Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Apple Embeds Message to OS X Hackers

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Sun Feb 19, 2006 01:02 AM
from the pretty-please dept.
Businesses Software Apple
zentechno writes "Apple has confirmed it embedded a message in the form of a poem to those who would hack its version of OS X on Intel hardware." From the article: "The embedded poem reads: 'Your karma check for today: There once was a user that whined/his existing OS was so blind/he'd do better to pirate/an OS that ran great/but found his hardware declined./Please don't steal Mac OS!/Really, that's way uncool./(C) Apple Computer, Inc.'Apple also put in a separate hidden message, 'Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext,' in another spot for would-be hackers."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Apple Embeds Message to OS X Hackers 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Don't be (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2006, @01:13AM (#14753333)
    a prick. slashdot is a little late on stories because a) they have paid subscribers that get to the stories a little earlier and b) because slashdot actually has moderators. They come up with a good headline, a proper description to start off a meaningful discussion.

    Basically, you come here for the discussion, go to digg.com for the speed.

  • Translation (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ctrl+Alt+De1337 (837964) on Sunday February 19 2006, @01:22AM (#14753359) Homepage Journal
    Dear Crackers,
    In anticipation of the Intel switch, we believe we have made our legal department 4-5X faster too. We're actively looking to test and confirm those benchmarks.
    XOXO, Steve

    • Re:Translation (Score:5, Funny)

      by G-funk (22712) <josh@gfunk007.com> on Sunday February 19 2006, @06:03AM (#14753950) Homepage Journal
      Dear Apple:

      There once was a rich man named steve-
      For some reason he did believe,
      That the very best way
      Was keep hackers at bay
      But we all know that soon he will grieve.

      For squillions of geeks
      'Tis but a few weeks
      Till OSX runs on a dell
      Eventually
      This our steve will see
      And 'twill be a cold day in hell.

      Shareholders get mad
      When their shiny doo-dad
      Must learn to stand by itself.
      But that day is here
      And when dust has cleared,
      I assure thee OSX on a shelf.

  • It's funny... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ASUSanator (700145) on Sunday February 19 2006, @01:28AM (#14753373) Journal
    ...because it's true (The content of the poem that is). I don't mind people playing around to see if they can get it running on their systems but when they go as far as the release the cracked versions with the intent to use them without even paying for it that is when it gets wrong.

  • And the Sequel: (Score:5, Funny)

    by Pantero Blanco (792776) on Sunday February 19 2006, @01:37AM (#14753394)
    There once was a geek who was bored
    All other systems he'd explored
    So he added one more to his hoard
    Though against his methods the vendor implored.

  • Cute, but... (Score:5, Funny)

    by vga_init (589198) on Sunday February 19 2006, @01:39AM (#14753398) Journal
    It lacks balls, and it makes them sound very naive. What I like better is the Russian message that VAX's had embedded in their microchips for soviet engineers to find: "VAX: When you care enough to steal, steal from the best."

    Now that's what I'm talking about.

  • Pirate? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2006, @01:44AM (#14753407)
    I'm not sure what it takes to be an English-language poet (as opposed to code poet) at Apple, but this one stinks. And running one OS, even a fully-copyrighted, commercial OS, on hardware its creator did not intend for it is not piracy -- it's fair use. I know we aren't supposed to have that anymore (after the distribution cartels bribed congress to pass the DMCA, but, hey look, there's still that pesky Supreme Court ruling that says we do), but we do. Fair use is taking the OS software I bought from Apple, even if bundled with one of their machines, and running it on any other hardware, software, combination thereof(, the record player if I want,) so long as I am not simultaneously (in time) running the software somewhere else. So, no mister/madam poet, this isn't piracy. This is, shock of shocks, innovation. Please stop name calling. We aren't children, even if you'd like to treat us like that. And we sure do not deserve to be compared to people who actually break the law. You should reserve those epithets for people who actually do pirate your software, as confusing the two lessens the meaning of the word when used in its proper context.

    And, Apple, you are free to innovate by releasing updates that make any progress on this front obsolete. It'll be a fun race that way.

