You still have to worry about drivers, yes? I guess I misunderstand exactly how it's different (besides being more expensive) than just using an EFI emulator in your actual install.
Neat concept, and certainly seems easier at the start; I'm just wondering what makes it worth the 2 bills.
You can use regular drivers that you can get anywhere. Want an NVIDIA card? Go get NVIDIA drivers. ATI? Go get 'em from AMD.com. Intel chipset drivers? Intel.com.
The curious part, and mentioned in the linked article, is the contents of the EULA, DMCA, and how far Apple can go when they say "k, no you can not be doin' that on things not made by us".
Doesn't really change anything to the argument. The main point of the EULA is that you cannot run Apple operating systems on non-Apple-branded hardware.
0
BlackHawkBible music connoisseurThere's no place like 127.0.0.1Icrontian
If a EULA's legally binding, how isn't it illegal to violate it?
It's long been the opinion of most that EULAs were valid but unenforceable, and we've come to the point where that's not exactly as true - either because it's easier to enforce or more important to the EULA creator that it BE enforced.
Apple's EULA directly contradicts the Right of First Sale, which is one of two key points for people that wish to see it invalidated. Right of First Sale basically says that once you buy something, it is yours to do with as you wish, which is why you can resell books, cars, instruments, and the original maker has nothing to say about it. You can even buy a guitar, turn it into a cello, and resell it for a higher price. Electronic media creators think they shouldn't be governed by this, which is why, for example, game developers are pissed at GameStop for accepting and selling used copies for profit. They feel they should get a cut, despite the fact that Ford doesn't get a cut if I sell my 89 Ranger for profit. Apple ties its OS to hardware so they can make profit that way - even if you buy a retail copy of OS X in a box. They feel they can tell you that you're not allowed to install your paid-for copy of OS X on anything you wish to put it on, which bothers a lot of people.
The second point is that this EULA isn't even visible until you open the package... at which point you're obligated to follow it. This is a sticking point with generally all EULAs that come with boxed anything, though; it certainly isn't Apple-specific.
Yes, they contradict the "Right of First Sale". Where is the "Right of First Copy"?. Software can be perfectly, and indiscriminately copied time after time. Where do you draw the line?
It is for sale RIGHT NOW, and it uses generic drivers, not kext. Apple is going to banhammer them so fast, but it's legit.
Ahh - you mean the same "generic drivers" that you can use with Linux? or Solaris? or etc, etc ..
Installing an OS is not the same as running an OS to its full capacity. You will not get full use of your hardware, unless there are Apple / OSX specific drivers.
Yes, they contradict the "Right of First Sale". Where is the "Right of First Copy"?. Software can be perfectly, and indiscriminately copied time after time. Where do you draw the line?
Quite right, but the qualm isn't that "Apple doesn't let people install and then resell their operating system," it's that "Apple prevents me from using my purchase in a manner that's only marginally different than the prescribed usage."
Since the switch to Intel Macs, the claim cannot be made the Macs are so substantially different as to warrant restricting their operating system to that specific subset of hardware.
As I said, it's not the resale of a copy of 1s and 0s that is the problem, it's that Apple won't let you use it essentially as it was intended. CD makers couldn't say "you can't play this except on a Sony player" because essentially all CD players are the same. Now that Macs are using essentially the same hardware, it's hard to keep the same argument.
Side note: there's been speculation they'd return to PPC because of the ease of creating a Hackintosh, but I haven't heard anything on that in months.
Quite right, but the qualm isn't that "Apple doesn't let people install and then resell their operating system," it's that "Apple prevents me from using my purchase in a manner that's only marginally different than the prescribed usage."
Since the switch to Intel Macs, the claim cannot be made the Macs are so substantially different as to warrant restricting their operating system to that specific subset of hardware.
