Mac OS X 10.6.2 Will Block Atom Processors 1012
Archeopteryx writes "According to Wired's 'Gadget Lab' blog, Snow Leopard's next update, OS X 10.6.2, will block the Atom processor and will disable many 'Hackintosh' netbooks. It is indeed true that OS X will run just fine on some netbooks if you install the right drivers and ktexts, but Apple's EULA has always specified that the license was applicable only to Apple hardware. There have always been processor types specified in OS X and that have to be worked around now for those who want to use an Atom or similar non-Apple-adopted processor, so this is likely no more than a hiccup on the road for the OSX86 crowd. But, it raises the question: is it time for Apple to sell a license for non-Apple hardware — priced accordingly of course — for those people who want OS X on platform types Apple has not yet adopted, like the netbook? The only reason OS X is not on my Eee is that I want to comply with the licensing terms. I could just pay for a license to use it."
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:1, Informative)
It's like Microsoft and Apple are trying to compete and see who can belittle and harass their customers the most.
Customers? We're talking about people who aren't buying macs. Try to keep up, will you?
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:3, Informative)
If you buy a copy of OS X from Apple, you are an Apple customer, even if you don't have a mac. If you pirate a copy of Windows, then even though you are a Windows user, you aren't a Microsoft customer. (unless you also buy other stuff from them)
If you buy a copy of OS X and install it on non-Apple hardware, you are a customer who has broken his license agreement. Remember software is licensed, not outright purchased, and you have no legal standing at all outside of the terms of the license.
Whether or not that makes Apple the bad guy is up for pointless debate, which I'm sure we'll get a lot of.
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I don't see why they would license it (Score:2, Informative)
You know, you're kind of right. I type this on a Atom 330 (4Gig RAM). The machine sucks. I bought it to play around with, but instead it replaced my P-IV 2.6GHz Hyperthreaded machine with 2Gig RAM. The replacement was accidental. I bought the Atom to play around with, when the P-IV blew its caps after six years of faithful service. Having nothing other, I reconverted my "plaything" (Atom 330) to my desktop.
The machine is sub-par.... slow and I have dumpster diven machines that are better than it. The Atom is not worth its money. It might be because I run Linux (Ubuntu 9.10, by now), but if people really think Atom powered laptops are enough, they are mistaken. I have an original Asus EEE 701, and it fares better than the crap I type on now.
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL is a distribution license, not a EULA, and explicitly states that it places NO restrictions on the end user, and that acceptance of the license is not required, at all, to use the software.
Re:Netbooks (Score:3, Informative)
As a long time hardware tech, I am convinced the hardware I see in Macs is no better or worse than average PC hardware-simply because it IS average PC hardware.
I own a couple (Desktop and mac book) which I got to see what all the fuss was about, and frankly I dont see the so called superiority of OSX over Windows either.
Certainly I have seen no difference in stability, and found some things, particularly the setup program to be markedly inferior to Windows!
The fans have to say its higher quality, or look
foolish for paying 30% more for exactly the same thing.
I just broke Slashdot rule 5, no criticism of Apple allowed, so I expect the fanfoys will mod me to oblivion.
Meh, I got karma to burn.
ReAtom != 32bit CPU (Score:3, Informative)
Except when it doesn't. Current Atom offerings include the 32-bit, no-hyperthreading Z-series aimed for UMPCs, the 32-bit, hyperthreading N-series aimed for netbooks, and the 64-bit, hyperthreading, single-core 200-series aimed for "nettops", and the 64-bit, hyperthreading, dual-core 300-series aimed also aimed for "nettops".
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Informative)
You can't legally buy OS X for something other than a Mac. It doesn't have to get to the EULA, its clearly stated on the outside of the box.
System requirements are not a legally binding contract. Or do you think it's illegal to try to run software on a machine that doesn't meet the official minimum specs?
If Apples' license isn't valid, neither is GPL, and I can take any GPL app and distribute binaries with proprietary code without any source.
Um, no. The GPL depends only on copyright law. Apple's EULA attempts to impose restrictions that go beyond that.
Don't like it? Change the law, until then, shut the fuck up, we're tired of the broken record.
The law is clear, see 17 USC 117. What we need is for judges to strike down the loopholes that publishers have come up with to remove property rights from software purchasers. And I'm tired of Apple fanboys blindly defending everything Apple does and selling out our rights in the process. Oh, and I have 3 Macs.
Re:I don't see why they would license it (Score:2, Informative)
I didn't mean that the machines themselves are scarce, but the choice of machines are quite limited. If you were to compare the hardware available to legally run ANY other desktop OS, you'll find that the hardware offerings for OSX are quite scare indeed. Artificially so even.