    • Re:Pirate? (Score:4, Informative)

      by phalse phace (454635) on Sunday February 19 2006, @02:07AM (#14753463)
      "I'm not sure what it takes to be an English-language poet (as opposed to code poet) at Apple, but this one stinks. And running one OS, even a fully-copyrighted, commercial OS, on hardware its creator did not intend for it is not piracy -- it's fair use."

      Actually, it's called a violation of their user license agreement.

      Quote:

      This license allows you to install, use and run one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.
      • Fine, so I'll stick a mailing label on the front of my box that says "Apple". If I'm not selling it, I can label it as anything I want. Aw, what the heck; I'll be a nice guy and use one of their "offical" case labels, to make it an official Apple labeled computer.

      • Re:Pirate? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Budenny (888916) on Sunday February 19 2006, @02:44AM (#14753539)
        People keep explaining this, and the Apple folks keep refusing to listen. But here goes one more time. The clause "You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer" is, I believe, unlawful under EC competition and consumer protection law. I've never heard this seriously disputed. It does two things: it violates the prohibition on anti competitive linked sales, and it violates consumer protection legislation. If you want to see for yourself, look up the UK sales of goods acts.

        Now, ask yourself, what is the legal and moral position of a company which is attempting to lead purchasers of its products to believe they have entered into an agreement which is unlawful in the jurisdiction of sale?

        If this is wrong, please do cite a few EC cases or precedents showing it is. But no-one ever has, yet.

      • Re:Pirate? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SEE (7681) on Sunday February 19 2006, @03:51AM (#14753684) Homepage
        Actually, it's called a violation of their user license agreement.

        Which is nonsense, even if clickwrap licenses are nonsense the courts have decided to allow.

        I already own a copy of the software before I ever see the license. If Apple wants me to license their software, rather than buy a copy, they can present me with the terms of the license before I pay and make agreement to the license a condition of the transaction. Since the implicit contract of purchase is complete before I see the license, Apple should not be able to add post-facto conditions, any more than I can put post-facto conditions on their use of the money I give them. The transaction, and the opportunity to place conditions on it, is over when payment has been rendered and the goods have entered my posession.

      • Re:Pirate? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Malor (3658) on Sunday February 19 2006, @04:09AM (#14753720) Journal
        Doesn't say THEY have to label it, though.

        A Dymo Labelmaker [amazon.com] is one heck of a lot cheaper than an Intel iMac [apple.com].

  • Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fallen Kell (165468) on Sunday February 19 2006, @01:47AM (#14753414)
    There is a very simple solution here that will alieviate a LOT of the reasons people will hack or want to get the hacked OS. Just sell it seperate. Yeah I know, that means a lot more hardware support, well, there is a VERY simple solution to that, leave the hardware support up to the hardware manufacturers, and let the customers know that if it is not on the "approved hardware" list, that it is unsupported and they are on their own to get it working, or SOL. The biggest reason that Apple has always had about not selling the OS itself is the fact that it only worked on their own hardware. In a sense, they did sell it, though, as upgrades to older systems. Well, guess what, now it runs on x86 hardware... why in the world would you want to limit your market? You have a product, and a good one, but you put an artificial limit of your own on what you will allow it to be used on, which effectively cuts you out of 99% of the market that would potentially purchase your product, and for what reason? Because you don't want to support all that different hardware? Guys get a clue from Sun Microsystems, Solaris 10 x86 is out there available for purchase, but if you don't have supported hardware, well you are SOL for that piece of hardware. You are free to hack away at it to see if you can get that hardware to work, but don't go crying to Sun if it doesn't because they warned you ahead of time. All Apple needs to do is the same thing and I am certain that there would be a LOT of sales generated, which to Apple is basically FREE MONEY!!! I mean, really, it is like they have their own money printing machines, but they stamp out CD's or DVD's and place them in boxes, which then get "exchanged" at the going exchange rate. It only costs a few dollars to make the copy of the physical media, box it, and ship it, why not bring in all the money they can? It is just assinine if they do not.
    • It would be easier to read your post if you used paragraphs.