As I said, it's not the resale of a copy of 1s and 0s that is the problem, it's that Apple won't let you use it essentially as it was intended. CD makers couldn't say "you can't play this except on a Sony player" because essentially all CD players are the same. Now that Macs are using essentially the same hardware, it's hard to keep the same argument.
There is nothing preventing you from "playing" an OSX CD in any CD Drive, there is nothing preventing you from burning / breaking / throwing away / copying the data on the CD ( I may be wrong on copies - I assume that backups are allowed ) etc etc.
"Intent" is very specific. The intent of OSX, as per the people who wrote it, and spent time and money in its development, is that it should be run specifically on Apple branded hardware. Unfortunately, the problems inherent in allowing indiscriminate use of the OS on a variety of hardware, would greatly diminish the reasons that OS is superior/inferior/different in the first place. The simple fact is that OSX runs well on specific hardware, because it was written to do so. It cannot run well on generic hardware, because that is not its purpose.
Owning a copy of software is not the same as owning the software. If I own a copy of the Mona Lisa, however close / identical to the original, I do not own the Mona Lisa. Just becuase the 0's and 1's are the same, does not make me the owner.
0
LeonardoWake up and smell the glaciersEagle River, AlaskaIcrontian
edited January 2009
"k, no you can not be doin' that on things not made by us"
Darn straight, I opened an OSX install package and the EULA specifically forbade _K_ at Icrontic from touching anything Apple.
The prohibition of unauthorized distribution and the copying and selling of IP for profit have valid legal, historical precedent. As far as using a valid, legally purchased copy of software for your own purposes, even if contrary to an EULA, does not have definitive legal precedent behind it. It will someday, but not until the issue is pressed hard and it goes to high level courts several times.
I believe Apple did manage to squash that computer maker (forgot name) that was selling PCs with OSX. That is different in my eyes, as that business was using OSX for a profit, for which they had no license.
"Intent" is very specific. The intent of OSX, as per the people who wrote it, and spent time and money in its development, is that it should be run specifically on Apple branded hardware.
And the intent of a processor is to run at its recommended voltages, not be overclocked; the intent of a cell phone is to run it's currently manufacturer-released firmware, not get flashed to random cooked ROMs; the intent of event tickets are to be sold at face value, not bought and resold at a fourfold profit. None of those things are illegal (save for scalping in some situations) - that's the right we get as purchasers.
Unfortunately, the problems inherent in allowing indiscriminate use of the OS on a variety of hardware, would greatly diminish the reasons that OS is superior/inferior/different in the first place. The simple fact is that OSX runs well on specific hardware, because it was written to do so. It cannot run well on generic hardware, because that is not its purpose.
While I agree that OS X is powerful because its platform is restricted (regardless of how I feel about that particular fact), nobody's asking Apple to support these machines. People that want to install OS X on non-Apple hardware understand that they are doing something unsupported. It just seems like Apple's so terrified of it running poorly on different hardware because it might result in loss of mindshare that they are going far to the extreme by forbidding it at all.
Owning a copy of software is not the same as owning the software. If I own a copy of the Mona Lisa, however close / identical to the original, I do not own the Mona Lisa. Just becuase the 0's and 1's are the same, does not make me the owner.
Buying a retail copy of the software means I have paid for a license to use said software. Nobody will stop you from putting your copy of the Mona Lisa upside down on your ceiling if you wanted to - and many believe that Apple shouldn't stop people from putting their copy of OS X upside down on their computer's ceiling if they want to.
I believe Apple did manage to squash that computer maker (forgot name) that was selling PCs with OSX. That is different in my eyes, as that business was using OSX for a profit, for which they had no license.
If you're talking about Psystar, everything pointed to the fact that they bought retail copies of OS X - they pirated nothing that we know of. The case is also still in process, though it certainly does look grim for Psystar.
