[moff_quigley]

There are morons out there trying to decide the fate of the "internets."

See here:

 

[binary visions]

Oh lord.

As if Jon Stewart knew his ass from his elbow in the first place, I wonder what enlightened things he has to say on this subject, where I'm sure his producers have only explained 10% of the whole story to him.

Just my guess before watching it, I'll take a look when I get home

Oh, and just so you are aware, the "morons" out there who are "deciding the fate of the internets" are the businesses who own and have paid to lay down the thousands of miles of incredibly expensive and labor intensive fiber optics.

 

[moff_quigley]

I agree that Jon is not a good source of info...in this case they're showing clips of politicians debating "net neutrality" and online poker. It's pretty funny.

 

[Tenchiro]

Unfortunately the people who are deciding this have absolutely no clue as to what the internet is or how it works either.

I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?

Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially...

They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.

It's a series of tubes.

And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/07/02/sen_stevens_hilariou.html

 

[binary visions]

Holy Jeebus. How do idiots like this get elected into public office?

Oh, right, the same way W did

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/497

But Tench, you know better than that. The people who have no idea about how things work are not deciding how things work. They're deciding whether or not to allow these businesses decide how things work.

 

[Tenchiro]

But who is to say that the lobbyists for the businesses didn't explain it to him that way in order to persuade his vote.

 

[sanjuro]

The internet is free and a god given right protected by the constitution, just like song swapping...

 

[binary visions]

The internet is free and a god given right protected by the constitution, just like song swapping...

Approved!

 

[Ciaran]

Oh lord.

Oh, and just so you are aware, the "morons" out there who are "deciding the fate of the internets" are the businesses who own and have paid to lay down the thousands of miles of incredibly expensive and labor intensive fiber optics.

But when a utility such as electricity or telephone service becomes a necessity to live in society should the businesses still have the right to do as they please with them? At what point do necessary utilities need to move to the public domain? Not the internet yet, but eventually it will be very difficult to live in society without it. Try and see how long you can go without your phone, electricity, or gas.

Maybe the telephone/electric/cable/internet infrastructure should be funded and maintained by the state (our taxes) as the roads are?

Just my random (or not so random) thoughts. Take them as you will.

P.S. Jon Stewert is an idiot... just like most on television.

 

[binary visions]

If those thousands of miles of fiber optics were purchased and owned and maintained by the state, I would have a huge problem with them trying to tier the data. But it's not. And I doubt the government is gonna shell out the bucks for that anyway, since they'll probably either have wording in the law or pay for a top tier.

I agree that the internet is fast becoming a necessity. However, it's not there yet, and secondly, these laws are not taking it away. They're simply proposing that a paying customer can have higher priority on their bandwidth than the leechers who are coming through free of charge.

 

[sanjuro]

I think the difficulty in understanding this issue is the technology sophistication required to properly understand it (I had to read the wiki page twice), and the close relationship to data transmission and free speech laws.

This reminds me of the snow job Microsoft tried to pull during their first anti-trust suit, trying to convince the judge that IE was an integral part of the o/s (one prosecution witness compared that analogy to making a car radio integral to the engine).

 

[RenegadeRick]

<snip>They're simply proposing that a paying customer can have higher priority on their bandwidth than the leechers who are coming through free of charge.

But this is a dangerously slippery slope.

As is with today's Mass Media, only megacorporations with the money for transmitters, licenses, etc. can express opinions on the "public" airwaves. Unpopular opinions that might offend sponsors will not be broadcast by these networks (not that I am saying individual sites should not have their own rules, mind you).

Today, all bits are equal and everyone's opinion has an equal right to be heard, and you don't need *lots* of money to do it.

Even though they are not proposing eliminating free access at this time, what happens when the network only has enough bandwidth to carry the "high priority" (paid) traffic? Could dissent be effectively suppressed?

