An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails!

[Lloyd Parsons]

This link pretty much describes it all:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2974148/software/canonical-is-letting-the-
ubuntu-software-center-wither-and-die.html

Note that little software was ever purchased from it which then made it
not very viable, hence it will be gone.

Yet another commercial try in the linux desktop list of failures! And
not for technical reasons at all.


--
Lloyd

[Nobody]

"The Ubuntu Software Center application is considered rather slow and
outdated compared to the alternatives."

"Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. “As
David said, we learned that the Deb based package system wasn’t workable
for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, where we put the
developer of a typical app almost completely in control of publication.”"

Sure, "Lloyd," no "technical reasons" there. :-P

[DFS]

NoBrains, the Ubuntu Software Center will be successful when prices for
commercial software are reduced to the level that Linux freetards are
willing to pay: $0.00.

[Lloyd Parsons]

The technical reasons were the excuse to not have to say it was a total
failure at generating any sales.

I used it, it worked just fine.




--
Lloyd

[Lloyd Parsons]

Yep, the technical issues needed some money to pay for keeping it. It
wasn't, so then they could say that it was technical reasons, when it was
the failure on the commercial side that made any and all technical issues
'unsolvable'.




--
Lloyd

[Nobody]

Those would be the "technical reasons" you said didn't exist.

> I used it, it worked just fine.

As well as you read an article?

It's being replaced by a new service called "Snappy" which is used for
Ubuntu phones currently.

Try actually reading the articles you quote...

[Lloyd Parsons]

I did read the whole article. Did you miss the 'few were buying' part?

As to Snappy, well since the Ubuntu phone is a failure so far, might as
well put something else on it.




--
Lloyd

[Nobody]

Then why did you claim there were no technical reasons?

[Lloyd Parsons]

Because it isn't technical reasons. It is some problems with the
software, which is pretty true of all software, that would cost money to
fix. And since it isn't making money they don't want to fix it.




--
Lloyd

[chrisv]

Nobody wrote:

>"Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. “As
>David said, we learned that the Deb based package system wasn’t workable
>for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, where we put the
>developer of a typical app almost completely in control of publication.”"

It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" take
pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an alternative
product with little apparent significance.

Most of us like to see healthy competition, and to have lots of
choices. Me, I'm happy to see Apple's products in the market, even if
I choose not to buy them. Hell, I'm even glad to have Micro$oft as a
viable choice in the mobile-phone market.

It doesn't make sense, until one considers that they are just that
scared of the competitive threat that Free software poses, after
seeing Android come from nothing to roar to market leadership in just
a few short years.

The corporate shills keep beating the "desktop Linux will never
succeed" drum, but fact is that the foundations, on which the desktop
duopoly is built, are showing some cracks.

--
"You see 0.3 to 0.6 as a serious threat to a company who has more than
90% of the market as a threat? FFS. Get real." - "True Linux
advocate" Hadron Quark

[Snit]

On 9/16/15, 8:12 AM, in article hq0jvadn19es3gn35...@4ax.com,

"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Nobody wrote:
>

>> "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. łAs
>> David said, we learned that the Deb based package system wasnąt workable

>> for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, where we put the
>> developer of a typical app almost completely in control of publication.˛"
>
> It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" take
> pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an alternative
> product with little apparent significance.

At least you know what even the big fish in the open source desktop
ecosystem are: products with "little apparent significance." Agreed. I would
love to see them earn their way to being more significant.

> Most of us like to see healthy competition, and to have lots of
> choices. Me, I'm happy to see Apple's products in the market, even if
> I choose not to buy them. Hell, I'm even glad to have Micro$oft as a
> viable choice in the mobile-phone market.

I am happy with MS and Apple and Canonical and Mint and others in all these
spaces - desktop included.

> It doesn't make sense, until one considers that they are just that
> scared of the competitive threat that Free software poses, after
> seeing Android come from nothing to roar to market leadership in just
> a few short years.

Who is scared of what? What are you even talking about?

> The corporate shills keep beating the "desktop Linux will never
> succeed" drum, but fact is that the foundations, on which the desktop
> duopoly is built, are showing some cracks.

Again, what the hell are you even babbling about? You sound paranoid.


--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[Lloyd Parsons]

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> Nobody wrote:
>
>>"Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. “As
>>David said, we learned that the Deb based package system wasn’t workable
>>for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, where we put the
>>developer of a typical app almost completely in control of
>>publication.”"
>
> It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" take
> pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an alternative
> product with little apparent significance.
>

No pleasure taken, just noting that the failures exist and that you linux
loonies are a big part of that problem. How many of you bought software
in their software center? Hell, how many of you bought and/or donated to
Canonical to help ensure the success of a small business that is trying to
get Linux on the desktop to be a viable and profitable product?

I know the answer, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOU!

> Most of us like to see healthy competition, and to have lots of choices.
> Me, I'm happy to see Apple's products in the market, even if I choose
> not to buy them. Hell, I'm even glad to have Micro$oft as a viable
> choice in the mobile-phone market.
>

Linux on the desktop is not any sort of 'competition'. A competitive
product would be growing sales and making at least some profits. Other
than RedHat I don't know of a producer of a Linux distro that is making
any money at all. And even RedHat makes the bulk of their money on server
and services.

> It doesn't make sense, until one considers that they are just that
> scared of the competitive threat that Free software poses, after seeing
> Android come from nothing to roar to market leadership in just a few
> short years.
>

Right, with about 1.5% marketshare and stagnant, Linux on the desktop will
magically become 'competitive' sometime in the future and most likely in
la-la land.

> The corporate shills keep beating the "desktop Linux will never succeed"
> drum, but fact is that the foundations, on which the desktop duopoly is
> built, are showing some cracks.

You wish that was true, but unfortunately it isn't.




--
Lloyd

[JEDIDIAH]

Except I could swear that there are perfetly shiny alternate app stores
on Android implemented with DEB packages...

[owl]

Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote:

>> Nobody wrote:
>>
>>>"Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly. “As
>>>David said, we learned that the Deb based package system wasn’t workable
>>>for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, where we put the
>>>developer of a typical app almost completely in control of
>>>publication.”"
>>
>> It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" take
>> pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an alternative
>> product with little apparent significance.
>>
> No pleasure taken, just noting that the failures exist and that you linux
> loonies are a big part of that problem. How many of you bought software
> in their software center?

Never heard of it. What were they selling?

> Hell, how many of you bought and/or donated to
> Canonical to help ensure the success of a small business that is trying to
> get Linux on the desktop to be a viable and profitable product?

Unity sucks. Why give those fuckers money?

> I know the answer, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOU!
>

Why should we?

[Lloyd Parsons]

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote:

> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>
>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly.

>>>>“As David said, we learned that the Deb based package system
wasnÂ’t

>>>>workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, where
>>>>we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in control of

>>>>publication.”"

>>>
>>> It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" take
>>> pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an alternative
>>> product with little apparent significance.
>>>
>> No pleasure taken, just noting that the failures exist and that you
>> linux loonies are a big part of that problem. How many of you bought
>> software in their software center?
>
> Never heard of it. What were they selling?
>

Software obviously. Try to keep up! :)

>
>> Hell, how many of you bought and/or donated to
>> Canonical to help ensure the success of a small business that is trying
>> to get Linux on the desktop to be a viable and profitable product?
>
>
> Unity sucks. Why give those fuckers money?
>
>
>> I know the answer, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOU!
>>
>>
> Why should we?

Because you are the one wanting some growth in desktop linux marketshare.
Do you think the tooth fairy is going to help with that? Or is it
possible that the 'advocates' and 'supporters' should be putting up a
little cash?




--
Lloyd

[owl]

Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote:

>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>
>>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly.
>>>>>“As David said, we learned that the Deb based package system
> wasnÂ’t
>>>>>workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy, where
>>>>>we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in control of
>>>>>publication.”"
>>>>
>>>> It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" take
>>>> pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an alternative
>>>> product with little apparent significance.
>>>>
>>> No pleasure taken, just noting that the failures exist and that you
>>> linux loonies are a big part of that problem. How many of you bought
>>> software in their software center?
>>
>> Never heard of it. What were they selling?
>>
> Software obviously. Try to keep up! :)

Well there's teh problem right there. Trying to *sell* software.
LOL. What were they thinking? Seriously, what software were they
selling? I've bought software in the past. $thousands and $thousands
worth over the years. I'd say at least two thousand of that was
Linux-related. Hell, I just paid a couple hundred for vmware
11, and 12 is out now i believe. I'll probably upgrade in the
near future.

>>
>>> Hell, how many of you bought and/or donated to
>>> Canonical to help ensure the success of a small business that is trying
>>> to get Linux on the desktop to be a viable and profitable product?
>>
>>
>> Unity sucks. Why give those fuckers money?
>>
>>
>>> I know the answer, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOU!
>>>
>>>
>> Why should we?

> Because you are the one wanting some growth in desktop linux marketshare.

I couldn't care less about that.

> Do you think the tooth fairy is going to help with that? Or is it
> possible that the 'advocates' and 'supporters' should be putting up a
> little cash?

Linux is not Canonical. Linux is doing fine. Nobody cares if Canonical
dies off. Just another blip on the timeline.

[Lloyd Parsons]

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:51 +0000, owl wrote:

> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote:
>
>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly.