Anyhow, lets take a deep breath together. We're just talking about a computer here....I really didn't mean to get you all worked up about it, but the fact of the matter is, there is a scarcity of choice, I'm quite surprised you thought I meant that the actual hardware itself was difficult to find. That would be a pretty silly argument wouldn't it?
But the fact that if you want to run OSX, you have to buy an expensive mac book is definitely an influencing factor in many people's computer purchasing decisions. And if you're going to stick by your argument that "no one" buys something based on these factors....well I guess you're free to believe what you want.
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:3, Informative)
Psystar [wikipedia.org]
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:3, Informative)
Mod parent up!
I have modpoints, but I've already commented in this thread.
It bears repeating: You don't have to accept the GPL to merely use GPL'd software. You can even modify it without accepting the GPL.
It's the zeroth software freedom as defined by the FSF: In your own private home you should be able to do anything you want with software, including uses that were not originally intended by its authors.
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:4, Informative)
Remember that books are licensed, not outright purchased...
Or at least they were, until the courts struck it down with the First Sale Doctrine...
In 1908, in Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908), the first-sale doctrine was established. In a later opinion (Quality King v. L'Anza) (see below), the Court described this opinion:
“ In that case, the publisher, Bobbs-Merrill, had inserted a notice in its books that any retail sale at a price under $1.00 would constitute an infringement of its copyright. The defendants, who owned Macy’s department store, disregarded the notice and sold the books at a lower price without Bobbs-Merrill’s consent. We held that the exclusive statutory right to "vend" applied only to the first sale of the copyrighted work...
Also, a judge just struck down that idea in the AutoDesk case:
In 2008, in Timothy S. Vernor v. Autodesk Inc.[6], a U.S. Federal District Judge in Washington rejected a software vendor's argument that it only licensed copies of its software, rather than selling them, and that therefore any resale of the software constituted copyright infringement. Judge Richard A. Jones cited first-sale doctrine when ruling that a reseller was entitled to sell used copies of the vendor's software regardless of any licensing agreement that might have bound the software's previous owners because the transaction resembled a sale and not a temporary licensing arrangement[7].
Moral of the story is, you can't believe everything you read in a EULA.
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:3, Informative)
Sure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar_Corporation#Legal_issues [wikipedia.org]
They challenged the EULA and the court favored Apple.
Come on people! This is Slashdot, you should have already known about this. The EULA has got precedent. The time for arguing it hasn't is over.
Break the agreement at your peril.
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:3, Informative)
Why shouldn't I be able to specify "you must run this on my hardware" as a condition of sale?
Because this ignores the doctrine of first sale - that once you collect money for something, you don't control what happens to your product.
Wait, you say there's a contract involved? You're free to write any contract you want - some contracts are unenforceable though. Furthermore, you cannot unilaterally change a contract after the sale has occurred.
Wait, you say it's not a contract, but a license? Again, changing the license voids the initial agreement. You have to get me to agree to the new terms of license. Furthermore, if you insist on calling it a license, I'll insist on you providing me free access to the data controlled by the license.
Finally, you didn't enumerate your rights as the software creator. What are those? As far as I can tell, there are only a select few inherent and unalienable rights, and they're spelled out in the declaration of independence (or human rights, if that floats your boat more). None of those talk about anything even remotely related to copyright. It seems to me you're trying to impose your rights on others, rather than the other way around.
Apple did try selling their OS, so did BEOS. (Score:5, Informative)
Apple did try selling their OS to run on other platforms. That nearly put then out of business. I think they have a good clue what will work for them and for their customers. We dont' see a whole lot of OS only companies out there. BEOS? even Linux business are tiny compared to apple. Even Oracle bought Sun. Microsoft has Xbox.
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:3, Informative)
Um, no. The GPL depends only on copyright law. Apple's EULA attempts to impose restrictions that go beyond that.
This is a completely nonsensical argument. The GPL does impose restrictions that aren't mentioned in copyright law. Where in copyright law does it state that one is required to distribute source code with copies?
This is nothing but sheer hypocrisy - it's OK for the GPL to impose restrictions in a license, but not for Apple to?
Here's a hint - one of the words "GPL" stands for is "license." Yet you are arguing that software licenses are wrong?
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Informative)
You can. Reverse engineering is explicitly allowed. Distributing a program for the purpose of circumventing copy protection, even if it was found through reverse engineering... is not.
So if a large corporation wanted to put Mac OSX on all their internal computers, and was OK with doing internal support on non-Apple hardware, they could modify the distribution and use it internally, but it'd have to be for internal use only, and telling someone else how to do it, selling the software to do it, etc, might run afoul of the law.
