strawman argument? Yeah, while you use your "strawman excuse": "original stayed intact, so it can't be stealing".

Simple story of one my friends. He was developing special and pretty large software. Sold one copy and gone broke. Why? Next three years he couldn't sell any copies. And although he knew where and which companies (in fact quite a few) use his software without paying, he simply couldn't afford legal costs.

Now place your self in his position and say "strawman argument"

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: hmm..
by Chreo on Wed 15th Feb 2006 10:43 in reply to "RE[4]: hmm.."
Chreo Member since:
2005-07-06

Yup if he had only used the car manufacturer instead of "the owner" of "one particular car" then it may even have had some validity. Ofc the direct counter to that is that the car manufacturer wants to sell as many cars as they can. Thay could not care less about who it is that buys (except for marketing purposes =).

Reply Parent Score: 1