>>>>>>“As David said, we learned that the Deb based package system
>> wasn’t

>>>>>>workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy,
>>>>>>where we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in

>>>>>>control of publication.”"

Slight correction, linux on the desktop is doing fine in the hobbyist/
developer market and is finding some much smaller acceptance beyond
that. And that will not change until attitudes change no matter how good
linux on the desktop is or gets to be.

Canonical and others have tried to monetize linux desktop and have found
no market. And with the 'free and open' nature of linux it never will
happen. Couple that with the really piss poor attitudes of some very
vociferous 'advocates' and 'supporters' and you have the sure fire
formula for commercial failure.




--
Lloyd

[owl]

No market for their crap. What were they selling again? Unity? Support?
Peace on Earth and goodwill toward man?

> And with the 'free and open' nature of linux it never will
> happen. Couple that with the really piss poor attitudes of some very
> vociferous 'advocates' and 'supporters' and you have the sure fire
> formula for commercial failure.

What's the explanation for Apple's massive failure to capture the desktop
after all these years and billions?

[Lloyd Parsons]

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:08:15 +0000, owl wrote:

> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:51 +0000, owl wrote:
>
>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied

>>>>>>>>matter-of-factly. “As David said, we learned that the Deb
>>>>>>>>based package system
>>>> wasn’t

>>>>>>>>workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy,
>>>>>>>>where we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in

>>>>>>>>control of publication.”"

Application software, which you probably already knew. But the tone of
your comments speaks to the larger issue. And that is the extremely piss
poor attitude of the linux community as a group. "I don't like it so it
must suck" is not a valid complaint, it is just bitching. A possible
future linux desktop user would be totally put off by comments like that.

Add it to the long list of why linux desktop is such an abject failure
despite being a pretty good OS overall.

>> And with the 'free and open' nature of linux it never will
>> happen. Couple that with the really piss poor attitudes of some very
>> vociferous 'advocates' and 'supporters' and you have the sure fire
>> formula for commercial failure.
>
> What's the explanation for Apple's massive failure to capture the
> desktop after all these years and billions?

That's got to be the most ignorant of questions. For Apple to take over
the desktop market, they would have had to cover all segments. From the
lowest end to the highest. They specifically chose to take the premium
computer market, offering no el-cheapos at all. And in that they have
been highly successful by any metric you choose to apply.

Since Apple's goal was NEVER to take the desktop market in full, they
couldn't fail in doing so.

Are you really that dumb?



--
Lloyd

[owl]

What application software were they selling?

> But the tone of
> your comments speaks to the larger issue. And that is the extremely piss
> poor attitude of the linux community as a group. "I don't like it so it
> must suck" is not a valid complaint, it is just bitching.

Unity *does* suck. Not my fault it sucks. It just does.

> A possible
> future linux desktop user would be totally put off by comments like that.

So. People don't come to Linux because somebody lures them here
with promises. They come either out of frustration with the
current offerings from the commercial vendors or because they
have an interest in learning Unix.

> Add it to the long list of why linux desktop is such an abject failure
> despite being a pretty good OS overall.

Linux is not a failure at all. I don't know of anybody who put the
time in to get enough experience with it to enjoy it who has not stayed
with it ever since.

>>> And with the 'free and open' nature of linux it never will
>>> happen. Couple that with the really piss poor attitudes of some very
>>> vociferous 'advocates' and 'supporters' and you have the sure fire
>>> formula for commercial failure.
>>
>> What's the explanation for Apple's massive failure to capture the
>> desktop after all these years and billions?

> That's got to be the most ignorant of questions. For Apple to take over
> the desktop market, they would have had to cover all segments. From the
> lowest end to the highest. They specifically chose to take the premium
> computer market, offering no el-cheapos at all.

All computers are Chinese crap. Apple has a popular logo and some brainwashed
hipster users. That's it.

> And in that they have
> been highly successful by any metric you choose to apply.

> Since Apple's goal was NEVER to take the desktop market in full, they
> couldn't fail in doing so.

Apparently you think Linux has some goal to "take over the desktop" though.
Linux has millions of happy users. Where it fails is when it tries to
expand to include "everybody" at the expense of those happy users. We
don't *want* Linux to be like Windows or Mack. Get it? If not, you're
free to start Lloydix and make your mark on distrowatch.

> Are you really that dumb?

That's pretty bold, coming from a Mactard.

[Melzzzzz]

On 16 Sep 2015 23:18:39 GMT

Apple does not compete in OS market at all. They compete in hardware
market and that is completely different category. If they let OSX in
the wild it would take over OS desktop market in no time...

[A.M]

On 2015-09-16 7:08 PM, owl wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:51 +0000, owl wrote:
>
>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly.

>>>>>>>> “As David said, we learned that the Deb based package system
>>>> wasn’t

>>>>>>>> workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy,
>>>>>>>> where we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in

>>>>>>>> control of publication.”"

Standardization and ease of us in what is otherwise a very miserable
experience.

>> And with the 'free and open' nature of linux it never will
>> happen. Couple that with the really piss poor attitudes of some very
>> vociferous 'advocates' and 'supporters' and you have the sure fire
>> formula for commercial failure.
>
> What's the explanation for Apple's massive failure to capture the desktop
> after all these years and billions?

The high price of the hardware, the impossibility of gaming on their
machines, the lack of upgradeability of a machine (you can't change the
internals and Apple prefers it that way), lack of the professional
software businesses need which prevents companies from investing in the
product and therefore prevents people from buying them at home since
they would rather have the same kind of machine at home as they do at work.

--
A.M

[Lloyd Parsons]

Don't know, don't care. But I'm sure you or others could have found some
that would have some value.

>> But the tone of
>> your comments speaks to the larger issue. And that is the extremely piss
>> poor attitude of the linux community as a group. "I don't like it so it
>> must suck" is not a valid complaint, it is just bitching.
>
> Unity *does* suck. Not my fault it sucks. It just does.
>

See, I use Unity on my Chromebook and don't think it sucks at all, or at
least no more or less than most other Linux GUIs.

>> A possible
>> future linux desktop user would be totally put off by comments like that.
>
> So. People don't come to Linux because somebody lures them here
> with promises. They come either out of frustration with the
> current offerings from the commercial vendors or because they
> have an interest in learning Unix.
>

IOW, geeks. And nothing wrong with that as long as you don't mind lack of
a commercial presence in meaningful way.

>> Add it to the long list of why linux desktop is such an abject failure
>> despite being a pretty good OS overall.
>
> Linux is not a failure at all. I don't know of anybody who put the
> time in to get enough experience with it to enjoy it who has not stayed
> with it ever since.
>

Linux on the desktop certainly is a failure. It fails to attract more
than a rounding error in stats for users.

>>>> And with the 'free and open' nature of linux it never will
>>>> happen. Couple that with the really piss poor attitudes of some very
>>>> vociferous 'advocates' and 'supporters' and you have the sure fire
>>>> formula for commercial failure.
>>>
>>> What's the explanation for Apple's massive failure to capture the
>>> desktop after all these years and billions?
>
>> That's got to be the most ignorant of questions. For Apple to take over
>> the desktop market, they would have had to cover all segments. From the
>> lowest end to the highest. They specifically chose to take the premium
>> computer market, offering no el-cheapos at all.
>
> All computers are Chinese crap. Apple has a popular logo and some brainwashed
> hipster users. That's it.
>

Nope, not at all. They have premium boxes built to THEIR specs by those
Chinese manufacturers. That frees other Chinese manufacturers to produce
the crap.

Apple took the time and money to develop probably the best ecosystem
around their gear and they've found users interested in that.

>> And in that they have
>> been highly successful by any metric you choose to apply.
>
>> Since Apple's goal was NEVER to take the desktop market in full, they
>> couldn't fail in doing so.
>
> Apparently you think Linux has some goal to "take over the desktop" though.
> Linux has millions of happy users. Where it fails is when it tries to
> expand to include "everybody" at the expense of those happy users. We
> don't *want* Linux to be like Windows or Mack. Get it? If not, you're
> free to start Lloydix and make your mark on distrowatch.
>

"Linux" doesn't have any goal, but some companies would sure like to have
some profits and sales for their work with it.

>> Are you really that dumb?
>
> That's pretty bold, coming from a Mactard.
>
>

You mean a 'mactard' that uses OSX, Linux, Windows 8/10, iOS, Android and
Windows Phone? I'd say that makes me much more knowledgeable about the
comparisons of the various OS's.

--
Lloyd

[Lloyd Parsons]

On 17 Sep 2015 01:40, Melzzzzz wrote:
> On 16 Sep 2015 23:18:39 GMT
> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:08:15 +0000, owl wrote:
>>
>> > Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:51 +0000, owl wrote:
>> >
>> >>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Nobody wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>"Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied

>> >>>>>>>>matter-of-factly. “As David said, we learned that the
>> >>>>>>>>Deb based package system
>> >>>> wasn’t

>> >>>>>>>>workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to
>> >>>>>>>>snappy, where we put the developer of a typical app almost

>> >>>>>>>>completely in control of publication.”"

Bullshit!
--
Lloyd

[Lloyd Parsons]

On 16 Sep 2015 19:44, "A.M" wrote:
> On 2015-09-16 7:08 PM, owl wrote:
>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:51 +0000, owl wrote:
>>
>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly.

