f



[News] Mac OS X Does Not Look Better Than GNU/Linux

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mac4lin - Give that Mac OS X look to Linux

,----[ Quote ]
| Mac4Lin is best Mac like User Interface for Gnome and Xfce desktops like 
| Ubuntu/Xubuntu, Fedora, Debian and others, that will take care of absolutely 
| everything (from icons, themes to usplash – loading window at start) to look 
| just like Mac. With this package comes: dock, the GTK theme, Emerald theme 
| (3d window borders), new icons, new wallpapers, taskbar image, GDM themes, 
| cursors, themes for Pidgin, Firefox, music players and system sounds and you 
| will be amazed of flexibility and customization of Linux system.      
`----

http://linuxpoison.blogspot.com/2009/06/mac4lin-give-that-mac-os-x-look-to.html

They can look the same, but under the hood GNU/Linux is more powerful.


Recent:

My Free Choice to Move to Linux

,----[ Quote ]
| Until about 5 weeks ago.
|
| I had suddenly felt the urge to drop Vista and stop using OS X.  And I did.
| Here were my reasons why:
|
|    1. Macs are more expensive in the long-run. Sticking with OS X means
|    sticking with premium-priced Apple hardware.  I know there
|    are “hackintoshes” (e.g. ways to run OS X on non-Apple hardware), but I
|    would not rely on those hackintoshes as my main machine.  I also
|    understand the argument that one “saves on time”.  Conceptually, that
|    makes sense.
|    2. Vista is just slow. Resource-hog. Annoying pop-ups. I used Vista
|    Business on my Lenovo Thinkpad X200 and while it was an decent experience,
|    it was still too slow.  Especially compared to XP. And that’s already
|    using ReadyBoost.
|    3. Linux was interesting to try. Free software. Community-driven and
|    supported. Great performance (at least that’s what I had read).  Stable
|    software.
`----

http://opendaily.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/my-free-choice-to-move-to-linux/


Run your Linux like a Mac

,----[ Quote ]
| LINUX users who want to run their computers so that they look like Macs can
| pick up this Mac4Lin distribution here.
`----

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1271790/run-linux-mac


Mac4Lin 1.0 is out!

http://nancib.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/mac4lin-1-0-is-out/


Mac4Lin Gives Linux Desktops the Complete Mac Look

,----[ Quote ]
| Linux: Mac4Lin, a package of skins, wallpapers, icons, and interface
| refinements that brings a completist Mac look to Linux with an automated
| installation, has reached the 1.0 stage with an impressive array of features.
`----

http://lifehacker.com/5290955/mac4lin-gives-linux-desktops-the-complete-mac-look


10 things Linux does better than OS X

,----[ Quote ]
| #1: Flexibility
|
| [...]
|
| #2: Open source
|
| [...]
|
| #3: Command line
|
| [...]
|
| #4: Hardware requirements
|
| [...]
|
| #5: Security
|
| [...]
|
| 6. Portability
|
| [...]
|
| #7: Cost
|
| [...]
|
| #8: More available software
|
| [...]
|
| #9: Not so dumbed-down
|
| [...]
|
| #10: Keyboard efficiency
`----

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/10things/?p=461


Moving from Mac to Ubuntu: Why I’m switching

,----[ Quote ]
| Why I’m leaving Mac
|
|    1. Crap file management.The Finder doesn’t work for me. No location bar
|    and no tree strucure side panel makes it difficult to navigate folders and
|    move files around the way I want to.
|    2. Insufficient panels & customization. In Ubuntu I can have as many
|    panels I want, can put all kinds of stuff on them, and can arrange them
|    however I want. In OSX You just have the dock, and you can really only put
|    applications or files on them, and you can’t even put in a separator to
|    keep them organized.
|    3. Various other annoyances. Such as:
|           * program menus are glued to the top of the screen on one monitor
|           only, which detaches them from the window. This is especailly
|           annoying when the program you’re using is on the second monitor.
|           * the date/time doesn’t open to a navigable calendar. I often use
|           this to check dates in the past or future.
|           * you can’t see hidden files unless you run a command from the
|           terminal to turn them on. Thus, hidden files are either always on
|           or always off.
`----

http://meganmcdermott.com/2008/08/29/moving-mac-ubuntu-switching/


A Mac Devotee Looks at Ubuntu 8.10 "Intrepid Ibex"

,----[ Quote ]
| If Apple came out with a netbook, I'd be tempted to choose it over a
| Linux-based netbook for a variety of reasons. One of them is that it would
| slot into our Mac-centric home network (mostly in terms of syncing and
| existing software) more easily. Another is that I've been more blown away by
| the iPod Touch than I ever thought I could be, and an Apple netbook might
| have the same effect. Today, however, that choice doesn't exist and won't for
| the forseeable future, and as my shoulders and back start to ache and cramp
| from the time spent in front of a desktop writing overlong blog posts, an
| Ubuntu netbook continues to be an increasingly attractive option.
`----

http://diderotsdiary.iannelli.us/2008/12/mac-devotee-looks-at-ubuntu-810.html


Ubuntu on an iBook

,----[ Quote ]
| I started by backing up my information. Everything, everything - including
| the System Folder. I used Disk Copy to image everything in around 600 MB
| chunks so that I could burn them to a CD.
`----

http://linuxtidbits.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/ubuntu-on-an-ibook/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkpKRH8ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6sCgCglwoBTB7omFuhLXYYJdqYDie8
5UMAn0TaaLBaA0syCTLl1RrHWWoyDbDs
=FkLd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
newsgroups3 (79677)
6/30/2009 4:59:43 PM
comp.os.linux.advocacy 124139 articles. 3 followers. Post Follow

108 Replies
785 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 6

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Mac4lin - Give that Mac OS X look to Linux
> 
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Mac4Lin is best Mac like User Interface for Gnome and Xfce desktops like
> | Ubuntu/Xubuntu, Fedora, Debian and others, that will take care of
> | absolutely everything (from icons, themes to usplash – loading window at
> | start) to look just like Mac. With this package comes: dock, the GTK
> | theme, Emerald theme (3d window borders), new icons, new wallpapers,
> | taskbar image, GDM themes, cursors, themes for Pidgin, Firefox, music
> | players and system sounds and you will be amazed of flexibility and
> | customization of Linux system.
> `----
> 
>
http://linuxpoison.blogspot.com/2009/06/mac4lin-give-that-mac-os-x-look-to.html

Yeah... OSX is so much uglier than Linux which is why this is yet another on
the long list of Linux apps & themes that attempts to copy-cat and mimic
the OSX UI.

Idiot.


> They can look the same, but under the hood GNU/Linux is more powerful.

They can look the same, but one is a fake copy-cat that doesn't work the
same as the real thing.
0
Zeke1165 (116)
6/30/2009 4:26:32 PM
Ezekiel stated in post h2debo$dph$1@news.motzarella.org on 6/30/09 9:26 AM:

> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> Mac4lin - Give that Mac OS X look to Linux
>> 
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Mac4Lin is best Mac like User Interface for Gnome and Xfce desktops like
>> | Ubuntu/Xubuntu, Fedora, Debian and others, that will take care of
>> | absolutely everything (from icons, themes to usplash � loading window at
>> | start) to look just like Mac. With this package comes: dock, the GTK
>> | theme, Emerald theme (3d window borders), new icons, new wallpapers,
>> | taskbar image, GDM themes, cursors, themes for Pidgin, Firefox, music
>> | players and system sounds and you will be amazed of flexibility and
>> | customization of Linux system.
>> `----
>> 
>> 
> 
http://linuxpoison.blogspot.com/2009/06/mac4lin-give-that-mac-os-x-look-to.htm>
l
> 
> Yeah... OSX is so much uglier than Linux which is why this is yet another on
> the long list of Linux apps & themes that attempts to copy-cat and mimic
> the OSX UI.
> 
> Idiot.

And the Mac look and feel is not just a skin... it is a consistency between
apps.  No desktop Linux add-on fixes that.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


0
usenet2 (47889)
6/30/2009 4:31:31 PM
Snit wrote:

> Ezekiel stated in post h2debo$dph$1@news.motzarella.org on 6/30/09 9:26
> AM:
> 
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> 
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> 
>>> Mac4lin - Give that Mac OS X look to Linux
>>> 
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | Mac4Lin is best Mac like User Interface for Gnome and Xfce desktops
>>> | like Ubuntu/Xubuntu, Fedora, Debian and others, that will take care of
>>> | absolutely everything (from icons, themes to usplash ­ loading window
>>> | at start) to look just like Mac. With this package comes: dock, the
>>> | GTK theme, Emerald theme (3d window borders), new icons, new
>>> | wallpapers, taskbar image, GDM themes, cursors, themes for Pidgin,
>>> | Firefox, music players and system sounds and you will be amazed of
>>> | flexibility and customization of Linux system.
>>> `----
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>
http://linuxpoison.blogspot.com/2009/06/mac4lin-give-that-mac-os-x-look-to.htm>
> l
>> 
>> Yeah... OSX is so much uglier than Linux which is why this is yet another
>> on the long list of Linux apps & themes that attempts to copy-cat and
>> mimic the OSX UI.
>> 
>> Idiot.
> 
> And the Mac look and feel is not just a skin... it is a consistency
> between
> apps.  No desktop Linux add-on fixes that.
> 
> 


In the mind of an idiot like Schestowitz all it takes to become "OSX like"
is to change the icons and color scheme. These morons are stupid enough to
think that if a "screens shot" looks the same then it is the same.

0
Zeke1165 (116)
6/30/2009 4:40:40 PM
Ezekiel stated in post h2df68$hp8$1@news.motzarella.org on 6/30/09 9:40 AM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Ezekiel stated in post h2debo$dph$1@news.motzarella.org on 6/30/09 9:26
>> AM:
>> 
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> 
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>> 
>>>> Mac4lin - Give that Mac OS X look to Linux
>>>> 
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | Mac4Lin is best Mac like User Interface for Gnome and Xfce desktops
>>>> | like Ubuntu/Xubuntu, Fedora, Debian and others, that will take care of
>>>> | absolutely everything (from icons, themes to usplash �� loading window
>>>> | at start) to look just like Mac. With this package comes: dock, the
>>>> | GTK theme, Emerald theme (3d window borders), new icons, new
>>>> | wallpapers, taskbar image, GDM themes, cursors, themes for Pidgin,
>>>> | Firefox, music players and system sounds and you will be amazed of
>>>> | flexibility and customization of Linux system.
>>>> `----
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
http://linuxpoison.blogspot.com/2009/06/mac4lin-give-that-mac-os-x-look-to.htm>
>
>> l
>>> 
>>> Yeah... OSX is so much uglier than Linux which is why this is yet another
>>> on the long list of Linux apps & themes that attempts to copy-cat and
>>> mimic the OSX UI.
>>> 
>>> Idiot.
>> 
>> And the Mac look and feel is not just a skin... it is a consistency
>> between
>> apps.  No desktop Linux add-on fixes that.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> In the mind of an idiot like Schestowitz all it takes to become "OSX like"
> is to change the icons and color scheme. These morons are stupid enough to
> think that if a "screens shot" looks the same then it is the same.
> 
Does seem that way... usability is a foreign concept to many in COLA.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


0
usenet2 (47889)
6/30/2009 5:06:15 PM
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:26:32 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> Mac4lin - Give that Mac OS X look to Linux
>> 
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| Mac4Lin is best Mac like User Interface for Gnome and Xfce desktops like
>>| Ubuntu/Xubuntu, Fedora, Debian and others, that will take care of
>>| absolutely everything (from icons, themes to usplash �V loading window at
>>| start) to look just like Mac. With this package comes: dock, the GTK
>>| theme, Emerald theme (3d window borders), new icons, new wallpapers,
>>| taskbar image, GDM themes, cursors, themes for Pidgin, Firefox, music
>>| players and system sounds and you will be amazed of flexibility and
>>| customization of Linux system.
>> `----
>> 
>>
> http://linuxpoison.blogspot.com/2009/06/mac4lin-give-that-mac-os-x-look-to.html
> 
> Yeah... OSX is so much uglier than Linux which is why this is yet another on
> the long list of Linux apps & themes that attempts to copy-cat and mimic
> the OSX UI.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
>> They can look the same, but under the hood GNU/Linux is more powerful.
> 
> They can look the same, but one is a fake copy-cat that doesn't work the
> same as the real thing.

Another example of the Linux / Open Source world re-inventing
the wheel and making it square instead of round.

Do these freetards ever get anything right?
0
stymeeee (1067)
6/30/2009 5:11:31 PM
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:40:40 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Ezekiel stated in post h2debo$dph$1@news.motzarella.org on 6/30/09 9:26
>> AM:
>> 
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> 
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>> 
>>>> Mac4lin - Give that Mac OS X look to Linux
>>>> 
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | Mac4Lin is best Mac like User Interface for Gnome and Xfce desktops
>>>> | like Ubuntu/Xubuntu, Fedora, Debian and others, that will take care of
>>>> | absolutely everything (from icons, themes to usplash � loading window
>>>> | at start) to look just like Mac. With this package comes: dock, the
>>>> | GTK theme, Emerald theme (3d window borders), new icons, new
>>>> | wallpapers, taskbar image, GDM themes, cursors, themes for Pidgin,
>>>> | Firefox, music players and system sounds and you will be amazed of
>>>> | flexibility and customization of Linux system.
>>>> `----
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>
> http://linuxpoison.blogspot.com/2009/06/mac4lin-give-that-mac-os-x-look-to.htm>
>> l
>>> 
>>> Yeah... OSX is so much uglier than Linux which is why this is yet another
>>> on the long list of Linux apps & themes that attempts to copy-cat and
>>> mimic the OSX UI.
>>> 
>>> Idiot.
>> 
>> And the Mac look and feel is not just a skin... it is a consistency
>> between
>> apps.  No desktop Linux add-on fixes that.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> In the mind of an idiot like Schestowitz all it takes to become "OSX like"
> is to change the icons and color scheme. These morons are stupid enough to
> think that if a "screens shot" looks the same then it is the same.

The Linux community is grasping at straws.
They try but they fail.
0
stymeeee (1067)
6/30/2009 5:12:41 PM
Hans Lister wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:40:40 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
> 
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Ezekiel stated in post h2debo$dph$1@news.motzarella.org on 6/30/09 9:26
>>> AM:
>>> 
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mac4lin - Give that Mac OS X look to Linux
>>>>> 
>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>> | Mac4Lin is best Mac like User Interface for Gnome and Xfce desktops
>>>>> | like Ubuntu/Xubuntu, Fedora, Debian and others, that will take care
>>>>> | of absolutely everything (from icons, themes to usplash ­ loading
>>>>> | window at start) to look just like Mac. With this package comes:
>>>>> | dock, the GTK theme, Emerald theme (3d window borders), new icons,
>>>>> | new wallpapers, taskbar image, GDM themes, cursors, themes for
>>>>> | Pidgin, Firefox, music players and system sounds and you will be
>>>>> | amazed of flexibility and customization of Linux system.
>>>>> `----
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>
>>
http://linuxpoison.blogspot.com/2009/06/mac4lin-give-that-mac-os-x-look-to.htm>
>>> l
>>>> 
>>>> Yeah... OSX is so much uglier than Linux which is why this is yet
>>>> another on the long list of Linux apps & themes that attempts to
>>>> copy-cat and mimic the OSX UI.
>>>> 
>>>> Idiot.
>>> 
>>> And the Mac look and feel is not just a skin... it is a consistency
>>> between
>>> apps.  No desktop Linux add-on fixes that.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> In the mind of an idiot like Schestowitz all it takes to become "OSX
>> like" is to change the icons and color scheme. These morons are stupid
>> enough to think that if a "screens shot" looks the same then it is the
>> same.
> 
> The Linux community is grasping at straws.
> They try but they fail.


These are the same idiots who would buy a $150 Rolex knock-off on Canal
Street and try to pass it off as a Rolex. After all... it "looks" the same.

Linux freetards... there's no idea they can't create a cheap inferior
version of.


0
Zeke1165 (116)
6/30/2009 5:36:46 PM
In article <2073880.qzqp1eWA4t@schestowitz.com>,
 Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
> 
> They can look the same, but under the hood GNU/Linux is more powerful.

How so?

-- 
--Tim Smith
0
reply_in_group (13194)
6/30/2009 5:58:16 PM
In article <h2df68$hp8$1@news.motzarella.org>,
 Ezekiel <Zeke@not-such-email-addr.com> wrote:
> 
> In the mind of an idiot like Schestowitz all it takes to become "OSX 
> like" is to change the icons and color scheme. These morons are 
> stupid enough to think that if a "screens shot" looks the same then 
> it is the same.

It's like a cargo cult.

-- 
--Tim Smith
0
reply_in_group (13194)
6/30/2009 6:01:55 PM
Ezekiel wrote:
> <snip>
> 
> They can look the same, but one is a fake copy-cat that doesn't work the
> same as the real thing.

Precisely, and I think that when you make an environment look like
another one, you set your users up to *expect* both environments to
*work* the same as well, which is obviously not the case here.  I'm all
for keeping GUIs intuitive and having environments available that are
easy for Windoze/Mac users to pick up, but it's all about balance.
0
poprocks (2)
6/30/2009 6:12:04 PM
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Mac4lin - Give that Mac OS X look to Linux
> 
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Mac4Lin is best Mac like User Interface for Gnome and Xfce desktops like 
> | Ubuntu/Xubuntu, Fedora, Debian and others, that will take care of absolutely 
> | everything (from icons, themes to usplash – loading window at start) to look 
> | just like Mac. With this package comes: dock, the GTK theme, Emerald theme 
> | (3d window borders), new icons, new wallpapers, taskbar image, GDM themes, 
> | cursors, themes for Pidgin, Firefox, music players and system sounds and you 
> | will be amazed of flexibility and customization of Linux system.      
> `----
> 
> http://linuxpoison.blogspot.com/2009/06/mac4lin-give-that-mac-os-x-look-to.html
> 
> They can look the same, but under the hood GNU/Linux is more powerful.
> 
> 
> Recent:
> 
> My Free Choice to Move to Linux
> 
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Until about 5 weeks ago.
> |
> | I had suddenly felt the urge to drop Vista and stop using OS X.  And I did.
> | Here were my reasons why:
> |
> |    1. Macs are more expensive in the long-run. Sticking with OS X means
> |    sticking with premium-priced Apple hardware.  I know there
> |    are “hackintoshes” (e.g. ways to run OS X on non-Apple hardware), but I
> |    would not rely on those hackintoshes as my main machine.  I also
> |    understand the argument that one “saves on time”.  Conceptually, that
> |    makes sense.
> |    2. Vista is just slow. Resource-hog. Annoying pop-ups. I used Vista
> |    Business on my Lenovo Thinkpad X200 and while it was an decent experience,
> |    it was still too slow.  Especially compared to XP. And that’s already
> |    using ReadyBoost.
> |    3. Linux was interesting to try. Free software. Community-driven and
> |    supported. Great performance (at least that’s what I had read).  Stable
> |    software.
> `----
> 
> http://opendaily.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/my-free-choice-to-move-to-linux/
> 
> 
> Run your Linux like a Mac
> 
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | LINUX users who want to run their computers so that they look like Macs can
> | pick up this Mac4Lin distribution here.
> `----
> 
> http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1271790/run-linux-mac
> 
> 
> Mac4Lin 1.0 is out!
> 
> http://nancib.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/mac4lin-1-0-is-out/
> 
> 
> Mac4Lin Gives Linux Desktops the Complete Mac Look
> 
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Linux: Mac4Lin, a package of skins, wallpapers, icons, and interface
> | refinements that brings a completist Mac look to Linux with an automated
> | installation, has reached the 1.0 stage with an impressive array of features.
> `----
> 
> http://lifehacker.com/5290955/mac4lin-gives-linux-desktops-the-complete-mac-look
> 
> 
> 10 things Linux does better than OS X
> 
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | #1: Flexibility
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | #2: Open source
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | #3: Command line
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | #4: Hardware requirements
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | #5: Security
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | 6. Portability
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | #7: Cost
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | #8: More available software
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | #9: Not so dumbed-down
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | #10: Keyboard efficiency
> `----
> 
> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/10things/?p=461
> 
> 
> Moving from Mac to Ubuntu: Why I’m switching
> 
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Why I’m leaving Mac
> |
> |    1. Crap file management.The Finder doesn’t work for me. No location bar
> |    and no tree strucure side panel makes it difficult to navigate folders and
> |    move files around the way I want to.
> |    2. Insufficient panels & customization. In Ubuntu I can have as many
> |    panels I want, can put all kinds of stuff on them, and can arrange them
> |    however I want. In OSX You just have the dock, and you can really only put
> |    applications or files on them, and you can’t even put in a separator to
> |    keep them organized.
> |    3. Various other annoyances. Such as:
> |           * program menus are glued to the top of the screen on one monitor
> |           only, which detaches them from the window. This is especailly
> |           annoying when the program you’re using is on the second monitor.
> |           * the date/time doesn’t open to a navigable calendar. I often use
> |           this to check dates in the past or future.
> |           * you can’t see hidden files unless you run a command from the
> |           terminal to turn them on. Thus, hidden files are either always on
> |           or always off.
> `----
> 
> http://meganmcdermott.com/2008/08/29/moving-mac-ubuntu-switching/
> 
> 
> A Mac Devotee Looks at Ubuntu 8.10 "Intrepid Ibex"
> 
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | If Apple came out with a netbook, I'd be tempted to choose it over a
> | Linux-based netbook for a variety of reasons. One of them is that it would
> | slot into our Mac-centric home network (mostly in terms of syncing and
> | existing software) more easily. Another is that I've been more blown away by
> | the iPod Touch than I ever thought I could be, and an Apple netbook might
> | have the same effect. Today, however, that choice doesn't exist and won't for
> | the forseeable future, and as my shoulders and back start to ache and cramp
> | from the time spent in front of a desktop writing overlong blog posts, an
> | Ubuntu netbook continues to be an increasingly attractive option.
> `----
> 
> http://diderotsdiary.iannelli.us/2008/12/mac-devotee-looks-at-ubuntu-810.html
> 
> 
> Ubuntu on an iBook
> 
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | I started by backing up my information. Everything, everything - including
> | the System Folder. I used Disk Copy to image everything in around 600 MB
> | chunks so that I could burn them to a CD.
> `----
> 
> http://linuxtidbits.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/ubuntu-on-an-ibook/
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAkpKRH8ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6sCgCglwoBTB7omFuhLXYYJdqYDie8
> 5UMAn0TaaLBaA0syCTLl1RrHWWoyDbDs
> =FkLd
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I've never used OS X much. The couple of times I've used it, I found its 
interface to be clunky and annoying as hell.

It couldn't be any less intuitive in many respects.
0
Beno1990 (517)
6/30/2009 6:56:19 PM
On 2009-06-30, Hans Lister <stymeeee@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:40:40 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Ezekiel stated in post h2debo$dph$1@news.motzarella.org on 6/30/09 9:26
>>> AM:
>>> 
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mac4lin - Give that Mac OS X look to Linux
>>>>> 
>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>> | Mac4Lin is best Mac like User Interface for Gnome and Xfce desktops
>>>>> | like Ubuntu/Xubuntu, Fedora, Debian and others, that will take care of
>>>>> | absolutely everything (from icons, themes to usplash ­ loading window
>>>>> | at start) to look just like Mac. With this package comes: dock, the
>>>>> | GTK theme, Emerald theme (3d window borders), new icons, new
>>>>> | wallpapers, taskbar image, GDM themes, cursors, themes for Pidgin,
>>>>> | Firefox, music players and system sounds and you will be amazed of
>>>>> | flexibility and customization of Linux system.
>>>>> `----
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>
>> http://linuxpoison.blogspot.com/2009/06/mac4lin-give-that-mac-os-x-look-to.htm>
>>> l
>>>> 
>>>> Yeah... OSX is so much uglier than Linux which is why this is yet another
>>>> on the long list of Linux apps & themes that attempts to copy-cat and
>>>> mimic the OSX UI.
>>>> 
>>>> Idiot.
>>> 
>>> And the Mac look and feel is not just a skin... it is a consistency
>>> between
>>> apps.  No desktop Linux add-on fixes that.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> In the mind of an idiot like Schestowitz all it takes to become "OSX like"
>> is to change the icons and color scheme. These morons are stupid enough to
>> think that if a "screens shot" looks the same then it is the same.
>
> The Linux community is grasping at straws.
> They try but they fail.

    Between the black eyes and lack of organization in iPhoto, I'm not
sure I want Linux desktops or applications mocking MacOS too closely.

    OTOH, a couple of high profile features in Snow/Leapard are Linux
knockoffs. These are virtual workspaces and dock folders.

-- 
	Linux: because everyone should get to drink the beer of their    |||
choice and not merely be limited to pretensious imports or hard cider.  / | \
0
jedi (14754)
6/30/2009 7:11:20 PM
On 2009-06-30, Ezekiel <Zeke@not-such-email-addr.com> wrote:
> Hans Lister wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:40:40 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>> 
>>> Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Ezekiel stated in post h2debo$dph$1@news.motzarella.org on 6/30/09 9:26
>>>> AM:
>>>> 
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:

[deletia]

>>> In the mind of an idiot like Schestowitz all it takes to become "OSX
>>> like" is to change the icons and color scheme. These morons are stupid
>>> enough to think that if a "screens shot" looks the same then it is the
>>> same.
>> 
>> The Linux community is grasping at straws.
>> They try but they fail.
>
>
> These are the same idiots who would buy a $150 Rolex knock-off on Canal
> Street and try to pass it off as a Rolex. After all... it "looks" the same.
>
> Linux freetards... there's no idea they can't create a cheap inferior
> version of.
 
    You make a mighty noise for someone who has no clue what the real
point of the 20x more expensive Rolex.

-- 
	Linux: because everyone should get to drink the beer of their    |||
choice and not merely be limited to pretensious imports or hard cider.  / | \
0
jedi (14754)
6/30/2009 7:12:28 PM
On 2009-06-30, Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <2073880.qzqp1eWA4t@schestowitz.com>,
>  Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>> 
>> They can look the same, but under the hood GNU/Linux is more powerful.
>
> How so?

....there is a certain point there. OTOH, if you end up turning a Mac into
little more than yet another Linux then what's the point really of bothering
with MacOS to begin with? 

    Inferior system management?
    Inferior driver support?
    Inferior support for non-Apple/non-MS data?
    Jobs of Borg style datafile management?

    The fact that Photoshop does CYMK well is far more meaningful to those
that need that sort of thing than the trivial bits of minutia.

