Linux Dev switching to OS X,Mac?
Jim Polaski
"Lots of Java developers are eyeing the Mac and Mac OS X very favorably.
However, thereÄ…s an even more potent and contentious schism brewing in
the computing universe, Roger Voss, a developer who uses Java for
middle-ware and C# .NET for rich client enterprise distributed software.
Å‚Lots of folks that have been fairly bullish for Linux are defecting to
Mac OS X,Ë› he told Macsimum News. Å‚We still see Linux as quite good as a
server operating system, but weÄ…ve become completely disillusioned with
Linux as ever becoming a viable desktop OS worthy of standing toe-to-toe
with Windows. ThereÄ…s simply no disputing that Mac OS X is clearly the
superior graphical user interface (GUI) OS that has some Unix-inspired
heritage underneath the hood. The Linux GUIs are not even in the same
league.Ë› "
--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
john bailo
> Å‚Lots of folks that have been fairly bullish for Linux are defecting to
> Mac OS X,Ë› he told Macsimum News.
"Lots" ?
Can you quantify that?
No...oh, yes, you're a Macintard.
Rick
Nice insult, dickhead. Try to be less bigoted.
--
Rick
Aquila Deus
> Jim Polaski wrote:
>
> > Mac OS X,² he told Macsimum News.
>
> "Lots" ?
>
> Can you quantify that?
>
> No...oh, yes, you're a Macintard.
I'm one of them!
TravelinMan
john bailo <jab...@texeme.com> wrote:
> Jim Polaski wrote:
>
> > Å‚Lots of folks that have been fairly bullish for Linux are defecting to
> > Mac OS X,Ë› he told Macsimum News.
>
> "Lots" ?
>
> Can you quantify that?
Maybe you should ask Mayor. He's the expert on numbers here. After all,
he thinks that 'several' is a bigger number than 'many hundreds'.
Jim Polaski
I'm also the messenger dippy. Why don't you write the author?
Too bad you don't know what a "messenger is?
Liam Slider
> From Macismum news:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/c3we7
>
> "Lots of Java developers are eyeing the Mac and Mac OS X very favorably.
> However, thereÄ…s an even more potent and contentious schism brewing in
> the computing universe, Roger Voss, a developer who uses Java for
> middle-ware and C# .NET for rich client enterprise distributed software.
>
> Å‚Lots of folks that have been fairly bullish for Linux are defecting to
> Mac OS X,Ë› he told Macsimum News. Å‚We still see Linux as quite good as a
> server operating system, but weÄ…ve become completely disillusioned with
> Linux as ever becoming a viable desktop OS worthy of standing toe-to-toe
> with Windows. ThereÄ…s simply no disputing that Mac OS X is clearly the
> superior graphical user interface (GUI) OS that has some Unix-inspired
> heritage underneath the hood. The Linux GUIs are not even in the same
> league.Ë› "
Sounds like more Intel and Apple spread FUD to me. Remember the infamous
and well-timed statement by Intel....the day before Apple announced that
they were partnering, that Linux while fine on the server, was going
nowhere on the desktop? And now, we have *another* source, reported by a
Mac "news" agency, that states...well, that Linux is a fine server but is
going nowhere on the desktop, oh and that unnamed developers are jumping
to it in supposed unnumbered droves. Gee whiz...that's not suspicious at
all.
jab...@texeme.com
> Sounds like more Intel and Apple spread FUD to me. Remember the infamous
> and well-timed statement by Intel....the day before Apple announced that
> they were partnering, that Linux while fine on the server, was going
> nowhere on the desktop? And now, we have *another* source, reported by a
> Mac "news" agency, that states...well, that Linux is a fine server but is
> going nowhere on the desktop, oh and that unnamed developers are jumping
> to it in supposed unnumbered droves. Gee whiz...that's not suspicious at
> all.
Apple is the pawn of Microsoft.
The only reason they exist is because some people want to spend full
price on M$ Office for the mac.
The OSX move to Intel is more FUD...trying to create /doubt/ in people's
minds about moving to Linux.
The result, like Longhorn, will be that for those who wait, they will
end up empty handed as Apple doesn't deliver ( just like Microsoft
doesn't deliver ).
steve....@gmail.com
Jim Polaski wrote:
> In article <7JydnYDLdN4...@speakeasy.net>,
> john bailo <jab...@texeme.com> wrote:
>
> > Jim Polaski wrote:
> >
> > > ³Lots of folks that have been fairly bullish for Linux are defecting to
> > > Mac OS X,² he told Macsimum News.
> >
> > "Lots" ?
> >
> > Can you quantify that?
> >
> > No...oh, yes, you're a Macintard.
> >
>
> I'm also the messenger dippy. Why don't you write the author?
>
> Too bad you don't know what a "messenger is?
So you're saying that you don't agree with the Author? Sounds silly to
be posting quotes to things you think are false.
Peter Köhlmann
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:26:41 -0700, john bailo wrote:
>
>> Jim Polaski wrote:
>>
>>> ³Lots of folks that have been fairly bullish for Linux are defecting to
>>> Mac OS X,² he told Macsimum News.
>>
>> "Lots" ?
>>
>> Can you quantify that?
>>
>> No...oh, yes, you're a Macintard.
>
> Nice insult, dickhead. Try to be less bigoted.
>
Well, lets see: A statement from a Mac-centric "news" posting something
which seems quite unbelievable.
Posted to cola by a Mac user. Without any proof whatsoever
Ask yourself what "Jim Polaski" has in mind with this bullshit
After all, he is a Mac-retard from CSMA. Thats where the dumbest of the
truly imbeciles reside, like Oxford, Snit and Joe Ragosta
--
Only two things are infinite,
the Universe and Stupidity.
And I'm not quite sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein
Rick
> begin virus.txt.scr Rick wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:26:41 -0700, john bailo wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>
>>>> Å‚Lots of folks that have been fairly bullish for Linux are defecting
>>>> to Mac OS X,Ë› he told Macsimum News.
>>>
>>> "Lots" ?
>>>
>>> Can you quantify that?
>>>
>>> No...oh, yes, you're a Macintard.
>>
>> Nice insult, dickhead. Try to be less bigoted.
>>
>>
> Well, lets see: A statement from a Mac-centric "news" posting something
> which seems quite unbelievable.
> Posted to cola by a Mac user. Without any proof whatsoever Ask yourself
> what "Jim Polaski" has in mind with this bullshit
>
> After all, he is a Mac-retard from CSMA. Thats where the dumbest of the
> truly imbeciles reside, like Oxford, Snit and Joe Ragosta
Bailo doesn't reside there, nor does Relf.
--
Rick
Rick
> In article <7JydnYDLdN4...@speakeasy.net>,
> john bailo <jab...@texeme.com> wrote:
>
>> Jim Polaski wrote:
>>
>> > Å‚Lots of folks that have been fairly bullish for Linux are defecting
>> > to Mac OS X,Ë› he told Macsimum News.
>>
>> "Lots" ?
>>
>> Can you quantify that?
>>
>> No...oh, yes, you're a Macintard.
>>
>>
> I'm also the messenger dippy. Why don't you write the author?
>
> Too bad you don't know what a "messenger is?
Bailo's an idiot cheerleader, much like Oxford. He's incapable of seeing
anything positive on any other platform.
--
Rick
Oxford
> Bailo's an idiot cheerleader, much like Oxford. He's incapable of seeing
> anything positive on any other platform.
untrue, I at least see OS's with a critical eye. I'm quick to point out
discrepancies on OSX, Linux and others... I just have high standards and
Linux isn't anywhere near the level I considered usable outside the
server space. If that begins to change I will make appropriate changes
to my view.
jab...@texeme.com
>
> Bailo's an idiot cheerleader, much like Oxford. He's incapable of seeing
> anything positive on any other platform.
>
Wait...supposedly I'm a /cheerleader/ but when I ask someone to quantify
a statement that "lots" of developers are moving from Linux to OSX (
which seems highly unbelievable ) the two responses I get are:
(A) Go ask the author of the article
(B) You're a cheerleader.
Gee golly. That's a rebuff!
Liam Slider
> Bailo's an idiot cheerleader, much like Oxford. He's incapable of seeing
> anything positive on any other platform.
Actually, I'm sure Bailo lives *entirely* in a world of his own.
