The Myth Of Linux Community Support.
flatfish+++
The Linux advocates like to squawk about the great support that
can be obtained from the Linux community.
My studies prove that nothing could be farther from the truth
.
The number of questions that actually get answered to solution is dismal
compared to the number of questions asked.
It seems most people give up, or look elsewhere rather than deal with the
inept advice given by the newsgroups.
Look for yourself and see how many threads either die or are given inept
advice.
The Linux model is in dire need of life support systems.
Purchase a system from a reliable vendor, like Apple, and enjoy the total
and full support you deserve instead of depending upon part timers to
support your system.
Zephram Cochran
> My studies
Snigger...snigger.../studies/...snigger...
Who?
Me, Mr. Fish?
No, I wasn't lauging...I was only...
No sir. No sir.
> It seems most people give up, or look elsewhere rather than deal with the
> inept advice given by the newsgroups.
>
> Look for yourself and see how many threads either die or are given inept
> advice.
That would be the .net newsgroups...but go on.
> The Linux model is in dire need of life support systems.
> Purchase a system from a reliable vendor, like Apple, and enjoy the total
> and full support you deserve instead of depending upon part timers to
> support your system.
http://images.apple.com/macosx/pdf/Panther_Unix_TB_10082003.pdf
OSX looks like KDE to me ( check out 1st image in link ).
Oh, yeah, you were talking about support.
Right, how many brainless Mac-in-tards are going to know the slightest
thing about the UNIX system they're running.
Hell -- they don't even *know* they're running UNIX! They think their
OS is /Apple/.
flatfish+++
Get stronger medication Bailo.
Zephram Cochran
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:50:35 +0000, Zephram Cochran wrote:
>
> Get stronger medication Bailo.
>
Do quad cappucino's count...I'm sipping one right now.
Freeride
>
> The Linux advocates like to squawk about the great support that
> can be obtained from the Linux community.
>
> My studies prove that nothing could be farther from the truth
Your "studies"?
> .
> The number of questions that actually get answered to solution is dismal
> compared to the number of questions asked.
So you have been monitoring every Linux support outlet for the last 5
years? :)
>
> It seems most people give up, or look elsewhere rather than deal with the
> inept advice given by the newsgroups.
"Inept advice"
Guess you have not spent to much time with M$ support groups or better yet
M$ support site.
>
> Look for yourself and see how many threads either die or are given inept
> advice.
Since you know shit about Linux how can you say that advice is "inept".
> The Linux model is in dire need of life support systems.
Linux model is kicking the shit out of M$ right now.
> Purchase a system from a reliable vendor, like Apple, and enjoy the total
> and full support you deserve instead of depending upon part timers to
> support your system.
Nice troll flathead.
ray
I have seen a great many Linux questions answered and problems solved. Not
so many in COLA, but then, this is an ADVOCACY group.
Nashty
What a load of crap.
When I first installed LinixPPC on my computer and needed help, most
people on Usenet in the Linux groups literally bent over backwards to
try and help me.
Same goes for the Mac and Windows.
Kindness is platform agnostic, IMHO.
Nicolas
Snit
AYbSd.5979$oh4.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca on 2/20/05 7:46 PM:
Between all the flame wars, people even help each other in CSMA.
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
trental...@yahoo.com
I would think that this group that would bend over backwards to get
another Linux person onboard. Nope, it only serves to teach people to
be total jerks, and is actually a turn off for those going Linux.
Even turn some people off.
Rick
>
> The Linux advocates like to squawk about the great support that
> can be obtained from the Linux community.
>
> My studies prove that nothing could be farther from the truth
> .
More BS from the FlatIt.
--
Rick
rapskat
a page fault at address <SbaSd.6624$Gv4....@fe12.lga>, details as
follows...
>
> The Linux advocates like to squawk about the great support that
> can be obtained from the Linux community.
It can and does. The Open Source Community is reknowned for it's
incredible support, it has even one an award for it.
People helping people, that's the way it has always been, and it is the
best. That's why it's called a "community" and not just a "demographic"
or "userbase" like with commercial software.
The Open Source community is somewhat like a family of users, one that I
am proud to be a part of. Of course, every family has it's share of
assholes, but that is to be expected.
> My studies prove that nothing could be farther from the truth
Your "studies" prove nothing true, period.
> The number of questions that actually get answered to solution is dismal
> compared to the number of questions asked.
What scope was your "study"? How broad was it? How many different
projects and problems did it cover?
Studies have stats, where are yours? Or perhaps by your "studies", you
meant that you asked a couple of questions in a newsgroup with an arrogant
tone and gave no information to assist? Yeah, probably.
> It seems most people give up, or look elsewhere rather than deal with the
> inept advice given by the newsgroups.
Inept? Are you daft? Newsgroups provide some of the most helpful and
quickest avenues of problem resolution on the entire internet, especially
for the OSS Community.
> Look for yourself and see how many threads either die or are given inept
> advice.
> The Linux model is in dire need of life support systems.
> Purchase a system from a reliable vendor, like Apple, and enjoy the total
> and full support you deserve instead of depending upon part timers to
> support your system.
Please. You really want to compare calling some 800 number, waiting on
hold for an hour, speaking to some pimply-faced kid who asks you a bunch
of nonsensical questions, tells you to reboot, then tells you he is going
to kick it up to next level and someone will call you back in the next 1-3
DAYS *releable*?
Ask ANYONE who has had to deal with the support of justabout *any*
commercial vendor as opposed to the support available from the OSS
Community and see which is better.
People that are unable to receive sufficient support for issues with OSS
usually are their own worst enemies in these regards. They are arrogant,
snotty, demanding, condescending jerks who don't provide nearly enough
information and are combative when queried.
No one is paid to support anyone in the community, people do it as a way
of "pay it forward". So people really need to be more appreciative when
someone does take the time to attempt to assist with their problems.
--
rapskat - 23:24:10 up 2 days, 2:19, 2 users, load average: 0.26, 0.50, 0.62
You like to form new friendships and make new acquaintances.
ray
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:58:11 -0700, ray wrote:
>
>
>> I have seen a great many Linux questions answered and problems solved. Not
>> so many in COLA, but then, this is an ADVOCACY group.
>
> It is?
> Gee, you could have fooled me.
> I thought it was an anti-Microsoft group.
> Silly me.
Perhaps your first grade teacher should have taught you to read.
rapskat
caused a page fault at address <37suceF...@individual.net>, details
as follows...
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:58:11 -0700, ray wrote:
>
>
>> I have seen a great many Linux questions answered and problems solved. Not
>> so many in COLA, but then, this is an ADVOCACY group.
>
> It is?
> Gee, you could have fooled me.
> I thought it was an anti-Microsoft group.
> Silly me.
Well, it isn't. Just so happens that many things anti-M$ happen to
coincide with pro-LGX/OSS.
See here for more info...
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/default.mspx
--
rapskat - 23:37:05 up 2 days, 2:32, 2 users, load average: 0.76, 0.88, 0.75
You don't become a failure until you're satisfied with being one.
Peter Jensen
Hash: SHA1
rapskat wrote:
> The Open Source community is somewhat like a family of users, one that
> I am proud to be a part of. Of course, every family has it's share of
> assholes, but that is to be expected.
And like many families we try to ignore them most of the time.
>> My studies prove that nothing could be farther from the truth
>
> Your "studies" prove nothing true, period.
I'd like to see some verifiable data from this study, as well as a
complete description of the method of data acquisition. If none of
these things are described, I will assume that he was blowing hot air,
which more or less undermines the entire rest of his post.
>> The number of questions that actually get answered to solution is
>> dismal compared to the number of questions asked.
>
> What scope was your "study"? How broad was it? How many different
> projects and problems did it cover?
>
> Studies have stats, where are yours? Or perhaps by your "studies",
> you meant that you asked a couple of questions in a newsgroup with an
> arrogant tone and gave no information to assist? Yeah, probably.
Yeah, and it's funny how he thinks the entire community is on Usenet.
>> It seems most people give up, or look elsewhere rather than deal with
>> the inept advice given by the newsgroups.
>
> Inept? Are you daft? Newsgroups provide some of the most helpful and
> quickest avenues of problem resolution on the entire internet,
> especially for the OSS Community.
And let's not forget the IRC channels. AFAIK, there are no permanent
records, so you have to actually be there to see what happens. In my
experience, only about one question in 20 doesn't get a satisfactory
answer the first time it's asked. And then there is the personal help
given, where only the two people involved would ever see it. I wonder
how that shows up in this alleged study ... :-)
>> Look for yourself and see how many threads either die or are given
>> inept advice. The Linux model is in dire need of life support
>> systems. Purchase a system from a reliable vendor, like Apple, and
>> enjoy the total and full support you deserve instead of depending
>> upon part timers to support your system.
>
> Please. You really want to compare calling some 800 number, waiting
> on hold for an hour, speaking to some pimply-faced kid who asks you a
> bunch of nonsensical questions, tells you to reboot, then tells you he
> is going to kick it up to next level and someone will call you back in
> the next 1-3 DAYS *releable*?
And some times you *wish* you got a pimply-faced kid instead of some
call-center in India where you sometimes have to really struggle to
understand what they're saying.
