f



Is 10.8 still UNIX?

You decide:

http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/tmla.pdf
<quote>
Brand Program Documentation
The Open Brand Trademark License Agreement (TMLA)

....

4.19 Removal from Register

The Licensee may at any time, without charge, request X/Open Company
to remove a product from the Register. Provided that X/Open Company
has given the required notice of renewal, failure by the Licensee
to renew the registration of any Registered Product within 30 days,
of the due date for renewal shall be deemed to be a voluntary removal
of that product from the Register, and accordingly shall not of itself
constitute a breach of this Agreement.
</quote>

http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1197p.pdf
<quote>
UNIX 03
Registration No: P1197
Mac OS X Version 10.8 Mountain Lion
on Intel-based Macintosh computers
Date of first issue: 10 July 2012
Next renewal date: 10 July 2013
License No: L3064
</quote>


0
owl
1/25/2014 6:50:16 AM
comp.os.linux.advocacy 124139 articles. 3 followers. Post Follow

1110 Replies
4258 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 21

On 1/24/14, 11:50 PM, in article ngure0a.ar4a@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> You decide:

The Open Group lists what is and is not:

    <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register>

10.8 and 10.9 are both registered UNIX 03 products.

Just do not change standard mouse settings - then you will lose your
certification! LOL!

Really... this topic is just very, very baffling for you. Funny to watch.


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/25/2014 6:11:11 PM
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 1/24/14, 11:50 PM, in article ngure0a.ar4a@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> > You decide:

> The Open Group lists what is and is not:

>     <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register>

> 10.8 and 10.9 are both registered UNIX 03 products.

Can you not read?  By not renewing the 10.8 registration, Apple has
voluntary removed it.

> Just do not change standard mouse settings - then you will lose your
> certification! LOL!

That's true.

> Really... this topic is just very, very baffling for you. Funny to watch.

Really... Do you think that if Apple ships you a system in Default
configuration (the only UNIX 03 *conforming* configuration) and you then
*change* the configuration from default, that you could still sell that
system as a conforming UNIX 03 system?

0
owl
1/25/2014 7:09:17 PM
On 1/25/14, 12:09 PM, in article hgu0a3wg.a4@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 1/24/14, 11:50 PM, in article ngure0a.ar4a@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>> You decide:
> 
>> The Open Group lists what is and is not:
> 
>>     <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register>
> 
>> 10.8 and 10.9 are both registered UNIX 03 products.
> 
> Can you not read?  By not renewing the 10.8 registration, Apple has
> voluntary removed it.
> 
>> Just do not change standard mouse settings - then you will lose your
>> certification! LOL!
> 
> That's true.
> 
>> Really... this topic is just very, very baffling for you. Funny to watch.
> 
> Really... Do you think that if Apple ships you a system in Default
> configuration (the only UNIX 03 *conforming* configuration) and you then
> *change* the configuration from default, that you could still sell that
> system as a conforming UNIX 03 system?

<http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/>
    -----
    The Open Brand - Register of Certified Products
    Apple Inc.: OS X Version 10.9 Mavericks on Intel-based Mac computers
    Apple Inc.: Mac OS X Version 10.8 Mountain Lion on Intel-based
                Macintosh computers
    -----

Not sure what you find challenging about this. Oh, and no, changing standard
mouse settings does not remove the certification. Really, this is just
silly. If you have something to add to what you have said I will likely
respond, but if you just repeat your past ignorance I think we can say
everything that needs to be covered has been covered. The Open Group and
Apple are right and when you disagree with them you are wrong. Done.

-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/25/2014 9:19:37 PM
On Saturday, January 25, 2014 9:19:37 PM UTC, Snit wrote:
> On 1/25/14, 12:09 PM, in article hgu0a3wg.a4@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> 
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
> >> On 1/24/14, 11:50 PM, in article ngure0a.ar4a@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> 
> >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 
> >>> You decide:
> 
> > 
> 
> >> The Open Group lists what is and is not:
> 
> > 
> 
> >>     <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register>
> 
> > 
> 
> >> 10.8 and 10.9 are both registered UNIX 03 products.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Can you not read?  By not renewing the 10.8 registration, Apple has
> 
> > voluntary removed it.
> 
> > 
> 
> >> Just do not change standard mouse settings - then you will lose your
> 
> >> certification! LOL!
> 
> > 
> 
> > That's true.
> 
> > 
> 
> >> Really... this topic is just very, very baffling for you. Funny to watch.
> 
> > 
> 
> > Really... Do you think that if Apple ships you a system in Default
> 
> > configuration (the only UNIX 03 *conforming* configuration) and you then
> 
> > *change* the configuration from default, that you could still sell that
> 
> > system as a conforming UNIX 03 system?
> 
> 
> 
> <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/>
> 
>     -----
> 
>     The Open Brand - Register of Certified Products
> 
>     Apple Inc.: OS X Version 10.9 Mavericks on Intel-based Mac computers
> 
>     Apple Inc.: Mac OS X Version 10.8 Mountain Lion on Intel-based
> 
>                 Macintosh computers
> 
>     -----
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you find challenging about this.


He shows understanding of this where you do not.

> Oh, and no, changing standard
> 
> mouse settings does not remove the certification. Really, this is just
> 
> silly. If you have something to add to what you have said I will likely
> 
> respond, but if you just repeat your past ignorance I think we can say
> 
> everything that needs to be covered has been covered. The Open Group and
> 
> Apple are right and when you disagree with them you are wrong. Done.

Why not support your claim and not just call him names?
0
Steve
1/26/2014 1:41:30 AM
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
....
> The Open Group and
> Apple are right and when you disagree with them you are wrong. Done.

I'm not the one disagreeing with them.  You are.

Open Group:
<quote>
failure by the Licensee to renew the registration of any Registered
Product within 30 days, of the due date for renewal shall be deemed to
be a voluntary removal of that product from the Register
</quote>

<quote>
Next renewal date: 10 July 2013
</quote>

Apple's answers on OS X 10.8 UNIX 03 Conformance Statement:
<quote>
        Binary-compatible Family        Configuration Instructions
1.      Macintosh computers             Default configuration
</quote>

0
owl
1/26/2014 3:24:48 AM
On 1/25/14, 8:24 PM, in article ghr0a.at4px@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> ...
> 
>> The Open Group and
>> Apple are right and when you disagree with them you are wrong. Done.
> 
> I'm not the one disagreeing with them.  You are.
> 
> Open Group:
> <quote>
> failure by the Licensee to renew the registration of any Registered
> Product within 30 days, of the due date for renewal shall be deemed to
> be a voluntary removal of that product from the Register
> </quote>
> 
> <quote>
> Next renewal date: 10 July 2013
> </quote>
> 
> Apple's answers on OS X 10.8 UNIX 03 Conformance Statement:
> <quote>
>         Binary-compatible Family        Configuration Instructions
> 1.      Macintosh computers             Default configuration
> </quote>
> 

<http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/>
    -----
    The Open Brand - Register of Certified Products
    Apple Inc.: OS X Version 10.9 Mavericks on Intel-based Mac computers
    Apple Inc.: Mac OS X Version 10.8 Mountain Lion on Intel-based
                Macintosh computers
    -----

That answers your question about OS X 10.8.


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/26/2014 3:41:22 AM
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 1/25/14, 8:24 PM, in article ghr0a.at4px@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > 
> >> The Open Group and
> >> Apple are right and when you disagree with them you are wrong. Done.
> > 
> > I'm not the one disagreeing with them.  You are.
> > 
> > Open Group:
> > <quote>
> > failure by the Licensee to renew the registration of any Registered
> > Product within 30 days, of the due date for renewal shall be deemed to
> > be a voluntary removal of that product from the Register
> > </quote>
> > 
> > <quote>
> > Next renewal date: 10 July 2013
> > </quote>
> > 
> > Apple's answers on OS X 10.8 UNIX 03 Conformance Statement:
> > <quote>
> >         Binary-compatible Family        Configuration Instructions
> > 1.      Macintosh computers             Default configuration
> > </quote>
> > 

> <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/>
>     -----
>     The Open Brand - Register of Certified Products
>     Apple Inc.: OS X Version 10.9 Mavericks on Intel-based Mac computers
>     Apple Inc.: Mac OS X Version 10.8 Mountain Lion on Intel-based
>                 Macintosh computers
>     -----

> That answers your question about OS X 10.8.

Nope.  If you click on that 10.8 link, and then click to see the brand
certificate, you will see that it has not been renewed:
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1197p.pdf

0
owl
1/26/2014 5:32:14 AM
On 1/25/14, 10:32 PM, in article hgu793.arf@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

>> <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/>
>>     -----
>>     The Open Brand - Register of Certified Products
>>     Apple Inc.: OS X Version 10.9 Mavericks on Intel-based Mac computers
>>     Apple Inc.: Mac OS X Version 10.8 Mountain Lion on Intel-based
>>                 Macintosh computers
>>     -----
> 
>> That answers your question about OS X 10.8.
> 
> Nope. 

You asked it 10.8 is still UNIX. It shows up in the list of certified UNIX
OSs. Thus it is still a UNIX, and your question is answered.

And I have responded far too much to your denials and confusion over this.
Either you will accept that Open Group's list is correct or not. Your
choice. 

....


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/26/2014 5:45:39 AM
On 2014-01-26, the following emerged from the brain of owl:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

8<

>> <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/>
>>     -----
>>     The Open Brand - Register of Certified Products
>>     Apple Inc.: OS X Version 10.9 Mavericks on Intel-based Mac computers
>>     Apple Inc.: Mac OS X Version 10.8 Mountain Lion on Intel-based
>>                 Macintosh computers
>>     -----
>
>> That answers your question about OS X 10.8.
>
> Nope.  If you click on that 10.8 link, and then click to see the
> brand certificate, you will see that it has not been renewed:
> http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1197p.pdf

If it hasn't been renewed, OSX 10.8 stopped being a registered UNIX
last July. Simple as that.

If anything, it shows the silliness of such certification programs.
It's just a label that costs a lot of money.

-- 
Q:	Why did Menachem Begin invade Lebanon?
A:	To impress Jodie Foster.
0
TomB
1/26/2014 6:59:47 AM
On 1/25/14, 11:59 PM, in article 20140126075921.627@usenet.drumscum.be,
"TomB" <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2014-01-26, the following emerged from the brain of owl:
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
> 8<
> 
>>> <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/>
>>>     -----
>>>     The Open Brand - Register of Certified Products
>>>     Apple Inc.: OS X Version 10.9 Mavericks on Intel-based Mac computers
>>>     Apple Inc.: Mac OS X Version 10.8 Mountain Lion on Intel-based
>>>                 Macintosh computers
>>>     -----
>> 
>>> That answers your question about OS X 10.8.
>> 
>> Nope.  If you click on that 10.8 link, and then click to see the
>> brand certificate, you will see that it has not been renewed:
>> http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1197p.pdf
> 
> If it hasn't been renewed, OSX 10.8 stopped being a registered UNIX
> last July. Simple as that.
> 
> If anything, it shows the silliness of such certification programs.
> It's just a label that costs a lot of money.

Part of the certification is for the OS to be supported. Older versions of
OS X are not. Makes sense they lose their certification status.