      Apple has two hurdles to overcome before they can successfully sell OS X for generic Intel hardware:

      1) Convince manufacturers to write drivers for OS X. If 3/4 of he hardware out there RIGHT NOW lack OS X drivers for PPC, why would they magically have OS X drivers for Intel? So that means OS X won't be able to access your scanner, your TV tuner, your sound card, your mpeg accelerated video card, etc.

      2) Create a reference platform of supported devices, after they convince manufacturers to provide drivers in step 1.

      Without step 1, number 2 ends up being, more or less, an iMac or MacBook Pro. Which is more or less what they have right now, except that they haven't yet released OS X for Intel.

    • Re:Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by moranar (632206) on Sunday February 19 2006, @02:06AM (#14753459) Homepage Journal
      The reason, apart from hardware support, is that they'd be their own competitors. Apple makes huge profits on the bundle of proprietary hardware and software. If they sold OSX to other manufacturers, their whole hardware business would be pointless: who'd buy a real Apple mac if he could get a comparable experience for half the price?

      And Sun experienced this the same way. The x86 hardware they sell is undercutting their profits on their own architectures. That's ok only if they make more money this way.

      • Re:Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Budenny (888916) on Sunday February 19 2006, @02:39AM (#14753528)
        So the argument is, Macs are about twice as expensive as comparable non-Mac systems, and the difference is Apple profits? Is that the argument?

          • Re:Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS! (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Budenny (888916) on Sunday February 19 2006, @03:20AM (#14753613)
            See, I just don't think its true that the hardware business would be destroyed, and cannot see what evidence there is for it.

            Often Mac advocates want to have it both ways, say that Macs are no more expensive AND say that selling the OS separately would destroy the hardware business and with it the company. I think the reality is, they are more expensive, particularly at the high end, but not so much more expensive that there would be mass flight or substitution. Apple buyers are prepared to pay a premium to get something certified by Apple to work well.

            In fact, I don't think there is much evidence for a great suppressed demand for OSX on non-Apple labelled hardware. Its something people have always assumed was out there - and back in the days of Classic and Win 3.1, there probably was such a demand, but now, probably not. Obviously there would be incremental sales, as for unbundled Windows, and they would be useful because they would have 100% margin, but they wouldn't affect the main business.

            All in all, its very hard to understand the strategy, other than that its some kind of cultural obsession in Cupertino.

    • Re:Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by linguae (763922) on Sunday February 19 2006, @02:26AM (#14753499)

      Just one problem, though. To use a playground analogy, Apple is the kid on the playground who owns his ball and refuses to let you use his ball outside of a few games that Apple likes to play on the playground. Apple will let you loan (or license) his ball to play four square, but won't let you use the ball to attach to a tether to play tetherball. Sure, you can tie the ball to the tetherball, but Apple will get mad and call up the yard supervisors and have you sitting in detention, thanks to a law called the PTMPA (Playground Toys' Millenium Protection Act), created by the TMAA (Toy Manufacturers' Association of America). The PTMPA disallows balls made specifically for four square to be used for tetherball, basketballs to be used for bowling, and other combinations, and is punishable by a hefty fine.

      In other words, Apple owns OS X, and has created rules about how you can use it. Because it uses DRM, you cannot legally install it under your brand-spanking new vanilla x86 machine, even if you ran out and purchased bought two MacBook Pros and owned tons of Apple stock, thanks to the DMCA. Yeah, I would love to purchase OS X for x86 and install it natively on my PC, but that isn't going to legally happen anytime soon. I don't feel like breaking laws to simply use an operating system; I would much rather use GNU-licensed or BSD-licensed software and not have to worry about the legality of running it on whatever hardware I feel fit to install it on. I also believe that installing OS X on a vanilla PC should constitute as fair use, but the DMCA overrides fair use. The best way to get legal OS X for x86 on a vanilla PC is to either write up your Congresscritter and ask him/her to pass a bill repealing the DMCA (or, better yet, since elections for Congresscritters are this November, vote for candidates who will repeal it), or talk to Apple and show them the $$$ in selling copies of OS X for x86 to an open market.

