Originally Posted by seseberg

ehem, excuse me? who is comunist now? (and has ever been acsually)

Apple’s iPhone, now the best-selling cellular phone in the U.S., has been designed with restrictions that prevent owners from running applications obtained from sources other than Apple’s own iTunes App Store. “Jailbreaking” is the term used for removing these restrictions, thereby liberating your phone from Apple’s software “jail.” Estimates put the number of iPhone owners who have jailbroken their phones in the hundreds of thousands.

As part of the 2009 DMCA rulemaking, EFF has asked the Copyright Office to recognize an exemption to the DMCA to permit jailbreaking in order to allow iPhone owners to use their phones with applications that are not available from Apple’s store (e.g., turn-by-turn directions, using the iPhone camera for video, laptop tethering).

Apple’s copyright infringement claim starts with the observation that jailbroken iPhones depend on modified versions of Apple’s bootloader and operating system software. True enough — we said as much in our technical white paper describing the jailbreak process. But the courts have longrecognized that copying software while reverse engineering is a fair use when done for purposes of fostering interoperability with independently created software, a body of law that Apple conveniently fails to mention.

As for the DMCA violation, Apple casts its lot with the likes of laser printer makers and garage door opener companies who argue that the DMCA entitles them to block interoperability with anything that hasn’t been approved in advance. Apple justifies this by claiming that opening the iPhone to independently created applications will compromise safety, security, reliability, and swing the doors wide for those who want to run pirated software.

If this sounds like FUD, that’s because it is. One need only transpose Apple’s arguments to the world of automobiles to recognize their absurdity. Sure, GM might tell us that, for our own safety, all servicing should be done by an authorized GM dealer using only genuine GM parts. Toyota might say that swapping your engine could reduce the reliability of your car. And Mazda could say that those who throw a supercharger on their Miatas frequently exceed the legal speed limit.

But we’d never accept this corporate paternalism as a justification for welding every car hood shut and imposing legal liability on car buffs tinkering in their garages. After all, the culture of tinkering (or hacking, if you prefer) is an important part of our innovation economy.

Of course, many iPhone owners will be happy to choose solely from the applications that Apple is willing to approve, just like many Ford owners are happy relying exclusively on their local Ford dealer. But if you want to pop the hood, the DMCA surely shouldn’t stand in your way.

so WHAT if DOS is proprietary? at least it is HIGHLY GUI FUNCTIONAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So. Where did you copy that passage from? The front page? 'cuz I believe that you have no idea of what point you're making. Apple has legally done everything to close the software, one of the reasons being security. That, if compared with political ideologies, would be a dictatorship. Spelt: D-i-c-t-a-t-o-r-s-h-i-p; and there are kinds of dictatorships. Apple's current popularity (look at Mac sales) would probably mean a "benevolent dictatorship"; as opposed to Microsoft, which is a "tyranny".

Currently, jailbreaking is mostly "illegal" because of the DMCA, now the EFF is trying to make it an exemption.

As for your Ford or GM metaphor, they won't sue you for opening the hood; but they will sue you for stealing and publishing it's exact blueprints or selling fake chassis's or selling books about how to break into one using specific vulnerabilities...

so WHAT if DOS is proprietary? at least it is HIGHLY GUI FUNCTIONAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Any computer literate person would laugh their head off at this one...

Originally Posted by seseberg

dude, your comparrison between windows 3.1 and vista is stupidly discrepant if you are reffering to the differences between mac os x 4.11 and 5.6 or whatever the latest is.....................
dang dude, you sure don't think a lot before writing don't you?

It's a literary device known as exaggeration.

Ah Wikinerd, I was gonna wait for a while to point out that DOS is a command prompt and doesn't really have a GUI front, Unlike Windows 3.1 , 95 -> Windows 7 Which all have GRAPHICAL (GUI) Fronts, and i got called SIMPLE

P.s -> Sure it was copied from any website from here:

"Apple’s iPhone, now the best-selling cellular phone in the U.S." - Google Search

dude, you said earlier that windows is built on dos which is proprietary, right? SOOOOOOO
xp is built on dos, right???? SOOOOOO
xp is highly GUI functional, ok????? (of course barbone dos isnt highly gui functional................ get the deal man!!! ............)

(if you have not noticed by now, english is not my native language.................. I speak 6 languages quite well, and I think I am doing great with english, so please, bite me if I make 2 or 3 mistakes here and there

yes!!! who is the idiot at apple that takes their stupid marketing decisions?
I so hate those communist rules!!!!!!!! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by seseberg

dude, you said earlier that windows is built on dos which is proprietary, right? SOOOOOOO
xp is built on dos, right???? SOOOOOO
xp is highly GUI functional, ok????? (of course barbone dos isnt highly gui functional................ get the deal man!!! ............)

(if you have not noticed by now, english is not my native language.................. I speak 6 languages quite well, and I think I am doing great with english, so please, bite me if I make 2 or 3 mistakes here and there

If you don't mind my saying so, my remark about how MS-DOS is propriety is a reply to yours about how Apple's operating system is "closed". I am just inclined to point out to you that Microsoft's isn't any better.

And would you explain what's "GUI functional" please? I know that Mac OS X is more usable in comparison to XP, but "GUI functional" in literal terms only means that XP's GUI is less buggy than OS X's which can be as easily be true—or false.



And who frakkin' cares about your lingual abilities? 6 languages is nothing special. I know 8, if you count programming languages. And if you are as fluent in your other 6 languages as you are with English, then you're saying that you know none. Regardless, English is the de facto language on the internet. Noone cares if you speak a hundred languages here.

As for your English, there is a line between grammar mistakes and intelligibility; how are we supposed to understand your incomprehensible posts? You have to make yourself clear in order to express yourself.

Originally Posted by seseberg

yes!!! who is the idiot at apple that takes their stupid marketing decisions?
I so hate those communist rules!!!!!!!! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

Oh. My. God.

Apple uses marketing!!! What a revelation!!!

You know what, Microsoft does, too. Even Linux was marketed. So what's the point again?

(Oh, and by the way according to several publications, Apple's marketing decisions are based on their engineering decisions, not vice versa, rather unlike Microsoft... Google "Songsmith" then you'll understand.)

Originally Posted by seseberg

dude, you said earlier that windows is built on dos which is proprietary, right? SOOOOOOO
xp is built on dos, right???? SOOOOOO
xp is highly GUI functional, ok????? (of course barbone dos isnt highly gui functional................ get the deal man!!! ............)

No. Windows XP is not built upon DOS. Infact, no Windows versions since 9x have been? The Windows NT kernel (ntoskrnl) replaced the DOS parts.

CMD.EXE is NOT MS-DOS

By your argument, I could claim that Linux is very "GUI functional" - but that would depend purely on what I used to "hide" it. For instance; what window managers, themes, wallpapers, iconsets... etc I used.

I could make windows XP look like Mac OS X if I wanted, and I could make my Linux box look like XP - it wouldn't really affect the functionality; but it'd look different.