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/26/2014 4:47:36 PM
On 2014-01-26 16:47:36 +0000, Snit said:

> On 1/25/14, 11:59 PM, in article 20140126075921.627@usenet.drumscum.be,
> "TomB" <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2014-01-26, the following emerged from the brain of owl:
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 8<
>> 
>>>> <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/>
>>>> -----
>>>> The Open Brand - Register of Certified Products
>>>> Apple Inc.: OS X Version 10.9 Mavericks on Intel-based Mac computers
>>>> Apple Inc.: Mac OS X Version 10.8 Mountain Lion on Intel-based
>>>> Macintosh computers
>>>> -----
>>> 
>>>> That answers your question about OS X 10.8.
>>> 
>>> Nope.  If you click on that 10.8 link, and then click to see the
>>> brand certificate, you will see that it has not been renewed:
>>> http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1197p.pdf
>> 
>> If it hasn't been renewed, OSX 10.8 stopped being a registered UNIX
>> last July. Simple as that.
>> 
>> If anything, it shows the silliness of such certification programs.
>> It's just a label that costs a lot of money.
> 
> Part of the certification is for the OS to be supported. Older versions of
> OS X are not. Makes sense they lose their certification status.

But 10.8 still is.

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/26/2014 4:55:04 PM
On 1/26/14, 9:55 AM, in article bkksl5Fdnh6U1@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd  E
Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:

> On 2014-01-26 16:47:36 +0000, Snit said:
> 
>> On 1/25/14, 11:59 PM, in article 20140126075921.627@usenet.drumscum.be,
>> "TomB" <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2014-01-26, the following emerged from the brain of owl:
>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 8<
>>> 
>>>>> <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/>
>>>>> -----
>>>>> The Open Brand - Register of Certified Products
>>>>> Apple Inc.: OS X Version 10.9 Mavericks on Intel-based Mac computers
>>>>> Apple Inc.: Mac OS X Version 10.8 Mountain Lion on Intel-based
>>>>> Macintosh computers
>>>>> -----
>>>> 
>>>>> That answers your question about OS X 10.8.
>>>> 
>>>> Nope.  If you click on that 10.8 link, and then click to see the
>>>> brand certificate, you will see that it has not been renewed:
>>>> http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1197p.pdf
>>> 
>>> If it hasn't been renewed, OSX 10.8 stopped being a registered UNIX
>>> last July. Simple as that.
>>> 
>>> If anything, it shows the silliness of such certification programs.
>>> It's just a label that costs a lot of money.
>> 
>> Part of the certification is for the OS to be supported. Older versions of
>> OS X are not. Makes sense they lose their certification status.
> 
> But 10.8 still is.

Right. As I noted, the link I provided answers his question about 10.8 (and
also shows that 10.9 is a certified UNIX).

He keeps denying this - as if both Apple and the Open Group have somehow
gotten confused as to what Apple products are certified, and making absurd
claims about how if you change standard mouse settings you somehow have
invalidated the UNIX certification. This is so absurd several of the COLA
"advocates" accused me of lying about his views... and yet Owl keeps pushing
them over and over. Surprisingly, none of the "advocates" who made their
accusations over this ever apologized. I am completely shocked. :)


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/26/2014 6:08:09 PM
TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-26, the following emerged from the brain of owl:
> > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> 8<

> >> <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/>
> >>     -----
> >>     The Open Brand - Register of Certified Products
> >>     Apple Inc.: OS X Version 10.9 Mavericks on Intel-based Mac computers
> >>     Apple Inc.: Mac OS X Version 10.8 Mountain Lion on Intel-based
> >>                 Macintosh computers
> >>     -----
> >
> >> That answers your question about OS X 10.8.
> >
> > Nope.  If you click on that 10.8 link, and then click to see the
> > brand certificate, you will see that it has not been renewed:
> > http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1197p.pdf

> If it hasn't been renewed, OSX 10.8 stopped being a registered UNIX
> last July. Simple as that.

> If anything, it shows the silliness of such certification programs.
> It's just a label that costs a lot of money.

Exactly.

0
owl
1/26/2014 6:38:08 PM
Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-26 16:47:36 +0000, Snit said:

> > On 1/25/14, 11:59 PM, in article 20140126075921.627@usenet.drumscum.be,
> > "TomB" <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 2014-01-26, the following emerged from the brain of owl:
> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> 8<
> >> 
> >>>> <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/>
> >>>> -----
> >>>> The Open Brand - Register of Certified Products
> >>>> Apple Inc.: OS X Version 10.9 Mavericks on Intel-based Mac computers
> >>>> Apple Inc.: Mac OS X Version 10.8 Mountain Lion on Intel-based
> >>>> Macintosh computers
> >>>> -----
> >>> 
> >>>> That answers your question about OS X 10.8.
> >>> 
> >>> Nope.  If you click on that 10.8 link, and then click to see the
> >>> brand certificate, you will see that it has not been renewed:
> >>> http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1197p.pdf
> >> 
> >> If it hasn't been renewed, OSX 10.8 stopped being a registered UNIX
> >> last July. Simple as that.
> >> 
> >> If anything, it shows the silliness of such certification programs.
> >> It's just a label that costs a lot of money.
> > 
> > Part of the certification is for the OS to be supported. Older versions of
> > OS X are not. Makes sense they lose their certification status.

> But 10.8 still is.

The 10.8 Comformance Statement shows a Temporary Waiver (MSF.X.0112),
which expired 2013-07-03.
http://www.opengroup.org/csq/repository/norationale=1&noreferences=1&RID=apple%252FXY1%252F6.html

The 10.9 Conformance statement contains no such waiver.
http://www.opengroup.org/csq/repository/norationale=1&noreferences=1&RID=apple%252FXY1%252F7.html

http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/tmla.pdf
<quote>
10. Temporary Waivers

Where there are a limited number of implementation errors and these
are demonstrated to be of a minor nature, X/Open Company at its sole
discretion and having regard to the effect on applications portability
may on application from the Licensee by electronic mail and payment of
the then current Temporary Waiver fee issue a Temporary Waiver permitting
the Trademarks to be applied to the system for a limited period of 12
months after which the errors must be eliminated.
</quote> 

Again, the waiver expired last summer, as did the registration, which
was not renewed.  A residual web link showing an outdated registration
is not proof of registration.  Similar certificates are still available
online for older versions of OSX which *had* been UNIX 03 registered,
but which are now *not* listed here:

http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/

such as this one for 10.5:

http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1190p.pdf
<quote>
UNIX 03
Registration No: P1190
Mac OS X Version 10.5 Leopard
on Intel-based Macintosh computers
Date of first issue: 18 May 2007
Next renewal date: 18 May 2012
License No: L3064 
</quote>

0
owl
1/26/2014 6:40:39 PM
On 1/26/14, 11:38 AM, in article hg80.ta4@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-01-26, the following emerged from the brain of owl:
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
>> 8<
> 
>>>> <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/>
>>>>     -----
>>>>     The Open Brand - Register of Certified Products
>>>>     Apple Inc.: OS X Version 10.9 Mavericks on Intel-based Mac computers
>>>>     Apple Inc.: Mac OS X Version 10.8 Mountain Lion on Intel-based
>>>>                 Macintosh computers
>>>>     -----
>>> 
>>>> That answers your question about OS X 10.8.
>>> 
>>> Nope.  If you click on that 10.8 link, and then click to see the
>>> brand certificate, you will see that it has not been renewed:
>>> http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1197p.pdf
> 
>> If it hasn't been renewed, OSX 10.8 stopped being a registered UNIX
>> last July. Simple as that.
> 
>> If anything, it shows the silliness of such certification programs.
>> It's just a label that costs a lot of money.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
Part of the certification is that the OS is still supported. I do not find
that to be silly, but it might explain why no desktop Linux distro has ever
been certified - the level of support might not fit the requirements. To be
clear this is just a guess... I have no idea if that is playing a part or
how much if it is.

-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/26/2014 6:44:14 PM
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 1/25/14, 11:59 PM, in article 20140126075921.627@usenet.drumscum.be,
> "TomB" <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On 2014-01-26, the following emerged from the brain of owl:
> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 8<
> > 
> >>> <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/>
> >>>     -----
> >>>     The Open Brand - Register of Certified Products
> >>>     Apple Inc.: OS X Version 10.9 Mavericks on Intel-based Mac computers
> >>>     Apple Inc.: Mac OS X Version 10.8 Mountain Lion on Intel-based
> >>>                 Macintosh computers
> >>>     -----
> >> 
> >>> That answers your question about OS X 10.8.
> >> 
> >> Nope.  If you click on that 10.8 link, and then click to see the
> >> brand certificate, you will see that it has not been renewed:
> >> http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1197p.pdf
> > 
> > If it hasn't been renewed, OSX 10.8 stopped being a registered UNIX
> > last July. Simple as that.
> > 
> > If anything, it shows the silliness of such certification programs.
> > It's just a label that costs a lot of money.

> Part of the certification is for the OS to be supported. Older versions of
> OS X are not. Makes sense they lose their certification status.

So are we in agreement that 10.8 appears to be no longer certified?

0
owl
1/26/2014 6:48:51 PM
On 1/26/14, 11:40 AM, in article hgiur0.at@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

.... 
>> But 10.8 still is.
> 
> The 10.8 Comformance Statement shows a Temporary Waiver (MSF.X.0112),
> which expired 2013-07-03.
> http://www.opengroup.org/csq/repository/norationale=1&noreferences=1&RID=apple
> %252FXY1%252F6.html
> 
> The 10.9 Conformance statement contains no such waiver.
> http://www.opengroup.org/csq/repository/norationale=1&noreferences=1&RID=apple
> %252FXY1%252F7.html
> 
> http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/tmla.pdf
> <quote>
> 10. Temporary Waivers
> 
> Where there are a limited number of implementation errors and these
> are demonstrated to be of a minor nature, X/Open Company at its sole
> discretion and having regard to the effect on applications portability
> may on application from the Licensee by electronic mail and payment of
> the then current Temporary Waiver fee issue a Temporary Waiver permitting
> the Trademarks to be applied to the system for a limited period of 12
> months after which the errors must be eliminated.
> </quote> 
> 
> Again, the waiver expired last summer, as did the registration, which
> was not renewed.  A residual web link showing an outdated registration
> is not proof of registration.  Similar certificates are still available
> online for older versions of OSX which *had* been UNIX 03 registered,
> but which are now *not* listed here:
> 
> http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/
> 
> such as this one for 10.5:
> 
> http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1190p.pdf
> <quote>
> UNIX 03
> Registration No: P1190
> Mac OS X Version 10.5 Leopard
> on Intel-based Macintosh computers
> Date of first issue: 18 May 2007
> Next renewal date: 18 May 2012
> License No: L3064
> </quote>
> 

<http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/>
    -----
    The Open Brand - Register of Certified Products
    Apple Inc.: OS X Version 10.9 Mavericks on Intel-based Mac computers
    Apple Inc.: Mac OS X Version 10.8 Mountain Lion on Intel-based
    Macintosh computers
    -----

If you think the Open Group is wrong about what they believe is a registered
UNIX I suggest you contact them. I do not share your concerns.

