If you need to use a Macintosh but don't want to use Apple's own Macintosh, is there any alternative solution?
If you need to use a Macintosh but don't want to use Apple's own Macintosh, is there any alternative solution?
I mean, can you use Macintosh programs on a Linux for example? Just as you can use Windows on a Linux-computer (not a Windows computer with Linux installed on it, but a Linux-build computer, like System 76's Linux computers)?
So I have a Linux computer with hardware and everything pure Linux, and then use Macintosh programs on this Linux computer? Would all Mac programs work on this Linux?
I mean, can you use Macintosh programs on a Linux for example? Just as you can use Windows on a Linux-computer (not a Windows computer with Linux installed on it, but a Linux-build computer, like System 76's Linux computers)?
So I have a Linux computer with hardware and everything pure Linux, and then use Macintosh programs on this Linux computer? Would all Mac programs work on this Linux?
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
This site is pretty anti hacks, partly because people don't understand some basic laws of ownership and want to enforce non-existent laws. Legally, physical purchase is still considered ownership, but there has been a movement by marketing to prevent any sort of reverse engineering, the foundation of a lot of the competition that existed in the earlier days of the computer industry. Censorship doesn't make you right.
Come on - you can install windows on macintosh, or Linux for instance.... As far as ownership goes.
Its been long since OSX was sold on DVD to call it your property.
Its been long since OSX was sold on DVD to call it your property.
Are you implying that by changing the delivery mechanism, you no longer own software that you purchase? Corporate Marketing really wants to enforce their software fascism and you're helping them spread that falsehood that you can no longer own anything, because it's not on separate physical media. A purchase of goods is still a purchase, no matter how it's delivered, even if it's costs you nothing. If it wasn't a purchase, you wouldn't be allowed to make a bootable DVD or USB stick from it. They're finding all sorts of ways to take away from your right of ownership and they're succeeding with the help of a lot of misguided people.
You dont hold anything that resembles property nor a delivery invoice...
Apparently Windows 10 is going to be available only by subscription... in other words, you're renting it.
Apparently not. http://www.pcgamer.com/microsoft-windows-10-will-not-be-sold-as-a-subscription/ It's going to be free for a year after release, then you pay an upgrade price. Besides, they make their money from Office and licensing deals with OEMs. Making it a subscription will just get more consumers to buy macs. Competition is great for consumers.
I would get people to switch if it were subscription. Byzantine licensing models will also get people to eventually switch. Luckily, that was mostly last year's speculation based on the COOs response to a question, not anything definitive.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are slowly getting brainwashed into believing that only corporations can own intangible property and propagating the myth that everything is licensed, not purchased. How can you license something if you don't own it?
We still mostly purchase software, but corporations are doing their best to make people believe that their software licenses outweigh your right of ownership and the censors on this site are helping them wholeheartedly without any forethought.
Their licenses limit their responsibility to you. They do not limit your rights of ownership.
I would get people to switch if it were subscription. Byzantine licensing models will also get people to eventually switch. Luckily, that was mostly last year's speculation based on the COOs response to a question, not anything definitive.
That doesn't stop MPAA or RIAA members from suing or getting the gestapo to put you in jail. It's obviously not physical property, but it's property nonetheless. There is a Purchases section in the App Store enumerating your "purchases". Are you telling me that still doesn't count as property? The native Americans didn't believe land could be property, but we all treat is as such. Property is what society defines and is inevitably a mental construct and our laws still defines intangible goods as property.
You dont hold anything that resembles property nor a delivery invoice...
Unfortunately, a lot of people are slowly getting brainwashed into believing that only corporations can own intangible property and propagating the myth that everything is licensed, not purchased. How can you license something if you don't own it?
We still mostly purchase software, but corporations are doing their best to make people believe that their software licenses outweigh your right of ownership and the censors on this site are helping them wholeheartedly without any forethought.
Their licenses limit their responsibility to you. They do not limit your rights of ownership.
seems already off the topic folks? :)
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
good points, reasonably explained. well done strung.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Somehow, those of you from the EU seem to be the most vehement censors. You keep falsely believing that licenses supercede rights, even after your courts have fully ruled otherwise.
Stop brainwashing the masses with your false beliefs. Please just stop.
Stop brainwashing the masses with your false beliefs. Please just stop.