For better and worse.
Note: I am not a lawyer, but this is what I've gleaned from the DMCA. My advice is not legal advice and I am not liable for it.
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Informative)
> If you want, you can license your book, too.
No, you absolutely can't. First Sale originally became case law because a publisher attempted to do exactly that: include a "license" on that restricted your right to resell the book. In 1908, the Supreme Court (Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) found that anyone that bought a copy of a book was free to resell it. Copyright grants you a right to sell, but does not grant you the right to limit resale after the fact. Period. It was later codified (Copyright Act of 1976) to include anyone that legally owned a copy (even if they didn't buy it).
What makes software so special and different from books and records? It's true that case law hasn't fully caught up, but give me a reason as to why the author of a software product should have any additional rights that are not granted to other copyright holder?
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, it will install on a clean box. How else would you install it on a new hard drive if your old one went bad?
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:3, Informative)
Quite amusingly your own ignorance shows through: the very text you (I guess blindly) copied states it is *not* the actual terms you will be agreeing to, and as such has absolutely zero, zilch, bearing on the contract between yourself and the retailer.
Unless the software is EXPLICITLY licensed then it is a direct sale, and is to be treated as such: the only enforceable contracts are those at the point at which consideration is exchanged. Co0ntracts made after this point can only ever be considered "agreements" and have no legal backing and no penalties for non compliance.
Reading is fundamental. (Score:1, Informative)
The exchange being referred to necessarily takes place *before* you set up the software.
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:4, Informative)
Apple doesn't sell OS X. They sell updates. This is an important distinction.
That's a quibble not even Apple themselves has tried to make (because it wouldn't hold up in court). The bottom line is that every version of OS X sold is a full install - with the exception of small updates like the $29 Snow Leopard upgrade (which IS sold as an update). It checks for no previous version, is not marketed as an update, and such terms are never mentioned.
In short, any attempt to claim that Apple is merely selling updates is just talking out of your ass to try and justify Apple's behavior.
Crappy Summary, Iffy Article (Score:5, Informative)
The summary is misleading. The original source of all this hubbub is http://stellarola.tumblr.com/post/225234492/10-6-2-kills-atom-and-other-news [tumblr.com]. Basically someone noted that a lot of stuff in the kernel has changed so that the Atom processor that developer was using no longer works after the build. They list three work around methods. There is no inside information that this is an intentional attempt to block Atom processors as the summary's wording strongly implies.
The summary then goes on to speculate about the improbable and impractical wet dream of the writer that Apple should start licensing OS X to generic PC makers, completely ignoring the economic realities involved. You might as well end a summary of an article about MS losing an antitrust case by claiming it raises speculation MS will open source Windows under the GPL.
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:1, Informative)
I can see you're retarded, so I'll type this slowly.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000106----000-.html [cornell.edu]
If you accept a compiled binary is a copyrighted work (hint: it is), then you're wrong.
THEN WHAT THE FUCK DID THE $200 (or whatever) YOU SPENT ON THE SOFTWARE BUY YOU?
I'd write more, but your dumb has made my brain hurt so I'm going to go drink until I pass out and forget.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:2, Informative)
forcing you to buy their hardware over another's
You're right in that it's not just a case of the hardware not being supported. It's also not licensed for that. So it's not an option in the first place. Not an honest or legal one, anyway.
And the people saying you can go to an Apple store and pick up a copy of Leopard are just being dense. It's not licensed for PCs, just like AVG Free isn't licensed for corporate use. You're better off pirating it, since you didn't actually buy anything, you just spent money to reinforce your misunderstanding of the license.
I'm not even telling anyone not to pirate. But dishonest people feigning righteous anger over Apple's attempt at protecting themselves from such dishonesty is annoying. It's a transparent and childish attempt at dodging a little cognitive dissonance.
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Informative)
ProCD v. Zeidenbert [wikipedia.org], which held shrinkwrap licenses enforceable. Granted, there is another line of cases that disagrees. This means it comes down to where you live, and when the Supreme Court will get off its ass, grant cert, and address the issue.
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:4, Informative)
In the 1908 case, Bobbs-Merrill Company sold a book with this license: "The price of this book at retail is $1 net. No dealer is licensed to sell it at a lower price, and a sale at a lower price will be treated as an infringement of the copyright."
Straus bought a copy (several, actually) and resold them. According to you, Straus only had possession under certain terms. According to your logic, Bobbs-Merrill should have retained ownership. The Supreme Court found otherwise. It has been further codified and there is extensive case law on the side of first-sale. Most recently in 2008, Timothy S. Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc, found that first-sale applied to Autodesk software, even though Autodesk claims they only sold a license (although that case has not made it to the Supremes yet).