> Ask ANYONE who has had to deal with the support of justabout *any*
> commercial vendor as opposed to the support available from the OSS
> Community and see which is better.
Community support is way better in my experience. Sure, you can't
*demand* help from the community, so you may need a change of attitude.
However, you're also more or less sure that the ones giving community
support actually know what they're saying. Commercial supporters *have*
to say something, even if they have no clue as to what the problem is.
> People that are unable to receive sufficient support for issues with
> OSS usually are their own worst enemies in these regards. They are
> arrogant, snotty, demanding, condescending jerks who don't provide
> nearly enough information and are combative when queried.
Those people quickly get ignored by everyone, because they are a drain
on the community. Fortunately they tend to be in the minority. Most
people I help over IRC seem genuinely grateful, and that's enough reward
for me.
> No one is paid to support anyone in the community, people do it as a
> way of "pay it forward". So people really need to be more
> appreciative when someone does take the time to attempt to assist with
> their problems.
Most people quickly learn what works and what doesn't, when requesting
help. However, a few (like our resident flatfish) never get to the
point where they start thinking that perhaps it's *not* everyone else,
but *themselves* that are the problem.
[Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy - This has *nothing* to do with
Macs, *whatsoever*]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCGYqyd1ZThqotgfgRAoxhAKC2OjiMrB8/rGebYmVfl+7LfcCXpQCgp68w
T6VtsNzNu6AVbm7XqtMR7hc=
=I/nf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
If God wanted us to be brave, why did he give us legs?
-- Marvin Kitman
Linønut
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:42:54 -0500, flatfish+++ wrote:
>
>> My studies prove that nothing could be farther from the truth
"My studies..." What a joke!
> I have seen a great many Linux questions answered and problems solved. Not
> so many in COLA, but then, this is an ADVOCACY group.
Take it from me, it is usually easier to track down solutions for Linux than
for Windows. Incredibly easier, and you're not dunned by pop-ups, nagware,
and spam.
--
When was the last time you thought about
Microsoft, except in frustration or anger?
-- Michael S. Malone, Silicon Insider
Mayor of Jefferton
> I've found that I have had every possible problem solved that I've come
> across by friendly, knowledgeable people in the Mandrake, Redhat, Gentoo
> or even generic linux community. Try asking a simple question on
> alt.os.windows-xp and compare the amount of actual help you get compared
> to the outright abuse you will get.
> I would say your Myth is "Busted"
> http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/mythbusters.html
We should do some Rough Science on his ass.
9 Way
On 2005-02-21, Jafar <d...@spammer.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:42:54 -0500, flatfish+++ wrote:
>
>>
>> can be obtained from the Linux community.
>>
>> My studies prove that nothing could be farther from the truth
>
> across by friendly, knowledgeable people in the Mandrake, Redhat, Gentoo
> or even generic linux community. Try asking a simple question on
> alt.os.windows-xp and compare the amount of actual help you get compared
> to the outright abuse you will get.
> I would say your Myth is "Busted"
I would say you're twisting the facts by using aow-xp as a representative
Windows support group. Everyone knows aow-xp is K-Man's playground
and generally the asshole of Windows groups.
If you go to most other Windows support groups, including the
hundreds offered by Microsoft, you'll get friendly and helpful replies
just as you will in the Linux groups.
Linønut
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:58:11 -0700, ray wrote:
>
>> I have seen a great many Linux questions answered and problems solved. Not
>> so many in COLA, but then, this is an ADVOCACY group.
>
> It is?
> Gee, you could have fooled me.
> I thought it was an anti-Microsoft group.
> Silly me.
It is fast becoming an anti-Steffan Hayter group for me.
Jafar
>
> The Linux advocates like to squawk about the great support that
> can be obtained from the Linux community.
>
> My studies prove that nothing could be farther from the truth
I've found that I have had every possible problem solved that I've come
across by friendly, knowledgeable people in the Mandrake, Redhat, Gentoo
or even generic linux community. Try asking a simple question on
alt.os.windows-xp and compare the amount of actual help you get compared
to the outright abuse you will get.
I would say your Myth is "Busted"
http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/mythbusters.html
--
Jafar Calley
Livewire. The World's biggest VA.
http://www.flightbase2000.com
See Mars and Saturn in colour at
http://fatcat.homelinux.org
Handover Phist
>
> rapskat wrote:
<snip>
>> Inept? Are you daft? Newsgroups provide some of the most helpful and
>> quickest avenues of problem resolution on the entire internet,
>> especially for the OSS Community.
>
> And let's not forget the IRC channels. AFAIK, there are no permanent
> records, so you have to actually be there to see what happens. In my
> experience, only about one question in 20 doesn't get a satisfactory
> answer the first time it's asked. And then there is the personal help
> given, where only the two people involved would ever see it. I wonder
> how that shows up in this alleged study ... :-)
Also dont forget independant computer shops run by folks who are
familiar with OSS, LUGs, the local pub (not kidding!)_.
<snip>
>> Ask ANYONE who has had to deal with the support of justabout *any*
>> commercial vendor as opposed to the support available from the OSS
>> Community and see which is better.
>
> Community support is way better in my experience. Sure, you can't
> *demand* help from the community, so you may need a change of attitude.
> However, you're also more or less sure that the ones giving community
> support actually know what they're saying. Commercial supporters *have*
> to say something, even if they have no clue as to what the problem is.
Ding ding ding! This is a big problem on the commercial side of the
computing industry. A computer professional is expected to know
everything about everyting about computing. Hell, if someone says he
knows everything about Oracle he's lying.
--
Edwin Meese made me wear CORDOVANS!!
Linønut
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:42:54 -0500, flatfish+++ wrote:
>>
>> The Linux advocates like to squawk about the great support that
>> can be obtained from the Linux community.
>>
>> My studies prove that nothing could be farther from the truth
>
> Try asking a simple question on alt.os.windows-xp and compare the amount
> of actual help you get compared to the outright abuse you will get.
Windows makes you act like Kadaitcha-Man.
Kier
>
> The Linux advocates like to squawk about the great support that
> can be obtained from the Linux community.
I can't recall doing any squawking.
>
> My studies prove that nothing could be farther from the truth
And just what 'studies' would those be?
> .
> The number of questions that actually get answered to solution is dismal
> compared to the number of questions asked.
>
> It seems most people give up, or look elsewhere rather than deal with the
> inept advice given by the newsgroups.
Oh, it seems, does it? Seems to you, maybe. Just how many groups have you
read form end ot end to prove your little thesis, flatfish?
>
> Look for yourself and see how many threads either die or are given inept
> advice.
Some threads, die, some flourish. Some advice is good, some is not. So,
what's your point?
> The Linux model is in dire need of life support systems. Purchase a
> system from a reliable vendor, like Apple, and enjoy the total and full
> support you deserve instead of depending upon part timers to support
> your system.
If I buy a commercial distro, I get support. If I want to get a free
version, I have to support myself, or get my help from the community. Do
you hear anyone besides yourself and lot of other trolls complaining about
this?
--
Kier
John Slade
"flatfish+++" <flat...@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:SbaSd.6624$Gv4....@fe12.lga...
There are other places besides USENET for Linux support. I find that
different forums can help a Linux user better than UseNet. Many Linux
distributors have forums on their web sites. I've had no problems finding
solutions to Linux issues. I think you're looking in the wrong place.
Can you give me an example of a Linux problem you couldn't find a
solution for?
John
John Slade
"Zephram Cochran" <t...@linux.coms.yanks> wrote in message
news:vfaSd.1947$87...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Yep. I still wonder just how much of OS X is actually from Apple and
how much is UNIX. OS X looks like nothing more than another Windowing system
for UNIX.
One thing many Mac zealots don't realize is that Apple basically
failed at their own OS for decades so they switched to one based on UNIX.
John
TravelinMan
"John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
You've just managed to prove once again that you don't know anything at
all about OS X.
>
> One thing many Mac zealots don't realize is that Apple basically
> failed at their own OS for decades so they switched to one based on UNIX.
ROTFLMAO.
Let's pretend that you're right. OK? For a moment, we'll assume that
your statement is 100% true.
So what? If I'm buying a computer today, OS X is free from malware and
far easier to use and support than Windows. Why should I care where it
came from?
John Slade
<trental...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108954942....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Most of the zealots who Steve Jobs and Apple have brainwashed seem
threatened. They don't like Linux because many people are choosing it as an
alternative to Windows rather than OS X and the Mac. The Linux versions of
choice seem to be the ones that run on PCs. Linux is beating Apple for
market share. It took Linux half the time to the same market share it took
Apple decades to get. This is why you will see a lot of animosity form the
Mac zealots.
John
Lloyd Parsons
On 2/21/05 2:38 PM, in article
BFrSd.8143$DC6....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com, "John Slade"
<hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Nah, the ones that feel threatened are those running the itty-bitty pc
chop-shops like yours.
Snit
4ArSd.8107$DC6....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 2/21/05 1:33 PM:
> Yep. I still wonder just how much of OS X is actually from Apple and
> how much is UNIX. OS X looks like nothing more than another Windowing system
> for UNIX.