      It's sad what we have to deal with today thanks to our growing loss of fair use rights, but we have to deal with it for now until the political landscape changes in the realm of copyrights and fair use. In the meanwhile, we'll be either saving up for a Mac or working on making *nix easier to use and almost comparable to OS X. I wonder what Apple is more afraid of; selling copies of OS X and them losing money because people aren't buying their machines, or having to compete with a Linux or BSD distribution that just as good or better than OS X?

      • Tiny correction here... (Score:4, Informative)

        by hummassa (157160) on Sunday February 19 2006, @05:47AM (#14753919) Homepage Journal
        In other words, Apple owns OS X, and has created rules about how you can use it. Because it uses DRM, you cannot legally install it under your brand-spanking new vanilla x86 machine, even if you ran out and purchased bought two MacBook Pros and owned tons of Apple stock, thanks to the DMCA.

        That should read "Because it uses DRM, you cannot legally install it under your brand-spanking new vanilla x86 machine, at least not under US law and other insane jurisdicitons with (also insane) DMCA-like regulations".

        Law 9609/98 (Brasilian "Computer Programs Intelectual Property Act"), art 6: "It is NOT infringement to the rights of the author of a computer program: (...) IV - to integrate it, maintaining its characteristics, to an operating or application system, if it's technically indispensable to the use of the software, and it's promoted by the user". IOW: if you bought your copy of MacOS X, you can hack it to use on your computer.

        Law 8078/90 (Brasilian "Consumer Defense Code"), art 39: "It is prohibited, to any supplier of products and services: I - to condition the supply of any product or service to the supply of another product or service" (this is called in Brasilian Consumer Law "venda casada" == "married sale", where one product/service only goes where the other goes). IOW: If I want to buy MacOS X, Apple cannot refuse to sell it to me, even if I don't own a Mac.

    • Re:Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dr.badass (25287) on Sunday February 19 2006, @02:59AM (#14753569) Homepage
      There is a very simple solution here that will alieviate a LOT of the reasons people will hack or want to get the hacked OS. Just sell it seperate.

      This makes no sense at all. The main reason people want a hacked OS is because they are cheap bastards. By definition they aren't interested in spending money. Trying to sell them something that they are already stealing is not an effective tactic.

        • Re:Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Y-Crate (540566) on Sunday February 19 2006, @03:07AM (#14753589)
          "Tell us again, why exactly would hardware sales collapse?"


          It's quite simple. The PC market is much more price conscious than the Mac side of things. No one is going to pay the "Apple Tax" for hardware when they can build a PC for a few hundred bucks, or pay a small premium for someone to do it for them. Apple would still gain sales from style-concious consumers, but the overwhelming number of OS X users would drop the Mac in a heartbeat and go with something cheaper.

          We know this because it happened once before already. Read up on your Apple history with regard to the mid-90s. That little episode was enough to bring the company to its knees.

  • This is the UK sale of goods legislation (Score:5, Informative)

    by Budenny (888916) on Sunday February 19 2006, @03:43AM (#14753663)
    "An unfair term in a contract covered by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (UTCCRs) is not binding on you.

    Test of fairness A term is unfair if: * contrary to the requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance inthe parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers."

    "Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

    "Consumer Sale of Goods Contracts

    "Consumers cannot have their legal rights removed in sale of goods contracts. Furthermore, it can be an offence to mislead consumers about their legal rights. To do so could result in a criminal prosecution. For example, notices such as "We do not give refunds" are misleading and cannot be used. Enforcement is undertaken by local Trading Standards Departments."

    These quotes are from Department of Trade and Industry Guidelines.

    It must be very doubtful that a EULA which forbids you to do things with the product after you have bought it, that you can perfectly well do, and which you have some reasonable reason to want to do, can be lawful in the UK or the EC. In fact, putting clauses in a Eula which mislead the consumer about his rights under the law in this regard appears, from the above, to be criminal.