AT&TNet: "We got all these high priority Britney Spears videos to deliver, I guess the people really don't need to know about (insert global tragedy here). If the people really needed to know, I'm sure someone would have paid us to deliver them..."

 

[RenegadeRick]

This reminds me of the snow job Microsoft tried to pull during their first anti-trust suit, trying to convince the judge that IE was an integral part of the o/s (one prosecution witness compared that analogy to making a car radio integral to the engine).

That is a terribly poor analogy. The car radio is not accessed by the engine, but in Windows, the file browsing system DOES INDEED make calls to the Explorer codebase.

Was that a good design decision? That's another issue entirely.

 

[sanjuro]

That is a terribly poor analogy. The car radio is not accessed by the engine, but in Windows, the file browsing system DOES INDEED make calls to the Explorer codebase.

Was that a good design decision? That's another issue entirely.

The point about the car radio and the engine is that it could be a design "feature" that the car would not start unless the radio faceplate is installed, but that does not made the radio integral to the engine.

 

[Ciaran]

If those thousands of miles of fiber optics were purchased and owned and maintained by the state, I would have a huge problem with them trying to tier the data. But it's not. And I doubt the government is gonna shell out the bucks for that anyway, since they'll probably either have wording in the law or pay for a top tier.

I agree that the internet is fast becoming a necessity. However, it's not there yet, and secondly, these laws are not taking it away. They're simply proposing that a paying customer can have higher priority on their bandwidth than the leechers who are coming through free of charge.

Yes but when it does become a necessity it will be more difficult to wrest power from these giant corps. Much like the bell break-up.

Now, I know that the internet is hardly a necessity, I am just playing devils advocate here. Just trying to see what ideas people have and such. For me it's tough... I hate the government, but I also have issues with vital infrastructure being in private hands.

 

[RenegadeRick]

The point about the car radio and the engine is that it could be a design "feature" that the car would not start unless the radio faceplate is installed, but that does not made the radio integral to the engine.

Correct. That is like a security check. The engine will work fine without it being performed. But in Windows, Explorer Code is ACTUALLY Used to perform file browsing functions. Without Explorer, Windows would be unable to browse files (graphically).

A more appropriate car analogy might be one where the engine is reliant on battery power to start the engine. But this is actually not necessary. You could just pop the clutch on the car:

http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/techcenter/articles/43835/article.html
...the ability to start a vehicle with a depleted battery. If the charging system (alternator and voltage regulator) are in proper working condition, simply push-start the car and kick it over...

Now obviously this won't work if you have one of those fancy automatic transmission (Windows?) cars...

In other words, sure they could remove Internet Explorer from Windows, but then users would have to use manual methods (DOS Command Line) to manage their files.

Sounds like a great example of government protecting the consumer to me

 

[sanjuro]

Correct. That is like a security check. The engine will work fine without it being performed. But in Windows, Explorer Code is ACTUALLY Used to perform file browsing functions. Without Explorer, Windows would be unable to browse files (graphically).

A more appropriate car analogy might be one where the engine is reliant on battery power to start the engine. But this is actually not necessary. You could just pop the clutch on the car:

Now obviously this won't work if you have one of those fancy automatic transmission (Windows?) cars...

In other words, sure they could remove Internet Explorer from Windows, but then users would have to use manual methods (DOS Command Line) to manage their files.

Sounds like a great example of government protecting the consumer to me

Or they could have the internet browser code separate from file manager code, which is the whole basis of the anti-trust lawsuit.

IE is an application, Windows Explorer is an application, and Windows is the o/s. Why does all 3 have to be tied together? Efficiency? So that when IE crashes, the kernel takes a dump as well?

Keep in mind that no other operating system ties their internet browser into the o/s. And with the reliablity of IE and Windows, the answer is obvious.

You sound like a MS lawyer, trying to convince Penfield Jackson that without IE, then Windows will collapse.