-- 
	Linux: because everyone should get to drink the beer of their    |||
choice and not merely be limited to pretensious imports or hard cider.  / | \
0
jedi (14754)
6/30/2009 7:18:01 PM
JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2009-06-30, Ezekiel <Zeke@not-such-email-addr.com> wrote:
>> Hans Lister wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:40:40 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Ezekiel stated in post h2debo$dph$1@news.motzarella.org on 6/30/09
>>>>> 9:26 AM:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> 
> [deletia]
> 
>>>> In the mind of an idiot like Schestowitz all it takes to become "OSX
>>>> like" is to change the icons and color scheme. These morons are stupid
>>>> enough to think that if a "screens shot" looks the same then it is the
>>>> same.
>>> 
>>> The Linux community is grasping at straws.
>>> They try but they fail.
>>
>>
>> These are the same idiots who would buy a $150 Rolex knock-off on Canal
>> Street and try to pass it off as a Rolex. After all... it "looks" the
>> same.
>>
>> Linux freetards... there's no idea they can't create a cheap inferior
>> version of.
>  
>     You make a mighty noise for someone who has no clue what...

You don't know shit about me so don't kid yourself into thinking that you
somehow understand what I do or don't know.



0
Zeke1165 (116)
6/30/2009 7:36:04 PM
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> In the mind of an idiot like Schestowitz all it takes to become "OSX
>>> like" is to change the icons and color scheme. These morons are stupid
>>> enough to think that if a "screens shot" looks the same then it is the
>>> same.
>>
>> The Linux community is grasping at straws.
>> They try but they fail.
> 
>     Between the black eyes and lack of organization in iPhoto, I'm not
> sure I want Linux desktops or applications mocking MacOS too closely.
> 
>     OTOH, a couple of high profile features in Snow/Leapard are Linux
> knockoffs. These are virtual workspaces and dock folders.

The idea that "virtual workspaces" are a feature taken from Linux must be a 
knockoff too, because it's historically inaccurate.

-George (doing my part for the Linux Inquisition)

0
georgeps (404)
6/30/2009 7:42:29 PM
JEDIDIAH stated in post slrnh4koqo.8kk.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 6/30/09 12:11
PM:

>>> In the mind of an idiot like Schestowitz all it takes to become "OSX like"
>>> is to change the icons and color scheme. These morons are stupid enough to
>>> think that if a "screens shot" looks the same then it is the same.
>> 
>> The Linux community is grasping at straws.
>> They try but they fail.
> 
>     Between the black eyes and lack of organization in iPhoto, I'm not
> sure I want Linux desktops or applications mocking MacOS too closely.

Black eyes?  Lack or organization?  What?

In any case, you can also get Picasa, Bridge, and other photo organizers on
OS X.

>     OTOH, a couple of high profile features in Snow/Leapard are Linux
> knockoffs. These are virtual workspaces and dock folders.

What OS X has that desktop Linux has is focus and consistency.  Those matter
a lot... but that is not to say that there are not benefits to desktop
Linux.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


0
usenet2 (47889)
6/30/2009 8:04:43 PM
In article <slrnh4kp79.8kk.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2009-06-30, Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> > In article <2073880.qzqp1eWA4t@schestowitz.com>,
> >  Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> They can look the same, but under the hood GNU/Linux is more powerful.
> >
> > How so?
> 
> ...there is a certain point there. OTOH, if you end up turning a Mac into
> little more than yet another Linux then what's the point really of bothering
> with MacOS to begin with? 
> 
>     Inferior system management?

Such as?

>     Inferior driver support?

Do you mean there are specialized devices for which no one has written 
OS X drivers, but have written Linux drivers?  If so, OK.  But if you 
mean the kernel doesn't support drivers as well as the Linux kernel, 
then how so?


>     Inferior support for non-Apple/non-MS data?

What data does Linux support under the hood that OS X doesn't?


>     Jobs of Borg style datafile management?

Huh?



-- 
--Tim Smith
0
reply_in_group (13194)
6/30/2009 8:12:33 PM
On 2009-06-30, Ezekiel <Zeke@not-such-email-addr.com> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>
> You don't know shit about me so don't kid yourself into thinking that you
> somehow understand what I do or don't know.

We know you love to polish your beamer.

-- 
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
0
ZekeGregory (6440)
6/30/2009 9:21:41 PM
After takin' a swig o' grog, GPS belched out
  this bit o' wisdom:

> The idea that "virtual workspaces" are a feature taken from Linux must be a 
> knockoff too, because it's historically inaccurate.

Wow.  Amiga in 1985!

-- 
Q:	"What is the burning question on the mind of every dyslexic
	existentialist?"
A:	"Is there a dog?"
0
ahlstromc1 (7605)
6/30/2009 9:31:14 PM
> trolling fsckwit Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>> You don't know shit about me

We know you're a liar.  We know you're a fsckwit.  We know you're an
asshole.

0
chrisv (22840)
6/30/2009 9:34:35 PM
On 2009-06-30, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, GPS belched out
>   this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> The idea that "virtual workspaces" are a feature taken from Linux must be a 
>> knockoff too, because it's historically inaccurate.
>
> Wow.  Amiga in 1985!

Each with their own resolution!

-- 
Avoid reality at all costs.
0
6/30/2009 9:39:49 PM
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> ____/ Ben on Tuesday 30 June 2009 18:56 : \____
> 
> >> Ubuntu on an iBook
> >>
> >> ,----[ Quote ]
> >> | I started by backing up my information. Everything, everything - including
> >> | the System Folder. I used Disk Copy to image everything in around 600 MB
> >> | chunks so that I could burn them to a CD.
> >> `----
> >>
> >> http://linuxtidbits.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/ubuntu-on-an-ibook/
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> >>
> >> iEYEARECAAYFAkpKRH8ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6sCgCglwoBTB7omFuhLXYYJdqYDie8
> >> 5UMAn0TaaLBaA0syCTLl1RrHWWoyDbDs
> >> =FkLd
> >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> > I've never used OS X much. The couple of times I've used it, I found its
> > interface to be clunky and annoying as hell.
> >
> > It couldn't be any less intuitive in many respects.
> 
> I actually found it user friendly. Like Linux (KDE4).
> 

Seriously?  KDE4?  Really?  Any time someone mentions a positive
adjective and KDE4 in the same sentence, I can't help but wonder whether
they're being sarcastic or not.

For me, nothing beats the simplicity of a terminal with tabs and IceWM. 
Now *that's* what I call intuitive!

I've got a Macbook w/ OS X Leopard, and pretty much the only thing I
like about it is the fact that I can run my university's exam-writing
software on it.  I find it slow and it gets in my way.  iLife (at least
the rendition of it that came bundled with Leopard) is crashy and a huge
memory hog, especially iTunes.

The UI just seems so hacked together as well.  No, people, pretty
effects *!=* usability.  Expose works fairly well to keep windows
managed, but that was added well after 10.0, so it wasn't part of the
original design of OS X.  And the "zoom button"??  JUST MAKE THE #$^ING
WINDOW FILL THE SCREEN.  Ahem...
0
nil4333 (9)
6/30/2009 10:01:20 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

____/ Ben on Tuesday 30 June 2009 18:56 : \____

>> Ubuntu on an iBook
>> 
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | I started by backing up my information. Everything, everything - including
>> | the System Folder. I used Disk Copy to image everything in around 600 MB
>> | chunks so that I could burn them to a CD.
>> `----
>> 
>> http://linuxtidbits.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/ubuntu-on-an-ibook/
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>> 
>> iEYEARECAAYFAkpKRH8ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6sCgCglwoBTB7omFuhLXYYJdqYDie8
>> 5UMAn0TaaLBaA0syCTLl1RrHWWoyDbDs
>> =FkLd
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> I've never used OS X much. The couple of times I've used it, I found its
> interface to be clunky and annoying as hell.
> 
> It couldn't be any less intuitive in many respects.

I actually found it user friendly. Like Linux (KDE4).


- -- 
                ~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz      | "Ping this IP, see if it collapses" --Windows TCP
http://Schestowitz.com  |    RHAT Linux     |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
 22:05:01 up 14 days, 12:33,  2 users,  load average: 1.25, 1.60, 1.73
      http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkpKjSoACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5b2ACghxBqg8Gdpb0ssVkMy1M607Hw
43YAmwbRhH90coal4nLJiRzQU+T8p5E8
=DxMI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
newsgroups3 (79677)
6/30/2009 10:09:46 PM
On 2009-06-30, GPS <georgeps@xmission.com> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> In the mind of an idiot like Schestowitz all it takes to become "OSX
>>>> like" is to change the icons and color scheme. These morons are stupid
>>>> enough to think that if a "screens shot" looks the same then it is the
>>>> same.
>>>
>>> The Linux community is grasping at straws.
>>> They try but they fail.
>> 
>>     Between the black eyes and lack of organization in iPhoto, I'm not
>> sure I want Linux desktops or applications mocking MacOS too closely.
>> 
>>     OTOH, a couple of high profile features in Snow/Leapard are Linux
>> knockoffs. These are virtual workspaces and dock folders.
>
> The idea that "virtual workspaces" are a feature taken from Linux must be a 
> knockoff too, because it's historically inaccurate.

    Actually it's more "imprecise" than anything else.

    A "Linux" feature more than likely is going to be just a "Unix" feature
and predate Linux itself entirely and not be exclusive to Linux.

-- 

    MSOffice is completely unremarkable except for the fact          ||| 
    that it is most compatable with itself.                         / | \
0
jedi (14754)
6/30/2009 10:10:55 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

____/ JEDIDIAH on Tuesday 30 June 2009 19:18 : \____

> On 2009-06-30, Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> In article <2073880.qzqp1eWA4t@schestowitz.com>,
>>  Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> They can look the same, but under the hood GNU/Linux is more powerful.
>>
>> How so?
> 
> ...there is a certain point there. OTOH, if you end up turning a Mac into
> little more than yet another Linux then what's the point really of bothering
> with MacOS to begin with?
> 
>     Inferior system management?
>     Inferior driver support?
>     Inferior support for non-Apple/non-MS data?
>     Jobs of Borg style datafile management?
> 
>     The fact that Photoshop does CYMK well is far more meaningful to those
> that need that sort of thing than the trivial bits of minutia.

And Photoshop runs on Linux with Wine. How well can Mac OS X run Windows
programs without a Windows licence? (I know PS has a Mac version)

- -- 
                ~~ Best of wishes


Fachbegriffe der Informatik, Push:
Das Notebook mit der flachen Hand vom Tisch schlagen.
- -- http://www-605.ibm.com/misc_includes/en_SG/drop_test.pdf
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkpKjYkACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5eJQCffszzdym08CbhVAkgNFi7Asle
zlIAniz1a8dTRAwT8FNdjJjSp7nXMMrF
=zg29
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
newsgroups3 (79677)
6/30/2009 10:11:21 PM
On 2009-06-30, Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnh4kp79.8kk.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-06-30, Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> > In article <2073880.qzqp1eWA4t@schestowitz.com>,
>> >  Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> They can look the same, but under the hood GNU/Linux is more powerful.
>> >
>> > How so?
>> 
>> ...there is a certain point there. OTOH, if you end up turning a Mac into
>> little more than yet another Linux then what's the point really of bothering
>> with MacOS to begin with? 
>> 
>>     Inferior system management?
>
> Such as?

    No proper package manager. This was addressed in the original article.

    This makes adding stuff simpler and more automated than it is on either
of the other major platforms. No searching the web. No finding a dead end
at the official quicktime extensions site.

    Add automation and you don't even have to "ask" for stuff to be
installed, the system just knows what to do by itself (it's pretty
obvious really).

>
>>     Inferior driver support?
>
> Do you mean there are specialized devices for which no one has written 
> OS X drivers, but have written Linux drivers?  If so, OK.  But if you 

    Yes, "specialized" devices.

    You would think I was talking about some SCSI microscope the way you
talk but I'm not.

> mean the kernel doesn't support drivers as well as the Linux kernel, 
> then how so?
>
>
>>     Inferior support for non-Apple/non-MS data?
>
> What data does Linux support under the hood that OS X doesn't?

    Video files other than quicktime.

    Getting broad codec/container support installed into a fresh install
of MacOS is a real eye opener. So is just installing MacOS. That bit about
being locked down to the type/generation of Mac the disk shipped with is
an unecessarily annoying Dell-ism.

>
>
>>     Jobs of Borg style datafile management?
>
> Huh?

    Thou shalt not use our handy little applet until your datafiles
are assimilated into our pointless centralized application specific
database.

    Simple tools should be a matter of drag + drop + execute.


-- 

    MSOffice is completely unremarkable except for the fact          ||| 
    that it is most compatable with itself.                         / | \
0
jedi (14754)
6/30/2009 10:19:02 PM
On 2009-06-30, Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
> ____/ JEDIDIAH on Tuesday 30 June 2009 19:18 : \____
>
>> On 2009-06-30, Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>> In article <2073880.qzqp1eWA4t@schestowitz.com>,
>>>  Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> They can look the same, but under the hood GNU/Linux is more powerful.
>>>
>>> How so?
>> 
>> ...there is a certain point there. OTOH, if you end up turning a Mac into
>> little more than yet another Linux then what's the point really of bothering
>> with MacOS to begin with?
>> 
>>     Inferior system management?
>>     Inferior driver support?
>>     Inferior support for non-Apple/non-MS data?
>>     Jobs of Borg style datafile management?
>> 
>>     The fact that Photoshop does CYMK well is far more meaningful to those
>> that need that sort of thing than the trivial bits of minutia.
>
> And Photoshop runs on Linux with Wine. How well can Mac OS X run Windows
> programs without a Windows licence? (I know PS has a Mac version)

     Wine runs on MacOS now actually.

     You can buy yourself a boxed copy of Crossover for MacOS at Best Buy.

[deletia]

-- 

    MSOffice is completely unremarkable except for the fact          ||| 
    that it is most compatable with itself.                         / | \
0
jedi (14754)
6/30/2009 10:25:03 PM
On 2009-06-30, Logan Rathbone <nil@nospamprettyplease.com> wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> ____/ Ben on Tuesday 30 June 2009 18:56 : \____
>> 
>> >> Ubuntu on an iBook
>> >>
>> >> ,----[ Quote ]
>> >> | I started by backing up my information. Everything, everything - including
>> >> | the System Folder. I used Disk Copy to image everything in around 600 MB
>> >> | chunks so that I could burn them to a CD.
>> >> `----
>> >>
>> >> http://linuxtidbits.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/ubuntu-on-an-ibook/
>> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>> >>
>> >> iEYEARECAAYFAkpKRH8ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6sCgCglwoBTB7omFuhLXYYJdqYDie8
>> >> 5UMAn0TaaLBaA0syCTLl1RrHWWoyDbDs
>> >> =FkLd
>> >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> >
>> > I've never used OS X much. The couple of times I've used it, I found its
>> > interface to be clunky and annoying as hell.
>> >
>> > It couldn't be any less intuitive in many respects.
>> 
>> I actually found it user friendly. Like Linux (KDE4).
>> 
>
> Seriously?  KDE4?  Really?  Any time someone mentions a positive
> adjective and KDE4 in the same sentence, I can't help but wonder whether
> they're being sarcastic or not.
>
> For me, nothing beats the simplicity of a terminal with tabs and IceWM. 
> Now *that's* what I call intuitive!
>
> I've got a Macbook w/ OS X Leopard, and pretty much the only thing I

    Mebbe you need more memory. I had an older mini that ran Tiger like
a total dog until I maxed it out on RAM. If you are lucky, the upgrade
procedure won't even require a putty knife. </snicker>

[deletia]

-- 

    MSOffice is completely unremarkable except for the fact          ||| 
    that it is most compatable with itself.                         / | \
0
jedi (14754)
6/30/2009 10:27:54 PM
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:09:46 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> ____/ Ben on Tuesday 30 June 2009 18:56 : \____
> 
>>> Ubuntu on an iBook
>>> 
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | I started by backing up my information. Everything, everything - including
>>> | the System Folder. I used Disk Copy to image everything in around 600 MB
>>> | chunks so that I could burn them to a CD.
>>> `----
>>> 
>>> http://linuxtidbits.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/ubuntu-on-an-ibook/
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>>> 
>>> iEYEARECAAYFAkpKRH8ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6sCgCglwoBTB7omFuhLXYYJdqYDie8
>>> 5UMAn0TaaLBaA0syCTLl1RrHWWoyDbDs
>>> =FkLd
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> 
>> I've never used OS X much. The couple of times I've used it, I found its
>> interface to be clunky and annoying as hell.
>> 
>> It couldn't be any less intuitive in many respects.
> 
> I actually found it user friendly. Like Linux (KDE4).
> 
> 
>

KDE 4 is horrendous.
The menu structure has you constanly clicking and sliding around
to find things.

OSX is much, much, much better than KDE 4.
It's not even a contest.
0
stymeeee (1067)
7/1/2009 2:14:18 AM
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:11:21 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> ____/ JEDIDIAH on Tuesday 30 June 2009 19:18 : \____
> 
>> On 2009-06-30, Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>> In article <2073880.qzqp1eWA4t@schestowitz.com>,
>>>  Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> They can look the same, but under the hood GNU/Linux is more powerful.
>>>
>>> How so?
>> 
>> ...there is a certain point there. OTOH, if you end up turning a Mac into
>> little more than yet another Linux then what's the point really of bothering
>> with MacOS to begin with?
>> 
>>     Inferior system management?
>>     Inferior driver support?
>>     Inferior support for non-Apple/non-MS data?
>>     Jobs of Borg style datafile management?
>> 
>>     The fact that Photoshop does CYMK well is far more meaningful to those
>> that need that sort of thing than the trivial bits of minutia.
> 
> And Photoshop runs on Linux with Wine. How well can Mac OS X run Windows
> programs without a Windows licence? (I know PS has a Mac version)

It runs horribly on Linux.
Photoshop that is.
0
stymeeee (1067)
7/1/2009 2:15:52 AM
In article <slrnh4l3qm.47t.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >>     Inferior support for non-Apple/non-MS data?
> >
> > What data does Linux support under the hood that OS X doesn't?
> 
>     Video files other than quicktime.
> 
>     Getting broad codec/container support installed into a fresh install
> of MacOS is a real eye opener. So is just installing MacOS. That bit about

Download VLC disk image. Double click. Drag VLC application to your 
Applications folder, or wherever you like to keep applications. Done.

-- 
--Tim Smith
0
reply_in_group (13194)
7/1/2009 4:19:48 AM
Tim Smith wrote:

> In article <slrnh4l3qm.47t.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >
>> >>     Inferior support for non-Apple/non-MS data?
>> >
>> > What data does Linux support under the hood that OS X doesn't?
>> 
>>     Video files other than quicktime.
>> 
>>     Getting broad codec/container support installed into a fresh
>>     install
>> of MacOS is a real eye opener. So is just installing MacOS. That bit
>> about
> 
> Download VLC disk image. Double click. Drag VLC application to your
> Applications folder, or wherever you like to keep applications. Done.
> 
This is sooo much easier than selecting it in the package manager and let 
it install exactly how?
What happened to the Macs "ease of use" compared to linux?

Remember, according to Snot Michael Glasser his "students" have IQs 
slightly below demented turnips, and they cry in terror when confronted 
with "folders". Even "files" make them cringe. 
And you earnestly expect that a typical Mac user will be able to handle 
your much more difficult scenario?
-- 
Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes instead of 
old ones.

0
7/1/2009 6:45:07 AM
Peter K�hlmann stated in post h2f0lj$o79$02$1@news.t-online.com on 6/30/09
11:45 PM:

> Tim Smith wrote:
> 
>> In article <slrnh4l3qm.47t.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>     Inferior support for non-Apple/non-MS data?
>>>> 
>>>> What data does Linux support under the hood that OS X doesn't?
>>> 
>>>     Video files other than quicktime.
>>> 
>>>     Getting broad codec/container support installed into a fresh
>>>     install
>>> of MacOS is a real eye opener. So is just installing MacOS. That bit
>>> about
>> 
>> Download VLC disk image. Double click. Drag VLC application to your
>> Applications folder, or wherever you like to keep applications. Done.
>> 
> This is sooo much easier than selecting it in the package manager and let
> it install exactly how?
> What happened to the Macs "ease of use" compared to linux?
> 
> Remember, according to Snot Michael Glasser his "students" have IQs
> slightly below demented turnips,

Nope.  Never said that... or hinted at it.  You made that up.  You lied.
You, Peter, are a liar.

> and they cry in terror when confronted with "folders". Even "files" make them
> cringe. And you earnestly expect that a typical Mac user will be able to
> handle your much more difficult scenario?

Software installation can be confusing for some Mac users - no doubt.  And
there are advantages to the package manager concept.  But why do you feel
the need to lie when you "advocate" Linux?  Why not be honest?  Why not rise
to my level?

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


0
usenet2 (47889)
7/1/2009 7:05:46 AM
On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 08:45:07 +0200, Peter K�hlmann wrote:

> Tim Smith wrote:
> 
>> In article <slrnh4l3qm.47t.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>     Inferior support for non-Apple/non-MS data?
>>> >
>>> > What data does Linux support under the hood that OS X doesn't?
>>> 
>>>     Video files other than quicktime.
>>> 
>>>     Getting broad codec/container support installed into a fresh
>>>     install
>>> of MacOS is a real eye opener. So is just installing MacOS. That bit
>>> about
>> 
>> Download VLC disk image. Double click. Drag VLC application to your
>> Applications folder, or wherever you like to keep applications. Done.
>> 
> This is sooo much easier than selecting it in the package manager and let 
> it install exactly how?
> What happened to the Macs "ease of use" compared to linux?

1. Assuming your particular version has that program in it's
package repository.

2. Assuming you can figure out where the program was installed
and how to start it. This depends upon what window manager you
are using. Some add a Start Menu entry or icon. Others do not.

The problem with Linux is that there are always a few strings
attached. If things work, they work reasonably well. If things
don't work you are screwed.

0
stymeeee (1067)
7/1/2009 3:03:02 PM
On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:05:46 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Peter K�hlmann stated in post h2f0lj$o79$02$1@news.t-online.com on 6/30/09
> 11:45 PM:
> 
>> Tim Smith wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <slrnh4l3qm.47t.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>>>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>     Inferior support for non-Apple/non-MS data?
>>>>> 
>>>>> What data does Linux support under the hood that OS X doesn't?
>>>> 
>>>>     Video files other than quicktime.
>>>> 
>>>>     Getting broad codec/container support installed into a fresh
>>>>     install
>>>> of MacOS is a real eye opener. So is just installing MacOS. That bit
>>>> about
>>> 
>>> Download VLC disk image. Double click. Drag VLC application to your
>>> Applications folder, or wherever you like to keep applications. Done.
>>> 
>> This is sooo much easier than selecting it in the package manager and let
>> it install exactly how?
>> What happened to the Macs "ease of use" compared to linux?
>> 
>> Remember, according to Snot Michael Glasser his "students" have IQs
>> slightly below demented turnips,
> 
> Nope.  Never said that... or hinted at it.  You made that up.  You lied.
> You, Peter, are a liar.
> 
>> and they cry in terror when confronted with "folders". Even "files" make them
>> cringe. And you earnestly expect that a typical Mac user will be able to
>> handle your much more difficult scenario?
> 
> Software installation can be confusing for some Mac users - no doubt.  And
> there are advantages to the package manager concept.  But why do you feel
> the need to lie when you "advocate" Linux?  Why not be honest?  Why not rise
> to my level?

Peter Coalman honest?
It will never happen.

He prefers to run and hide when he gets rope-a-doped, which is
most of the time.
0
stymeeee (1067)
7/1/2009 3:03:56 PM
On 2009-07-01, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> In article <slrnh4l3qm.47t.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>     Inferior support for non-Apple/non-MS data?
>>> >
>>> > What data does Linux support under the hood that OS X doesn't?
>>> 
>>>     Video files other than quicktime.
>>> 
>>>     Getting broad codec/container support installed into a fresh
>>>     install
>>> of MacOS is a real eye opener. So is just installing MacOS. That bit
>>> about
>> 
>> Download VLC disk image. Double click. Drag VLC application to your
>> Applications folder, or wherever you like to keep applications. Done.
>> 

   Nevermind selecting it in the package manager.

   In ubuntu if you try to open a "new" type of video file it will search
the package repositories for suitable libraries to enable playback of that
format in the default media player.

    It would be like you dragged an AVI file onto the quicktime player and
it asked you if you would like to install AVI support.

    Microsoft has something somewhat ubuntu-ish to deal with this.

    Apple's dead last on this one.

    Also, QT updates tend to stomp on VLC.

> This is sooo much easier than selecting it in the package manager and let 
> it install exactly how?
> What happened to the Macs "ease of use" compared to linux?
>
> Remember, according to Snot Michael Glasser his "students" have IQs 
> slightly below demented turnips, and they cry in terror when confronted 
> with "folders". Even "files" make them cringe. 
> And you earnestly expect that a typical Mac user will be able to handle 
> your much more difficult scenario?

    The whole "drag the file to a special place" thing in MacOS is also
not terribly intuitive. It's bound to confuse a novice. The way that 
Ubuntu or Windows handles an installer package is much more n00b friendly.

    IOW, if you know what the file type is automate it's handling or
present a suitable tool that can automate handling of that file.

-- 
	Oracle... can't live with it...                          |||
                                                                / | \
	can't just replace it with postgres...
0
jedi (14754)
7/1/2009 3:12:40 PM
On 2009-07-01, Hans Lister <stymeeee@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 08:45:07 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Tim Smith wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <slrnh4l3qm.47t.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>>>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>     Inferior support for non-Apple/non-MS data?
>>>> >
>>>> > What data does Linux support under the hood that OS X doesn't?
>>>> 
>>>>     Video files other than quicktime.
>>>> 
>>>>     Getting broad codec/container support installed into a fresh
>>>>     install
>>>> of MacOS is a real eye opener. So is just installing MacOS. That bit
>>>> about
>>> 
>>> Download VLC disk image. Double click. Drag VLC application to your
>>> Applications folder, or wherever you like to keep applications. Done.
>>> 
>> This is sooo much easier than selecting it in the package manager and let 
>> it install exactly how?
>> What happened to the Macs "ease of use" compared to linux?
>
> 1. Assuming your particular version has that program in it's
> package repository.

     If you don't go out of your way to make trouble for yourself
this won't be a problem.

>
> 2. Assuming you can figure out where the program was installed
> and how to start it. This depends upon what window manager you
> are using. Some add a Start Menu entry or icon. Others do not.