Oxford
> From Macismum news:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/c3we7
>
> "Lots of Java developers are eyeing the Mac and Mac OS X very favorably.
> However, thereÄ…s an even more potent and contentious schism brewing in
> the computing universe, Roger Voss, a developer who uses Java for
> middle-ware and C# .NET for rich client enterprise distributed software.
>
> Å‚Lots of folks that have been fairly bullish for Linux are defecting to
> Mac OS X,Ë› he told Macsimum News. Å‚We still see Linux as quite good as a
> server operating system, but weÄ…ve become completely disillusioned with
> Linux as ever becoming a viable desktop OS worthy of standing toe-to-toe
> with Windows. ThereÄ…s simply no disputing that Mac OS X is clearly the
> superior graphical user interface (GUI) OS that has some Unix-inspired
> heritage underneath the hood. The Linux GUIs are not even in the same
> league.Ë› "
That's quite accurate, and basically what I've said for several years.
OSX has rapidly moved into the No. 1 overall position, Windows has
slipped several notches, and while Linux is trying, until they learn to
"Focus" on "1" distro, they can't move forward. They are endlessly
spinning their wheels, while more professional OS's move ever farther
ahead.
Liam Slider
> while Linux is trying, until they learn to
> "Focus" on "1" distro, they can't move forward.
You don't understand how Linux works.
Liam Slider
>
> untrue, I at least see OS's with a critical eye. I'm quick to point out
> discrepancies on OSX,
AHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahaha!
Rick
Yeah.. we'll all hold our breath ... NOT.
--
Rick
Rick
No, idiot, I called you a cheerleader because you are blind...
When you are the cheerleader, there's nothing better than Linux.
When YOU can't figure something out, Linux sucks, in effect a reverse
cheerleader.
Buy a brain.
--
Rick
jab...@texeme.com
> untrue, I at least see OS's with a critical eye. I'm quick to point out
> discrepancies on OSX, Linux and others... I just have high standards and
> Linux isn't anywhere near the level I considered usable outside the
> server space. If that begins to change I will make appropriate changes
> to my view.
Whereas the National Institute of Health disagrees with you.
Let's see.
Oxford.
NIH.
Oxford.
NIH.
Oxford....mmm...nah.
I'll trust the opinion of NIH.
Rick
> Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> wrote:
>
>> From Macismum news:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/c3we7
>>
>> "Lots of Java developers are eyeing the Mac and Mac OS X very favorably.
>> However, thereÄ…s an even more potent and contentious schism brewing in
>> the computing universe, Roger Voss, a developer who uses Java for
>> middle-ware and C# .NET for rich client enterprise distributed software.
>>
>> Å‚Lots of folks that have been fairly bullish for Linux are defecting to
>> Mac OS X,Ë› he told Macsimum News. Å‚We still see Linux as quite good as
>> a server operating system, but weÄ…ve become completely disillusioned
>> with Linux as ever becoming a viable desktop OS worthy of standing
>> toe-to-toe with Windows. ThereÄ…s simply no disputing that Mac OS X is
>> clearly the superior graphical user interface (GUI) OS that has some
>> Unix-inspired heritage underneath the hood. The Linux GUIs are not even
>> in the same league.Ë› "
>
> That's quite accurate, and basically what I've said for several years. OSX
> has rapidly moved into the No. 1 overall position,
Overall position of what?
> Windows has slipped
> several notches, and while Linux is trying, until they learn to "Focus" on
> "1" distro, they can't move forward. They are endlessly spinning their
> wheels, while more professional OS's move ever farther ahead.
... where?
--
Rick
Rick
He doesn't want to know. He wants everything to work like the OS he is
using.
--
Rick
Kier
>
> That's quite accurate, and basically what I've said for several years.
> OSX has rapidly moved into the No. 1 overall position, Windows has
> slipped several notches, and while Linux is trying, until they learn to
> "Focus" on "1" distro, they can't move forward. They are endlessly
> spinning their wheels, while more professional OS's move ever farther
> ahead.
Why should anyone want to see Linux reduced to one distro? The whole thing
about Linux is its diversity and adaptability. And who's going to decide
*which* distro? What about all the users who like Mandrive or Knoppix or
whatever - are they supposed to switch to this "1" distro?
For your information, Linux isn't spinning its wheels, it's developing at
an astonishing rate.
--
Kier
Chad Irby
Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> For your information, Linux isn't spinning its wheels, it's developing at
> an astonishing rate.
...in about four hundred different directions, at an accelerating rate.
If the trend continues at even a reduced rate of change, you're
basically going to be reduced to "well, I was installing (subvariant 1)
when the guy next to me was installing (subvariant 423), which isn't
compatible."
This is *not* a good way to keep costs down in a company...
--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.
Peter Köhlmann
And as usual you can't cite a single example
But then you are a mac user. It doesn't get any dumber
--
Avoid reality at all costs.
Jim Polaski
"jab...@texeme.com" <jab...@texeme.com> wrote:
Ok, lets be clearer since you can't.
How could I possibly know what the author meant by "lots"?
He presumably knows his marketplace etc. So, like I said, email the
author if you want more clarity.
Tom Bates
And the diversity is it's big problem.
--
Yours,
Tom
Jim Polaski
"jab...@texeme.com" <jab...@texeme.com> wrote:
> Liam Slider wrote:
>
> > Sounds like more Intel and Apple spread FUD to me. Remember the infamous
> > and well-timed statement by Intel....the day before Apple announced that
> > they were partnering, that Linux while fine on the server, was going
> > nowhere on the desktop? And now, we have *another* source, reported by a
> > Mac "news" agency, that states...well, that Linux is a fine server but is
> > going nowhere on the desktop, oh and that unnamed developers are jumping
> > to it in supposed unnumbered droves. Gee whiz...that's not suspicious at
> > all.
>
> Apple is the pawn of Microsoft.
>
> The only reason they exist is because some people want to spend full
> price on M$ Office for the mac.
Tell that to the graphics/prepress/digital imaging/design world.
>
> The OSX move to Intel is more FUD...trying to create /doubt/ in people's
> minds about moving to Linux.
Source/cite? You can't provide one since it's only your blind eye.
>
> The result, like Longhorn, will be that for those who wait, they will
> end up empty handed as Apple doesn't deliver ( just like Microsoft
> doesn't deliver ).
Hmpft...OS X has now what Shorthorn will have, maybe, and what's already
been dropped. Of course you forgot about Leapord.
jab...@texeme.com
> How could I possibly know what the author meant by "lots"?
>
Wait a minute.
First you post this article to make hay with us, then you run away
crying when we call your bluff.
You're like the little kid who runs up to the big kids and splashes
water on them, and then runs to mommy and hides when they run after you
to beat you up.
Kier
> In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>,
> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> For your information, Linux isn't spinning its wheels, it's developing at
>> an astonishing rate.
>
> ...in about four hundred different directions, at an accelerating rate.
The Linux kernel goes forward in a fairly controlled and sensible way.
Other stuff like X is certainly advancing at a good pace these days. I
don't see anything wrong with that. It's not as if anyone *has* to keep up
with all these developments, unless they want to or actually need to keep
up to date, and then it's usually a simple enough matter to do so.
The different directions merely represent what different people want to
do. That's what Linux is about, not chaining users to one line of
development which may not have what they need. There's no point in
allowing things to stagnate.
>
> If the trend continues at even a reduced rate of change, you're
> basically going to be reduced to "well, I was installing (subvariant 1)
> when the guy next to me was installing (subvariant 423), which isn't
> compatible."
>
> This is *not* a good way to keep costs down in a company...
Well, of course, no one who is sensible is going to do that. They're going
to pick their flavour and stick to it. It's the desktop user who's most
likely to be interested in the new stuff.
--
Kier
Kier
Why? Reduce it to just one, and you lose what makes it so good - its
versatility. Its diversity is its *strength*, not a weakness.
--
Kier
Liam Slider
No, the way to keep the costs down at a company is to have a company
policy towards one distro.
BTW, you Mactards keep claiming Mac is a Unix (which it isn't), so....when
will you Unix guys settle on one "distro"? I mean, that's what you and
Oxtard are telling us Linux guys to do isn't it? So, when will you guys do
that?