Wow... why does Slade keep showing off his ignorance of OS X? I mean,
really... what does he think it gets him?
>
> One thing many Mac zealots don't realize is that Apple basically
> failed at their own OS for decades so they switched to one based on UNIX.
--
Steve Carroll dreams I am a strawberry:
http://snipurl.com/9nuf
John Slade
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:BE3FA4CD.89A3%lloydp...@mac.com...
Nope. You see I sell hardware and include software with systems. I also
repair systems. Now if I just stopped making computers and decided to repair
them I would still make a lot of money. If I stopped repairing computers and
just sold them, I would still make money however not as much. I could also
go to work for a big computer maker. I could probably get a job with Apple.
The only thing that hurts my PC building business are those $500 PCs
from HP and Dell. I notice more folk are buying them. I say my PC building
business has dropped off about 20%. However I have more time to repair PCs.
So it balances out.
Linux boxes don't threaten me in the least. In fact I recommend Linux
to people who don't need a lot of graphics applications. They just want a
system to read email and do general stuff on. They're generally older people
who want to surf the web, read email and word processing. I demonstrate
Linux and some choose it. However most folk still want Windows XP.
Sorry to turn you into a liar.
John
Snit
>> Nah, the ones that feel threatened are those running the itty-bitty pc
>> chop-shops like yours.
>
> Nope. You see I sell hardware and include software with systems.
Funny. You sell software, yet you have been unable to name a single suite
of applications (or set) that is an equal to iLife. Isn't that odd... you
never were able to do that.
Why do you think that is, Slade?
> I also repair systems.
Bet you make a lot of money repairing these systems... a lot more than you
would if you had systems less likely to break down - such as Macs.
> Now if I just stopped making computers and decided to repair them I would
> still make a lot of money.
Lots of broken computers, eh?
> If I stopped repairing computers and just sold them, I would still make money
> however not as much. I could also go to work for a big computer maker. I could
> probably get a job with Apple.
Not likely... but perhaps. I would hope they would filter out those that
hate Apple and are willing to lie about them frequently, such as youself.
>
> The only thing that hurts my PC building business are those $500 PCs
> from HP and Dell. I notice more folk are buying them. I say my PC building
> business has dropped off about 20%. However I have more time to repair PCs.
> So it balances out.
Hmmm, more low end PC's being sold. More PC's being repaired. Funny, eh?
Hey, Slade, I thought you believed PC's could be easily fixed at home.
--
"He's guilty of committing the crime, not of breaking the law."
- CSMA Troll playing silly semantic games
Lloyd Parsons
<hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Well since you haven't turned me into a liar yet, you don't need to be
sorry.
But let's talk about what you could or couldn't do. If you are more
than a one-man shop, you can't stop the service or you are out of
business. I know, I am a pc reseller also. If I had to depend on
hardware sales, I'd be selling used cars now. ;-(
Service is where the profit is, and maybe a niche hardware product
also. But a ho-hum pc just doesn't have enough profit in it to be
sustainable for a small business. That's why you and I keep seeing all
those name changes on those pc shops around town.
For a reseller like you and I, Linux is not a threat at all. In fact,
it is another way to make more money. Not on Linux itself, but on what
we can make it do for our clients. Like firewalling, content filtering
(especially for the schools), remote backup services and the like. All
these make more money for us if we are wise.
The downside of Linux is that it is too stable and virtually virus
free, so that revenue stream is gone. That is part of the reason I
don't sell Macs, that and the very thin margins on them.
I thank Bill Gates everyday for the software he produces, it keeps the
cash register ringing, and I don't mean by sales of his software!
Sonny Bono's Ski Pole
> Funny. You sell software, yet you have been unable to name a single suite
> of applications (or set) that is an equal to iLife. Isn't that odd... you
> never were able to do that.
Look, the burden of proof should be on you, to state why taking a bunch of
application types that have been standard and available for free on *both*
Windows and Linux and calling them /iLife/ or some other crazy name, and
then somehow thinking this is a *suite* is worth anything at all!
Gee, ok, here we go, I am now bundling The Gimp and Gnumatic Cash together
and calling it the *iMoneyDraw* suite.
Yeah! Why doesn't Apple have an /iMoneyDraw/ suite...huh?
Snit
1109038844.fe111244a9b13558ecbba85de9bd8dd2@teranews on 2/21/05 7:21 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>
>
>> Funny. You sell software, yet you have been unable to name a single suite
>> of applications (or set) that is an equal to iLife. Isn't that odd... you
>> never were able to do that.
>
> Look, the burden of proof should be on you
What do you expect me to do? Look at *every* possible combination of
applications for Windows and compare them to iLife. That is silly.
> , to state why taking a bunch of application types that have been standard and
> available for free on *both* Windows and Linux and calling them /iLife/ or
> some other crazy name, and then somehow thinking this is a *suite* is worth
> anything at all!
Who is making that argument? What I have said is that iLife creates a level
of ease of use, integration, and power that is uncommon at best, and quite
possibly unique. The specifics have been discussed in some depth, including
work flows where there is nothing comparable elsewhere - at least not that
anyone has been able to find.
>
> Gee, ok, here we go, I am now bundling The Gimp and Gnumatic Cash together
> and calling it the *iMoneyDraw* suite.
Why?
>
> Yeah! Why doesn't Apple have an /iMoneyDraw/ suite...huh?
Do you think you are making a reasonable analogy? If so, you clearly do not
have a good grasp of the situation.
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/bid1
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
John Slade
"Sonny Bono's Ski Pole" <t...@the.mayor> wrote in message
news:1109038844.fe111244a9b13558ecbba85de9bd8dd2@teranews...
Thank you. I don't see Snits post unless someone responds to his
repetitive drivel. He's a total loon about this iLife stuff. He thinks it's
something more than a free computer software bundle. I've seen better
applications for DVDs bundled with PCs like Pinnacle for example. Snit just
doesn't know what he's talking about.
John
John Slade
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp...@spamac.com> wrote in message
news:210220052001340736%lloydp...@spamac.com...
Well you lied about Linux hurting me. When you don't know the facts and
you make claims, you're lying. I'm a Linux advocate.
>
> But let's talk about what you could or couldn't do. If you are more
> than a one-man shop, you can't stop the service or you are out of
> business. I know, I am a pc reseller also. If I had to depend on
> hardware sales, I'd be selling used cars now. ;-(
>
Of course. There are some good salesmen and some bad ones. I suspect
that's why you would be selling used cars if you had to depend on sales.
However I could make a living just selling computers.
> Service is where the profit is, and maybe a niche hardware product
> also. But a ho-hum pc just doesn't have enough profit in it to be
> sustainable for a small business. That's why you and I keep seeing all
> those name changes on those pc shops around town.
Actually I can still make a good living selling computers to local
businesses. Many of them know the difference between proprietary and
non-proprietary systems. They know that non-proprietary system will cost
them less in the long run. I find that the home users ar the ones that cause
most of my sales loss.
>
> For a reseller like you and I, Linux is not a threat at all.
Then why did you say it was a threat to me?
>
> The downside of Linux is that it is too stable and virtually virus
> free, so that revenue stream is gone. That is part of the reason I
> don't sell Macs, that and the very thin margins on them.
Malware isn't my biggest money maker. First of all I don't charge
much for cleaning up a computer of malware. Most of my home user clients
listen to me on malware. They protect their systems. Businesses are
notoriously lax in this area. They hire incopetent staff and wind up calling
somone like me to clean their systems. I can make a lot of money off of
local smaller businesses. I also do a lot of other tasks like installing a
backup systems, consulting, installing networks and a bunch of other stuff.
I actually save local business money because I don't charge them through the
nose like some other local people do. That way I get a lot of repeat
business.
Oh and I'm not a one man company. I usually have from three to five
employees. I give them training and they work for less. They learn more from
me and the job than they do from those, programs where they just study how
to pass a test. Those guys who have those MCSE and A+ get hired and they
don't know shit. So the company calls me and winds up asking me to work for
them.
John
Lloyd Parsons
<hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Well I dunno if I'm a good salesman or not, but I personally sold about
$1M in product and services last year. Personally I can make a decent
living selling anything. That's what good salesmen do.
The company makes decent money on the service side of the business and
a little on the hardware. Fairly typical in this market.
> > Service is where the profit is, and maybe a niche hardware product
> > also. But a ho-hum pc just doesn't have enough profit in it to be
> > sustainable for a small business. That's why you and I keep seeing all
> > those name changes on those pc shops around town.
>
> Actually I can still make a good living selling computers to local
> businesses. Many of them know the difference between proprietary and
> non-proprietary systems. They know that non-proprietary system will cost
> them less in the long run. I find that the home users ar the ones that cause
> most of my sales loss.
>
You can make money selling to businesses, but not if it is just
hardware. It takes the services to make the deal profitable.
> >
> > For a reseller like you and I, Linux is not a threat at all.
>
> Then why did you say it was a threat to me?
>
> >
> > The downside of Linux is that it is too stable and virtually virus
> > free, so that revenue stream is gone. That is part of the reason I
> > don't sell Macs, that and the very thin margins on them.