0
LeonardoWake up and smell the glaciersEagle River, AlaskaIcrontian
edited January 2009
My point about Psystar was that they integrated OSX into a system, a system, which was sold commercially for a profit. I do not know how this will shake out in court, but I think this is clearly different than you or me taking our legally purchased OSX, Vista, or Rolling Stones Steel Wheels and hanging it upside down in a PC with 3dFX video card playing Madonna backwards through a REAL amp with vacuum tubes! (or better, recorded on a vinyl platter that sounds like crap just 25 plays later)
Mondi, I respect your opinion, but I think you are mainly wrong.
0
BlackHawkBible music connoisseurThere's no place like 127.0.0.1Icrontian
If a EULA's legally binding, how isn't it illegal to violate it?
Legally binding in the sense that you accepted the terms of the EULA and can't sue Apple if OS caused your house to burn down. You also can't demand Apple to support your installation on hardware they don't support. On the other hand, the minute Apple goes after you (civil suit) for installing OSX on a PC, it'd be shot down by a judge.
There is legal precedence that OS makers can't force you to install their software on their hardware. It just so happens that Apple's software is kinda hard to run on any other hardware. The EFI-X Boot Module remedies that. I'm waiting to see the first case of Apple suing a user for installing OSX on another PC.
0
LeonardoWake up and smell the glaciersEagle River, AlaskaIcrontian
edited January 2009
I'm waiting to see the first case of Apple suing a user for installing OSX on another PC
I agree, it would seem Apple wouldn't have much of a case. The EFI-X manufacturer and seller do not integrate OSX with the device, nor do they sell you an Apple OS. They just sell you hardware...which, yes....
And the intent of a processor is to run at its recommended voltages, not be overclocked; the intent of a cell phone is to run it's currently manufacturer-released firmware, not get flashed to random cooked ROMs; the intent of event tickets are to be sold at face value, not bought and resold at a fourfold profit. None of those things are illegal (save for scalping in some situations) - that's the right we get as purchasers.
True, most of that is not illegal. I may question the morality of scalping tickets, but that is not the question.
While I agree that OS X is powerful because its platform is restricted (regardless of how I feel about that particular fact), nobody's asking Apple to support these machines. People that want to install OS X on non-Apple hardware understand that they are doing something unsupported. It just seems like Apple's so terrified of it running poorly on different hardware because it might result in loss of mindshare that they are going far to the extreme by forbidding it at all.
False - If people will blame Microsoft for BSOD's when they install "Joes super fast ( promise ) RAM", and when random component Y from company Z doesn't have drivers, and when SuperVirusScan2000 doesn't remove the latest virus - then they will blame Apple for problems.
Buying a retail copy of the software means I have paid for a license to use said software. Nobody will stop you from putting your copy of the Mona Lisa upside down on your ceiling if you wanted to - and many believe that Apple shouldn't stop people from putting their copy of OS X upside down on their computer's ceiling if they want to.
True - But they should not expect it to work as intended.
If you're talking about Psystar, everything pointed to the fact that they bought retail copies of OS X - they pirated nothing that we know of. The case is also still in process, though it certainly does look grim for Psystar.
They did not pirate OS X, however any problems with the operating system will be construed as Apples fault - not Psystars. Their warranty is specifically for the hardware, not the software.
My point about Psystar was that they integrated OSX into a system, a system, which was sold commercially for a profit. I do not know how this will shake out in court, but I think this is clearly different than you or me taking our legally purchased OSX, Vista, or Rolling Stones Steel Wheels and hanging it upside down in a PC with 3dFX video card playing Madonna backwards through a REAL amp with vacuum tubes! (or better, recorded on a vinyl platter that sounds like crap just 25 plays later)
Mondi, I respect your opinion, but I think you are mainly wrong.
I may be wrong as to the limitations of what can, and cannot be done with a legally purchased copy of software, but as a software engineer I have pretty major reservations: The limitations of support notwithstanding, it takes very few people writing/blogging/whatever about the supposed limitations of OSX (whether or not those limitations are due to installation on unsupported) to damage the reputation of the company.