     If you don't go out of your way to make trouble for yourself
this won't be a problem.     

>
> The problem with Linux is that there are always a few strings
> attached. If things work, they work reasonably well. If things
> don't work you are screwed.
>

     No there isn't.

     Free will allows you to make bad choices.
   
     Free will also allows you to make a better choice.

     Free will does not mean that the better choice ceases to exist
merely because you are intent on proving that you like to find the
worst choice you possibly can.

-- 
	Oracle... can't live with it...                          |||
                                                                / | \
	can't just replace it with postgres...
0
jedi (14754)
7/1/2009 3:21:33 PM
Hans Lister stated in post 1up7ph1sf851l$.c41lsxs635gj.dlg@40tude.net on
7/1/09 8:03 AM:

> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:05:46 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Peter K�hlmann stated in post h2f0lj$o79$02$1@news.t-online.com on 6/30/09
>> 11:45 PM:
>> 
>>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In article <slrnh4l3qm.47t.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>>>>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>     Inferior support for non-Apple/non-MS data?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What data does Linux support under the hood that OS X doesn't?
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Video files other than quicktime.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Getting broad codec/container support installed into a fresh
>>>>>     install
>>>>> of MacOS is a real eye opener. So is just installing MacOS. That bit
>>>>> about
>>>> 
>>>> Download VLC disk image. Double click. Drag VLC application to your
>>>> Applications folder, or wherever you like to keep applications. Done.
>>>> 
>>> This is sooo much easier than selecting it in the package manager and let
>>> it install exactly how?
>>> What happened to the Macs "ease of use" compared to linux?
>>> 
>>> Remember, according to Snot Michael Glasser his "students" have IQs
>>> slightly below demented turnips,
>> 
>> Nope.  Never said that... or hinted at it.  You made that up.  You lied.
>> You, Peter, are a liar.
>> 
>>> and they cry in terror when confronted with "folders". Even "files" make
>>> them
>>> cringe. And you earnestly expect that a typical Mac user will be able to
>>> handle your much more difficult scenario?
>> 
>> Software installation can be confusing for some Mac users - no doubt.  And
>> there are advantages to the package manager concept.  But why do you feel
>> the need to lie when you "advocate" Linux?  Why not be honest?  Why not rise
>> to my level?
> 
> Peter Coalman honest?
> It will never happen.
> 
> He prefers to run and hide when he gets rope-a-doped, which is
> most of the time.

To install most apps on OS X you have to download them, where the disk image
opens by itself, and then you drag following on-screen directions (often).
This can be seen in this example:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/installOO31.png>.

From there, though, the user has to know to open the Applications folder to
get to the program - or drag it to the Dock.  And, yes, they have to know
*not* to drag the one on the disk image to the Dock... though, in most
cases, you can run the program from there.

I have known people who do not get this and keep the disk images and just
run the programs from the disk image.  Would be better if OS X detected you
were doing so and offered to move the file to the Applications folder with
an option to add it to the Dock for you.

Peter will pretend, however, that I do not see this area of confusion for OS
X.  He will assume I, like him and his fellow Linux "advocates", will lie to
support my favored OS.  Nope.  I am an honest advocate of each of the OSs I
advocate.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


0
usenet2 (47889)
7/1/2009 4:31:09 PM
Peter K�hlmann stated in post h2g4h5$r9b$02$2@news.t-online.com on 7/1/09
9:57 AM:

> JEDIDIAH wrote:
> 
>> On 2009-07-01, Peter K�hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In article <slrnh4l3qm.47t.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>>>>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>     Inferior support for non-Apple/non-MS data?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What data does Linux support under the hood that OS X doesn't?
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Video files other than quicktime.
>>>>> 
>>>>>     Getting broad codec/container support installed into a fresh
>>>>>     install
>>>>> of MacOS is a real eye opener. So is just installing MacOS. That bit
>>>>> about
>>>> 
>>>> Download VLC disk image. Double click. Drag VLC application to your
>>>> Applications folder, or wherever you like to keep applications. Done.
>>>> 
>> 
>>    Nevermind selecting it in the package manager.
>> 
>>    In ubuntu if you try to open a "new" type of video file it will
>>    search
>> the package repositories for suitable libraries to enable playback of
>> that format in the default media player.
>> 
>>     It would be like you dragged an AVI file onto the quicktime player
>>     and
>> it asked you if you would like to install AVI support.
>> 
>>     Microsoft has something somewhat ubuntu-ish to deal with this.
>> 
>>     Apple's dead last on this one.
>> 
>>     Also, QT updates tend to stomp on VLC.
>> 
>>> This is sooo much easier than selecting it in the package manager and
>>> let it install exactly how?
>>> What happened to the Macs "ease of use" compared to linux?
>>> 
>>> Remember, according to Snot Michael Glasser his "students" have IQs
>>> slightly below demented turnips, and they cry in terror when confronted
>>> with "folders". Even "files" make them cringe.
>>> And you earnestly expect that a typical Mac user will be able to handle
>>> your much more difficult scenario?
>> 
>>     The whole "drag the file to a special place" thing in MacOS is also
>> not terribly intuitive.
> 
> Just imagine a typical Snot Glasser student. The wailings! The sheer
> terror!

You really are insane.  Or just very, very dishonest.

>> It's bound to confuse a novice. The way that
>> Ubuntu or Windows handles an installer package is much more n00b
>> friendly.
> 
> That OSX thingy is also bound to leave lots of same libraries in different
> places. To distribute software that way one would be better off *not* to
> have dynamic libraries/DLLs
> Even MS tends not to do something so outrageously stupid

You can have installers on OS X, too.  Heck, some programs just run their
installer on first launch... such as MS Office.

>>     IOW, if you know what the file type is automate it's handling or
>> present a suitable tool that can automate handling of that file.
>> 



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


0
usenet2 (47889)
7/1/2009 5:34:01 PM
In article <h2g4h5$r9b$02$2@news.t-online.com>,
 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> JEDIDIAH wrote:

[snip]

> > It's bound to confuse a novice. The way that Ubuntu or Windows 
> > handles an installer package is much more n00b friendly.
> 
> That OSX thingy is also bound to leave lots of same libraries in 
> different places. To distribute software that way one would be better 
> off *not* to have dynamic libraries/DLLs Even MS tends not to do 
> something so outrageously stupid

With respect to package management and libraries, you guys seem to be 
thinking along the lines of "If Linux only had OS X's facilities for 
managing installed software, it would be a huge mess", and concluding 
therefore that OS X is inferior.

This ignores the rather important fact that OS X is not Linux.

In particular, one absolutely key difference is that on Linux, there is 
no completely standard and always-included set of system libraries 
comparable to the OS X API stack. (Core Foundation, Cocoa, Quartz, etc.)

As a result of the existence of these standard high-quality libraries 
on OS X, the vast majority of third-party applications use very few 
third-party shared libraries. Moreover, because the included frameworks 
are fairly comprehensive, they have most of the common needs of 
applications covered, so when apps do use third-party libraries, they 
tend to use them for uncommon things, which means they mostly don't use 
the same ones.

As a result of these factors there is very little to be gained from 
arranging for two applications that happen to use the same third-party 
shared library to use a single installed copy, because it's fairly 
unlikely that a typical OS X system is even going to have as many as two 
applications installed that happen to use the same third-party shared 
library. So why bother with all the complexity of a typical Linux-style 
dependancy-checking package manager? Apple's solution is far simpler, 
which means there's less that can go wrong.

Now, some of you Linux fans are probably rabidly against the whole 
notion of a platform where there's a single totally standardized set of 
first-party APIs and using third-party libraries is relatively rare. But 
that's an entirely different discussion. The point is that OS X is such 
a system, Linux is not, and any consideration of software management 
which ignores this distinction is worthless.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
7/2/2009 5:56:13 PM
On 2009-07-02, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <h2g4h5$r9b$02$2@news.t-online.com>,
>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> > It's bound to confuse a novice. The way that Ubuntu or Windows 
>> > handles an installer package is much more n00b friendly.
>> 
>> That OSX thingy is also bound to leave lots of same libraries in 
>> different places. To distribute software that way one would be better 
>> off *not* to have dynamic libraries/DLLs Even MS tends not to do 
>> something so outrageously stupid
>
> With respect to package management and libraries, you guys seem to be 
> thinking along the lines of "If Linux only had OS X's facilities for 
> managing installed software, it would be a huge mess", and concluding 
> therefore that OS X is inferior.
>
> This ignores the rather important fact that OS X is not Linux.
>
> In particular, one absolutely key difference is that on Linux, there is 
> no completely standard and always-included set of system libraries 
> comparable to the OS X API stack. (Core Foundation, Cocoa, Quartz, etc.)

    Linux shared libraries encompass far more functionality than is
presented by these. If you want to restrict the available shared
libraries to just this stuff then MacOS has no advantage.

[simpleminded argument deleted]


-- 


	Some people have this nutty idea that in 1997                |||
	reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk           / | \
	both at the same time was something worth patenting.

0
jedi (14754)
7/2/2009 9:21:13 PM
JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2009-07-02, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <h2g4h5$r9b$02$2@news.t-online.com>,
>>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> > It's bound to confuse a novice. The way that Ubuntu or Windows
>>> > handles an installer package is much more n00b friendly.
>>> 
>>> That OSX thingy is also bound to leave lots of same libraries in
>>> different places. To distribute software that way one would be better
>>> off *not* to have dynamic libraries/DLLs Even MS tends not to do
>>> something so outrageously stupid
>>
>> With respect to package management and libraries, you guys seem to be
>> thinking along the lines of "If Linux only had OS X's facilities for
>> managing installed software, it would be a huge mess", and concluding
>> therefore that OS X is inferior.
>>
>> This ignores the rather important fact that OS X is not Linux.
>>
>> In particular, one absolutely key difference is that on Linux, there is
>> no completely standard and always-included set of system libraries
>> comparable to the OS X API stack. (Core Foundation, Cocoa, Quartz,
>> etc.)
> 
>     Linux shared libraries encompass far more functionality than is
> presented by these. If you want to restrict the available shared
> libraries to just this stuff then MacOS has no advantage.
> 
He also misses the point completely.
Since the package managers of linux distros know about dependencies, those 
missing libraries will be installed when I select an app which needs not 
yet present ones. There simply is no need to depend on a "always-included 
set of system libraries". They are provided when needed. And otherwise 
simply left off a system which does not need them

Which makes OSX system even more primitive, as it provides even those 
which no installed app would ever call. 

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. But then, this is Znut, a close 
relative to Snot. They are Mac users, and it shows

-- 
We may not return the affection of those who like us, 
but we always respect their good judgement.

0
7/2/2009 10:03:33 PM
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:03:33 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> JEDIDIAH wrote:
> 
>> On 2009-07-02, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <h2g4h5$r9b$02$2@news.t-online.com>,
>>>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> > It's bound to confuse a novice. The way that Ubuntu or Windows
>>>> > handles an installer package is much more n00b friendly.
>>>> 
>>>> That OSX thingy is also bound to leave lots of same libraries in
>>>> different places. To distribute software that way one would be better
>>>> off *not* to have dynamic libraries/DLLs Even MS tends not to do
>>>> something so outrageously stupid
>>>
>>> With respect to package management and libraries, you guys seem to be
>>> thinking along the lines of "If Linux only had OS X's facilities for
>>> managing installed software, it would be a huge mess", and concluding
>>> therefore that OS X is inferior.
>>>
>>> This ignores the rather important fact that OS X is not Linux.
>>>
>>> In particular, one absolutely key difference is that on Linux, there
>>> is no completely standard and always-included set of system libraries
>>> comparable to the OS X API stack. (Core Foundation, Cocoa, Quartz,
>>> etc.)
>> 
>>     Linux shared libraries encompass far more functionality than is
>> presented by these. If you want to restrict the available shared
>> libraries to just this stuff then MacOS has no advantage.
>> 
> He also misses the point completely.
> Since the package managers of linux distros know about dependencies,
> those missing libraries will be installed when I select an app which
> needs not yet present ones. There simply is no need to depend on a
> "always-included set of system libraries". They are provided when
> needed. And otherwise simply left off a system which does not need them
> 
> Which makes OSX system even more primitive, as it provides even those
> which no installed app would ever call.
> 
> Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. But then, this is Znut, a
> close relative to Snot. They are Mac users, and it shows

Well, that being said, I still think things like the lsb-desktop standard 
are a Good Thing(tm) if they can successfully define an OPTIONAL, 
predictable base set of libraries for 3rd party developers to release 
binaries.

That, and I think there should be an easier way for developers to run some 
script that includes copies of libraries with their app's binary 
distributions (or statically link them in) that are NOT a part of lsb-
desktop... it *is* a bit of a weakness desktop Linux has, atm, that for 
novice users, they really do have to wait for 1st party packages to be 
built from source in order to get most of their software.
0
dont8645 (24)
7/2/2009 10:18:21 PM
In article <slrnh4q969.hof.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2009-07-02, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <h2g4h5$r9b$02$2@news.t-online.com>,
> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> >
> >> JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> > It's bound to confuse a novice. The way that Ubuntu or Windows 
> >> > handles an installer package is much more n00b friendly.
> >> 
> >> That OSX thingy is also bound to leave lots of same libraries in 
> >> different places. To distribute software that way one would be better 
> >> off *not* to have dynamic libraries/DLLs Even MS tends not to do 
> >> something so outrageously stupid
> >
> > With respect to package management and libraries, you guys seem to be 
> > thinking along the lines of "If Linux only had OS X's facilities for 
> > managing installed software, it would be a huge mess", and concluding 
> > therefore that OS X is inferior.
> >
> > This ignores the rather important fact that OS X is not Linux.
> >
> > In particular, one absolutely key difference is that on Linux, there is 
> > no completely standard and always-included set of system libraries 
> > comparable to the OS X API stack. (Core Foundation, Cocoa, Quartz, etc.)
> 
>     Linux shared libraries encompass far more functionality than is
> presented by these. If you want to restrict the available shared
> libraries to just this stuff then MacOS has no advantage.
> 
> [simpleminded argument deleted]

You're not even attempting to make an argument.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
7/2/2009 10:20:39 PM
In article <h2jarm$jdg$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> JEDIDIAH wrote:
> 
> > On 2009-07-02, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> In article <h2g4h5$r9b$02$2@news.t-online.com>,
> >>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>> > It's bound to confuse a novice. The way that Ubuntu or Windows
> >>> > handles an installer package is much more n00b friendly.
> >>> 
> >>> That OSX thingy is also bound to leave lots of same libraries in
> >>> different places. To distribute software that way one would be better
> >>> off *not* to have dynamic libraries/DLLs Even MS tends not to do
> >>> something so outrageously stupid
> >>
> >> With respect to package management and libraries, you guys seem to be
> >> thinking along the lines of "If Linux only had OS X's facilities for
> >> managing installed software, it would be a huge mess", and concluding
> >> therefore that OS X is inferior.
> >>
> >> This ignores the rather important fact that OS X is not Linux.
> >>
> >> In particular, one absolutely key difference is that on Linux, there is
> >> no completely standard and always-included set of system libraries
> >> comparable to the OS X API stack. (Core Foundation, Cocoa, Quartz,
> >> etc.)
> > 
> >     Linux shared libraries encompass far more functionality than is
> > presented by these. If you want to restrict the available shared
> > libraries to just this stuff then MacOS has no advantage.
> > 
> He also misses the point completely.
> Since the package managers of linux distros know about dependencies, those 
> missing libraries will be installed when I select an app which needs not 
> yet present ones. There simply is no need to depend on a "always-included 
> set of system libraries". They are provided when needed. And otherwise 
> simply left off a system which does not need them
> 
> Which makes OSX system even more primitive, as it provides even those 
> which no installed app would ever call. 

Are you actually insane enough to believe that Apple includes a standard 
set of comprehensive APIs because Apple wasn't capable of implementing a 
Linux-style package management system?

You people are so far gone there's really no point in attempting to have 
discussions about this sort of thing. You're literally fanatics.

> Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. But then, this is Znut, a close 
> relative to Snot. They are Mac users, and it shows

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
7/2/2009 10:22:18 PM
ZnU wrote:

> In article <h2jarm$jdg$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> 
>> > On 2009-07-02, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> In article <h2g4h5$r9b$02$2@news.t-online.com>,
>> >>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [snip]
>> >>
>> >>> > It's bound to confuse a novice. The way that Ubuntu or Windows
>> >>> > handles an installer package is much more n00b friendly.
>> >>> 
>> >>> That OSX thingy is also bound to leave lots of same libraries in
>> >>> different places. To distribute software that way one would be
>> >>> better off *not* to have dynamic libraries/DLLs Even MS tends not
>> >>> to do something so outrageously stupid
>> >>
>> >> With respect to package management and libraries, you guys seem to
>> >> be thinking along the lines of "If Linux only had OS X's facilities
>> >> for managing installed software, it would be a huge mess", and
>> >> concluding therefore that OS X is inferior.
>> >>
>> >> This ignores the rather important fact that OS X is not Linux.
>> >>
>> >> In particular, one absolutely key difference is that on Linux, there
>> >> is no completely standard and always-included set of system
>> >> libraries comparable to the OS X API stack. (Core Foundation, Cocoa,
>> >> Quartz, etc.)
>> > 
>> >     Linux shared libraries encompass far more functionality than is
>> > presented by these. If you want to restrict the available shared
>> > libraries to just this stuff then MacOS has no advantage.
>> > 
>> He also misses the point completely.
>> Since the package managers of linux distros know about dependencies,
>> those missing libraries will be installed when I select an app which
>> needs not yet present ones. There simply is no need to depend on a
>> "always-included set of system libraries". They are provided when
>> needed. And otherwise simply left off a system which does not need them
>> 
>> Which makes OSX system even more primitive, as it provides even those
>> which no installed app would ever call.
> 
> Are you actually insane enough to believe that Apple includes a standard
> set of comprehensive APIs because Apple wasn't capable of implementing a
> Linux-style package management system?
> 
> You people are so far gone there's really no point in attempting to have
> discussions about this sort of thing. You're literally fanatics.

Well, they didn't. According to you they provided a "always-included set 
of system libraries". No matter if needed or not.

*Very* *primitive* compared to linux. And nobody cares if they are 
"capable of implementing a Linux-style package management system".
They did not. Why they didn't is everyones guess. 

Lets call it bluntly incompetence. Apple is no better than MS in that 
regard. They were simply not capable to do so. Otherwise they would have 
done so. 


So where is it? According to Znut apple is perfectly able to do so, yet 
there is nowhere any sign of even a primitive version


>> Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. But then, this is Znut, a
>> close relative to Snot. They are Mac users, and it shows
> 

-- 
The probability of someone watching you is proportional to the
stupidity of your action.

0
7/2/2009 10:41:19 PM
In article <h2jd2f$n6g$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> ZnU wrote:
> 
> > In article <h2jarm$jdg$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> > 
> >> JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >> 
> >> > On 2009-07-02, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> In article <h2g4h5$r9b$02$2@news.t-online.com>,
> >> >>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> [snip]
> >> >>
> >> >>> > It's bound to confuse a novice. The way that Ubuntu or Windows
> >> >>> > handles an installer package is much more n00b friendly.
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> That OSX thingy is also bound to leave lots of same libraries in
> >> >>> different places. To distribute software that way one would be
> >> >>> better off *not* to have dynamic libraries/DLLs Even MS tends not
> >> >>> to do something so outrageously stupid
> >> >>
> >> >> With respect to package management and libraries, you guys seem to
> >> >> be thinking along the lines of "If Linux only had OS X's facilities
> >> >> for managing installed software, it would be a huge mess", and
> >> >> concluding therefore that OS X is inferior.
> >> >>
> >> >> This ignores the rather important fact that OS X is not Linux.
> >> >>
> >> >> In particular, one absolutely key difference is that on Linux, there
> >> >> is no completely standard and always-included set of system
> >> >> libraries comparable to the OS X API stack. (Core Foundation, Cocoa,
> >> >> Quartz, etc.)
> >> > 
> >> >     Linux shared libraries encompass far more functionality than is
> >> > presented by these. If you want to restrict the available shared
> >> > libraries to just this stuff then MacOS has no advantage.
> >> > 
> >> He also misses the point completely.
> >> Since the package managers of linux distros know about dependencies,
> >> those missing libraries will be installed when I select an app which
> >> needs not yet present ones. There simply is no need to depend on a
> >> "always-included set of system libraries". They are provided when
> >> needed. And otherwise simply left off a system which does not need them
> >> 
> >> Which makes OSX system even more primitive, as it provides even those
> >> which no installed app would ever call.
> > 
> > Are you actually insane enough to believe that Apple includes a standard
> > set of comprehensive APIs because Apple wasn't capable of implementing a
> > Linux-style package management system?
> > 
> > You people are so far gone there's really no point in attempting to have
> > discussions about this sort of thing. You're literally fanatics.
> 
> Well, they didn't. According to you they provided a "always-included set 
> of system libraries". No matter if needed or not.
> 
> *Very* *primitive* compared to linux. And nobody cares if they are 
> "capable of implementing a Linux-style package management system".
> They did not. Why they didn't is everyones guess. 
> 
> Lets call it bluntly incompetence. Apple is no better than MS in that 
> regard. They were simply not capable to do so. Otherwise they would have 
> done so. 
> 
> 
> So where is it? According to Znut apple is perfectly able to do so, yet 
> there is nowhere any sign of even a primitive version

You people are literally insane. Like, not "usenet insane", but actual 
literal, no-connection-to-reality insane. You are utterly unwilling to 
even attempt to understand what people who you view as being on the 
"other side" are saying.

> >> Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. But then, this is Znut, a
> >> close relative to Snot. They are Mac users, and it shows

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
7/2/2009 10:53:33 PM
On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:53:33 -0400, ZnU wrote:

> In article <h2jd2f$n6g$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> ZnU wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <h2jarm$jdg$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
>>>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> > On 2009-07-02, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >> In article <h2g4h5$r9b$02$2@news.t-online.com>,
>>>> >>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> [snip]
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> > It's bound to confuse a novice. The way that Ubuntu or Windows
>>>> >>> > handles an installer package is much more n00b friendly.
>>>> >>> 
>>>> >>> That OSX thingy is also bound to leave lots of same libraries in
>>>> >>> different places. To distribute software that way one would be
>>>> >>> better off *not* to have dynamic libraries/DLLs Even MS tends not
>>>> >>> to do something so outrageously stupid
>>>> >>
>>>> >> With respect to package management and libraries, you guys seem to
>>>> >> be thinking along the lines of "If Linux only had OS X's facilities
>>>> >> for managing installed software, it would be a huge mess", and
>>>> >> concluding therefore that OS X is inferior.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> This ignores the rather important fact that OS X is not Linux.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> In particular, one absolutely key difference is that on Linux, there
>>>> >> is no completely standard and always-included set of system
>>>> >> libraries comparable to the OS X API stack. (Core Foundation, Cocoa,
>>>> >> Quartz, etc.)
>>>> > 
>>>> >     Linux shared libraries encompass far more functionality than is
>>>> > presented by these. If you want to restrict the available shared
>>>> > libraries to just this stuff then MacOS has no advantage.
>>>> > 
>>>> He also misses the point completely.
>>>> Since the package managers of linux distros know about dependencies,
>>>> those missing libraries will be installed when I select an app which
>>>> needs not yet present ones. There simply is no need to depend on a
>>>> "always-included set of system libraries". They are provided when
>>>> needed. And otherwise simply left off a system which does not need them
>>>> 
>>>> Which makes OSX system even more primitive, as it provides even those
>>>> which no installed app would ever call.
>>> 
>>> Are you actually insane enough to believe that Apple includes a standard
>>> set of comprehensive APIs because Apple wasn't capable of implementing a
>>> Linux-style package management system?
>>> 
>>> You people are so far gone there's really no point in attempting to have
>>> discussions about this sort of thing. You're literally fanatics.
>> 
>> Well, they didn't. According to you they provided a "always-included set 
>> of system libraries". No matter if needed or not.
>> 
>> *Very* *primitive* compared to linux. And nobody cares if they are 
>> "capable of implementing a Linux-style package management system".
>> They did not. Why they didn't is everyones guess. 
>> 
>> Lets call it bluntly incompetence. Apple is no better than MS in that 
>> regard. They were simply not capable to do so. Otherwise they would have 
>> done so. 
>> 
>> 
>> So where is it? According to Znut apple is perfectly able to do so, yet 
>> there is nowhere any sign of even a primitive version
> 
> You people are literally insane. Like, not "usenet insane", but actual 
> literal, no-connection-to-reality insane. You are utterly unwilling to 
> even attempt to understand what people who you view as being on the 
> "other side" are saying.

A perfect description of the COLA Linux freetard.
Many of them are simply in their own little Linux world and
haven't a clue what the outside world thinks about them or
Linux.
0
stymeeee (1067)
7/3/2009 2:25:17 AM
ZnU wrote:

> In article <h2jd2f$n6g$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> ZnU wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <h2jarm$jdg$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > On 2009-07-02, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <h2g4h5$r9b$02$2@news.t-online.com>,
>> >> >>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [snip]
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> > It's bound to confuse a novice. The way that Ubuntu or Windows
>> >> >>> > handles an installer package is much more n00b friendly.
>> >> >>> 
>> >> >>> That OSX thingy is also bound to leave lots of same libraries in
>> >> >>> different places. To distribute software that way one would be
>> >> >>> better off *not* to have dynamic libraries/DLLs Even MS tends
>> >> >>> not to do something so outrageously stupid
>> >> >>
>> >> >> With respect to package management and libraries, you guys seem
>> >> >> to be thinking along the lines of "If Linux only had OS X's
>> >> >> facilities for managing installed software, it would be a huge
>> >> >> mess", and concluding therefore that OS X is inferior.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This ignores the rather important fact that OS X is not Linux.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In particular, one absolutely key difference is that on Linux,
>> >> >> there is no completely standard and always-included set of system
>> >> >> libraries comparable to the OS X API stack. (Core Foundation,
>> >> >> Cocoa, Quartz, etc.)
>> >> > 
>> >> >     Linux shared libraries encompass far more functionality than
>> >> >     is
>> >> > presented by these. If you want to restrict the available shared
>> >> > libraries to just this stuff then MacOS has no advantage.
>> >> > 
>> >> He also misses the point completely.
>> >> Since the package managers of linux distros know about dependencies,
>> >> those missing libraries will be installed when I select an app which
>> >> needs not yet present ones. There simply is no need to depend on a
>> >> "always-included set of system libraries". They are provided when
>> >> needed. And otherwise simply left off a system which does not need
>> >> them
>> >> 
>> >> Which makes OSX system even more primitive, as it provides even
>> >> those which no installed app would ever call.
>> > 
>> > Are you actually insane enough to believe that Apple includes a
>> > standard set of comprehensive APIs because Apple wasn't capable of
>> > implementing a Linux-style package management system?
>> > 
>> > You people are so far gone there's really no point in attempting to
>> > have discussions about this sort of thing. You're literally fanatics.
>> 
>> Well, they didn't. According to you they provided a "always-included
>> set of system libraries". No matter if needed or not.
>> 
>> *Very* *primitive* compared to linux. And nobody cares if they are
>> "capable of implementing a Linux-style package management system".
>> They did not. Why they didn't is everyones guess.
>> 
>> Lets call it bluntly incompetence. Apple is no better than MS in that
>> regard. They were simply not capable to do so. Otherwise they would
>> have done so.
>> 
>> 
>> So where is it? According to Znut apple is perfectly able to do so, yet
>> there is nowhere any sign of even a primitive version
> 
> You people are literally insane. Like, not "usenet insane", but actual
> literal, no-connection-to-reality insane. You are utterly unwilling to
> even attempt to understand what people who you view as being on the
> "other side" are saying.

