Jump to content

OSx86


  • Please log in to reply
178 replies to this topic

#21
willgonz

willgonz

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 93 posts
Nice article.

It is wrong to steal OS X true. So is speeding, drugs, and everything else like that. Here is what is good.

I influence the sales of PCs to thousands of people. I also do the same for software. I am a die hard Windows fan. I have been interested run a Mac OS since PearPC. Once OS X x86 came out I fell in love with it. I am now purchasing a Mac mini Intel.

I think the fact the Apple has moved to X86 is good for the company and sales figures prove that.

The disadvantage of the Apple OS is the lack of Support for hardware and software. Many people who would benefit from a MAC don't, because their XYZ program isn't available on a MAC. By Apple making Windows Applications run within a MAC and OS X x86 this helps the consumers transition. Yes I know there is Parallels and Virtual PC. But the non guru is not going to want to mess with all that. Plus they are not going to be willing to shell out the dough to buy Windows.

Some folks think that because Apple went with x86 this will increase viruses and worms, etc. This is not the case exactly. Because the viruses attack the OS and not the processor so it doesn't matter.

They also claim x86 will increase piracy. FYI Apple software Piracy has been around a lot longer than x86 processors. Sure, you won't be able to control what hardware your software is running on now.


If I were Apple I would sell OS X for $250. It will come with a PCI card that must be installed in the machine. This will handle the TPM. I would continue to sell and promote the Apple hardware. I would simply state, "Yes it will run on your standard white box, but it runs better on our hardware." More developers would be drawn to the Apple OS. This would increase it's software library. I would also make a run time that will allow OS X universal binaries to run on Windows Machines. Which also encourage developers to write more software. All this will increase Apples market. From 5% to 50% market share. Then I would introduce another Apple GX system. This would run on version 3 of the cell processor and kick ass, while maintaining the whole universal binary concept.

#22
Guest: Guest_*

Guest: Guest_*
  • Guests
If I go in a store and buy a copy of Mac OSX 10.5 (129$) and it's a universal one (x86 and PPC). I own the copy.
They might support only macs with g4/g5 and mac intel.
The reality is that I paid for, and nobody can stop me from installing it on whatever I want: pc, toaster, mac, tv set, my own invention . . .

This is my copy, if there is a problem with it and I didn't installed it on supported hardware I understand that's not apple fault.

Otherwise it's my copy and if a run only one version of my copy, wherever that copy is running, i'm legal.

#23
nevermind1331

nevermind1331

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 145 posts
sometimes i feel like nobody here understands that apple is not a software company.

they are a hardware company, whom also happens to make the best software specifically for their hardware (a shame, I know).

they wont be licensing OSx86 because it would

a:) diminish their hardware sales
b:)be too risky. Suddenly they would have to support everything, when now, they dont have to support anything except what they decide to. even if they say they wont support it, theyll still get a million calls a day abput why the ati RX$%^^ doesnt work. It doesnt make sense, and its one of the reasons windows has many problems.

and finally, c,

apple is not stupid enough to think that everyone would hose their current OSx86 to buy one from them. Some people would, but most wouldn't.

you need to remember, it was Steve Jobs himself who killed the clone program that allowed the Mac OS to run on other computers.

Apple now makes their money from a niche market (although this is slowly changing)

It will not be released unless Apple gains siginificant marketshare, and Apple actually feels they will compete with Windows (in terms of marketshare)

if they released it now, it would only hurt them.

that beng said, OSx86 hacked, is very good for them, it spurs interest in the technical elite (probably the only ones who would buy a legal osx86 anyway). I probably never would have looked at mac otherwise (though i think i probably would have, now that the processing power/price was fixed)

just a little rant

that being said i believe the purchase of my intel imac was the best computer choice i ever made.

#24
supermus

supermus

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
Price gouging is only illegal for essential products. Apple can charge whatever they want for their computers. It's called a free market.

I myself have been using OSx86 since November, and have enjoyed it so much that I am going to buy a real Mac very soon. Though not everyone is like me, I think that OSx86 can serve as a useful way for people to see if they like Mac OS enough to spend $1,000 on a Mac.

#25
RockoTDF

RockoTDF

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 26 posts
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't apple include an AMD patch in the Developer version installer? Why? Is the idea behind the developer version so that they can make a legit OSx86 to do OS X programming and work on?

