Mac-Clone Maker Sets Sights On Apple Xserve

[MacHeadCase]

Uh oh... I wonder why Apple hasn't moved in on them yet? Anyway, now Psystar wants to move on to making an Xserve clone... Yikes.

Mac-Clone Maker Sets Sights On Apple Xserve (http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20080621/tc_cmp/208800039):

Psystar, the Florida-based systems integrator that defied Apple (http://www.apple.com/)'s no-cloning rule by selling Mac desktop knockoffs, has introduced rack-mount servers that can run the Leopard Server operating system, an apparent challenge to Apple's Xserve system.

The OpenServ 1100, listed as a 1U server, and the OpenServ 2400, a 2U system, were launched this week (http://www.psystar.com/press.html). Both are "compatible" with several server operating systems, including Windows Server 2003 and 2008, Ubuntu Server, CentOS, and Mac OS X Leopard Server, the company said. ...

[technologist]

Seriously, now...if you were a company that needed a server, would you buy it from a vendor that couldn't give you a guarantee of future support for the OS?

[dtravis7]

Seriously, now...if you were a company that needed a server, would you buy it from a vendor that couldn't give you a guarantee of future support for the OS?

Excellent point. Most people who buy servers like that need support. No way would they purchase something from a company like that.

I am against the so called Mac Clones anyway, but if I were to want to break Apples EULA and use a clone, I would build my own and for less $$$.

[MacHeadCase]

Good points from you both. But I'm confused why Apple is dragging their feet. They should have intervened a long time ago, as soon as the first Mac clone product was announced.

[dtravis7]

Good points from you both. But I'm confused why Apple is dragging their feet. They should have intervened a long time ago, as soon as the first Mac clone product was announced.

I have been wondering the same thing. The Rumor people have said a lot of junk, but I still wonder why they have not gone after them.

[mathogre]

Seriously, now...if you were a company that needed a server, would you buy it from a vendor that couldn't give you a guarantee of future support for the OS?

You might. That's how Linux was brought into companies. Ha! Back in the mid to lat 90s, you could get fired for bringing rogue systems into the company and putting them on the network, though many of us did it anyway. Now you can buy Linux server support.

So yeah, you wouldn't put critical services on it, but you might buy one anyway just to try it.

[mathogre]

On the legalities, who knows? If you're going to prosecute it, you need to be sure you can make a real case. Otherwise, you may set a bad precedent. Still, a cease and desist order should have flown out of Cupertino a long time ago.

[MacHeadCase]

Yes exactly. When you think Apple went after bloggers and got at least one site to close, ya gotta wonder... :confused:

[Brown Study]

Some of the pundits say it's because the EULA isn't worth the electrons it's written with, that it can't be enforced because it's illegal.

I think that's probably true. I have software going back to 1992; QuarkXpress to name one. Have I been renting it since that time? Quark doesn't know I'm alive and hasn't heard from me in a decade, at least. Renting? The notion is a joke.

If the disks are stolen, wouldn't it be theft of my property? Not even Quark would say it was theft of their's.

I believe Apple hasn't stopped Pystar because it can't. If Apple took Pystar to court it would lose because the court would make it clear that anyone who purchases OS X isn't purchasing a licence, isn't renting the OS. And even if it were the case that a user is renting an application until the end of time, no licence can restrict the use to Apple machines. It is anti-competitive.

I don't think Pystar is some two-bit garage startup. It probably has financial backing by so-far silent parties with extremely deep pockets, itching for a court case to end Apple's OS/hardware monopoly, for whatever reason. And Apple knows it — and probably knows who the parties are and why they are doing it. Hence the silence.

If Apple sues and loses, the cat is out of the bag, not only for Apple but for the entire rickety licensing construct. By doing nothing, Apple at least delays the inevitable.

[MacHeadCase]

I think Apple owns Pystar.


You do??? Wow! That would be indeed something if it is the case... It never even entered my mind as a possibility!

[JohnTheMacGeek]

Good points from you both. But I'm confused why Apple is dragging their feet. They should have intervened a long time ago, as soon as the first Mac clone product was announced.That's been my question since they released that clone tower. I wonder why Apple Legal isn't smashing them flat right now?

[Sherman Homan]

Lookkkeee here! A picture of the server!
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/06/20/psystar-pokes-apple-server
Take a peak at the thing with the push button on the front of the server. Yup, that there, children, is a floppy disk drive! Imagine the hours of fun backing up 120 gigs of data onto 3.5" floppies!

[MacHeadCase]

Floppy??? But... why?... :blink:

[technologist]

Floppy??? But... why?... :blink:

Some servers depend upon floppies for firmware or driver updates or something like that. (Most don't, some archaic things still do, or so I'm told.)

I can just imagine Pystar coming up with something like that...

Unfortunately, the latest Apple security update patched the hole that we were using to trick OS X Server into running on our hardware. To continue using OS X, you'll have to update the EFI firmware on your kludged-together "server" with our latest hack. To do this, boot from your Pystar EFI Update floppy...

[MacHeadCase]

Hah! Good point, tech! :coolthumbup: