5 ms·

Ah, wow, the "Microsoft Policy" and "Apple Policy" are awesome. Glad to see a free software project that says, on its front page, that it would "prefer" you co

by rwl 16y ago

Ah, wow, the "Microsoft Policy" and "Apple Policy" are awesome. Glad to see a free software project that says, on its front page, that it would "prefer" you compile and run the software on "a platform that is not controlled by a free-software-hostile corporation."

albertzeyer 16y ago
Except that it just works fine on Mac and is as easy to compile there as on any other Unix/POSIX system. I found their attitude against Apple highly annoying. When I clicked on the source download link (in Chrome), I just got this message: Please do not run Remind on Mac OS Downloading via wget worked though. Then I started ./configure and I got this: az@74-112 1130 (remind-03.01.10) %./configure ********************** * * * Configuring REMIND * * * ********************** Please don't use Apple products. This script will continue in 30 seconds if you insist on compiling Remind on Mac OS X. How stupid is this? The compilation went just fine.
- rwl 16y ago
  Yes, that does seem a bit over-the-top, compared to the usual configure/make routine for Free software packages. But is that the right contrast class? I wonder how you feel about software that: - refuses to run if it detects that it's running on a virtual machine (OS X) - refuses to run if it detects that it's running under a debugger (iTunes) - refuses to execute programs that aren't cryptographically signed by a particular vendor (iOS) To me, a preachy message that doesn't actually interfere with running the program looks downright friendly by comparison.
  - albertzeyer 16y ago
    That's the difference between free software and non-free software. So do you want to argue that Remind is not free? Or free with just some totally unneeded annoyance? What is really the point of Remind behaving that way except of being annoying? OT: I never have heard that OSX tries to detect if it is running inside a VM and if it detects that, it refuses to run. Do you have some background info about it?
    - rwl 16y ago
      >That's the difference between free software and non-free software. So do you want to argue that Remind is not free? Or free with just some totally unneeded annoyance? What is really the point of Remind behaving that way except of being annoying? Indeed, that is the difference. I'm not saying that Remind is not free; I'm saying that despite the message, it remains free software, and you are free to use it and modify it as you wish, which is more than can be said for much of Apple's software. The point of the message is not to be annoying, but to remind users that there is a significant difference between free and non-free software. > OT: I never have heard that OSX tries to detect if it is running inside a VM and if it detects that, it refuses to run. Do you have some background info about it? Here's a little bit: "The "Trusted Platform Module," or TPM, is a computer chip embedded inside Intel-based Macs to prevent the Intel-based version of Mac OS X from running on non-Apple hardware. (during installation of Mac OS X, Mac OS X interfaces with the TPM. If Mac OS X finds that the TPM doesn't exist, Mac OS X refuses to install or run.)" [1] There are ways around this, I guess, and some people have succeeded in running OS X in a VM, but it's not permitted by the EULA, and I believe it's a lot more complicated than simply firing up VirtualBox and installing from an OS X disc. [1] http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ#Do_I_need_Apple_hardware_to_run_Mac_OS_X.3F http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ#Do_I_need_Ap...
      - pieter 16y ago
        I think the part about TPM simply isn't true. The reason OS X doesn't run on normal X 86 machines by default doesn't have anything to do with the TPM, there even isn't a TPM anymore in modern macs. You could use the TPM similar to how you can use an eToken to securely store your private key and sign stuff in hardware, it doesn't pose any limitations on your system. Read this for more in-depth info: http://www.osxbook.com/software/tpm-emulator/ http://www.osxbook.com/software/tpm-emulator/ http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter7/tpmdrmmyth/ http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter7/tpmdrmmyth/
        rwl 16y ago
        Ah, ok. So it looks like my information is out of date, and Apple isn't shipping a TPM anymore. But they did, at some point, use a combination of hardware and software to try to prevent users from running OS X on non-Apple hardware (or a VM)? Even if they didn't, the EULA still forbids it. And I'll take "Please don't use this software on this platform (but we won't stop you)" over "Don't use this software on this platform (or we can sue you)" any day...
  - uxp 16y ago
    There is a major difference between being annoying about it's hardware "preferences", and a legally bound license and it's protection to prevent end-users from breaking those defined rules (VMs, Debuggers, and cryptographic DRM). The first doesn't do anything. The second protects profits and secrets. If the authors of this program decided that they didn't actually like Apple enough to build in copy protection, that would be fine, but nagging brings out the hacker in me, and I want to install it on every OS X machine I can get my hands on, just because they told me not to without a contractual obligation.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      I truly don't understand this. Deliberately making the software less useful to you bothers you more than simply making a request? Would you prefer it if the software delayed you for 30 seconds while forcing you to watch commercials, thereby increasing profits?
      - uxp 16y ago
        If the software's business model was to be free, but be supported financially by ads or commercials, then that is still another business model to give contribution to the authors. It actually does something. As a user of free and commercial software, I would prefer in my dream world if everything was free under a BSD-like license. As a programmer, I realize that I need to feed myself just as the authors of the software I use do. Apple needs to protect their business model, one of which is that their OS should only run on hardware they sell. It ensures that their employees and shareholders can feed themselves and their families. Compare that to Xchat, which is free in all forms except a Windows Binary. Reason being it takes significant effort and time to build and test on that platform. Remind has every opportunity to do something similar, by providing binaries and source free of charge for any other platform, but to distribute protection that makes sure that it does not run on OS X without payment or some other contribution. Just asking, without legally binding the end user, to not run it on the platform accomplishes and protects absolutely nothing.
      - Semiapies 16y ago
        Passive-aggressiveness is lame.
- sigzero 16y ago
  How stupid is it? Extremely in my opinion. You are running the configure script on an Apple product, so of course you are insisting on compiling it. That is just unprofessional and in my opinion childish.