Maybe all that is why Apple will not 'sell' OS X anymore on physical media. You can only download the new versions from a computer that has a previous version.
Did you see the link about the EU court ruling that says a download is still a purchase? You still own it even if you only download it. They have definitively ruled that it is a purchase and the user has all first sale rights. The corporations can't have it both ways.
Did you also see the link about the US? As long as the buyer asserts his rights of ownership, then it is a purchase. Sure, there isn't yet a fully definitive ruling in the USA, but why are you so willing to give up a right. The US constitution was written to give citizens rights, unless a law limits those rights. Until a ruling says otherwise, I still have a right of ownership in the USA when I make a digital purchase, even if it's a download.
Since you're in the USA, you should learn to assert your rights and stop giving it away. Stop promoting the corporate marketing campaigns. Licenses do not remove your rights and can not take away your rights just because it isn't described in the Law. That's how law in the USA works. Why are you all so willing to give up your rights? Do you want to go back to being ruled over by a king that owns everything, including you?
Did you also see the link about the US? As long as the buyer asserts his rights of ownership, then it is a purchase. Sure, there isn't yet a fully definitive ruling in the USA, but why are you so willing to give up a right. The US constitution was written to give citizens rights, unless a law limits those rights. Until a ruling says otherwise, I still have a right of ownership in the USA when I make a digital purchase, even if it's a download.
Since you're in the USA, you should learn to assert your rights and stop giving it away. Stop promoting the corporate marketing campaigns. Licenses do not remove your rights and can not take away your rights just because it isn't described in the Law. That's how law in the USA works. Why are you all so willing to give up your rights? Do you want to go back to being ruled over by a king that owns everything, including you?
Even if all you say is true and Apple didn't have better lawyers than you, none of what you have said will help the original asker to run OSX or Macintosh programs on his Linux system.
Serialband, just because I have a different opinion from you does not mean I am trying to undermine your rights. Nor does propagating an opinion that is different to yours amount to brainwashing. Please tone down the rhetoric.
Secondly, the links you provide do not seem to me to support the proposition you are putting forward, at least in the U.S. For instance, the first link you provided, states explicitly:
"Further, the privileges created by the first sale principle do not 'extend to any person who has acquired possession of the copy or phonorecord from the copyright owner, by rental, lease, loan, or otherwise, without acquiring ownership of it.' See 17 U.S.C. § 109(d). Most computer software is distributed through the use of licensing agreements. Under this distribution system, the copyright holder remains the "owner" of all distributed copies. For this reason, alleged infringers should not be able to establish that any copies of these works have been the subject of a first sale."
Basically, it says that the "first sale principle" does not apply in the case of software licensing.
The second link you provided sets out the test for determining whether a software agreement amounts to a sale or a licence:
"In Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. the 9th Circuit created a three-factor test to decide whether a particular software licensing agreement is successful in creating a licensing relationship with the end user. The factors include: 1) whether copyright owner specifies that a user is granted a license; 2) whether the copyright owner significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software to others; and 3) whether the copyright owner imposes notable use restrictions on the software. In Vernor, Autodesk's license agreement specified that it retains title to the software and the user is only granted a non-exclusive license. The agreement also had restrictions against modifying, translating, or reverse-engineering the software, or removing any proprietary marks from the software packaging or documentation. The agreement also specified that software could not be transferred or leased without Autodesk's written consent, and could not be transferred outside the Western Hemisphere. Based on these facts, the 9th Circuit held that the user is only a licensee of Autodesk's software, not an owner and hence the user could not resell the software on eBay without Autodesk's permission."
You can be sure the Apple's lawyers are aware of this case and have tailored their EULA to make sure it will be construed as a licensing agreement and not a sale agreement.
Somewhere down the line a court may interpret Apple's particular EULA and at that point you may well be proved right, but in the meantime, EE would be foolish to be complicit in what would appear on the face of it to be a violation of the law as it now seems to stand.
Secondly, the links you provide do not seem to me to support the proposition you are putting forward, at least in the U.S. For instance, the first link you provided, states explicitly:
"Further, the privileges created by the first sale principle do not 'extend to any person who has acquired possession of the copy or phonorecord from the copyright owner, by rental, lease, loan, or otherwise, without acquiring ownership of it.' See 17 U.S.C. § 109(d). Most computer software is distributed through the use of licensing agreements. Under this distribution system, the copyright holder remains the "owner" of all distributed copies. For this reason, alleged infringers should not be able to establish that any copies of these works have been the subject of a first sale."