>>>>>>>>> รfย,ร,ย"As David said, we learned that the Deb based package system
>>>>> wasnรfย,ร,ย't

>>>>>>>>> workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy,
>>>>>>>>> where we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in

>>>>>>>>> control of publication.รfย,ร,ย""

You're almost right! Apple has found plenty of commercial and consumer
users among those that appreciate the value they bring to the table. In
corporate America you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a MacBook of
one sort or another.


--
Lloyd

[Snit]

On 9/16/15, 3:35 PM, in article d5u94q...@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd

Parsons" <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Do you think the tooth fairy is going to help with that? Or is it
>>> possible that the 'advocates' and 'supporters' should be putting up a
>>> little cash?
>>
>> Linux is not Canonical. Linux is doing fine. Nobody cares if Canonical
>> dies off. Just another blip on the timeline.
>
> Slight correction, linux on the desktop is doing fine in the hobbyist/
> developer market and is finding some much smaller acceptance beyond
> that. And that will not change until attitudes change no matter how good
> linux on the desktop is or gets to be.
>
> Canonical and others have tried to monetize linux desktop and have found
> no market. And with the 'free and open' nature of linux it never will
> happen. Couple that with the really piss poor attitudes of some very
> vociferous 'advocates' and 'supporters' and you have the sure fire
> formula for commercial failure.

The "advocates" and others like them, and they are all too common in the
open source community, do more harm to desktop Linux adoption than MS or any
"trolls" could possibly do.

[owl]

Lloyd, I have currently about 70 different virtual machines composed
of various OSes including NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Solaris, multiple
versions of Linux and practically every version of Windows and Windows
Server ever made. I've got some old SCO Open Server and BeOS disks lying
around somewhere too. Maybe I'll VM them one day. I am quite familiar
with the different computing environments that are now (and have been)
available. I've used Macs at work and *hated* them, because I like Unix
and OS X just doesn't cut it as a Unix. I've been using Linux for about
20 years now, and I haven't found a reason not to like it yet.

So if you come from a Windows/Mack environment and dabble with Linux
a little and then all you do is whine about how it's not dumbed down
enough for you, then yeah, you're a Mactard.

Oh, and Android, Windows Phone, and iOS are irrelevant to a discussion of
desktop OSes.

[Snit]

On 9/16/15, 4:35 PM, in article adfnb...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"

<o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

>> That's got to be the most ignorant of questions. For Apple to take over
>> the desktop market, they would have had to cover all segments. From the
>> lowest end to the highest. They specifically chose to take the premium
>> computer market, offering no el-cheapos at all.
>
> All computers are Chinese crap. Apple has a popular logo and some brainwashed
> hipster users. That's it.
>
>> And in that they have
>> been highly successful by any metric you choose to apply.
>
>> Since Apple's goal was NEVER to take the desktop market in full, they
>> couldn't fail in doing so.
>
> Apparently you think Linux has some goal to "take over the desktop" though.
> Linux has millions of happy users. Where it fails is when it tries to
> expand to include "everybody" at the expense of those happy users. We
> don't *want* Linux to be like Windows or Mack. Get it? If not, you're
> free to start Lloydix and make your mark on distrowatch.

It is a shame more Linux users do not push to have desktop Linux improve in
productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction. Imagine if they did how great
it would be and how it would become true competition to MS and Apple. I
advocate for that because I am a true Linux advocate.

[Lloyd Parsons]

I think you miss my point. I have no issues with Linux from a technical
viewpoint. I'm talking about what it takes to get in accepted in a
commercial/consumer marketplace. It doesn't need dumbing down for that
and frankly changing UIs around isn't all that big a deal to me. But the
various distros and UIs make for a terrible marketing problem.

I came from a TurboDOS (MP/M alike) background and moved to DOS/Windows
as the changing market killed off the S-100 systems we were building and
selling. Macs didn't come into play until OSX came out in public beta,
never liked previous versions of MacOS at all. Used and loved OS/2 when
those particular wars were going on.

I built and configured Unix systems back in the day too. We didn't do
much Unix business as our target markets were small business and later
schools. At the time Unix just wasn't the right product for much of that.

So I'm not a WinDrone or MacTard, those came much later in my various
careers.




--
Lloyd

[ronb]

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 01:40:24 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:

> Apple does not compete in OS market at all. They compete in hardware
> market and that is completely different category. If they let OSX in the
> wild it would take over OS desktop market in no time...

I don't think so. But they would definitely cut into the Windows'
monopoly. Unfortunately for iCultists it's never going to happen because
Apple likes to gouge their suckers ... err ... customers for huge their
profit margins.

--
Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists

[Lloyd Parsons]

Those grapes are really sour huh, wRonG?




--
Lloyd

[Snit]

On 9/16/15, 5:22 PM, in article adfmn...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"

<o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@live.com> wrote:
>> On 16 Sep 2015 23:35, owl wrote:
>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>> Are you really that dumb?
>>>
>>> That's pretty bold, coming from a Mactard.
>>>
>>>
>> You mean a 'mactard' that uses OSX, Linux, Windows 8/10, iOS, Android and
>> Windows Phone? I'd say that makes me much more knowledgeable about the
>> comparisons of the various OS's.
>
> Lloyd, I have currently about 70 different virtual machines composed
> of various OSes including NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Solaris, multiple
> versions of Linux and practically every version of Windows and Windows
> Server ever made. I've got some old SCO Open Server and BeOS disks lying
> around somewhere too. Maybe I'll VM them one day. I am quite familiar
> with the different computing environments that are now (and have been)
> available. I've used Macs at work and *hated* them, because I like Unix
> and OS X just doesn't cut it as a Unix.

It is a UNIX. It does have a different focus than most other flavors of
UNIX. If you come to it expecting it to be just like others UNIX systems you
will be in for a shock.

> I've been using Linux for about 20 years now, and I haven't found a reason not
> to like it yet.

Use what you like.

> So if you come from a Windows/Mack environment and dabble with Linux a little
> and then all you do is whine about how it's not dumbed down enough for you,
> then yeah, you're a Mactard.

First: Mack makes trucks and the like, not computers. Second, if you are
going to claim something is "dumbed down", speak of tasks it does not do as
well. There are some for OS X - no doubt... but you show no signs of
understanding what they are.

> Oh, and Android, Windows Phone, and iOS are irrelevant to a discussion of
> desktop OSes.
>

[Snit]

On 9/16/15, 5:44 PM, in article d5ugnt...@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd

Parsons" <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> So if you come from a Windows/Mack environment and dabble with Linux a
>> little and then all you do is whine about how it's not dumbed down
>> enough for you, then yeah, you're a Mactard.
>>
>> Oh, and Android, Windows Phone, and iOS are irrelevant to a discussion
>> of desktop OSes.
>
> I think you miss my point. I have no issues with Linux from a technical
> viewpoint. I'm talking about what it takes to get in accepted in a
> commercial/consumer marketplace. It doesn't need dumbing down for that
> and frankly changing UIs around isn't all that big a deal to me. But the
> various distros and UIs make for a terrible marketing problem.
>
> I came from a TurboDOS (MP/M alike) background and moved to DOS/Windows
> as the changing market killed off the S-100 systems we were building and
> selling. Macs didn't come into play until OSX came out in public beta,
> never liked previous versions of MacOS at all. Used and loved OS/2 when
> those particular wars were going on.
>
> I built and configured Unix systems back in the day too. We didn't do
> much Unix business as our target markets were small business and later
> schools. At the time Unix just wasn't the right product for much of that.
>
> So I'm not a WinDrone or MacTard, those came much later in my various
> careers.

I am one of the few people who literally started working with UNIX, PCs, and
Macs all on the same day (sometime in Sept. 1987). Maybe that ties into my
perspective that the OS wars are a bit silly, that each has benefits, and
that people are best off knowing some of each and using what they like based
on an informed position.

[Snit]

On 9/16/15, 5:45 PM, in article mtd2fd$n4h$1...@dont-email.me, "ronb"

Ah, your poor iCultist imaginary friends. Are they going to be OK?

LOL!

[owl]

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 9/16/15, 5:22 PM, in article adfmn...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@live.com> wrote:
>>> On 16 Sep 2015 23:35, owl wrote:
>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Are you really that dumb?
>>>>
>>>> That's pretty bold, coming from a Mactard.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You mean a 'mactard' that uses OSX, Linux, Windows 8/10, iOS, Android and
>>> Windows Phone? I'd say that makes me much more knowledgeable about the
>>> comparisons of the various OS's.
>>
>> Lloyd, I have currently about 70 different virtual machines composed
>> of various OSes including NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Solaris, multiple
>> versions of Linux and practically every version of Windows and Windows
>> Server ever made. I've got some old SCO Open Server and BeOS disks lying
>> around somewhere too. Maybe I'll VM them one day. I am quite familiar
>> with the different computing environments that are now (and have been)
>> available. I've used Macs at work and *hated* them, because I like Unix
>> and OS X just doesn't cut it as a Unix.

> It is a UNIX.

T minus 9 days and counting...

> It does have a different focus than most other flavors of
> UNIX. If you come to it expecting it to be just like others UNIX systems you
> will be in for a shock.