 

[RenegadeRick]

IE is an application, Windows Explorer is an application, and Windows is the o/s. Why does all 3 have to be tied together? Efficiency? So that when IE crashes, the kernel takes a dump as well?

Component reuse is a big time saver for development and yes, when IE crashes, the kernel does crash too. FWIW an OS is an application too.

Keep in mind that no other operating system ties their internet browser into the o/s.

There are other operating systems besides Windows? Bill will NOT be happy to hear that.

And with the reliablity of IE and Windows, the answer is obvious.

Was it a good design desision? Obviously not.

You sound like a MS lawyer, trying to convince Penfield Jackson that without IE, then Windows will collapse.

just trying to point out the engine/radio analogy was a lousy one.

Could we get this thread back on track now?

I SUPPORT NET NEUTRALITY!
Would you want to have to pay to post on RM?
More importantly would RM want to pay AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, AOL, etc. etc. etc. so that we could read it?

 

[sanjuro]

Component reuse is a big time saver for development and yes, when IE crashes, the kernel does crash too. FWIW an OS is an application too.

Was it a good design desision? Obviously not.

just trying to point out the engine/radio analogy was a lousy one.

Could we get this thread back on track now?

I SUPPORT NET NEUTRALITY!
Would you want to have to pay to post on RM?
More importantly would RM want to pay AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, AOL, etc. etc. etc. so that we could read it?

First of all an operating system is not a application. Operating systems run applications, but if a operating system is an application, what runs an operating system?

I believe the error could be the concept of a graphical interface and the kernel are linked together. On unix systems it is not the case (X-Windows is the graphical engine, running desktop managers like GNOME). Obviously with Windows, the two are combined, with so/so reliability.

As for the car radio/engine analogy, it was used frequently in the antitrust case and its analysis (link). An example of having a battery vs the engine is a poor one. The battery serves a critical function in the operation of a car as well as adds to the reliablity (push starting will destroy the engine/clutch eventually).

A car radio is not integral to the running of a car, just as internet browsing is not integral to the operation of a computer. You can build it that way, but they are seperate components, which the antitrust was successful in proving.

 

[RenegadeRick]

D00d I been doing computers for almost 30 years. You do not want to fight this battle. And it is off topic anyhow...

First of all an operating system is not a application. Operating systems run applications, but if a operating system is an application, what runs an operating system?

The underlying machine readable code... you know zeroes and ones.
An OS is a piece of software, just like an application is. The difference is that the OS interacts with the hardware directly and an OS provides an abstraction layer to make it more CONVENIENT for people to write programs on top of it. Is there any reason an application could not access the hardware directly? Not at all. Do you think that an OS is some sort of magical creation? This is not true in any way. Anyone could write an OS to work with a particular piece of hardware. Most just choose to use what is already available. The bottom line though is an OS is a software program, just like an application is.

I believe the error could be the concept of a graphical interface and the kernel are linked together. On unix systems it is not the case (X-Windows is the graphical engine, running desktop managers like GNOME). Obviously with Windows, the two are combined, with so/so reliability.

Depening on the version, Windows and the underlying file and hardware management subsystem aren't really linked together, the degree of their "linked-ness" is version dependent. They would be more accurately described as delivered together. The frequency of crashing is not due to their linking, but rather due to the fact that Windows is bloated and unstable. Period. The *nix operating systems are rock solid stable in comparison. Therefore any GUI that sits on top of a *nix system will be that much more stable. If Windows had a stable platform underdeath it it could be as reliable, but it doesn't. The *nix platforms are open source and therefore open to inspection and correction by the entire world. M$ software code is only available to those on Bill's payroll. A few of us cannot be as smart as all of us.

As for the car radio/engine analogy, it was used frequently in the antitrust case and its analysis (link).