  • A bit hypocritical (Score:4, Funny)

    by Marlor (643698) on Sunday February 19 2006, @03:54AM (#14753690)
    The embedded poem reads: 'Your karma check for today: There once was a user that whined/his existing OS was so blind/he'd do better to pirate/an OS that ran great/but found his hardware declined./Please don't steal Mac OS!/Really, that's way uncool.

    While I realise that Apple have to protect their technology, Steve Jobs' anti-hacking comments lately have been a bit hypocritical, given his history. Here is a more appropriate poem:
    Your karma check for today:
    There once was a user that whined
    The phone companies robbed him blind
    He'd do better to phreak
    With a 2600Hz beep
    So a blue box was designed.
    Please don't steal phone calls!
    Really, that's way uncool.
  • So let me get this straight: In the beginning, removing an item from a store without paying for it was considered "stealing". Then, simple copyright infringement became "stealing". Now, Apple is saying that if I go to the store, buy Mac OS X, and get it to work on my computer, I'm "stealing"? WTF?

  • Mac OS X crippled (Score:4, Insightful)

    by layer3switch (783864) on Sunday February 19 2006, @05:18AM (#14753859)
    So lets get this straight.

    Apple takes FreeBSD which runs on just about any platform including Intel and put into Darwin/MacOSX then Apple cripples OS to run on DRM Intel board, and embed messages to be found by people who decripple the OS to run on any Intel board.

    Now who's calling who uncool ? Decrippling is totally cool in my book while Crippling is not regardless of legality.

    Apple! I'm calling you out. 3PM after school, by sandbox!

          • Re:Love your signature... (Score:4, Informative)

            by bennomatic (691188) on Sunday February 19 2006, @02:26PM (#14755714) Homepage
            Well, actually, the ,8 was for the floppy; if you started out with the Dataset like I did, it was either ,1 or ,1,1.

            If you didn't include the final ,1, then whatever you loaded was loaded into the 38k RAM block set aside for basic programs. If you did include it, it would load into RAM starting at the address the person saving it had designated.

            Some programs loaded into the top half of the BASIC RAM, which was fine if you weren't running any BASIC programs, because that was the area BASIC used to store variables. However, there was a 4k block starting at 49152 which was set aside solely for user-initiated macine language programming and/or data storage (i.e. sprites, etc), so some programs would load in with ",8,1" or ",1,1" and then you'd type "sys 49152" to get them started.

            Last, there was some set of registers just below the BASIC RAM that you could use to auto-start a program. I think that the way that these programs were written, they'd write a small basic program as a loader that would include a command similar to "LOAD 'MAINPROGRAM',8,1", and then they'd tack something on to the beginning of it which would be unintelligible if you loaded it right into BASIC RAM, but if you loaded it with the final ,1, the pre-pended stuff would fall into a register that said, "Execute the program that's just loaded", and the BASIC would be in the right place. I remember typing in a program from Compute's Gazette that let me create such auto-run files.

            Ah, those were heady days!

    • Re:huh (Score:4, Informative)

      by the_Bionic_lemming (446569) on Sunday February 19 2006, @01:11AM (#14753328)
      BTW - Here's the site that Apple is pissed over

      maxxuss [hotbox.ru]

        • Re:huh (Score:5, Insightful)

          by johnpaul191 (240105) on Sunday February 19 2006, @02:34AM (#14753515) Homepage
          their legal department did tell osx86project.org/ to close their forums and take down info about running OS X on non-Apple hardware and claimed DMCA as their justification. while there is the issue of people stealing OS X to try this, they also don't want it running on non-Apple hardware. there is more info on their now explaining their version of the story.

          as a lot of Mac people have said...... if this is what makes Apple adopt MS-like security measures for the OS i will be unhappy. for those that don't use OS X, you have NEVER had to put in a serial number or do any authorization to install it. compared to some of the chaos MS users have had, i am thankful that Apple never had to worry about this so far. i buy every OS X release, but it's really nice not to have to deal with that. since i won't be trying to install Apple software of non-apple os i can be grumpy and say it would suck if they ruin it for us because they have to prove their extreme hacking skills.