-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/26/2014 7:17:57 PM
On 1/26/14, 11:48 AM, in article gheru0agg.3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 1/25/14, 11:59 PM, in article 20140126075921.627@usenet.drumscum.be,
>> "TomB" <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> On 2014-01-26, the following emerged from the brain of owl:
>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 8<
>>> 
>>>>> <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/>
>>>>>     -----
>>>>>     The Open Brand - Register of Certified Products
>>>>>     Apple Inc.: OS X Version 10.9 Mavericks on Intel-based Mac computers
>>>>>     Apple Inc.: Mac OS X Version 10.8 Mountain Lion on Intel-based
>>>>>                 Macintosh computers
>>>>>     -----
>>>> 
>>>>> That answers your question about OS X 10.8.
>>>> 
>>>> Nope.  If you click on that 10.8 link, and then click to see the
>>>> brand certificate, you will see that it has not been renewed:
>>>> http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1197p.pdf
>>> 
>>> If it hasn't been renewed, OSX 10.8 stopped being a registered UNIX
>>> last July. Simple as that.
>>> 
>>> If anything, it shows the silliness of such certification programs.
>>> It's just a label that costs a lot of money.
> 
>> Part of the certification is for the OS to be supported. Older versions of
>> OS X are not. Makes sense they lose their certification status.
> 
> So are we in agreement that 10.8 appears to be no longer certified?
> 
Look at the above link where it shows the list of currently certified UNIX
OSs. If you believe the Open Group has made an error on that page I suggest
you contact them. You might also want to alert them to your discovery that
changing standard mouse settings will invalidate their certification. I
would love to hear their response!

LOL!


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/26/2014 7:19:43 PM
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 1/26/14, 11:38 AM, in article hg80.ta4@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> > TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 2014-01-26, the following emerged from the brain of owl:
> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> 8<
> > 
> >>>> <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/>
> >>>>     -----
> >>>>     The Open Brand - Register of Certified Products
> >>>>     Apple Inc.: OS X Version 10.9 Mavericks on Intel-based Mac computers
> >>>>     Apple Inc.: Mac OS X Version 10.8 Mountain Lion on Intel-based
> >>>>                 Macintosh computers
> >>>>     -----
> >>> 
> >>>> That answers your question about OS X 10.8.
> >>> 
> >>> Nope.  If you click on that 10.8 link, and then click to see the
> >>> brand certificate, you will see that it has not been renewed:
> >>> http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1197p.pdf
> > 
> >> If it hasn't been renewed, OSX 10.8 stopped being a registered UNIX
> >> last July. Simple as that.
> > 
> >> If anything, it shows the silliness of such certification programs.
> >> It's just a label that costs a lot of money.
> > 
> > Exactly.
> > 
> Part of the certification is that the OS is still supported.

Do you have a cite for that?

0
owl
1/26/2014 10:18:00 PM
On 1/26/14, 3:18 PM, in article fhg0a.4e@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 1/26/14, 11:38 AM, in article hg80.ta4@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2014-01-26, the following emerged from the brain of owl:
>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 8<
>>> 
>>>>>> <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/>
>>>>>>     -----
>>>>>>     The Open Brand - Register of Certified Products
>>>>>>     Apple Inc.: OS X Version 10.9 Mavericks on Intel-based Mac computers
>>>>>>     Apple Inc.: Mac OS X Version 10.8 Mountain Lion on Intel-based
>>>>>>                 Macintosh computers
>>>>>>     -----
>>>>> 
>>>>>> That answers your question about OS X 10.8.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Nope.  If you click on that 10.8 link, and then click to see the
>>>>> brand certificate, you will see that it has not been renewed:
>>>>> http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1197p.pdf
>>> 
>>>> If it hasn't been renewed, OSX 10.8 stopped being a registered UNIX
>>>> last July. Simple as that.
>>> 
>>>> If anything, it shows the silliness of such certification programs.
>>>> It's just a label that costs a lot of money.
>>> 
>>> Exactly.
>>> 
>> Part of the certification is that the OS is still supported.
> 
> Do you have a cite for that?
> 
Only from the Open Group, and you deny their authority on this topic... so
for your purposes, no.

For others who do trust the Open Group on matters of UNIX certification,
there is this: 

<http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/docs/UNIX03_Certification_Guide.html>
    -----
    Renewal implies that your product continues to conform and that
    you will continue to support your product for the duration of the
    renewal period.
    -----

Technically only shows *renewal* requires a continuation of support, but you
cannot continue it if you were not already doing it. I am sure there is more
but that was the first reference I found. :)


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/26/2014 10:25:37 PM
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 1/26/14, 3:18 PM, in article fhg0a.4e@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> On 1/26/14, 11:38 AM, in article hg80.ta4@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >>> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 2014-01-26, the following emerged from the brain of owl:
> >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> 8<
> >>> 
> >>>>>> <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/>
> >>>>>>     -----
> >>>>>>     The Open Brand - Register of Certified Products
> >>>>>>     Apple Inc.: OS X Version 10.9 Mavericks on Intel-based Mac computers
> >>>>>>     Apple Inc.: Mac OS X Version 10.8 Mountain Lion on Intel-based
> >>>>>>                 Macintosh computers
> >>>>>>     -----
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> That answers your question about OS X 10.8.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Nope.  If you click on that 10.8 link, and then click to see the
> >>>>> brand certificate, you will see that it has not been renewed:
> >>>>> http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1197p.pdf
> >>> 
> >>>> If it hasn't been renewed, OSX 10.8 stopped being a registered UNIX
> >>>> last July. Simple as that.
> >>> 
> >>>> If anything, it shows the silliness of such certification programs.
> >>>> It's just a label that costs a lot of money.
> >>> 
> >>> Exactly.
> >>> 
> >> Part of the certification is that the OS is still supported.
> > 
> > Do you have a cite for that?
> > 
> Only from the Open Group, and you deny their authority on this topic... so
> for your purposes, no.

> For others who do trust the Open Group on matters of UNIX certification,
> there is this: 

> <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/docs/UNIX03_Certification_Guide.html>
>     -----
>     Renewal implies that your product continues to conform and that
>     you will continue to support your product for the duration of the
>     renewal period.
>     -----

> Technically only shows *renewal* requires a continuation of support, but you
> cannot continue it if you were not already doing it. I am sure there is more
> but that was the first reference I found. :)

Your quote conveniently omitted this line directly above it:

<quote>
A certified product has a defined period for its initial certification,
after which it must be renewed or the product will no longer continue to
be certified. The Certification Authority will notify you approximately
two months in advance by electronic mail (so it is important to maintain
your contact information) when a renewal is due.
</quote>

Thanks for making my case for me.

0
owl
1/26/2014 10:32:48 PM
On 1/26/14, 3:32 PM, in article ghdi8043a.f3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

.... 
>>>> Part of the certification is that the OS is still supported.
>>> 
>>> Do you have a cite for that?
>>> 
>> Only from the Open Group, and you deny their authority on this topic... so
>> for your purposes, no.
> 
>> For others who do trust the Open Group on matters of UNIX certification,
>> there is this: 
> 
>> <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/docs/UNIX03_Certification_Guide.html>
>>     -----
>>     Renewal implies that your product continues to conform and that
>>     you will continue to support your product for the duration of the
>>     renewal period.
>>     -----
> 
>> Technically only shows *renewal* requires a continuation of support, but you
>> cannot continue it if you were not already doing it. I am sure there is more
>> but that was the first reference I found. :)
> 
> Your quote conveniently omitted this line directly above it:
> 
> <quote>
> A certified product has a defined period for its initial certification,
> after which it must be renewed or the product will no longer continue to
> be certified. The Certification Authority will notify you approximately
> two months in advance by electronic mail (so it is important to maintain
> your contact information) when a renewal is due.
> </quote>
> 
> Thanks for making my case for me.
> 
The quote you provided has nothing to do with support which is what you
asked about. As far as your "case" on support all you did is ask for a
citation... that is not making a case either way.

If you have stated your view on it elsewhere I missed it. So, what is your
"case" on the topic of support?


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/26/2014 10:37:03 PM
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 1/26/14, 3:32 PM, in article ghdi8043a.f3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> ... 
> >>>> Part of the certification is that the OS is still supported.
> >>> 
> >>> Do you have a cite for that?
> >>> 
> >> Only from the Open Group, and you deny their authority on this topic... so
> >> for your purposes, no.
> > 
> >> For others who do trust the Open Group on matters of UNIX certification,
> >> there is this: 
> > 
> >> <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/docs/UNIX03_Certification_Guide.html>
> >>     -----
> >>     Renewal implies that your product continues to conform and that
> >>     you will continue to support your product for the duration of the
> >>     renewal period.
> >>     -----
> > 
> >> Technically only shows *renewal* requires a continuation of support, but you
> >> cannot continue it if you were not already doing it. I am sure there is more
> >> but that was the first reference I found. :)
> > 
> > Your quote conveniently omitted this line directly above it:
> > 
> > <quote>
> > A certified product has a defined period for its initial certification,
> > after which it must be renewed or the product will no longer continue to
> > be certified. The Certification Authority will notify you approximately
> > two months in advance by electronic mail (so it is important to maintain
> > your contact information) when a renewal is due.
> > </quote>
> > 
> > Thanks for making my case for me.
> > 
> The quote you provided has nothing to do with support which is what you
> asked about. As far as your "case" on support all you did is ask for a
> citation... that is not making a case either way.

> If you have stated your view on it elsewhere I missed it. So, what is your
> "case" on the topic of support?

I accept your cite for support being required.  What is your "case" on
the renewal requirement?

0
owl
1/26/2014 10:48:08 PM
On 1/26/14, 3:48 PM, in article hgu0t0a.g4@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

.... 
>>> Thanks for making my case for me.
>>> 
>> The quote you provided has nothing to do with support which is what you
>> asked about. As far as your "case" on support all you did is ask for a
>> citation... that is not making a case either way.
> 
>> If you have stated your view on it elsewhere I missed it. So, what is your
>> "case" on the topic of support?
> 
> I accept your cite for support being required.

OK. That was my "case" on the topic... that support is required.

> What is your "case" on the renewal requirement?

I thought it was clear: that support is one of the things required.

No offense but you seem a bit slow when it comes to this topic... not
trusting Open Group's own site on what is and what is not a certified UNIX,
insisting that changing standard mouse settings will make a certified UNIX
cease to be one, claiming to have a "case" on support being required when
you apparently did not and merely wanted me to back my claim that it was a
requirement... on and on and on.

Not sure what else I can do to help you. I have pointed you to the Open
Group and Apple sites which show what versions of OS X are and are not
certified UNIX OSs. Beyond that I do not know what I can do to help you...
and am not certain I have the patience to do so anyway.



-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/26/2014 10:54:20 PM
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 1/26/14, 3:48 PM, in article hgu0t0a.g4@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> ... 
> >>> Thanks for making my case for me.
> >>> 
> >> The quote you provided has nothing to do with support which is what you
> >> asked about. As far as your "case" on support all you did is ask for a
> >> citation... that is not making a case either way.
> > 
> >> If you have stated your view on it elsewhere I missed it. So, what is your
> >> "case" on the topic of support?
> > 
> > I accept your cite for support being required.

> OK. That was my "case" on the topic... that support is required.

> > What is your "case" on the renewal requirement?

> I thought it was clear: that support is one of the things required.

> No offense but you seem a bit slow when it comes to this topic... not
> trusting Open Group's own site on what is and what is not a certified UNIX,
> insisting that changing standard mouse settings will make a certified UNIX
> cease to be one, claiming to have a "case" on support being required when
> you apparently did not and merely wanted me to back my claim that it was a
> requirement... on and on and on.