Basically, it says that the "first sale principle" does not apply in the case of software licensing.
The second link you provided sets out the test for determining whether a software agreement amounts to a sale or a licence:
"In Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. the 9th Circuit created a three-factor test to decide whether a particular software licensing agreement is successful in creating a licensing relationship with the end user. The factors include: 1) whether copyright owner specifies that a user is granted a license; 2) whether the copyright owner significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software to others; and 3) whether the copyright owner imposes notable use restrictions on the software. In Vernor, Autodesk's license agreement specified that it retains title to the software and the user is only granted a non-exclusive license. The agreement also had restrictions against modifying, translating, or reverse-engineering the software, or removing any proprietary marks from the software packaging or documentation. The agreement also specified that software could not be transferred or leased without Autodesk's written consent, and could not be transferred outside the Western Hemisphere. Based on these facts, the 9th Circuit held that the user is only a licensee of Autodesk's software, not an owner and hence the user could not resell the software on eBay without Autodesk's permission."
You can be sure the Apple's lawyers are aware of this case and have tailored their EULA to make sure it will be construed as a licensing agreement and not a sale agreement.
Somewhere down the line a court may interpret Apple's particular EULA and at that point you may well be proved right, but in the meantime, EE would be foolish to be complicit in what would appear on the face of it to be a violation of the law as it now seems to stand.
There's software licensing, as done via google docs, and there's downloads. Those are 2 different things. EULAs have also been ruled invalid as people assert their rights.
The 9th Circuit court ruling applies to the 9th Circuit. While it does set a precedent, it is not fully conclusive to the other circuits.
EE would also not be complicit in the USA as long as they follow the DMCA in takedown notice procedure. It never gets to that point because we have overzealous volunteer censors. You do realize that all those censors are not employees of EE, and therefore really do not speak for EE, don't you?
The 9th Circuit court ruling applies to the 9th Circuit. While it does set a precedent, it is not fully conclusive to the other circuits.
EE would also not be complicit in the USA as long as they follow the DMCA in takedown notice procedure. It never gets to that point because we have overzealous volunteer censors. You do realize that all those censors are not employees of EE, and therefore really do not speak for EE, don't you?
If by "all those censors" you mean the forum administrators, I am aware that they are not employees of EE, but they have been given a mandate of enforcing the EE rules, and it has been a long standing rule that EE will not allow discussions of hackintosh's. If you don't like that, there is presumably a proper avenue for you to make a complaint to EE management to have the rule changed or reconsidered rather than being abusive of the moderators in the forum.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
I'm not saying that it would be a good idea. I'm saying the discussion of it should not be blocked. I've mentioned that it's not worthwhile to run OSX on a PC, but the mention of if has been quashed in another question earlier in the year. It's up to the user to decide whether it's worthwhile to even contemplate, but we as participants should be able to talk about it. Why can't we even bring up the topic and mention that it's not legal in some jurisdictions? I didn't even provide a link and my answer was entirely removed. I only mention that it can be found if they want to try, but it wouldn't run well, as I have tried it on my own personal time for the furtherance of knowledge. Isn't that the point of EE and other forums of this nature? To teach and learn? Early EE wasn't quite so heavy handed.
I'm not being abusive. I'm providing discussion. Maybe that's not to your liking. I've gone back and read my comments again and I don't see where I've been abusive at all. It's sometimes hard to tell with the written word. Maybe I need to inject smileys :) IMHO, I bring up a valid point.
This is a discussion forum, is it not? The legal issues directly answer the question topic, so I have not deviated from the question topic. I don't intentionally post anything off topic. In some jurisdictions, it's allowed. In others it's not. I don't think the discussions should be censored based on one jurisdiction or another. This censorship just prevents transfer of knowledge and gets people to go elsewhere.
The USA has the DMCA. If EE decides to follow the common carrier rules, they can leave up any discussions whether illegal or not and censor only when someone makes a DMCA complaint. As long as they follow the procedures and take down the illegal link and the request is made, they can not be legally liable. That's the law in the USA where EE is based.