What you are saying is, in a nutshull: Apple does not have package 
management like linux, and we should conclude by that OSX is "better". 
Second conclusion: Linux is worse, because it has a highly desireable 
feature OSX does not have.

Additionally, apple is perfectly able to provide such a feature. They just 
have not done so.

In short: The primitive package management apple has (practically none at 
all) is, just as with windows, a "feature".

And naturally, because of that, linux users a "literally insane" when they 
point out that OSX is very primitive in this area

Yes, that really makes sense...

>> >> Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. But then, this is Znut, a
>> >> close relative to Snot. They are Mac users, and it shows
> 

-- 
Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' - 
they have 'arguments' - and they ALWAYS WIN THEM.

0
7/3/2009 6:27:41 AM
In article <h2k8cu$l1m$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> ZnU wrote:
> 
> > In article <h2jd2f$n6g$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> > 
> >> ZnU wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <h2jarm$jdg$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > On 2009-07-02, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >> In article <h2g4h5$r9b$02$2@news.t-online.com>,
> >> >> >>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> [snip]
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> > It's bound to confuse a novice. The way that Ubuntu or Windows
> >> >> >>> > handles an installer package is much more n00b friendly.
> >> >> >>> 
> >> >> >>> That OSX thingy is also bound to leave lots of same libraries in
> >> >> >>> different places. To distribute software that way one would be
> >> >> >>> better off *not* to have dynamic libraries/DLLs Even MS tends
> >> >> >>> not to do something so outrageously stupid
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> With respect to package management and libraries, you guys seem
> >> >> >> to be thinking along the lines of "If Linux only had OS X's
> >> >> >> facilities for managing installed software, it would be a huge
> >> >> >> mess", and concluding therefore that OS X is inferior.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> This ignores the rather important fact that OS X is not Linux.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In particular, one absolutely key difference is that on Linux,
> >> >> >> there is no completely standard and always-included set of system
> >> >> >> libraries comparable to the OS X API stack. (Core Foundation,
> >> >> >> Cocoa, Quartz, etc.)
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >     Linux shared libraries encompass far more functionality than
> >> >> >     is
> >> >> > presented by these. If you want to restrict the available shared
> >> >> > libraries to just this stuff then MacOS has no advantage.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> He also misses the point completely.
> >> >> Since the package managers of linux distros know about dependencies,
> >> >> those missing libraries will be installed when I select an app which
> >> >> needs not yet present ones. There simply is no need to depend on a
> >> >> "always-included set of system libraries". They are provided when
> >> >> needed. And otherwise simply left off a system which does not need
> >> >> them
> >> >> 
> >> >> Which makes OSX system even more primitive, as it provides even
> >> >> those which no installed app would ever call.
> >> > 
> >> > Are you actually insane enough to believe that Apple includes a
> >> > standard set of comprehensive APIs because Apple wasn't capable of
> >> > implementing a Linux-style package management system?
> >> > 
> >> > You people are so far gone there's really no point in attempting to
> >> > have discussions about this sort of thing. You're literally fanatics.
> >> 
> >> Well, they didn't. According to you they provided a "always-included
> >> set of system libraries". No matter if needed or not.
> >> 
> >> *Very* *primitive* compared to linux. And nobody cares if they are
> >> "capable of implementing a Linux-style package management system".
> >> They did not. Why they didn't is everyones guess.
> >> 
> >> Lets call it bluntly incompetence. Apple is no better than MS in that
> >> regard. They were simply not capable to do so. Otherwise they would
> >> have done so.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> So where is it? According to Znut apple is perfectly able to do so, yet
> >> there is nowhere any sign of even a primitive version
> > 
> > You people are literally insane. Like, not "usenet insane", but actual
> > literal, no-connection-to-reality insane. You are utterly unwilling to
> > even attempt to understand what people who you view as being on the
> > "other side" are saying.
> 
> What you are saying is, in a nutshull: Apple does not have package 
> management like linux, and we should conclude by that OSX is "better". 

Actually, I didn't say that at all.

> Second conclusion: Linux is worse, because it has a highly desireable 
> feature OSX does not have.

Or that.

What I said was that because of the way software is written and 
distributed for the systems, they need different things from a package 
management system, and comparing their systems without taking those 
different needs into account is meaningless.

Your reaction to this was to *completely* ignore my entire point, call 
OS X "very primitive", and imply that the differences in package 
management systems were a result of Apple's incompetence. *That* is what 
makes you literally insane. You're not even willing to entertain the 
prospect of a discussion of the tradeoffs of the Linux and OS X 
approaches to software distribution; you immediately default to what 
amounts to "OS X sucks, Linux does thing the best of all possible ways". 
It's precisely like arguing with a religious fanatic, and this kind of 
bizarre behavior is far more widespread in this group than any other 
I've ever posted in.

[snip]

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
7/3/2009 8:17:42 AM
ZnU wrote:

> In article <h2k8cu$l1m$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> ZnU wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <h2jd2f$n6g$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> ZnU wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > In article <h2jarm$jdg$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > On 2009-07-02, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> >> In article <h2g4h5$r9b$02$2@news.t-online.com>,
>> >> >> >>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> [snip]
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> > It's bound to confuse a novice. The way that Ubuntu or
>> >> >> >>> > Windows handles an installer package is much more n00b
>> >> >> >>> > friendly.
>> >> >> >>> 
>> >> >> >>> That OSX thingy is also bound to leave lots of same libraries
>> >> >> >>> in different places. To distribute software that way one
>> >> >> >>> would be better off *not* to have dynamic libraries/DLLs Even
>> >> >> >>> MS tends not to do something so outrageously stupid
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> With respect to package management and libraries, you guys
>> >> >> >> seem to be thinking along the lines of "If Linux only had OS
>> >> >> >> X's facilities for managing installed software, it would be a
>> >> >> >> huge mess", and concluding therefore that OS X is inferior.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> This ignores the rather important fact that OS X is not Linux.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> In particular, one absolutely key difference is that on Linux,
>> >> >> >> there is no completely standard and always-included set of
>> >> >> >> system libraries comparable to the OS X API stack. (Core
>> >> >> >> Foundation, Cocoa, Quartz, etc.)
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >     Linux shared libraries encompass far more functionality
>> >> >> >     than is
>> >> >> > presented by these. If you want to restrict the available
>> >> >> > shared libraries to just this stuff then MacOS has no
>> >> >> > advantage.
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> He also misses the point completely.
>> >> >> Since the package managers of linux distros know about
>> >> >> dependencies, those missing libraries will be installed when I
>> >> >> select an app which needs not yet present ones. There simply is
>> >> >> no need to depend on a "always-included set of system libraries".
>> >> >> They are provided when needed. And otherwise simply left off a
>> >> >> system which does not need them
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Which makes OSX system even more primitive, as it provides even
>> >> >> those which no installed app would ever call.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Are you actually insane enough to believe that Apple includes a
>> >> > standard set of comprehensive APIs because Apple wasn't capable of
>> >> > implementing a Linux-style package management system?
>> >> > 
>> >> > You people are so far gone there's really no point in attempting
>> >> > to have discussions about this sort of thing. You're literally
>> >> > fanatics.
>> >> 
>> >> Well, they didn't. According to you they provided a "always-included
>> >> set of system libraries". No matter if needed or not.
>> >> 
>> >> *Very* *primitive* compared to linux. And nobody cares if they are
>> >> "capable of implementing a Linux-style package management system".
>> >> They did not. Why they didn't is everyones guess.
>> >> 
>> >> Lets call it bluntly incompetence. Apple is no better than MS in
>> >> that regard. They were simply not capable to do so. Otherwise they
>> >> would have done so.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> So where is it? According to Znut apple is perfectly able to do so,
>> >> yet there is nowhere any sign of even a primitive version
>> > 
>> > You people are literally insane. Like, not "usenet insane", but
>> > actual literal, no-connection-to-reality insane. You are utterly
>> > unwilling to even attempt to understand what people who you view as
>> > being on the "other side" are saying.
>> 
>> What you are saying is, in a nutshull: Apple does not have package
>> management like linux, and we should conclude by that OSX is "better".
> 
> Actually, I didn't say that at all.
> 
>> Second conclusion: Linux is worse, because it has a highly desireable
>> feature OSX does not have.
> 
> Or that.
> 
> What I said was that because of the way software is written and
> distributed for the systems, they need different things from a package
> management system, and comparing their systems without taking those
> different needs into account is meaningless.
> 
> Your reaction to this was to *completely* ignore my entire point, 

You have no point. 

> call OS X "very primitive", 

Actually, in this area OSX *is* "very primitive". Instead of a proper 
package management system it includes by default a comprehensive set of  
system libraries. Regardless if needed or not

This *is* primitive

> and imply that the differences in package
> management systems were a result of Apple's incompetence. 

Well, someone compentent would recognize apples approach as what it really 
is: Primitive

> *That* is what
> makes you literally insane. You're not even willing to entertain the
> prospect of a discussion of the tradeoffs of the Linux and OS X
> approaches to software distribution; 

Well, why would I discuss something as primitive as apples approach? It is 
not a tiny bit better than the windows way

> you immediately default to what
> amounts to "OS X sucks, 

It does, in that area.

> Linux does thing the best of all possible ways".

It actually does, in the package management area

> It's precisely like arguing with a religious fanatic, and this kind of
> bizarre behavior is far more widespread in this group than any other
> I've ever posted in.
> 

Well, then keep to your group of OSX doodlers if you can't stand the truth 
that OSX is far from "The Best(tm)". It is not, at least in several areas.
And OSX package management actually sucks donkey dicks.
-- 
We may not return the affection of those who like us, 
but we always respect their good judgement.

0
7/3/2009 9:28:39 AM
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:27:41 +0200, Peter K�hlmann wrote:


> What you are saying is, in a nutshull: Apple does not have package 
> management like linux, and we should conclude by that OSX is "better".

Which Linux?
Which package manager?

There are so many, it gets confusing.
0
stymeeee (1067)
7/3/2009 4:14:56 PM
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:17:42 -0400, ZnU wrote:


> Your reaction to this was to *completely* ignore my entire point, call 
> OS X "very primitive", and imply that the differences in package 
> management systems were a result of Apple's incompetence. *That* is what 
> makes you literally insane. You're not even willing to entertain the 
> prospect of a discussion of the tradeoffs of the Linux and OS X 
> approaches to software distribution; you immediately default to what 
> amounts to "OS X sucks, Linux does thing the best of all possible ways". 
> It's precisely like arguing with a religious fanatic, and this kind of 
> bizarre behavior is far more widespread in this group than any other 
> I've ever posted in.

Around here, COLA, we call it "LYING for LIEnux"

And yes you are correct, these Linux freetards in COLA are quite
akin to religious fanatics.

When Linux gets portrayed in a negative manner, rather than
discuss the facts, these people will simply make things up!

0
stymeeee (1067)
7/3/2009 4:17:18 PM
Hans Lister wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:27:41 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> 
> 
>> What you are saying is, in a nutshull: Apple does not have package
>> management like linux, and we should conclude by that OSX is "better".
> 
> Which Linux?
> Which package manager?

Irrelevant
 
> There are so many, it gets confusing.

Again, utterly irrelevant.
Only trolls, liars and software thieves like you, flatfish, get "confused" 
by package managers they don't use.

The linux users simply know how to handle the package manager of the 
distro they are running.

Problem solved.

And OSX still is extremely primitive in this area. Just like windows
-- 
A fool-proof method for sculpting an elephant:
first, get a huge block of marble; then you chip
away everything that doesn't look like an elephant.

0
7/3/2009 4:22:04 PM
Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> Hans Lister wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:27:41 +0200, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What you are saying is, in a nutshull: Apple does not have package
>>> management like linux, and we should conclude by that OSX is
>>> "better".
>>
>> Which Linux?
>> Which package manager?
>
> Irrelevant

Irrelevant to a Windows developer like you who tries to sidestep the 
confusing mess that is Linux.



>> There are so many, it gets confusing.
>
> Again, utterly irrelevant.
> Only trolls, liars and software thieves like you, flatfish, get
> "confused" by package managers they don't use.
>
> The linux users simply know how to handle the package manager of the
> distro they are running.

Simply know by osmosis?  Fact is, they have to figure out yet another 
program because the freewheeling Linux carnival has no controls.



> Problem solved.
>
> And OSX still is extremely primitive in this area. Just like windows

I've often seen packages installed via the "package manager" (Syncraptic, 
KPackage, yum, Mandrake, etc) fail to launch or show up in the menus after 
they were installed.

That has never once happened to me via the manual install process of 
Windows.

Linux just works.


0
nospam11 (18349)
7/3/2009 4:34:28 PM
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:34:28 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>> Hans Lister wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:27:41 +0200, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> What you are saying is, in a nutshull: Apple does not have package
>>>> management like linux, and we should conclude by that OSX is
>>>> "better".
>>>
>>> Which Linux?
>>> Which package manager?
>>
>> Irrelevant
> 
> Irrelevant to a Windows developer like you who tries to sidestep the 
> confusing mess that is Linux.
> 
> 
> 
>>> There are so many, it gets confusing.
>>
>> Again, utterly irrelevant.
>> Only trolls, liars and software thieves like you, flatfish, get
>> "confused" by package managers they don't use.
>>
>> The linux users simply know how to handle the package manager of the
>> distro they are running.
> 
> Simply know by osmosis?  Fact is, they have to figure out yet another 
> program because the freewheeling Linux carnival has no controls.
> 
> 
> 
>> Problem solved.
>>
>> And OSX still is extremely primitive in this area. Just like windows
> 
> I've often seen packages installed via the "package manager" (Syncraptic, 
> KPackage, yum, Mandrake, etc) fail to launch or show up in the menus after 
> they were installed.
> 
> That has never once happened to me via the manual install process of 
> Windows.
> 
> Linux just works.

Looks like you've got Col Klink on the ropes again !
0
stymeeee (1067)
7/3/2009 4:43:00 PM
In article <h2kj08$d83$01$1@news.t-online.com>,
 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> ZnU wrote:
> 
> > In article <h2k8cu$l1m$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> >> What you are saying is, in a nutshull: Apple does not have package 
> >> management like linux, and we should conclude by that OSX is 
> >> "better".
> > 
> > Actually, I didn't say that at all.
> > 
> >> Second conclusion: Linux is worse, because it has a highly 
> >> desireable feature OSX does not have.
> > 
> > Or that.
> > 
> > What I said was that because of the way software is written and 
> > distributed for the systems, they need different things from a 
> > package management system, and comparing their systems without 
> > taking those different needs into account is meaningless.
> > 
> > Your reaction to this was to *completely* ignore my entire point, 
> 
> You have no point. 
> 
> > call OS X "very primitive", 
> 
> Actually, in this area OSX *is* "very primitive". Instead of a proper 
> package management system it includes by default a comprehensive set 
> of  system libraries.

Defining this as "very primitive" is utterly bizarre. Apple clearly 
does not install a comprehensive set of system libraries because Apple 
was incapable of implementing a "proper package management system", as 
you are attempting to imply. Rather, Apple lacks a "proper package 
management system" because their system was designed in such a way that 
it doesn't really need one.

If you would acknowledge this extremely obvious point then we could 
perhaps have a discussion about the "comprehensive standardized system 
libraries" approach vs. the "every one of a large number of distros 
ships with different libraries and the package management system sorts 
things out for individual apps" approach.

But as it is we can't actually have that discussion, because you're not 
even willing to acknowledge that Apple made a deliberate design 
decision; you start off with the assumption that any deviation from the 
Linux approach must necessarily be a result of incompetence. You're 
precisely like the religious fanatic who refuses to discuss whether the 
Earth is round because he already "knows" it's flat.

[snip]

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
7/3/2009 6:25:18 PM
ZnU wrote:

> In article <h2kj08$d83$01$1@news.t-online.com>,
>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> ZnU wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <h2k8cu$l1m$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> >> What you are saying is, in a nutshull: Apple does not have package
>> >> management like linux, and we should conclude by that OSX is
>> >> "better".
>> > 
>> > Actually, I didn't say that at all.
>> > 
>> >> Second conclusion: Linux is worse, because it has a highly
>> >> desireable feature OSX does not have.
>> > 
>> > Or that.
>> > 
>> > What I said was that because of the way software is written and
>> > distributed for the systems, they need different things from a
>> > package management system, and comparing their systems without
>> > taking those different needs into account is meaningless.
>> > 
>> > Your reaction to this was to *completely* ignore my entire point,
>> 
>> You have no point.
>> 
>> > call OS X "very primitive",
>> 
>> Actually, in this area OSX *is* "very primitive". Instead of a proper
>> package management system it includes by default a comprehensive set
>> of  system libraries.
> 
> Defining this as "very primitive" is utterly bizarre. Apple clearly
> does not install a comprehensive set of system libraries because Apple
> was incapable of implementing a "proper package management system", as
> you are attempting to imply. Rather, Apple lacks a "proper package
> management system" because their system was designed in such a way that
> it doesn't really need one.

I tend to think that every OS which passes a certain complexity *needs* a 
proper package management
And those without tend to make a mess out of installing/deinstalling apps.

Like windows does. And OSX, too

And yes, I think it was done that way because apple was too incompetent to 
see the need to look after software dependencies. Which *needs* package 
management to function properly

> If you would acknowledge this extremely obvious point 

It is far from "obvious". Apple made a design decision which was utterly 
boneheaded and wrong. On that grounds we can agree

> then we could
> perhaps have a discussion about the "comprehensive standardized system
> libraries" approach vs. the "every one of a large number of distros
> ships with different libraries and the package management system sorts
> things out for individual apps" approach.
> 
> But as it is we can't actually have that discussion, because you're not
> even willing to acknowledge that Apple made a deliberate design
> decision; 

Oh, I think they made that decision. Out of incompetence

> you start off with the assumption that any deviation from the
> Linux approach must necessarily be a result of incompetence. You're
> precisely like the religious fanatic who refuses to discuss whether the
> Earth is round because he already "knows" it's flat.
> 

So you admit that apple has nothing which even remotely approaches proper 
package management

-- 
Don't abandon hope: your Tom Mix decoder ring arrives tomorrow

0
7/3/2009 7:03:16 PM
In article <h2kj08$d83$01$1@news.t-online.com>,
 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> Actually, in this area OSX *is* "very primitive". Instead of a proper 
> package management system it includes by default a comprehensive set of  
> system libraries. Regardless if needed or not

That's why I can write an OS X app that uses sound or video, for 
example, and count on it working on every current version of OS X.

On Linux, a developer can only count on it working on systems where 
someone has already installed whatever sound and video libraries he 
happened to use.

If users are lucky, sometime down the line, their distribution might 
decide to add that application to their packaging system, and then it 
becomes easy for the user to install the app and make sure the libraries 
are there.

Until then, the user is on his own: read the requirements, go track down 
the libraries, download them, follow the often incomprehensible 
installation instructions, install them, and then make sure to keep an 
eye out for updates, so he can manually install them.


-- 
--Tim Smith
0
reply_in_group (13194)
7/3/2009 7:21:16 PM
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:21:16 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

> In article <h2kj08$d83$01$1@news.t-online.com>,
>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Actually, in this area OSX *is* "very primitive". Instead of a proper 
>> package management system it includes by default a comprehensive set of  
>> system libraries. Regardless if needed or not
> 
> That's why I can write an OS X app that uses sound or video, for 
> example, and count on it working on every current version of OS X.
> 
> On Linux, a developer can only count on it working on systems where 
> someone has already installed whatever sound and video libraries he 
> happened to use.
> 
> If users are lucky, sometime down the line, their distribution might 
> decide to add that application to their packaging system, and then it 
> becomes easy for the user to install the app and make sure the libraries 
> are there.
> 
> Until then, the user is on his own: read the requirements, go track down 
> the libraries, download them, follow the often incomprehensible 
> installation instructions, install them, and then make sure to keep an 
> eye out for updates, so he can manually install them.

Linux users call it "choice".
Most people call it a clusterfsck......
0
stymeeee (1067)
7/3/2009 7:23:28 PM
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> 
>> In article <h2kj08$d83$01$1@news.t-online.com>,
>>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>> ZnU wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <h2k8cu$l1m$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
>>>>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>> What you are saying is, in a nutshull: Apple does not have package
>>>>> management like linux, and we should conclude by that OSX is
>>>>> "better".
>>>> Actually, I didn't say that at all.
>>>>
>>>>> Second conclusion: Linux is worse, because it has a highly
>>>>> desireable feature OSX does not have.
>>>> Or that.
>>>>
>>>> What I said was that because of the way software is written and
>>>> distributed for the systems, they need different things from a
>>>> package management system, and comparing their systems without
>>>> taking those different needs into account is meaningless.
>>>>
>>>> Your reaction to this was to *completely* ignore my entire point,
>>> You have no point.
>>>
>>>> call OS X "very primitive",
>>> Actually, in this area OSX *is* "very primitive". Instead of a proper
>>> package management system it includes by default a comprehensive set
>>> of  system libraries.
>> Defining this as "very primitive" is utterly bizarre. Apple clearly
>> does not install a comprehensive set of system libraries because Apple
>> was incapable of implementing a "proper package management system", as
>> you are attempting to imply. Rather, Apple lacks a "proper package
>> management system" because their system was designed in such a way that
>> it doesn't really need one.
> 
> I tend to think that every OS which passes a certain complexity *needs* a 
> proper package management
> And those without tend to make a mess out of installing/deinstalling apps.
> 
> Like windows does. And OSX, too
> 
> And yes, I think it was done that way because apple was too incompetent to 
> see the need to look after software dependencies. Which *needs* package 
> management to function properly
> 
>> If you would acknowledge this extremely obvious point 
> 
> It is far from "obvious". Apple made a design decision which was utterly 
> boneheaded and wrong. On that grounds we can agree
> 
>> then we could
>> perhaps have a discussion about the "comprehensive standardized system
>> libraries" approach vs. the "every one of a large number of distros
>> ships with different libraries and the package management system sorts
>> things out for individual apps" approach.
>>
>> But as it is we can't actually have that discussion, because you're not
>> even willing to acknowledge that Apple made a deliberate design
>> decision; 
> 
> Oh, I think they made that decision. Out of incompetence
> 
>> you start off with the assumption that any deviation from the
>> Linux approach must necessarily be a result of incompetence. You're
>> precisely like the religious fanatic who refuses to discuss whether the
>> Earth is round because he already "knows" it's flat.
>>
> 
> So you admit that apple has nothing which even remotely approaches proper 
> package management
> 

I don't understand your rationale here.  "Proper" package management is 
really only "proper" (ie, sane, works without insane amounts of 
dependency hell) when there is one massive centralized repo (or a few 
that all know about each other, like multiverse, universe, etc. in 
Ubuntu, for example).

*How*, without a massive, centralized repository of apps would you 
expect Apple to do this?  Unlike Linux, Mac and Windows users don't 
exect to have a massive centralized repository to download all your 
software.  Software comes from various decentralized locations.

Let's say Apple had a package management system, and it included all the 
libraries it includes now, but in a PM'd format.  Let's say someone 
wants to download "Foobar" which depends on "libschnurpurz" from another 
project.  How would Apple come up with a system that would sanely get 
Foobar to fetch libschnurzpurz from its server, or whatever.  What if 
libschnurzpurz goes away, or changes versions and becomes incompatible. 
  With decentralized software, it just makes sense to have a core API 
and have all 3rd party apps statically link extraneous libraries or 
include them in their own distributions.
0
please3618 (27)
7/3/2009 7:24:09 PM
Logan Rathbone wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> ZnU wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <h2kj08$d83$01$1@news.t-online.com>,
>>>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ZnU wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <h2k8cu$l1m$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
>>>>>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>>> What you are saying is, in a nutshull: Apple does not have package
>>>>>> management like linux, and we should conclude by that OSX is
>>>>>> "better".
>>>>> Actually, I didn't say that at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Second conclusion: Linux is worse, because it has a highly
>>>>>> desireable feature OSX does not have.
>>>>> Or that.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I said was that because of the way software is written and
>>>>> distributed for the systems, they need different things from a
>>>>> package management system, and comparing their systems without
>>>>> taking those different needs into account is meaningless.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your reaction to this was to *completely* ignore my entire point,
>>>> You have no point.
>>>>
>>>>> call OS X "very primitive",
>>>> Actually, in this area OSX *is* "very primitive". Instead of a proper
>>>> package management system it includes by default a comprehensive set
>>>> of  system libraries.
>>> Defining this as "very primitive" is utterly bizarre. Apple clearly
>>> does not install a comprehensive set of system libraries because Apple
>>> was incapable of implementing a "proper package management system", as
>>> you are attempting to imply. Rather, Apple lacks a "proper package
>>> management system" because their system was designed in such a way
>>> that it doesn't really need one.
>> 
>> I tend to think that every OS which passes a certain complexity *needs*
>> a proper package management
>> And those without tend to make a mess out of installing/deinstalling
>> apps.
>> 
>> Like windows does. And OSX, too
>> 
>> And yes, I think it was done that way because apple was too incompetent
>> to see the need to look after software dependencies. Which *needs*
>> package management to function properly
>> 
>>> If you would acknowledge this extremely obvious point
>> 
>> It is far from "obvious". Apple made a design decision which was
>> utterly boneheaded and wrong. On that grounds we can agree
>> 
>>> then we could
>>> perhaps have a discussion about the "comprehensive standardized system
>>> libraries" approach vs. the "every one of a large number of distros
>>> ships with different libraries and the package management system sorts
>>> things out for individual apps" approach.
>>>
>>> But as it is we can't actually have that discussion, because you're
>>> not even willing to acknowledge that Apple made a deliberate design
>>> decision;
>> 
>> Oh, I think they made that decision. Out of incompetence
>> 
>>> you start off with the assumption that any deviation from the
>>> Linux approach must necessarily be a result of incompetence. You're
>>> precisely like the religious fanatic who refuses to discuss whether
>>> the Earth is round because he already "knows" it's flat.
>>>
>> 
>> So you admit that apple has nothing which even remotely approaches
>> proper package management
>> 
> 
> I don't understand your rationale here.  "Proper" package management is
> really only "proper" (ie, sane, works without insane amounts of
> dependency hell) when there is one massive centralized repo (or a few
> that all know about each other, like multiverse, universe, etc. in
> Ubuntu, for example).