>
> Malware isn't my biggest money maker. First of all I don't charge
> much for cleaning up a computer of malware. Most of my home user clients
> listen to me on malware. They protect their systems. Businesses are
> notoriously lax in this area. They hire incopetent staff and wind up calling
> somone like me to clean their systems. I can make a lot of money off of
> local smaller businesses. I also do a lot of other tasks like installing a
> backup systems, consulting, installing networks and a bunch of other stuff.
> I actually save local business money because I don't charge them through the
> nose like some other local people do. That way I get a lot of repeat
> business.
>
> Oh and I'm not a one man company. I usually have from three to five
> employees. I give them training and they work for less. They learn more from
> me and the job than they do from those, programs where they just study how
> to pass a test. Those guys who have those MCSE and A+ get hired and they
> don't know shit. So the company calls me and winds up asking me to work for
> them.
>
> John
>
I used to do it that way, but got tired of the incessant turnover of
employees after they got their credentials. Worked for a time. Now I
work on keeping my certified people and my clients get the experience
that makes most jobs go quicker and the stability of technicians they
get to know. It seems to work better that way.
I've never hired a credentialed tech that didn't have experience to go
with it.
mlw
>
> The Linux advocates like to squawk about the great support that
> can be obtained from the Linux community.
We boast because it is true.
>
> My studies prove that nothing could be farther from the truth
"Your Studies?" What groundword was done for this study?
> .
> The number of questions that actually get answered to solution is dismal
> compared to the number of questions asked.
Having a 0 track record for commercial software community support always
works better. Also, some problems can't be solved. Be it poor choices by
some, bad quality from an OEM, or what ever, try as we might, there is no
solution. "How do I get 1280x1024 resolution on my Linux box?" After a long
and detailed set of exchanges, covering the computer, video card, wire,
etc. We find out that the monitor only works up to 1024x768. The user goes
away unsatisfied, but hey it is reality.
It's still better than this actual exchange between myself and gateway:
Me: "The hard disk is dead. It makes a thunking sound and the machine won't
boot up."
Gateway:"Sir, try to start the machine again and go to the Windows control
panel..."
Me: "We removed windows a while ago, we are testing various operating
systems for a project."
Gateway: "I can't do anything until Windows is running on that machine. You
need to re-install Windows"
Me: "If it were in a state where I could install Windows, I wouldn't need a
new hard drive."
Gateway: "I'm sorry sir, I can't make a diagnosis with Windows installed."
Me: "Is your manager in?"
>
> It seems most people give up, or look elsewhere rather than deal with the
> inept advice given by the newsgroups.
Especially when "people," like yourself answer.
>
> Look for yourself and see how many threads either die or are given inept
> advice.
Look at all the times they say "Thanks" too.
> The Linux model is in dire need of life support systems.
Statement without any foundation or observable reality.
> Purchase a system from a reliable vendor, like Apple, and enjoy the total
> and full support you deserve instead of depending upon part timers to
> support your system.
Assumes commercial support works, it doesn't. It all happens in outsource
call centers that reward operators for the number of calls handled and
reducing the number of minutes per call. Not, ironically, actually helping
a customer solve his or her problem.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:42:54 -0500, flatfish+++ wrote:
>
> The Linux advocates like to squawk about the great support that
> can be obtained from the Linux community.
And it is fantastic. However, it may not be what you necessarily want or
expect.
If you want or expect someone to sit on the phone with you, or even in IRC
with you, and walk you through your troubles, you *might* get it, but I
wouldn't expect it - not for Linux, not for Windows, not for anything.
You want live hand-holding, go buy a support contract.
However, there is vast documentation out there, there are help newsgroups,
irc channels, blogs and other resources to resolve all but the most
obscure issues; at most you have to be patient enough to post the problem
in a few places and wait a couple of days to get a result back.
Big deal, it's not like you're paying for the help, it's coming free, from
people who are willing to share their knowledge and experience with others.
Don't like it? Buy a support contract.
Tukla Ratte
< snip >
> Look, the burden of proof should be on you, to state why taking a bunch of
> application types that have been standard and available for free on *both*
> Windows and Linux and calling them /iLife/ or some other crazy name, and
> then somehow thinking this is a *suite* is worth anything at all!
>
> Gee, ok, here we go, I am now bundling The Gimp and Gnumatic Cash together
> and calling it the *iMoneyDraw* suite.
But "iMoneyDraw" actually tells people what your suite does. You need a
better name, like "iMaw".
Oh, and Apple will probably sue you over the leading "i".
> Yeah! Why doesn't Apple have an /iMoneyDraw/ suite...huh?
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
Tukla Ratte
< snip >
> People that are unable to receive sufficient support for issues with OSS
> usually are their own worst enemies in these regards. They are arrogant,
> snotty, demanding, condescending jerks who don't provide nearly enough
> information and are combative when queried.
IOW, people like Flatty.
< snip >
John Slade
Not to me. I like to train people. It's good to pass on knowledge. That
way more competent computer techs will start businesses. That leads to
better customer service for more people. I don't care about the turnover of
employees. I'm a people person. I like to meet new people. I don't give my
techs any jobs they can't handle. I take them on house calls and show them
the ropes of dealing with people and repairing machines. When I hire techs I
put them through tests to make sure they have a basic knowledge of computer
repair.
John
Lloyd Parsons
On 2/22/05 1:45 PM, in article
EZLSd.6270$OU1....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com, "John Slade"
<hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Good for you, John. That is certainly one way to do it, and I used to enjoy
it myself. Especially in the early days, 'cause that was literally the only
way.
We have chosen to move on from that position for very good reasons as we
expand our service offerings to higher levels.
BTW, if you are interested, email me about a product you might consider
adding to your mix. It is profitable and not in general distribution so you
can price it better and save your clients money also.
Lloyd
StormDrain
"John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote:
No animosity toward Linux from me. Anything that weans people from
windows is OK in my book. Unfortunately liars like you who are
completely dependent on MS for their income, mere shills really, do
little to promote any MS alternative.
Note to COLA. Slade is a resident CSMA troll that talks a good Linux,
builds wintel for a living and posts with:
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
The little bugger can't even configure a decent windows newsreader.
--
SD
"...merely a preponderance of evidence."
JEDIDIAH
> "John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote in post
> 4ArSd.8107$DC6....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 2/21/05 1:33 PM:
>
>> Yep. I still wonder just how much of OS X is actually from Apple and
>> how much is UNIX. OS X looks like nothing more than another Windowing system
>> for UNIX.
>
> Wow... why does Slade keep showing off his ignorance of OS X? I mean,
> really... what does he think it gets him?
Then educate us, in detail.
The fact remains that OpenStep is essentially Unix with a nice
CDE replacement bolted on top. It always has been. None of you apple
cheerleaders have stated anything to refute that.
>>
>> One thing many Mac zealots don't realize is that Apple basically
>> failed at their own OS for decades so they switched to one based on UNIX.
>
>
--
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
/ | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!
Snit
1109167089.bfc7a3b3aa010ff20a98b90d7934160b@1usenet on 2/23/05 6:58 AM:
> On 2005-02-21, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>> "John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote in post
>> 4ArSd.8107$DC6....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 2/21/05 1:33 PM:
>>
>>> Yep. I still wonder just how much of OS X is actually from Apple and
>>> how much is UNIX. OS X looks like nothing more than another Windowing system
>>> for UNIX.
>>
>> Wow... why does Slade keep showing off his ignorance of OS X? I mean,
>> really... what does he think it gets him?
>
> Then educate us, in detail.
>
> The fact remains that OpenStep is essentially Unix with a nice
> CDE replacement bolted on top. It always has been. None of you apple
> cheerleaders have stated anything to refute that.
OS X is far more than Unix with another windows system... here is just a
small, incomplete list, of what else OS X provides:
Carbon API
Cocoa API
Quicktime
AppleScript
Core Image
Core Video
iLife (included)
See the Apple site for more - you might want to start here:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/architecture/
>
>>>
>>> One thing many Mac zealots don't realize is that Apple basically
>>> failed at their own OS for decades so they switched to one based on UNIX.
>>
>>
>
--
"He's guilty of committing the crime, not of breaking the law."
- CSMA Troll playing silly semantic games
_________________________________________
hoo
> "JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in post
> 1109167089.bfc7a3b3aa010ff20a98b90d7934160b@1usenet on 2/23/05 6:58 AM:
>
>>
>>
>> The fact remains that OpenStep is essentially Unix with a nice
>> CDE replacement bolted on top. It always has been. None of you apple
>> cheerleaders have stated anything to refute that.
>
> OS X is far more than Unix with another windows system... here is just a
> small, incomplete list, of what else OS X provides:
>
> Carbon API
> Cocoa API
> Quicktime
> AppleScript
> Core Image
> Core Video
> iLife (included)
>
> See the Apple site for more - you might want to start here:
>
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/architecture/
>
Let's not forget that flashy case-insensitive file system.
Just like DOS !!!
Another thing I've been meaning to ask you guys.
There exists a thing called "OSX Server".
What does that mean?
Can one not run servers on a Mac without paying through the nose
for a different version of the OS?