    • Re:Lame (Score:5, Insightful)

      by avalys (221114) on Sunday February 19 2006, @01:48AM (#14753418)
      "And no, artificially tying the product to their lackluster hardware offerings is NOT acceptable. Yes I said lackluster. Sure they are pretty but as PC hardware they just ain't all that. Cheap plastic cases with wimpy power supplies and little expansion for the desktop and useless one button laptops. Gimme a big manly box made of 2mil aluminum and a big ass stable power plant to start, then let me pick out a premium motherboard and memory and an drives of my choice. Why should the OS vendor get to make all of my hardware choices for me? And never forget the insane markup they get for their pretty but bland specced hardware."

      Where do you get this sense of self-entitlement? Apple spent their money creating Mac OS X. They get to decide how they want to sell it. If you don't like how they sell it, you don't have to buy it. You're not morally, much less legally, entitled to do what you want with their hard work, just because you can.

      Apple isn't denying that people are capable of breaking their copy-protection. They're asking that people don't, out of respect for their right as producer of the software to sell it under their terms.

      I don't understand this attitude, where people think that they are fucking entitled to pirate music, movies, software, or whatever. They actually get offended when you tell them that it's immoral!

      I mean, I can understand the attitude of "Yeah, I know it's wrong, but I don't care." I don't agree with it, but I understand it. But I don't understand the people who truly don't see what's immoral about, for example, running Mac OS X in a way that Apple expressly asks you not to.

      • > But I don't understand the people who truly don't see what's immoral about, for example, running Mac OS X in a
        > way that Apple expressly asks you not to.

        Because I don't recognize their moral authority to tell me HOW to use their product. Their Copyright only gives them the right to control making copies. Yea I'd violate the letter of that if an iso appeared that would boot on my hardware simply because of curiosity. I wouldn't adopt it for daily use and certainly wouldn't use it at work without buying a copy. (Although until the first upgrade hits retail I'd probably have to buy the PPC copy and call it close enough.)

        And I don't recognize any right for them to say their copyrighted work can ONLY be accessed on their brand of player. That is the same sort of bullshit arguments the MPAA and the DVD-CCA use to tell me I can't play DVDs I own on a DVD drive equipped PC I own because they refuse to bless a player for my preferred platform. By your logic I should just forego DVD on Linux or be a good lemming and install Windows. Wrong, I didn't 'license' my season sets of South Park, I BOUGHT copies and I'll read them wherever I damned well please and if I want to skip the trice damned commercials for Drawn Together and the Daily Show I will. And if I ever decided to install OS X I'd BUY a copy of it and do whatever I damned well wanted to with it as well and Steve could just go perform an improbable act of self procreation if he didn't like it. It is just a fscking product people, you don't have to join Steve'e cult and lose all sense of right and wrong.

        • Re:They don't have the moral right to dictate HOW (Score:5, Insightful)

          by avalys (221114) on Sunday February 19 2006, @04:00AM (#14753700)
          I know I've posted this same comment several times already, but here it is again:

          "What's your opinion on academic or personal-use licenses, then?

          I can buy a copy of IntelliJ IDEA for academic use for $99, or a license for personal use for $199. They charge (I think) $599 for the commercial license. All have equal functionality. So, you think it's moral for me to buy the personal license for $199, and then use it to create commercial software? After all, what right do they have to tell me what to do with the software I've purchased? I should be able to do whatever I want with it, regardless of what the terms of the sale were."

      • You are a slave (Score:5, Interesting)

        by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Sunday February 19 2006, @04:24AM (#14753750) Journal
        Imagine that a company like shell told you what you could and could not do with the fuel bought at their points of sale. Oh you want to put our petrol in a lawnmower? You can't do that, we developed it only to be put into V8's.

        Image you went to your local baker and bought a loaf of bread and then were threathened with jail time for hacking it up into little bits and feeding it to the ducks when clearly the baker decided it was only to be used for human consumption.

        But computers are different. It causes people like you to behave like slaves who lick their masters asses and swallow everything they deliver.

        Apple sells software. Once it made the sale I can do with it what I want for my personal use. If I decide to take it apart and chance it to run on other hardware or to function in a way different then it was before then that is my right.

