Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2022 October 4
| Computing desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < October 3 | << Sep | October | Nov >> | Current desk > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
October 4
editWhat is meant by this? Is this legal and enforceable under United States (California) law? What happens if I violate it?
editFrom macOS Big Sur software license agreement, section 2B
"... you may not use the Apple Software to run any Apple operating system software, including iOS, iPadOS, watchOS or tvOS, in virtual operating system environments on Mac Computer(s) ..." 192.184.205.73 (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- The Reference Desk cannot answer questions about what is "legal and enforceable". --174.95.81.219 (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- What it means is that Apple want you to get a separate licence for each instance (VM, bare metal) of their software that you run. For "get a separate licence" read "send us some money". As regards the rest of your question, see the reply above. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I assume the question is curiosity-driven and not informed by an actual wish to virtualize macOS on a Mac. "Enforceable" can mean, "enforceable in practice" – how would they find out?... unless you publicize what you are doing. A more interesting question is whether the contract is legally enforceable – would a court throw it out as a silly restriction? For that, we'd need to understand the possible interest Apple has in disallowing this. If they have a genuine interest, it is plausible that the clause is enforceable. --Lambiam 10:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- What this is about is virtualization. You're not allowed to host multiple instances of MacOS without further licensing. I had a company long ago called "Workspot" which was, essentially, the Cloud twenty years before the Cloud, but with remote processing as well as remote storage. We never got far along enough for licensing to be an issue, but this is exactly what is being restricted here: we would have had to make a special arrangement to allow multiple clients to use the same licensed copy of the OS. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 13:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Now suppose a commercial company has a proper licence for macOS and also one for OSX. As part of their commercial operation they run OSX virtually on a Mac. This is the sole OSX instance they run; it is not an additional copy. Apple offers no provisions for this case, also not through paying an extra fee. Does Apple have a legitimate interest to disallow this? --Lambiam 14:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- This seems to be one of the reasons we don't do legal advice. Your statement seems to be predisposed on the assumption the court will require a "legitimate interest" to enforce this restriction but AFAICT, that is unproven. Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Now suppose a commercial company has a proper licence for macOS and also one for OSX. As part of their commercial operation they run OSX virtually on a Mac. This is the sole OSX instance they run; it is not an additional copy. Apple offers no provisions for this case, also not through paying an extra fee. Does Apple have a legitimate interest to disallow this? --Lambiam 14:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- What this is about is virtualization. You're not allowed to host multiple instances of MacOS without further licensing. I had a company long ago called "Workspot" which was, essentially, the Cloud twenty years before the Cloud, but with remote processing as well as remote storage. We never got far along enough for licensing to be an issue, but this is exactly what is being restricted here: we would have had to make a special arrangement to allow multiple clients to use the same licensed copy of the OS. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 13:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The day's date
editI'm running Windows 10 and it's up to date. For the past several months (maybe more, I'm struggling with timelines these days) my Start Menu has had some strange behaviour. On the pop-out portion that shows quick access programs, I have a tile with the date showing. I think it was there by default. Nothing fancy, just the date. When I click the start button, the quick access stuff shows up of course, including the date tile and it briefly shows some obsolete date in the past and then "flips" over to the current date. For example, today is the 4th, but when I checked my computer it briefly showed the 1st and then flipped to the 4th. Now, I might understand that activity if this was my first time using the computer since the 1st, but it's not; I'm on it multiple times per day. It's such an insignificant thing, but it just makes no sense. Why the 1st and not the 3rd? Why even do it at all? It's not every single time I sit down at the computer, but I'd swear it does this more than once per day. Reference desk questions should come down to more than just "What's up with that?" but, um, "What's up with that?" Matt Deres (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- It may be that the system clock (the battery backed clock that keeps time even when the machine is off) is drifting or entirely dead when the computer is off. When you turn the computer on, Windows sets its clock off that. Then, some time later, Windows performs a Network Time Protocol operation, gets the correct time from the internet, and sets the clock right. If that's the case, if you power off (not just reboot, turn it cold off) and then boot into the BIOS, it will show a wrong time there. Assuming the machine is some years old, the simplest fix to try is to replace the little coin cell battery (which is often a CR2032), which the system clock uses when the machine is otherwise unpowered. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 20:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- It'd definitely try the CMOS battery but this behaviour seems a bit weird for that. Most EFIs will reset to some default date perhaps the time the EFI was made when they lost time. But Windows itself, since I think Windows 8, will adjust the date to the last used time and date if it seems wrong (I think if it is earlier than last used time). But neither should result in the date being 1 October if it was used more recently. Nil Einne (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I typically leave the computer on 24/7; it's not a low battery. Also, the date in the system tray is just fine. Like, the date in my lower right corner will say 2022-10-05, but when I pop the start menu it will have a big "02" or something (I don't think it's consistently X days off) which will then do a flip animation over to "05". I can only assume this is intentional behaviour, but I'm stumped as to why anyone would want that. The old number hangs there for a second or two - long enough to make me think I've just misplaced what day it is - only for it to suddenly "remember" that it has to flip the date over. I suppose I should just disable it or something, but I'm stumped as to who thought this behaviour was desirable. Matt Deres (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- The CMOS battery is a non-rechargable coin-cell. It lasts several years, but eventually runs down, whether the computer is on all the time or none at all. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, but if the computer is always on, why would Windows need to use the battery to display the time? And why would it only affect the calendar on the start menu tile and not the date/time in the system tray?
- For clarity, are you saying the behaviour happens every time you open the start menu regardless of whether you've restarted the computer recently? Nil Einne (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yup. I can't recall the last time I restarted the computer, but this morning when I popped the start menu, it showed the 23rd and then did the flip animation to the 8th. Matt Deres (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)