> Not sure what else I can do to help you. I have pointed you to the Open
> Group and Apple sites which show what versions of OS X are and are not
> certified UNIX OSs. Beyond that I do not know what I can do to help you...
> and am not certain I have the patience to do so anyway.

You really do have trouble understanding what you read, don't you?
The language you quoted was from a section that notes that *renewal is
required* for continued certification.  The fact that continued support
is one of the prerequisites for renewal says absolutely nothing about
the necessity to renew. 

What part of "it must be renewed or the product will no longer continue
to be certified" do you not understand?

0
owl
1/26/2014 11:21:59 PM
On 1/26/14, 4:21 PM, in article fhi0ta.at3w@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 1/26/14, 3:48 PM, in article hgu0t0a.g4@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> ... 
>>>>> Thanks for making my case for me.
>>>>> 
>>>> The quote you provided has nothing to do with support which is what you
>>>> asked about. As far as your "case" on support all you did is ask for a
>>>> citation... that is not making a case either way.
>>> 
>>>> If you have stated your view on it elsewhere I missed it. So, what is your
>>>> "case" on the topic of support?
>>> 
>>> I accept your cite for support being required.
> 
>> OK. That was my "case" on the topic... that support is required.
> 
>>> What is your "case" on the renewal requirement?
> 
>> I thought it was clear: that support is one of the things required.
> 
>> No offense but you seem a bit slow when it comes to this topic... not
>> trusting Open Group's own site on what is and what is not a certified UNIX,
>> insisting that changing standard mouse settings will make a certified UNIX
>> cease to be one, claiming to have a "case" on support being required when
>> you apparently did not and merely wanted me to back my claim that it was a
>> requirement... on and on and on.
> 
>> Not sure what else I can do to help you. I have pointed you to the Open
>> Group and Apple sites which show what versions of OS X are and are not
>> certified UNIX OSs. Beyond that I do not know what I can do to help you...
>> and am not certain I have the patience to do so anyway.
> 
> You really do have trouble understanding what you read, don't you?

No.

> The language you quoted was from a section that notes that *renewal is
> required* for continued certification.  The fact that continued support
> is one of the prerequisites for renewal says absolutely nothing about
> the necessity to renew.

Is this something that confused you? Again, you asked me for a citation to
show support of an OS was a part of the certification. I showed it. You
accepted it.

> What part of "it must be renewed or the product will no longer continue
> to be certified" do you not understand?

You are making an incorrect assumption here.

Not sure why this is so hard for you to get. Here, let me summarize:

1) I trust the Open Group and Apple on the topic of what Apple products are
certified by the Open Group. They are *the* final answer. Not you. They
claim OS X 10.8 and OS X 10.9 are certified products. If you think this is
wrong contact them. Stop begging me to accept your denials.

2) You have made an absurd claim that changing standard mouse settings kills
the UNIX certification of a machine. This is daft and goes against what the
Open Group and Apple say. Again, they - not you - are the authority on this.

3) You asked about support for a product being a part of certification. You
accepted it was based on what I showed you... and then spoke about some
"case" you made about this. What case? I still have yet to see you reference
it or speak of it.



-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/26/2014 11:41:06 PM
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 1/26/14, 4:21 PM, in article fhi0ta.at3w@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> On 1/26/14, 3:48 PM, in article hgu0t0a.g4@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >> ... 
> >>>>> Thanks for making my case for me.
> >>>>> 
> >>>> The quote you provided has nothing to do with support which is what you
> >>>> asked about. As far as your "case" on support all you did is ask for a
> >>>> citation... that is not making a case either way.
> >>> 
> >>>> If you have stated your view on it elsewhere I missed it. So, what is your
> >>>> "case" on the topic of support?
> >>> 
> >>> I accept your cite for support being required.
> > 
> >> OK. That was my "case" on the topic... that support is required.
> > 
> >>> What is your "case" on the renewal requirement?
> > 
> >> I thought it was clear: that support is one of the things required.
> > 
> >> No offense but you seem a bit slow when it comes to this topic... not
> >> trusting Open Group's own site on what is and what is not a certified UNIX,
> >> insisting that changing standard mouse settings will make a certified UNIX
> >> cease to be one, claiming to have a "case" on support being required when
> >> you apparently did not and merely wanted me to back my claim that it was a
> >> requirement... on and on and on.
> > 
> >> Not sure what else I can do to help you. I have pointed you to the Open
> >> Group and Apple sites which show what versions of OS X are and are not
> >> certified UNIX OSs. Beyond that I do not know what I can do to help you...
> >> and am not certain I have the patience to do so anyway.
> > 
> > You really do have trouble understanding what you read, don't you?

> No.

Now there's something to poll.  I'd like to see a show of hands on that.

> > The language you quoted was from a section that notes that *renewal is
> > required* for continued certification.  The fact that continued support
> > is one of the prerequisites for renewal says absolutely nothing about
> > the necessity to renew.

> Is this something that confused you?

No, but it appears to have confused you greatly.

> Again, you asked me for a citation to
> show support of an OS was a part of the certification. I showed it. You
> accepted it.

Yes.

> > What part of "it must be renewed or the product will no longer continue
> > to be certified" do you not understand?

> You are making an incorrect assumption here.

Again you fail to answer a direct question.  Your eagerness to sidestep
betrays the weakness in your argument.

> Not sure why this is so hard for you to get. Here, let me summarize:

> 1) I trust the Open Group and Apple on the topic of what Apple products are
> certified by the Open Group. They are *the* final answer. Not you. They
> claim OS X 10.8 and OS X 10.9 are certified products. If you think this is
> wrong contact them. Stop begging me to accept your denials.

Open Group says it must be renewed.  It was not renewed.  Therefore
it is no longer certified.

> 2) You have made an absurd claim that changing standard mouse settings kills
> the UNIX certification of a machine. This is daft and goes against what the
> Open Group and Apple say. Again, they - not you - are the authority on this.

That "absurd claim" was not mine.  Only the default configuration is (or
was, in the case of 10.8) certified UNIX.

> 3) You asked about support for a product being a part of certification. You
> accepted it was based on what I showed you... and then spoke about some
> "case" you made about this. What case? I still have yet to see you reference
> it or speak of it.

The "making my case" statement was in reference to the requirement for
renewal, which you had, albeit partially, quoted. 

0
owl
1/27/2014 12:04:31 AM
On 1/26/14, 5:04 PM, in article hgu0ta.atw3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

....
>> Not sure why this is so hard for you to get. Here, let me summarize:
> 
>> 1) I trust the Open Group and Apple on the topic of what Apple products are
>> certified by the Open Group. They are *the* final answer. Not you. They
>> claim OS X 10.8 and OS X 10.9 are certified products. If you think this is
>> wrong contact them. Stop begging me to accept your denials.
> 
> Open Group says it must be renewed.  It was not renewed.  Therefore
> it is no longer certified.

You have already been shown their list of certified products. You deny some
of the ones they list are certified. Bottom line: you are wrong. There is no
debate here.

>> 2) You have made an absurd claim that changing standard mouse settings kills
>> the UNIX certification of a machine. This is daft and goes against what the
>> Open Group and Apple say. Again, they - not you - are the authority on this.
> 
> That "absurd claim" was not mine.

So you do not think altering the mouse settings on OS X kills its UNIX
certification. Good.

....

>> 3) You asked about support for a product being a part of certification. You
>> accepted it was based on what I showed you... and then spoke about some
>> "case" you made about this. What case? I still have yet to see you reference
>> it or speak of it.
> 
> The "making my case" statement was in reference to the requirement for
> renewal, which you had, albeit partially, quoted.

I noted evidence for support being needed for compliance. You said this was
making your case. What case? You could not say.

Good God... I keep responding to your nonsense. Why? Do I think you are
going to go out and buy a clue somewhere?



-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 12:18:27 AM
On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:


the hell are you two even arguing about?
Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their 
little OS has anything to do with Apple?

0
Justin
1/27/2014 4:14:10 AM
On 1/26/14, 9:14 PM, in article lc4meh$g9d$1@dont-email.me, "Justin"
<istillhatespam@nobecuaseihatespam.edu> wrote:

> On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
> 
> 
> the hell are you two even arguing about?
> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their
> little OS has anything to do with Apple?
> 
It is one of the most inane debates I have seen in COLA. And that says a
lot. :)


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 4:45:45 AM
On 26/01/2014 11:14 PM, Justin wrote:
> On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
> 
> 
> the hell are you two even arguing about?
> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their little
> OS has anything to do with Apple?

UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
very exclusive about that.

-- 
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism
0
Silver
1/27/2014 3:09:12 PM
Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.ca> writes:

> On 26/01/2014 11:14 PM, Justin wrote:
>> On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
>> 
>> 
>> the hell are you two even arguing about?
>> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their little
>> OS has anything to do with Apple?
>
> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
> very exclusive about that.

Huh? OS X is a unix.

http://acad.coloradocollege.edu/dept/PC/sciCompLab/UnixTutorial/

...... lol .....


-- 
"I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact." 
The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree.
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
0
Hadron
1/27/2014 3:16:03 PM
Silver Slimer wrote:

> On 26/01/2014 11:14 PM, Justin wrote:
>> On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
>> 
>> 
>> the hell are you two even arguing about?
>> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their little
>> OS has anything to do with Apple?
> 
> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
> very exclusive about that.
> 

Neither windows nor OSX is "simple" to use. Both have real quirks which make 
usage unnessessary difficult.

0
Peter
1/27/2014 3:19:24 PM
Hadron wrote:

> Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.ca> writes:
> 
>> On 26/01/2014 11:14 PM, Justin wrote:
>>> On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> the hell are you two even arguing about?
>>> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their little
>>> OS has anything to do with Apple?
>>
>> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
>> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
>> very exclusive about that.
> 
> Huh? OS X is a unix.

In name, yes.
In actual usage, not at all

> http://acad.coloradocollege.edu/dept/PC/sciCompLab/UnixTutorial/

So they show the (few) unix commands existing in OSX.
What they (naturally) do not mention are the standard CLI tools which are 
missing in OSX

> ..... lol .....
> 

No need to show that you are an idiot. You know just windows, you have never 
used linux, any "real" Unix, or OSX
 

0
Peter
1/27/2014 3:23:40 PM
On 1/27/14, 4:09 PM, Silver Slimer wrote:
> On 26/01/2014 11:14 PM, Justin wrote:
>> On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
>>
>>
>> the hell are you two even arguing about?
>> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their little
>> OS has anything to do with Apple?
>
> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
> very exclusive about that.
>
Hm, Im using OSX and Linux. Didn't found one is simpler than other.
Same for Windows...
My parents that are around 70 use Linux without my help...

0
Melzzzzz
1/27/2014 3:26:54 PM
Lloyd E Parsons wrote:

>Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix 
>like OS', both Windows and OSX are very much simpler to use.

No they're not.  Troll.

-- 
"Microsoft Windows 8 kicks the SHIT out of Desktop Linux. Can�t help
it..."  -  "Marti"
0
chrisv
1/27/2014 3:49:21 PM
On 2014-01-27 15:19:24 +0000, Peter K�hlmann said:

> Silver Slimer wrote:
> 
>> On 26/01/2014 11:14 PM, Justin wrote:
>>> On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> the hell are you two even arguing about?
>>> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their little
>>> OS has anything to do with Apple?
>> 
>> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
>> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
>> very exclusive about that.
>> 
> 
> Neither windows nor OSX is "simple" to use. Both have real quirks which make
> usage unnessessary difficult.

