@ Franklin

"Everyone who has tried to release a commercial, non-open source operating system to compete with Windows--Be, NeXT, *everyone* without exception--has failed."

But none of those started from where Apple is now. Apple has market share and corporate brand awareness, even cachet (justified or no, it's seen as a premium product). Surely the architecture can be hardened to cope with multifarious drivers and their evils.

Given the market position, Apple don't have to produce drivers for *everything* on the market, just the "best of breed" gear, and they could even charge peripheral manufacturers for the "Apple Supported" logo. They wouldn't make as much per unit, but they'd move a lot of units.

spackle

"Apple are stuck in the dark ages (in more way than one) and think that *they* still own *your* property after it leaves the shop. They can stick that idea, and their crappy unreliable over-priced tacky hardware where the sun doesn't shine."

No, Apple think that they still own the OS for which they have sold you a licence and they are right. If they only want to licence it for their own machines, then that's their business. If you don't like what they sell, don't buy it. I want more flexibility, so I don't buy Apple kit, but For some people Apple give them exactly what they need.

You only own the *hardware* and can do whatever you want with it - just don't expect support from them if you try and install Windows and don't expect them to support hardware-specific software on any old bit of kit you feel like installing it on.

You wouldn't call up Ford to complain that the Mondeo they sold you won't run on the English Channel "platform".

even if...

Even if Apple loose - they can't be forced to support running their OS on other hardware.

They just need to say - "well, you can buy our OS to run on your hardware but if it all goes titsup then it's your problem mate".

Mac OS X is based on a PC OS anyway

Someone mentioned above that Mac OS was designed by Apple,

It was actually designed by another company owned by Steve Jobs at the time, and even then is was only the interface that was designed, underneath it is Linux, a free open source OS which can run reliably on any hardware that hasn't been released within the last month.

This Linux, with its Fancy OS X front end should run ok well built PCs, and even non-well built PCs with a bit of tweaking (which come on, is half the fun of a PC anyway)

I hope Apple Lose,

I've tried almost every OS under the sun, except Mac, because I can't afford, and don't own their hardware,

I'd love to compare it on a Core 2 Duo PC to windows, and shut up a lot of Mac fan boys who all seem to be in some form of SJ induced trance, where they believe all of Apples Marketing Hype!

@ David Webb

Yay someone with a valid point in this mess.

Apple do not make the hardware, they have created an OS that uses specific types of components, these components are then sourced by Foxconn and assembled in a shiny tin designed by Apple.

When a friend was looking to upgrade their old G3 for a G5 i suggested they switch to a pc as the apps they used were available for it in a stable form. I got the specs down for the standard G5 then compared it to the cost of parts (and OS) that it would cost to build the equivelant pc.

Even at retail prices (20-30% above trade cost...even more for bulk) the pc tower came in at over £300 less than the G5.

Apple will never open OS X to the mass market simply because they would lose the exclusivity that helps them sell their current products.

Deja vu all over again

"Apple has been here before, there used to be licensed third party powerpc products with an oem version of apple's os. It did not sell too well then and it would not do it now."

No, they *did* sell pretty well, but at the expense of Apple's own hardware sales rather than by expanding the market share for Mac OS. That's undoubtedly what would happen again if a Psystar win opened up the market, and it might lead to a magical Nirvana where Apple is transformed into a software-only company and half the world runs Mac OS X, or then again it might be the end of Apple - or at least the end of the Mac. My money would be on the latter. Of course, this is exactly what several people on this comment thread would love to see happen. I'm perpetually at a loss to understand why these individuals invest so much time and energy in heaping scorn on a computer they don't even use - any psychologists in the audience are welcome to contribute.

How would Apple support multiple platform OSX ?

Ignoring the "mactard", "freetard", "wintard" childish banter that occupies every single Apple story on Reg these days, if Apple are forced to allow OSX on any platform, how could they be expected to support it? Right now Microsoft can barely support Windows running on anything outside of the HCL (Hardware Compatibility List) due to the number of hardware and accessory variations, and anyone running Linux is pretty much on their own, relying on forums of users to assist them in getting (hopefully) all of the drivers sorted out.