I did not join this forum to use OSx86, I already have a working ibook. I joined because this forum has people who know more about how macs (and the unix side of OS X) than most apple message boards.

My stance on piracy is this: If it werent for piracy, I would never have been able to try out a lot of bands, software, and films that are my favorite today because the mainstream media would not bring them to me. Many I did go and pay for legitimately after a time period when I knew they were what i really wanted. Unfortunately those in business cannot think past their wallets and portfolios to see that.

So that is my thought on OSx86. Ultimately it is letting PC users and those who wouldnt try Macs out fall in love with OS X and later purchase an actual mac. This was the case with one of my coworkers, who frequently made jabs at my ibook, took upon his internal geekiness to see if he could do OSx86, did it, and recently bought a macbook. And I know he aint the only one.

#26
bluedragon1971

bluedragon1971

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 696 posts

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't apple include an AMD patch in the Developer version installer?


You're wrong. In fact, the very first developer version didn't include any prohibitions against installing on an AMD chip. That was added with 10.4.3 or 10.4.4 (can't remember for sure since it never affected me).

#27
jackt283

jackt283

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 191 posts
I believe, fundamentaly, that all software and operating systems, should be completely free to the non-comercial user. Hence I see no wrong in pirating as much software I can get my hands on.

Little "how's your father", I know.

Apple has it's own monopoly over an OS, that, was only really 1/4 (or whatever you want) developed by them. They've basically stollen (or borrowed) open source technology and put a massive price tag on it, saying you can only have it if you buy our stuff. Which is fair enough really, they should be allowed to do that. The flip side is that we are allowed to pirate it and run it on our vanilla pCs. Tough luck Apple.

I love running OSx86, it's like everytime I boot up I am sticking it to Steve Jobs. Hell, I love apple, I'm a massive apple enthusiast, but they've dicked me round for years with their exorberant price tags and {censored} hardware. I would continually tell myself was better than the rest. I realised that wasn't true, and steve had been lying the whole time. So I'm happy to steal from apple. It's called karma, jobsy...

#28
willgonz

willgonz

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 93 posts
Some folks buy Toyotas, Some buy Fords, Mercedes, BMW, etc. Some people buy only Levi's and some buy Kirkland Jeans. I think a computer system is a preference, just like any thing else. People will still buy Apple Hardware because they like how it looks. They might not even put OS X on it and run only Windows. Apple needs to increase it's Market Share. It only holds 5% of the PC market. It is doing really well with iPod sales. You can't really count iTunes sales because they only get like 2 cents. So do you think the switch to Intel was just about going with a new CPU? There is a much bigger plan. You could have the ability to now run windows applications and Linux applications, perhaps anything written to run with an x86 processor on a Mac and the ability to run your OS X x86 applications in Windows. Apple needs more developers. Look at Adobe. Photoshop used to be only on Macs, now they sell more copies to Windows users.

Think about it. If you develop software for 5% of the market, your sales are going to be 5% or less. But if you develop for 95% of the market, your sales are going to be 95% or less. Which would you rather make thousands or hundreds of thousands? Heck, StuffIt now has a Windows version.

What good is your hardware if nobody wants to use its software? Macs are better, but everyone wants to go with the most popular.

#29
Suspect

Suspect

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 27 posts

If I go in a store and buy a copy of Mac OSX 10.5 (129$) and it's a universal one (x86 and PPC). I own the copy.
They might support only macs with g4/g5 and mac intel.
The reality is that I paid for, and nobody can stop me from installing it on whatever I want: pc, toaster, mac, tv set, my own invention . . .

This is my copy, if there is a problem with it and I didn't installed it on supported hardware I understand that's not apple fault.

Otherwise it's my copy and if a run only one version of my copy, wherever that copy is running, i'm legal.



Not really. Read the OSX EULA. There is a clause that forbids you from installing it on non-Apple hardware.

#30
toxicfreak

toxicfreak

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Just Joined
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
Well first im sorry for the English im not fluent.

Well if Steve job could realize 1 thing he as a tough choice export OSX to every platform or sooner or later get pirated and hack until no more .......
That easy as that period ......

Piracy will NEVER be stop neither by Law or by any mean you cannot the whole planet .....

At the moment Microsoft is trying with the WGA shiit to put pressure on user rumor of kill code that will terminate the OS( bad move )

If Apple refuse to give support great just sell the OS as is will manage the rest ........
If apple is so nervous on hardware profit they should sell spare part we will built our own machine let the part maker design the driver if the demand is there.