Lloyd Parsons
On 2/23/05 11:06 AM, in article 383rh6F...@individual.net, "hoo"
<g...@poo.invalid> wrote:
Depends on what 'servers' you want to run. OSX that comes with the Xserves
is an unlimited license.
On the desktops, you may not need OSX server at all. Web, mail and some
others is included. OSX server provides all of that and more, plus tools to
make setting up a full network simpler.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> OS X is far more than Unix with another windows system... here is just a
> small, incomplete list, of what else OS X provides:
> Carbon API
> Cocoa API
> Quicktime
> AppleScript
> Core Image
> Core Video
> iLife (included)
So.... Unix then, with a few extra application programming interfaces and
userspace programs tagged on. I mean, Quicktime? woopedoo, so you can play
mov files. Applescript? How does that compare to other scripting languages
like, say, bash or python?
I assume core image and video are kernel level video drivers? If not, what
are they?
It's a unix-a-like OS, get over it.
(Can't actually CALL it unix without permission from the Open Group)
TravelinMan
wrote:
Of course - OS X works fine as a personal server.
If you want a professional server, you buy OS X Server - which comes
with VERY LOW license fees compared to Windows - or even most supported
Linux distros.
TravelinMan
What's your point?
It's the easiest to use Unix and far more cost effective than most.
Why does it matter how you want to characterize it?
Peter Köhlmann
Lets not forget the ease of handling printers, shall we?
Just add a windows network to it, with printers connected to a windows
server. Should we do that? Does OSX handle it as gracefully as linux?
What about a OSX desktop machine. Is it able at all to handle SMB printers?
So totally transparent a linux machine does? Just add it during setup?
--
Modern man is the missing link between apes and human beings.
Lloyd Parsons
On 2/23/05 11:46 AM, in article cvif1s$ehg$00$1...@news.t-online.com, "Peter
Köhlmann" <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
It has been awhile since I had a windows shared printer in the mix of my
network, but as I remember it was trivial. Basically the printer was
shared, and I had to tell OSX it was there and things were fine. Very
simple.
But who connects a printer to the server these days? I haven't used
anything but IP printing for years.
Peter Köhlmann
So have I. But in a heterogenous network, you sometimes have to use what is
present. After all, You don't want to change setups for a lot of users just
to add a lone OSX toy
--
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat,
and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken
JEDIDIAH
> "JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in post
> 1109167089.bfc7a3b3aa010ff20a98b90d7934160b@1usenet on 2/23/05 6:58 AM:
>
>> On 2005-02-21, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>> "John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote in post
>>> 4ArSd.8107$DC6....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 2/21/05 1:33 PM:
>>>
>>>> Yep. I still wonder just how much of OS X is actually from Apple and
>>>> how much is UNIX. OS X looks like nothing more than another Windowing system
>>>> for UNIX.
>>>
>>> Wow... why does Slade keep showing off his ignorance of OS X? I mean,
>>> really... what does he think it gets him?
>>
>> Then educate us, in detail.
>>
>> The fact remains that OpenStep is essentially Unix with a nice
>> CDE replacement bolted on top. It always has been. None of you apple
>> cheerleaders have stated anything to refute that.
>
> OS X is far more than Unix with another windows system... here is just a
> small, incomplete list, of what else OS X provides:
>
> Carbon API
> Cocoa API
Legacy support.
> Quicktime
> AppleScript
Applications.
> Core Image
> Core Video
> iLife (included)
More applications.
>
> See the Apple site for more - you might want to start here:
>
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/architecture/
You should go to a college bookstore or Frys and look for Tannenbaum.
[deletia]
TravelinMan
Peter Kohlmann <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
Are you ever going to learn something about a topic before you jump in
and make stupid comments?
OS X has no problem handling shared printers at all. None.
Oh, and btw, if your newsreader is automatically deleting cola from the
followup line why did it delete csma this time? Seems like you're doing
ti manually and blaming the software.
JEDIDIAH
You Jobs worshippers get all bent out of shape when presented
with the reality of the situation. Although this is still a bit peculiar
since NeXT was Jobs' baby too.
Feeling foolish wasting all of that time with Apple when you
really should have been rushing to NeXT? You got finally led to water and
now you want to pretend that it never existed before.
...if not for some poor business decisions, "OSX" could have been
the leading alternative x86 OS instead.
Lloyd Parsons
On 2/23/05 1:33 PM, in article
1109187217.aa07f4ebd1d13b7cbdbe19ffcfca2b21@1usenet, "JEDIDIAH"
<je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
And probably losing money hand over fist like every other commercial X86 OS
has when going up against the MS behemoth!
Snit
cjeivc...@freenet.co.uk on 2/23/05 10:30 AM:
> Snit <SN...@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
>> OS X is far more than Unix with another windows system... here is just a
>> small, incomplete list, of what else OS X provides:
>
>> Carbon API
>> Cocoa API
>> Quicktime
>> AppleScript
>> Core Image
>> Core Video
>> iLife (included)
>
> So.... Unix then, with a few extra application programming interfaces and
> userspace programs tagged on.
Which is not at all the same as Unix with another windowing system.
Are you trying to move the goal posts?
> I mean, Quicktime? woopedoo, so you can play
> mov files. Applescript? How does that compare to other scripting languages
> like, say, bash or python?
>
> I assume core image and video are kernel level video drivers? If not, what
> are they?
>
> It's a unix-a-like OS, get over it.
> (Can't actually CALL it unix without permission from the Open Group)
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
TravelinMan
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
What 'Jobs worshippers' are you referring to? Anyone who doesn't buy
your silly characterization of Mac OS is suddenly a Jobs worshipper?
And even if that were true, how would it change the fact that it's the
easiest to use and most polished OS On the planet?
>
> Feeling foolish wasting all of that time with Apple when you
> really should have been rushing to NeXT? You got finally led to water and
> now you want to pretend that it never existed before.
NeXT didn't offer what I wanted - a fully polished and integrated
application experience.
>
> ...if not for some poor business decisions, "OSX" could have been
> the leading alternative x86 OS instead.
Not likely.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
A friend of mine tried to add an ibook to his otherwise MS only
household. First, there were hardware issues with the ibook, no need to
go into that black eye on apple here.
Getting the ibook to print to the windows served printer was... a
problem. It would *see* the printer, it would *claim* to be printing to
it, but nothing every came out of the printer, and the windows box,
never registered a blip in the "logs" (such a laughable excuse for logs,
but that also is a different issue)
Eventually, he wound up dumping the ibook, and getting a sony vaio,
which worked better with his palm tungsten than the ibook did, and could
print to the printer fine. After the hell of installing XP Pro on that
machine, which is also a topic for a different time.
The kicker? boot the vaio by knoppix, print fine via the windows shared
printer. The same setup that the ibook barfed on. In this case, Linux,
was far easier to get working than OSX.
> But who connects a printer to the server these days? I haven't used
> anything but IP printing for years.
That's nice. Not too relevent, but nice.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCHOYqd90bcYOAWPYRAqdZAKCg8h7hDfl4k0RC4Vf3x9mpX2ksiwCfZv0X
MaTPQNZTmgZp/ArLeqlWM1Y=
=SaqI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Words fail me. Thank goodness I can make gestures.
-- Mark Hughes (in asr - 2001
Snit
2/23/05 10:06 AM:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SN...@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
>> "JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in post
>> 1109167089.bfc7a3b3aa010ff20a98b90d7934160b@1usenet on 2/23/05 6:58 AM:
>>
>>>
>>> Then educate us, in detail.
>>>
>>> The fact remains that OpenStep is essentially Unix with a nice
>>> CDE replacement bolted on top. It always has been. None of you apple
>>> cheerleaders have stated anything to refute that.
>>
>> OS X is far more than Unix with another windows system... here is just a
>> small, incomplete list, of what else OS X provides:
>>
>> Carbon API
>> Cocoa API
>> Quicktime
>> AppleScript
>> Core Image
>> Core Video
>> iLife (included)
>>
>> See the Apple site for more - you might want to start here:
>>
>> http://www.apple.com/macosx/architecture/
>>
>
> Let's not forget that flashy case-insensitive file system.
> Just like DOS !!!
DOS is not a file system... nor is OS X. In any case, your comments have
nothing to do with the topic.
>
> Another thing I've been meaning to ask you guys.
> There exists a thing called "OSX Server".
> What does that mean?
The server version comes bundled with some excellent software that allows
you to do things that would be far more challenging on the desktop version.
http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/
Host Macintosh and Windows workgroups. Set up complex network services.
Deploy dynamic web sites and powerful Internet services. Run enterprise
applications. Mac OS X Server melds the most popular technologies from
the open source community with the latest version of BSD ‹ the
long-standing foundation on which the Internet was built.
I encourage you to read that page and the info it links to.
> Can one not run servers on a Mac without paying through the nose
> for a different version of the OS?
What type server do you mean? Just like you can run servers from the Home
edition of Windows, you can from the Mac also.
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
Snit
Nowhere-8849CF...@news1.west.earthlink.net on 2/23/05 10:36 AM:
He is just trolling and changing goal posts...