The Ghost In The Machine
<steve....@gmail.com>
wrote
on 14 Jun 2005 10:07:25 -0700
<1118768845.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
> Jim Polaski wrote:
>> In article <7JydnYDLdN4...@speakeasy.net>,
>> john bailo <jab...@texeme.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Jim Polaski wrote:
>> >
>> > > Mac OS X,Ë› he told Macsimum News.
>> >
>> > "Lots" ?
>> >
>> > Can you quantify that?
>> >
>> > No...oh, yes, you're a Macintard.
>> >
>>
>> I'm also the messenger dippy. Why don't you write the author?
>>
>> Too bad you don't know what a "messenger is?
>
> So you're saying that you don't agree with the Author? Sounds silly to
> be posting quotes to things you think are false.
>
Depends on how humorous the poster thinks the author's tripe is. :-)
Some individuals here occasionally post Microsoft news releases,
mostly to show how well Longhorn's, erm, not doing...
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Oxford
> > Bailo's an idiot cheerleader, much like Oxford. He's incapable of seeing
> > anything positive on any other platform.
>
> Wait...supposedly I'm a /cheerleader/ but when I ask someone to quantify
> a statement that "lots" of developers are moving from Linux to OSX (
> which seems highly unbelievable ) the two responses I get are:
simple facts like OSX now has 500,000 developers, while Linux doesn't
have a 1/3rd of that, shows the huge gains OSX is making...
OSX will be where the action is for the foreseeable future, having the
first consistent, widely deployed Unix platform is a huge draw for
developers. Having a worldwide UI, professional apps doesn't hurt either
:)
the gold is here:
Tim Smith
> Why should anyone want to see Linux reduced to one distro? The whole thing
> about Linux is its diversity and adaptability. And who's going to decide
> *which* distro? What about all the users who like Mandrive or Knoppix or
> whatever - are they supposed to switch to this "1" distro?
There's no need for just one distro...but it sure could use some standards,
with all the distros sticking to those standards unless they have a very
good reason not to.
For example, it would be nice if everyone would fully follow the LSB.
It would be nice if there were a standard interface for manipulating the
desktop, so that when a program installs, it can figure out how to add
itself to whatever menu is appropriate, or place an icon somewhere, and
things like that. NOTE! I'm not saying that all distros should adopt the
same desktop.
Same goes for common UI things, like open and save dialogs, printer
interfaces, and stuff like that. There needs to be a common interface to
these things, which apps can count on. Any given desktop environment or
widget set or whatever could then implement that interface. Then, on my
systems, all my apps would use KDE dialogs (because I like those best),
whereas on the systems of people that like GNOME, the exact same apps would
all use GNOME dialogs, and so on.
--
--Tim Smith
Oxford
> > while Linux is trying, until they learn to
> > "Focus" on "1" distro, they can't move forward.
>
> You don't understand how Linux works.
No, I DO understand, that's the achilles heel of the platform, so unless
that problem is solved, Linux will never matter on the desktop.
Oxford
> > untrue, I at least see OS's with a critical eye. I'm quick to point out
> > discrepancies on OSX, Linux and others... I just have high standards and
> > Linux isn't anywhere near the level I considered usable outside the server
> > space. If that begins to change I will make appropriate changes to my
> > view.
>
> Yeah.. we'll all hold our breath ... NOT.
i was the first to point out the error of the "dashboard" metaphor,
there are errors in the Finder, quicktime shouldn't have a nag screen,
etc... I'm quite balanced in my comments, you should know that by now.
Oxford
> He doesn't want to know. He wants everything to work like the OS he is
> using.
wrong, any os that is extremely polished and stays out of the user's way
will rank high with me... there shouldn't be something in the way of
"you and a task"... currently osx is the top of the market in this
regard, windows a couple notches down, then linux 5 or 6 below that.
again, linux has a shot, but it must regroup and "focus" or dissolve
into a server only platform.
Chad Irby
Liam Slider <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 20:10:02 +0000, Chad Irby wrote:
>
> > In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>,
> > Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> For your information, Linux isn't spinning its wheels, it's developing at
> >> an astonishing rate.
> >
> > ...in about four hundred different directions, at an accelerating rate.
> >
> > If the trend continues at even a reduced rate of change, you're
> > basically going to be reduced to "well, I was installing (subvariant 1)
> > when the guy next to me was installing (subvariant 423), which isn't
> > compatible."
> >
> > This is *not* a good way to keep costs down in a company...
>
> No, the way to keep the costs down at a company is to have a company
> policy towards one distro.
Yes, but *which* distro? There's the common situation where the guys
pushing the various linux distributions have wars over which one is
better (and some of those make Mac-Windows fights look positively
chummy). Since the differences are much, much smaller than the
Mac/Windows fights, you get nasty little flamewars over trivial crap.
> BTW, you Mactards keep claiming Mac is a Unix (which it isn't)
Keep telling yourself that...
> so....when will you Unix guys settle on one "distro"?
Probably never, but at least we can get some sort of handle on the
problem with the few major variants out there.
> I mean, that's what you and
> Oxtard are telling us Linux guys to do isn't it?
Nope. We're just pointing out that, instead of a dozen or so major
distributions that would handle all of the major variations, the linux
world is *further* fragmenting into so many versions that it's
impossible to get even the linux guys to agree on which ones to choose.
> So, when will you guys do that?
About the time we have problems with having fifty or sixty different
versions of the half-dozen major unix flavors. Oh, wait, that's not
going to happen.
Chad Irby
Peter Kohlmann <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
> begin virus.txt.scr Chad Irby wrote:
>
> > In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>,
> > Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> For your information, Linux isn't spinning its wheels, it's developing at
> >> an astonishing rate.
> >
> > ...in about four hundred different directions, at an accelerating rate.
> >
> > If the trend continues at even a reduced rate of change, you're
> > basically going to be reduced to "well, I was installing (subvariant 1)
> > when the guy next to me was installing (subvariant 423), which isn't
> > compatible."
> >
> > This is *not* a good way to keep costs down in a company...
>
> And as usual you can't cite a single example
...because I don't need to, since anyone who's ever done any real work
for a real company will find this self-evident. I've seen similar (and
worse) with Windows variants - many companies won't allow different
*service packs*, much less different full versions of an OS.
> But then you are a mac user. It doesn't get any dumber
Oh, look, Peter calling someone dumb again. He must have lost already.
Oxford
> Why should anyone want to see Linux reduced to one distro? The whole thing
> about Linux is its diversity and adaptability. And who's going to decide
> *which* distro? What about all the users who like Mandrive or Knoppix or
> whatever - are they supposed to switch to this "1" distro?
yes, but the fractured nature has led to its irrelevance on the
desktop... i'm giving you the answer, but if you fight it, you won't
succeed.
> For your information, Linux isn't spinning its wheels, it's developing at
> an astonishing rate.
where? certainly not in the states... you can't even find a single
person running Linux... sure some stores use it, my embedded TiVo uses
it, I google with it... but as a desktop OS, it will never matter until
the point above is solved.
Chad Irby
Diversity is only good up to a point.
Nobody said "only one," we're just pointing out that the massive
proliferation of linux variants is getting harder and harder to keep up
with, even for the dedicated linux crowd.
It also makes it harder to push anything like a "pro" software market,
since anyone wanting to sell a package has to double-check too many
distros to make sure their installs work, or specify that only a
half-dozen major flavors will be "blessed".
Oxford
> In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>,
> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > For your information, Linux isn't spinning its wheels, it's developing at
> > an astonishing rate.
>
> ...in about four hundred different directions, at an accelerating rate.
yeah Chad!!!! that's exactly the problem... it's going really fast, but
in smaller and smaller circles... it can't break out of this pattern
since nobody is running the show, Linus has given up, has moved on to
the Mac... the rest will follow to OSX unless there is "focus"...
> If the trend continues at even a reduced rate of change, you're
> basically going to be reduced to "well, I was installing (subvariant 1)
> when the guy next to me was installing (subvariant 423), which isn't
> compatible."
>
> This is *not* a good way to keep costs down in a company...
it's like the Linux Community wants to fail... they were started as a
knee jerk reaction to MS being so powerful 8 years ago, now with OSX in
the mix, they have no direction, and unless they "focus", they have no
future.
Oxford
> > This is *not* a good way to keep costs down in a company...
