Psystar Mac Notebook Clone in the Works

[powers74]

UNIX not Linux.

Mac OS X is built around UNIX not Linux. Who says Linux is better then the Mac OS.



I have never had any problems with Mac OS X. Not one (and I leave my machines on for weeks). I don't understand what people are doing with there machines if there's crash all the time.

1: My bad - always get that mixed up.

2: No, I know, My nearly 10yo "sawtooth" is an absolute tank. I can have the entire CS2 running and barely notice a diff. So is my wife's Ti. After three recent drops it still runs like a champ. Won't get that from a Pyster or whatever that joker is calling himself.

 

[PCMacLinux]

That's the point, if you can pay for the OS separately, why should it have to be on expensive hardware when you can build something vastly more powerful for a lot less? It's anti-competition, not having the choice to choose the hardware you want to use the software on - they should be separate. It doesn't matter what Apple want in this instance, Hackintosh computers are possible, there is a market for them.. sod it, sod you thinking we should be tied down to expensive hardware.

Have you all lost your minds? Why should Apple be forced to hand over a product, in which they have spent millions on to R&D, to their competition? Their competitors are the ones that choose to be anti-competitive by not being innovative at all by not spending time and money on developing their own operating system.

Psystar will not win this case. Scratch that. Psystar CAN'T win this case. It would be horrible for the entire tech industry, let alone Apple. If Psystar were to some how win their case, it would stagnate the entire industry, because there would be no incentive to even create anything for fear of spending millions to develop something to later have to hand it over to competitors.

Bottom line: Apple spends the time and money to develop OS X to run on the hardware they design and pay ODM's to build. It is irrelevant whether or not they use the Intel platform on their machines, and to call their hardware generic is a stretch anyway. But really I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that there is people that want Apple to lose. For whatever these people hate Apple and want them to die off so all there is is Windows and some Unix/Linux distro. Pretty sad the entitlement that so many Americans insist they should have. Buy a Macintosh if you want one, otherwise buy some other PC and use Windows/Linux or make your own Hackintosh, and then shut up. Oh and please, it's getting old hearing the statement "I hate Apple but want to use OS X." That statement alone is illogical.

Oh, and finally, you don't even need Boot Camp to install Windows or Linux on a Mac. You can use Terminal to resize the volume. Boot Camp is just a graphical way to do so.

 

[andrewsd]

Have you all lost your minds? Why should Apple be forced to hand over a product, in which they have spent millions on to R&D, to their competition? Their competitors are the ones that choose to be anti-competitive by not being innovative at all by not spending time and money on developing their own operating system.

Psystar will not win this case. Scratch that. Psystar CAN'T win this case. It would be horrible for the entire tech industry, let alone Apple. If Psystar were to some how win their case, it would stagnate the entire industry, because there would be no incentive to even create anything for fear of spending millions to develop something to later have to hand it over to competitors.

Bottom line: Apple spends the time and money to develop OS X to run on the hardware they design and pay ODM's to build. It is irrelevant whether or not they use the Intel platform on their machines, and to call their hardware generic is a stretch anyway. But really I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that there is people that want Apple to lose. For whatever these people hate Apple and want them to die off so all there is is Windows and some Unix/Linux distro. Pretty sad the entitlement that so many Americans insist they should have. Buy a Macintosh if you want one, otherwise buy some other PC and use Windows/Linux or make your own Hackintosh, and then shut up. Oh and please, it's getting old hearing the statement "I hate Apple but want to use OS X." That statement alone is illogical.

Oh, and finally, you don't even need Boot Camp to install Windows or Linux on a Mac. You can use Terminal to resize the volume. Boot Camp is just a graphical way to do so.

Agree could not have said it better.

 

[aoresteen]

I'm a little crossed with the whole Psystar thing. Though I would personally never buy one of their machines, I would rather do it myself (which I have on a toshiba). But what really bothers me is that these people are really leeching off the work of an entire open source community and they don't give any credit to the people who really put their all into developing the whole drivers and patches. Yes it's "hackintosh" but developers like Netkas worked really hard on this and these people simply go and not only put it in their systems but take full credit. And that's not really right.

