Psystar releases another hackamac -- a server.

Apple hasn't sued Psystar yet, so it's no surprise the company is pushing the envelope as far as it can -- it's just introduced two rackmount servers that come with OS X Server pre-installed. The OpenServ 1100 and 2400 are both configurable with 2.5 GHz Xeon processors and up to 16GB of RAM, with the 1U 1100 sporting four drive bays and the 2U 2400 rocking six. Just like Psystar's other products, you're on your own (or at the mercy of Psystar) for service and support, since Apple won't help you -- and considering Psystar kept sending us support tickets for that DHCP issue but never actually called us to resolve it, that might make enterprise customers a bit wary. On the other hand, with prices starting at $1599, we're certain some desperate render shop will take the plunge.

#503273

Phantom_Lord... just one request. if you're going to use matter from external source, please mention the source at the end of the article (like engadget in this case). Just from ethical point of view.

On topic...

Desktops are one thing, but for a server.... this line pretty much sums it all.

Just like Psystar's other products, you're on your own (or at the mercy of Psystar) for service and support, since Apple won't help you

#503282

What is Apple waiting for? The OSX86 community is one thing, but these guys are making money off of this...Isn't there something blatantly illegal about this?

#503286

Phantom_Lord... just one request. if you're going to use matter from external source, please mention the source at the end of the article (like engadget in this case). Just from ethical point of view.

On topic...

Desktops are one thing, but for a server.... this line pretty much sums it all.

Blah. I do -- always... look at all my other posts that I've made here... just forgot this time, lol :confused:

#503295

^ No issues man... I thought I would bring it to your attention what I noticed.

#503299

haha, alrighty then, thanks

#503306

What is Apple waiting for? The OSX86 community is one thing, but these guys are making money off of this...Isn't there something blatantly illegal about this?

Yea, makes you wonder if apple can actually do anything... Apple is one company that is "fast" as hell to jump on anything violating their stuff.

#503326

Perhaps because Apple doesn't want to drag their EULA into a court of law.

As it stands, a good majority of EULA's out their are totally unenforceable and there is case law to back it up.

Also, as a matter of copyright and patent law, the longer Apple waits to send a C&D or file a civil complaint, the weaker their position will be in court.

#503327

Their cases are ugly.

#503356

I was wondering about that. The OSX86 community isn't really profiting from it. Pystar is. I've actually never read Apple's EULA. I know that it blatantly tells people not to install software on hardware that is not "Apple-branded," but that's suspect.

This should get more interesting. Although Apple might not be stopping it because it isn't hurting them; or they could be waiting on somebody to bring their Gateway into the Genius bar to slap cuffs on them.

#503391

I think you would have trouble finding a court that is going to enforce an "after purchase use" clause in any terms of service agreement; namely because there is no ongoing payment process or contract per-say with Apple. Once you buy a copy of OSX you legally own the right to use that software. There is no stipulation that Apple maintains the license since that is in effect what you are purchasing. Furthermore, you are not required to renew your license.

Now, the flip side of this coin is the 1 computer install clause. By the argument above, you may only install most purchased OS's on 1 computer since your license only allows for one. This has been enforced as MS is clearly able to restrict the number of installs. The reason being (reason that they are able to do this mind you) is because you agree at the time of purchase to abide by the rule that this will only be installed on 1 machine as per the EULA. So, in theory Apple would have strong grounds to fight it. I think the reason it would lose out would be the type of restriction. Saying, "You can only install this on 1 computer since you are buying 1 license" is one thing, saying "You can only install this on 1 computer that is developed by and comprised of Apple hardware" is a bit over the top. You are not only restricting the number of installs but what exactly it can be installed on.

If Apple wishes to purse something like that, they need to develop a better system of restricting installs to their machines. The unfortunate side (as MS has found with activation) is there will always be some people who are able to hack your code and get around just about any measure you put in place.

Just my 2 cents.

#503401

And now they're sued.

#505333