>
> No, the way to keep the costs down at a company is to have a company
> policy towards one distro.
great Liam, you are starting to get it... now move your comment to the
next level, and have the whole world use one distro, and you will see
the results quite quickly...
> BTW, you Mactards keep claiming Mac is a Unix (which it isn't), so....when
> will you Unix guys settle on one "distro"? I mean, that's what you and
> Oxtard are telling us Linux guys to do isn't it? So, when will you guys do
> that?
good lord, the old ignorant Unix isn't unix, because it's not UNIX.
Earth to Liam, earth to Liam... nobody cares about that any more, it
doesn't matter in the real world... Linux is Unix, OSX is Unix... only
fools lost in the past try and argue otherwise...
end of this thread for me...
oxford
-
Ku Karlovsky
<jpol...@NOSPMync.net> wrote in message
<<jpolaski-5662AF...@netnews.comcast.net>>:
> Ok, lets be clearer since you can't.
Clearly you're spamming.
> How could I possibly know what the author meant by "lots"?
How could you possibly know anything?
> He presumably knows his marketplace etc.
You presumably know nothing etc.
> So, like I said, email the author if you want more clarity.
You're the spammer.
Ku Karlovsky
<jpol...@NOSPMync.net> wrote in message
<<jpolaski-AFF81A...@netnews.comcast.net>>:
> From Macismum news:
Are you taking over Oxtard's spam duties while he's on vacation?
Ku Karlovsky
<jpol...@NOSPMync.net> wrote in message
<<jpolaski-A4C02D...@netnews.comcast.net>>:
> I'm also the messenger dippy.
You're the spammer.
> Why don't you write the author?
You wrote the spam.
> Too bad you don't know what a "messenger is?
You're a spammer, not a "messager.
Kier
> In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>, Kier wrote:
>> Why should anyone want to see Linux reduced to one distro? The whole thing
>> about Linux is its diversity and adaptability. And who's going to decide
>> *which* distro? What about all the users who like Mandrive or Knoppix or
>> whatever - are they supposed to switch to this "1" distro?
>
> There's no need for just one distro...but it sure could use some standards,
> with all the distros sticking to those standards unless they have a very
> good reason not to.
>
> For example, it would be nice if everyone would fully follow the LSB.
I wouldn't disagree with that, on the whole.
>
> It would be nice if there were a standard interface for manipulating the
> desktop, so that when a program installs, it can figure out how to add
> itself to whatever menu is appropriate, or place an icon somewhere, and
> things like that. NOTE! I'm not saying that all distros should adopt the
> same desktop.
I think those kinds of things are happening now, if not in every distro.
We've got Debian-based stuff, and the rpm-based, and the source-based, and
within themselves these various groupings do seem to follow fairly
standard conventions. Not the *same* conventions, obviously, but in most
cases users stick to one type if distro.
>
> Same goes for common UI things, like open and save dialogs, printer
> interfaces, and stuff like that. There needs to be a common interface to
> these things, which apps can count on. Any given desktop environment or
> widget set or whatever could then implement that interface. Then, on my
> systems, all my apps would use KDE dialogs (because I like those best),
> whereas on the systems of people that like GNOME, the exact same apps would
> all use GNOME dialogs, and so on.
I'm not saying that wouldn't be helpful, but the difficult lies with
getting everyone to do it. I daresay many developers think these issues
are a bit less important than whatever it is they're doing. For the most
part, the two main environments do seem to be trying to keep themselves
consistent, but to make any 'rules' to rigid would seem to defeat the
purpose of Linux diversity.
But that's why we have distros like Ubuntu, or whatever, which aim to be
more smooth and consistent.
--
Kier
Kier
> "jab...@texeme.com" <jab...@texeme.com> wrote:
>
>> > Bailo's an idiot cheerleader, much like Oxford. He's incapable of seeing
>> > anything positive on any other platform.
>>
>> Wait...supposedly I'm a /cheerleader/ but when I ask someone to quantify
>> a statement that "lots" of developers are moving from Linux to OSX (
>> which seems highly unbelievable ) the two responses I get are:
>
> simple facts like OSX now has 500,000 developers, while Linux doesn't
> have a 1/3rd of that, shows the huge gains OSX is making...
Do you have any proof of that figure?
>
> OSX will be where the action is for the foreseeable future, having the
> first consistent, widely deployed Unix platform is a huge draw for
> developers. Having a worldwide UI, professional apps doesn't hurt either
> :)
>
> the gold is here:
>
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/developertools/
Your gold, maybe. Not ours.
--
Kier
Kier
You've got proof of that, have you? Seems to me Linux is moving forward on
the desktop quite nicely, thanks all the same. We don't *want* one single
monolithic distro, and we don't need it.
--
Kier
Liam Slider
>
> yes, but the fractured nature has led to its irrelevance on the
> desktop...
Wrong.
Kier
> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Why should anyone want to see Linux reduced to one distro? The whole thing
>> about Linux is its diversity and adaptability. And who's going to decide
>> *which* distro? What about all the users who like Mandrive or Knoppix or
>> whatever - are they supposed to switch to this "1" distro?
>
> yes, but the fractured nature has led to its irrelevance on the
> desktop... i'm giving you the answer, but if you fight it, you won't
> succeed.
What answer? It's *not* the answer. You don't have the answer. Why should
we want to give away what makes Linux so flexible and unique? That would
be stupid.
>
>> For your information, Linux isn't spinning its wheels, it's developing at
>> an astonishing rate.
>
> where? certainly not in the states... you can't even find a single
> person running Linux... sure some stores use it, my embedded TiVo uses
> it, I google with it... but as a desktop OS, it will never matter until
> the point above is solved.
YOu can't find anyone running Linux? Do you live in a hole? Come off it,
Oxford. I live in a mingy little one-horse town and I know people who use
Linux and have heard of Linux. Linux magazines are sold in the local
newsagents, Linux distros in the bookshops only thirty miles away.
It's on my desktop, it's on my brother's desktop, on his friends'
desktops, at his workplace - you call them nobody? Yet you can't find a
single person. Why do I not believe you?
--
Kier
Liam Slider
> Liam Slider <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
>
>> > This is *not* a good way to keep costs down in a company...
>>
>> No, the way to keep the costs down at a company is to have a company
>> policy towards one distro.
>
> great Liam, you are starting to get it... now move your comment to the
> next level, and have the whole world use one distro, and you will see
> the results quite quickly...
Take that up a level and the entire world uses one OS.....spot the flaw.
>
>> BTW, you Mactards keep claiming Mac is a Unix (which it isn't), so....when
>> will you Unix guys settle on one "distro"? I mean, that's what you and
>> Oxtard are telling us Linux guys to do isn't it? So, when will you guys do
>> that?
>
> good lord, the old ignorant Unix isn't unix, because it's not UNIX.
> Earth to Liam, earth to Liam... nobody cares about that any more, it
> doesn't matter in the real world... Linux is Unix, OSX is Unix... only
> fools lost in the past try and argue otherwise...
No, Linux isn't Unix. It quite clearly isn't Unix. And OSX is most
certainly not Unix.
Kier
> In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>,
> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:28:35 -0500, Tom Bates wrote:
>>
>> > In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>,
>> > Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> For your information, Linux isn't spinning its wheels, it's developing at
>> >> an astonishing rate.
>> >
>> > And the diversity is it's big problem.
>>
>> Why? Reduce it to just one, and you lose what makes it so good - its
>> versatility. Its diversity is its *strength*, not a weakness.
>
> Diversity is only good up to a point.
>
> Nobody said "only one," we're just pointing out that the massive
> proliferation of linux variants is getting harder and harder to keep up
> with, even for the dedicated linux crowd.
They don't have to be kept up with, though, do they? The majority of users
are going to be users of one distro, perhaps two.
>
> It also makes it harder to push anything like a "pro" software market,
> since anyone wanting to sell a package has to double-check too many
> distros to make sure their installs work, or specify that only a
> half-dozen major flavors will be "blessed".
I don't see that covering only the major distros is a great drawback. And
there's always source packages. If you're selling stuff, it's most likely
only going to apply to SUSE, RedHat or Mandriva anyway.
--
Kier
Kier
> Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>,
>> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > For your information, Linux isn't spinning its wheels, it's developing at
>> > an astonishing rate.
>>
>> ...in about four hundred different directions, at an accelerating rate.