Pystar is not leeching off of anyone just as Apple isn't leeching off of BSD. Have you seen a SINGLE ad for OSX where Apple gives ANY credit for the open-source base of OSX? How dare Apple make a profit by selling software that is open source based?

The OSX86 code is public domain - anyone can use it. Netkas could have kept his copyright but he put his utility into the public domain two years ago. Under US law he can't take it back.

Any argument that slams Pystar for using open source PD software equally applies to Apple. You are not being intellectually honest slamming Pystar and not slamming Apple.

As a side note, in Apple's suite against Pystar, Apple claims to have written OSX entirely by themselves and makes NO mention of the open source component of OSX. Isn't that a bit leachy of Apple?

One fact everyone misses is that on the PPC platform Apple ROMS are needed to run the OS. Power Computing licensed ROM code from Apple. When Apple moved to the Intel platform no ROMS are needed. That's why Apple was able to shut down the licensed clone business.

No one is forcing Apple to sell OSX for $129 a copy. Apple chooses to do so. Apple could raise the price or stop selling OSX as they are doing today. Pystar buys legitimate copies of OSX then re-sells them.

If you think that Apple has the right to prevent down-stream sales of original copies of its copyrighted works then you must also think that no one can sell used copies of:

a) books

b) CDs

c) DVDs

without permission or a distribution license from the copyright holder.

A very important case that deals with the sale of used software was recently decided in favor of the consumer and holds to the 1st sale doctrine established by the Supreme Court in 1909.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...desk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.html

If you don't like what Pystar offers then don't buy from them. But don't let your opinion cloud the issues.

What Apple is trying to do here is to bypass the 1st sale doctrine and use the copyright law to prevent the right to sell property that has been purchased. They are tying their OS to a hardware platform. While the fanboys may think that this is fine, the courts do not.

DigiDyne Corp. Vs. Data General (734 F.2d 1336 (9th circuit, 1984)).

If Pystar has the economic resources to see the case through they have a very good chance to prevail given the existing case law. If they do win, it will have no impact on you. Your Mac will still work. As will your Pystar copy. Apple will still sell Mac hardware.

But if Pystar looses then you will have less choices for hardware platforms that can run OSX.

 

[BrotherCrack]

Pystar is not leeching off of anyone just as Apple isn't leeching off of BSD. Have you seen a SINGLE ad for OSX where Apple gives ANY credit for the open-source base of OSX? How dare Apple make a profit by selling software that is open source based?

The OSX86 code is public domain - anyone can use it. Netkas could have kept his copyright but he put his utility into the public domain two years ago. Under US law he can't take it back.

Any argument that slams Pystar for using open source PD software equally applies to Apple. You are not being intellectually honest slamming Pystar and not slamming Apple.

As a side note, in Apple's suite against Pystar, Apple claims to have written OSX entirely by themselves and makes NO mention of the open source component of OSX. Isn't that a bit leachy of Apple?

One fact everyone misses is that on the PPC platform Apple ROMS are needed to run the OS. Power Computing licensed ROM code from Apple. When Apple moved to the Intel platform no ROMS are needed. That's why Apple was able to shut down the licensed clone business.

No one is forcing Apple to sell OSX for $129 a copy. Apple chooses to do so. Apple could raise the price or stop selling OSX as they are doing today. Pystar buys legitimate copies of OSX then re-sells them.

If you think that Apple has the right to prevent down-stream sales of original copies of its copyrighted works then you must also think that no one can sell used copies of:

a) books

b) CDs

c) DVDs

without permission or a distribution license from the copyright holder.

A very important case that deals with the sale of used software was recently decided in favor of the consumer and holds to the 1st sale doctrine established by the Supreme Court in 1909.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...desk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.html

If you don't like what Pystar offers then don't buy from them. But don't let your opinion cloud the issues.

