William Tracy <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote:
> >> Apple cripples their software so that it only runs on Apple hardware.
> > 
> >   Not true.

> I challenge you to install OS X on an arbitrary PC.

  I don't need to. There's even a wiki dedicated to this exact purpose:
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

  It's not even that hard to install OS X in an arbitrary (modern) PC.

> There's no easy, legal way to do it, because OS X is tied to Apple's
> firmware.

  If it was tied to Apple's "firmware" (whatever that is), it would not
be possible to install it in a PC which doesn't have that. However, it's
perfectly possible. Granted, perhaps not right out of the box, but with
some tweaking certainly possible.

  If Apple had wanted to completely stop OS X from working in non-Apple
computers (or at least make it very difficult) they could have done it.

> >> Linus lets me use Linux any freaking way I want.
> > 
> >   Not true. Linux is bound to the GPL license, which limits what you can
> > do with it. For example, you can't take the linux kernel and build a
> > closed-source commercial product with it. You certainly can not do whatever
> > you want with it.

> I can can personally use it however I see fit.

> As soon I as start redistributing it, that's a *whole* different can of
> worms.

  Distributing it *is* "using it however I want". You didn't specify it
as an exception.

> >   So it's just a question of principle, not of logical reasoning?
> > You protest the fact that you can't "do whatever you want" with the
> > betas?

> As long as I'm not hurting someone else, then yes

  Well, your protest is kind of moot. It's not helping anyone, less
yourself.

> Alright, you've got me there. Yes, it is well within their right to do
> so. It just always struck me as a strange attitude to keep the
> development sources secret, when you're going to publish the finished
> version, anyway.

  It's because, as I said, they have high quality standards as principle.
They don't want to distribute half-ready buggy code. You might not care
about such quality standards, but they do.

> I actually would to the opposite of what the POV team does with its
> betas: Distribute sources, and not binaries. Having to compile your own
> software would filter out the people who aren't going to submit helpful
> bug reports, and would make it possible for people to submit patches as
> they find bugs.

  That would filter out 99% of potential beta testers.

  Also, you assume that every single person who thinks he can code in C++
is actually competent at it. Just because someone "submits a patch" doesn't
mean that the patch is good.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message