Why is it that if a company releases a piece of software for the PS3, and it doesn't run on the Xbox 360 ( which is "clearly" a similar platform - They both have powerPC based chips, as well as being current generation consoles, the XBOX even has more RAM and is "faster" ), then there isn't this same sense of moral outrage?
edit:://
I am not against the sale of EFI-X. I am against the implied use, which is to run software specifically not meant to run on the system.
0
LeonardoWake up and smell the glaciersEagle River, AlaskaIcrontian
edited January 2009
I just think anything to liberalize OSX (~Y, or ~Z) will only benefit the computer using public. Yes, it might besmirch Apple's reputation, as did the Mac clones of years ago, but innovation can be painful in the short term. Microsoft will not maintain their near-monopoly on the desktop without continuing to improve. Vista has hurt them considerably and they know it. If it weren't for the pressure of Apple, Windows 7 would not be less than a year away, rather three or four years away. Likewise for Apple, if they maintain their near-monopoly with no challenges, they eventually will no longer innovate in the computer arena and will become merely a cool gadget maker. That would be a tragedy. Apple needs hard nosed challenges just as much as Microsoft.
False - If people will blame Microsoft for BSOD's when they install "Joes super fast ( promise ) RAM", and when random component Y from company Z doesn't have drivers, and when SuperVirusScan2000 doesn't remove the latest virus - then they will blame Apple for problems.
Difference? They can buy Windows anywhere and logically expect it to work on their hardware, because it is marketed as such. People wanting to put OS X on their machines, at least in this stage of the game, know they can't expect OS X to automatically work on their machine if it's not Mac hardware.
They did not pirate OS X, however any problems with the operating system will be construed as Apples fault - not Psystars. Their warranty is specifically for the hardware, not the software.
We appear to be under different expectations as to how many people will actually, when currently installing OS X on unsupported hardware, will blame Apple for problems they encounter. People know they're doing unsupported things. I don't see how you're expecting that a ton of people will blame Apple for a kernel panic using a Gigabyte mobo and a 7600GT.
The limitations of support notwithstanding, it takes very few people writing/blogging/whatever about the supposed limitations of OSX (whether or not those limitations are due to installation on unsupported) to damage the reputation of the company.
Again, not sure we agree what peoples' expectations would be when installing software on unsupported hardware.
Why is it that if a company releases a piece of software for the PS3, and it doesn't run on the Xbox 360 ( which is "clearly" a similar platform - They both have powerPC based chips, as well as being current generation consoles, the XBOX even has more RAM and is "faster" ), then there isn't this same sense of moral outrage?
A very good point, though I don't think it's an entirely accurate analogy - I think you need to question why somebody can't run the Xbox Guide system on the PS3 or the Xross Media Bar on the 360. Games in this analogy are just like programs, while we're talking about the actual base method of interacting with the hardware.
That said, the PS3's operating system cannot run the 360 correctly, nor can the 360's OS run the PS3 correctly. OS X can run an Intel PC with compatible hardware as effectively (or more effectively, whatever you like) as Windows or Linux or various other operating systems. Apple's merely asking us to turn a blind cheek to the fact that we technically can run it on other things because they want to tie it to their much more profitable hardware division.
Thrax
πAustin, TX Icrontian
Comments
Neat concept, and certainly seems easier at the start; I'm just wondering what makes it worth the 2 bills.
That's fvcking sweet. Wonder if I can put it on an SD card and use it for my laptop...
It's long been the opinion of most that EULAs were valid but unenforceable, and we've come to the point where that's not exactly as true - either because it's easier to enforce or more important to the EULA creator that it BE enforced.