>
> yeah Chad!!!! that's exactly the problem... it's going really fast, but
> in smaller and smaller circles... it can't break out of this pattern
> since nobody is running the show, Linus has given up, has moved on to
> the Mac... the rest will follow to OSX unless there is "focus"...
Are you *still* peddling that crap about Linus? Jesus H. how many times do
you need to be told he's only using Mac *hardware* in order to make sure
Linux works with it as well as it does with x86. He has *not* 'moved on to
the Mac'. He still runs Linux. He has certainly not 'given up' Linux.
Where do you get these stupid and ill-informed ideas?
>
>> If the trend continues at even a reduced rate of change, you're
>> basically going to be reduced to "well, I was installing (subvariant 1)
>> when the guy next to me was installing (subvariant 423), which isn't
>> compatible."
>>
>> This is *not* a good way to keep costs down in a company...
>
> it's like the Linux Community wants to fail... they were started as a
> knee jerk reaction to MS being so powerful 8 years ago, now with OSX in
> the mix, they have no direction, and unless they "focus", they have no
> future.
You talk the most incredible bollocks. Linus started Linux because he
wanted a cheap alternative to Unix, and the project grew from there. The
kernel development is as focused as ever. The distros go where their users
and developers want them to go.
Why don't you stop blathering this nonsense?
--
Kier
Kier
> Liam Slider <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
>
>> > This is *not* a good way to keep costs down in a company...
>>
>> No, the way to keep the costs down at a company is to have a company
>> policy towards one distro.
>
> great Liam, you are starting to get it... now move your comment to the
> next level, and have the whole world use one distro, and you will see
> the results quite quickly...
When will you get it? We don't *want* a single distro, since that would
destroy much of what makes Linux so great, and so appealing to so many.
It's your kind who are so determined to remove choice from the user.
>
>> BTW, you Mactards keep claiming Mac is a Unix (which it isn't), so....when
>> will you Unix guys settle on one "distro"? I mean, that's what you and
>> Oxtard are telling us Linux guys to do isn't it? So, when will you guys do
>> that?
>
> good lord, the old ignorant Unix isn't unix, because it's not UNIX.
> Earth to Liam, earth to Liam... nobody cares about that any more, it
> doesn't matter in the real world... Linux is Unix, OSX is Unix... only
> fools lost in the past try and argue otherwise...
>
> end of this thread for me...
You mean you lost again?
--
Kier
Liam Slider
> In article <pan.2005.06.14....@nospam.liamslider.com>,
> Liam Slider <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 20:10:02 +0000, Chad Irby wrote:
>>
>> > In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>,
>> > Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> For your information, Linux isn't spinning its wheels, it's developing at
>> >> an astonishing rate.
>> >
>> > ...in about four hundred different directions, at an accelerating rate.
>> >
>> > If the trend continues at even a reduced rate of change, you're
>> > basically going to be reduced to "well, I was installing (subvariant 1)
>> > when the guy next to me was installing (subvariant 423), which isn't
>> > compatible."
>> >
>> > This is *not* a good way to keep costs down in a company...
>>
>> No, the way to keep the costs down at a company is to have a company
>> policy towards one distro.
>
> Yes, but *which* distro? There's the common situation where the guys
> pushing the various linux distributions have wars over which one is
> better (and some of those make Mac-Windows fights look positively
> chummy). Since the differences are much, much smaller than the
> Mac/Windows fights, you get nasty little flamewars over trivial crap.
Simple, they will use whatever the head of whoever makes the big IT
deal buys. Or they will use whatever the lead IT tech tells them they'll
use.
As for these supposed vicious "distro wars"....I've heard little. Except
maybe with Linspire. I have a friend who uses Fedora, I use Mandrake...no
"distro wars" between us. Although we've discussed some Linux stuff,
nothing on the level of "OS Wars" type stuff. I've seen nothing of it on
usenet either... I call bullshit.
>
>> BTW, you Mactards keep claiming Mac is a Unix (which it isn't)
>
> Keep telling yourself that...
>
>> so....when will you Unix guys settle on one "distro"?
>
> Probably never, but at least we can get some sort of handle on the
> problem with the few major variants out there.
So can we. There are a lot of minor distros, but there are only a few big
brand names that everyone's heard of and knows well. Most are
professional companies with significant resources and are well known for
well polished distros.
>
>> I mean, that's what you and
>> Oxtard are telling us Linux guys to do isn't it?
>
> Nope. We're just pointing out that, instead of a dozen or so major
> distributions that would handle all of the major variations, the linux
> world is *further* fragmenting into so many versions that it's
> impossible to get even the linux guys to agree on which ones to choose.
That's not true. The vast, overwhelming majority of distros out there are
small community distros, put together by a small number of people and used
by a few. Enthusiast's distros. Some of those make it big. But we still
*do* have the "big name players" of Linux. Red Hat (which puts out Fedora
as well as commercial Red Hat), Slackware, Mandriva (Mandrake), Debian,
Ubuntu, Xandros, SuSE/Novell, these are the big names of Linux. A few new
players may come and go, but these are *names* and have large followings
within the Linux community.
>
>> So, when will you guys do that?
>
> About the time we have problems with having fifty or sixty different
> versions of the half-dozen major unix flavors. Oh, wait, that's not
> going to happen.
Oh right, there are no smaller "unix flavors..."
Liam Slider
> In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>,
> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:28:35 -0500, Tom Bates wrote:
>>
>> > In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>,
>> > Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> For your information, Linux isn't spinning its wheels, it's developing at
>> >> an astonishing rate.
>> >
>> > And the diversity is it's big problem.
>>
>> Why? Reduce it to just one, and you lose what makes it so good - its
>> versatility. Its diversity is its *strength*, not a weakness.
>
> Diversity is only good up to a point.
>
> Nobody said "only one,"
Actually, yes, it was said.
>we're just pointing out that the massive
> proliferation of linux variants is getting harder and harder to keep up
> with, even for the dedicated linux crowd.
No it isn't.
>
> It also makes it harder to push anything like a "pro" software market,
> since anyone wanting to sell a package has to double-check too many
> distros to make sure their installs work, or specify that only a
> half-dozen major flavors will be "blessed".
Actually, Linux is fairly compatible along a couple branches. the
"RPM-based" branch, and the "Debian" branch, and even then under the hood,
it's not really much of a problem.
There *is* commercial software released for Linux you know. And they
haven't had these problems you seem to be screaming about.
Liam Slider
> simple facts like OSX now has 500,000 developers, while Linux doesn't
> have a 1/3rd of that, shows the huge gains OSX is making...
You are smoking crack.
Liam Slider
> yeah Chad!!!! that's exactly the problem... it's going really fast, but
>> in smaller and smaller circles... it can't break out of this pattern
>> since nobody is running the show, Linus has given up, has moved on to
>> the Mac... the rest will follow to OSX unless there is "focus"...
>
> Are you *still* peddling that crap about Linus? Jesus H. how many times do
> you need to be told he's only using Mac *hardware* in order to make sure
> Linux works with it as well as it does with x86. He has *not* 'moved on to
> the Mac'. He still runs Linux. He has certainly not 'given up' Linux.
> Where do you get these stupid and ill-informed ideas?
And as Apple moves onto Intel chipsets Linus won't be getting an Intel
chipset Mac (well, unless it's a gift), because his focus at the moment is
making such Linux *on the PPC* isn't being neglected.
Rick
> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Why should anyone want to see Linux reduced to one distro? The whole
>> thing about Linux is its diversity and adaptability. And who's going to
>> decide *which* distro? What about all the users who like Mandrive or
>> Knoppix or whatever - are they supposed to switch to this "1" distro?
>
> yes, but the fractured nature has led to its irrelevance on the desktop...
> i'm giving you the answer, but if you fight it, you won't succeed.
Hmmm... that would be the 7 million/yr installs that don't exist?
>
>> For your information, Linux isn't spinning its wheels, it's developing
>> at an astonishing rate.
>
> where? certainly not in the states... you can't even find a single person
> running Linux...
you're a liar. And a bad one.
> sure some stores use it, my embedded TiVo uses it, I
> google with it... but as a desktop OS, it will never matter until the
> point above is solved.
Vendors just have to get the news of how many Linux users there actually
are.
--
Rick
Rick
All he's going to do is slap his hands over his ears and go la la la la la
la la la la ...