Its very easy
and its simple

#31
willgonz

willgonz

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 93 posts

Not really. Read the OSX EULA. There is a clause that forbids you from installing it on non-Apple hardware.


So if I can't read, the EULA doesn't apply to me. EULA's are a joke.

#32
RockoTDF

RockoTDF

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 26 posts

So if I can't read, the EULA doesn't apply to me. EULA's are a joke.


EULAs are a huge joke even if you can read. Whoever thinks that someone would consider a click or two to be equal to an actual signature or contract has to be kidding themselves.

#33
Danyel

Danyel

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 435 posts
In terms of the three (3) groups, I'd consider myself between Group 2 and 3. Group 2 is the ones who install OSx86 and love/hate Apple. Group 3 is the ones who are so impressed with OS X that they would go out and buy an actual Mac.

Since I've heard that Apple was coming out with MacTel's, I've had renewed in Apple. I used to own iMac G3 (green) and iBook G3.

Even OSx86 10.4.1 was much faster than 10.2 or 10.3 on the old G3's. I was impressed by the performance. Just opening up System Profiler only took couple seconds instead of what seemed like a minute.

I find myself interested in all things Apple, even buying Apple-related magazines and even software (old Blizzard titles that run on both platforms). Diablo II runs surprisingly well even using non-native Rosetta.
Although I did not personally go out and buy the actual Apple Mac yet, I may go out and buy an iPod Nano soon and my interest in Apple has piqued.

#34
bliss

bliss

    we have done with P.O.W.E.R.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany
its just a question of time and there will be a (half) legal way to run it on pcs, maybe with an original logic board from apple, if you can get one.

i think when the mac pro and 10.5 is out you can't stop "OS X86" :D

#35
AppleLegal

AppleLegal

    who wants a subpoena?

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts

I see some of your points AppleLegal, but then again I don't. The Intel Macs have standard hard drives, standard cd/dvd/burners, intel/standard network cards, standard ram, and standard usb/firewire controllers. The only thing they custom support is the graphics cards and CPU's(that might be in the motherboards for the cpu's). That is it. Just get an "OSX compliant" motherboard, cpu, and graphics card then the computer is a Mac. No hacking, no {censored}, and you have the same damn thing Jobs sells. Maybe we can't make him put OSX on regular PC's but there are laws against price gouging (sp?) and that was shown when the last jump in gas prices came around. Now that Macs run Vista/XP Apple just shows they have slightly tweaked PCs, nothing more and charging outrageous prices is illegal, if somebody wanted to press it. Will it happen? No, but if Jobs was intelligent he would act like he was, lower prices to compete with Dell etc, and not be a prick.

Is this why my DVD Burner doesnt like to work in osx86 unless it's the primary slave?

And you need MORE then osx86 compliant hardware for it to run. AFAIK, there's still a TPM chip.

"no hacking, no {censored}" Might i remind you, that the original definition of hacking was doing stuff in an unexpected way, thinking outside of the box. So building your own "osx86-compliant" computer would indeed be hacking.

Any law your referring to is concerned with preventing MONOPOLIES. Apple hardly has a monopoly when your discussing Hardware or Operating Systems. And when you compare the MacBook Pro/Macbook with a dell of the same spec's, the price is pretty much the same. The iMac's arent the same as your desktop. The iMac has that nice small case, where you cant buy it and allt he parts fit in - your desktop's not like that :D It's a difference. Besides, componet for componet, I'd imagine that a Conroe + 945 Motherboard + Airport Card + everything else that's identical to a iMac would be similar, if not the same in price. After all, we're talking Identical, not "Similar but not quite."

He DOES NOT need to compete with dell. He's not selling XP. He's not selling generic windows boxes. His OS is Apple's Proprietary OS. He can do what he wants with it, price it how he wants. If he wanted to charge $10k per Box, he could do so. Why? HE DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY. You cant apply laws that are aimed at a monopolistic company to a Company with a limited marketshare - 4.8% is small, whether you realize it or not.

#36
Guest: Guest_*

Guest: Guest_*
  • Guests
For my part, I'm in group 3. I'm a long term windows users -- MCSE, I used to teach Microsoft certification courses, would never ever ever have considered getting a mac. But Mac users were complaining my web site sucked, so I tried out OSX86 last fall on my crappy Toshiba laptop, so I could test my sites on Safari and IE 5 Mac.