Yes, they happen to also be based in the 9th circuit, where they've made that licensing ruling, so it sucks for the people in that area. However, the moderators I see censoring the forums I've participated in are based in the EU, where they've ruled that a download is ownership. This is an international forum, and it's entirely unreasonable to censor based on the USA's 9th Circuit and promote incorrect information to the rest of the world community.
I've made the comment to someone in EE management and we'll see what happens.
I'm not being abusive. I'm providing discussion. Maybe that's not to your liking. I've gone back and read my comments again and I don't see where I've been abusive at all. It's sometimes hard to tell with the written word. Maybe I need to inject smileys :) IMHO, I bring up a valid point.
This is a discussion forum, is it not? The legal issues directly answer the question topic, so I have not deviated from the question topic. I don't intentionally post anything off topic. In some jurisdictions, it's allowed. In others it's not. I don't think the discussions should be censored based on one jurisdiction or another. This censorship just prevents transfer of knowledge and gets people to go elsewhere.
The USA has the DMCA. If EE decides to follow the common carrier rules, they can leave up any discussions whether illegal or not and censor only when someone makes a DMCA complaint. As long as they follow the procedures and take down the illegal link and the request is made, they can not be legally liable. That's the law in the USA where EE is based.
Yes, they happen to also be based in the 9th circuit, where they've made that licensing ruling, so it sucks for the people in that area. However, the moderators I see censoring the forums I've participated in are based in the EU, where they've ruled that a download is ownership. This is an international forum, and it's entirely unreasonable to censor based on the USA's 9th Circuit and promote incorrect information to the rest of the world community.
I've made the comment to someone in EE management and we'll see what happens.
You don't think calling the moderators "gestapo enforcers" and "overzealous censors" is abusive? Or accusing anyone who disagrees with you of "brainwashing the masses with your false beliefs"?
I agree with @strung ^^^. @serialband, you've been a little over the top trying to make your point.
I guess context is important and terms are important. I apologize if you've construed my message as inflammatory. That wasn't really my intent.
My intent is to open discussion, because I see more censorship in the topic areas that have more activity than in topic areas with less activity and EE itself isn't quite as strict on censoring.
My intent is to open discussion, because I see more censorship in the topic areas that have more activity than in topic areas with less activity and EE itself isn't quite as strict on censoring.
No problem. I appreciate that people can bet passionate about arguments.
ASKER
Thanks everyone for a comprehensive discussion of all the aspects of using a Mac OS on Linux. The cloud solution seems perfect for me, will try that.
Regarding the legal side of this question and hacking, I agree with serialband's conclusive arguments: that the basic laws of ownership should override the newer legal frameworks for EULAs. Seems sensible that I have purchased a property and then have reasonable freedom to handle this property so it best serves my purposes as long as I do not make own money on it by selling it further to third parties. Isn't there an analogy to buying securities, stocks and bonds?: You own these and don't acquire a license for them. I am aware of the EULAs telling me "You do not own but license the software ... any breach of the conditions in this EULA will annul all your rights in this license". But this is in stark contrast with how software still are generally viewed as and are marketed as: as something you buy and not aquire a license for. There is no real term yet after all these years for this concept of aquiring a license for a software. The word that is used is that you buy a software.
I am not a professional computer user just like most other who simply need to use computers and computer software in their daily work, and for us the natural concept when handing over money for any software (Windows, Mac) is that you buy something, that is how the software always is presented for sale (unless you read each of those long EULA statements for each software).
So it is like you have this concept that you buy something, and then discovers that this is not the case, you actually only pay for a license to use it (according to the seller). So in this respect, what serialband has explained seems sensible to me: the older basic laws of ownership overrides the newer EULA agreements.
If the software manufacturers began to market their what they call licensing as such and not as sale also in the first instance (on websites, in commercials, in stores instructing the sales persons to market their software as being licensed only), it would be different to some extent. But now, most persons think of buying a software, not buying a license for it. For example, I bought Adobe Acrobat Pro a few months ago, and in my communication with the seller the vocabulary we used were never that I pay for a license but that I would buy the software. My intention with not using Mac hardware is that I do not want to support foreign companies that are supporting the regime in China by establishing their presence there and creating connections with leaders. One way would be to buy a Linux computer with Linux hardware (not a Windows computer with Linux installed on it).