Are you saying that you are trusting LAWYERS to define how a computer system works? Is that their field of expertise? Computers are MY field of expertise. Your link confirms the point I have been making:

...For one thing, Internet Explorer and Windows share more than 95 percent of software code, he said. Indeed, when a user pulls Internet Explorer out of the current version of Windows 95, the remaining operating system doesn't work very well...

An example of having a battery vs the engine is a poor one. The battery serves a critical function in the operation of a car as well as adds to the reliablity (push starting will destroy the engine/clutch eventually).

I disagree. A battery does not serve a critical function in the operation of a car. I did not say anything about having a battery vs an engine in a car. What I said is that that a battery is not necessary for a car to operate, and it is not. It makes it so much easier and better though, it is hard to imagine not having a battery, but it is absolutely possible to perform the core function of driving a car without one. Just not one of those fancy automatic transmission ones.

A car radio is not integral to the running of a car, just as internet browsing is not integral to the operation of a computer.

Internet browsing is not even a real computer activity. It appears as such, but it is all smoke an mirrors. Your computer cannot display any data that is not ALREADY ON your computer. When people say things like "I'm on the Ridemonkey site" it is absolutely untrue. What happens is that you request data from a site which is delivered to your computer and then it is rendered in the browser FROM YOUR COMPUTER. TCP/IP is a stateless protocol, which means that once the web server has delivered the data you requested, it forgets that you even exist. Even in the RM "users online now" listing, this is false. All this list shows is users that have made a request of the server within the last however many minutes. It cannot know which if any of these users are actually still online.

So accepting all that, if all a browser does is display data that is on your computer, why not use that same software to display all kinds of different data on your computer. Makes sense to me.

You can build it that way

And M$ did.

...but they are seperate components, which the antitrust was successful in proving.

Which does not make it true. Are convictions ever overturned in the appeals process? Are innocent people jailed or executed and later cleared? Just because a judge (with a limited understanding of computer technology) thinks so, does not make it so.

...For one thing, Internet Explorer and Windows share more than 95 percent of software code...

proves the exact opposite. IE and Windows (in the versions considered in this court case) are largely the same thing.

 

[sanjuro]

D00d I been doing computers for almost 30 years. You do not want to fight this battle. And it is off topic anyhow...
....
So accepting all that, if all a browser does is display data that is on your computer, why not use that same software to display all kinds of different data on your computer. Makes sense to me.

I wrote a rather long response before cutting back to nitty-gritty.

Your idiot's guide to the internet doesn't answer the gist of my complaint, which is the internet browser does not need to be part of the operating system.

You think it is a good idea, which based on casual observation on the failures of IE and my dependence now on Mozilla products, you really would have to come up with a convincing argument, which you haven't.

My response has been and will always be that if the browser is not an integral part of the o/s, then if it crashs up, you restart the browser, not the computer. Microsoft has made the browser integral to the o/s, but they have never shown it to be advantegous, or Mozilla/Firefox would not exist.

I have to thank you for challenging me about the MS antitrust case. I followed it very closely at the time, and this has been my opportunity to review much of it. I forgotten about the lies told by Bill Gates and his cronies, and how much pleasure it gave me at the time.

Finally, you claim to be an expert in computers. Frankly, you know the terms but you failed to show an understanding of deeper concepts. You explained how a browser worked but you failed to understand is why Microsoft designed their browser to be part of their o/s. Was it superior software design or marketing reasons? (You should also look at the case to read MS testimony. It's funny).

BTW, if you doubt my skills and knowledge, my company, which make pc products like anti-virus, internet security, and ghosting software; merged with an enterprise software company last year. Their products include backup, disk volume and file system management, and clustering technology, which is what I develop and test.

Can you figure out who I work for? And my first computer class was at Hunter College, working on a mainframe. It was 1981 and I was 10 years old.

EDIT: You will probably write that even though I work for the 4th largest software company in the world, I don't know sh*t about computers. Thought I would save you the trouble.

 

[binary visions]

May I just interject an say I would like to append Godwin's Law.