Right. One of the *huge* advantages linux has. Its users don't need to 
hunt down the applications and then hope that they are virus-free.
Neither windows nor OSX have that

> *How*, without a massive, centralized repository of apps would you
> expect Apple to do this?  Unlike Linux, Mac and Windows users don't
> exect to have a massive centralized repository to download all your
> software.  Software comes from various decentralized locations.

And yet apple had no problems at all to do just that for the iPhone

< snip contrived irrelevant example >

It is too late now for apple as it is for MS/windows. The milk is spillt 
and both systems have to make do without package management.

But its users should simply forget this bullshit about "not needing PM"

-- 
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

0
7/3/2009 7:31:13 PM
In article <h2lkll$t4f$03$1@news.t-online.com>,
 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> ZnU wrote:
> 
> > In article <h2kj08$d83$01$1@news.t-online.com>,
> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> > 
> >> ZnU wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <h2k8cu$l1m$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> > 
> >> >> What you are saying is, in a nutshull: Apple does not have 
> >> >> package management like linux, and we should conclude by that 
> >> >> OSX is "better".
> >> > 
> >> > Actually, I didn't say that at all.
> >> > 
> >> >> Second conclusion: Linux is worse, because it has a highly 
> >> >> desireable feature OSX does not have.
> >> > 
> >> > Or that.
> >> > 
> >> > What I said was that because of the way software is written and 
> >> > distributed for the systems, they need different things from a 
> >> > package management system, and comparing their systems without 
> >> > taking those different needs into account is meaningless.
> >> > 
> >> > Your reaction to this was to *completely* ignore my entire 
> >> > point,
> >> 
> >> You have no point.
> >> 
> >> > call OS X "very primitive",
> >> 
> >> Actually, in this area OSX *is* "very primitive". Instead of a 
> >> proper package management system it includes by default a 
> >> comprehensive set of  system libraries.
> > 
> > Defining this as "very primitive" is utterly bizarre. Apple clearly 
> > does not install a comprehensive set of system libraries because 
> > Apple was incapable of implementing a "proper package management 
> > system", as you are attempting to imply. Rather, Apple lacks a 
> > "proper package management system" because their system was 
> > designed in such a way that it doesn't really need one.
> 
> I tend to think that every OS which passes a certain complexity 
> *needs* a proper package management And those without tend to make a 
> mess out of installing/deinstalling apps.
> 
> Like windows does. And OSX, too
> 
> And yes, I think it was done that way because apple was too 
> incompetent to see the need to look after software dependencies. 
> Which *needs* package management to function properly

I have never encountered a dependency issue with native OS X software 
that could have been avoided with a Linux-style package management 
system. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I've ever encountered any kind 
of dependancy issue with native OS X software at all.

The truth is, OS X's system for dependancy management isn't nearly as 
simplistic as you're trying to claim, it's merely very different from 
the Linux system, and designed for a system with very different needs. 
Primarily it's designed around finding the correct versions of 
frameworks to use at runtime, since OS X's library standardization and 
its features to support self-contained software make figuring out 
dependancies at install time largely unnecessary.

[snip]

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
7/3/2009 7:43:16 PM
After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out
  this bit o' wisdom:

> In article <h2kj08$d83$01$1@news.t-online.com>,
>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Actually, in this area OSX *is* "very primitive". Instead of a proper 
>> package management system it includes by default a comprehensive set of  
>> system libraries. Regardless if needed or not
>
> That's why I can write an OS X app that uses sound or video, for 
> example, and count on it working on every current version of OS X.
>
> On Linux, a developer can only count on it working on systems where 
> someone has already installed whatever sound and video libraries he 
> happened to use.
>
> If users are lucky, sometime down the line, their distribution might 
> decide to add that application to their packaging system, and then it 
> becomes easy for the user to install the app and make sure the libraries 
> are there.

Lucky?

Not really.  If an app is good, it will become a package in short order.

> Until then, the user is on his own: read the requirements, go track down 
> the libraries, download them, follow the often incomprehensible 
> installation instructions, install them, and then make sure to keep an 
> eye out for updates, so he can manually install them.

Oh, you still have to do that for niche projects on Windows, and I imagine
the same is true for Mac.

In Debian, the error message almost always give you all the information you
need to build an app from source.  And it is most often the case that the
dependencies is a "lib*-dev" package already available in Debian.

YMMV.

-- 
Be careful!  Is it classified?
0
ahlstromc1 (7605)
7/3/2009 8:54:31 PM
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 16:54:31 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out
>   this bit o' wisdom:
> 
>> In article <h2kj08$d83$01$1@news.t-online.com>,
>>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>> Actually, in this area OSX *is* "very primitive". Instead of a proper 
>>> package management system it includes by default a comprehensive set of  
>>> system libraries. Regardless if needed or not
>>
>> That's why I can write an OS X app that uses sound or video, for 
>> example, and count on it working on every current version of OS X.
>>
>> On Linux, a developer can only count on it working on systems where 
>> someone has already installed whatever sound and video libraries he 
>> happened to use.
>>
>> If users are lucky, sometime down the line, their distribution might 
>> decide to add that application to their packaging system, and then it 
>> becomes easy for the user to install the app and make sure the libraries 
>> are there.
> 
> Lucky?
> 
> Not really.  If an app is good, it will become a package in short order.

You won't find Ardour in many Linux distribution repositories.
That's a top tier Linux application.

And if you do manage to find it, often it's a very old version.
0
stymeeee (1067)
7/3/2009 9:09:35 PM
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:09:35 -0400, Hans Lister wrote:

> [snip]
> 
> You won't find Ardour in many Linux distribution repositories. That's a
> top tier Linux application.
> 
> And if you do manage to find it, often it's a very old version.

Well I can't speak for distros other people use, but Arch, my distro of 
choice, includes the latest stable version (2.8) in its repos...
0
dont8645 (24)
7/3/2009 9:15:46 PM
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:15:46 +0000 (UTC), Logan Rathbone wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:09:35 -0400, Hans Lister wrote:
> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> You won't find Ardour in many Linux distribution repositories. That's a
>> top tier Linux application.
>> 
>> And if you do manage to find it, often it's a very old version.
> 
> Well I can't speak for distros other people use, but Arch, my distro of 
> choice, includes the latest stable version (2.8) in its repos...

Maybe things are getting better.
0
stymeeee (1067)
7/3/2009 9:23:12 PM
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:23:12 -0400, Hans Lister wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:15:46 +0000 (UTC), Logan Rathbone wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:09:35 -0400, Hans Lister wrote:
>> 
>>> [snip]
>>> 
>>> You won't find Ardour in many Linux distribution repositories. That's
>>> a top tier Linux application.
>>> 
>>> And if you do manage to find it, often it's a very old version.
>> 
>> Well I can't speak for distros other people use, but Arch, my distro of
>> choice, includes the latest stable version (2.8) in its repos...
> 
> Maybe things are getting better.

Well, Arch has a deceptively large and active community rallied around 
it, but the thing I *love* about it is that it has a modern and KISS-
oriented package manager, pacman, that is a joy to work with.  And making 
packages with it is ::gasp:: easy and intuitive.

The best part is, it has network/repo functions built right in... you 
don't need 2 apps ala dpkg & apt.
0
dont8645 (24)
7/3/2009 9:35:45 PM
Logan Rathbone wrote:

> Well, Arch has a deceptively large and active community rallied around 
> it, but the thing I *love* about it is that it has a modern and KISS-
> oriented package manager, pacman, that is a joy to work with.  And making 
> packages with it is ::gasp:: easy and intuitive.
> 
> The best part is, it has network/repo functions built right in... you 
> don't need 2 apps ala dpkg & apt.

I like Arch, but I had trouble with it when Xorg changed to (I believe, 
version 7). It had worked fine before that on my Pentium IIIs. I know it 
wasn't Arch's fault and figured it would blow over when Xorg's newest 
release came out -- and that was several months ago. May try it again in 
a couple days. And I do like pacman -- though all I used it for was 
installing packages (like I do with yum, zypper and apt-get).

-- 
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
7/3/2009 9:49:24 PM
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:49:24 -0500, RonB wrote:

> Logan Rathbone wrote:
> 
>> Well, Arch has a deceptively large and active community rallied around 
>> it, but the thing I *love* about it is that it has a modern and KISS-
>> oriented package manager, pacman, that is a joy to work with.  And making 
>> packages with it is ::gasp:: easy and intuitive.
>> 
>> The best part is, it has network/repo functions built right in... you 
>> don't need 2 apps ala dpkg & apt.
> 
> I like Arch, but I had trouble with it when Xorg changed to (I believe, 
> version 7). It had worked fine before that on my Pentium IIIs. I know it 
> wasn't Arch's fault and figured it would blow over when Xorg's newest 
> release came out -- and that was several months ago. May try it again in 
> a couple days. And I do like pacman -- though all I used it for was 
> installing packages (like I do with yum, zypper and apt-get).

I used to use the pacman repositories with Suse.
Is that the same one?
0
stymeeee (1067)
7/3/2009 9:57:00 PM
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:57:00 -0400, Hans Lister wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:49:24 -0500, RonB wrote:
> 
>> Logan Rathbone wrote:
>> 
>>> Well, Arch has a deceptively large and active community rallied around
>>> it, but the thing I *love* about it is that it has a modern and KISS-
>>> oriented package manager, pacman, that is a joy to work with.  And
>>> making packages with it is ::gasp:: easy and intuitive.
>>> 
>>> The best part is, it has network/repo functions built right in... you
>>> don't need 2 apps ala dpkg & apt.
>> 
>> I like Arch, but I had trouble with it when Xorg changed to (I believe,
>> version 7). It had worked fine before that on my Pentium IIIs. I know
>> it wasn't Arch's fault and figured it would blow over when Xorg's
>> newest release came out -- and that was several months ago. May try it
>> again in a couple days. And I do like pacman -- though all I used it
>> for was installing packages (like I do with yum, zypper and apt-get).
> 
> I used to use the pacman repositories with Suse. Is that the same one?

No - pacman is the name of the Arch PACkage MANager - pacman for SuSE is 
something else
0
dont8645 (24)
7/3/2009 10:37:29 PM
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 22:37:29 +0000 (UTC), Logan Rathbone wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:57:00 -0400, Hans Lister wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:49:24 -0500, RonB wrote:
>> 
>>> Logan Rathbone wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Well, Arch has a deceptively large and active community rallied around
>>>> it, but the thing I *love* about it is that it has a modern and KISS-
>>>> oriented package manager, pacman, that is a joy to work with.  And
>>>> making packages with it is ::gasp:: easy and intuitive.
>>>> 
>>>> The best part is, it has network/repo functions built right in... you
>>>> don't need 2 apps ala dpkg & apt.
>>> 
>>> I like Arch, but I had trouble with it when Xorg changed to (I believe,
>>> version 7). It had worked fine before that on my Pentium IIIs. I know
>>> it wasn't Arch's fault and figured it would blow over when Xorg's
>>> newest release came out -- and that was several months ago. May try it
>>> again in a couple days. And I do like pacman -- though all I used it
>>> for was installing packages (like I do with yum, zypper and apt-get).
>> 
>> I used to use the pacman repositories with Suse. Is that the same one?
> 
> No - pacman is the name of the Arch PACkage MANager - pacman for SuSE is 
> something else

Gotcha...
Thanks!

I've never used Arch or Centos for that matter.
0
stymeeee (1067)
7/3/2009 11:24:34 PM
On 2009-07-03, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <h2lkll$t4f$03$1@news.t-online.com>,
>  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> ZnU wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <h2kj08$d83$01$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> ZnU wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > In article <h2k8cu$l1m$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
[deletia]
>> I tend to think that every OS which passes a certain complexity 
>> *needs* a proper package management And those without tend to make a 
>> mess out of installing/deinstalling apps.
>> 
>> Like windows does. And OSX, too
>> 
>> And yes, I think it was done that way because apple was too 
>> incompetent to see the need to look after software dependencies. 
>> Which *needs* package management to function properly
>
> I have never encountered a dependency issue with native OS X software 
> that could have been avoided with a Linux-style package management 

    Support for non-Apple video formats.

    This is one area where Ubuntu shines and MacOS is a turd.

    An Ubuntu style package repository for all of the various QT
extensions would be a very handy thing and would handily beat the
current Apple approach to this (which is an incomplete web page).

[deletia]

-- 
     Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \
0
jedi (14754)
7/4/2009 11:33:53 PM
On 2009-07-03, Logan Rathbone <dont@emailmeplease.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:23:12 -0400, Hans Lister wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:15:46 +0000 (UTC), Logan Rathbone wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:09:35 -0400, Hans Lister wrote:
>>> 
>>>> [snip]
>>>> 
>>>> You won't find Ardour in many Linux distribution repositories. That's
>>>> a top tier Linux application.
>>>> 
>>>> And if you do manage to find it, often it's a very old version.
>>> 
>>> Well I can't speak for distros other people use, but Arch, my distro of
>>> choice, includes the latest stable version (2.8) in its repos...
>> 
>> Maybe things are getting better.

    Things have always been better if your goal is to do something useful
rather than to make the system fail and then go whine about it.

>
> Well, Arch has a deceptively large and active community rallied around 
> it, but the thing I *love* about it is that it has a modern and KISS-
> oriented package manager, pacman, that is a joy to work with.  And making 
> packages with it is ::gasp:: easy and intuitive.
>
> The best part is, it has network/repo functions built right in... you 
> don't need 2 apps ala dpkg & apt.


-- 
     Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \
0
jedi (14754)
7/4/2009 11:35:42 PM
On 2009-07-03, Hans Lister <stymeeee@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:17:42 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>
>
>> Your reaction to this was to *completely* ignore my entire point, call 
>> OS X "very primitive", and imply that the differences in package 
>> management systems were a result of Apple's incompetence. *That* is what 
>> makes you literally insane. You're not even willing to entertain the 
>> prospect of a discussion of the tradeoffs of the Linux and OS X 
>> approaches to software distribution; you immediately default to what 
>> amounts to "OS X sucks, Linux does thing the best of all possible ways". 
>> It's precisely like arguing with a religious fanatic, and this kind of 
>> bizarre behavior is far more widespread in this group than any other 
>> I've ever posted in.
>
> Around here, COLA, we call it "LYING for LIEnux"

....it's no lie to say that when I try to play some new sort of file
in the default video player it sorts out all of the new decoder
dependencies itself an in less than 5 minutes you're playing the new
type of file.

Compared to this, the QT player on MacOS is stuck in the 80s.

-- 
     Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \
0
jedi (14754)
7/4/2009 11:50:46 PM
In article <slrnh4vpn1.tjv.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2009-07-03, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <h2lkll$t4f$03$1@news.t-online.com>,
> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> >
> >> ZnU wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <h2kj08$d83$01$1@news.t-online.com>,
> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> ZnU wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > In article <h2k8cu$l1m$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> [deletia]
> >> I tend to think that every OS which passes a certain complexity 
> >> *needs* a proper package management And those without tend to make a 
> >> mess out of installing/deinstalling apps.
> >> 
> >> Like windows does. And OSX, too
> >> 
> >> And yes, I think it was done that way because apple was too 
> >> incompetent to see the need to look after software dependencies. 
> >> Which *needs* package management to function properly
> >
> > I have never encountered a dependency issue with native OS X software 
> > that could have been avoided with a Linux-style package management 
> 
>     Support for non-Apple video formats.
> 
>     This is one area where Ubuntu shines and MacOS is a turd.
> 
>     An Ubuntu style package repository for all of the various QT
> extensions would be a very handy thing and would handily beat the
> current Apple approach to this (which is an incomplete web page).

Nice try, but this has absolutely nothing to do with dependancy issues.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
7/5/2009 3:09:30 AM
On 2009-07-02, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnh4q969.hof.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-07-02, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article <h2g4h5$r9b$02$2@news.t-online.com>,
>> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> >
>> >> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> >> > It's bound to confuse a novice. The way that Ubuntu or Windows 
>> >> > handles an installer package is much more n00b friendly.
>> >> 
>> >> That OSX thingy is also bound to leave lots of same libraries in 
>> >> different places. To distribute software that way one would be better 
>> >> off *not* to have dynamic libraries/DLLs Even MS tends not to do 
>> >> something so outrageously stupid
>> >
>> > With respect to package management and libraries, you guys seem to be 
>> > thinking along the lines of "If Linux only had OS X's facilities for 
>> > managing installed software, it would be a huge mess", and concluding 
>> > therefore that OS X is inferior.
>> >
>> > This ignores the rather important fact that OS X is not Linux.
>> >
>> > In particular, one absolutely key difference is that on Linux, there is 
>> > no completely standard and always-included set of system libraries 
>> > comparable to the OS X API stack. (Core Foundation, Cocoa, Quartz, etc.)
>> 
>>     Linux shared libraries encompass far more functionality than is
>> presented by these. If you want to restrict the available shared
>> libraries to just this stuff then MacOS has no advantage.
>> 
>> [simpleminded argument deleted]
>
> You're not even attempting to make an argument.

    Sure I am.

    What is managed by the Linux package managers is a superset of what
is provided by the default MacOS install. This is pretty obvious to anyone
that tries to do something as simple as play an AVI on a Mac.

-- 
                                    My macintosh runs Ubuntu.        |||
                                                                    / | \
0
jedi (14754)
7/5/2009 4:30:12 AM
On 2009-07-05, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnh4vpn1.tjv.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-07-03, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article <h2lkll$t4f$03$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> >
>> >> ZnU wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > In article <h2kj08$d83$01$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> ZnU wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > In article <h2k8cu$l1m$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> [deletia]
>> >> I tend to think that every OS which passes a certain complexity 
>> >> *needs* a proper package management And those without tend to make a 
>> >> mess out of installing/deinstalling apps.
>> >> 
>> >> Like windows does. And OSX, too
>> >> 
>> >> And yes, I think it was done that way because apple was too 
>> >> incompetent to see the need to look after software dependencies. 
>> >> Which *needs* package management to function properly
>> >
>> > I have never encountered a dependency issue with native OS X software 
>> > that could have been avoided with a Linux-style package management 
>> 
>>     Support for non-Apple video formats.
>> 
>>     This is one area where Ubuntu shines and MacOS is a turd.
>> 
>>     An Ubuntu style package repository for all of the various QT
>> extensions would be a very handy thing and would handily beat the
>> current Apple approach to this (which is an incomplete web page).
>
> Nice try, but this has absolutely nothing to do with dependancy issues.

    Sure it does.

    If you are going to decode an AVI then you need some library to handle
decoding the AVI container. You may also need some other libraries to handle
dealing with the various codecs that may be encapsulated in the AVI container.

    In Linux, that dealing with those library dependencies is handled by
package managers. This is done automagically.

    Just try to play the alien file and the package manager goes to work.

-- 
                                    My macintosh runs Ubuntu.        |||
                                                                    / | \
0
jedi (14754)
7/5/2009 4:32:39 AM
In article <slrnh50b77.a7v.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2009-07-05, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrnh4vpn1.tjv.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2009-07-03, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> > In article <h2lkll$t4f$03$1@news.t-online.com>,
> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> ZnU wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > In article <h2kj08$d83$01$1@news.t-online.com>,
> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> ZnU wrote:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> > In article <h2k8cu$l1m$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
> >> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> >> [deletia]
> >> >> I tend to think that every OS which passes a certain complexity 
> >> >> *needs* a proper package management And those without tend to make a 
> >> >> mess out of installing/deinstalling apps.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Like windows does. And OSX, too
> >> >> 
> >> >> And yes, I think it was done that way because apple was too 
> >> >> incompetent to see the need to look after software dependencies. 
> >> >> Which *needs* package management to function properly
> >> >
> >> > I have never encountered a dependency issue with native OS X software 
> >> > that could have been avoided with a Linux-style package management 
> >> 
> >>     Support for non-Apple video formats.
> >> 
> >>     This is one area where Ubuntu shines and MacOS is a turd.
> >> 
> >>     An Ubuntu style package repository for all of the various QT
> >> extensions would be a very handy thing and would handily beat the
> >> current Apple approach to this (which is an incomplete web page).
> >
> > Nice try, but this has absolutely nothing to do with dependancy issues.
> 
>     Sure it does.
> 
>     If you are going to decode an AVI then you need some library to handle
> decoding the AVI container. You may also need some other libraries to handle
> dealing with the various codecs that may be encapsulated in the AVI container.
> 
>     In Linux, that dealing with those library dependencies is handled by
> package managers. This is done automagically.

If a video player attempts to find and install a codec when you open a 
file it can't decode, this is a feature of the video player. It may 
invoke a system-wide package management feature to do this, but such a 
feature is neither necessary nor sufficient.

>     Just try to play the alien file and the package manager goes to work.

It's really pathological that you try to make every thread in which OS X 
is mentioned about your utterly trivial pet peeves with the system.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
7/6/2009 12:03:38 AM
On 2009-07-06, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnh50b77.a7v.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-07-05, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article <slrnh4vpn1.tjv.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2009-07-03, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> > In article <h2lkll$t4f$03$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> ZnU wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > In article <h2kj08$d83$01$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> ZnU wrote:
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> > In article <h2k8cu$l1m$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> >> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> >> [deletia]
>> >> >> I tend to think that every OS which passes a certain complexity 
>> >> >> *needs* a proper package management And those without tend to make a 
>> >> >> mess out of installing/deinstalling apps.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Like windows does. And OSX, too
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> And yes, I think it was done that way because apple was too 
>> >> >> incompetent to see the need to look after software dependencies. 
>> >> >> Which *needs* package management to function properly
>> >> >
>> >> > I have never encountered a dependency issue with native OS X software 
>> >> > that could have been avoided with a Linux-style package management 
>> >> 
>> >>     Support for non-Apple video formats.
>> >> 
>> >>     This is one area where Ubuntu shines and MacOS is a turd.
>> >> 
>> >>     An Ubuntu style package repository for all of the various QT
>> >> extensions would be a very handy thing and would handily beat the
>> >> current Apple approach to this (which is an incomplete web page).
>> >
>> > Nice try, but this has absolutely nothing to do with dependancy issues.
>> 
>>     Sure it does.
>> 
>>     If you are going to decode an AVI then you need some library to handle
>> decoding the AVI container. You may also need some other libraries to handle
>> dealing with the various codecs that may be encapsulated in the AVI container.
>> 
>>     In Linux, that dealing with those library dependencies is handled by
>> package managers. This is done automagically.
>
> If a video player attempts to find and install a codec when you open a 
> file it can't decode, this is a feature of the video player. It may 

    Since Apple controls the system video player, this still goes straight
back at Apple just as it does for Microsoft with WMP.

> invoke a system-wide package management feature to do this, but such a 
> feature is neither necessary nor sufficient.

    Such a feature is VERY sufficient as my example illustrates.

    Whether or not such a feature is "necessary" rather depends on whether
or not you view Apple's commitment to empowerment of the user is real or
if it's all just crass marketing rhetoric.

>
>>     Just try to play the alien file and the package manager goes to work.
>
> It's really pathological that you try to make every thread in which OS X 
> is mentioned about your utterly trivial pet peeves with the system.

     It wasn't trivial when this same thing was thought to be something that
trolls like you could use to beat up on Linux.

     Now the sad truth of the matter is that most data formats are NOT 
controlled by Apple. Both Apple and Linux has to live in an environment
that is hostile to both. Data formats are bound to driven by Microsoft
or even just by Windows centric user communities.

     Either way, both platforms need to be able to deal with data created
on the predominant plaform (as well as any other).

     Weak handwaving just isn't going to cut it.

     Although package managment is not my only MacOS gripe.

     We can continue the lack of good organization or the black eye nonsense
in iPhoto if you like. Or we can talk about how iMovie doesn't play well with
alien video formats any better than the QT player does.

     Where's the MacOS rip+mix+burn application for Video?

     iLife isn't it.

     Then there's the stupidity in iTunes with video and how it doesn't
actually manage video. It's up to the user to sort everything out and
figure out manually what each ipod's requirements are in this area.

-- 
	Sure, I could use iTunes even under Linux. However, I have       |||
better things to do with my time than deal with how iTunes doesn't      / | \
want to play nicely with everyone else's data (namely mine). I'd 
rather create a DVD using those Linux apps we're told don't exist.
0
jedi (14754)
7/6/2009 2:21:27 AM
In article <slrnh52nt7.1eb.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2009-07-06, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrnh50b77.a7v.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2009-07-05, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> > In article <slrnh4vpn1.tjv.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 2009-07-03, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> > In article <h2lkll$t4f$03$1@news.t-online.com>,
> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> ZnU wrote:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> > In article <h2kj08$d83$01$1@news.t-online.com>,
> >> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> ZnU wrote:
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> > In article <h2k8cu$l1m$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> >> >> [deletia]
> >> >> >> I tend to think that every OS which passes a certain complexity 
> >> >> >> *needs* a proper package management And those without tend to make a 
> >> >> >> mess out of installing/deinstalling apps.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Like windows does. And OSX, too
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> And yes, I think it was done that way because apple was too 
> >> >> >> incompetent to see the need to look after software dependencies. 
> >> >> >> Which *needs* package management to function properly
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I have never encountered a dependency issue with native OS X software 
> >> >> > that could have been avoided with a Linux-style package management 
> >> >> 
> >> >>     Support for non-Apple video formats.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     This is one area where Ubuntu shines and MacOS is a turd.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     An Ubuntu style package repository for all of the various QT
> >> >> extensions would be a very handy thing and would handily beat the
> >> >> current Apple approach to this (which is an incomplete web page).
> >> >
> >> > Nice try, but this has absolutely nothing to do with dependancy issues.
> >> 
> >>     Sure it does.
> >> 
> >>     If you are going to decode an AVI then you need some library to handle
> >> decoding the AVI container. You may also need some other libraries to 
> >> handle
> >> dealing with the various codecs that may be encapsulated in the AVI 
> >> container.
> >> 
> >>     In Linux, that dealing with those library dependencies is handled by
> >> package managers. This is done automagically.
> >
> > If a video player attempts to find and install a codec when you open a 
> > file it can't decode, this is a feature of the video player. It may 
> 
>     Since Apple controls the system video player, this still goes straight
> back at Apple just as it does for Microsoft with WMP.