Apple's EULA directly contradicts the Right of First Sale, which is one of two key points for people that wish to see it invalidated. Right of First Sale basically says that once you buy something, it is yours to do with as you wish, which is why you can resell books, cars, instruments, and the original maker has nothing to say about it. You can even buy a guitar, turn it into a cello, and resell it for a higher price. Electronic media creators think they shouldn't be governed by this, which is why, for example, game developers are pissed at GameStop for accepting and selling used copies for profit. They feel they should get a cut, despite the fact that Ford doesn't get a cut if I sell my 89 Ranger for profit. Apple ties its OS to hardware so they can make profit that way - even if you buy a retail copy of OS X in a box. They feel they can tell you that you're not allowed to install your paid-for copy of OS X on anything you wish to put it on, which bothers a lot of people.
The second point is that this EULA isn't even visible until you open the package... at which point you're obligated to follow it. This is a sticking point with generally all EULAs that come with boxed anything, though; it certainly isn't Apple-specific.
This is simply not going to happen.
About EULAs:
Yes, they contradict the "Right of First Sale". Where is the "Right of First Copy"?. Software can be perfectly, and indiscriminately copied time after time. Where do you draw the line?
Ahh - you mean the same "generic drivers" that you can use with Linux? or Solaris? or etc, etc ..
Installing an OS is not the same as running an OS to its full capacity. You will not get full use of your hardware, unless there are Apple / OSX specific drivers.
Quite right, but the qualm isn't that "Apple doesn't let people install and then resell their operating system," it's that "Apple prevents me from using my purchase in a manner that's only marginally different than the prescribed usage."
Since the switch to Intel Macs, the claim cannot be made the Macs are so substantially different as to warrant restricting their operating system to that specific subset of hardware.
As I said, it's not the resale of a copy of 1s and 0s that is the problem, it's that Apple won't let you use it essentially as it was intended. CD makers couldn't say "you can't play this except on a Sony player" because essentially all CD players are the same. Now that Macs are using essentially the same hardware, it's hard to keep the same argument.
Side note: there's been speculation they'd return to PPC because of the ease of creating a Hackintosh, but I haven't heard anything on that in months.
I doubt there would be a return to PPC, it's just not worth it given the current x86 climate.
There is nothing preventing you from "playing" an OSX CD in any CD Drive, there is nothing preventing you from burning / breaking / throwing away / copying the data on the CD ( I may be wrong on copies - I assume that backups are allowed ) etc etc.
"Intent" is very specific. The intent of OSX, as per the people who wrote it, and spent time and money in its development, is that it should be run specifically on Apple branded hardware. Unfortunately, the problems inherent in allowing indiscriminate use of the OS on a variety of hardware, would greatly diminish the reasons that OS is superior/inferior/different in the first place. The simple fact is that OSX runs well on specific hardware, because it was written to do so. It cannot run well on generic hardware, because that is not its purpose.
Owning a copy of software is not the same as owning the software. If I own a copy of the Mona Lisa, however close / identical to the original, I do not own the Mona Lisa. Just becuase the 0's and 1's are the same, does not make me the owner.
The prohibition of unauthorized distribution and the copying and selling of IP for profit have valid legal, historical precedent. As far as using a valid, legally purchased copy of software for your own purposes, even if contrary to an EULA, does not have definitive legal precedent behind it. It will someday, but not until the issue is pressed hard and it goes to high level courts several times.
I believe Apple did manage to squash that computer maker (forgot name) that was selling PCs with OSX. That is different in my eyes, as that business was using OSX for a profit, for which they had no license.
And the intent of a processor is to run at its recommended voltages, not be overclocked; the intent of a cell phone is to run it's currently manufacturer-released firmware, not get flashed to random cooked ROMs; the intent of event tickets are to be sold at face value, not bought and resold at a fourfold profit. None of those things are illegal (save for scalping in some situations) - that's the right we get as purchasers.
While I agree that OS X is powerful because its platform is restricted (regardless of how I feel about that particular fact), nobody's asking Apple to support these machines. People that want to install OS X on non-Apple hardware understand that they are doing something unsupported. It just seems like Apple's so terrified of it running poorly on different hardware because it might result in loss of mindshare that they are going far to the extreme by forbidding it at all.