That's a joke right?  Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix 
like OS', both Windows and OSX are very much simpler to use.  With the 
possible exception if 'use' means 'twiddle with the OS'.  :)

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/27/2014 3:51:52 PM
On 27/01/2014 10:19 AM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:

> Neither windows nor OSX is "simple" to use. Both have real quirks which make 
> usage unnessessary difficult.

You'll just argue absolutely ANYTHING I say won't you?

However, I'm curious. Are there any examples we can discuss to have an
interesting conversation (we both agree to ignore Snit's opinion) or
will you just proceed to insult me in your reply?

-- 
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism
0
Silver
1/27/2014 3:54:56 PM
On 27/01/2014 10:23 AM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:

>>> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
>>> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
>>> very exclusive about that.
>>
>> Huh? OS X is a unix.
> 
> In name, yes.
> In actual usage, not at all

I agree with K�hlmann here. While it's based on UNIX, I would have a lot
of trouble telling people that using OS X is in any way similar to what
people would expect from using a TRUE UNIX system with a plethora of CLI
tools and a wide range of awful window managers. The reality is that
with UNIX, you can get a lot done without having to enter any kind of
GUI. With OS X, there is very little which can be accomplish without
putting your hand on a mouse and clicking. All of the tools you would
expect within UNIX are not necessarily there with OS X.

> So they show the (few) unix commands existing in OSX.
> What they (naturally) do not mention are the standard CLI tools which are 
> missing in OSX

I'm tempted to agree. Not that I care personally as I would rather use a
GUI for desktop use. However, for administrators who have used computers
for decades and especially UNIX, being forced to enter a GUI when you
KNOW that you can do things more efficiently in the CLI must be frustrating.

> No need to show that you are an idiot. You know just windows, you have never 
> used linux, any "real" Unix, or OSX

And the trademark unnecessary insult.
-- 
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism
0
Silver
1/27/2014 4:00:30 PM
On 27/01/2014 10:26 AM, Melzzzzz wrote:

>> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
>> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
>> very exclusive about that.
>>
> Hm, Im using OSX and Linux. Didn't found one is simpler than other.
> Same for Windows...
> My parents that are around 70 use Linux without my help...

I wasn't suggesting that GNU/Linux is too complicated for people to use.
If Linux Mint or Ubuntu is put in front of a complete imbecile, there's
no doubt that they would probably have less trouble with IT than they
would with Windows or OS X. I mean that very sincerely since the way you
add or remove software in those two distributions is very intuitive and
you truly don't face any significant risk of getting infected with a
virus. In fact, I find OS X unbelievably annoying every time my mom asks
me to go over to fix something.

What I was suggesting was that many people who have either used
GNU/Linux for a long time or have migrated to it years earlier and
decided to stay within it truly have this feeling of superiority similar
to what Apple users get when they migrate from Windows. Suddenly, every
Windows user is a moron and they're 'smart' because they're not using it
anymore. It's not advocacy, it's stupidity.

-- 
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism
0
Silver
1/27/2014 4:06:06 PM
On 1/27/14, 8:09 AM, in article lc5sqo$bve$3@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<slvrslmr@lv.ca> wrote:

> On 26/01/2014 11:14 PM, Justin wrote:
>> On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
>> 
>> 
>> the hell are you two even arguing about?
>> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their little
>> OS has anything to do with Apple?
> 
> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
> very exclusive about that.

Very well stated.


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 4:11:11 PM
On 1/27/14, 8:16 AM, in article 87y521cv64.fsf@gmail.com, "Hadron"
<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:

> Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.ca> writes:
> 
>> On 26/01/2014 11:14 PM, Justin wrote:
>>> On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> the hell are you two even arguing about?
>>> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their little
>>> OS has anything to do with Apple?
>> 
>> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
>> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
>> very exclusive about that.
> 
> Huh? OS X is a unix.
> 
> http://acad.coloradocollege.edu/dept/PC/sciCompLab/UnixTutorial/
> 
> ..... lol .....
> 
> 
Yes, but he means the old-school ones who want to deny OS X is a UNIX...
read Owl's nonsense where he insists the Open Group is wrong to list OS X
10.8 as a certified UNIX and where even with OS X 10.9 if you change
standard mouse settings you kill the certification on your machine.

Really. Just daft.


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 4:12:26 PM
On 1/27/14, 8:19 AM, in article lc5tdr$ghu$1@dont-email.me, "Peter K�hlmann"
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> Silver Slimer wrote:
> 
>> On 26/01/2014 11:14 PM, Justin wrote:
>>> On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> the hell are you two even arguing about?
>>> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their little
>>> OS has anything to do with Apple?
>> 
>> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
>> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
>> very exclusive about that.
>> 
> 
> Neither windows nor OSX is "simple" to use. Both have real quirks which make
> usage unnessessary difficult.
> 
Such as?


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 4:12:35 PM
On 1/27/14, 8:23 AM, in article lc5tls$ghu$2@dont-email.me, "Peter K�hlmann"
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> Hadron wrote:
> 
>> Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.ca> writes:
>> 
>>> On 26/01/2014 11:14 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>> On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> the hell are you two even arguing about?
>>>> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their little
>>>> OS has anything to do with Apple?
>>> 
>>> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
>>> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
>>> very exclusive about that.
>> 
>> Huh? OS X is a unix.
> 
> In name, yes.
> In actual usage, not at all
> 
>> http://acad.coloradocollege.edu/dept/PC/sciCompLab/UnixTutorial/
> 
> So they show the (few) unix commands existing in OSX.
> What they (naturally) do not mention are the standard CLI tools which are
> missing in OSX
> 
>> ..... lol .....
>> 
> 
> No need to show that you are an idiot. You know just windows, you have never
> used linux, any "real" Unix, or OSX
>  
> 
OS X is a UNIX - but you do a good job of proving Silver Slimer right.


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 4:13:12 PM
On 27/01/2014 11:12 AM, Snit wrote:
> On 1/27/14, 8:19 AM, in article lc5tdr$ghu$1@dont-email.me, "Peter K�hlmann"
> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> Silver Slimer wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/01/2014 11:14 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>> On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> the hell are you two even arguing about?
>>>> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their little
>>>> OS has anything to do with Apple?
>>>
>>> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
>>> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
>>> very exclusive about that.
>>>
>>
>> Neither windows nor OSX is "simple" to use. Both have real quirks which make
>> usage unnessessary difficult.
>>
> Such as?

Dude, try not to participate in this thread. I'd like to see if Peter
will provide any kind of examples if there's a promise, from both of us,
that we will ignore anything you might add to the conversation.

-- 
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism
0
Silver
1/27/2014 4:19:25 PM
On 2014-01-27, Justin <istillhatespam@nobecuaseihatespam.edu> wrote:
> On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
>
>
> the hell are you two even arguing about?
> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their 
> little OS has anything to do with Apple?

    Pretending that MacOS is Unix allows for a level of inconsistency of
end user interfaces that your average Apple fanboy would describe as 
intolerable and user hostile.

    What's the "vested interest" of Unix users? Their sanity perhaps.

-- 
    Dickens & Shakespeare were furiously copied and are now forever in    |||
    our lexicon and will be remembered as long a there is reading.       / | \

    	                                    Anonymous Coward @ Techdirt
0
JEDIDIAH
1/27/2014 4:31:48 PM
On 2014-01-27, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-27 15:19:24 +0000, Peter Köhlmann said:
>
>> Silver Slimer wrote:
>> 
>>> On 26/01/2014 11:14 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>> On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> the hell are you two even arguing about?
>>>> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their little
>>>> OS has anything to do with Apple?
>>> 
>>> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
>>> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
>>> very exclusive about that.
>>> 
>> 
>> Neither windows nor OSX is "simple" to use. Both have real quirks which make
>> usage unnessessary difficult.
>
> That's a joke right?  Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix 
> like OS', both Windows and OSX are very much simpler to use.  With the 
> possible exception if 'use' means 'twiddle with the OS'.  :)
>

    Linux does not require a lot of post-installation security fixes.

    Linux has better software management than MacOS.

    Linux has better automated device driver support than either alternative.

    MacOS is fine if you have very low expectations and never intend to stray
from a very narrowly defined set of use cases. It also helps if you don't have
a lot of data or any legacy data. It also helps if you have no technical
understanding of what you are doing. Otherwise, you may find the sloppiness of 
Apple tools offensive.

     The thing is, any Linux user has access to a free copy of Windows.

     Some of us have Macs too. So we know what BS the Apple mystique is.

     A Linux user is bound to seek out different things to try "just because".

-- 
    Dickens & Shakespeare were furiously copied and are now forever in    |||
    our lexicon and will be remembered as long a there is reading.       / | \

    	                                    Anonymous Coward @ Techdirt
0
JEDIDIAH
1/27/2014 4:37:36 PM
On 2014-01-27, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>
>>Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix 
>>like OS', both Windows and OSX are very much simpler to use.
>
> No they're not.  Troll.
>

    Once you scratch the surface, either one is a bit of a rabbit hole. Although
Windows seems to be more accomodating to the power user. MacOS seems intent on 
stopping the power user in his tracks.

    The problem with being anti-intellectual and openly geek-hostile is that those
geeks are going to be the one rescuing your end users when the reach a stumbling
point. They will too. Apple even acknowledges this with their "Genuis" bar.

-- 
    Dickens & Shakespeare were furiously copied and are now forever in    |||
    our lexicon and will be remembered as long a there is reading.       / | \

    	                                    Anonymous Coward @ Techdirt
0
JEDIDIAH
1/27/2014 4:40:12 PM
Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.ca> writes:

> On 27/01/2014 10:23 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>>>> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
>>>> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
>>>> very exclusive about that.
>>>
>>> Huh? OS X is a unix.
>> 
>> In name, yes.
>> In actual usage, not at all
>
> I agree with Köhlmann here. While it's based on UNIX, I would have a lot
> of trouble telling people that using OS X is in any way similar to what
> people would expect from using a TRUE UNIX system with a plethora of
> CLI

What is a "true Unix"? OS X is a unix. That fact it doesnt ship or have
other window managers etc is neither here nor there.


> tools and a wide range of awful window managers. The reality is that
> with UNIX, you can get a lot done without having to enter any kind of
> GUI. With OS X, there is very little which can be accomplish without
> putting your hand on a mouse and clicking. All of the tools you would
> expect within UNIX are not necessarily there with OS X.
>
>> So they show the (few) unix commands existing in OSX.
>> What they (naturally) do not mention are the standard CLI tools which are 
>> missing in OSX
>
> I'm tempted to agree. Not that I care personally as I would rather use a
> GUI for desktop use. However, for administrators who have used computers
> for decades and especially UNIX, being forced to enter a GUI when you
> KNOW that you can do things more efficiently in the CLI must be frustrating.
>
>> No need to show that you are an idiot. You know just windows, you have never 
>> used linux, any "real" Unix, or OSX

You're full of shit Kohlkopf and you know it. You're the closed source
Windows programmer here Mr "World class C programmer".

>
> And the trademark unnecessary insult.

Of course.