No Operating System is perfect for everyone. Each vendor tries and cover as much hardware as they can. Microsoft charge you for developing Windows, and then leave you to get on with it. The Linux developers tell you to seek support from other users (i.e. you get what you pay for). Apple however develop an operating system for hardware they have "approved" and can support. What you pay for is the complete package, working without user intervention and without spending hours, days, weeks searching the internet for the correct drivers and updates.

If Apple are told OSX should be available on third party hardware, so-be-it, but they don't have to support anything outside of their HCL. Does this then mean every operating system should not be hardware locked? Mobile phones, PDA's, Consoles etc.?

Open Source operating systems are fantastic, I really do support them, but for many users they just want to take home a stylish new electronics device, plug it in and start working/playing, and not have to worry about what's going on under the bonnet. Why do you think laptops sell so well? The hardware stays the same, so the user does not have to worry about upgrades. They simply throw the thing away when they see a new operating system come out, or when it starts to run slow.

RE the Apple price tag - get over it. People still buy BMW, Mercedes and Audi cars; Bang & Olufsen, and Sony electronics, and bloody Alienware PC's! Yet they all contain many of the same components found in a cheaper alternative. No matter what the difference, be it brand, style, or build quality etc., we call it freedom of choice.

Mark Pardington

Mac OS X is based on Linux is it?

Are you 100% sure about that?

@ Jason

Er, no, actually. That's "restraint of trade".

A free market is what the other guy is trying to establish. That's where Apple sell the OS and that's the end of their involvement (and, of course, their responsibiliy for making it work)

Either way, who gives a toss? If you want "Unix-like" why not just acquire a real, free Unix? The woods are full of 'em. If you go Solaris, you even get their mucho spiffy dtrace utility, something every geek ought to see in action for g'tstself.

More internet idiots here than is bearable

"Someone mentioned above that Mac OS was designed by Apple,

It was actually designed by another company owned by Steve Jobs at the time, and even then is was only the interface that was designed, underneath it is Linux ..."

What a bunch of nonsense.

That other company owned by Steve Jobs was NeXT Inc and their operating system was NextStep, later also called OpenStep. Neither NextStep nor OpenStep were based on Linux. Absolutely not.

NextStep/OpenStep were based on the Mach kernel from CMU with a userland from BSD 4.2. Absolutely no Linux involved whatsoever.

MacOSX is an evolution of NextStep/OpenStep, still based on the same Mach kernel but with a userland from FreeBSD instead of BSD 4.2. Still no Linux involved.

Folks, we have clearly entered the age of totalitarian ignorantism. The Web 2.0 is a glorification of millions of idiots who have nothing better to do than post total nonsense all over the place. Have those people ever read any books I wonder. Have they ever switched their brains on before they speak/write, or is repeating hearsay without thinking all they are capable of doing?

SIGH

@stizzleswick

"as an OSS project based on FreeBSD, they have access to the incredibly huge amount of drivers written for Linux"

Absolutely not.

"And just for those not remembering this: the proprietary bits of MacOS X run on top of Darwin."

Yes, but Darwin is not based on FreeBSD. It is based on Mach and Mach does not run any Linux drivers.

Yes, you did miss something

"Perhaps I'm missing something -- Mike Richards

If Apple spend time and money developing an operating system why *shouldn't* they be able to dictate the conditions on how it's used?"

Yes, you are missing something.

The law in the EC forbids people from telling you how to use things you have bought from them. Actually forbids it. Once you've bought your copy of OSX, Apple has no more right to tell you what to do with it than Sony has the right to tell you not to use your DVD player as a doorstop, or Spear and Jackson can tell you not to use that spade you just bought on your allotment. No, you have to use their special allotment spade for that. Cannot be done. Contracts which attempt to do that are not lawful, and not enforceable.

See, they sold it. Now its yours. Its just like Spear and Jackson telling you how to use your computer, or Apple telling you how to use your spade. Once they have sold it, they no longer own it. Tough, but they need to get used to it.

@heystoopid

"core of OSX and Snow Leopard is actually open source BSD Unix code as such and is freely available under GPL or copyleft"

Utter nonsense.