I propose that the first person who whips out the old, "you don't want to fight with me 'cause I have <xxx> experience" also loses the argument. Period.

RR, you lost any credibility you started with in this argument by trying to measure your e-penis against sanjuro's. Make your arguments based on facts and back them up well, and your experience is moot. It's either a good argument or it's not.

 

[RenegadeRick]

You will probably write that even though I work for the 4th largest software company in the world, I don't know sh*t about computers. Thought I would save you the trouble.

This ain't personal. If you have hung here this long, it's obvious you got skillz. I would never say that.

...my first computer class was at Hunter College, working on a mainframe. It was 1981 and I was 10 years old.

It appears that I may have a smidge more experience though...
In 1979 when I was 9 years old, I used my first communion money to purchase my first PC: http://oldcomputers.net/atari400.html. My paper route income paid for add-ons and peripherals.

...if you doubt my skills and knowledge, my company, which make pc products like anti-virus, internet security, and ghosting software; merged with an enterprise software company last year. Their products include backup, disk volume and file system management, and clustering technology, which is what I develop and test.
Can you figure out who I work for?...

So you work for Norton. Sweet. Back in the day, NDD was the shiznit.

Your idiot's guide to the internet doesn't answer the gist of my complaint, which is the internet browser does not need to be part of the operating system.

Correct, it does not need to be, but that is exactly what M$ did.

You think it is a good idea...

From a developer's standpoint sure...

You think it is a good idea...

From a lazy developer's standpoint sure...

You think it is a good idea...

From an evil domination standpoint sure...

You think it is a good idea...

but from a system architecture perspective, absolutely not.

You think it is a good idea, which based on casual observation on the failures of IE and my dependence now on Mozilla products, you really would have to come up with a convincing argument, which you haven't.

I never said it was a good idea that M$ integrated IE into their OS, but rather simply stated that is what they did.

My response has been and will always be that if the browser is not an integral part of the o/s, then if it crashs up, you restart the browser, not the computer.

Actually, this is much deeper than a browser discussion. Back in Win95 (which is what we are discussing here, and what was the subject of the antitrust action), because they used the explorer code for critical parts of the OS, yes a crash here could affect system stability, but only if they were accessing the same instance. Windows 95 was the first M$ operating system with the concept of a protected memory space:

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/win95_preview.asp:
A program crash no longer brings the entire system down, although DOS and Windows 3.x programs can crash other older (16-bit) programs if they themselves crash. Wordpad and other 32-bit programs run in their own protected memory space, insulated from each other by the system.

My response has been and will always be that if the browser is not an integral part of the o/s, then if it crashs up, you restart the browser, not the computer.

In today's Windows this just doesn't happen. IE is an important part of Windows, but it is not PART of Windows any longer. But that's not why IE does not crash the OS anymore. It's because NOTHING crashes to OS anymore due to XP's superior (to previous versions of Windows) memory management architecture. Yes, it took them six years to release a truly stable consumer-level OS.

Microsoft has made the browser integral to the o/s, but they have never shown it to be advantegous, or Mozilla/Firefox would not exist.

As discussed previously, IE is not integral to the OS any longer, but the only thing that WAS advantageous was ease of development. But actually, Mozilla existed prior to IE, http://www.boutell.com/newfaq/history/fbrowser.html, so it is false to say that Mozilla would not exist if there wasn't an advantage to an OS integrated browser. IE is no longer integrated and Mozilla existed prior to IE and will continue to exist as long as its open source community chooses to develop it and people choose to run it. It is all about choice man. M$ never prevented anyone from using any browser they wished.

I have to thank you for challenging me about the MS antitrust case. I followed it very closely at the time, and this has been my opportunity to review much of it. I forgotten about the lies told by Bill Gates and his cronies, and how much pleasure it gave me at the time.