Right. OS X doesn't cut it as a Unix. I think I said that.

>> I've been using Linux for about 20 years now, and I haven't found a reason not
>> to like it yet.

> Use what you like.

I do. So nice of you to approve.

>> So if you come from a Windows/Mack environment and dabble with Linux a little
>> and then all you do is whine about how it's not dumbed down enough for you,
>> then yeah, you're a Mactard.

> First: Mack makes trucks and the like, not computers.

You could have just said, "Ouch!"

> Second, if you are
> going to claim something is "dumbed down", speak of tasks it does not do as
> well. There are some for OS X - no doubt... but you show no signs of
> understanding what they are.

OS X doesn't do case-sensitive file systems -- pretty much the norm for any
real Unix -- very well at all. It's also apparently horrible with X11 --
again, something expected to work under a Unix just utterly fails on OS X.
Both of these failures are design decisions made so as not to "confuse"
the poor dumb Mactard. That is called "dumbing down" the system.

[owl]

Most poor dumb consumers could use Linux just fine right out of the
box. All they do is surf the web. Commercial, if you mean corporate,
is just a matter of the boss telling them, "This is your new computer
system. RTFM."

> It doesn't need dumbing down for that
> and frankly changing UIs around isn't all that big a deal to me. But the
> various distros and UIs make for a terrible marketing problem.

Software developers are free to target a few widely used distributions.
That's what vmware does, and it's worked out fine for them. They've
surely taken plenty of my money over the years in exchange for their
excellent product.

> I came from a TurboDOS (MP/M alike) background and moved to DOS/Windows
> as the changing market killed off the S-100 systems we were building and
> selling. Macs didn't come into play until OSX came out in public beta,
> never liked previous versions of MacOS at all. Used and loved OS/2 when
> those particular wars were going on.

> I built and configured Unix systems back in the day too. We didn't do
> much Unix business as our target markets were small business and later
> schools. At the time Unix just wasn't the right product for much of that.

> So I'm not a WinDrone or MacTard, those came much later in my various
> careers.

OK.

[owl]

A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> On 2015-09-16 7:08 PM, owl wrote:
>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:51 +0000, owl wrote:
>>
>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly.

>>>>>>>>> “As David said, we learned that the Deb based package system

>>>>> wasn’t

>>>>>>>>> workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy,
>>>>>>>>> where we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in

>>>>>>>>> control of publication.”"

Windows is a miserable experience. So is Unity.

>>> And with the 'free and open' nature of linux it never will
>>> happen. Couple that with the really piss poor attitudes of some very
>>> vociferous 'advocates' and 'supporters' and you have the sure fire
>>> formula for commercial failure.
>>
>> What's the explanation for Apple's massive failure to capture the desktop
>> after all these years and billions?

> The high price of the hardware, the impossibility of gaming on their
> machines, the lack of upgradeability of a machine (you can't change the
> internals and Apple prefers it that way), lack of the professional
> software businesses need which prevents companies from investing in the
> product and therefore prevents people from buying them at home since
> they would rather have the same kind of machine at home as they do at work.

Those problems are Apple's making. They could fix them. But they
don't, because it's all about flyers. They've got the flyer market
cornered, and I guess they're satisfied with that.

[Snit]

On 9/16/15, 8:17 PM, in article afp11...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"

It does cut it as a UNIX. And even if the new version is never certified it
will still be UNIX-like.

>>> I've been using Linux for about 20 years now, and I haven't found a reason
>>> not to like it yet.
>>>
>> Use what you like.
>>
> I do. So nice of you to approve.
>
>>> So if you come from a Windows/Mack environment and dabble with Linux a
>>> little and then all you do is whine about how it's not dumbed down enough
>>> for you, then yeah, you're a Mactard.
>>>
>> First: Mack makes trucks and the like, not computers.
>>
> You could have just said, "Ouch!"

I prefer to stay on topic.

>> Second, if you are going to claim something is "dumbed down", speak of tasks
>> it does not do as well. There are some for OS X - no doubt... but you show no
>> signs of understanding what they are.
>>
> OS X doesn't do case-sensitive file systems -- pretty much the norm for any
> real Unix -- very well at all.

OS X does support case sensitive file systems... it is not the norm for it,
though. Thankfully. I am happy Apple is ahead of other UNIX flavors there.

> It's also apparently horrible with X11 --

Does not ship with it and no use for most users. Why would any but a tiny
fraction of users care about X11? And X11 is not a part of UNIX.

> again, something expected to work under a Unix just utterly fails on OS X.

Expected by whom? Not the openfoundation, clearly.

> Both of these failures are design decisions made so as not to "confuse" the
> poor dumb Mactard. That is called "dumbing down" the system.

What failures? What tasks are not being done as well.

[Snit]

On 9/16/15, 8:32 PM, in article fmvnx...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

...

>>>> Slight correction, linux on the desktop is doing fine in the hobbyist/
>>>> developer market and is finding some much smaller acceptance beyond
>>>> that. And that will not change until attitudes change no matter how good
>>>> linux on the desktop is or gets to be.
>>>
>>>> Canonical and others have tried to monetize linux desktop and have found
>>>> no market.
>>>
>>> No market for their crap. What were they selling again? Unity? Support?
>>> Peace on Earth and goodwill toward man?
>
>> Standardization and ease of us in what is otherwise a very miserable
>> experience.
>
> Windows is a miserable experience. So is Unity.

My first real look at Win 10: <https://youtu.be/tKxKyv1K91s>

Not as bad as KDE, and not as messed up as having a mix an match KDE / GNOME
system, but certainly a 1.0 level product.

>>>> And with the 'free and open' nature of linux it never will
>>>> happen. Couple that with the really piss poor attitudes of some very
>>>> vociferous 'advocates' and 'supporters' and you have the sure fire
>>>> formula for commercial failure.
>>>
>>> What's the explanation for Apple's massive failure to capture the desktop
>>> after all these years and billions?
>
>> The high price of the hardware, the impossibility of gaming on their
>> machines, the lack of upgradeability of a machine (you can't change the
>> internals and Apple prefers it that way), lack of the professional
>> software businesses need which prevents companies from investing in the
>> product and therefore prevents people from buying them at home since
>> they would rather have the same kind of machine at home as they do at work.
>
> Those problems are Apple's making. They could fix them. But they
> don't, because it's all about flyers. They've got the flyer market
> cornered, and I guess they're satisfied with that.

Er? iPads on planes? Not even sure what you mean here.

[Nobody]

I don't think so either. Apple makes themselves look good by
constraining their OS to hardware they tightly control, and even at that
they still have problems. If they allowed their OS to run on as much
hardware as Linux or Windows does, people would realize there's nothing
all that special about Apple's BSD variant.

[Nobody]

False analogy.

[Peter Köhlmann]

Pull the other one. At that time there was no OSX. That came 14 years later

So you had no "Unix" to play with, and the Macs of that time could do
absolutely nothing the other PCs did. It ran 0% of the PC software

So quit boasting and lying about your "achievements". Its simply pathetic

[Peter Köhlmann]

It does *NOT* work with case sensitive FS. Try to install OSX that way. You
will be in for a rude shock
Another point where OSX is way behind all other Unix

With more recent OSX versions apple has also removed the possibility to
easily set up persistent NFS shares
Another point all other Unix do simple and elegant, and where OSX fails

>> It's also apparently horrible with X11 --
>
> Does not ship with it and no use for most users. Why would any but a tiny
> fraction of users care about X11? And X11 is not a part of UNIX.

It is part of every other unix out there. Score another point for OSX being
a "bad unix"

>> again, something expected to work under a Unix just utterly fails on OS
>> X.
>
> Expected by whom? Not the openfoundation, clearly.

No. They simply wanted the check from apple. Everything else meant nothing
to them.
Unix users have different expectations

>> Both of these failures are design decisions made so as not to "confuse"
>> the
>> poor dumb Mactard. That is called "dumbing down" the system.
>
> What failures? What tasks are not being done as well.
>

All tasks you need X11 for. Which are quite a number. VNC as "Ersatz-X" does
not nearly cut it. It is a bad "solution" to a common problem

[Melzzzzz]

Who knows what Snit thinks when he says "Unix" ;)
He should be master of command line by now, but he don't know to use it
still ;)
I first saw AT&T Unix on Motorola workstation and it aint'got GUI, just
wyse terminals ;)

[DFS]

On 9/16/2015 8:22 PM, owl wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@live.com> wrote:
>> On 16 Sep 2015 23:35, owl wrote:
>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>> Are you really that dumb?
>>>
>>> That's pretty bold, coming from a Mactard.
>>>
>>>
>> You mean a 'mactard' that uses OSX, Linux, Windows 8/10, iOS, Android and
>> Windows Phone? I'd say that makes me much more knowledgeable about the
>> comparisons of the various OS's.
>
> Lloyd, I have currently about 70 different virtual machines composed
> of various OSes including NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Solaris, multiple
> versions of Linux and practically every version of Windows and Windows
> Server ever made.

geeeekkkkk!!!!

[ronb]

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:21:05 -0500, Nobody wrote:

> I don't think so either. Apple makes themselves look good by
> constraining their OS to hardware they tightly control, and even at that
> they still have problems. If they allowed their OS to run on as much
> hardware as Linux or Windows does, people would realize there's nothing
> all that special about Apple's BSD variant.