Linuxtards keep repeating this nonsense over and over and over again, but it is nonsense nevertheless. BSD is not GPL licensed nor is it copyleft.

BSD is BSD licensed.

If you don't know what that means, what the difference is, then go and look it up, but spare us your drivel because you really don't know what you are talking about.

@Cody

"The law in the EC forbids people from telling you how to use things you have bought from them. Actually forbids it. Once you've bought your copy of OSX, ..."

there's your error right there! You don't buy OSX. You buy the CD/DVD and the box in which it is packed, that's what you buy and own and indeed you can do with that CD/DVD/box whatever you want (provided you are not doing anything illegal such as using it as a weapon to assault somebody etc). But, you could burn the stuff and inhale the smoke from it and Apple would not have any say in whether you could or should do that or not. It's entirely up to you.

As for the software on the disc(s), you are mistaken, you did not buy that software. The software is owned by Apple. The box and the booklet that comes with the disc(s) actually tells you that if you bother to look and read it. Now, since Apple are the owners of the software, they are the ones who have the sole right to determine how the software can be used. You don't own it, so you have no say, very simple!

The only reason you can use the software at all is because Apple grants you a license to use. Read up what EU law says about licensing and you will find that it ain't the same thing you were talking about. You are making assumptions based on laymen's knowledge of the law which are simply incorrect. Go and ask a lawyer if you don't believe me, but don't believe the drivel people post all over the internet cause there is a lot of disinformation on the internet.

Until you have informed yourself about ownership and licensing, do us the favour and spare us your drivel of disinformation. Thank you for your consideration.

@Webster Phreaky

"3 - iPhoto library cannot be found"

Why did you move it?

Re: Aimee @David Webb

"This is true, but the hardware design is Apple's"

The box you mean, nothing else, for example the Macbook Air was an Intel design.

"Please define what you understand a PC to be?"

In this instance i am sure he means a typical Windows/Linux personal computer

"No, they ensure that the hardware & software WORK TOGETHER."

Not exactly difficult with so little devices, overpriced ones at that now, is it?

@ A J Stiles

You are taking a very loose interpretation of the law which is nothing but a personal interpretation of yours, quite probably motivated by wishful thinking.

What do you think is more likely? That you are some kind of undiscovered legal genius who will proof the legal establishment of the entire planet wrong or that the top notch law firms that companies like Apple hire to draft those EULAs have done their homework and covered their buttocks?

Mind you, those law firms can be held liable for damages if they give improper advice to a client. Do you think they draft this stuff on the basis of "let's just see if we can get away with it, chance is that nobody is going to challenge our client in court over this anyway." Well, that's how software developers work, but its not how lawyers work. Unlike software developers, lawyers do not pass off beta versions as deliverables to their clients.

Rest assured the law firm which delivered Apple's EULA has done their homework. Rest assured the law firm which was then hired to evaluate the draft and provide a second opinion has done their homework, too. Likewise, the law firm hired to study a possible case against Psystar, rest assured they have done their homework, too. If there is a reasonable chance that Apple's EULA violates any statutory rights as you allege, they would have been advised not to go to court. The fact that this is going to court should tell you that the chances of Apple losing this case are very minimal.

The outcome of this case is almost certainly going to proof you wrong.

Consider three different coffee shops ...

The first coffee shop ONLY sell take-away-coffee. They have no place for you to sit and consume your coffee on the premises. That's how they chose to operate. If you don't like this, don't buy coffee from them, very simple.

The second coffee shop ONLY sell coffee in real coffee cups ONLY for consumption on the premises, you are not allowed to take their coffee cups off the premises. That's how they chose to operate. If you don't like this, don't buy coffee from them, very simple.

The third coffee shop sell coffee both for take away and on-the-premises consumption. That's how they chose to operate. If you don't like this, don't buy coffee from them, very simple.

Now, why on earth do people think they can demand that any of those coffee shops should change their business model? It's their business and they choose their business model. Unless you own shares in the company you have no say, nor should you, it's literally not your business!