--
Rick
Rick
> Chad Irby <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>,
>> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > For your information, Linux isn't spinning its wheels, it's developing
>> > at an astonishing rate.
>>
>> ...in about four hundred different directions, at an accelerating rate.
>
> yeah Chad!!!! that's exactly the problem... it's going really fast, but
> in smaller and smaller circles... it can't break out of this pattern since
> nobody is running the show, Linus has given up, has moved on to the Mac...
You're a ignorant git...
Linux hasn't given anything up, he's running ... wait for it ... LINUX on
his Mac.
> the rest will follow to OSX unless there is "focus"...
>
>> If the trend continues at even a reduced rate of change, you're
>> basically going to be reduced to "well, I was installing (subvariant 1)
>> when the guy next to me was installing (subvariant 423), which isn't
>> compatible."
>>
>> This is *not* a good way to keep costs down in a company...
>
> it's like the Linux Community wants to fail... they were started as a knee
> jerk reaction to MS being so powerful 8 years ago, now with OSX in the
> mix, they have no direction, and unless they "focus", they have no future.
Yes, you are an ignorant git...
Linux was started as an educational exercise in response to Minix.
--
Rick
Rick
> Liam Slider <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
>
>> > This is *not* a good way to keep costs down in a company...
>>
>> No, the way to keep the costs down at a company is to have a company
>> policy towards one distro.
>
> great Liam, you are starting to get it... now move your comment to the
> next level, and have the whole world use one distro, and you will see the
> results quite quickly...
Yes... viruses and malware for everyone.
>
>> BTW, you Mactards keep claiming Mac is a Unix (which it isn't),
>> so....when will you Unix guys settle on one "distro"? I mean, that's
>> what you and Oxtard are telling us Linux guys to do isn't it? So, when
>> will you guys do that?
>
> good lord, the old ignorant Unix isn't unix, because it's not UNIX. Earth
> to Liam, earth to Liam... nobody cares about that any more, it doesn't
> matter in the real world... Linux is Unix, OSX is Unix... only fools lost
> in the past try and argue otherwise...
No, KoolAid Boy, OS X IS NOT Unix or UNIX or unix. It is based on BSD.
There isn't even a u in BSD.
>
> end of this thread for me...
Buy a clue.
--
Rick
Rick
> Liam Slider <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
>
>> > while Linux is trying, until they learn to "Focus" on "1" distro, they
>> > can't move forward.
>>
>> You don't understand how Linux works.
>
> No, I DO understand, that's the achilles heel of the platform, so unless
> that problem is solved, Linux will never matter on the desktop.
7 million installs a year doesn't matter. Uh huh.
--
Rick
Rick
> Rick <no...@nomail.com> wrote:
>
>> > untrue, I at least see OS's with a critical eye. I'm quick to point
>> > out discrepancies on OSX, Linux and others... I just have high
>> > standards and Linux isn't anywhere near the level I considered usable
>> > outside the server space. If that begins to change I will make
>> > appropriate changes to my view.
>>
>> Yeah.. we'll all hold our breath ... NOT.
>
> i was the first to point out the error of the "dashboard" metaphor, there
> are errors in the Finder, quicktime shouldn't have a nag screen, etc...
> I'm quite balanced in my comments, you should know that by now.
I know that you are the Mac's incessant cheerleader. I know that you a
gleeful in your attempts to disrupt groups with your blithering. I know
that you are clueless in regards to Linux. I know that you disregard
information that threatens your little world.
You are ... Kool Aid Boy... in all your mistaken glory.
--
Rick
Rick
> Rick <no...@nomail.com> wrote:
>
>> He doesn't want to know. He wants everything to work like the OS he is
>> using.
>
> wrong, any os that is extremely polished and stays out of the user's way
> will rank high with me... there shouldn't be something in the way of "you
> and a task"... currently osx is the top of the market in this regard,
> windows a couple notches down, then linux 5 or 6 below that.
>
> again, linux has a shot, but it must regroup and "focus" or dissolve into
> a server only platform.
... so says the clueless wonder.
--
Rick
Rick
> "jab...@texeme.com" <jab...@texeme.com> wrote:
>
>> > Bailo's an idiot cheerleader, much like Oxford. He's incapable of
>> > seeing anything positive on any other platform.
>>
>> Wait...supposedly I'm a /cheerleader/ but when I ask someone to quantify
>> a statement that "lots" of developers are moving from Linux to OSX (
>> which seems highly unbelievable ) the two responses I get are:
>
> simple facts like OSX now has 500,000 developers, while Linux doesn't have
> a 1/3rd of that, shows the huge gains OSX is making...
You may now provide your references for the number of Linux developers.
>
> OSX will be where the action is for the foreseeable future, having the
> first consistent, widely deployed Unix platform
The guys at sun may disagree with you on a couple of counts.
> is a huge draw fordevelopers. Having a worldwide UI,
What the hell is 'a worldwide UI'?
> professional apps doesn't hurt either :)
>
> the gold is here:
>
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/developertools/
KoolAid Boy spouts again.
--
Rick
Rick
> In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>,
> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:28:35 -0500, Tom Bates wrote:
>>
>> > In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>,
>> > Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> For your information, Linux isn't spinning its wheels, it's
>> >> developing at an astonishing rate.
>> >
>> > And the diversity is it's big problem.
>>
>> Why? Reduce it to just one, and you lose what makes it so good - its
>> versatility. Its diversity is its *strength*, not a weakness.
>
> Diversity is only good up to a point.
>
> Nobody said "only one," we're just pointing out that the massive
> proliferation of linux variants is getting harder and harder to keep up
> with, even for the dedicated linux crowd.
... so .. don't keep up with it.
>
> It also makes it harder to push anything like a "pro" software market,
> since anyone wanting to sell a package has to double-check too many
> distros to make sure their installs work, or specify that only a
> half-dozen major flavors will be "blessed".
So .. specify ...
--
Rick
Arkady Duntov
(<cirby-00D0D8....@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com>) wrote:
> In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>,
> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> For your information, Linux isn't spinning its wheels, it's developing at
>> an astonishing rate.
>
> ...in about four hundred different directions, at an accelerating rate.
You seem to be trolling still. Could you dispel this appearance by naming
about two hundred or so of these different directions?
Arkady Duntov
(<jpolaski-AFF81A...@netnews.comcast.net>) wrote:
> From Macismum news:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/XXXXXX
>
> "Lots of
What has gotten the MacIntel trolls riled up? It could be that Apple's
announcement they're dropping the "incredibly powerful" PowerPC for an
Intel processor has compelled them to adjust to a re-polarized Reality
Distortion Field and are angry at the world.
Arkady Duntov
(<pan.2005.06.14....@nomail.com>) wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:47:49 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>
>> That's quite accurate, and basically what I've said for several years.
>> OSX has rapidly moved into the No. 1 overall position,
>
> Overall position of what?
OS X is in the "No. 1" overall position on Apple hardware.
Rick
Hmmmm ... that sounds reasonable.
--
Rick
Chad Irby
Rick <no...@nomail.com> wrote:
Seven million installs doing what?
There are a *lot* of linux server installs, and a boatload of hobbyist
machines, but the real desktop market just isn't picking up at that
rate, by any stretch.
--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.
Chad Irby
Rick <no...@nomail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:30:27 +0000, Chad Irby wrote:
>
> > In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>,
> > Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:28:35 -0500, Tom Bates wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>,
> >> > Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> For your information, Linux isn't spinning its wheels, it's
> >> >> developing at an astonishing rate.
> >> >
> >> > And the diversity is it's big problem.
> >>
> >> Why? Reduce it to just one, and you lose what makes it so good - its
> >> versatility. Its diversity is its *strength*, not a weakness.
> >
> > Diversity is only good up to a point.
> >
> > Nobody said "only one," we're just pointing out that the massive
> > proliferation of linux variants is getting harder and harder to keep up
> > with, even for the dedicated linux crowd.
>
> ... so .. don't keep up with it.
Someone has to, or the choice won't get made. If you only stick with
the one or two major flavors, then you abandon what someone are saying
is its strength.
> > It also makes it harder to push anything like a "pro" software market,
> > since anyone wanting to sell a package has to double-check too many
> > distros to make sure their installs work, or specify that only a
> > half-dozen major flavors will be "blessed".
>
> So .. specify ...