What Apple is trying to do here is to bypass the 1st sale doctrine and use the copyright law to prevent the right to sell property that has been purchased. They are tying their OS to a hardware platform. While the fanboys may think that this is fine, the courts do not.

DigiDyne Corp. Vs. Data General (734 F.2d 1336 (9th circuit, 1984)).

If Pystar has the economic resources to see the case through they have a very good chance to prevail given the existing case law. If they do win, it will have no impact on you. Your Mac will still work. As will your Pystar copy. Apple will still sell Mac hardware.

But if Pystar looses then you will have less choices for hardware platforms that can run OSX.

First of all yes it's leeching there is such a thing as the famous copyleft that in different linux distros has stated that you are not prevented from selling your modified copy of linux/unix but cannot prevent someone to obtain it for free your mileage will vary but there's nothing illegal with selling an open source distro.

Yes Apple is far from perfect but these people are not the "underdogs" people claim them to be. And yes Netkas does have right or "copyleft" where he has claimed that his efi bios was for non commercial use link: http://netkas.org/?p=62, that he would have a case under US law is completely different and not my argument.

Apple at least created the Aqua GUI and a lot of OSX underpinnings BASED on FreeBSD and stating this on their website in different ocassions and yes I have seen it when they promoted Jaguar, Panther, Tiger in many times in their website and countless keynote presentations and in my opinion this is enough. And I know this is an assumption but these people probably just downloaded a Leo4all or iAtkos from torrents, installing it and then sending you a copy of OSX they purchase. You want mac OS on your PC and think you have every right of having it and not buying hardware go here http://gnu-darwin.sourceforge.net/index.php?page=downloads Open Darwin same source code just no aqua. Not to defend apple because they do have a lot of crappy practices like charging $129 for something that in my opinion is the equivalent of a "Service Pack" but I just think this whole apple should let people install their OS on any machine they want isn't one of them. And last time I checked moving to intel didn't have anything to do with shutting down the clone business, they shut it down way before making that move.

Difference between selling a used copy of a cd or a book is that the chapters is those books are not modified in any way nor are the songs in those cd's. Is it legal to change the ending of harry potter and then selling the used book with the ending completely changed? They're making profit of a modified OS that apple didn't give permission to modify, free BSD underpinnings may be open source but the aqua GUI and other components are not. Mac OS is not a complete open source software.

You are right I don't like Psystar and I won't buy anything from them, the moment I don't like something apple has to offer I won't buy it either, but the issues here have been clouded way before I posted my opinion here. Legally you may be right but I was just simply stating that Psystar is not what people paint it to be. In the end both Apple and Psystar are wrong, just for different reasons.

 

[aoresteen]

....Netkas does have right or "copyleft" where he has claimed that his efi bios was for non commercial use link: http://netkas.org/?p=62, that he would have a case under US law is completely different and not my argument. ....

Difference between selling a used copy of a cd or a book is that the chapters is those books are not modified in any way nor are the songs in those cd's. Is it legal to change the ending of harry potter and then selling the used book with the ending completely changed? They're making profit of a modified OS that apple didn't give permission to modify, free BSD underpinnings may be open source but the aqua GUI and other components are not. Mac OS is not a complete open source software.
.....

My point about Netkas is that he CHANGED the terms of his 'license' AFTER the Pystar case came to light this spring. The problem for Netkas is that he put his software in the public domain two years ago. Under US Law once a copyrighted work enters the public domain it can not be pulled out. Netkas has no case against Pystar using his code for profit because it is in the public domain and Netkas can not take it out of the public domain.

The OSX code that gets modified by Pystar (and others in the OSX86 community) is the OPEN SOURCE part of OSX which Apple alows (read their EULA). The example of changing the ending of a story and then selling the work doesn't apply. If the copyright holder of a story gives you permission to change the ending of the story and then you sell your copy that is perfectly legal.