Once this is about the video player rather than the package management 
system (which it is), it just becomes another discussion of your trivial 
pet peeves.

> > invoke a system-wide package management feature to do this, but such a 
> > feature is neither necessary nor sufficient.
> 
> Such a feature is VERY sufficient as my example illustrates.

No, it's not. Just because a system has Linux-style package management 
features doesn't mean a media player app will automatically use them to 
find and install codecs for videos it can't otherwise play.

> Whether or not such a feature is "necessary" rather depends on whether
> or not you view Apple's commitment to empowerment of the user is real or
> if it's all just crass marketing rhetoric.

It's unnecessary in the sense that a video player could easily implement 
automatic installation of new codecs even on a system which lacked a 
Linux-style package management framework.

[snip]

>      Where's the MacOS rip+mix+burn application for Video?
> 
>      iLife isn't it.

You appear to have finally figured out that iLife is not designed for 
that use case. The answer, of course, is that there is no Apple 
application rip-mix-burn app for video. This is primarily the case 
because of the chilling effect on innovation of the DMCA. If DVDs were 
unencrypted like CDs, it's quite probable iTunes would have built-in 
ripping support.

There is, of course, quite a lot of third-party software for OS X that 
can rip DVDs, transcode to whatever formats you like, play almost all of 
the whacky stuff on the Internet, etc.

Are you honestly so hypocritical that as an advocate of a platform which 
in some sense might not even have first-party software, you're going to 
insist that Mac apps must all be written by Apple or they somehow don't 
count?

>      Then there's the stupidity in iTunes with video and how it doesn't
> actually manage video. It's up to the user to sort everything out and
> figure out manually what each ipod's requirements are in this area.

The new version of QuickTime Player in Snow Leopard makes it much easier 
to export video in various iPod-compatible formats.

Again, it's sort of hilarious to see a Linux advocate complaining that 
the level of integration between Apple's products -- which is far higher 
than can be found with almost anyone else's hardware and software -- is 
insufficient.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
7/7/2009 4:06:43 AM
On 2009-07-07, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnh52nt7.1eb.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-07-06, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article <slrnh50b77.a7v.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2009-07-05, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> > In article <slrnh4vpn1.tjv.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 2009-07-03, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> > In article <h2lkll$t4f$03$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> ZnU wrote:
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> > In article <h2kj08$d83$01$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> >> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> >> ZnU wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >> > In article <h2k8cu$l1m$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> >> >> [deletia]
>> >> >> >> I tend to think that every OS which passes a certain complexity 
>> >> >> >> *needs* a proper package management And those without tend to make a 
>> >> >> >> mess out of installing/deinstalling apps.
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> Like windows does. And OSX, too
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> And yes, I think it was done that way because apple was too 
>> >> >> >> incompetent to see the need to look after software dependencies. 
>> >> >> >> Which *needs* package management to function properly
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I have never encountered a dependency issue with native OS X software 
>> >> >> > that could have been avoided with a Linux-style package management 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>     Support for non-Apple video formats.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>     This is one area where Ubuntu shines and MacOS is a turd.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>     An Ubuntu style package repository for all of the various QT
>> >> >> extensions would be a very handy thing and would handily beat the
>> >> >> current Apple approach to this (which is an incomplete web page).
>> >> >
>> >> > Nice try, but this has absolutely nothing to do with dependancy issues.
>> >> 
>> >>     Sure it does.
>> >> 
>> >>     If you are going to decode an AVI then you need some library to handle
>> >> decoding the AVI container. You may also need some other libraries to 
>> >> handle
>> >> dealing with the various codecs that may be encapsulated in the AVI 
>> >> container.
>> >> 
>> >>     In Linux, that dealing with those library dependencies is handled by
>> >> package managers. This is done automagically.
>> >
>> > If a video player attempts to find and install a codec when you open a 
>> > file it can't decode, this is a feature of the video player. It may 
>> 
>>     Since Apple controls the system video player, this still goes straight
>> back at Apple just as it does for Microsoft with WMP.
>
> Once this is about the video player rather than the package management 
> system (which it is), it just becomes another discussion of your trivial 
> pet peeves.

    You wouldn't portray it that way if the roles were reversed.

    It's also hardly trivial.

    This sort of nonsense coming from Apple Cheerleaders is why Apple
products are such a constraining "walled garden" sort of experience to
begin with.

>
>> > invoke a system-wide package management feature to do this, but such a 
>> > feature is neither necessary nor sufficient.
>> 
>> Such a feature is VERY sufficient as my example illustrates.
>
> No, it's not. Just because a system has Linux-style package management 
> features doesn't mean a media player app will automatically use them to 
> find and install codecs for videos it can't otherwise play.

     I could apply this same logic to some bit of 3rd party software on the Mac.

     However, that's not the point.

     We're talking about the default system players here. These are what your
n00b users are likely to be trying to use. This isn't about what some power
user or some Lemming intent on sabotage is going to try and set up.

     You know... actual use cases rather than pure academic fantasies that
HID engineers like to contemplate.

>
>> Whether or not such a feature is "necessary" rather depends on whether
>> or not you view Apple's commitment to empowerment of the user is real or
>> if it's all just crass marketing rhetoric.
>
> It's unnecessary in the sense that a video player could easily implement 
> automatic installation of new codecs even on a system which lacked a 
> Linux-style package management framework.

    Sure. They could re-invent the wheel.

    The same thing that allows the system media player to sort out added
libraries by itself also allows me to do the same.

>
> [snip]
>
>>      Where's the MacOS rip+mix+burn application for Video?
>> 
>>      iLife isn't it.
>
> You appear to have finally figured out that iLife is not designed for 
> that use case. The answer, of course, is that there is no Apple 
> application rip-mix-burn app for video. This is primarily the case 
> because of the chilling effect on innovation of the DMCA. If DVDs were 
> unencrypted like CDs, it's quite probable iTunes would have built-in 
> ripping support.

    That excuses the ripping part only.

    That doesn't address the mix and burn part.

    iLife fails at that too and there's really no reason for it.

>
> There is, of course, quite a lot of third-party software for OS X that 
> can rip DVDs, transcode to whatever formats you like, play almost all of 
> the whacky stuff on the Internet, etc.

     Like what?

>
> Are you honestly so hypocritical that as an advocate of a platform which 
> in some sense might not even have first-party software, you're going to 
> insist that Mac apps must all be written by Apple or they somehow don't 
> count?

     If you can't handle iLife being scrutinized then perhaps you shouldn't
portray it as something more than it is.

     OTOH, being a 3rd party application does not mean that the app can't
be managed through the system package manager. The iphone app store is a
good enough example of that.

>
>>      Then there's the stupidity in iTunes with video and how it doesn't
>> actually manage video. It's up to the user to sort everything out and
>> figure out manually what each ipod's requirements are in this area.
>
> The new version of QuickTime Player in Snow Leopard makes it much easier 
> to export video in various iPod-compatible formats.
>
> Again, it's sort of hilarious to see a Linux advocate complaining that 
> the level of integration between Apple's products -- which is far higher 
> than can be found with almost anyone else's hardware and software -- is 
> insufficient.
>

     Oh, so now it's hilarious that a Linux advocate holds the Macintosh
to the standards that it's users claim it adheres to? That's funny. That's
f*cking hilarious.

     If I am going to bother with a Mac of course I am going to expect
"better". Otherwise the tradeoff with dealing with the proprietary 
nature of the Mac and it's cost simply son't make any sense.

     Now the problem of whether or not iTunes manages it's own video files
is a problem of Apple's own creation. Apple imposes heavy limits on what it's
media players can handle. Those media players are also very inflexible with
regards to what they can handle. They are "very picky". So that complicates
management quite a bit.

     So you have this negative feedback loop of users being encouraged to
be passive and ignorant, a piece of hardware that is more difficult to deal
with than it needs to be, and an application that doesn't adequately work
around that. All of this is in a tightly controlled "walled garden" sort of
setup.

     This is not like some 3rd party application having problems dealing
with a media player from yet another 3rd party. When you control the app,
the device and possibly the OS then the integration really should be 
better.

     With a less lame media player, I can use a converter that has no special
awareness of the media player in question. I can use the converter defaults 
and not bother scaling the video. Despite a total lack of integration, this 
ends up being a lot simpler to deal with.

-- 
     The difference between a monopoly and a "market leader" is       |||
     that you can simply ignore a "market leader" and be no worse    / | \
     for it.
    
0
jedi (14754)
7/7/2009 3:17:25 PM
In article <slrnh56po5.9sk.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2009-07-07, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrnh52nt7.1eb.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2009-07-06, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> > In article <slrnh50b77.a7v.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 2009-07-05, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> > In article <slrnh4vpn1.tjv.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On 2009-07-03, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >> > In article <h2lkll$t4f$03$1@news.t-online.com>,
> >> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> ZnU wrote:
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> > In article <h2kj08$d83$01$1@news.t-online.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> >> ZnU wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >> > In article <h2k8cu$l1m$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> >> >> >> [deletia]
> >> >> >> >> I tend to think that every OS which passes a certain complexity 
> >> >> >> >> *needs* a proper package management And those without tend to 
> >> >> >> >> make a 
> >> >> >> >> mess out of installing/deinstalling apps.
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> Like windows does. And OSX, too
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> And yes, I think it was done that way because apple was too 
> >> >> >> >> incompetent to see the need to look after software dependencies. 
> >> >> >> >> Which *needs* package management to function properly
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I have never encountered a dependency issue with native OS X 
> >> >> >> > software 
> >> >> >> > that could have been avoided with a Linux-style package management 
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >>     Support for non-Apple video formats.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >>     This is one area where Ubuntu shines and MacOS is a turd.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >>     An Ubuntu style package repository for all of the various QT
> >> >> >> extensions would be a very handy thing and would handily beat the
> >> >> >> current Apple approach to this (which is an incomplete web page).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Nice try, but this has absolutely nothing to do with dependancy 
> >> >> > issues.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     Sure it does.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     If you are going to decode an AVI then you need some library to 
> >> >>     handle
> >> >> decoding the AVI container. You may also need some other libraries to 
> >> >> handle
> >> >> dealing with the various codecs that may be encapsulated in the AVI 
> >> >> container.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     In Linux, that dealing with those library dependencies is handled 
> >> >>     by
> >> >> package managers. This is done automagically.
> >> >
> >> > If a video player attempts to find and install a codec when you open a 
> >> > file it can't decode, this is a feature of the video player. It may 
> >> 
> >>     Since Apple controls the system video player, this still goes straight
> >> back at Apple just as it does for Microsoft with WMP.
> >
> > Once this is about the video player rather than the package management 
> > system (which it is), it just becomes another discussion of your trivial 
> > pet peeves.
> 
>     You wouldn't portray it that way if the roles were reversed.
> 
>     It's also hardly trivial.
> 
>     This sort of nonsense coming from Apple Cheerleaders is why Apple
> products are such a constraining "walled garden" sort of experience to
> begin with.

This is such complete and utter nonsense. You're actually claiming the 
Mac is a "walled garden" because OS X doesn't have out-of-the-box 
support for a couple of video formats primarily used for Internet movie 
piracy. Which codecs, I'll note, are trivially installable by the user. 

The entire thing is absolutely ludicrous.

[snip]

> > You appear to have finally figured out that iLife is not designed for 
> > that use case. The answer, of course, is that there is no Apple 
> > application rip-mix-burn app for video. This is primarily the case 
> > because of the chilling effect on innovation of the DMCA. If DVDs were 
> > unencrypted like CDs, it's quite probable iTunes would have built-in 
> > ripping support.
> 
>     That excuses the ripping part only.
> 
>     That doesn't address the mix and burn part.
> 
>     iLife fails at that too and there's really no reason for it.

What *is* the "mix and burn" part with respect to video? Last time I 
checked, video "mix tapes" (or their digital equivalent) derived from 
remixing ripped commercial media were not especially common. You appear 
to have invented a nonexistent use case purely in order to criticize 
iLife for failing to address it.

[snip]

Your inane obsession with Apple's default set of codecs has been noted 
and repeatedly addressed.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
7/8/2009 4:56:52 AM
On Jun 30, 12:26=A0pm, Ezekiel <Z...@not-such-email-addr.com> wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > Mac4lin - Give that Mac OS X look to Linux

> http://linuxpoison.blogspot.com/2009/06/mac4lin-give-that-mac-os-x-lo...
>
> Yeah... OSX is so much uglier than Linux which is why this is yet another=
 on
> the long list of Linux apps & themes that attempts to copy-cat and mimic
> the OSX UI.
>
> Idiot.

Apple has done many things right.  First, they implemented the BSD
kernel, which was already ruled by the courts to be free of AT&T
code.  They also did a good job of putting an artistic touch to the
interface.  Far more important however, they were willing to ship the
machines without Windows.  They were willing to lease stores in
thousands of major shopping centers, and they trained their sales
staff to properly demonstrate OS/X and taught them how to address each
user's needs.  The result was that Microsoft was willing to allow
Apple to install Windows **AND** OS/X, giving Apple the ability to
provide far more value by offering the best of UNIX AND the best of
Windows.  In addition, Apple provided the ability to download Linux
compatibility features - giving Linux users the ability to run Linux
applications on OS/X.  Parallels and other Desktop Virtualization
options made it possible to run OS/X, Windows, AND Linux on the same
machine when the real OS was needed.

This is why Apple profits and stock prices have soared and Apple now
has the largest market share of any single manufacturer by Unit
volume, while Gateway went bankrupt, IBM dumped PCs to Lenovo because
PCs were losing so much money, and ASUS and Acer started offering
Netbooks running Linux.  CompUSA went bankrupt.  Circuit City went
bankrupt, both largely as a result of huge losses on stale inventory
in the PC market following the release of Vista.

> > They can look the same, but under the hood GNU/Linux is more powerful.

The problem is that the Linux still has to be installed by the End
User.  Linux still doesn't get displayed on the Retailer shelves.
There aren't Linux machines on display at major shopping malls.  There
aren't Linux machines that ALSO run Windows.

Windows is proof that the best technology doesn't have to win.  Mac
technology was superior, more reliable, and more secure, better
performing, and more stable than Windows, but it was also more
expensive.  Microsoft made sure that every store showed their PCs with
Windows pre-installed and ready to run.  They made sure that users
could use Windows and Office applications without needing a manual.
The context sensitive help was sometimes too helpful (dancing paper
clips) but it helped people learn faster ways to do common tasks.

> They can look the same, but one is a fake copy-cat that doesn't work the
> same as the real thing.

This is very true.  The Linux kernel is generally superior to the BSD
kernel, especially in multiprocessor demand-paged virtual memory
environments.  BSD kernels are getting better at SMP and NUMA, but are
still constrained because many contributors refuse to contribute to
BSD code which keeps ending up in Microsoft's hands with no
consideration going to the oriiginal authors, technical evangelists,
project coordinators, and other contributors.  Microsoft uses BSD code
in their WinSock library, in word, and in the kernel.  Many of the
enhancements and speed-ups in the Windows kernel from Windows 2000 on
seem to be based on the BSD model.  Even Microsoft's synergy project
seems to be motivated by the realization that the Linux and BSD kernel
context switching is about 10 times faster than even Vista or XP.  I
don't know if Synergy will be included in Windows 7, or if they might
use a fast-switching kernel based on UNIX code, which they purchased
from SCO in 2003, with now SCO restrictions, Microsoft could easily
convert the inner core to UNIX while mantaining the Windows APIs and
libraries.
..






0
rex.ballard (3732)
7/8/2009 6:12:01 AM
On 2009-07-08, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnh56po5.9sk.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-07-07, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article <slrnh52nt7.1eb.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2009-07-06, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> > In article <slrnh50b77.a7v.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 2009-07-05, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> > In article <slrnh4vpn1.tjv.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On 2009-07-03, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > In article <h2lkll$t4f$03$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> >> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> ZnU wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >> > In article <h2kj08$d83$01$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> >> >> ZnU wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >> >> > In article <h2k8cu$l1m$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
[deletia]
>> >>     Since Apple controls the system video player, this still goes straight
>> >> back at Apple just as it does for Microsoft with WMP.
>> >
>> > Once this is about the video player rather than the package management 
>> > system (which it is), it just becomes another discussion of your trivial 
>> > pet peeves.
>> 
>>     You wouldn't portray it that way if the roles were reversed.
>> 
>>     It's also hardly trivial.
>> 
>>     This sort of nonsense coming from Apple Cheerleaders is why Apple
>> products are such a constraining "walled garden" sort of experience to
>> begin with.
>
> This is such complete and utter nonsense. You're actually claiming the 
> Mac is a "walled garden" because OS X doesn't have out-of-the-box 
> support for a couple of video formats primarily used for Internet movie 
> piracy. Which codecs, I'll note, are trivially installable by the user. 

....here comes the excuse.

>
> The entire thing is absolutely ludicrous.

You could easily say the same thing about MP3. However, that's not really 
the point. AVI is the standard container format for Windows. That means it's
going to be pretty pervasive in general. 

You basically want to make weak excuses for ignoring the monopoly vendor's
standard. That certainly can't make things easy either for Windows users
or people trying to interact with them.

....like I said "Walled Garden".

>
> [snip]
>
>> > You appear to have finally figured out that iLife is not designed for 
>> > that use case. The answer, of course, is that there is no Apple 
>> > application rip-mix-burn app for video. This is primarily the case 
>> > because of the chilling effect on innovation of the DMCA. If DVDs were 
>> > unencrypted like CDs, it's quite probable iTunes would have built-in 
>> > ripping support.
>> 
>>     That excuses the ripping part only.
>> 
>>     That doesn't address the mix and burn part.
>> 
>>     iLife fails at that too and there's really no reason for it.
>
> What *is* the "mix and burn" part with respect to video? Last time I 
> checked, video "mix tapes" (or their digital equivalent) derived from 
> remixing ripped commercial media were not especially common. You appear 

    No. You're just way out of the loop.

[deletia]

    If it doesn't exist in your little walled garden then it doesn't
exist at all. That is the essense of the Apple mentality.

-- 
	On the subject of kilobyte being "redefined" to mean 1000 bytes...

        When I was a wee lad, I was taught that SI units were        |||
        meant to be computationally convenient rather than just     / | \
	arbitrarily assigned.
0
jedi (14754)
7/8/2009 2:56:59 PM
In article <slrnh59ctr.2fi.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2009-07-08, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrnh56po5.9sk.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2009-07-07, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> > In article <slrnh52nt7.1eb.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 2009-07-06, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> > In article <slrnh50b77.a7v.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On 2009-07-05, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >> > In article <slrnh4vpn1.tjv.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >> >> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> On 2009-07-03, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > In article <h2lkll$t4f$03$1@news.t-online.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> ZnU wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >> > In article <h2kj08$d83$01$1@news.t-online.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> >> >> ZnU wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > In article <h2k8cu$l1m$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> [deletia]
> >> >>     Since Apple controls the system video player, this still goes 
> >> >>     straight
> >> >> back at Apple just as it does for Microsoft with WMP.
> >> >
> >> > Once this is about the video player rather than the package management 
> >> > system (which it is), it just becomes another discussion of your trivial 
> >> > pet peeves.
> >> 
> >>     You wouldn't portray it that way if the roles were reversed.
> >> 
> >>     It's also hardly trivial.
> >> 
> >>     This sort of nonsense coming from Apple Cheerleaders is why Apple
> >> products are such a constraining "walled garden" sort of experience to
> >> begin with.
> >
> > This is such complete and utter nonsense. You're actually claiming the 
> > Mac is a "walled garden" because OS X doesn't have out-of-the-box 
> > support for a couple of video formats primarily used for Internet movie 
> > piracy. Which codecs, I'll note, are trivially installable by the user. 
> 
> ...here comes the excuse.
> 
> >
> > The entire thing is absolutely ludicrous.
> 
> You could easily say the same thing about MP3. However, that's not really 
> the point. AVI is the standard container format for Windows. That means it's
> going to be pretty pervasive in general. 

This is a nice theory, but it isn't especially true.

Most web video these days is delivered via Flash, not in AVI format.

If you turn to purchased downloadable video, there are two technologies 
being widely used: DRM-managed H.264, used by Apple (which, of course, 
OS X supports out of the box), and DRM-managed WMV, used by Microsoft 
and several licensees. It's true that the Mac can't play the latter, but 
it's a proprietary copy-protected format; not supporting it hardly 
demonstrates the Mac is a "walled garden".

Turning to physical distribution, DVD doesn't use AVI either.

What's notable about all of these cases is that OS X does substantially 
better than Linux. OS X ships with Flash pre-installed, while many Linux 
distros don't, because of licensing. OS X supports DRM'd H.264, but not 
DRM'd WMV; Linux doesn't support either one. OS X plays DVDs out of the 
box, and many Linux distros don't, again because of licensing issues.

There are only actually two cases where a typical consumer is likely to 
encounter non-DRM'd AVI files.

First, they're produced by some camcorders. The most common of these are 
probably the Flip line of camcorders. OS X is an officially supported 
platform for these cameras and they ship with software allowing footage 
to be ingested. And most of the newer Flip models actually shoot 
H.264/AAC in MP4 container files, which OS X supports out of the box.

Second, AVI with various MPEG-4 or H.264 derived codecs is a common 
format for pirated movies found on P2P networks. Bashing a platform 
because it requires you to spend 30 seconds installing a few codecs 
before it can play your pirated movies is utterly moronic.

It's also notable that third-parties can support not just new codecs by 
writing QuickTime components, but new container formats as well. Fall 
from constructing a "walled garden", Apple supports many 
industry-standard video formats out of the box, and provides an 
extensible architecture through which third-parties can support 
additional ones.

[snip]

> >>     That doesn't address the mix and burn part.
> >> 
> >>     iLife fails at that too and there's really no reason for it.
> >
> > What *is* the "mix and burn" part with respect to video? Last time I 
> > checked, video "mix tapes" (or their digital equivalent) derived from 
> > remixing ripped commercial media were not especially common. You appear 
> 
>     No. You're just way out of the loop.

Your complete lack of an answer is noted.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
7/8/2009 5:34:11 PM
In article 
<54126ae6-b466-4b94-a42e-7a6e34b9c96c@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
 Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 30, 12:26�pm, Ezekiel <Z...@not-such-email-addr.com> wrote:
> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > > Mac4lin - Give that Mac OS X look to Linux
> 
> > http://linuxpoison.blogspot.com/2009/06/mac4lin-give-that-mac-os-x-lo...
> >
> > Yeah... OSX is so much uglier than Linux which is why this is yet another on
> > the long list of Linux apps & themes that attempts to copy-cat and mimic
> > the OSX UI.
> >
> > Idiot.
> 
> Apple has done many things right.  First, they implemented the BSD
> kernel, which was already ruled by the courts to be free of AT&T
> code.

Sort of. The OS X kernel is actually a rather odd mix of Mach and BSD 
code. My understanding is it started out (back in the early NeXT days) 
as a more traditional microkernel system with a BSD personality hosted 
on top of it, but more and more BSD code has migrated into kernel space 
to avoid the cross-process messaging performance issues associated with 
microkernel architecture.

> They also did a good job of putting an artistic touch to the 
> interface.  Far more important however, they were willing to ship the 
> machines without Windows.  They were willing to lease stores in 
> thousands of major shopping centers, and they trained their sales 
> staff to properly demonstrate OS/X and taught them how to address 
> each user's needs.  The result was that Microsoft was willing to 
> allow Apple to install Windows **AND** OS/X, giving Apple the ability 
> to provide far more value by offering the best of UNIX AND the best 
> of Windows.

Apple doesn't actually sell Macs with Windows installed. If you have the 
right support package you can get a Genius at an Apple store to install 
Windows on your new Mac for you, if you don't feel comfortable doing it 
yourself. But this doesn't require any sort of special agreement with 
Microsoft. Apple doesn't have an OEM licensing relationship with 
Microsoft. Even if you're having a copy of Windows installed for you by 
a Genius, it's a copy of Windows that you bought independently, not a 
copy sold to Apple via OEM channels and resold to you. I don't think 
Apple even stocks retail copies of Windows in its stores.

Apple has been *very* careful not to create a situation where they 
become beholden to Microsoft for special Windows OEM pricing, the way 
other computer vendors have.

[snip]

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
7/8/2009 7:20:37 PM
On 2009-07-08, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnh59ctr.2fi.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-07-08, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article <slrnh56po5.9sk.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2009-07-07, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> > In article <slrnh52nt7.1eb.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 2009-07-06, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> > In article <slrnh50b77.a7v.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On 2009-07-05, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > In article <slrnh4vpn1.tjv.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >> >> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> On 2009-07-03, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > In article <h2lkll$t4f$03$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> ZnU wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >> >> > In article <h2kj08$d83$01$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ZnU wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > In article <h2k8cu$l1m$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> [deletia]
>> >> >>     Since Apple controls the system video player, this still goes 
>> >> >>     straight
>> >> >> back at Apple just as it does for Microsoft with WMP.
>> >> >
>> >> > Once this is about the video player rather than the package management 
>> >> > system (which it is), it just becomes another discussion of your trivial 
>> >> > pet peeves.
>> >> 
>> >>     You wouldn't portray it that way if the roles were reversed.
>> >> 
>> >>     It's also hardly trivial.
>> >> 
>> >>     This sort of nonsense coming from Apple Cheerleaders is why Apple
>> >> products are such a constraining "walled garden" sort of experience to
>> >> begin with.
>> >
>> > This is such complete and utter nonsense. You're actually claiming the 
>> > Mac is a "walled garden" because OS X doesn't have out-of-the-box 
>> > support for a couple of video formats primarily used for Internet movie 
>> > piracy. Which codecs, I'll note, are trivially installable by the user. 
>> 
>> ...here comes the excuse.
>> 
>> >
>> > The entire thing is absolutely ludicrous.
>> 
>> You could easily say the same thing about MP3. However, that's not really 
>> the point. AVI is the standard container format for Windows. That means it's
>> going to be pretty pervasive in general. 
>
> This is a nice theory, but it isn't especially true.
>
> Most web video these days is delivered via Flash, not in AVI format.