        Oh but wait of course, I get it. Games were never intended to run with trainers. So trainers are illegal. They also never meant for you to use someone elses savegame so savegames are illegal. They also do not come with a walkthrough so clearly walkthroughs are illegal.

        Running say program X on a emulator is obviously clearly illegal.

        But then I got a bit of bad news for you. Your lord and master Steve Jobs is breaking his own laws. By allowing windows software to run in emulation he is hacking that software to run on platforms it was never intended to run on. Could every windows developer sue whenever a mac user runs a bit of windows software?

        No, Apple has a right to cry foul when people give away its software for free but when I buy a copy of Mac OS X in the shops I am then free to use it in anyway I please. I can use it as a coaster. I can run it on mac hardware and I can hack it and run it on whatever I like. As long as I respect the fact that I got right to 1 copy of it running at anyone time I am in the clear.

        Anyone who tells you different is a fucking tool.

    • Re:Lame (Score:3, Insightful)

      by avalys (221114)
      I don't understand why you think you have the right to do what you want with Mac OS X, just because you're not happy with the conditions that Apple sells it under.

      They wrote OS X. They get to decide how to sell it. If you don't like the conditions, don't buy it.

      It is immoral to say "I don't like the conditions they're selling it under, so I'm going to violate them." How can you not respect the fact that they, as authors of the software, have the right to sell it under the terms they prefer?

      Let's say you

      • Re:Lame (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Budenny (888916) on Sunday February 19 2006, @03:00AM (#14753574)
        "They wrote OS X. They get to decide how to sell it. If you don't like the conditions, don't buy it."

        Question: do you think the same applies to MS Office? They wrote it, they get to decide whether you run it under Wine or not. If you don't like the conditions, don't buy it? Or to Windows. They charge OEMs for all computers sold regardless of whether they have Windows installed. You are an OEM. They get to decide how to sell it...

        Fact is, companies cannot set any conditions they like, because there is in most Western jurisdictions both competition law restraints, and consumer protection restraints.

        This is not an argument about whether they should sell OS X or not, its just an argument about whether they have the legal right to impose these kinds of restrictions on use, post sale. Don't believe so.
    • This product that apple sells, includes the hardware, deal with it. You're the whiny bitch.

    • Re:Lame (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 2nd Post! (213333) <gundbear@pacb[ ].net ['ell' in gap]> on Sunday February 19 2006, @02:07AM (#14753462) Homepage
      What? So now it's okay to steal something if someone won't give it to you?

      If you won't give me your credit card info, I'll just take it from you instead! In case you don't get it, you are the publisher of your credit card info, and since you refuse to publish that info, I'll just bootleg it instead.

    • Re:Lame (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833) on Sunday February 19 2006, @02:17AM (#14753481)
      you're the whiny bitch.

      Apple is approaching this with a lot of common sense, respect for legitimate users, and humour.

      you're acting like a childish prick because everything doesn't go your way. wah! Han shot first! wah! I can't afford a Mac! wah! stealing makes me a hero! wah!

      grow up and get a life.

    • Re:Lame (Score:5, Funny)

      by Undefined Parameter (726857) <fuel4freedom AT yahoo DOT com> on Sunday February 19 2006, @02:37AM (#14753523)
      And no, artificially tying the product to their lackluster hardware offerings is NOT acceptable. Yes I said lackluster.

      Michael Dell, is that you!?

        • Re:late again (Score:5, Funny)

          by feijai (898706) on Sunday February 19 2006, @03:25AM (#14753622)
          Yep. I submitted this story to /. over 24 hours ago only to have it rejected.

          You don't think it had anything to do with CmdrTaco not wanting to splash your username on the front page, would it?

    • Re:Sense of humor... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2006, @09:43AM (#14754471)
      Apple has always had a sense of humor, unlike the darthwader of the sofware kingdom. One thing I remember specifically was when they had an internal code name called Sagan for a new Mac they were working on. When Carl Sagan heard of this, he threatned to sue Apple. Apple promptly renamed the project to BHA (Butt Head Astronomer).

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.