Regarding the legal side of this question and hacking, I agree with serialband's conclusive arguments: that the basic laws of ownership should override the newer legal frameworks for EULAs. Seems sensible that I have purchased a property and then have reasonable freedom to handle this property so it best serves my purposes as long as I do not make own money on it by selling it further to third parties. Isn't there an analogy to buying securities, stocks and bonds?: You own these and don't acquire a license for them. I am aware of the EULAs telling me "You do not own but license the software ... any breach of the conditions in this EULA will annul all your rights in this license". But this is in stark contrast with how software still are generally viewed as and are marketed as: as something you buy and not aquire a license for. There is no real term yet after all these years for this concept of aquiring a license for a software. The word that is used is that you buy a software.
I am not a professional computer user just like most other who simply need to use computers and computer software in their daily work, and for us the natural concept when handing over money for any software (Windows, Mac) is that you buy something, that is how the software always is presented for sale (unless you read each of those long EULA statements for each software).
So it is like you have this concept that you buy something, and then discovers that this is not the case, you actually only pay for a license to use it (according to the seller). So in this respect, what serialband has explained seems sensible to me: the older basic laws of ownership overrides the newer EULA agreements.
If the software manufacturers began to market their what they call licensing as such and not as sale also in the first instance (on websites, in commercials, in stores instructing the sales persons to market their software as being licensed only), it would be different to some extent. But now, most persons think of buying a software, not buying a license for it. For example, I bought Adobe Acrobat Pro a few months ago, and in my communication with the seller the vocabulary we used were never that I pay for a license but that I would buy the software. My intention with not using Mac hardware is that I do not want to support foreign companies that are supporting the regime in China by establishing their presence there and creating connections with leaders. One way would be to buy a Linux computer with Linux hardware (not a Windows computer with Linux installed on it).
One way would be to buy a Linux computer with Linux hardware (not a Windows computer with Linux installed on it).There is no such thing and as far as I can tell, they are all built in China. HP's and Dell motherboards are. ASUS is in Taiwan. I suppose you could get a computer that is not based on an Intel CPU, there are versions for several other CPUs... but then it wouldn't run Mac OSX either.
> Apple says "no hackintoshes" so we don't allow that discussion as part of official Q&A.
Apple is not the God. The God still allow the Devil to exist, but Apple does not allow people to discuss?
> Call it censorship if you must, contact Customer Service to complain if you have to.
This is a great discussion and should be kept online for public access.
Apple is not the God. The God still allow the Devil to exist, but Apple does not allow people to discuss?
> Call it censorship if you must, contact Customer Service to complain if you have to.
This is a great discussion and should be kept online for public access.
You need to fight for what's right. In the EU, you own software. Don't censor talk because you wrongly believe that it's illegal because of some incorrect rules that only apply to a small segment of the population.
I wouldn't link to anything that's blatantly illegal, but I think it's not a problem to discuss them as options and point out where it's legal and illegal to do things. Those of you volunteers from the EU need to know your rights and not censor because you've been given guidelines from a company in the USA. You need to remember that they are guidelines, not legal rules.
Even in the USA, you can discuss things that are illegal. The US DMCA allows for Apple to issue a takedown notice if they believe you are infringing copyright. As long as EE complies with the takedown notice, they are a safe harbor and can not be sued by Apple. Know some basic legal issues and don't just blindly follow the guidelines to the strictest possible extent. You're preventing people from learning and limiting the topics that can be openly and legally discussed. Those people may just go elsewhere for information. I certainly don't limit myself to EE forums for knowledge.
I wouldn't link to anything that's blatantly illegal, but I think it's not a problem to discuss them as options and point out where it's legal and illegal to do things. Those of you volunteers from the EU need to know your rights and not censor because you've been given guidelines from a company in the USA. You need to remember that they are guidelines, not legal rules.
Even in the USA, you can discuss things that are illegal. The US DMCA allows for Apple to issue a takedown notice if they believe you are infringing copyright. As long as EE complies with the takedown notice, they are a safe harbor and can not be sued by Apple. Know some basic legal issues and don't just blindly follow the guidelines to the strictest possible extent. You're preventing people from learning and limiting the topics that can be openly and legally discussed. Those people may just go elsewhere for information. I certainly don't limit myself to EE forums for knowledge.
DMCA Safe harbor protects EE.
DMCA Safe harbor protects EE.They would still have to hire lawyers for a cause they are not interested in.
that's a good idea.