The day they announced boot camp, I bought a Macbook Pro. I still run Windows all the time (inside Parallels) so I can test both platforms at the same time, but the only time I ever boot up to Windows in boot camp is so I can play half-life. Then, when our 8 year old pc with tv-tuner died, I replaced it with a mac mini. I guess I'm a convert, thanks to this site.

#37
poofyhairguy

poofyhairguy

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts

its just a question of time and there will be a (half) legal way to run it on pcs, maybe with an original logic board from apple, if you can get one.

i think when the mac pro and 10.5 is out you can't stop "OS X86" :D



It will stop me a lot of others on the forum from using it if it has the check for Core Duo CPUs in the kernel like the Tiger updates do.

#38
Guest: Paul.G_*

Guest: Paul.G_*
  • Guests
Well, you said we should feel free to oppose intellectual property, here's most of an article I wrote against it. It's from a Christian and free market moral perspective, there is plenty of more intellectual/secular type information here: http://levine.sscnet...ntellectual.htm And from the Linux people here: http://www.gnu.org/p...y/why-free.html



Copyright or the right to copy?



Imagine with me the person who first invented the wheel; and imagine this person living under a patent/copyright regime like ours. So, for 25 years, he is the only one who can make wheels. Anyone else has to pay him for a license.

Other than stumbling upon the idea of the wheel inadvertently (maybe he tripped up and rolled down a hill...) let's suppose he is not very smart. Let's imagine also he is not a very good wheel maker.

But no matter how bad his business plan or his wheels are, unless he is a complete imbecile, one thing we can be sure of is that by the time 25 years are up, he is going to be running the biggest business on planet earth. Big enough, probably, to influence politicians enough to add another 25 years to the patent monopoly.

You can imagine everyone as this man's slave, because no-one can do much without paying him. Yet, rather than blaming the copyright/patent system, some people report unregistered wheels and call for more government regulation, maybe even price controls, on the monopoly. Few can see anything other than a 'dog eat dog world of dangerous wheels' if ever the system was 'unregulated' and besides, hundreds of thousands of people are employed in the 'industry'.

'Pirated' wheels are everywhere, of course, as people need them. The news corporations, whose airway monopolies are granted in similar manner, report regularly that people have been killed by 'dangerous pirated wheels,' that they are a menace to society and a threat to the 'legitimate' economy. Believing this, most of these 'pirates' have vaguely guilty consciences, half believing themselves to be thieves while throwing up a few weak excuses. Many decent people with clear (but also ill informed) consciences and limited means, just walk everywhere. There are calls for the government to provide these people with wheels to make 'society more just'. There has been some delay however, due to a related lobbying corruption scandal involving affiliates of the Wheel Maker set to benefit from the resulting government contracts.

As we imagine this scenario, I wonder how many would join me in hoping that there would be at least some, with clear consciences, who see right through the whole scam and make just as many wheels as they want and share them freely with their friends?

Think about it. Look at it objectively. Do you really believe that every wheel became the moral or 'intellectual' property of the inventor?

It was there all the time in creation - the 'inventor' just discovered it. Certainly of course, any wheels he made himself were his own. But if one was purchased, without any legitimate nondisclosure or other agreement, or even if a wheel was just visually observed - would there be anything wrong with duplicating wheels with one's own materials?

The real advantage the wheel inventor had was being first. He could have made some money just from that. If he was also a good wheelwright, at a good price, maybe he could be in big demand. But he certainly should not have been able to build a global monster corporation all because the force of the state backed his monopoly.


Now let's get up to date:

When a CD is purchased, for example, money is put down and a product is received. I submit that there is no proper lease/non distribution agreement. If there was, it would indeed be dishonest to violate an agreement voluntarily entered into.

A key moral issue here is the legitimacy of an agreement.

Most governments recognize something called constructive notice. For example, this means that if a business sticks LLC or Ltd. after its name and you become a customer or supplier, you are taken to have agreed that the owners can dodge their debts to you (limited liability) if it asks the government for permission (declares bankruptcy etc.) To incorporate in this way is a moral choice made by the owners to join in this alliance with the State, as it is perfectly possible to operate without incorporation and there are good sized businesses which do not. In the US at least, churches are free to operate without incorporation also and an increasing number do so.