by rwl 16y ago

albertzeyer 16y ago

Except that it just works fine on Mac and is as easy to compile there as on any other Unix/POSIX system. I found their attitude against Apple highly annoying. When I clicked on the source download link (in Chrome), I just got this message: Please do not run Remind on Mac OS Downloading via wget worked though. Then I started ./configure and I got this: az@74-112 1130 (remind-03.01.10) %./configure ********************** * * * Configuring REMIND * * * ********************** Please don't use Apple products. This script will continue in 30 seconds if you insist on compiling Remind on Mac OS X. How stupid is this? The compilation went just fine.

rwl 16y ago
Yes, that does seem a bit over-the-top, compared to the usual configure/make routine for Free software packages. But is that the right contrast class? I wonder how you feel about software that: - refuses to run if it detects that it's running on a virtual machine (OS X) - refuses to run if it detects that it's running under a debugger (iTunes) - refuses to execute programs that aren't cryptographically signed by a particular vendor (iOS) To me, a preachy message that doesn't actually interfere with running the program looks downright friendly by comparison.
- albertzeyer 16y ago
  That's the difference between free software and non-free software. So do you want to argue that Remind is not free? Or free with just some totally unneeded annoyance? What is really the point of Remind behaving that way except of being annoying? OT: I never have heard that OSX tries to detect if it is running inside a VM and if it detects that, it refuses to run. Do you have some background info about it?
  - rwl 16y ago
    >That's the difference between free software and non-free software. So do you want to argue that Remind is not free? Or free with just some totally unneeded annoyance? What is really the point of Remind behaving that way except of being annoying? Indeed, that is the difference. I'm not saying that Remind is not free; I'm saying that despite the message, it remains free software, and you are free to use it and modify it as you wish, which is more than can be said for much of Apple's software. The point of the message is not to be annoying, but to remind users that there is a significant difference between free and non-free software. > OT: I never have heard that OSX tries to detect if it is running inside a VM and if it detects that, it refuses to run. Do you have some background info about it? Here's a little bit: "The "Trusted Platform Module," or TPM, is a computer chip embedded inside Intel-based Macs to prevent the Intel-based version of Mac OS X from running on non-Apple hardware. (during installation of Mac OS X, Mac OS X interfaces with the TPM. If Mac OS X finds that the TPM doesn't exist, Mac OS X refuses to install or run.)" [1] There are ways around this, I guess, and some people have succeeded in running OS X in a VM, but it's not permitted by the EULA, and I believe it's a lot more complicated than simply firing up VirtualBox and installing from an OS X disc. [1] http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ#Do_I_need_Apple_hardware_to_run_Mac_OS_X.3F http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ#Do_I_need_Ap...
    - pieter 16y ago
      I think the part about TPM simply isn't true. The reason OS X doesn't run on normal X 86 machines by default doesn't have anything to do with the TPM, there even isn't a TPM anymore in modern macs. You could use the TPM similar to how you can use an eToken to securely store your private key and sign stuff in hardware, it doesn't pose any limitations on your system. Read this for more in-depth info: http://www.osxbook.com/software/tpm-emulator/ http://www.osxbook.com/software/tpm-emulator/ http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter7/tpmdrmmyth/ http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter7/tpmdrmmyth/
      - rwl 16y ago
        Ah, ok. So it looks like my information is out of date, and Apple isn't shipping a TPM anymore. But they did, at some point, use a combination of hardware and software to try to prevent users from running OS X on non-Apple hardware (or a VM)? Even if they didn't, the EULA still forbids it. And I'll take "Please don't use this software on this platform (but we won't stop you)" over "Don't use this software on this platform (or we can sue you)" any day...
- uxp 16y ago
  There is a major difference between being annoying about it's hardware "preferences", and a legally bound license and it's protection to prevent end-users from breaking those defined rules (VMs, Debuggers, and cryptographic DRM). The first doesn't do anything. The second protects profits and secrets. If the authors of this program decided that they didn't actually like Apple enough to build in copy protection, that would be fine, but nagging brings out the hacker in me, and I want to install it on every OS X machine I can get my hands on, just because they told me not to without a contractual obligation.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    I truly don't understand this. Deliberately making the software less useful to you bothers you more than simply making a request? Would you prefer it if the software delayed you for 30 seconds while forcing you to watch commercials, thereby increasing profits?
    - uxp 16y ago
      If the software's business model was to be free, but be supported financially by ads or commercials, then that is still another business model to give contribution to the authors. It actually does something. As a user of free and commercial software, I would prefer in my dream world if everything was free under a BSD-like license. As a programmer, I realize that I need to feed myself just as the authors of the software I use do. Apple needs to protect their business model, one of which is that their OS should only run on hardware they sell. It ensures that their employees and shareholders can feed themselves and their families. Compare that to Xchat, which is free in all forms except a Windows Binary. Reason being it takes significant effort and time to build and test on that platform. Remind has every opportunity to do something similar, by providing binaries and source free of charge for any other platform, but to distribute protection that makes sure that it does not run on OS X without payment or some other contribution. Just asking, without legally binding the end user, to not run it on the platform accomplishes and protects absolutely nothing.
    - Semiapies 16y ago
      Passive-aggressiveness is lame.
sigzero 16y ago
How stupid is it? Extremely in my opinion. You are running the configure script on an Apple product, so of course you are insisting on compiling it. That is just unprofessional and in my opinion childish.