Re:Wrong Answer Folks - Atom = 32bit CPU (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:4, Informative)
Or maybe they optimized the kernel for SSE4? All Macs do SSE4 - the Atom doesn't. Perfectly reasonable, yet people always jump to the malicious explanation...
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:4, Informative)
The initial claim was that the GPL didn't add any restrictions that weren't already in copyright law. That's obviously not true
Yes, it is. Show me a sequence of actions that would violate the GPL but would not violate copyright law.
because copyright law makes no mention of not distributing source code, or making a program closed-source.
Source code is automatically copyrighted by the author. The default state of copyright is that if you aren't the copyright holder, you can't redistribute it at all. (With exceptions for fair use, which the GPL doesn't attempt to remove). The GPL grants users the right to do some but not all of the actions normally prohibited by copyright.
Utter horsepucky. Even if you don't accept the GPL, you can still be sued for violating it.
You're actually sued for violating copyright. The GPL only enters into it in that if you had followed its terms, you could point to it as a defense. But if you haven't, then you can't, and standard copyright applies.
And the GPL says "if you redistribute, you can't do a, b, c, d, e, f, g, ..." - what's the difference?
Once again, the difference is that the GPL does not attempt to remove any of your existing rights. The GPL is a unilateral grant of privileges that you normally wouldn't have.
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Informative)
No, they don't. The original Intel Macs used the Core Solo and Core Duo. Those were Yonah; SSE4 wasn't added until Penryn, AFAIK. They do support SSE3, but not SSE4....
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:1, Informative)
Not even that.
From the article:
If memory serves, the Atom hacks use a mismatched kernel and power management KEXTs. That only works if the (private) interfaces between those bits don't change. Guess what happens when they add support for a new CPU (any new CPU)? Those interfaces change.
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:2, Informative)
Netbooks have too low margins for everything. Even Microsoft was forced to drop the price of XP to something like US$15 to avoid getting stomped. Apple make a fortune out of a Mac Book. If they started allowing OS X to run on netbooks not only would they make less money but there's a risk a lot of people would buy a netbook and an OS X license (which makes them say US$50 tops) rather than a more expensive Mac Book ( which makes them probably US$ several hundreds ). So they could actually lose money as customers switch to a new, cheaper option. \\
And that's not including the support costs. If you license OS X to run on a load of netbooks, you pretty much have to be prepared to deal with bug reports on that hardware, even if you try as much as possible to push the support onto the netbook vendors. Right now they only need to support OS X on their own hardware and they can control that 100%.
Thus it's quite reasonable for Apple to decide that they basically don't want to enter the market.
IANAL (Score:5, Informative)
As MacOS is not copy protected, there's nothing to circumvent there, DMCA-wise.
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:3, Informative)
Huh? I've downloaded patches and ServicePack MS style from Apple at no cost. I just haven't been able to upgrade to the next version without paying. I really don't see Microsoft or Apple doing any different to the other in this area. They both cost for upgrades, no cost for updates.
Or are you confused by the version numbers? Sigh, no I'm not going to bother. Yep I guess I've just been trolled.
And before you start laughing at me re expensive hardware, it was a second hand laptop bought cheap. No WGA, no other updating hassles.
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:3, Informative)
Apple makes you pay, pay, and pay some more (at least $100 when I was last at the Apple Store in Short Pump, VA) for service packs that contain nothing but patches/bugfixes, let alone operating system upgrades.
Name a version number that was both charged for and was just patches/bugfixes?
You can't. Because that's just bullshit. New versions which contain just bug fixes are all downloaded from apple, and are completely free. New versions which come in shrink-wraps and are sold all have new features.
Furthermore, the cost of the upgrade to the latest version of OS X is $29, not >$100.
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC223Z/A?fnode=MTY1NDAzOA&mco=MTA4MjgwNDE [apple.com]
You're a fool. Now, what about your money?
What is MS doing so much better than Apple? (Score:3, Informative)
Answer: breaking the law in as many localities as they possibly can, bullying international standard bodies, issuing patent threats to the competition.
Should I go on or do you need a bigger clue stick?
EULA not required to run software (Score:1, Informative)
Since the power of the EULA comes from the assinine assumption that you make a copy when installing the program, the berne convention and the copyright laws that institute the application of that convention on copyrights state that copies necessary for the use of the product do not count.
So you do not need a license to install your program for the PC/Mac because you must install before you run.
And so copyright doesn't apply any restriction.
Therefore you don't need a license.