News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Apple goes too far in iTunes 8 by tdavis on Thursday September 11, 2008 @04:02PM (#301707)
Hear, hear. I own a Mac Pro, MBP, iPod and iPhone and I'll be the first to admit Apple isn't a perfect company by any means; I have had some sort of issue with all of these devices and many are ongoing. That being said, a CD/DVD burning app that installs CD/DVD burning drivers... that seems reasonable to me.

And I'd like to point out the fact that nobody notices if something isn't in a EULA or License Agreement until there's some really horrendous bug (like causing a BSOD) and people start looking in them precisely so they can say the terms aren't there. I mean, what do you want, a checkbox that says "Do not install drivers required for the proper functioning of iTunes"?

Le Sigh

Re:Apple goes too far in iTunes 8 by jcl on Thursday September 11, 2008 @05:03PM (#301766)
On the other hand, a driver is supposed to be a low-level interface to hardware. iTunes is not adding a new CD/DVD burner, so why would it presume to know more about the operation of your CD/DVD burner than the manufacturer, who presumably wrote the driver already installed on the system?
Re:Apple goes too far in iTunes 8 by run4yourlives on Thursday September 11, 2008 @07:09PM (#301871)
I give you the alternative: Linux package dependency nightmare.
Re:Apple goes too far in iTunes 8 by tdavis on Thursday September 11, 2008 @05:18PM (#301781)
Probably for the same reason Daemon Tools doesn't add any hardware but still installs drivers? They're required for the software to function properly.
Re:Apple goes too far in iTunes 8 by jcl on Thursday September 11, 2008 @05:36PM (#301799)
Daemon Tools needs to install drivers because it is adding fake hardware -- a fake CD drive that needs to be indistinguishable from a real one so that it can circumvent physical copy protection. I'd be surprised if iTunes needs to do the same thing.
Re:Apple goes too far in iTunes 8 by tdavis on Thursday September 11, 2008 @06:09PM (#301827)
Perhaps not the same thing, but it would seem that we have opposite assertions both based on assumptions. I don't think this is going anywhere ;)