Another form of constructive notice is the small print that comes with a product like a CD. Does this constitute a real agreement?

Of course not - it is one sided. You might just as well scribble 'sold, absolutely' on your own sales receipt and call that an agreement. On the internet, the same goes for 'click here to accept terms.' With no less moral legitimacy you could, prior to purchase, send an email stating your terms and that if they did not prevent the transaction, take it as agreed to.

It is perfectly acceptable in private business to enter into proper, signed or verbal, nondisclosure agreements. Software enhancements are often done in this way. But mass sellers do not require this, it would hit mass sales and it is practically impossible to prevent purchasers friends or third parties accessing and copying software or music/video.

Instead, everything is turned on its head through a government monopoly grant called 'copyright.' It is entirely involuntary. We are forced into an agreement, like it or not. But it is a lie: you never did agree not to copy.

This is the basis of a big business/big government alliance that affects many areas of life and business. It is one pillar of our modern hierarchical corporate state along with forced limited liability (ie. not referring to private arrangements with lenders), monopoly central banking (huge loans to favoured corporations with money created from thin air), zoning, eminent domain and other land control and of course taxes, regulations and mandates. These and other factors have created the trend of big business getting bigger along with its master, big government.

Economically and politically this is known as 'fascism.' Contrary to socialist PR, fascism is not the opposite of socialism. Superficially and very vocally, socialists do point out the errors of big business. However their solution is not liberty, but merging everything into one mega monopoly corporation, in the vain idolatrous hope that it will not behave like one - if it is renamed the 'Government.' One corporation to rule them all is not the solution beware of such propaganda each time lesser corporate abuse comes to light.

So now let us look at another key moral issue at stake: If I sold you an item without requiring you to personally sign a separate written 'strings attached' agreement, is that not final? Does it not belong to you, rather than the government or to me?

Certainly it does and you would have every right to do with it as you please. At a minimum, I would expect a sharp rebuke if I tried to control what you do with it afterward.

Encryption keys, serial numbers and hardware/dongle dependency for mass market software is invariably a manifestation of an un-free market. It goes against the nature of things that can be easily duplicated. A business model that does not take into account the reality that, with a click of a mouse (or at most a few lines of code) data can be duplicated, is just not sound. It inevitably involves threatening customers that the government will act against them, should they decide to investigate the software code of their purchase, or make any changes to (ie. 'crack') the program they have purchased or been given.

Sellers are on a more solid moral foundation when selling subscriptions for support, upgrades and enhancements from one convenient, reliable, up to date and virus-free source. Just like the Linux operating system vendors, some of whom are running moderate sized profitable businesses. As a reaction to the un-free, proprietary legal environment, the software functions under a license called Gnu Public License that turns the law back on itself. This is a most commendable development which ensures users legal right to copy, share and improve freely.

But if a seller does go the proprietary route (acting as if it owned the data on others computers) and the software gets hacked/cracked (as it surely will), it really is their own fault. They are then left to hope the majority (sometimes a 10-1 majority) who are cracked software users feel satisfied enough to send some money or make a purchase anyway. But if a seller tries to put them under surveillance by requiring personal details they really have no business with; or forces them to seek permission every time they upgrade their computer - users are going to resist.

Is it really right to blame hackers/crackers, who are not committing some actual harm like stealing money from an account or damaging a system? If it is simply duplicating software and bypassing serial numbers, are they not merely adjusting code on their own computers and sharing it with others? It is true there are some criminal and morally confused elements among hackers. But so it is with any unjust law - call to mind Prohibition in the USA... this attracted criminal elements as well as ordinary people.

Even supporters of 'intellectual property' become especially annoyed by the obnoxious, tyrannical coercion of the government/corporate monopoly and the fascist police state methods required to enforce the granted monopoly. To give recent examples: putting internet users under surveillance; demanding private records from ISPs; threatening or prosecuting 12 year old girls on the 'evidence', and setting up anonymous 'rat on your neighbour' call lines.

The moral discussion of 'intellectual property' often brings up the word 'stealing.' More recently, corporate fascists have claimed 'file sharing is communism' (like the 'pot calling the kettle, black.')

They are speaking based on present copyright law - and which varies from country to country. The big news these people need is - government is not God. Remember also that democracy gave us Hitler - so a majority vote does not represent the perfect 'will of God' either.