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
Snit
> On 2005-02-23, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>> "JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in post
>> 1109167089.bfc7a3b3aa010ff20a98b90d7934160b@1usenet on 2/23/05 6:58 AM:
>>
>>> On 2005-02-21, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>>>> "John Slade" <hitm...@pacbell.net> wrote in post
>>>> 4ArSd.8107$DC6....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com on 2/21/05 1:33 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> Yep. I still wonder just how much of OS X is actually from Apple and
>>>>> how much is UNIX. OS X looks like nothing more than another Windowing
>>>>> system
>>>>> for UNIX.
>>>>
>>>> Wow... why does Slade keep showing off his ignorance of OS X? I mean,
>>>> really... what does he think it gets him?
>>>
>>> Then educate us, in detail.
>>>
>>> The fact remains that OpenStep is essentially Unix with a nice
>>> CDE replacement bolted on top. It always has been. None of you apple
>>> cheerleaders have stated anything to refute that.
>>
>> OS X is far more than Unix with another windows system... here is just a
>> small, incomplete list, of what else OS X provides:
>>
>> Carbon API
>> Cocoa API
>
> Legacy support.
Er? I could see how you could incorrectly misconstrue Carbon to be such...
but Cocoa?
>
>> Quicktime
>> AppleScript
>
> Applications.
I did not say the QuickTime Player.. or the AppleScript Editor... are those
the applications you were thinking of?
>
>> Core Image
>> Core Video
>> iLife (included)
>
> More applications.
>
>>
>> See the Apple site for more - you might want to start here:
>>
>> http://www.apple.com/macosx/architecture/
>
> You should go to a college bookstore or Frys and look for Tannenbaum.
>
> [deletia]
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
_________________________________________
Snit
>> Lets not forget the ease of handling printers, shall we?
>> Just add a windows network to it, with printers connected to a windows
>> server. Should we do that? Does OSX handle it as gracefully as linux?
>>
>> What about a OSX desktop machine. Is it able at all to handle SMB printers?
>> So totally transparent a linux machine does? Just add it during setup?
>
>
> Are you ever going to learn something about a topic before you jump in
> and make stupid comments?
>
> OS X has no problem handling shared printers at all. None.
More than just handling them fine, if the printers / print sharing device
has Rendezvous they handle them with utmost ease - zero config.
I do like Windows driver sharing, though, and do not believe OS X has
anything similar.
--
Steve Carroll dreams I am a strawberry:
http://snipurl.com/9nuf
The Ghost In The Machine
<g...@poo.invalid>
wrote
on 23 Feb 2005 17:06:46 GMT
<383rh6F...@individual.net>:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SN...@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
>> "JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in post
>> 1109167089.bfc7a3b3aa010ff20a98b90d7934160b@1usenet on 2/23/05 6:58 AM:
>>
>>>
>>> Then educate us, in detail.
>>>
>>> The fact remains that OpenStep is essentially Unix with a nice
>>> CDE replacement bolted on top. It always has been. None of you apple
>>> cheerleaders have stated anything to refute that.
>>
>> OS X is far more than Unix with another windows system... here is just a
>> small, incomplete list, of what else OS X provides:
>>
>> Carbon API
>> Cocoa API
>> Quicktime
>> AppleScript
>> Core Image
>> Core Video
>> iLife (included)
>>
>> See the Apple site for more - you might want to start here:
>>
>> http://www.apple.com/macosx/architecture/
>>
>
> Let's not forget that flashy case-insensitive file system.
> Just like DOS !!!
Is it case-preserving at least? The Amiga at least was
case-preserving; one could create a file named 'foo'
and access it as 'Foo' later; it would list as 'foo'.
Or one can create a file named 'Foo' and access it as
'foo'; it would list as 'Foo'.
I don't remember what pre-OSX Macs did in this area, though
suspect they were case-preserving.
DOS can create a file named 'Foo' but it gets promoted to
'FOO' internally (Linux's 'fat' module lists it as 'foo',
though there might be an option to list it as 'FOO').
Win95's hacked-up vfat system is case-preserving, and a bit
of a mess internally, as it stores 16-bit characters.
[rest snipped]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
hoo
What are you talking about? There are *NO* limitations on how you can
use linux. *Any* linux can be used in an *unlimited* fashion as a server.
I personally only paid through the nose to have RH ES3 preinstalled
because I wanted *guaranteed* hardware compatibility[0]. There is *nothing*
Red Hat can do to restrict my use of the system as a server. It's not
Red Hat's code to restrict.
[0] As it turns out, my compatibility fears were grounded, but that's another
story.
TravelinMan
wrote:
Read what I said - "most supported Linux distros".
Sure, you can download Linux for free. But as soon as you want support,
be prepared to pay a hefty license fee.
>
> [0] As it turns out, my compatibility fears were grounded, but that's another
> story.
But all the Linux people say that there are no compatibilty issues.
hoo
No shit, genius. But DOS came with a file system. And that file-system
was case-insensitive.
>>
>> Another thing I've been meaning to ask you guys.
>> There exists a thing called "OSX Server".
>> What does that mean?
>
> The server version comes bundled with some excellent software that allows
> you to do things that would be far more challenging on the desktop version.
>
> http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/
>
> Host Macintosh and Windows workgroups. Set up complex network services.
> Deploy dynamic web sites and powerful Internet services. Run enterprise
> applications. Mac OS X Server melds the most popular technologies from
> the open source community with the latest version of BSD ? the
> long-standing foundation on which the Internet was built.
>
> I encourage you to read that page and the info it links to.
>
Why can't you do that with the desktop version? How is the desktop
version in any way a different system from the server version?
Is there something like flipping a bit in a "registry" like
with Windows NT Workstation vs. Windows NT Server?
>> Can one not run servers on a Mac without paying through the nose
>> for a different version of the OS?
>
> What type server do you mean? Just like you can run servers from the Home
> edition of Windows, you can from the Mac also.
>
Can you run a non-crippled server with regular Mac OSX as it comes
preloaded on the generally available Macs that one might go out
and buy? For instance, can you run a web server or ftp server or name
server or any other standard internet server without client connection
restrictions?
hoo
I don't know. I just know it's case-insensitive from another thread
a couple weeks ago. To me, if I can't create a file 'Foo' and another
file 'foo' and have the filesystem differentiate between them, then the
filesystem is hopelessly primitive.
hoo
> cjeivc...@freenet.co.uk on 2/23/05 10:30 AM:
>
>> Snit <SN...@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
>>> OS X is far more than Unix with another windows system... here is just a
>>> small, incomplete list, of what else OS X provides:
>>
>>> Carbon API
>>> Cocoa API
>>> Quicktime
>>> AppleScript
>>> Core Image
>>> Core Video
>>> iLife (included)
>>
>> So.... Unix then, with a few extra application programming interfaces and
>> userspace programs tagged on.
>
> Which is not at all the same as Unix with another windowing system.
>
So then OSX is just unix with a proprietary windowing system.
Finally, admission of the truth.
hoo
> In article <384v0tF...@individual.net>, hoo <g...@poo.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy TravelinMan <Now...@spamfree.com> wrote:
>> > In article <383rh6F...@individual.net>, hoo <g...@poo.invalid>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Another thing I've been meaning to ask you guys.
>> >> There exists a thing called "OSX Server".
>> >> What does that mean?
>> >> Can one not run servers on a Mac without paying through the nose
>> >> for a different version of the OS?
>> >
>> > Of course - OS X works fine as a personal server.
>> >
>> > If you want a professional server, you buy OS X Server - which comes
>> > with VERY LOW license fees compared to Windows - or even most supported
>> > Linux distros.
>>
>> What are you talking about? There are *NO* limitations on how you can
>> use linux. *Any* linux can be used in an *unlimited* fashion as a server.
>> I personally only paid through the nose to have RH ES3 preinstalled
>> because I wanted *guaranteed* hardware compatibility[0]. There is *nothing*
>> Red Hat can do to restrict my use of the system as a server. It's not
>> Red Hat's code to restrict.
>
> Read what I said - "most supported Linux distros".
>
> Sure, you can download Linux for free. But as soon as you want support,
> be prepared to pay a hefty license fee.
>
There is plenty of community support.
My experience is that the community support is superior to the corporate-
sponsored support.
>>
>> [0] As it turns out, my compatibility fears were grounded, but that's another
>> story.
>
>
> But all the Linux people say that there are no compatibilty issues.
That is exactly *not* what Linux people say. Linux people rightly say
that, with the possible exception of NetBSD, Linux is more likely to
have out-of-the-box compatibility with well-known hardware than with
any other system, and that is absolutely true. Take this test:
you acquire a piece of hardware. You have no driver disks or internet
access. You have the choice of using it with Windows or OSX or
Linux. Which system is most likely to support the hardware?
My issue has only to do with the aic79xx SCSI driver, and this has apparently
been resolved in kernel 2.6.10. That kernel is available right now
in Slackware 10.1 (in /testing), but I'm not sure if it's available at
installation. All I know is that an attempted test install of SuSE 9.2
(kernel 2.6.8) did not see the SCSI hard drive. It also gave the curious
message "Nice computer, but you are about to install a 32-bit OS on a
64-bit machine." (This particular machine has a late-model Xeon with
"64-bit extensions" whatever that means).