I too followed that case very closely, but I don't recall any lies from M$. Spin, sure, but not outright lies. I could not find an article to document this (it was likely a WSJ article which are not easily available online), but I remember the judge saying that he knew how to delete IE from the computer without damaging it. He clicked on the icon and hit delete and said, "see, now it is gone."
As you and I both know deleting a shortcut to a program does nothing to remove the actual program. To comply with the letter of the law laid down in the injunction, OEMs really would have had to delete all 228 files specified by M$, not just the shortcut and top-level iexplore.exe as suggested. This article discusses IE removal from that perspective, but as you see, if one were to really remove EVERY file involved with IE, Win95 would clearly be broken.

If I had been M$'s attorney, at the moment I realized all the judge wanted was the shortcut off the desktop, I would have complied immediately. I think at that point Netscape would have pointed out that simply removing the shortcut would not actually remove the program, proving M$'s defense for them.

Finally, you claim to be an expert in computers. Frankly, you know the terms but you failed to show an understanding of deeper concepts. You explained how a browser worked but you failed to understand is why Microsoft designed their browser to be part of their o/s. Was it superior software design or marketing reasons?

Obviously, it was evil domination reasons that M$ integrated the browser (more so than ease of development). At the time, M$ wanted to drive customers to the MSN system and IE was a great way to do that. I understand that completely.

M$ has never had a superior OS, what they have always had is a superior marketing plan. This marketing plan has produced millions (billions?) of users. This provides a huge customer base for third party developers, like Norton to build a business upon. M$'s evil is certainly good for your company.

See, I do understand the deeper concepts, deeply.

When two IT professionals get together it is likely that they will disagree. This happens all the time. A vigorous discussion is good to help shake out the truth. I have certainly enjoyed it.

At the same time, I feel responsible for helping derail what could be an important discussion on Net neutrality. If conceding defeat will help get this thread back on track, I will happily do so at this time.

We can do things to shape the future, but can do nothing about the past. Let's recognize that and move on.

The internet should be forever free.

 

[RenegadeRick]

May I just interject an say I would like to append Godwin's Law.

I propose that the first person who whips out the old, "you don't want to fight with me 'cause I have <xxx> experience" also loses the argument. Period.

RR, you lost any credibility you started with in this argument by trying to measure your e-penis against sanjuro's. Make your arguments based on facts and back them up well, and your experience is moot. It's either a good argument or it's not.

I must admit I had been drinking before I raised the experience issue. It might have clouded my judgement.

I do believe that experience is relevant when it relates to the topic at hand. I was trying to make the point that doing this for almost 30 years gives a bit better expertise on the subject than a judge or lawyer's opinion.

I think I have presented facts, and clearly stated opinions as such. Experience is relevant so that one can measure the value of an opinion.

Thank you BV, for lending us your voice of reason in this matter. I believe I have already conceded. Is further (non-net neutrality) discussion necessary?

 

[sanjuro]

It is all about choice man. M$ never prevented anyone from using any browser they wished.

Not exactly. The antitrust suit was about unfair advantage, specifically at the manufacturer level. If a manufacter wanted to bundle their own browser, it was not possible.

M$ has never had a superior OS, what they have always had is a superior marketing plan. This marketing plan has produced millions (billions?) of users. This provides a huge customer base for third party developers, like Norton to build a business upon. M$'s evil is certainly good for your company.

Microsoft's fckups are good for my company? Ok, you do get it!

 

[RenegadeRick]

Not exactly. The antitrust suit was about unfair
advantage, specifically at the manufacturer level. If a manufacter wanted to bundle their own browser, it was not possible.

Nevertheless, it was their licensing agreements that prevented it, not the technology.

Microsoft's fckups are good for my company? Ok, you do get it!

Yep.

 

[RenegadeRick]

This reminds me of the snow job Microsoft tried to pull during their first anti-trust suit, trying to convince the judge that IE was an integral part of the o/s (one prosecution witness compared that analogy to making a car radio integral to the engine).