    So the world of video is nothing more than web pages is it?

    That's an interesting Apple-centric perspective you have there.

>
> If you turn to purchased downloadable video, there are two technologies 
> being widely used: DRM-managed H.264, used by Apple (which, of course, 
> OS X supports out of the box), and DRM-managed WMV, used by Microsoft 
> and several licensees. It's true that the Mac can't play the latter, but 
> it's a proprietary copy-protected format; not supporting it hardly 
> demonstrates the Mac is a "walled garden".

     Sure it does. Where is the non-encrypted WMV support?

>
> Turning to physical distribution, DVD doesn't use AVI either.

     It uses mpegps and a Mac doensn't know how to deal with that
either unless it's on disk. That's rather silly really. Stripping 
content from the physical medium should disable playback.

>
> What's notable about all of these cases is that OS X does substantially 
> better than Linux. OS X ships with Flash pre-installed, while many Linux 

     It does not.

> distros don't, because of licensing. OS X supports DRM'd H.264, but not 
> DRM'd WMV; Linux doesn't support either one. OS X plays DVDs out of the 

     Actually it does.

> box, and many Linux distros don't, again because of licensing issues.

     Which ones are those exactly?

>
> There are only actually two cases where a typical consumer is likely to 
> encounter non-DRM'd AVI files.
>
> First, they're produced by some camcorders. The most common of these are 
> probably the Flip line of camcorders. OS X is an officially supported 
> platform for these cameras and they ship with software allowing footage 
> to be ingested. And most of the newer Flip models actually shoot 
> H.264/AAC in MP4 container files, which OS X supports out of the box.
>
> Second, AVI with various MPEG-4 or H.264 derived codecs is a common 
> format for pirated movies found on P2P networks. Bashing a platform 
> because it requires you to spend 30 seconds installing a few codecs 
> before it can play your pirated movies is utterly moronic.

     If only it were that simple.

     Except it isn't and that's my point.

     MacOS is the tail end of the donkey when it comes to installing
these sorts of QT extension. It's absolutely DEAD LAST and doesn't 
even do as good of a job as Microsoft.

>
> It's also notable that third-parties can support not just new codecs by 
> writing QuickTime components, but new container formats as well. Fall 
> from constructing a "walled garden", Apple supports many 
> industry-standard video formats out of the box, and provides an 
> extensible architecture through which third-parties can support 
> additional ones.

      That's nice in theory until you try to actually go about installing
stuff. That's where the Macs fall down and that was rather the original
point.

>
> [snip]
>
>> >>     That doesn't address the mix and burn part.
>> >> 
>> >>     iLife fails at that too and there's really no reason for it.
>> >
>> > What *is* the "mix and burn" part with respect to video? Last time I 
>> > checked, video "mix tapes" (or their digital equivalent) derived from 
>> > remixing ripped commercial media were not especially common. You appear 
>> 
>>     No. You're just way out of the loop.
>
> Your complete lack of an answer is noted.

       Some things are just beyond belief. Your failure to acknowlege
the mixing scene goes beyond the pale. Now I will put this in more
blunt and succint terms.

       What does the Windows or Linux user who is a part of the mixing
scene do when they are presented with a free Macintosh?

       This is not not a rhetorical question.

-- 

     These Mac Fanboys want vi imposed on everyone.                   |||
                                                                     / | \
0
jedi (14754)
7/8/2009 8:14:41 PM
On 2009-07-08, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article 
><54126ae6-b466-4b94-a42e-7a6e34b9c96c@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
>  Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 30, 12:26 pm, Ezekiel <Z...@not-such-email-addr.com> wrote:
>> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
[deletia]
>> They also did a good job of putting an artistic touch to the 
>> interface.  Far more important however, they were willing to ship the 
>> machines without Windows.  They were willing to lease stores in 
>> thousands of major shopping centers, and they trained their sales 
>> staff to properly demonstrate OS/X and taught them how to address 
>> each user's needs.  The result was that Microsoft was willing to 
>> allow Apple to install Windows **AND** OS/X, giving Apple the ability 
>> to provide far more value by offering the best of UNIX AND the best 
>> of Windows.

....actually this exposes one of the big annoyances with Mac hardware.
They apply their NIH pretty pervasively and tend to try and act as if
no one else exists. They do so to the extent they think they can get
away with it acknowledging other formats really only when they have
to. This led to them using an alternate style boot loader on the Macs
which is just different enough to give other OSes fits.

   Apple did provide a means to operate in a sort of "compatability"
mode but that disables the ability to boot from MacOS.

[deletia]

   Apple makes nice cheap low profile boxes though.

   Although Dell's equivalent has much more interesting CPU options.

-- 

     These Mac Fanboys want vi imposed on everyone.                   |||
                                                                     / | \
0
jedi (14754)
7/8/2009 8:18:33 PM
In article <slrnh59vhh.ns3.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2009-07-08, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrnh59ctr.2fi.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2009-07-08, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> > In article <slrnh56po5.9sk.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 2009-07-07, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> > In article <slrnh52nt7.1eb.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On 2009-07-06, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >> > In article <slrnh50b77.a7v.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >> >> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> On 2009-07-05, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > In article <slrnh4vpn1.tjv.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >> >> >> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> On 2009-07-03, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> > In article <h2lkll$t4f$03$1@news.t-online.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> ZnU wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > In article <h2kj08$d83$01$1@news.t-online.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> 
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >  wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ZnU wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > In article 
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > <h2k8cu$l1m$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> 
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >  wrote:
> >> [deletia]
> >> >> >>     Since Apple controls the system video player, this still 
> >> >> >>     goes straight
> >> >> >> back at Apple just as it does for Microsoft with WMP.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Once this is about the video player rather than the package 
> >> >> > management system (which it is), it just becomes another 
> >> >> > discussion of your trivial pet peeves.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     You wouldn't portray it that way if the roles were 
> >> >>     reversed.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     It's also hardly trivial.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     This sort of nonsense coming from Apple Cheerleaders is why 
> >> >>     Apple
> >> >> products are such a constraining "walled garden" sort of 
> >> >> experience to begin with.
> >> >
> >> > This is such complete and utter nonsense. You're actually 
> >> > claiming the Mac is a "walled garden" because OS X doesn't have 
> >> > out-of-the-box support for a couple of video formats primarily 
> >> > used for Internet movie piracy. Which codecs, I'll note, are 
> >> > trivially installable by the user. 
> >> 
> >> ...here comes the excuse.
> >> 
> >> >
> >> > The entire thing is absolutely ludicrous.
> >> 
> >> You could easily say the same thing about MP3. However, that's not 
> >> really the point. AVI is the standard container format for 
> >> Windows. That means it's going to be pretty pervasive in general. 
> >
> > This is a nice theory, but it isn't especially true.
> >
> > Most web video these days is delivered via Flash, not in AVI 
> > format.
> 
> So the world of video is nothing more than web pages is it?
> 
> That's an interesting Apple-centric perspective you have there.

What exactly was the point of that response, when you know very well 
that the rest of the post addressed cases beyond web video? Many of your 
responses are essentially content-free filler, as if you believe that if 
you write *any* response at all, you're actually upholding your side of 
the argument.

> > If you turn to purchased downloadable video, there are two technologies 
> > being widely used: DRM-managed H.264, used by Apple (which, of course, 
> > OS X supports out of the box), and DRM-managed WMV, used by Microsoft 
> > and several licensees. It's true that the Mac can't play the latter, but 
> > it's a proprietary copy-protected format; not supporting it hardly 
> > demonstrates the Mac is a "walled garden".
> 
> Sure it does. Where is the non-encrypted WMV support?

First, that isn't a particularly common format for regular consumers to 
encounter. Second, even unencrypted WMV is a proprietary codec 
controlled by one of Apple's competitors, so again failing to support it 
does not represent Apple taking a "walled garden" approach unless one 
adopts a completely unreasonable standard.

There are officially licensed third-party QuickTime components that 
support unencrypted WMV, which as far as I'm aware means OS X still has 
better WMV support than Linux.

> > Turning to physical distribution, DVD doesn't use AVI either.
> 
>      It uses mpegps and a Mac doensn't know how to deal with that
> either unless it's on disk. That's rather silly really. Stripping 
> content from the physical medium should disable playback.

There is first-party software for working with MPEG-2 on the Mac outside 
of the context of DVD players. It costs money because Apple actually 
pays the relevant MPEG licensing fees, which most open source 
implementors do not. Some of those unlicensed open source tools are also 
available on OS X, of course.

> > What's notable about all of these cases is that OS X does substantially 
> > better than Linux. OS X ships with Flash pre-installed, while many Linux 
> 
>      It does not.

You're claiming that OS X doesn't ship with Flash installed? This is 
simply wrong, and I wonder how you came to think it was true.

> > distros don't, because of licensing. OS X supports DRM'd H.264, but not 
> > DRM'd WMV; Linux doesn't support either one. OS X plays DVDs out of the 
> 
> Actually it does.

Which Linux distros play DRM'd H.264 files or WMV files?

> > box, and many Linux distros don't, again because of licensing issues.
> 
> Which ones are those exactly?

Are you unaware of the legal issues surrounding DVD playback, 
particularly CSS?

> > There are only actually two cases where a typical consumer is likely to 
> > encounter non-DRM'd AVI files.
> >
> > First, they're produced by some camcorders. The most common of these are 
> > probably the Flip line of camcorders. OS X is an officially supported 
> > platform for these cameras and they ship with software allowing footage 
> > to be ingested. And most of the newer Flip models actually shoot 
> > H.264/AAC in MP4 container files, which OS X supports out of the box.
> >
> > Second, AVI with various MPEG-4 or H.264 derived codecs is a common 
> > format for pirated movies found on P2P networks. Bashing a platform 
> > because it requires you to spend 30 seconds installing a few codecs 
> > before it can play your pirated movies is utterly moronic.
> 
> If only it were that simple.
> 
> Except it isn't and that's my point.

Except that you can't explain how.

> MacOS is the tail end of the donkey when it comes to installing
> these sorts of QT extension. It's absolutely DEAD LAST and doesn't 
> even do as good of a job as Microsoft.

This is not actually the case. For example, Apple supports H.264 -- the 
closest thing the world presently has to an actual "standards based" 
modern video codec -- out of the box. Microsoft does not.

In point of fact, Apple has played a substantial role in pushing 
standards-based video, and has made major technical contributions as 
well, which hardly seems consistent with a "walled garden" approach to 
media formats.

> > It's also notable that third-parties can support not just new codecs by 
> > writing QuickTime components, but new container formats as well. Fall 
> > from constructing a "walled garden", Apple supports many 
> > industry-standard video formats out of the box, and provides an 
> > extensible architecture through which third-parties can support 
> > additional ones.
> 
> That's nice in theory until you try to actually go about installing
> stuff. That's where the Macs fall down and that was rather the original
> point.

There is nothing especially difficult about installing software on OS X.

> >> >>     That doesn't address the mix and burn part.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     iLife fails at that too and there's really no reason for 
> >> >>     it.
> >> >
> >> > What *is* the "mix and burn" part with respect to video? Last 
> >> > time I checked, video "mix tapes" (or their digital equivalent) 
> >> > derived from remixing ripped commercial media were not 
> >> > especially common. You appear 
> >> 
> >>     No. You're just way out of the loop.
> >
> > Your complete lack of an answer is noted.
> 
> Some things are just beyond belief. Your failure to acknowlege the 
> mixing scene goes beyond the pale. Now I will put this in more blunt 
> and succint terms.

I am aware that some people remix commercial video content in various 
ways. This is not a mainstream consumer use case and both the software 
that support it and the practice itself are legally problematic, and 
therefore unlikely to be included out of the box by systems controlled 
by entities which can be sued. No major Linux distro ships with software 
to defeat CSS copy protection as far as I'm aware, for instance.

> What does the Windows or Linux user who is a part of the mixing scene 
> do when they are presented with a free Macintosh?

They download the trivially discoverable software required to rip and 
remix commercial video content, the same as they have to do on Windows 
or Linux.

> This is not not a rhetorical question.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
7/8/2009 8:44:28 PM
On 2009-07-08, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnh59vhh.ns3.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-07-08, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article <slrnh59ctr.2fi.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2009-07-08, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> > In article <slrnh56po5.9sk.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 2009-07-07, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> > In article <slrnh52nt7.1eb.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On 2009-07-06, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > In article <slrnh50b77.a7v.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >> >> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> On 2009-07-05, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > In article <slrnh4vpn1.tjv.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >> >> >> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> On 2009-07-03, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> > In article <h2lkll$t4f$03$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ZnU wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > In article <h2kj08$d83$01$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> 
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >  wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ZnU wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > In article 
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > <h2k8cu$l1m$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >  Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> 
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >  wrote:
>> >> [deletia]
>> >> >> >>     Since Apple controls the system video player, this still 
>> >> >> >>     goes straight
>> >> >> >> back at Apple just as it does for Microsoft with WMP.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Once this is about the video player rather than the package 
>> >> >> > management system (which it is), it just becomes another 
>> >> >> > discussion of your trivial pet peeves.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>     You wouldn't portray it that way if the roles were 
>> >> >>     reversed.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>     It's also hardly trivial.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>     This sort of nonsense coming from Apple Cheerleaders is why 
>> >> >>     Apple
>> >> >> products are such a constraining "walled garden" sort of 
>> >> >> experience to begin with.
>> >> >
>> >> > This is such complete and utter nonsense. You're actually 
>> >> > claiming the Mac is a "walled garden" because OS X doesn't have 
>> >> > out-of-the-box support for a couple of video formats primarily 
>> >> > used for Internet movie piracy. Which codecs, I'll note, are 
>> >> > trivially installable by the user. 
>> >> 
>> >> ...here comes the excuse.
>> >> 
>> >> >
>> >> > The entire thing is absolutely ludicrous.
>> >> 
>> >> You could easily say the same thing about MP3. However, that's not 
>> >> really the point. AVI is the standard container format for 
>> >> Windows. That means it's going to be pretty pervasive in general. 
>> >
>> > This is a nice theory, but it isn't especially true.
>> >
>> > Most web video these days is delivered via Flash, not in AVI 
>> > format.
>> 
>> So the world of video is nothing more than web pages is it?
>> 
>> That's an interesting Apple-centric perspective you have there.
>
> What exactly was the point of that response, when you know very well 
> that the rest of the post addressed cases beyond web video? Many of your 
> responses are essentially content-free filler, as if you believe that if 
> you write *any* response at all, you're actually upholding your side of 
> the argument.

   Kid yourself if you like. I own Macs. I know the score. If you like
your walled garden that's ultimately your own lifestyle choice.

[deletia]
>> > Second, AVI with various MPEG-4 or H.264 derived codecs is a common 
>> > format for pirated movies found on P2P networks. Bashing a platform 
>> > because it requires you to spend 30 seconds installing a few codecs 
>> > before it can play your pirated movies is utterly moronic.
>> 
>> If only it were that simple.
>> 
>> Except it isn't and that's my point.
>
> Except that you can't explain how.

    Sure I can and I have done so.

    The Linux package managers make this pretty trivial in Linux if
you are doing it directly from the player or even from the package
manager directly.

    Windows does this first part in the player but doesn't have the
package manager to automate it. The end result is reasonable.

    In MacOS you just have the player send you to a dead end website
that's of no help or you are left to competely fend for yourself.

    The point being that it is certainly not a "30 second" operation
in MacOS. That's a highly dellusional bit of fantasy on your part.

>
>> MacOS is the tail end of the donkey when it comes to installing
>> these sorts of QT extension. It's absolutely DEAD LAST and doesn't 
>> even do as good of a job as Microsoft.
>
> This is not actually the case. For example, Apple supports H.264 -- the 
> closest thing the world presently has to an actual "standards based" 
> modern video codec -- out of the box. Microsoft does not.

    True, but MS makes a decent showing of remedying that problem
pretty easy.

>
> In point of fact, Apple has played a substantial role in pushing 
> standards-based video, and has made major technical contributions as 
> well, which hardly seems consistent with a "walled garden" approach to 
> media formats.

    No. Apple has pushed it's standards. That's rather different.

>
>> > It's also notable that third-parties can support not just new codecs by 
>> > writing QuickTime components, but new container formats as well. Fall 
>> > from constructing a "walled garden", Apple supports many 
>> > industry-standard video formats out of the box, and provides an 
>> > extensible architecture through which third-parties can support 
>> > additional ones.
>> 
>> That's nice in theory until you try to actually go about installing
>> stuff. That's where the Macs fall down and that was rather the original
>> point.
>
> There is nothing especially difficult about installing software on OS X.

    ...assuming you already know how it's supposed to be done.

    It's hardly intuitive. Your average Windows refugee isn't going to 
have any clue what they're supposed to do. The system doesn't make it
obvious or automate it.

    If Linux did the same thing, you would be the first to call it arcane.

>
>> >> >>     That doesn't address the mix and burn part.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>     iLife fails at that too and there's really no reason for 
>> >> >>     it.
>> >> >
>> >> > What *is* the "mix and burn" part with respect to video? Last 
>> >> > time I checked, video "mix tapes" (or their digital equivalent) 
>> >> > derived from remixing ripped commercial media were not 
>> >> > especially common. You appear 
>> >> 
>> >>     No. You're just way out of the loop.
>> >
>> > Your complete lack of an answer is noted.
>> 
>> Some things are just beyond belief. Your failure to acknowlege the 
>> mixing scene goes beyond the pale. Now I will put this in more blunt 
>> and succint terms.
>
> I am aware that some people remix commercial video content in various 
> ways. This is not a mainstream consumer use case and both the software 

    Not really.

    All it actually boils down to is being able to take any old video
file or source you might come across and be able to manipulate it and
take it apart and put it back together again.

    All that really requires is a flexible video editor.

> that support it and the practice itself are legally problematic, and 
> therefore unlikely to be included out of the box by systems controlled 
> by entities which can be sued. No major Linux distro ships with software 
> to defeat CSS copy protection as far as I'm aware, for instance.
>
>> What does the Windows or Linux user who is a part of the mixing scene 
>> do when they are presented with a free Macintosh?
>
> They download the trivially discoverable software required to rip and 
> remix commercial video content, the same as they have to do on Windows 
> or Linux.

    If it's so trivial to discover it then you really have no excuse for
not naming it.

    Now under Linux I can go to the package manager and type "video editor"
and browse the results. The idea of a CLI video editor is intriguing. I 
think I will install it while I finish typing this response.

>
>> This is not not a rhetorical question.
>


-- 
	Apple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is!      |||
								   / | \
0
jedi (14754)
7/8/2009 9:52:19 PM
In article <slrnh5a58j.nfq.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2009-07-08, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrnh59vhh.ns3.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

[snip]

> >> > Second, AVI with various MPEG-4 or H.264 derived codecs is a common 
> >> > format for pirated movies found on P2P networks. Bashing a platform 
> >> > because it requires you to spend 30 seconds installing a few codecs 
> >> > before it can play your pirated movies is utterly moronic.
> >> 
> >> If only it were that simple.
> >> 
> >> Except it isn't and that's my point.
> >
> > Except that you can't explain how.
> 
>     Sure I can and I have done so.
> 
>     The Linux package managers make this pretty trivial in Linux if
> you are doing it directly from the player or even from the package
> manager directly.
> 
>     Windows does this first part in the player but doesn't have the
> package manager to automate it. The end result is reasonable.
> 
>     In MacOS you just have the player send you to a dead end website
> that's of no help or you are left to competely fend for yourself.
> 
>     The point being that it is certainly not a "30 second" operation
> in MacOS. That's a highly dellusional bit of fantasy on your part.

a) Claiming that Apple takes a "walled garden" approach to media format 
playback on OS X because OS X doesn't have system-level support for 
software repositories is totally incoherent. Apple takes the same 
approach to installing new codecs as to installing all other software on 
the platform, and so it doesn't imply anything about how Apple feels 
about third-party codecs.

b) It is, in fact, trivially easy to find third-party video codecs for OS 
X. Do a Google search with the same of the codec and "OS X" or "Mac", and 
you'll usually find something obvious as the first or second result.

[snip]

> > In point of fact, Apple has played a substantial role in pushing 
> > standards-based video, and has made major technical contributions as 
> > well, which hardly seems consistent with a "walled garden" approach to 
> > media formats.
> 
> No. Apple has pushed it's standards. That's rather different.

Are you claiming Apple has not pushed for adoption of H.264? 

> >> > It's also notable that third-parties can support not just new codecs by 
> >> > writing QuickTime components, but new container formats as well. Fall 
> >> > from constructing a "walled garden", Apple supports many 
> >> > industry-standard video formats out of the box, and provides an 
> >> > extensible architecture through which third-parties can support 
> >> > additional ones.
> >> 
> >> That's nice in theory until you try to actually go about installing
> >> stuff. That's where the Macs fall down and that was rather the original
> >> point.
> >
> > There is nothing especially difficult about installing software on OS X.
> 
> ...assuming you already know how it's supposed to be done.
> 
> It's hardly intuitive. Your average Windows refugee isn't going to 
> have any clue what they're supposed to do. The system doesn't make it
> obvious or automate it.

Already refuted in 
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/008b4b2c57a1e61b
and related posts in that thread.

[snip]

> >> What does the Windows or Linux user who is a part of the mixing scene 
> >> do when they are presented with a free Macintosh?
> >
> > They download the trivially discoverable software required to rip and 
> > remix commercial video content, the same as they have to do on Windows 
> > or Linux.
> 
> If it's so trivial to discover it then you really have no excuse for
> not naming it.

Under some interpretations of the DMCA it might actually be illegal for 
me to do so. Do a Google search of "mac rip dvd". You'll find what you're 
looking for within the first three or four Google results.

> Now under Linux I can go to the package manager and type "video editor"
> and browse the results.

You seem to believe finding software via package management interfaces is 
vastly easier than finding it via Google searches or by searching on 
sites like VersionTracker. This is not really particularly sensible. I 
think an average computer users would be far more confused by the fact 
that most Linux software can't be easily installed by simply downloading 
something from the developer's web site.

> The idea of a CLI video editor is intriguing. I think I will install 
> it while I finish typing this response.

Good luck with that.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
7/8/2009 10:32:50 PM
On 2009-07-08, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnh5a58j.nfq.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-07-08, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article <slrnh59vhh.ns3.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> >> > Second, AVI with various MPEG-4 or H.264 derived codecs is a common 
>> >> > format for pirated movies found on P2P networks. Bashing a platform 
>> >> > because it requires you to spend 30 seconds installing a few codecs 
>> >> > before it can play your pirated movies is utterly moronic.
>> >> 
>> >> If only it were that simple.
>> >> 
>> >> Except it isn't and that's my point.
>> >
>> > Except that you can't explain how.
>> 
>>     Sure I can and I have done so.
>> 
>>     The Linux package managers make this pretty trivial in Linux if
>> you are doing it directly from the player or even from the package
>> manager directly.
>> 
>>     Windows does this first part in the player but doesn't have the
>> package manager to automate it. The end result is reasonable.
>> 
>>     In MacOS you just have the player send you to a dead end website
>> that's of no help or you are left to competely fend for yourself.
>> 
>>     The point being that it is certainly not a "30 second" operation
>> in MacOS. That's a highly dellusional bit of fantasy on your part.
>
> a) Claiming that Apple takes a "walled garden" approach to media format 
> playback on OS X because OS X doesn't have system-level support for 
> software repositories is totally incoherent. Apple takes the same 

    You don't don't have a better explanation for why it's easier to
do this on WINDOWS and LINUX .

> approach to installing new codecs as to installing all other software on 
> the platform, and so it doesn't imply anything about how Apple feels 
> about third-party codecs.

    Yes... the fact that Microsoft actually points you to ffmpeg plugins
for WMP doesn't actually imply anything about how Microsoft feels about
such 3rd party codecs.

[deletia]

>> > remix commercial video content, the same as they have to do on Windows 
>> > or Linux.
>> 
>> If it's so trivial to discover it then you really have no excuse for
>> not naming it.
>
> Under some interpretations of the DMCA it might actually be illegal for 
> me to do so. Do a Google search of "mac rip dvd". You'll find what you're 

    It depends on the DVD really.

    There's also jurisdiction to consider.

    Considering that you are trying to champion a platform that has as one
of it's key selling point the creation of DVD's this is something that should
be obvious enough even without getting into Criterion material.

> looking for within the first three or four Google results.
>
>> Now under Linux I can go to the package manager and type "video editor"
>> and browse the results.
>
> You seem to believe finding software via package management interfaces is 
> vastly easier than finding it via Google searches or by searching on 
> sites like VersionTracker. This is not really particularly sensible. I 

    You really have no argument here.

> think an average computer users would be far more confused by the fact 
> that most Linux software can't be easily installed by simply downloading 
> something from the developer's web site.

    The average user has to FIND the developer's website first.

>
>> The idea of a CLI video editor is intriguing. I think I will install 
>> it while I finish typing this response.
>
> Good luck with that.
>

    You never did answer the question about the universal video editor.

    I guess I will just have to go on assuming that no such beast exists
for MacOS (and yes I did try looking for it). 

    As much as it pains me to say it this is at least one thing that Microsoft 
itself has gotten right over the years. They have always tried to accomodate 
the data of other companies. Of course it was there to lure you into their 
own little "walled garden" but it is still something.

    Apple doesn't even do well with legacy mp3 files.

-- 

    MSOffice is completely unremarkable except for the fact          ||| 
    that it is most compatable with itself.                         / | \
0
jedi (14754)
7/9/2009 1:50:35 PM
In article <slrnh5btdb.jud.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2009-07-08, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrnh5a58j.nfq.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2009-07-08, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> > In article <slrnh59vhh.ns3.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> >> > Second, AVI with various MPEG-4 or H.264 derived codecs is a common 
> >> >> > format for pirated movies found on P2P networks. Bashing a platform 
> >> >> > because it requires you to spend 30 seconds installing a few codecs 
> >> >> > before it can play your pirated movies is utterly moronic.
> >> >> 
> >> >> If only it were that simple.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Except it isn't and that's my point.
> >> >
> >> > Except that you can't explain how.
> >> 
> >>     Sure I can and I have done so.
> >> 
> >>     The Linux package managers make this pretty trivial in Linux if
> >> you are doing it directly from the player or even from the package
> >> manager directly.
> >> 
> >>     Windows does this first part in the player but doesn't have the
> >> package manager to automate it. The end result is reasonable.
> >> 
> >>     In MacOS you just have the player send you to a dead end website
> >> that's of no help or you are left to competely fend for yourself.
> >> 
> >>     The point being that it is certainly not a "30 second" operation
> >> in MacOS. That's a highly dellusional bit of fantasy on your part.
> >
> > a) Claiming that Apple takes a "walled garden" approach to media format 
> > playback on OS X because OS X doesn't have system-level support for 
> > software repositories is totally incoherent. Apple takes the same 
> 
>     You don't don't have a better explanation for why it's easier to
> do this on WINDOWS and LINUX .