So, my plan is to just keep things as they are with until my RH network
subscription runs out next year, then switch to a then-current distro of
some kind. In the meantime, I'll try to find out whether to just ignore
the SuSE message about 64-bitness and install a 32-bit distro. It doesn't
really matter right now. Red Hat has already back-ported a lot of the
2.6 stuff into this 2.4-based kernel anyway, and the system is *extremely*
fast.
Lloyd Parsons
wrote:
From reading, I think it is more that some tools come with OSX server
that are not provided with OSX desktop.
>
> >> Can one not run servers on a Mac without paying through the nose
> >> for a different version of the OS?
> >
> > What type server do you mean? Just like you can run servers from the Home
> > edition of Windows, you can from the Mac also.
> >
>
> Can you run a non-crippled server with regular Mac OSX as it comes
> preloaded on the generally available Macs that one might go out
> and buy? For instance, can you run a web server or ftp server or name
> server or any other standard internet server without client connection
> restrictions?
>
Nothing I've read indicates that you can't do this. I know that a web
and mail server are in there, not sure about the ftp server. And I've
never seen anything that says there is a client restriction as is the
case with winxppro.
But really it is a commercial, non-free product that is controlled by
Apple, just like most of the OS's out there.
Snit
2/23/05 8:33 PM:
No.
> Finally, admission of the truth.
>
Not from you.
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
_________________________________________
Lloyd Parsons
wrote:
Community support is very good for Linux as long as time is not
critical. That's where it falls apart.
Business users want a fix NOW! Not later today, or tomorrow when
someone responds to a public request. And they also don't want to
field all the crap that goes with say, usenet postings.
hoo
> In article <384vh1F...@individual.net>, hoo <g...@poo.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Why can't you do that with the desktop version? How is the desktop
>> version in any way a different system from the server version?
>> Is there something like flipping a bit in a "registry" like
>> with Windows NT Workstation vs. Windows NT Server?
>>
>>
> From reading, I think it is more that some tools come with OSX server
> that are not provided with OSX desktop.
A lack of GUI tools wouldn't concern me if it is both technologically and
legally possible to run an off-the-shelf OSX "workstation" box as server in
the same unrestricted manner that Linux lets me do this.
>>
>> Can you run a non-crippled server with regular Mac OSX as it comes
>> preloaded on the generally available Macs that one might go out
>> and buy? For instance, can you run a web server or ftp server or name
>> server or any other standard internet server without client connection
>> restrictions?
>>
> Nothing I've read indicates that you can't do this. I know that a web
> and mail server are in there, not sure about the ftp server. And I've
> never seen anything that says there is a client restriction as is the
> case with winxppro.
>
> But really it is a commercial, non-free product that is controlled by
> Apple, just like most of the OS's out there.
I wonder what the EULA says. No doubt you could run technically run
Apache with "unlimited" connections (unless they've crippled the system
with a max_connections socket limit or something). But I wonder if
there's anything in the EULA like, "You may not use any software to
allow more than N simultaneous client connections to The System."
hoo
My experience has been that generally when "I" have problem is not a "new"
problem. I don't usually have to wait for a solution. I just have to do
some legwork and find what others have done to address the same problem.
> Business users want a fix NOW! Not later today, or tomorrow when
> someone responds to a public request. And they also don't want to
> field all the crap that goes with say, usenet postings.
That may be, but paying Red Hat $350 for 1yr Red Hat Network is not
going to get you a "we'll-jump-on-that-right-now" (unless it's security)
or "we'll-send-someone-right-over" response from Red Hat. Sure, you could
probably arrange a $5000 service contract on a $2500 system, but even
a company with deep pockets would be foolish to do something like that.
hoo
> "hoo" <g...@poo.invalid> wrote in post 385091F...@individual.net on
> 2/23/05 8:33 PM:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SN...@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
>>> "spi...@freenet.co.uk" <spi...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in post
>>> cjeivc...@freenet.co.uk on 2/23/05 10:30 AM:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> userspace programs tagged on.
>>>
>>> Which is not at all the same as Unix with another windowing system.
>>>
>>
>> So then OSX is just unix with a proprietary windowing system.
>
> No.
>
Then explain what you mean.
You appeared to argue that the interpretation of OSX as
"Unix then, with a few extra application programming..."
is not the same as what *you* interpret OSX to be:
"Unix with another windowing system"
Snit
2/23/05 11:20 PM:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SN...@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
>> "hoo" <g...@poo.invalid> wrote in post 385091F...@individual.net on
>> 2/23/05 8:33 PM:
>>
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <SN...@cable0ne.net.invalid> wrote:
>>>> "spi...@freenet.co.uk" <spi...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in post
>>>> cjeivc...@freenet.co.uk on 2/23/05 10:30 AM:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So.... Unix then, with a few extra application programming interfaces and
>>>>> userspace programs tagged on.
>>>>
>>>> Which is not at all the same as Unix with another windowing system.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So then OSX is just unix with a proprietary windowing system.
>>
>> No.
>>
>
> Then explain what you mean.
You do not know what the word "no" means? How much more simple can I make
it for you.
I stated, and gave examples as to why, OS X was more than just another
flavor of Unix with a cool windowing system. You responded in an amazing
show of missing the point with:
So then OSX is just unix with a proprietary windowing system.
Which was not at all what was stated. Not even close. Your comments were
not even in the ball park.
So, now, explain what you mean. After all the evidence and examples given
in this very thread, how can you conclude:
So then OSX is just unix with a proprietary windowing system.
I mean, really... what were you thinking when you wrote that?
>
> You appeared to argue that the interpretation of OSX as
> "Unix then, with a few extra application programming..."
>
> is not the same as what *you* interpret OSX to be:
> "Unix with another windowing system"
Are you suggesting that the API's that OS X provide are solely about a
windowing system? I suggest you read this:
Dino Rossi Won
> I stated, and gave examples as to why, OS X was more than just another
> flavor of Unix with a cool windowing system. You responded in an amazing
> show of missing the point with:
How can anyone respond to Macintard bullshit.
Look, run three apps on a mini and it grinds to a halt.
It's all based around some garbage OS that Steve Jobs sold to Apple to
make his nut.
OSX is pure and simple bullshit.
It's a microkernel from the late 80s that most people have given up on.
It hasn't progressed or improved.
Steve Job$, as always, is willing to wrap his clown show in brushed
aluminum and take your money.
That's all there is too it.
Now get the hell out of my newsgroup.
Peter Köhlmann
I did ask because there are tons of "How-Tos" on the web how to print to an
SMB printer with a Mac. I was asked not too long ago by a Mac user for
advice, I did not know that such a simple thing should be that difficult
The OSX *server* does come with SMP printing, ut it seems this functionality
is at least somewhat "lacking" on the OSX desktops.
Making them even more toys
>
>> But who connects a printer to the server these days? I haven't used
>> anything but IP printing for years.
>
>
> That's nice. Not too relevent, but nice.
>
Right. Different goalpost
--
Some people are incredibly witty AND intelligent AND sexy.
But enough about myself...
hoo
> "hoo" <g...@poo.invalid> wrote in post 385a1qF...@individual.net on
> 2/23/05 11:20 PM:
>
>>
>
> You do not know what the word "no" means? How much more simple can I make
> it for you.
>
> I stated, and gave examples as to why, OS X was more than just another
> flavor of Unix with a cool windowing system. You responded in an amazing
> show of missing the point with:
>
> So then OSX is just unix with a proprietary windowing system.
>
> Which was not at all what was stated. Not even close. Your comments were
> not even in the ball park.
>
> So, now, explain what you mean. After all the evidence and examples given
> in this very thread, how can you conclude:
>
> So then OSX is just unix with a proprietary windowing system.
>
> I mean, really... what were you thinking when you wrote that?
I was thinking how the list you posted represented GUI layers on top of
the underlying OS.
>>
>> You appeared to argue that the interpretation of OSX as
>> "Unix then, with a few extra application programming..."
>>
>> is not the same as what *you* interpret OSX to be:
>> "Unix with another windowing system"
>
> Are you suggesting that the API's that OS X provide are solely about a
> windowing system? I suggest you read this:
>
> http://snipurl.com/d0hy
>
You want me to read this?
"The term you selected is being presented by searchWin2000.com,
a TechTarget site for Win2000 professionals."
LOL. What on earth did you give me that link for? I know what a windowing
system is. I don't need some MCSE dictionary to explain it to me.
Do you know what an API is? X11 presents another GUI API on the Mac.
You don't boot into a different OS when you run X on a Mac.
Why don't you just take it from the horse's mouth:
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/
"Beneath the appealing, easy-to-use interface of Mac OS X is a
rock-solid foundation that is engineered for stability, reliability, and
performance. This foundation is a core operating system commonly known
as Darwin. Darwin integrates a number of technologies, most importantly
Mach 3.0, operating-system services based on 4.4BSD (Berkeley Software
Distribution), high-performance networking facilities, and support for
multiple integrated file systems."
See that: "Beneath the appealing, easy-to-use interface..." it's unix.