-- 
"I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact." 
The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree.
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
0
Hadron
1/27/2014 4:41:05 PM
On 2014-01-27, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> On 1/27/14, 4:09 PM, Silver Slimer wrote:
>> On 26/01/2014 11:14 PM, Justin wrote:
>>> On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
>>>
>>>
>>> the hell are you two even arguing about?
>>> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their little
>>> OS has anything to do with Apple?
>>
>> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
>> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
>> very exclusive about that.
>>
> Hm, Im using OSX and Linux. Didn't found one is simpler than other.
> Same for Windows...
> My parents that are around 70 use Linux without my help...
>

    The spouse tried one of my Macs for awhile. It ultimately didn't work out.
The ways in which it tries to be different were found to be alienating. It was
subtle stuff but just enough to be annoying.

    The whole "software availability" thing might have reared it's ugly head too.

-- 
    Dickens & Shakespeare were furiously copied and are now forever in    |||
    our lexicon and will be remembered as long a there is reading.       / | \

    	                                    Anonymous Coward @ Techdirt
0
JEDIDIAH
1/27/2014 4:42:35 PM
chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>
>>Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix 
>>like OS', both Windows and OSX are very much simpler to use.
>
> No they're not.  Troll.

Certainly Windows is not simpler.  Windows machines go down with surprising
regularity around here.

-- 
Don't get even -- get odd!
0
Chris
1/27/2014 4:45:40 PM
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 1/27/14, 8:16 AM, in article 87y521cv64.fsf@gmail.com, "Hadron"
> <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.ca> writes:
> > 
> >> On 26/01/2014 11:14 PM, Justin wrote:
> >>> On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> the hell are you two even arguing about?
> >>> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their little
> >>> OS has anything to do with Apple?
> >> 
> >> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
> >> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
> >> very exclusive about that.
> > 
> > Huh? OS X is a unix.
> > 
> > http://acad.coloradocollege.edu/dept/PC/sciCompLab/UnixTutorial/
> > 
> > ..... lol .....
> > 
> > 
> Yes, but he means the old-school ones who want to deny OS X is a UNIX...
> read Owl's nonsense where he insists the Open Group is wrong to list OS X
> 10.8 as a certified UNIX and where even with OS X 10.9 if you change
> standard mouse settings you kill the certification on your machine.

> Really. Just daft.

It's very simple really.
10.5 and 10.6 are no longer certified UNIX.  10.8 never had its certification
renewed.  10.9 is only certified UNIX in default configuration.  Don't be
a hater.  I'm just giving you the truth.

0
owl
1/27/2014 4:52:21 PM
On 1/27/14, 9:19 AM, in article lc60ud$59r$4@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<slvrslmr@lv.ca> wrote:

> On 27/01/2014 11:12 AM, Snit wrote:
>> On 1/27/14, 8:19 AM, in article lc5tdr$ghu$1@dont-email.me, "Peter K�hlmann"
>> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> Silver Slimer wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 26/01/2014 11:14 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>> On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> the hell are you two even arguing about?
>>>>> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their little
>>>>> OS has anything to do with Apple?
>>>> 
>>>> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
>>>> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
>>>> very exclusive about that.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Neither windows nor OSX is "simple" to use. Both have real quirks which make
>>> usage unnessessary difficult.
>>> 
>> Such as?
> 
> Dude, try not to participate in this thread. I'd like to see if Peter
> will provide any kind of examples if there's a promise, from both of us,
> that we will ignore anything you might add to the conversation.

Of course. For some reason thought I enjoy watching him trip over and over
and over. I do not like the Three Stooges, but that is essentially what COLA
is, just in text form... and here I do enjoy it.


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 4:53:23 PM
On 27/01/2014 11:45 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> 
>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>
>>> Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix 
>>> like OS', both Windows and OSX are very much simpler to use.
>>
>> No they're not.  Troll.
> 
> Certainly Windows is not simpler.  Windows machines go down with surprising
> regularity around here.
> 

Perhaps if you weren't constantly receiving malware from venturing onto
child porn sites, you wouldn't be facing the problem so regularly.

-- 
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism
0
Silver
1/27/2014 4:59:38 PM
On 27/01/2014 11:41 AM, Hadron wrote:

>> I agree with Köhlmann here. While it's based on UNIX, I would have a lot
>> of trouble telling people that using OS X is in any way similar to what
>> people would expect from using a TRUE UNIX system with a plethora of
>> CLI
> 
> What is a "true Unix"? OS X is a unix. That fact it doesnt ship or have
> other window managers etc is neither here nor there.

Köhlmann pretty much said it: in the usage. Chances are you won't be
able to accomplish much inside of OS X's CLI compared to a BSD
distributuion like FreeBSD or PC-BSD. That's not to say OS X doesn't
benefit from BSD's security improvements along the way.

>> I'm tempted to agree. Not that I care personally as I would rather use a
>> GUI for desktop use. However, for administrators who have used computers
>> for decades and especially UNIX, being forced to enter a GUI when you
>> KNOW that you can do things more efficiently in the CLI must be frustrating.
>>
>>> No need to show that you are an idiot. You know just windows, you have never 
>>> used linux, any "real" Unix, or OSX
> 
> You're full of shit Kohlkopf and you know it. You're the closed source
> Windows programmer here Mr "World class C programmer".

Considering you're replying to my message, it's kind of pointless to
target Peter.

-- 
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism
0
Silver
1/27/2014 5:07:25 PM
On 1/27/14, 8:51 AM, in article bknd98Fu1leU1@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd  E
Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:

> On 2014-01-27 15:19:24 +0000, Peter K�hlmann said:
> 
>> Silver Slimer wrote:
>> 
>>> On 26/01/2014 11:14 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>> On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> the hell are you two even arguing about?
>>>> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their little
>>>> OS has anything to do with Apple?
>>> 
>>> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
>>> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
>>> very exclusive about that.
>>> 
>> 
>> Neither windows nor OSX is "simple" to use. Both have real quirks which make
>> usage unnessessary difficult.
> 
> That's a joke right?  Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix
> like OS', both Windows and OSX are very much simpler to use.  With the
> possible exception if 'use' means 'twiddle with the OS'.  :)

I would love to hear some examples from Peter. There are some edge cases
where he is correct - but I suspect he cannot name them.


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 5:08:20 PM
On 1/27/14, 9:31 AM, in article slrnled2fk.uvc.jedi@nomad.mishnet,
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2014-01-27, Justin <istillhatespam@nobecuaseihatespam.edu> wrote:
>> On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
>> 
>> 
>> the hell are you two even arguing about?
>> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their
>> little OS has anything to do with Apple?
> 
> Pretending that MacOS is Unix allows for a level of inconsistency of end user
> interfaces that your average Apple fanboy would describe as intolerable and
> user hostile.

Who would? When? 
 
> What's the "vested interest" of Unix users? Their sanity perhaps.

OS X *is* a certified UNIX. The Open Group is not "pretending".

-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 5:09:29 PM
On 1/27/14, 9:37 AM, in article slrnled2qg.uvc.jedi@nomad.mishnet,
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2014-01-27, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-01-27 15:19:24 +0000, Peter K�hlmann said:
>> 
>>> Silver Slimer wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 26/01/2014 11:14 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>> On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> the hell are you two even arguing about?
>>>>> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their little
>>>>> OS has anything to do with Apple?
>>>> 
>>>> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
>>>> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
>>>> very exclusive about that.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Neither windows nor OSX is "simple" to use. Both have real quirks which make
>>> usage unnessessary difficult.
>> 
>> That's a joke right?  Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix
>> like OS', both Windows and OSX are very much simpler to use.  With the
>> possible exception if 'use' means 'twiddle with the OS'.  :)
>> 
> 
> Linux does not require a lot of post-installation security fixes.

Both OS X and Linux get security updates (and others).

> Linux has better software management than MacOS.

How so? OS X now has a repository-like system but it is much easier to
install and uninstall software not from the repositories. Heck, there
usually is *no* installation required, just drag and drop.
 
> Linux has better automated device driver support than either alternative.

How so? Here is OS X with printers:

    <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PrintFirstTime.mp4>
    <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/FirstScan.mov>

Of course, folks in COLA lie about OS X and how this is not possible. Here
is Peter K�hlmann speaking of the scanning from an Office Jet device (which
is what is shown in those videos:

    -----
    Scanning [on OS X] is not supported *at* *all* without jumping
    through several hoops. This includes hunting down 3 different
    software packages (libusb, sane-backend and sane) *and* installing
    them. Out of the box no scanning is supported at all. This is in
    stark contrast to linux where scanning is supported right from the
    start after setting up the printer

    The same is true about *all* OfficeJet Pro printers under OSX.
    -----  
    Message-ID: <l31oss$9o6$1@dont-email.me>
    <http://goo.gl/600BHt>

With that said, Linux does have advantages here as well. Linux tends to
support more devices but the support is often very poor. OS X supports fewer
devices but supports them very well.

> MacOS is fine if you have very low expectations and never intend to stray from
> a very narrowly defined set of use cases.

Oh, do explain what those use cases are.

Here are some use cases where desktop Linux is *far* behind OS X:

* Word Processing
* Presentations
* Spreadsheets
* Quilting Programs
* Screencasting
* Image Editing

Add to that OS X has a plethora of system services which allow almost any
other task to be done in a more efficient and productive way with less risk
of error. Some of those services:

  - Proxy icons
  - A Media Browser
  - Full screen programs integrating with virtual desktops
  - PDF Services
  - A system wide color selector which allows for add-ons
  - A system wide font manager where you can define sets and more
  - Application services
  - Renaming and moving and duplicating from within programs
  - QuickLook (and its integration with so many programs)
  - Saved status indicators
  - A visual versioning system - which allows easy copying and pasting
    from earlier versions
  - A visual backup system that allows a novice to "dig back" into their
    history
  - Consistent print dialogs
  - Consistent save and open dialogs
  - Consistent common dialog names and placements and hot keys

Seriously I would love to see what advantages you are thinking of for Linux.
It is not like it is hard to think of these ones for OS X.

> It also helps if you don't have a lot of data or any legacy data. It also
> helps if you have no technical understanding of what you are doing. Otherwise,
> you may find the sloppiness of Apple tools offensive.

Sloppiness? While there are areas where this is true Apple is known for
their attention to detail. Open source programs are known for being
incomplete and having poor UIs. Do you want examples? I will grant they are
harder to find than they were a few years ago - things have improved.

> The thing is, any Linux user has access to a free copy of Windows.

What? How? That is just silly.

> Some of us have Macs too. So we know what BS the Apple mystique is.

And yet you cannot actually show anything you speak of.
 
> A Linux user is bound to seek out different things to try "just because".

Linux pushes a user to tinker with the tool... you have to. OS X users often
primarily focus on their tasks... because they can.

-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 5:18:51 PM
On 2014-01-27 16:37:36 +0000, JEDIDIAH said:

> On 2014-01-27, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-01-27 15:19:24 +0000, Peter K�hlmann said:
>> 
>>> Silver Slimer wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 26/01/2014 11:14 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>> On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> the hell are you two even arguing about?
>>>>> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their little
>>>>> OS has anything to do with Apple?
>>>> 
>>>> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
>>>> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
>>>> very exclusive about that.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Neither windows nor OSX is "simple" to use. Both have real quirks which make
>>> usage unnessessary difficult.
>> 
>> That's a joke right?  Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix
>> like OS', both Windows and OSX are very much simpler to use.  With the
>> possible exception if 'use' means 'twiddle with the OS'.  :)
>> 
> 
>     Linux does not require a lot of post-installation security fixes.