Buying a retail copy of the software means I have paid for a license to use said software. Nobody will stop you from putting your copy of the Mona Lisa upside down on your ceiling if you wanted to - and many believe that Apple shouldn't stop people from putting their copy of OS X upside down on their computer's ceiling if they want to.
If you're talking about Psystar, everything pointed to the fact that they bought retail copies of OS X - they pirated nothing that we know of. The case is also still in process, though it certainly does look grim for Psystar.
Mondi, I respect your opinion, but I think you are mainly wrong.
Legally binding in the sense that you accepted the terms of the EULA and can't sue Apple if OS caused your house to burn down. You also can't demand Apple to support your installation on hardware they don't support. On the other hand, the minute Apple goes after you (civil suit) for installing OSX on a PC, it'd be shot down by a judge.
There is legal precedence that OS makers can't force you to install their software on their hardware. It just so happens that Apple's software is kinda hard to run on any other hardware. The EFI-X Boot Module remedies that. I'm waiting to see the first case of Apple suing a user for installing OSX on another PC.
I agree, it would seem Apple wouldn't have much of a case. The EFI-X manufacturer and seller do not integrate OSX with the device, nor do they sell you an Apple OS. They just sell you hardware...which, yes....
you can hang upside down inside your computer.
True, most of that is not illegal. I may question the morality of scalping tickets, but that is not the question.
False - If people will blame Microsoft for BSOD's when they install "Joes super fast ( promise ) RAM", and when random component Y from company Z doesn't have drivers, and when SuperVirusScan2000 doesn't remove the latest virus - then they will blame Apple for problems.
True - But they should not expect it to work as intended.
They did not pirate OS X, however any problems with the operating system will be construed as Apples fault - not Psystars. Their warranty is specifically for the hardware, not the software.
I may be wrong as to the limitations of what can, and cannot be done with a legally purchased copy of software, but as a software engineer I have pretty major reservations: The limitations of support notwithstanding, it takes very few people writing/blogging/whatever about the supposed limitations of OSX (whether or not those limitations are due to installation on unsupported) to damage the reputation of the company.
Why is it that if a company releases a piece of software for the PS3, and it doesn't run on the Xbox 360 ( which is "clearly" a similar platform - They both have powerPC based chips, as well as being current generation consoles, the XBOX even has more RAM and is "faster" ), then there isn't this same sense of moral outrage?
edit:://
I am not against the sale of EFI-X. I am against the implied use, which is to run software specifically not meant to run on the system.
Difference? They can buy Windows anywhere and logically expect it to work on their hardware, because it is marketed as such. People wanting to put OS X on their machines, at least in this stage of the game, know they can't expect OS X to automatically work on their machine if it's not Mac hardware.
Right... which is what I said.
We appear to be under different expectations as to how many people will actually, when currently installing OS X on unsupported hardware, will blame Apple for problems they encounter. People know they're doing unsupported things. I don't see how you're expecting that a ton of people will blame Apple for a kernel panic using a Gigabyte mobo and a 7600GT.
Again, not sure we agree what peoples' expectations would be when installing software on unsupported hardware.
A very good point, though I don't think it's an entirely accurate analogy - I think you need to question why somebody can't run the Xbox Guide system on the PS3 or the Xross Media Bar on the 360. Games in this analogy are just like programs, while we're talking about the actual base method of interacting with the hardware.
That said, the PS3's operating system cannot run the 360 correctly, nor can the 360's OS run the PS3 correctly. OS X can run an Intel PC with compatible hardware as effectively (or more effectively, whatever you like) as Windows or Linux or various other operating systems. Apple's merely asking us to turn a blind cheek to the fact that we technically can run it on other things because they want to tie it to their much more profitable hardware division.