You're right. Good point.

[ronb]

I'm beginning to think the members of the Lemon Sucking Bitter Old Biddy
Committee (take your bows, "Lloyd" and "-hh") are beginning to get upset
at being called the bitter old biddies that they are.

[A.M]

On 2015-09-16 11:32 PM, owl wrote:
> A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>> On 2015-09-16 7:08 PM, owl wrote:
>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:51 +0000, owl wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly.

>>>>>>>>>> “As David said, we learned that the Deb based package system
>>>>>> wasn’t

>>>>>>>>>> workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy,
>>>>>>>>>> where we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in

>>>>>>>>>> control of publication.”"

About 90% of the world disagrees with you. In my case, Windows 10 is as
close as any developer has gotten to providing me with exactly the
functionality I crave and require.

>> The high price of the hardware, the impossibility of gaming on their
>> machines, the lack of upgradeability of a machine (you can't change the
>> internals and Apple prefers it that way), lack of the professional
>> software businesses need which prevents companies from investing in the
>> product and therefore prevents people from buying them at home since
>> they would rather have the same kind of machine at home as they do at work.
>
> Those problems are Apple's making. They could fix them. But they
> don't, because it's all about flyers. They've got the flyer market
> cornered, and I guess they're satisfied with that.

Their business depends on selling new machines to the same user every
few years so allowing upgrades, rather than forcing the person to buy an
entirely new machine, would cut into profits significantly. I understand
their position but I'm not a fan of it.

--
A.M

[ronb]

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:06:30 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:

> Who knows what Snit thinks when he says "Unix"

Heck, for that matter, who knows what "Snit" "thinks" when he says the
word "blue?"

[Lloyd Parsons]

Upset by your constant lack of business knowledge? You haven't the
ability to really upset me. Your response to the supposed 'killfile'
posting aside...




--
Lloyd

[A.M]

On 2015-09-16 11:53 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 9/16/15, 8:32 PM, in article fmvnx...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>>> Slight correction, linux on the desktop is doing fine in the hobbyist/
>>>>> developer market and is finding some much smaller acceptance beyond
>>>>> that. And that will not change until attitudes change no matter how good
>>>>> linux on the desktop is or gets to be.
>>>>
>>>>> Canonical and others have tried to monetize linux desktop and have found
>>>>> no market.
>>>>
>>>> No market for their crap. What were they selling again? Unity? Support?
>>>> Peace on Earth and goodwill toward man?
>>
>>> Standardization and ease of us in what is otherwise a very miserable
>>> experience.
>>
>> Windows is a miserable experience. So is Unity.
>
> My first real look at Win 10: <https://youtu.be/tKxKyv1K91s>
>
> Not as bad as KDE, and not as messed up as having a mix an match KDE / GNOME
> system, but certainly a 1.0 level product.

I notice that the problems are with tablet mode. In my case, I never
used it at all and wouldn't know but I have to say that the desktop mode
is highly satisfactory.


--
A.M

[Lloyd Parsons]

Even though I'm on touch enabled computers, I'm not impressed by 'tablet
mode' either. Desktop mode is fine.

I noticed yesterday that the developer of NewsgroupsRT has made some big
changes in the UI of his app that better fit W10. I expect to see others
doing some of those things going forward.




--
Lloyd

[Lloyd Parsons]

For the consumer, I don't disagree much. But for them Ubuntu and Mint
mean 2 different OS's even though they really aren't. IOW, confusion for
them.

And in the commercial market place you idea is just wrong. It isn't that
easy. I remember the shift from DOS to Windows in the business world.
Lots of issues and workarounds as the changes were made.

>> It doesn't need dumbing down for that
>> and frankly changing UIs around isn't all that big a deal to me. But the
>> various distros and UIs make for a terrible marketing problem.
>
> Software developers are free to target a few widely used distributions.
> That's what vmware does, and it's worked out fine for them. They've
> surely taken plenty of my money over the years in exchange for their
> excellent product.
>

Based on what you've said about your background, I'm not surprised you
think that way. Developers/geeks/techs are not in marketing/sales for a
reason. And that reason is they don't understand what it takes to get that
great idea across to the market that really doesn't care about all those
tech reasons the product is great.
>
>


--
Lloyd

[chrisv]

ronb wrote:

> Melzzzzz wrote:
>>
>> Who knows what Snit thinks when he says "Unix"
>
>Heck, for that matter, who knows what "Snit" "thinks" when he says the
>word "blue?"

For some people, the label is more important than the function.

Similar to having the fruity logo on one's machine.

--
"This is what happens when you have a user base of 7 people all of
whom wont help QA it." - "Hadron", sneering at OpenSUSE

[owl]

So? The shift took place, because management made the decision. The workers
either made the transition to Windows or they made the transition to new
employment.

>>> It doesn't need dumbing down for that
>>> and frankly changing UIs around isn't all that big a deal to me. But the
>>> various distros and UIs make for a terrible marketing problem.
>>
>> Software developers are free to target a few widely used distributions.
>> That's what vmware does, and it's worked out fine for them. They've
>> surely taken plenty of my money over the years in exchange for their
>> excellent product.
>>
> Based on what you've said about your background, I'm not surprised you
> think that way. Developers/geeks/techs are not in marketing/sales for a
> reason. And that reason is they don't understand what it takes to get that
> great idea across to the market that really doesn't care about all those
> tech reasons the product is great.
>>
>>

When it comes to an OS gaining popularity, developers *are* the market.
Without them there will be no eventual consumer or business uptake.
And you seem not to have grasped the fact that VMware has been able to
successfully target desktop Linux for years despite the runaway distro
count. How? They basically "support" Ubuntu, Redhat (and friends),
and SuSE. If you're running anything else, you're on your own.

[-hh]

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 11:12:03 AM UTC-4, chrisv wrote:
>
> It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" take
> pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an alternative
> product with little apparent significance.

Oh, it isn't "puzzling" at all when you choose to overlook the
actual message. The actual message was (as the subject line
pointed out) yet another example of how Linux has consistently
failed to gain market traction.


> Most of us like to see healthy competition, and to have lots of
> choices. Me, I'm happy to see Apple's products in the market, even if
> I choose not to buy them. Hell, I'm even glad to have Micro$oft as a
> viable choice in the mobile-phone market.
>
> It doesn't make sense, until one considers that they are just that
> scared of the competitive threat that Free software poses, after
> seeing Android come from nothing to roar to market leadership in just
> a few short years.

It is quite interesting to hear chrisv first promote 'healthy'
competition and then to try use Android as a notional example, when
we all know that the reality is that Android wouldn't have existed
had it not been by huge bankrolling by Google. As to just how
huge, the number is at least in the tens of billions. Case in
point:

"Google: We're Spending $12.5 Billion on Motorola to 'Protect' Android"

<http://allthingsd.com/20110815/gulp-google-buying-motorola-mobility-for-12-5-billion/>

FYI, there have also been reports that Google is spending $1B/year
just in marketing for Android.


> The corporate shills keep beating the "desktop Linux will never
> succeed" drum, but fact is that the foundations, on which the
> desktop duopoly is built, are showing some cracks.

The bigger question is if & how Google's business plans to compete
at the OS level will pan out. Their main "cash cow" product is
advertising placement, and the revenue rates here have been in
decline (despite efforts). For example, the rates for CPC's
(Cost per Click) declined by 25% in 2010-13, and haven't fared
much better since:

<https://d28wbuch0jlv7v.cloudfront.net/images/infografik/normal/chartoftheday_2840_change_of_the_average_cost_per_click_on_Google_ads_n.jpg>

<http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-google-cost-per-click-change-2012-4>

Overall, the bottom line remains the same: human societal
structure has mechanisms to recognize and reward individual
innovation such as through IP laws, which embraces commerce
and income as a motivator. Because FOSS is purposefully
contrary to this structure, it has a hard time participating
within that structure's set of rules, which manifests itself
as not being able to compete in the same way. Fortunately,
in addition to classical Overmatch Theory, there's also
Displacement Theory (DT) by which it could be a contender,
but the problem with the DT approach is that it is sufficiently
out-of-the-box such that most business-centric operators
doesn't even begin to understand its implications in order
to actually apply it in their business case & strategies
to try to be successful with it within a capitalistic market.


-hh

[owl]

Look, I usually only have about seven or eight of them running at any given
time, so cut me some slack.

[owl]

-hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>

> Overall, the bottom line remains the same: human societal
> structure has mechanisms to recognize and reward individual
> innovation such as through IP laws, which embraces commerce
> and income as a motivator. Because FOSS is purposefully
> contrary to this structure, it has a hard time participating
> within that structure's set of rules, which manifests itself
> as not being able to compete in the same way.
>

Without FOSS, there would be no OS X.

[owl]

It's not Unix-like now. It's Unix-unalike. The trademark is all they
can cling to. When that is gone, it's goodnight irene.

>>>> I've been using Linux for about 20 years now, and I haven't found a reason
>>>> not to like it yet.
>>>>
>>> Use what you like.
>>>
>> I do. So nice of you to approve.
>>
>>>> So if you come from a Windows/Mack environment and dabble with Linux a
>>>> little and then all you do is whine about how it's not dumbed down enough
>>>> for you, then yeah, you're a Mactard.
>>>>
>>> First: Mack makes trucks and the like, not computers.
>>>
>> You could have just said, "Ouch!"