Ok, so maybe nobody wants to discuss net neutrality anyhow. Please enjoy the next derailment along the same theme.

The new Macs are really PCs. They have Intel CPUs and all stock PC componentry except for one special chip, let's call it the "Mac chip." This chip is not necessary in any way to the operation of the computer. The only purpose it serves is to identify the computer as a Macintosh. Without it OS X will not run.

Is this not exactly the same sort of anticompetitive practice M$ was accused of? Certainly someone must be able to explain to me why this is actually an example of Apple's high moral values, and not simply another evil world domination plot just like Gates would devise.

Discuss.

 

[binary visions]

Are you serious? You're going to accuse a company with a 5% market share of being anti-competitive?

 

[RenegadeRick]

Are you serious? You're going to accuse a company with a 5% market share of being anti-competitive?

<joke>
Isn't having a 5% market share the definition of anti-competitive? (rimshot)
</joke>

All kidding aside, I'm not exactly accusing Apple of being anti-competitive, but rather I think this is an anti-competitive practice.

In America, where all men (and corporations) are created equal, what difference does it make what your market share is?

Say M$ made a mouse that did nothing more than any other competitior's mouse did except it had a M$ identifier chip in it. Would it be anti-competitive if M$ required you to own their overpriced mouse to run their OS?

Why is it not anti-competitive when Apple makes you buy their overpriced assembly of PC hardware just to get their MAC chip?

 

[binary visions]

Maybe it is an anti-competitve practice. They are providing some support to run Windows on the Macs, though, via BootCamp, so they're not being completely obstinant about it. That's not selling a whole lot more hardware, either.

However, I just can't take your argument seriously. These laws have been enacted to prevent businesses from deliberately driving other businesses out of the market. Where does that apply here?

 

[sanjuro]

The new Macs are really PCs. They have Intel CPUs and all stock PC componentry except for one special chip, let's call it the "Mac chip." This chip is not necessary in any way to the operation of the computer. The only purpose it serves is to identify the computer as a Macintosh. Without it OS X will not run.

Is this not exactly the same sort of anticompetitive practice M$ was accused of? Certainly someone must be able to explain to me why this is actually an example of Apple's high moral values, and not simply another evil world domination plot just like Gates would devise.

Discuss.

Hmmm, I didn't know there was a "Mac chip". If there was an OS/X port to the intel platform, then obviously preventing it will cause some debate.

On one hand, it is proprietary software, and Apple is completely in their rights to prevent porting. On the other hand, this is not exactly the "BSD" way of doing things, and one reason why Apple became a distance second in the desktop wars is because there were no "Mac clones", which gave a huge advantage to MS.

 

[RenegadeRick]

However, I just can't take your argument seriously. These laws have been enacted to prevent businesses from deliberately driving other businesses out of the market. Where does that apply here?

Say OS X became wildy popular because of some new killer app that only ran on OS X. People would have to buy Macs to do it. Since Macs now run Windows natively too, there would be no need for Dell, Gateway, etc. since everybody HAD to buy a Mac already.

My whole point is this appears to be a much better example of the engine-car radio analogy that was used to sink M$, and yet it is not anticompetitive?

 

[RenegadeRick]

Hmmm, I didn't know there was a "Mac chip". If there was an OS/X port to the intel platform, then obviously preventing it will cause some debate.

There is no need for a port of OS X to the Intel platform. Macs ARE an Intel platform.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Hmmm, I didn't know there was a "Mac chip".

linky

 

[sanjuro]

There is no need for a port of OS X to the Intel platform. Macs ARE an Intel platform.

Then I look forward to running os/x on my dell.

Considering I work in Mt View, I have heard that the new mac's have intel chips, but I was talking about pc's.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Then I look forward to running os/x on my dell.

Of course you would not be able to do this without "Circumventing an Access Control" as prohibited by the DMCA. I suppose that is a much bigger can of worms to pry open...