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 95722
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[10]: hmm..
by rayiner on Wed 15th Feb 2006 04:06 UTC in reply to "RE[9]: hmm.."
Member since:

he EULA is valid because the vendor says, pay me money, and promise not to use my product like this, and I'll let you use it.
And you agree.

What the hell kind of legal argument is that? What's the legal definition of "promise". What law gives the vendor the power to demand promises from the buyer?

Edited 2006-02-15 04:09

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[11]: hmm..
by Jesuspower on Wed 15th Feb 2006 04:25 in reply to "RE[10]: hmm.."
Jesuspower Member since:

what forces you to use software from a vendor making you make those promises?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[12]: hmm..
by rayiner on Wed 15th Feb 2006 04:39 in reply to "RE[11]: hmm.."
rayiner Member since:

If the vendor has no power to force people to make those promises, he has no recourse when people break them. The reason people are buying from that vendor, whether they were forced to or otherwise, is neither here nor there. The reason could be "I thought their business model sucked, and I wanted to cost them some money", and it would be perfectly valid.

Reply Parent Score: 1