Dino Rossi Won
> Do you know what an API is? X11 presents another GUI API on the Mac.
> You don't boot into a different OS when you run X on a Mac.
Actually, X is a protocol for communication with a graphics server.
Super Spinner
a bitch that the first Unix usable by the masses is usable by the
masses because of the non-unixisms built on top of it rather than the
unix itself. Mac apps run better, are easier to use, and more polished
than run-of-the-mill unix apps because 1.) they're built on
Mac-specific api (Cocoa or Carbon), which is much richer, stabler, and
more elegant than some X-crap unix api; and 2.) they run on the rich
and elegant Mac environment rather than in some hackish X environment.
BTW, your boy Dino lost. Get over it. :p
Dino Rossi Won
> OS X is so superior to Linux that it's not even close.
If not being able to run 3 apps without grinding to a halt is superior,
then so be it.
> Must sting like
> a bitch that the first Unix usable by the masses is usable by the
> masses because of the non-unixisms built on top of it rather than the
> unix itself.
That sentence is as clear as a typically over graphical series of
macintard property sheets to accomplish the same as a single command or
keystroke.
> Mac apps run better, are easier to use, and more polished
> than run-of-the-mill unix apps because
They come in a really shiny box?
> they're built on
> Mac-specific api (Cocoa or Carbon), which is much richer, stabler, and
> more elegant than some X-crap unix api;
How many developers does Apply employ these days anyway?
>and 2.) they run on the rich
> and elegant Mac environment rather than in some hackish X environment.
What is a 'Mac environment' ? The code that jobs discarded after OSIX?
When he was desperate to unload the Next assets and make a quick sum
for himself? Leaving the Macintard user with a slow, poorly built
microkernel?
> BTW, your boy Dino lost. Get over it. :p
Not after the lawsuit...Dems recruiting prisoners to vote?
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
No, you want support, you pay for support, not a licence fee. They can't
restrict you from using the GPL (and other OSI compat licenced) software
in anyway you chose.
If you want a professional server, you can use Linux, support options
are varied, and yes, they include megabuck support contracts with
bigname support companies, if you so chose. But you are not required to
take that path.
>>
>> [0] As it turns out, my compatibility fears were grounded, but that's another
>> story.
>
>
> But all the Linux people say that there are no compatibilty issues.
no, they don't. Are you lying? or simply ignorant?
How about you show me posts from two different persons, claiming that
there are never any compat issues ever? oops....
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCHZL2d90bcYOAWPYRAlOBAJ9PVoPoo7je/9Rj4CQ1F2xyZEdSuQCgojVx
qfSxVcaQg8teVgjh6ZtrXOI=
=Oh9B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
I came; I saw; I fucked up
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:32:41 GMT,
TravelinMan <Now...@spamfree.com> wrote:
> In article <cvif1s$ehg$00$1...@news.t-online.com>,
> Peter Kohlmann <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
<snip>
>> Lets not forget the ease of handling printers, shall we?
>> Just add a windows network to it, with printers connected to a windows
>> server. Should we do that? Does OSX handle it as gracefully as linux?
>>
>> What about a OSX desktop machine. Is it able at all to handle SMB printers?
>> So totally transparent a linux machine does? Just add it during setup?
>
>
> Are you ever going to learn something about a topic before you jump in
> and make stupid comments?
>
> OS X has no problem handling shared printers at all. None.
>
as I mentioned in another post. I spent the better part of an evening
trying to get an iBook to print to the shared printer on a Win2K server
machine. The other MS machines on the network could do it, booting up a
vaio with Knoppix could do it, the iBook claimed to *see* the printer,
and claimed to be printing to it, but nothing ever happened.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCHZFzd90bcYOAWPYRAqGXAKDOhne+9iPbzo2Ea5md5986biN6HQCgqvuw
V1ukp2NnMa1kyXH95FMWcLI=
=0C40
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"IE, because every click, should be an adventure"
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
if they want 24/7 support guaranteed, they can pay for it. If they'd
rather chose other options, those are available also, with Linux anyway.
> someone responds to a public request. And they also don't want to
> field all the crap that goes with say, usenet postings.
case in point...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCHZNWd90bcYOAWPYRAusLAJ4pSlXogb1vvkzstZcQ4ms7+zAQAgCeJA0H
uvMksE6LFUfXsfNuDxnIVOs=
=PaKn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
The real fun of living wisely is that you get to feel smug about it
-- Hobbes
hoo
> hoo wrote:
>
>> Do you know what an API is? X11 presents another GUI API on the Mac.
>> You don't boot into a different OS when you run X on a Mac.
>
> Actually, X is a protocol for communication with a graphics server.
>
The X protocol is client/server, yes. But X itself *is* the graphics
server. And it presents a GUI API:
XCreateWindow(3X11) XLIB FUNCTIONS XCreateWindow(3X11)
NAME
XCreateWindow, XCreateSimpleWindow, XSetWindowAttributes -
create windows and window attributes structure
SYNTAX
Window XCreateWindow(display, parent, x, y, width, height,
border_width, depth,
class, visual, valuemask,
attributes)
Display *display;
Window parent;
int x, y;
unsigned int width, height;
unsigned int border_width;
int depth;
unsigned int class;
Visual *visual
unsigned long valuemask;
XSetWindowAttributes *attributes;
Aquila Deus
LawsonE
"hoo" <g...@poo.invalid> wrote in message
news:385kb2F...@individual.net...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Dino Rossi Won <do...@with.communards> wrote:
>> hoo wrote:
>>
>>> Do you know what an API is? X11 presents another GUI API on the Mac.
>>> You don't boot into a different OS when you run X on a Mac.
>>
>> Actually, X is a protocol for communication with a graphics server.
>>
>
> The X protocol is client/server, yes. But X itself *is* the graphics
> server. And it presents a GUI API:
The Graphics server on a Mac is Quartz. X on a Mac is running on top of
Quartz.
LawsonE
"Dino Rossi Won" <do...@with.communards> wrote in message
news:1109235058.f2c52bf45c4c71ecf1b7bed6aead1b29@teranews...
> Super Spinner wrote:
>> OS X is so superior to Linux that it's not even close.
>
> If not being able to run 3 apps without grinding to a halt is superior,
> then so be it.
>
>
Which 3 apps, BTW?
hoo
Nope. X server + Quartz window manager.
Like when I use an X-server and the blackbox window manager.
Or the twm window manager, ...
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/X11/index.html
"X11 for Mac OS X is an implementation of the X Window System that makes
it possible to run X11-based applications in Mac OS X. Based on the
open source XFree86 project - the most common implementation of X11 -
X11 for Mac OS X is compatible, fast, and fully integrated with Mac OS
X. It includes the full X11R6.6 technology including an X11 window server,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Quartz window manager, libraries, and basic utilities such as xterm."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
98am...@padgatehigh.warrington.sch.uk
Peter Köhlmann
> what does "mac zealots" mean
Basically it translates to "idiot"
Like wintroll does
--
"Against stupidity, the very gods themselves contend in vain."
Friedrich Schiller
spi...@freenet.co.uk
>> So.... Unix then, with a few extra application programming interfaces and
>> userspace programs tagged on.
> Which is not at all the same as Unix with another windowing system.
You appear to have no concept of what unix is, do you?
X11/R6 is IRRELEVANT, the only thing that has "to do with unix" is that it's
a userspace program that just happens to RUN on unix. I think you'll find
there are X servers that run on macos, windows, OLD macos, vms and any other
capable operating system too.
> Are you trying to move the goal posts?
What goalposts would those be? Describing OSX as a unix-alike is not moving
any goal posts. The very fact that the core of the OS is based on a BSD
running on a mach kernel is enough for anyone to conclude the same thing.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
>>>> So.... Unix then, with a few extra application programming interfaces and
>>>> userspace programs tagged on.
>>>
>>> Which is not at all the same as Unix with another windowing system.
>>>
>>
>> So then OSX is just unix with a proprietary windowing system.
> No.
Well WHAT IS IT THEN?
What makes OSX so different from a unix? If you're saying it's not the
proprietory windowing system, then please, enlighten us. Please note, that
by excluding the GUI, you are forced to the commandline and below in your
comparison.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> Er? I could see how you could incorrectly misconstrue Carbon to be such...
> but Cocoa?
>>
>>> Quicktime
>>> AppleScript
>>
>> Applications.
> I did not say the QuickTime Player.. or the AppleScript Editor... are those
> the applications you were thinking of?
If quicktime and applescript AREN'T applications, they, prey tell, what do
they do? hmm? What DO they do?
hoo
I think had something called quicktime on Win3.1
I never did figure out what it was supposed to do.
Something to do with movies i think.
Applescript.
Sounds like an interpreter.
#!/usr/bin/applescript
apple_echo "OSX rules"
/usr/bin/apple_run -f fancy_spinning_logo
apple_echo "Told ya !!!"
TravelinMan
Peter Kohlmann <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
> begin 98am...@padgatehigh.warrington.sch.uk wrote:
>
> > what does "mac zealots" mean
>
> Basically it translates to "idiot"
> Like Peter Kohlmann does
There. I fixed your post.