> I prefer to stay on topic.

Trucks are not the topic.

>>> Second, if you are going to claim something is "dumbed down", speak of tasks
>>> it does not do as well. There are some for OS X - no doubt... but you show no
>>> signs of understanding what they are.
>>>
>> OS X doesn't do case-sensitive file systems -- pretty much the norm for any
>> real Unix -- very well at all.

> OS X does support case sensitive file systems...

If you want to call broken backups and software installations "support", sure.

> it is not the norm for it,
> though. Thankfully. I am happy Apple is ahead of other UNIX flavors there.

>> It's also apparently horrible with X11 --

> Does not ship with it and no use for most users. Why would any but a tiny
> fraction of users care about X11? And X11 is not a part of UNIX.

Unix users would expect it to work properly. It does not. Therefore, FAIL.

>> again, something expected to work under a Unix just utterly fails on OS X.

> Expected by whom?

Everybody who uses Unix.

> Not the openfoundation, clearly.

>> Both of these failures are design decisions made so as not to "confuse" the
>> poor dumb Mactard. That is called "dumbing down" the system.

> What failures? What tasks are not being done as well.

Basically, anything not flyer-related is a massive failure for OS X.

[owl]

A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> On 2015-09-16 11:32 PM, owl wrote:
>> A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>> On 2015-09-16 7:08 PM, owl wrote:
>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:51 +0000, owl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly.

>>>>>>>>>>> “As David said, we learned that the Deb based package system

>>>>>>> wasn’t

>>>>>>>>>>> workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy,
>>>>>>>>>>> where we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in

>>>>>>>>>>> control of publication.”"

If Windows 10 has the GUI you've been craving, you're demented.

>>> The high price of the hardware, the impossibility of gaming on their
>>> machines, the lack of upgradeability of a machine (you can't change the
>>> internals and Apple prefers it that way), lack of the professional
>>> software businesses need which prevents companies from investing in the
>>> product and therefore prevents people from buying them at home since
>>> they would rather have the same kind of machine at home as they do at work.
>>
>> Those problems are Apple's making. They could fix them. But they
>> don't, because it's all about flyers. They've got the flyer market
>> cornered, and I guess they're satisfied with that.

> Their business depends on selling new machines to the same user every
> few years so allowing upgrades, rather than forcing the person to buy an
> entirely new machine, would cut into profits significantly. I understand
> their position but I'm not a fan of it.

I'm waiting for Apple to follow Mercedes, BMW, and all the other logo-happy
companies down the "Certified Pre-Owned" path.

[-hh]

owl wrote:

Except that Apple had OS's before they developed OS X,
so there's no proof that they simply would not have just
repeated what they did in the past.

And even if you want to claim that OS X could not have
ended up being a Unix, that line of logic is also contrary
to Apple's history, as they had previously developed A/UX,
in 1988 and was based on AT&T's (non-FOSS) V.2.2 Unix.


-hh

[owl]

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Without FOSS, there would be no OS X. Fact.

[A.M]

I hope you don't actually believe that. Had they not ended up using
NeXTStep as the base for their operating system (most of which was not
free software), they would have used BeOS instead. In fact, I believe
that the Mac would have been a better multimedia operating system had it
done so and as far as I know, none of BeOS was free software.

In fact, Apple had already been creating a proprietary replacement for
their original OS with Copland. Adopting NeXTStep was simply a quicker,
less expensive and more beneficial solution as it brought Steve Jobs
along for the ride as well.

However, what makes OS X special is not the free software at its base
but the proprietary elements at the top. Remove those and OS X becomes
uninteresting.


--
A.M

[A.M]

On 2015-09-17 10:29 AM, owl wrote:
> A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>> On 2015-09-16 11:32 PM, owl wrote:
>>> A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>>> On 2015-09-16 7:08 PM, owl wrote:
>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:51 +0000, owl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied matter-of-factly.

>>>>>>>>>>>> “As David said, we learned that the Deb based package system
>>>>>>>> wasn’t

>>>>>>>>>>>> workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to snappy,
>>>>>>>>>>>> where we put the developer of a typical app almost completely in

>>>>>>>>>>>> control of publication.”"

It's familiar, quick and includes the elements I consider essential. I
don't see what's wrong with it.

>>>> The high price of the hardware, the impossibility of gaming on their
>>>> machines, the lack of upgradeability of a machine (you can't change the
>>>> internals and Apple prefers it that way), lack of the professional
>>>> software businesses need which prevents companies from investing in the
>>>> product and therefore prevents people from buying them at home since
>>>> they would rather have the same kind of machine at home as they do at work.
>>>
>>> Those problems are Apple's making. They could fix them. But they
>>> don't, because it's all about flyers. They've got the flyer market
>>> cornered, and I guess they're satisfied with that.
>
>> Their business depends on selling new machines to the same user every
>> few years so allowing upgrades, rather than forcing the person to buy an
>> entirely new machine, would cut into profits significantly. I understand
>> their position but I'm not a fan of it.
>
> I'm waiting for Apple to follow Mercedes, BMW, and all the other logo-happy
> companies down the "Certified Pre-Owned" path.

I believe that they already have that with their certified refurbished
models being sold on the website.

--
A.M

[Peter Köhlmann]

That is simple: It is windows

[Lloyd Parsons]

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:29:31 +0000, owl wrote:

> A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>> On 2015-09-16 11:32 PM, owl wrote:
>>> A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
>>>> On 2015-09-16 7:08 PM, owl wrote:
>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:51 +0000, owl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:50:50 +0000, owl wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:12:01 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth also replied

>>>>>>>>>>>> matter-of-factly. “As David said, we learned that

the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Deb based package system

>>>>>>>> wasn’t

>>>>>>>>>>>> workable for a store. The work on Ubuntu phone led us to
>>>>>>>>>>>> snappy,
>>>>>>>>>>>> where we put the developer of a typical app almost completely

>>>>>>>>>>>> in control of publication.”"

They kind of do now with the store 'specials' section. Reduced prices
with full new unit warranties same as a new one.




--
Lloyd

[Lloyd Parsons]

That is just a non-response.



--
Lloyd

[Lloyd Parsons]

And 7 or 8 of them somehow doesn't make you a bit geeky? :)

I have a few different ones running myself...



--
Lloyd

[Lloyd Parsons]

??



--
Lloyd

[Lloyd Parsons]

Developers are certainly a part of the market, at minimum they provide
the product. The rest of the story is in marketing and sales no matter
how much the developers hate that.




--
Lloyd

[Snit]

On 9/17/15, 6:08 AM, in article olelvah8r0d13trbo...@4ax.com,

"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> ronb wrote:
>
>> Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>
>>> Who knows what Snit thinks when he says "Unix"
>>
>> Heck, for that matter, who knows what "Snit" "thinks" when he says the
>> word "blue?"
>
> For some people, the label is more important than the function.
>
> Similar to having the fruity logo on one's machine.

I have no clue why you and your herd obsess over logos. Maybe you are
sexually attracted to Tux?


--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[Snit]

On 9/17/15, 5:06 AM, in article mteac6$tie$1...@news.albasani.net, "Melzzzzz"
<m...@zzzzz.com> wrote:

...
>>> I am one of the few people who literally started working with UNIX, PCs,
>>> and Macs all on the same day (sometime in Sept. 1987).
>>
>> Pull the other one. At that time there was no OSX. That came 14 years later
>>
>> So you had no "Unix" to play with, and the Macs of that time could do
>> absolutely nothing the other PCs did. It ran 0% of the PC software
>>
>> So quit boasting and lying about your "achievements". Its simply pathetic
>>
> Who knows what Snit thinks when he says "Unix" ;)

But we do know Peter thinks of OS X! He made that clear... I noted how I
used UNIX in 1987 and he jumped to OS X!

LOL!

...

[-hh]

A.M wrote:
> On 2015-09-17 10:05 AM, owl wrote:

> > -hh wrote:
> >>
> >> Overall, the bottom line remains the same: human societal
> >> structure has mechanisms to recognize and reward individual
> >> innovation such as through IP laws, which embraces commerce
> >> and income as a motivator. Because FOSS is purposefully
> >> contrary to this structure, it has a hard time participating
> >> within that structure's set of rules, which manifests itself
> >> as not being able to compete in the same way.
> >>
> >
> > Without FOSS, there would be no OS X.
>
> I hope you don't actually believe that.

Unfortunately, they've made it pretty clear that that *is*
what they believe.

By the same token, there's also people out there who believe
in Alien Abductions, that the WTC attack was faked, ditto
NASA's moon landings, ditto that Hitler's still alive in
Argentina, etc...they simply are in the la-la land of their
own personal echo chamber, blithely ignoring actual reality.

> Had they not ended up using NeXTStep as the base for their
> operating system (most of which was not free software),
> they would have used BeOS instead.

Yes, and these are a couple more examples of the options
that they had open to them to choose from.

> In fact, I believe that the Mac would have been a
> better multimedia operating system had it done so and
> as far as I know, none of BeOS was free software.

At least for awhile ... Apple has been succumbing to a
general "dumbing down" in content creation tools for awhile
now, in no small part due to market pressure from their
huge success with iOS to cater to that audience.