Incoherent.

> > approach to installing new codecs as to installing all other software on 
> > the platform, and so it doesn't imply anything about how Apple feels 
> > about third-party codecs.
> 
>     Yes... the fact that Microsoft actually points you to ffmpeg plugins
> for WMP doesn't actually imply anything about how Microsoft feels about
> such 3rd party codecs.

What's your point?

> [deletia]
> 
> >> > remix commercial video content, the same as they have to do on Windows 
> >> > or Linux.
> >> 
> >> If it's so trivial to discover it then you really have no excuse for
> >> not naming it.
> >
> > Under some interpretations of the DMCA it might actually be illegal for 
> > me to do so. Do a Google search of "mac rip dvd". You'll find what you're 
> 
>     It depends on the DVD really.
> 
>     There's also jurisdiction to consider.
> 
>     Considering that you are trying to champion a platform that has as one
> of it's key selling point the creation of DVD's this is something that should
> be obvious enough even without getting into Criterion material.

Incoherent. OS X's included DVD creation tools are not intended for 
manipulating content found on commercial DVDs, but for consumers to 
create DVDs with footage they shoot with their own camcorders.

> > looking for within the first three or four Google results.
> >
> >> Now under Linux I can go to the package manager and type "video editor"
> >> and browse the results.
> >
> > You seem to believe finding software via package management interfaces is 
> > vastly easier than finding it via Google searches or by searching on 
> > sites like VersionTracker. This is not really particularly sensible. I 
> 
>     You really have no argument here.

You really have no response here.

> > think an average computer users would be far more confused by the fact 
> > that most Linux software can't be easily installed by simply downloading 
> > something from the developer's web site.
> 
>     The average user has to FIND the developer's website first.

Mac users do not generally appear to have any trouble locating software.

> >> The idea of a CLI video editor is intriguing. I think I will install 
> >> it while I finish typing this response.
> >
> > Good luck with that.
> >
> 
>     You never did answer the question about the universal video editor.

What are you talking about?

>     I guess I will just have to go on assuming that no such beast exists
> for MacOS (and yes I did try looking for it). 
> 
>     As much as it pains me to say it this is at least one thing that 
>     Microsoft 
> itself has gotten right over the years. They have always tried to accomodate 
> the data of other companies. Of course it was there to lure you into their 
> own little "walled garden" but it is still something.
> 
>     Apple doesn't even do well with legacy mp3 files.

You're literally obsessed with a handful of trivial issues that you 
raise literally every time OS X is mentioned, regardless of whether 
they're relevant to the context. It's one of the strangest things I've 
ever seen on Usenet.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
7/9/2009 2:16:23 PM
On 2009-07-09, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnh5btdb.jud.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-07-08, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article <slrnh5a58j.nfq.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2009-07-08, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> > In article <slrnh59vhh.ns3.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> >> >> > Second, AVI with various MPEG-4 or H.264 derived codecs is a common 
>> >> >> > format for pirated movies found on P2P networks. Bashing a platform 
>> >> >> > because it requires you to spend 30 seconds installing a few codecs 
>> >> >> > before it can play your pirated movies is utterly moronic.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> If only it were that simple.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Except it isn't and that's my point.
>> >> >
>> >> > Except that you can't explain how.
>> >> 
>> >>     Sure I can and I have done so.
>> >> 
>> >>     The Linux package managers make this pretty trivial in Linux if
>> >> you are doing it directly from the player or even from the package
>> >> manager directly.
>> >> 
>> >>     Windows does this first part in the player but doesn't have the
>> >> package manager to automate it. The end result is reasonable.
>> >> 
>> >>     In MacOS you just have the player send you to a dead end website
>> >> that's of no help or you are left to competely fend for yourself.
>> >> 
>> >>     The point being that it is certainly not a "30 second" operation
>> >> in MacOS. That's a highly dellusional bit of fantasy on your part.
>> >
>> > a) Claiming that Apple takes a "walled garden" approach to media format 
>> > playback on OS X because OS X doesn't have system-level support for 
>> > software repositories is totally incoherent. Apple takes the same 
>> 
>>     You don't don't have a better explanation for why it's easier to
>> do this on WINDOWS and LINUX .
>
> Incoherent.

    It's a great paradox.

    Mac users aren't supposed to be capable of organizing their own
files with the Finder or browse the storage on a digital camera yet 
they can be expected to track down their own QT extensions with no 
real help from Apple.

[deletia]

    If I give someone some media and I think there is some significant
chance they might have trouble reading it I actually go to the trouble
of providing what they might need to open the relevant files. I don't
just leave them to fend for themselves.

    Obviously "Apple knows better".

-- 
	The social cost of suing/prosecuting individuals           ||| 
for non-commercial copyright infringement far outweighs           / | \
the social value of copyright to begin with.


0
jedi (14754)
7/10/2009 2:26:15 AM
JEDIDIAH stated in post slrnh5d9m7.d2f.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 7/9/09 7:26 PM:

>>>     You don't don't have a better explanation for why it's easier to
>>> do this on WINDOWS and LINUX .
>> 
>> Incoherent.
> 
>     It's a great paradox.
> 
>     Mac users aren't supposed to be capable of organizing their own
> files with the Finder

Why are they not supposed to be capable of doing that?

> or browse the storage on a digital camera

Again... what?  

You are confused: OS X makes it easy for novice and non-techie users who do
not know how to do such thing, but OS X actually *helps* users learn such
navigation better than, say, Windows or Gnome or KDE.  So Mac users, all
else being equal, are likely more capable of doing such.  Of course - not
all is "equal" in that area: Linux users are self-selected group of people
who, on average, are going to be more technical.

> yet they can be expected to track down their own QT extensions with no real
> help from Apple.

Some can.  Some cannot.  Wish Apple did a bit more in that area - they push
their own stuff more than I think is best for the user.

> 
> [deletia]
> 
>     If I give someone some media and I think there is some significant
> chance they might have trouble reading it I actually go to the trouble
> of providing what they might need to open the relevant files. I don't
> just leave them to fend for themselves.
> 
>     Obviously "Apple knows better".

What?  Huh?  


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


0
usenet2 (47889)
7/10/2009 3:10:46 AM
In article <slrnh5d9m7.d2f.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2009-07-09, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrnh5btdb.jud.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2009-07-08, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> > In article <slrnh5a58j.nfq.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 2009-07-08, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> > In article <slrnh59vhh.ns3.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > [snip]
> >> >
> >> >> >> > Second, AVI with various MPEG-4 or H.264 derived codecs is a 
> >> >> >> > common 
> >> >> >> > format for pirated movies found on P2P networks. Bashing a 
> >> >> >> > platform 
> >> >> >> > because it requires you to spend 30 seconds installing a few 
> >> >> >> > codecs 
> >> >> >> > before it can play your pirated movies is utterly moronic.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> If only it were that simple.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Except it isn't and that's my point.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Except that you can't explain how.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     Sure I can and I have done so.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     The Linux package managers make this pretty trivial in Linux if
> >> >> you are doing it directly from the player or even from the package
> >> >> manager directly.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     Windows does this first part in the player but doesn't have the
> >> >> package manager to automate it. The end result is reasonable.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     In MacOS you just have the player send you to a dead end website
> >> >> that's of no help or you are left to competely fend for yourself.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     The point being that it is certainly not a "30 second" operation
> >> >> in MacOS. That's a highly dellusional bit of fantasy on your part.
> >> >
> >> > a) Claiming that Apple takes a "walled garden" approach to media format 
> >> > playback on OS X because OS X doesn't have system-level support for 
> >> > software repositories is totally incoherent. Apple takes the same 
> >> 
> >>     You don't don't have a better explanation for why it's easier to
> >> do this on WINDOWS and LINUX .
> >
> > Incoherent.
> 
>     It's a great paradox.
> 
>     Mac users aren't supposed to be capable of organizing their own
> files with the Finder or browse the storage on a digital camera

I'm not sure where you got the idea that Mac users aren't supposed to be 
capable of organizing their own files. If you're talking about 
organizing photos, the reason this is better done through an app like 
iPhoto is that it provides many conveniences for managing large numbers 
of photos that the Finder does not.

> yet they can be expected to track down their own QT extensions with 
> no real help from Apple.

Anyone who can use Google isn't going to have much trouble. And one has 
to consider that the sort of user who's looking for codecs to play the 
movies he just got from BitTorrent (which is mostly what we're talking 
about here) is going to be more tech savvy than the average user already.

[snip]

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
7/10/2009 1:34:14 PM
On 2009-07-10, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnh5d9m7.d2f.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-07-09, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article <slrnh5btdb.jud.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2009-07-08, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> > In article <slrnh5a58j.nfq.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 2009-07-08, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> > In article <slrnh59vhh.ns3.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > [snip]
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Second, AVI with various MPEG-4 or H.264 derived codecs is a 
>> >> >> >> > common 
>> >> >> >> > format for pirated movies found on P2P networks. Bashing a 
>> >> >> >> > platform 
>> >> >> >> > because it requires you to spend 30 seconds installing a few 
>> >> >> >> > codecs 
>> >> >> >> > before it can play your pirated movies is utterly moronic.
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> If only it were that simple.
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> Except it isn't and that's my point.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Except that you can't explain how.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>     Sure I can and I have done so.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>     The Linux package managers make this pretty trivial in Linux if
>> >> >> you are doing it directly from the player or even from the package
>> >> >> manager directly.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>     Windows does this first part in the player but doesn't have the
>> >> >> package manager to automate it. The end result is reasonable.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>     In MacOS you just have the player send you to a dead end website
>> >> >> that's of no help or you are left to competely fend for yourself.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>     The point being that it is certainly not a "30 second" operation
>> >> >> in MacOS. That's a highly dellusional bit of fantasy on your part.
>> >> >
>> >> > a) Claiming that Apple takes a "walled garden" approach to media format 
>> >> > playback on OS X because OS X doesn't have system-level support for 
>> >> > software repositories is totally incoherent. Apple takes the same 
>> >> 
>> >>     You don't don't have a better explanation for why it's easier to
>> >> do this on WINDOWS and LINUX .
>> >
>> > Incoherent.
>> 
>>     It's a great paradox.
>> 
>>     Mac users aren't supposed to be capable of organizing their own
>> files with the Finder or browse the storage on a digital camera
>
> I'm not sure where you got the idea that Mac users aren't supposed to be 
> capable of organizing their own files. If you're talking about 
> organizing photos, the reason this is better done through an app like 
> iPhoto is that it provides many conveniences for managing large numbers 
> of photos that the Finder does not.

....yes. "conveniences" like stripping off the original file structure
that thoes pictures were found in, lumping any 20th century pictures
all on one pile and lumping newer pictures together only by year.

That's just wonderful.

>
>> yet they can be expected to track down their own QT extensions with 
>> no real help from Apple.
>
> Anyone who can use Google isn't going to have much trouble. And one has 
> to consider that the sort of user who's looking for codecs to play the 
> movies he just got from BitTorrent (which is mostly what we're talking 
> about here) is going to be more tech savvy than the average user already.

    Still trying to slander the power user...

>
> [snip]
>


-- 
     It's great to run an OS where you have to search Google          ||| 
     to find problems rather than experiencing them yourself.        / | \
0
jedi (14754)
7/13/2009 3:57:31 PM
In article <slrnh5mmbb.i42.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2009-07-10, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrnh5d9m7.d2f.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> >> Mac users aren't supposed to be capable of organizing their own
> >> files with the Finder or browse the storage on a digital camera
> >
> > I'm not sure where you got the idea that Mac users aren't supposed to be 
> > capable of organizing their own files. If you're talking about 
> > organizing photos, the reason this is better done through an app like 
> > iPhoto is that it provides many conveniences for managing large numbers 
> > of photos that the Finder does not.
> 
> ...yes. "conveniences" like stripping off the original file structure
> that thoes pictures were found in, lumping any 20th century pictures
> all on one pile and lumping newer pictures together only by year.
> 
> That's just wonderful.

And yet again you reveal that you're utterly incapable of evaluating the 
merits of anything except through the lens of your esoteric personal 
preferences.

> >> yet they can be expected to track down their own QT extensions with 
> >> no real help from Apple.
> >
> > Anyone who can use Google isn't going to have much trouble. And one has 
> > to consider that the sort of user who's looking for codecs to play the 
> > movies he just got from BitTorrent (which is mostly what we're talking 
> > about here) is going to be more tech savvy than the average user already.
> 
>     Still trying to slander the power user...

The only remotely coherent interpretation of that response I can come up 
with is that I noted that Internet movies pirates are more like to be 
tech savvy, and you think this is equivalent to saying that tech savvy 
users are likely to be pirates. This is a logical error equivalent to 
the following illustration of fallacious reasoning from your Logic 101 
textbook:

1) All men are mortal.
2) Socrates is a man.
3) Therefore, all men are Socrates.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
7/13/2009 4:42:18 PM
On 2009-07-13, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnh5mmbb.i42.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-07-10, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article <slrnh5d9m7.d2f.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> >> Mac users aren't supposed to be capable of organizing their own
>> >> files with the Finder or browse the storage on a digital camera
>> >
>> > I'm not sure where you got the idea that Mac users aren't supposed to be 
>> > capable of organizing their own files. If you're talking about 
>> > organizing photos, the reason this is better done through an app like 
>> > iPhoto is that it provides many conveniences for managing large numbers 
>> > of photos that the Finder does not.
>> 
>> ...yes. "conveniences" like stripping off the original file structure
>> that thoes pictures were found in, lumping any 20th century pictures
>> all on one pile and lumping newer pictures together only by year.
>> 
>> That's just wonderful.
>
> And yet again you reveal that you're utterly incapable of evaluating the 
> merits of anything except through the lens of your esoteric personal 
> preferences.

    Of course I am going to judge things based on MY PERSONAL PREFERENCES
you moron. I use software to SUIT ME. It is supposed to adapt to me and
not the other way around.

    Yes, it's just so "esoteric" that I would want the various sets of
pictures that I have taken over the last year to remain separate and
apart from each other and not just be mixed "willy nilly" with every
thing else.

[deletia]
 
-- 
	Nothing quite gives you an understanding of Oracle's         |||
	continued popularity as does an attempt to do some          / | \ 
	simple date manipulations in postgres.
0
jedi (14754)
7/13/2009 5:51:10 PM
In article <slrnh5mt0e.6l5.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2009-07-13, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrnh5mmbb.i42.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2009-07-10, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> > In article <slrnh5d9m7.d2f.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> >> Mac users aren't supposed to be capable of organizing their own
> >> >> files with the Finder or browse the storage on a digital camera
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure where you got the idea that Mac users aren't supposed to be 
> >> > capable of organizing their own files. If you're talking about 
> >> > organizing photos, the reason this is better done through an app like 
> >> > iPhoto is that it provides many conveniences for managing large numbers 
> >> > of photos that the Finder does not.
> >> 
> >> ...yes. "conveniences" like stripping off the original file structure
> >> that thoes pictures were found in, lumping any 20th century pictures
> >> all on one pile and lumping newer pictures together only by year.
> >> 
> >> That's just wonderful.
> >
> > And yet again you reveal that you're utterly incapable of evaluating the 
> > merits of anything except through the lens of your esoteric personal 
> > preferences.
> 
>     Of course I am going to judge things based on MY PERSONAL PREFERENCES
> you moron. I use software to SUIT ME. It is supposed to adapt to me and
> not the other way around.
> 
>     Yes, it's just so "esoteric" that I would want the various sets of
> pictures that I have taken over the last year to remain separate and
> apart from each other and not just be mixed "willy nilly" with every
> thing else.

So you evidently don't actually know how to use iPhoto.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
znu (10395)
7/14/2009 12:13:58 AM
ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> writes:

> In article <slrnh5mt0e.6l5.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-07-13, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article <slrnh5mmbb.i42.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2009-07-10, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> > In article <slrnh5d9m7.d2f.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> Mac users aren't supposed to be capable of organizing their own
>> >> >> files with the Finder or browse the storage on a digital camera
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm not sure where you got the idea that Mac users aren't supposed to be 
>> >> > capable of organizing their own files. If you're talking about 
>> >> > organizing photos, the reason this is better done through an app like 
>> >> > iPhoto is that it provides many conveniences for managing large numbers 
>> >> > of photos that the Finder does not.
>> >> 
>> >> ...yes. "conveniences" like stripping off the original file structure
>> >> that thoes pictures were found in, lumping any 20th century pictures
>> >> all on one pile and lumping newer pictures together only by year.
>> >> 
>> >> That's just wonderful.
>> >
>> > And yet again you reveal that you're utterly incapable of evaluating the 
>> > merits of anything except through the lens of your esoteric personal 
>> > preferences.
>> 
>>     Of course I am going to judge things based on MY PERSONAL PREFERENCES
>> you moron. I use software to SUIT ME. It is supposed to adapt to me and
>> not the other way around.
>> 
>>     Yes, it's just so "esoteric" that I would want the various sets of
>> pictures that I have taken over the last year to remain separate and
>> apart from each other and not just be mixed "willy nilly" with every
>> thing else.
>
> So you evidently don't actually know how to use iPhoto.

Why argue with Jeb? Jeb doesn't understand the need for multiple
monitors for example. He is clueless.

-- 
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/windows-emulation/wine-faq/

"Nope, we know what an emulator does, and wine doesn't." - AH
 ** http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/dec7cb073d761af4
0
hadronquark (21814)
7/14/2009 9:27:22 AM
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:27:22 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> writes:
> 
>> In article <slrnh5mt0e.6l5.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-07-13, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>>> > In article <slrnh5mmbb.i42.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>>> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On 2009-07-10, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>>> >> > In article <slrnh5d9m7.d2f.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>>> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> >> Mac users aren't supposed to be capable of organizing their own
>>> >> >> files with the Finder or browse the storage on a digital camera
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I'm not sure where you got the idea that Mac users aren't supposed to be 
>>> >> > capable of organizing their own files. If you're talking about 
>>> >> > organizing photos, the reason this is better done through an app like 
>>> >> > iPhoto is that it provides many conveniences for managing large numbers 
>>> >> > of photos that the Finder does not.
>>> >> 
>>> >> ...yes. "conveniences" like stripping off the original file structure
>>> >> that thoes pictures were found in, lumping any 20th century pictures
>>> >> all on one pile and lumping newer pictures together only by year.
>>> >> 
>>> >> That's just wonderful.
>>> >
>>> > And yet again you reveal that you're utterly incapable of evaluating the 
>>> > merits of anything except through the lens of your esoteric personal 
>>> > preferences.
>>> 
>>>     Of course I am going to judge things based on MY PERSONAL PREFERENCES
>>> you moron. I use software to SUIT ME. It is supposed to adapt to me and
>>> not the other way around.
>>> 
>>>     Yes, it's just so "esoteric" that I would want the various sets of
>>> pictures that I have taken over the last year to remain separate and
>>> apart from each other and not just be mixed "willy nilly" with every
>>> thing else.
>>
>> So you evidently don't actually know how to use iPhoto.
> 
> Why argue with Jeb? Jeb doesn't understand the need for multiple
> monitors for example. He is clueless.

Jeb is like some fossil or artifact that was dug up from the
ground and plopped into the present.

If it were 1900 he would be the guy standing on the street
corner babbling about how horse-less carriages would never catch
on with the public and how man has no need to fly when he can
float via a boat.

Jeb is the antithesis of people like Linus, Gates, Negroponte
and others who are visionary's.
0
moshegoldfarb (3146)
7/14/2009 3:30:31 PM
On 2009-07-14, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> writes:
>
>> In article <slrnh5mt0e.6l5.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-07-13, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>>> > In article <slrnh5mmbb.i42.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>>> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On 2009-07-10, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>>> >> > In article <slrnh5d9m7.d2f.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>>> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> >> Mac users aren't supposed to be capable of organizing their own
>>> >> >> files with the Finder or browse the storage on a digital camera
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I'm not sure where you got the idea that Mac users aren't supposed to be 
>>> >> > capable of organizing their own files. If you're talking about 
>>> >> > organizing photos, the reason this is better done through an app like 
>>> >> > iPhoto is that it provides many conveniences for managing large numbers 
>>> >> > of photos that the Finder does not.
>>> >> 
>>> >> ...yes. "conveniences" like stripping off the original file structure
>>> >> that thoes pictures were found in, lumping any 20th century pictures
>>> >> all on one pile and lumping newer pictures together only by year.
>>> >> 
>>> >> That's just wonderful.
>>> >
>>> > And yet again you reveal that you're utterly incapable of evaluating the 
>>> > merits of anything except through the lens of your esoteric personal 
>>> > preferences.
>>> 
>>>     Of course I am going to judge things based on MY PERSONAL PREFERENCES
>>> you moron. I use software to SUIT ME. It is supposed to adapt to me and
>>> not the other way around.
>>> 
>>>     Yes, it's just so "esoteric" that I would want the various sets of
>>> pictures that I have taken over the last year to remain separate and
>>> apart from each other and not just be mixed "willy nilly" with every
>>> thing else.
>>
>> So you evidently don't actually know how to use iPhoto.

     So tell us how would one use iPhoto in that manner that would
not be more work and a royal pain in the ass when compared to just
dragging and dropping things around?

     Also, the fact that "I don't know how" is hardly a good reflection on
iPhoto either. If I need a manual bigger than the ones that come with VMS
then the whole "it's easier" nonsense flies out the window.

>
> Why argue with Jeb? Jeb doesn't understand the need for multiple
> monitors for example. He is clueless.

    My UI is not crap and individual apps don't try to take over the
entire screen. So yeah, my "need" for more than one monitor is a lot
less apparent in Linux.

    After 5 minutes using Windows I can certainly see why Lemmings
might want more than one monitor.

-- 

	Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire,     
	is genuinely new: culture, like science and              |||
	technology grows by accretion, each new creator         / | \
	building on the works of those that came before.

				 Judge Alex Kozinski
				 US Court of Appeals
				 9th Circuit

0
jedi (14754)
7/14/2009 3:32:39 PM
On 2009-07-14, Moshe Goldfarb <moshegoldfarb@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:27:22 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> writes:
>> 
>>> In article <slrnh5mt0e.6l5.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>>>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-07-13, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>>>> > In article <slrnh5mmbb.i42.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>>>> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 2009-07-10, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >> > In article <slrnh5d9m7.d2f.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>>>> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
[deletia]
>>>>     Of course I am going to judge things based on MY PERSONAL PREFERENCES
>>>> you moron. I use software to SUIT ME. It is supposed to adapt to me and
>>>> not the other way around.
>>>> 
>>>>     Yes, it's just so "esoteric" that I would want the various sets of
>>>> pictures that I have taken over the last year to remain separate and
>>>> apart from each other and not just be mixed "willy nilly" with every
>>>> thing else.
>>>
>>> So you evidently don't actually know how to use iPhoto.

....great. Another variant of "blame the user".

That doesn't work so well for the easy OS designed by HID wizards.

>> 
>> Why argue with Jeb? Jeb doesn't understand the need for multiple
>> monitors for example. He is clueless.
>
> Jeb is like some fossil or artifact that was dug up from the
> ground and plopped into the present.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true.

[deletia]

Your stupid inane ramblings are all the more ironic given what
we're arguing about in this thread. It's sort of a self-nuke
(of you).

-- 

	Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire,     
	is genuinely new: culture, like science and              |||
	technology grows by accretion, each new creator         / | \
	building on the works of those that came before.

				 Judge Alex Kozinski
				 US Court of Appeals
				 9th Circuit

0
jedi (14754)
7/14/2009 4:02:05 PM
JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2009-07-14, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> In article <slrnh5mt0e.6l5.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>>>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>>

>> Why argue with Jeb? Jeb doesn't understand the need for multiple
>> monitors for example. He is clueless.
> 
>     My UI is not crap and individual apps don't try to take over the
> entire screen. So yeah, my "need" for more than one monitor is a lot
> less apparent in Linux.
> 
>     After 5 minutes using Windows I can certainly see why Lemmings
> might want more than one monitor.
> 

For some strange reason there's a lot of linux developers who put in a lot
of work to get dual-monitors working properly on Linux. Perhaps those OSS
developers who put in all that work in order to support dual-monitors on
Linux are clueless Lemmings. After all... *you* don't use the feature so a
Linux user who has different needs than you is obviously an idiot or a
lemming. For a moron and utter idiot you sure do have a mighty high opinion
of yourself.
0
Zeke3842 (110)
7/14/2009 4:50:25 PM
On 2009-07-14, Ezekiel <Zeke@not-such-email-address.com> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On 2009-07-14, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> In article <slrnh5mt0e.6l5.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>>>>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>>>
>
>>> Why argue with Jeb? Jeb doesn't understand the need for multiple
>>> monitors for example. He is clueless.
>> 
>>     My UI is not crap and individual apps don't try to take over the
>> entire screen. So yeah, my "need" for more than one monitor is a lot
>> less apparent in Linux.
>> 
>>     After 5 minutes using Windows I can certainly see why Lemmings
>> might want more than one monitor.
>> 
>
> For some strange reason there's a lot of linux developers who put in a lot
> of work to get dual-monitors working properly on Linux. Perhaps those OSS
> developers who put in all that work in order to support dual-monitors on
> Linux are clueless Lemmings. After all... *you* don't use the feature so a

    You really should stop making shit up and pulling things out of your posterior.

> Linux user who has different needs than you is obviously an idiot or a
> lemming. For a moron and utter idiot you sure do have a mighty high opinion
> of yourself.

    You excel at distortion.

-- 

	Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire,     
	is genuinely new: culture, like science and              |||
	technology grows by accretion, each new creator         / | \
	building on the works of those that came before.

				 Judge Alex Kozinski
				 US Court of Appeals
				 9th Circuit

0
jedi (14754)
7/14/2009 7:13:10 PM
Reply: