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 95756
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: hmm..
by Johan on Wed 15th Feb 2006 05:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: hmm.."
Johan
Member since:
2005-06-30

All your arguments were made as if the law is infallible. Laws change, society changes. Business models change throughout history and the law gets modified to accommodate them. If the current legal system is inadequate, it does not mean its ethically right to abuse loopholes. Many big businesses have done many abusive practices despite being within the confines of the law at that time.

At the most basic level, Apple is saying that, ok, i will only sell this to you if you install it on a machine you bought from me. You said, fine. But yet, behind Apple's back, you break that promise. There's no way you can ethically try to justify that.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: hmm..
by rayiner on Wed 15th Feb 2006 05:46 in reply to "RE[5]: hmm.."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

All your arguments were made as if the law is infallible.

The law is the law. You have to follow it as it is, and you can take advantage of it as it is. If Apple wants the law changed, they can lobby for it. Indeed, I'm sure they already are.

If the current legal system is inadequate

The current legal system is perfectly adequate, and perfectly consistent with a model where an author does not own a work, in a conventional sense, but is only granted temporary control of it. If you don't like that model, to bad, that is what we have in the US, even if it is being pared down day by day.


At the most basic level, Apple is saying that, ok, i will only sell this to you if you install it on a machine you bought from me. You said, fine. But yet, behind Apple's back, you break that promise. There's no way you can ethically try to justify that.

I don't have to ethically justify that, I just have to legally justify that. Beyond that, on an ethical level, I do not believe people have the right to decide how their products get used. I don't believe that people should have that kind of power over other people. Apparently, the law as it stands agrees with me.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: hmm..
by Johan on Wed 15th Feb 2006 05:54 in reply to "RE[5]: hmm.."
Johan Member since:
2005-06-30

Well, if you don't want to ethcally justify that, then we have nothing to talk about. My original post was about ethics, since the post I was replying to was going braveheart on us an crying FREEDOOOOM and proceed to cheat apple of money.

Apple has no power to force you to buy their wares. They don't coerce anybody to doanything. How you feel about the way they are selling their products does mean its ethical to lie to them, and thereby deciding yourself how they should run their business.

Reply Parent Score: 1