If we believe in private property then we must accept that what is ours is so absolutely, to modify, share or do with as we wish - if it is bought and paid for, or is given by someone who owns it in like manner. Furthermore, if someone chooses to make music publicly available through a radio or computer - without first getting a valid personal, voluntary agreement from us - then morally it is our choice what we do with it, including recording and sharing. Nobody forced them to make it publicly available on a radio station or the internet.

If they do not want anyone to copy it, let them keep it in the privacy of their own studio. This is exactly how concerts and cinemas operate and is one answer to the concern as to how artists can make money. Public appearances do generate big money for artists. For artists, the wider their recordings are distributed, the better known they become and the more people will likely attend a concert.

Also, if voluntary contributions can work well for many subway 'buskers' and street musicians, there's no reason this cannot work for other musicians. Low cost downloads and CD's are another option, especially considering that a CD can be produced for pennies. Why would anyone want an mp3 copy if a high quality original is cheap?

Yet, those in favour of intellectual property constantly trumpet, as the supposed moral high ground, that the big idea is to save the 'entertainment industry'. But what is really so good about a few huge corporations owning most of the media; elite media bosses choosing what is available to view or listen to; and a few big (morally bankrupt, financially anything but) superstars. Below this artificial corporate hierarchy are the vast majority of musicians and artists. No matter how good they are, they are on the bottom because they haven't been chosen by the elite. The only dream of many is the remote chance, like winning a lottery, that they will be chosen. In the present corporate hierarchical system, everyone is spoon fed by and controlled from the top.

Some people want to live and make a living in this environment and others just do not realize that this is not a normal state of affairs. Some, who may have climbed a way up the corporate wage-slave ladder, or depend on one of the corporations in some way, may hate what I am saying, because it is an immediate term threat. But when big media giants downsize, this is good not bad: the tentacles are unwinding and more slaves are released to do something more productive - like maybe start their own business or make their own music. Let us all start looking at the big picture and let things 'rip'.

Popular support can free up the system, and millions of file sharers are doing just that. The more things adapt to this free market, the more ordinary artists can find free market ways to earn money - if they are good enough. Aside from live concerts, once prices come down to a reasonable level, original CD's or fast convenient downloads will sell like hot cakes and there will be very little profit or demand for 'piracy,' so called. Music lovers can have much more music for their money. Compared to current output, standards and trends could only improve. Large media giants would be obsolete and the artists can all make more money in accordance with how much they are enjoyed, without the oppressive middle men.


Finally, we have been talking about morality a lot, so what does the Bible say about intellectual 'property'?

The answer is nothing.

That is, you will not find any scripture, Old or New Testament, referring to 'intellectual property'. You will find a lot against the power of the State, however. I recommend a thorough, slow reading of 1 Samuel Chapter 8 and beyond to start with. This will show you that government is not God's idea at all. According to this chapter, it is idolatry and slavery, tolerated by God rather than endorsed and given a strict limit of toleration at 10% of profit/increase. Governments today are close to 50% and in some cases beyond.

Those who love rules, regulations and generally directing other people's affairs, should think about whether they are willing to use violent force against people who do not want such direction. Or in the case of artists, against their customers, who may wish to do as they choose with that they have purchased from you.

That is the nature of government - violence. Cant see that? Then, as a totally innocent person, try publicly ignoring a minor bureaucratic order you disapprove of and are satisfied is unsound and unjust. Then ignore the court that fines you. Then resist officers coming to take your goods. Finally, resist the police who come with guns... Get the point now?




*** For the origins and history of copyright read Gary North's excellent article here: http://www.lewrockwe...h/north224.html

#39
vz2456

vz2456

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Just Joined
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
I think it's best that OSX is left the way it is, and that we install with our own hacks and steps because these steps are very complicated and it is not put in the frontpage of the internet. so no siple person does this.

#40
AppleLegal

AppleLegal

    who wants a subpoena?

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts

I think it's best that OSX is left the way it is, and that we install with our own hacks and steps because these steps are very complicated and it is not put in the frontpage of the internet. so no siple person does this.

And yet whenever there's a new guide, its put on the front page of Digg, which, arguably, puts it on the 'front page of the internet'





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

© 2014 InsanelyMac  |   News  |   Forum  |   Downloads  |   OSx86 Wiki  |   Mac Netbook  |   PHP hosting by CatN  |   Designed by Ed Gain  |   Logo by irfan  |   Privacy Policy