...and when someone in a corporate MIS department begins to do that,
they have to consider what all of their people need to use, what
programs work with that distro, which of their business partners use
which distros (and which programs), and how stable the future of that
distro is going to be for the next few years.
There's also the "trust" issue, since the corporate guys are going to
want *someone* to be responsible for the OS, in some legal and binding
sense.
TheDread
<snip>
>
> where? certainly not in the states... you can't even find a single person
> running Linux... sure some stores use it, my embedded TiVo uses it, I
> google with it... but as a desktop OS, it will never matter until the
> point above is solved.
Untrue Oxtard I am a Person living and working in the states and I use
Linux. Bow go play pattycakes, hopscotch, jumprope or whatever with your
"gurlie friends" Gates, Balmer and Jobs.
--
"Got the dirty lowdown Ms spyware, adware, malware, virus blues?
Try *nix there is a distro just for you."
Linux User #273161
Chad Irby
Arkady Duntov <arkady...@brotherhood.ua> wrote:
Try reading some of the linux discussion lists, and note the number of
"major" flavors that are out *now*.
Four hundred is an exaggeration, but not by a lot.
Chad Irby
> No, KoolAid Boy, OS X IS NOT Unix or UNIX or unix. It is based on BSD.
> There isn't even a u in BSD.
...but there is in "BSD Unix," which is what most people actually call
it.
Peter Köhlmann
> In article <pan.2005.06.14....@nomail.com>,
> Rick <no...@nomail.com> wrote:
>
>> No, KoolAid Boy, OS X IS NOT Unix or UNIX or unix. It is based on BSD.
>> There isn't even a u in BSD.
>
> ...but there is in "BSD Unix," which is what most people actually call
> it.
>
What "most people" call it is totally irrelevant
Your argument isn't true either. I actually know noone who calles BSD that
way
Also in magazines, when they talk of BSD, FreeBSD or NetBSD they don't add
that "Unix" to it. How come? Could it be that you were out of arguments?
--
Hardware, n.:
The parts of a computer system that can be kicked.
Tom Bates
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:28:35 -0500, Tom Bates wrote:
>
> > In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>,
> > Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:47:49 -0600, Oxford wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > That's quite accurate, and basically what I've said for several years.
> >> > OSX has rapidly moved into the No. 1 overall position, Windows has
> >> > slipped several notches, and while Linux is trying, until they learn to
> >> > "Focus" on "1" distro, they can't move forward. They are endlessly
> >> > spinning their wheels, while more professional OS's move ever farther
> >> > ahead.
> >>
> >> Why should anyone want to see Linux reduced to one distro? The whole thing
> >> about Linux is its diversity and adaptability. And who's going to decide
> >> *which* distro? What about all the users who like Mandrive or Knoppix or
> >> whatever - are they supposed to switch to this "1" distro?
> >>
> >> For your information, Linux isn't spinning its wheels, it's developing at
> >> an astonishing rate.
> >
> > And the diversity is it's big problem.
>
> Why? Reduce it to just one, and you lose what makes it so good - its
> versatility. Its diversity is its *strength*, not a weakness.
Look at retailing in the US. We're so overretailed that it's hard for
any one retailer to do well. For that matter even WallyMart is having
it's own problems.
You might also equate diversity=competition. Too much of a good thing is
as bad,maybe worse, than too little.
The problem with Linux is that you have no idea of who does or fixes
what. You have to wait for a fix often.
--
Yours,
Tom
Lawrence Matthews
being Unix. While it doesn't have the Open Group's certification, it
acts so similar to a certified UNIX that, apart from the certification,
it is for all intents and purposes Unix.
FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD all refer to themselves as Unix-like. BSD
is directly derived from the original UNIX, and remember OS X (or
rather, Darwin) is directly derived from BSD. It's Unix.
Kier
Linux is competing less against itself than against MS Windows. The
diversity of it helps it, IMO. Naturally, it will always be the larger,
commercial distros who are at the front line here, but other distros
nibble constantly at the edges, taking small chunks out of the giant. MS
is gradually being pushed into recognising that it can't continue riding
roughshod over everything in its path, that cooperation and
interoperability are good for business, not bad.
> The problem with Linux is that you have no idea of who does or fixes
> what. You have to wait for a fix often.
Do we? Actually, we very often don't wait long at all. And we usually know
about problems as soon as they arise. Any company that uses Linux will
have that side of things set up and sorted, certainly.
--
Kier
Kier
Exactly. Yet here's dumb Oxford peddling that same silly lie about him
again and again. <shakes head> Must be genetic.
--
Kier
Kier
> In article <pan.2005.06.14....@nomail.com>,
> Rick <no...@nomail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:30:27 +0000, Chad Irby wrote:
>>
>> > In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>,
>> > Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:28:35 -0500, Tom Bates wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>,
>> >> > Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> For your information, Linux isn't spinning its wheels, it's
>> >> >> developing at an astonishing rate.
>> >> >
>> >> > And the diversity is it's big problem.
>> >>
>> >> Why? Reduce it to just one, and you lose what makes it so good - its
>> >> versatility. Its diversity is its *strength*, not a weakness.
>> >
>> > Diversity is only good up to a point.
>> >
>> > Nobody said "only one," we're just pointing out that the massive
>> > proliferation of linux variants is getting harder and harder to keep up
>> > with, even for the dedicated linux crowd.
>>
>> ... so .. don't keep up with it.
>
> Someone has to, or the choice won't get made. If you only stick with
> the one or two major flavors, then you abandon what someone are saying
> is its strength.
No, you're not abandoning it, you're simply making *your* choice for
*your* needs. The OP was suggesting all Linux should just be one distros,
lopping off all sidebranches. This might sound greeat in theory, but would
be a disaster in practice.
>
>> > It also makes it harder to push anything like a "pro" software market,
>> > since anyone wanting to sell a package has to double-check too many
>> > distros to make sure their installs work, or specify that only a
>> > half-dozen major flavors will be "blessed".
>>
>> So .. specify ...
>
> ...and when someone in a corporate MIS department begins to do that,
> they have to consider what all of their people need to use, what
> programs work with that distro, which of their business partners use
> which distros (and which programs), and how stable the future of that
> distro is going to be for the next few years.
Same with Windows, isn't it? And at least with Linux you can acess the
source code if needed.
>
> There's also the "trust" issue, since the corporate guys are going to
> want *someone* to be responsible for the OS, in some legal and binding
> sense.
Then you go for a corporate distro like RedHat or Mandrake (Mandriva)
Coporate Server.
--
Kier
Chad Irby
Peter Kohlmann <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
> begin virus.txt.scr Chad Irby wrote:
>
> > In article <pan.2005.06.14....@nomail.com>,
> > Rick <no...@nomail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> No, KoolAid Boy, OS X IS NOT Unix or UNIX or unix. It is based on BSD.
> >> There isn't even a u in BSD.
> >
> > ...but there is in "BSD Unix," which is what most people actually call
> > it.
>
> What "most people" call it is totally irrelevant
> Your argument isn't true either. I actually know noone who calles BSD that
> way
If you don't, then you don't know anyone who has ever talked about BSD.
Do a google on "BSD unix" some time, and get back to us.
> Also in magazines, when they talk of BSD, FreeBSD or NetBSD they don't add
> that "Unix" to it. How come?
Because the "unix" part is understood.
> Could it be that you were out of arguments?
No, it's more like you don't seem to know what "unix" actually *is*.
JEDIDIAH
The vast majority of Apple's potential market growth is with such
"hobbyists". Discount them and you might as well have Apple file for
liquidation right now.
--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \
JEDIDIAH
> Rick <no...@nomail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:30:27 +0000, Chad Irby wrote:
>>
>> > In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>,
>> > Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:28:35 -0500, Tom Bates wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>,
>> >> > Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> > It also makes it harder to push anything like a "pro" software market,
>> > since anyone wanting to sell a package has to double-check too many
>> > distros to make sure their installs work, or specify that only a
>> > half-dozen major flavors will be "blessed".
>>
>> So .. specify ...
>
> ...and when someone in a corporate MIS department begins to do that,
> they have to consider what all of their people need to use, what
> programs work with that distro, which of their business partners use
> which distros (and which programs), and how stable the future of that
> distro is going to be for the next few years.
