This is a note to everyone out there and everyone that I have helped over the last few months install Leopard onto netbooks:
DO NOT UPDATE TO MAC OS X 10.6.2.
If you do, your system will not boot.
You may install any security update / iTunes / Quicktime updates.
My motto is - if ain't broke or mandatory don't try to fix it.
[UPDATE] There are other notes around the web of MAC Mail app issues and sound problems after thus update.
John Gruber at Daring Fireball suggests that this may simply be a bug in the 10.6.2 update.
Further, a small ethical debate has ensued in the comments to my article that's worth a read.
[UPDATE] A court has decided that installing Mac OS X on NON APPLE hardware is not allowed according to Apple's licensing terms in Psystar vs Apple.
Barring appeal - I suppose I'll not help anyone install on netbooks anymore, and by help in the past, I mean I pointed people in the direction of a tutorial that's easy to find on the web and told them to read a review on XLR8YourMac on which netbook to buy. I don't feel I was encouraging, just not discouraging. In my cases, I always recommend Apple hardware, but sometimes the budget does not allow it - even if a refurb can be had. The lure of netbooks - good ones - at $299 - is well ... alluring. I have a black Macbook - I'd like to have a Dell Mini w/ built in TV tuner triple booting Ubuntu, XP, and Snow Leopard. Hopefully Apple recognizes this segment - maybe they will - maybe this is what "the tablet" is.
11 comments:
"This is note to everyone out there and everyone that I have helped over the last few months violate Apple's license agreement and illegally install Leopard"
That's your interpretation.
Each person, I have made them purchase Leopard.
Have you ever driven even 1 mile over the speed limit?
Have you ever used someone else's time on a parking meter?
Or more pertinent ... do you think downloading music from Limewire hurts a musician or helps a musician? Not movies, not software, strictly music?
Do you think recording a mix tape for your girlfriend or wife is illegal? (By the way, it is.)
My interpretation?
"This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time."
How do you interpret that to mean that it's okay to install it on a non-Apple computer such as a netbook?
And which version of Snow Leopard did you make them purchase? All versions of Mac OS X sold at retail are upgrades, since they are only licensed for use on computers already running a previous version of Mac OS X.
To answer your other questions...
I've driven over the speed limit. No one helped me do it, I didn't help anyone else do it. I chose to break the law on my own.
I've parked at meters with remaining time. It's not illegal or even unethical. I could ask you, have you ever eat someone else's left over food?
I don't have an opinion on how music piracy effects musicians, but I don't download my music. I buy it.
Recording a mix-tape is legal, Sony saw to that in the '80s when they were trying to push cassettes on the masses. But coincidentally, I don't think it's something I've ever done.
I hope these answers help you to better understand that breaking a license agreement is breaking a license agreement is breaking a license agreement. There's nothing to interpret, no fuzzy area about it. It's on your conscience if you feel it's right or wrong or justified or unjustified.
I was only pointing out that you admit to helping others break license agreements. That's all.
Actually, it IS illegal to use someone else's time on a parking meter just about everywhere I know of. Is it prosecuted? NO.
Actually it is illegal to distribute any copy of any copyrighted performance of movies or music in any fashion. Just read your CD cover or read the warning before your next movie.
What I'm pointing out is that you break the law on an almost daily basis (speed limit) and you choose to because you don't consider it "really all that wrong". The speed limit is the law that really can't be challenged to a degree. OS licensing is currently in court being debated as it pertains to Apple in Apple vs Psystar. Until that verdict ... I am content with my decision. After the verdict, I will re-evaluate it.
Until then, it appears to me you cast stones and that YOUR sin is less than my own.
And hey, just friendly debate here ... ok anonymous!
It was actually a very simple comment as to the fact that you admit to helping people violate Apple's license agreement.
The laws I break or sins I commit should have no bearing on your conscience or actions. Breaking a contract (ie; license agreement) because you feel it is inequitable isn't any more of a defense than "but everyone else is going 80 officer!"
And For all you know I do the very same thing you do with regards to netbooks. But if I do, I wouldn't shout it to the world in a public and popular blog, especially if part of my livelihood is derived from Apple's ecosystem.
I hope that clarifies the intent of my original comment :)
And I'm not defending ... I state that this VERY ISSUE is being debated now in the courts on whether i is right or wrong. It is a gray area for the world of software right now. Just because Apple says something doesn't mean they are congress or court to decide what is law. Apple is incapable of interpreting the law.
I am not admitting to breaking any licensing agreement. I am admitting to gaining marketshare and spreading Apple love every where.
I want to make it clear that AT THIS TIME I am not employed by Apple. I want to make it clear that I am approached on nearly a weekly basis regarding the "How To" for netbooks with OSX. I also want to make it clear that I have encouraged each person to buy their own leopard and snow leopard copies directly through Apple or by Amazon.
If under Apple employment I would stick to contractual policy which forbids help with such installations. This bring said, at present, this issue is before the courts ... Until decided I am at liberty to do as I please under the plaintiff's argument and interpretation of law. Please read my comments on this above.
I was careful to say that part of your livelihood is derived from Apple's ecosystem, not from Apple itself and not your entire income.
But I do think it's an interesting debate. In general courts uphold software license agreements. I can't think of a single instance where one hasn't been upheld. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.
That being said, this should at least show Apple there are people interested in netbooks. Apple presently denounces netbooks. They also denounced flash-based media players right up until they sold one.
Assuming Apple's license agreement holds up in court (which I believe it will) and if Apple were to start offering a netbook, would your stance on the issue change? Would you still be willing to help people install unlicensed software?
I actually DON'T think it will hold up ... but (barring appeals) I WILL alter my thinking regarding the installation.
Philip, It may be time to change your views. Paystar lost!
http://www.macrumors.com/2009/11/14/apple-wins-judgement-against-psystar-for-mac-os-x-copyright-infringement/
I updated the post with my thoughts.
Post a Comment