Hmmm....   You mean those 'updates' that I get prompted about in Ubuntu 
are for naught?  :)

All OS's get post install security fixes these days.

> 
>     Linux has better software management than MacOS.

Not that I've ever seen.  Neither are daunting, neither are even hard 
to manage.  Well, again unless you like futzing around in the OS all 
the time.

> 
>     Linux has better automated device driver support than either alternative.

For a much more limited set of hardware support.  It is nearly 
impossible to find any hardware that Windows doesn't have a driver for 
that is also updated periodically.  And the list that OSX doesn't 
support gets shorter every year.

> 
>     MacOS is fine if you have very low expectations and never intend to stray
> from a very narrowly defined set of use cases. It also helps if you don't have
> a lot of data or any legacy data. It also helps if you have no technical
> understanding of what you are doing. Otherwise, you may find the sloppiness of
> Apple tools offensive.

So I can use OSX, note that MacOS has been gone a very long time, to 
run apps just fine.  And of course, it is with apps that work gets 
done.  OS twiddling is just something to do on a cold day.  As for data 
or legacy data, what the hell are you talking about?

> 
>      The thing is, any Linux user has access to a free copy of Windows.

No they don't.  Well, I suppose that since nearly no one will sell a 
Linux box these days, that is in practicality true.

> 
>      Some of us have Macs too. So we know what BS the Apple mystique is.
> 
>      A Linux user is bound to seek out different things to try "just because".

Mostly 'just because' they like to twiddle with the OS and install the 
'distro of the day'...  :)

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/27/2014 5:19:58 PM
On 27/01/2014 11:37 AM, JEDIDIAH wrote:

>     Linux does not require a lot of post-installation security fixes.

Try installing Ubuntu 13.10 right now. You'll notice a crapload of
security fix downloads upon first connecting to the Internet with your
new operating system.

>     Linux has better software management than MacOS.

Removing software on Mac OS X is technically easier (drag the program's
icon to the trash and empty) but installing is exactly the same since it
happens within an app store... assuming you're referring to Ubuntu or
Linux Mint by making that statement. Otherwise, it's much easier with
the Mac.

>     Linux has better automated device driver support than either alternative.

For legacy hardware, GNU/Linux is much better. For new hardware, it's an
absolute atrocity. Windows and OS X have clear advantages here for new
hardware as drivers for either system are actively developed and
GNU/Linux is constantly ignored. If however there is some hardware that
you need to install in GNU/Linux and support isn't automatic, you can
technically install support but it's fairly cumbersome and doesn't
always work. Ever install a printer in GNU/Linux? It's laughably disgusting.

>     MacOS is fine if you have very low expectations and never intend to stray
> from a very narrowly defined set of use cases. It also helps if you don't have
> a lot of data or any legacy data. It also helps if you have no technical
> understanding of what you are doing. Otherwise, you may find the sloppiness of 
> Apple tools offensive.

I'm not a gigantic fan of Apple and am tempted to agree here.

>      The thing is, any Linux user has access to a free copy of Windows.

Not if they bought the hardware piece-by-piece and built the machine
themselves. Also, if they bought the hardware from System76, they never
received a product key nor did they have Windows pre-installed.

>      Some of us have Macs too. So we know what BS the Apple mystique is.

I'll admit that I was mesmerized by the mystique of it as well in my
early 20's. Now, it doesn't impress me that much. I like their new
hardware, but the software isn't that good.

>      A Linux user is bound to seek out different things to try "just because".

Hence never sticking to one distribution for more than a couple of months.
-- 
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism
0
Silver
1/27/2014 5:20:31 PM
On 2014-01-27 17:18:51 +0000, Snit said:

> 
> Linux pushes a user to tinker with the tool... you have to. OS X users often
> primarily focus on their tasks... because they can.

I like that!!  :)

And so true...

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/27/2014 5:27:28 PM
> Justin wrote:
>>
>> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their 
>> little OS has anything to do with Apple?

No, asshole.  But some people do take offense when shitty trolls use
the OSX "UNIX certification" to bash Linux.

Real difficult to figure-out, eh?

-- 
"(slrn is) available for Windows you moron. As is most of the best
OSS:"  -  "Hadron"
0
chrisv
1/27/2014 5:29:56 PM
Lloyd E Parsons wrote:

>> OS X users often
>> primarily focus on their tasks... because they can.
>
>I like that!!  :)

You would.

>And so true...

No, it's not "so true", "Lloyd".  

It's true that Linux users have more freedom and flexibility, but they
are equally able to "focus on their tasks".

Mac users want someone else to choose for them.  Linux users prefer to
choose for themselves.

-- 
'Believe it or not most people actually use "software" and not fiddle
around with the OS all day long.'  -  trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel"
0
chrisv
1/27/2014 5:38:10 PM
Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.ca> writes:

> On 27/01/2014 11:41 AM, Hadron wrote:
>
>>> I agree with Köhlmann here. While it's based on UNIX, I would have a lot
>>> of trouble telling people that using OS X is in any way similar to what
>>> people would expect from using a TRUE UNIX system with a plethora of
>>> CLI
>> 
>> What is a "true Unix"? OS X is a unix. That fact it doesnt ship or have
>> other window managers etc is neither here nor there.
>
> Köhlmann pretty much said it: in the usage. Chances are you won't be
> able to accomplish much inside of OS X's CLI compared to a BSD
> distributuion like FreeBSD or PC-BSD. That's not to say OS X doesn't
> benefit from BSD's security improvements along the way.
>
>>> I'm tempted to agree. Not that I care personally as I would rather use a
>>> GUI for desktop use. However, for administrators who have used computers
>>> for decades and especially UNIX, being forced to enter a GUI when you
>>> KNOW that you can do things more efficiently in the CLI must be frustrating.
>>>
>>>> No need to show that you are an idiot. You know just windows, you have never 
>>>> used linux, any "real" Unix, or OSX
>> 
>> You're full of shit Kohlkopf and you know it. You're the closed source
>> Windows programmer here Mr "World class C programmer".
>
> Considering you're replying to my message, it's kind of pointless to
> target Peter.

No it isnt. Its perfectly normal to address more than one person and
its why there are levels of indentation. I will agree I shouldnt have
cut him from the author attributes however.




-- 
"I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact." 
The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree.
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
0
Hadron
1/27/2014 5:39:22 PM
On 1/27/14, 9:42 AM, in article slrnled33r.uvc.jedi@nomad.mishnet,
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2014-01-27, Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>> On 1/27/14, 4:09 PM, Silver Slimer wrote:
>>> On 26/01/2014 11:14 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>> On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> the hell are you two even arguing about?
>>>> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their little
>>>> OS has anything to do with Apple?
>>> 
>>> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
>>> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
>>> very exclusive about that.
>>> 
>> Hm, Im using OSX and Linux. Didn't found one is simpler than other.
>> Same for Windows...
>> My parents that are around 70 use Linux without my help...
>> 
> 
> The spouse tried one of my Macs for awhile. It ultimately didn't work out. The
> ways in which it tries to be different were found to be alienating. It was
> subtle stuff but just enough to be annoying.

Such as...???

> The whole "software availability" thing might have reared it's ugly head too.

Yes: Windows has the advantage here... with Linux being far behind OS X.

-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 5:44:56 PM
"chrisv" = turdv lied:
>> Justin wrote:
>>>
>>> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their
>>> little OS has anything to do with Apple?
>
>No, asshole.  But some people do take offense when shitty trolls use
>the OSX "UNIX certification" to bash Linux.
>
>Real difficult to figure-out, eh?
>
<turd sig>
> "(slrn is) available for Windows you moron. As is most of the best 
> SS:"  -  "Hadron"

Absolutely correct!
"It runs in console mode on various Unix-like systems (including Linux), 
32-bit Windows, OS/2, BeOS and VMS."
http://slrn.sourceforge.net
Nice selfnuke turd 

0
Cola
1/27/2014 5:47:27 PM
On 1/27/14, 9:52 AM, in article x480a.p5@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

....
>> Yes, but he means the old-school ones who want to deny OS X is a UNIX...
>> read Owl's nonsense where he insists the Open Group is wrong to list OS X
>> 10.8 as a certified UNIX and where even with OS X 10.9 if you change
>> standard mouse settings you kill the certification on your machine.
> 
>> Really. Just daft.
> 
> It's very simple really.
> 10.5 and 10.6 are no longer certified UNIX.  10.8 never had its certification
> renewed.  10.9 is only certified UNIX in default configuration.  Don't be
> a hater.  I'm just giving you the truth.

<http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register>
    -----
    The Open Brand - Register of Certified Products
    Apple Inc.: OS X Version 10.9 Mavericks on Intel-based Mac computers
    Apple Inc.: Mac OS X Version 10.8 Mountain Lion on Intel-based
                Macintosh computers
    -----

If you want to see all of the Apple certification from Open Group they are
listed here: <http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/apple.htm>

-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 5:48:43 PM
On 1/27/14, 10:27 AM, in article bknisdFp1gU1@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd  E
Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:

> On 2014-01-27 17:18:51 +0000, Snit said:
> 
>> 
>> Linux pushes a user to tinker with the tool... you have to. OS X users often
>> primarily focus on their tasks... because they can.
> 
> I like that!!  :)
> 
> And so true...

It is. Not that you cannot tinker with OS X if you want - though clearly not
as much as you can with desktop Linux, but the focus is getting tasks done.

Which is where it *should* be.


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 5:50:27 PM
On 1/27/14, 10:29 AM, in article un5de9tsm4v7vu8udf8citoqtka9qlj68b@4ax.com,
"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> Justin wrote:
>>> 
>>> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their
>>> little OS has anything to do with Apple?
> 
> No, asshole.  But some people do take offense when shitty trolls use
> the OSX "UNIX certification" to bash Linux.

Who has done that? Ever?

Really... I would love to see it.

> Real difficult to figure-out, eh?



-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 6:00:55 PM
On 1/27/14, 10:20 AM, in article lc64h1$3kl$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<slvrslmr@lv.ca> wrote:

> On 27/01/2014 11:37 AM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> 
>>     Linux does not require a lot of post-installation security fixes.
> 
> Try installing Ubuntu 13.10 right now. You'll notice a crapload of
> security fix downloads upon first connecting to the Internet with your
> new operating system.

Every time I install Ubuntu I see this. Heck, if I go a while without
running it there are always a ton of updates waiting for me.

>>     Linux has better software management than MacOS.
> 
> Removing software on Mac OS X is technically easier (drag the program's
> icon to the trash and empty) but installing is exactly the same since it
> happens within an app store... assuming you're referring to Ubuntu or
> Linux Mint by making that statement. Otherwise, it's much easier with
> the Mac.

Exactly: they both have stores / repositories where the installers are just
simple point and click... but for software outside of a repository it is
*much* easier on OS X. No contest.

>>     Linux has better automated device driver support than either alternative.
> 
> For legacy hardware, GNU/Linux is much better. For new hardware, it's an
> absolute atrocity. Windows and OS X have clear advantages here for new
> hardware as drivers for either system are actively developed and
> GNU/Linux is constantly ignored. If however there is some hardware that
> you need to install in GNU/Linux and support isn't automatic, you can
> technically install support but it's fairly cumbersome and doesn't
> always work. Ever install a printer in GNU/Linux? It's laughably disgusting.