...at which point, all of this nonsense about ever proliferating
number of distributions is just that: nonsense.
[deletia]
You have no clue whatsoever how corprate MIS users select the
software that they use.
JEDIDIAH
> In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>,
> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:28:35 -0500, Tom Bates wrote:
>>
>> > In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>,
>> > Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:47:49 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>> >>
>> Why? Reduce it to just one, and you lose what makes it so good - its
>> versatility. Its diversity is its *strength*, not a weakness.
>
> Look at retailing in the US. We're so overretailed that it's hard for
> any one retailer to do well. For that matter even WallyMart is having
> it's own problems.
>
> You might also equate diversity=competition. Too much of a good thing is
> as bad,maybe worse, than too little.
>
> The problem with Linux is that you have no idea of who does or fixes
> what. You have to wait for a fix often.
Sounds vaguely familiar...
Oh yeah. This sounds just like proprietary software vendors.
I forgot another grand benefit of Free Software: You are not
restricted to getting support for the very latest iteration (or two)
of any given product. If you have some compelling reason for running
an older version product, you don't have to balance some costly
upgrade against your vendor leaving you out in the cold.
I'm experiencing that myself firsthand for a bit of software
that can go for as much as 80K per cpu or more depending on what sort
of extra features you enable.
Don't try to tell those of us that do this for a living about
"support" or "who's going to fix your bug".
chrisv
>That's quite accurate, and basically what I've said for several years.
What the? How did you escape my kill-file, you stupid troll?
*plonk* again.
Rick
> In article <pan.2005.06.14....@nomail.com>,
> Rick <no...@nomail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:30:27 +0000, Chad Irby wrote:
>>
>> > In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>,
>> > Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:28:35 -0500, Tom Bates wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <pan.2005.06.14....@tiscali.co.uk>,
>> >> > Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> For your information, Linux isn't spinning its wheels, it's
>> >> >> developing at an astonishing rate.
>> >> >
>> >> > And the diversity is it's big problem.
>> >>
>> >> Why? Reduce it to just one, and you lose what makes it so good - its
>> >> versatility. Its diversity is its *strength*, not a weakness.
>> >
>> > Diversity is only good up to a point.
>> >
>> > Nobody said "only one," we're just pointing out that the massive
>> > proliferation of linux variants is getting harder and harder to keep
>> > up with, even for the dedicated linux crowd.
>>
>> ... so .. don't keep up with it.
>
> Someone has to, or the choice won't get made. If you only stick with the
> one or two major flavors, then you abandon what someone are saying is its
> strength.
You do your research and make your decision. Then, periodically, review
the situation. Now unlike how things are done if you use windows or Mac.
>
>> > It also makes it harder to push anything like a "pro" software market,
>> > since anyone wanting to sell a package has to double-check too many
>> > distros to make sure their installs work, or specify that only a
>> > half-dozen major flavors will be "blessed".
>>
>> So .. specify ...
>
> ...and when someone in a corporate MIS department begins to do that, they
> have to consider what all of their people need to use, what programs work
> with that distro, which of their business partners use which distros (and
> which programs), and how stable the future of that distro is going to be
> for the next few years.
You are purposely, and dishonestly, trying to a distro choice much harder
than it is.
>
> There's also the "trust" issue, since the corporate guys are going to want
> *someone* to be responsible for the OS, in some legal and binding sense.
--
Rick
Rick
> In article <pan.2005.06.14....@nomail.com>,
> Rick <no...@nomail.com> wrote:
>
>> No, KoolAid Boy, OS X IS NOT Unix or UNIX or unix. It is based on BSD.
>> There isn't even a u in BSD.
>
> ...but there is in "BSD Unix," which is what most people actually call it.
Beeg Deel. Most people call self adhering bandages BandAids, and they
aren't.
--
Rick
Rick
Tell that to IDC.
--
Rick
Rick
> In article <d8oln5$6ng$03$1...@news.t-online.com>,
> Peter Kohlmann <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> begin virus.txt.scr Chad Irby wrote:
>>
>> > In article <pan.2005.06.14....@nomail.com>,
>> > Rick <no...@nomail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> No, KoolAid Boy, OS X IS NOT Unix or UNIX or unix. It is based on
>> >> BSD. There isn't even a u in BSD.
>> >
>> > ...but there is in "BSD Unix," which is what most people actually call
>> > it.
>>
>> What "most people" call it is totally irrelevant Your argument isn't
>> true either. I actually know noone who calles BSD that way
>
> If you don't, then you don't know anyone who has ever talked about BSD. Do
> a google on "BSD unix" some time, and get back to us.
Do a Google on BandAid and find out how many people don't know it is a
Brand NAme for a specific self adhering bandage strip.
>
>> Also in magazines, when they talk of BSD, FreeBSD or NetBSD they don't
>> add that "Unix" to it. How come?
>
> Because the "unix" part is understood.
See above.
>
>> Could it be that you were out of arguments?
>
> No, it's more like you don't seem to know what "unix" actually *is*.
Really?
<http://www.opengroup.org/certification/unix-home.html>
<http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/docs/UNIX03_Certification_Guide.html>
--
Rick
Rick
> Mac OS X is unix-like, which is what most people commonly would call being
> Unix.
Yeah... many people call any soft drink a Coke, too.
> While it doesn't have the Open Group's certification, it acts so
> similar to a certified UNIX that, apart from the certification, it is for
> all intents and purposes Unix.
.. except, it's not. And won't be until independent examination results in
a certification saying it meets the specs to be called UNIX.
>
> FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD all refer to themselves as Unix-like. BSD is
Yes.. unix-like.
> directly derived from the original UNIX, and remember OS X (or rather,
> Darwin) is directly derived from BSD.
FreeBSD.
> It's Unix.
It's unix-like.
--
Rick
Lawrence Matthews
> a certification saying it meets the specs to be called UNIX.
How goes obtaining that certification actually change what the OS is?
A rose by any other name...
Tom Bates
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
Lonux is fine if you're the geek and can do stuff yourself or know
someone. For the average desktop user, it's as I described it. They
don't have a clue...as evidenced as well by how hard it appears mr.
average user finds it to protect his/her Windows box from
viruses,trojans,malware, etc.
So, stay on your geek-tower and pontificate. Mr. average is another
matter you refuse to see. They're too easily confused.
--
Yours,
Tom
Chad Irby
Rick <no...@nomail.com> wrote:
Except that you *still* haven't comprehended the concept of a
"genericized trademark."
Jim Polaski
"jab...@texeme.com" <jab...@texeme.com> wrote:
> Jim Polaski wrote:
>
> > How could I possibly know what the author meant by "lots"?
> >
>
> Wait a minute.
>
> First you post this article to make hay with us, then you run away
> crying when we call your bluff.
No, I made no contention of anything. I posted an article. Just because
I post it does not mean I agree or disagree. It's INFORMATION, nothing
more.
>
> You're like the little kid who runs up to the big kids and splashes
> water on them, and then runs to mommy and hides when they run after you
> to beat you up.
Nope, I splashed water on no one. You, however, have your panties in a
bunch because the authors claims run amok in your personal world it
appears, and that's nothing I said or claim that I made.
So, if the guy's right, you're upset at him. Time to grow up.
--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
Chad Irby
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:39:13 +0000, Chad Irby wrote:
>
> > In article <d8oln5$6ng$03$1...@news.t-online.com>,
> > Peter Kohlmann <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
> >
> >> begin virus.txt.scr Chad Irby wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <pan.2005.06.14....@nomail.com>,
> >> > Rick <no...@nomail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> No, KoolAid Boy, OS X IS NOT Unix or UNIX or unix. It is based on
> >> >> BSD. There isn't even a u in BSD.
> >> >
> >> > ...but there is in "BSD Unix," which is what most people actually call
> >> > it.
> >>
> >> What "most people" call it is totally irrelevant Your argument isn't
> >> true either. I actually know noone who calles BSD that way
> >
> > If you don't, then you don't know anyone who has ever talked about BSD. Do
> > a google on "BSD unix" some time, and get back to us.
>
> Do a Google on BandAid and find out how many people don't know it is a
> Brand NAme for a specific self adhering bandage strip.
"Genericized trademark."
...and note that when someone asks you if you have a "bandaid," they're
not holding out specifically for an adhesive strip made by Johnson and
Johnson, but instead want something that does the same job.