This may seem to make sense to most people when talking about coffee shops, but transpose the same into the realm of computers and all of a sudden the logic that businesses can chose for themselves how they want to sell their products is no longer accepted. Folks, you are being ridiculous.

iPhoto library cannot be found

I moved mine... still works

@ A J Stiles

the coffee shop analogy you responded to may not have been a perfectly fitting analogy (which analogies are ever perfectly fitting anyway?!) but your allegation that Apple's EULA violates statutory rights is nevertheless your personal opinion and the court case is most likely to proof that opinion wrong cause there have been some very expensive lawyers involved who are more qualified in these matters than you are.

@ Mark Pardington

"Every command you typed, the layout of the filesystem, the "Kernel" are all the same as Linux, ..."

Not really, no.

Whilst there are many similarities (due to the common Unix heritage), neither the commands nor the filesystem layout nor the kernel are "all the same as Linux".

Some commands are entirely different with different names and even if the commands share the same name, then it is not uncommon that the command options are different, which is one reason why the man pages for BSD and Linux are generally different.

As for filesystems, Linux distros usually default to EXT3, whilst BSD usually defaults to UFS, Darwin uses HFS+ Extended these days. The filesystem hierarchy is also different between Linux and BSD, similar, but different enough not to be called "all the same".

The kernels are not the same either. With the exception of MkLinux (probably now defunct) all Linux distros today use the Linux kernel which is why the OS is colloquially called Linux in the first place. The BSDs don't use the Linux kernel, they use kernels derived from the original University of Berkeley BSD kernel but each of the major BSDs have their own kernel now.

some further clarifications ...

"Also, look up the XNU Kernel, and its references to BSD ..."

The XNU kernel is not derived from BSD, it is a further development of the Mach kernel, orginally developed at Carnegie Mellon University. Apple has since added a BSD system call compatibility API to it but that doesn't make it a BSD kernel.

"The company jobs created the OS X GUI in, was called NeXT Software.. not so strangely NeXTs homepage now goes to apple.com"

Apple acquired NeXT Inc. in 1996 or 1997. However, the OSX GUI was not developed by NeXT, it was developed by Apple after acquiring NeXT. Apple used the NeXT kernel (originally derived from Mach), replaced the NeXT userland (derived from BSD 4.2) with the FreeBSD userland, the combination of which then became Darwin. Apple then ported parts of their Macintosh Toolbox API, which they named Carbon, further they used the NeXT application API, which they named Cocoa. Darwin together with these two APIs and a newly developed GUI, called Aqua, was then released in 2000 as MacOSX. Since then various API calls have been added to the XNU kernel, Carbon and Cocoa.

EULAs and statutory rights

The whole argument that EULAs potentially violate statutory rights misses one crucial point. Those rights only apply to end users, not to resale businesses.

If Apple was to go after some individual for modifying and installing his legally purchased MacOSX install disc on a non-Apple branded computer, then that individual might stand a chance to successfully defend himself in court.

However, if a company is pre-installing Apple proprietary code on their non-Apple branded computers for resale, then they do not have any defense on the basis of statutory rights because they are not the end-user.

Also to consider, there have been a number of cases by companies against eBay and other online resellers because they did not want their products to be sold through these channels and in every single case these companies have won.

Apple certainly has the right to deny any company from reselling their products regardless of statutory rights by end users. Statutory rights for end-users do not apply to commercial resellers.

re: strawberry flavoured

The UNIX trademark doesn't really mean anything from a technology point of view. You could obtain the mark for just about any operating system, Unix-like or not.

Compliance with the POSIX standard is generally accepted as a proper test whether an operating system is a Unix system (in the technology sense, not the trademark sense). Today, most systems are POSIX compliant or near POSIX compliant (leaving out some optional POSIX specs which are not mandatory), including GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, MacOS X and OpenSolaris.

AT&T vs BSD

"The BSD project, based at the University of California, also produced a kernel and userland utilities which were intended to be freely redistributable. Some parts were already in the public domain; others had to be rewritten from scratch to remove code on which AT&T had asserted copyright."

Perhaps one should also note that when AT&T brought its lawsuit against the University of Berkeley over copyright violations in the BSD code, the outcome was rather embarrassing for AT&T because only very little code was found to be copied from AT&T whilst a much larger amount of code in AT&T's Unix code was found to have been copied from BSD without giving the necessary credit that the BSD license demands.