> In fact, Apple had already been creating a proprietary
> replacement for their original OS with Copland. Adopting
> NeXTStep was simply a quicker, less expensive and more
> beneficial solution as it brought Steve Jobs along for
> the ride as well.

Again, illustration of the options that they had.

> However, what makes OS X special is not the free software
> at its base but the proprietary elements at the top. Remove
> those and OS X becomes uninteresting.

Which is essentially as it should be: an OS pretty much
only exists for the user to access their workflow
productivity functions, which is predominantly App-based.
When not doing that, the OS should stay out of the way
and be generally invisible.

-hh

[Snit]

On 9/17/15, 7:23 AM, in article sfnmgj8...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"

OS X is a certified UNIX. Even if Apple opts to not certify the next version
it will still be UNIX-like. As far as trucks, YOU are the one who brought up
Mack: <http://www.macktrucks.com>.

As far as the people who use UNIX, the vast majority are using OS X!

[Snit]

On 9/17/15, 12:36 AM, in article mtdqe5$isu$1...@dont-email.me, "Peter

Köhlmann" <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:

...
>> I am one of the few people who literally started working with UNIX, PCs,
>> and Macs all on the same day (sometime in Sept. 1987).
>
> Pull the other one. At that time there was no OSX. That came 14 years later

LOL! Honestly, Peter, UNIX existed LONG before OS X. Apple did not invent
UNIX!

Here, a post of mine from 1995, to COLA, where I talk about UNIX:
<https://goo.gl/c3jR3r>.

I guess I should not be surprised to find you thought Apple invented UNIX
with OS X. LOL!

> So you had no "Unix" to play with

Given how OS X did not exist you think I had no UNIX to play with. LOL!

No wonder you avoid speaking of technology! Sorry to laugh... but this is
just hilarious! You claim to be a programmer (a UNIX one at that if I recall
correctly) and you think UNIX did not exist until OS X!

> , and the Macs of that time could do
> absolutely nothing the other PCs did. It ran 0% of the PC software
>
> So quit boasting and lying about your "achievements". Its simply pathetic

Thanks for boasting about your great knowledge. LOL!

[Snit]

On 9/17/15, 12:44 AM, in article mtdqsp$ln8$1...@dont-email.me, "Peter
Köhlmann" <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:

...
>> OS X does support case sensitive file systems... it is not the norm for

>> it, though. Thankfully. I am happy Apple is ahead of other UNIX flavors
>> there.
>

> It does *NOT* work with case sensitive FS.

<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201711>

Well that was easy to prove you wrong!

And as much as you want to claim OS X is not UNIX, it is the most popular
UNIX on the planet. If Apple does not certify the next version it will still
be the most popular UNIX-like OS on the planet.

Love how that clearly bothers you. :)

But still not as much fun as you showing you think UNIX did not exist until
Apple released OS X. THAT was just precious!

[Snit]

On 9/17/15, 5:39 AM, in article mtec9t$imu$5...@dont-email.me, "ronb"
<ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:06:30 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
>
>> Who knows what Snit thinks when he says "Unix"
>

> Heck, for that matter, who knows what "Snit" "thinks" when he says the
> word "blue?"

Hey, at least unlike Peter I do not think UNIX did not exist until Apple
released OS X!

That was a great post by him!

[Snit]

On 9/17/15, 5:45 AM, in article mtech9$lfc$1...@dont-email.me, "A.M" <.m@nsn.s>
wrote:

> On 2015-09-16 11:53 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 9/16/15, 8:32 PM, in article fmvnx...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>> <o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> ...

>>>>>> Slight correction, linux on the desktop is doing fine in the hobbyist/
>>>>>> developer market and is finding some much smaller acceptance beyond
>>>>>> that. And that will not change until attitudes change no matter how good
>>>>>> linux on the desktop is or gets to be.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Canonical and others have tried to monetize linux desktop and have found
>>>>>> no market.
>>>>>
>>>>> No market for their crap. What were they selling again? Unity? Support?
>>>>> Peace on Earth and goodwill toward man?
>>>
>>>> Standardization and ease of us in what is otherwise a very miserable
>>>> experience.
>>>
>>> Windows is a miserable experience. So is Unity.
>>

>> My first real look at Win 10: <https://youtu.be/tKxKyv1K91s>
>>
>> Not as bad as KDE, and not as messed up as having a mix an match KDE / GNOME
>> system, but certainly a 1.0 level product.
>
> I notice that the problems are with tablet mode. In my case, I never
> used it at all and wouldn't know but I have to say that the desktop mode
> is highly satisfactory.
>
I think desktop mode is pretty good and like how they did away with the huge
window borders. I do think they should make the "front" window stand out a
bit more. Look at Edge when it is or is not the front window: the shadow
changes a bit but on a dark background that is almost impossible to see.

Also think they should have the task bar be something other than black (or
have the Tablet Mode change colors). Something to show you have changed
contexts.

[Snit]

On 9/17/15, 5:51 AM, in article d5vrb1...@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd

Parsons" <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> My first real look at Win 10: <https://youtu.be/tKxKyv1K91s>
>>>
>>> Not as bad as KDE, and not as messed up as having a mix an match KDE /
>>> GNOME system, but certainly a 1.0 level product.
>>
>> I notice that the problems are with tablet mode. In my case, I never
>> used it at all and wouldn't know but I have to say that the desktop mode
>> is highly satisfactory.
>

> Even though I'm on touch enabled computers, I'm not impressed by 'tablet
> mode' either. Desktop mode is fine.

Agreed. My one complaint with it is they do not have enough of a sign as to
what is the front window. On a dark background, even the default color, it
can be hard to tell. Edge does not even have its widgets change when it is
front or not (though Notepad does).

I also think the tiles in the Start menu are too "active" - like ads on
websites people use blockers to avoid.

But it certainly does not have the problems I show with Tablet Mode.

> I noticed yesterday that the developer of NewsgroupsRT has made some big
> changes in the UI of his app that better fit W10. I expect to see others
> doing some of those things going forward.

[Siri Cruz]

In article <mtdqe5$isu$1...@dont-email.me>,

Peter Köhlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:

> Pull the other one. At that time there was no OSX. That came 14 years later
>

> So you had no "Unix" to play with, and the Macs of that time could do

> absolutely nothing the other PCs did. It ran 0% of the PC software

Apple tried A/UX before OSX. A/UX died a lonely and miserable death. There was a
Linux PPC port that limped along; it never got as much love as Linux on a
MacIntel.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
When is a Kenyan not a Kenyan? When he's a Canadian.
That's People's Commissioner Siri Cruz now. Punch!

[Lloyd Parsons]

On 17 Sep 2015 11:09, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <mtdqe5$isu$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Peter Köhlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> Pull the other one. At that time there was no OSX. That came 14 years later
>>
>> So you had no "Unix" to play with, and the Macs of that time could do
>> absolutely nothing the other PCs did. It ran 0% of the PC software
>
> Apple tried A/UX before OSX. A/UX died a lonely and miserable death. There was a
> Linux PPC port that limped along; it never got as much love as Linux on a
> MacIntel.
>

A/UX was actually an anomaly at Apple. Designed to move into corporate
sales which have really never been a huge part of Apple. I don't know if
it failed because it was a bad Unix or because Apple had no idea how to
market it.


--
Lloyd

[Peter Köhlmann]

Snit wrote:

> On 9/17/15, 12:36 AM, in article mtdqe5$isu$1...@dont-email.me, "Peter
> Köhlmann" <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> ...
>>> I am one of the few people who literally started working with UNIX, PCs,
>>> and Macs all on the same day (sometime in Sept. 1987).
>>
>> Pull the other one. At that time there was no OSX. That came 14 years
>> later
>
> LOL! Honestly, Peter, UNIX existed LONG before OS X. Apple did not invent
> UNIX!

Idiot. I know that, having worked with Unix before 1985

*You* lying imbecile claim to have worked "with UNIX, PCs, and Macs all on

the same day (sometime in Sept. 1987)"

So come on, you dishonest cretin, show us how MacOS had anything to do with
Unix. Hint: It does not. Not at all

[owl]

Really? You're questioning that?

[Peter Köhlmann]

Snit wrote:

> On 9/17/15, 12:44 AM, in article mtdqsp$ln8$1...@dont-email.me, "Peter
> Köhlmann" <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> ...
>>> OS X does support case sensitive file systems... it is not the norm for
>>> it, though. Thankfully. I am happy Apple is ahead of other UNIX flavors
>>> there.
>>
>> It does *NOT* work with case sensitive FS.
>
> <https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201711>
>
> Well that was easy to prove you wrong!

Problem is: You did not.
Try to *install* *OSX* on a case-sensitive volume. You will fail miserably
OSX can work with such a volume, but not run from such a volume.

Big difference. And it shows again that you can't read at all

[owl]

A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote:
> On 2015-09-17 10:05 AM, owl wrote:
>> -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>> Overall, the bottom line remains the same: human societal
>>> structure has mechanisms to recognize and reward individual
>>> innovation such as through IP laws, which embraces commerce
>>> and income as a motivator. Because FOSS is purposefully
>>> contrary to this structure, it has a hard time participating
>>> within that structure's set of rules, which manifests itself
>>> as not being able to compete in the same way.
>>>
>>
>> Without FOSS, there would be no OS X.

> I hope you don't actually believe that. Had they not ended up using
> NeXTStep as the base for their operating system (most of which was not
> free software), they would have used BeOS instead. In fact, I believe
> that the Mac would have been a better multimedia operating system had it
> done so and as far as I know, none of BeOS was free software.

It would have been even worse than it is now. BeOS never even had a
multi-user mode as far as I know. I know when I ran it it was single-user
only. Kept waiting for it to be viable, then it died.

> In fact, Apple had already been creating a proprietary replacement for
> their original OS with Copland. Adopting NeXTStep was simply a quicker,
> less expensive and more beneficial solution as it brought Steve Jobs
> along for the ride as well.

> However, what makes OS X special is not the free software at its base
> but the proprietary elements at the top. Remove those and OS X becomes
> uninteresting.

Remove the FOSS parts and it's just a window manager.

[Lloyd Parsons]

Absolutely! While some FOSS has been used with OSX it didn't have to be.

--
Lloyd

[Snit]

On 9/17/15, 12:47 PM, in article mtf586$st2$1...@dont-email.me, "Peter

Köhlmann" <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> On 9/17/15, 12:36 AM, in article mtdqe5$isu$1...@dont-email.me, "Peter
>> Köhlmann" <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>> I am one of the few people who literally started working with UNIX, PCs,
>>>> and Macs all on the same day (sometime in Sept. 1987).
>>>
>>> Pull the other one. At that time there was no OSX. That came 14 years
>>> later
>>
>> LOL! Honestly, Peter, UNIX existed LONG before OS X. Apple did not invent
>> UNIX!
>
> Idiot.

The word you worked hard to make synonymous with your own name.

> I know that, having worked with Unix before 1985

Yet you demonstrate, above, that you cannot imagine working on UNIX until
Apple released OS X.

> *You* lying imbecile claim to have worked "with UNIX, PCs, and Macs all on
> the same day (sometime in Sept. 1987)"

And I did.

> So come on, you dishonest cretin, show us how MacOS had anything to do with
> Unix. Hint: It does not. Not at all

Are you claiming to have missed how I referenced working on three different
types of machines and thought they were all the same ones?

[Snit]

On 9/17/15, 12:50 PM, in article mtf5ee$st2$2...@dont-email.me, "Peter

Köhlmann" <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> On 9/17/15, 12:44 AM, in article mtdqsp$ln8$1...@dont-email.me, "Peter
>> Köhlmann" <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>> OS X does support case sensitive file systems... it is not the norm for
>>>> it, though. Thankfully. I am happy Apple is ahead of other UNIX flavors
>>>> there.
>>>
>>> It does *NOT* work with case sensitive FS.
>>
>> <https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201711>
>>
>> Well that was easy to prove you wrong!
>
> Problem is: You did not.

Not that you understand. I can accept that.

> Try to *install* *OSX* on a case-sensitive volume.

Or we can stick to the topic of it working with such a file system in
general!

...

[Snit]

On 9/17/15, 12:48 PM, in article sdfa....@rooftop.invalid, "owl"

It does seem pretty obvious if you know anything about OS X. It is largely
open source.

[Snit]

On 9/17/15, 11:13 AM, in article d60e70...@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd

Or because it was UNIX running on a desktop class machine... when at the
time most UNIX systems ran on higher end hardware.

[Snit]

On 9/17/15, 10:09 AM, in article d60adm...@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd

Much of OS X is open source.

[Siri Cruz]

In article <D2206B76.5C399%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,

Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> Or because it was UNIX running on a desktop class machine... when at the
> time most UNIX systems ran on higher end hardware.

By the time of A/UX the hardware necessary for memory mapping and process
isolation was cheap enough to be put into Macs and PCs. What was left was the
will and the ATT royalities.

[owl]

"some FOSS has been used with OSX..."
As if it were not basically the entirety of its core.

The whole foundation of OS X is open source (Mach and FreeBSD).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU
<quote>
The Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) portion of the kernel provides
the POSIX API (BSD system calls), the Unix process model atop Mach
tasks, basic security policies, user and group ids, permissions,
the networking protocols, the virtual file system code (including a
filesystem independent journaling layer), several local file systems
such as HFS/HFS+, the Network File System (NFS) client and server,
cryptographic framework, UNIX System V inter-process communication
(IPC), Audit subsystem, mandatory access control, and some of the
locking primitives.[3] The BSD code present in XNU came from the FreeBSD
kernel. Although much of it has been significantly modified, code sharing
still occurs between Apple and the FreeBSD Project.[4]
</quote>

"... it didn't have to be."
Coulda, shoulda, woulda. The fact is it *was*.

The rest of OS X is just a glorified window manager.

[Lloyd Parsons]

Hmm... Thanks, didn't realize they had gotten that much from FOSS.

So then could we say that Apple found a hell of a way to sell FOSS for
high dollars while other also-rans can't seem to figure it out?? :)




--
Lloyd

[owl]

That's a reasonable take on it. But Apple really is more about selling
the hardware than the FOSS. Redhat has made some money too, and Linus
Torvalds is himself worth over a hundred million if you believe the
internet. And across the board, billions have been saved by using
FOSS instead of proprietary alternatives.

[ronb]

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:50:25 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Problem is: You did not.
> Try to *install* *OSX* on a case-sensitive volume. You will fail
> miserably OSX can work with such a volume, but not run from such a
> volume.
>
> Big difference. And it shows again that you can't read at all

So "Snit" is as much of an "expert" in OSX as he is in Linux, eh?

--
Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists

[Snit]

On 9/17/15, 3:15 PM, in article sfnmc9...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"

Without the open source back end NeXT and OS X would either have not existed
or at the very least been much different. Absolutely.

> The rest of OS X is just a glorified window manager.

That and a lot of "core" technologies, etc. But, sure, they rely on the open
source underpinnings.

Would not matter one whit to me if Apple moved the kernel to Linux at some
point. Do not expect them to, but if they did it would not matter to the
vast majority of users.

[Snit]

On 9/17/15, 3:33 PM, in article adfv....@rooftop.invalid, "owl"

<o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

>>> The whole foundation of OS X is open source (Mach and FreeBSD).
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU <quote>
>>> The Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) portion of the kernel provides
>>> the POSIX API (BSD system calls), the Unix process model atop Mach
>>> tasks, basic security policies, user and group ids, permissions,
>>> the networking protocols, the virtual file system code (including a
>>> filesystem independent journaling layer), several local file systems
>>> such as HFS/HFS+, the Network File System (NFS) client and server,
>>> cryptographic framework, UNIX System V inter-process communication
>>> (IPC), Audit subsystem, mandatory access control, and some of the
>>> locking primitives.[3] The BSD code present in XNU came from the FreeBSD
>>> kernel. Although much of it has been significantly modified, code
>>> sharing still occurs between Apple and the FreeBSD Project.[4]
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> "... it didn't have to be."
>>> Coulda, shoulda, woulda. The fact is it *was*.
>>>
>>> The rest of OS X is just a glorified window manager.
>
>> Hmm... Thanks, didn't realize they had gotten that much from FOSS.
>
>> So then could we say that Apple found a hell of a way to sell FOSS for
>> high dollars while other also-rans can't seem to figure it out?? :)
>
> That's a reasonable take on it. But Apple really is more about selling
> the hardware than the FOSS.

The hardware sells mostly because of the software. Really they sell systems
- the whole enchilada.

> Redhat has made some money too, and Linus Torvalds is himself worth over a
> hundred million if you believe the internet. And across the board, billions
> have been saved by using FOSS instead of proprietary alternatives.

Would be great if the open source ecosystem matured to the point so desktop
Linux distros could compete for general users.

[Snit]

On 9/17/15, 3:19 PM, in article d60sj2...@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd

An admission of not knowing - a commendable thing not often seen in Usenet
and COLA in specific. I commend you for it. Yes: OS X's underpinnings are
mostly open source.

> So then could we say that Apple found a hell of a way to sell FOSS for
> high dollars while other also-rans can't seem to figure it out?? :)
>
>
>



--

[Snit]

On 9/17/15, 3:49 PM, in article mtfg2k$bem$1...@dont-email.me, "ronb"

<ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:50:25 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Problem is: You did not.
>> Try to *install* *OSX* on a case-sensitive volume. You will fail
>> miserably OSX can work with such a volume, but not run from such a
>> volume.
>>
>> Big difference. And it shows again that you can't read at all
>
> So "Snit" is as much of an "expert" in OSX as he is in Linux, eh?

I *clearly* know more than Peter... who thought that OS X did not support
case sensitive file systems and even claimed it was impossible to use UNIX
before OS X was released.

Peter Köhlmann:
-----

| I am one of the few people who literally started working with
| UNIX, PCs, and Macs all on the same day (sometime in Sept.
| 1987).

Pull the other one. At that time there was no OSX. That came 14

years later So you had no "Unix" to play with...
-----
Peter shows he thought UNIX did not exist before Apple released OS X!
In COLA in 1995 I spoke of my UNIX use: <https://goo.gl/TCRJCd>.

Message-ID: mtdqe5$isu$1...@dont-email.me
<https://goo.gl/sXbJLw>