The claims made by the "advocates" about OS X drivers are simply not true:

---------------------------------------------------------------

  Peter K�hlmann, after being shown these videos:
    <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PrintFirstTime.mp4>
    <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/FirstScan.mov>
  Both show an OfficeJet Pro 8600 after being connected to a network and
  being used for the first time on a Mac. And it works very, very well.
    -----
    Scanning [on OS X] is not supported *at* *all* without jumping
    through several hoops. This includes hunting down 3 different
    software packages (libusb, sane-backend and sane) *and* installing
    them. Out of the box no scanning is supported at all. This is in
    stark contrast to linux where scanning is supported right from the
    start after setting up the printer

    The same is true about *all* OfficeJet Pro printers under OSX.
    -----    
LOL! Yes, after being shown how an OfficeJet Pro works without doing
*anything* extra Peter still makes these completely incorrect claims.

Message-ID: <l31oss$9o6$1@dont-email.me>
<http://goo.gl/600BHt>

---------------------------------------------------------------

>> MacOS is fine if you have very low expectations and never intend to stray
>> from a very narrowly defined set of use cases. It also helps if you don't
>> have a lot of data or any legacy data. It also helps if you have no technical
>> understanding of what you are doing. Otherwise, you may find the sloppiness
>> of Apple tools offensive.
> 
> I'm not a gigantic fan of Apple and am tempted to agree here.

Apple is known for their attention to detail. I will say I wish they had
more "advanced" options and no doubt the OS X environment is far from
perfect. But what use-cases is JEDIADIA talking about? He names none. It was
trivial for me to name use cases where OS X is far ahead of Linux, as well
as give all sorts of examples of systems services where OS X is far ahead.

>>      The thing is, any Linux user has access to a free copy of Windows.
> 
> Not if they bought the hardware piece-by-piece and built the machine
> themselves. Also, if they bought the hardware from System76, they never
> received a product key nor did they have Windows pre-installed.

The idea that Linux comes with a free copy of Windows is just complete and
utter nonsense. 

>>      Some of us have Macs too. So we know what BS the Apple mystique is.
> 
> I'll admit that I was mesmerized by the mystique of it as well in my
> early 20's. Now, it doesn't impress me that much. I like their new
> hardware, but the software isn't that good.

It certainly is not perfect... and their new iWork is still a mess even with
the recent update of a few days ago. They really should have released it as
a beta. 

>>      A Linux user is bound to seek out different things to try "just
>> because".
> 
> Hence never sticking to one distribution for more than a couple of months.

And never finding one that really works. :)

-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 6:08:58 PM
On 1/27/14, 10:07 AM, in article lc63od$slh$2@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<slvrslmr@lv.ca> wrote:

> On 27/01/2014 11:41 AM, Hadron wrote:
> 
>>> I agree with K�hlmann here. While it's based on UNIX, I would have a lot
>>> of trouble telling people that using OS X is in any way similar to what
>>> people would expect from using a TRUE UNIX system with a plethora of
>>> CLI
>> 
>> What is a "true Unix"? OS X is a unix. That fact it doesnt ship or have
>> other window managers etc is neither here nor there.
> 
> K�hlmann pretty much said it: in the usage. Chances are you won't be
> able to accomplish much inside of OS X's CLI compared to a BSD
> distributuion like FreeBSD or PC-BSD. That's not to say OS X doesn't
> benefit from BSD's security improvements along the way.

What can you do with the CLI in FreeBSD that you cannot on OS X? There are
some places the utilities tend to be behind on OS X, but do you have any
examples?

>>> I'm tempted to agree. Not that I care personally as I would rather use a
>>> GUI for desktop use. However, for administrators who have used computers
>>> for decades and especially UNIX, being forced to enter a GUI when you
>>> KNOW that you can do things more efficiently in the CLI must be frustrating.
>>> 
>>>> No need to show that you are an idiot. You know just windows, you have
>>>> never 
>>>> used linux, any "real" Unix, or OSX
>> 
>> You're full of shit Kohlkopf and you know it. You're the closed source
>> Windows programmer here Mr "World class C programmer".
> 
> Considering you're replying to my message, it's kind of pointless to
> target Peter.



-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 6:10:03 PM
On 1/27/14, 9:45 AM, in article lc621d$hlv$1@dont-email.me, "Chris Ahlstrom"
<OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:

> chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> 
>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>> 
>>> Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix
>>> like OS', both Windows and OSX are very much simpler to use.
>> 
>> No they're not.  Troll.
> 
> Certainly Windows is not simpler.  Windows machines go down with surprising
> regularity around here.

If you are trying to make an ease-of-use argument for Linux you have a *lot*
of work to do. I am all ears.


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 6:10:43 PM
On 1/27/14, 9:40 AM, in article slrnled2vc.uvc.jedi@nomad.mishnet,
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2014-01-27, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>> 
>>> Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix
>>> like OS', both Windows and OSX are very much simpler to use.
>> 
>> No they're not.  Troll.
>> 
> 
> Once you scratch the surface, either one is a bit of a rabbit hole. Although
> Windows seems to be more accomodating to the power user. MacOS seems intent on
> stopping the power user in his tracks.

Stopping them from doing what task? By all means list them.

Of OS X, Windows, and desktop Linux there is *no* doubt that desktop Linux
is on the bottom when it comes to choices that promote productivity,
efficiency, and error reduction. No doubt at all. Do you need support and
evidence for this. Unlike you I am *happy* to go into details.

> The problem with being anti-intellectual and openly geek-hostile is that those
> geeks are going to be the one rescuing your end users when the reach a
> stumbling point. They will too. Apple even acknowledges this with their
> "Genuis" bar.

Ah, Apple has great support - and you twist this to be a bad thing.

That is grossly dishonest of you.


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 6:12:54 PM
On 1/27/14, 9:06 AM, in article lc605f$59r$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<slvrslmr@lv.ca> wrote:

> On 27/01/2014 10:26 AM, Melzzzzz wrote:
> 
>>> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
>>> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
>>> very exclusive about that.
>>> 
>> Hm, Im using OSX and Linux. Didn't found one is simpler than other.
>> Same for Windows...
>> My parents that are around 70 use Linux without my help...
> 
> I wasn't suggesting that GNU/Linux is too complicated for people to use.
> If Linux Mint or Ubuntu is put in front of a complete imbecile, there's
> no doubt that they would probably have less trouble with IT than they
> would with Windows or OS X. I mean that very sincerely since the way you
> add or remove software in those two distributions is very intuitive and
> you truly don't face any significant risk of getting infected with a
> virus. In fact, I find OS X unbelievably annoying every time my mom asks
> me to go over to fix something.

Do you have some examples?

> What I was suggesting was that many people who have either used
> GNU/Linux for a long time or have migrated to it years earlier and
> decided to stay within it truly have this feeling of superiority similar
> to what Apple users get when they migrate from Windows. Suddenly, every
> Windows user is a moron and they're 'smart' because they're not using it
> anymore. It's not advocacy, it's stupidity.

OS X users might be "smug" because they feel they have a system which is put
together better and it focuses on usability... but there is nothing like the
"Free" religion in the Mac world.

-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 6:14:12 PM
On 1/27/14, 9:00 AM, in article lc5vqv$3an$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<slvrslmr@lv.ca> wrote:

> On 27/01/2014 10:23 AM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> 
>>>> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
>>>> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
>>>> very exclusive about that.
>>> 
>>> Huh? OS X is a unix.
>> 
>> In name, yes.
>> In actual usage, not at all
> 
> I agree with K�hlmann here. While it's based on UNIX, I would have a lot
> of trouble telling people that using OS X is in any way similar to what
> people would expect from using a TRUE UNIX system with a plethora of CLI
> tools and a wide range of awful window managers. The reality is that
> with UNIX, you can get a lot done without having to enter any kind of
> GUI. With OS X, there is very little which can be accomplish without
> putting your hand on a mouse and clicking. All of the tools you would
> expect within UNIX are not necessarily there with OS X.

If you want to boot OS X without the GUI you can.

With that said, if all you want is a command line why not go with a BSD
variant or Linux?

....


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 6:16:01 PM
On 1/27/14, 8:49 AM, in article dtvce9dh9rdqulbat9nhbhk6fp91sjknl3@4ax.com,
"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> 
>> Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix
>> like OS', both Windows and OSX are very much simpler to use.
> 
> No they're not.  Troll.

So let's test the two views by looking at common tasks.

And, yes, I know this is where the "advocates" run. :)


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 6:16:40 PM
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 1/27/14, 10:07 AM, in article lc63od$slh$2@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
> <slvrslmr@lv.ca> wrote:

> > On 27/01/2014 11:41 AM, Hadron wrote:
> > 
> >>> I agree with Köhlmann here. While it's based on UNIX, I would have a lot
> >>> of trouble telling people that using OS X is in any way similar to what
> >>> people would expect from using a TRUE UNIX system with a plethora of
> >>> CLI
> >> 
> >> What is a "true Unix"? OS X is a unix. That fact it doesnt ship or have
> >> other window managers etc is neither here nor there.
> > 
> > Köhlmann pretty much said it: in the usage. Chances are you won't be
> > able to accomplish much inside of OS X's CLI compared to a BSD
> > distributuion like FreeBSD or PC-BSD. That's not to say OS X doesn't
> > benefit from BSD's security improvements along the way.

> What can you do with the CLI in FreeBSD that you cannot on OS X? There are
> some places the utilities tend to be behind on OS X, but do you have any
> examples?

$ pw useradd ...

0
owl
1/27/2014 6:18:52 PM
On Monday, January 27, 2014 10:20:31 AM UTC-7, Silver Slimer wrote:
> On 27/01/2014 11:37 AM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >     Linux does not require a lot of post-installation security fixes.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Try installing Ubuntu 13.10 right now. You'll notice a crapload of
>=20
> security fix downloads upon first connecting to the Internet with your
>=20
> new operating system.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >     Linux has better software management than MacOS.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Removing software on Mac OS X is technically easier (drag the program's
>=20
> icon to the trash and empty) but installing is exactly the same since it
>=20
> happens within an app store... assuming you're referring to Ubuntu or
>=20
> Linux Mint by making that statement. Otherwise, it's much easier with
>=20
> the Mac.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >     Linux has better automated device driver support than either altern=
ative.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> For legacy hardware, GNU/Linux is much better. For new hardware, it's an
>=20
> absolute atrocity. Windows and OS X have clear advantages here for new
>=20
> hardware as drivers for either system are actively developed and
>=20
> GNU/Linux is constantly ignored. If however there is some hardware that
>=20
> you need to install in GNU/Linux and support isn't automatic, you can
>=20
> technically install support but it's fairly cumbersome and doesn't
>=20
> always work. Ever install a printer in GNU/Linux? It's laughably disgusti=
ng.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >     MacOS is fine if you have very low expectations and never intend to=
 stray
>=20
> > from a very narrowly defined set of use cases. It also helps if you don=
't have
>=20
> > a lot of data or any legacy data. It also helps if you have no technica=
l
>=20
> > understanding of what you are doing. Otherwise, you may find the sloppi=
ness of=20
>=20
> > Apple tools offensive.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> I'm not a gigantic fan of Apple and am tempted to agree here.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >      The thing is, any Linux user has access to a free copy of Windows.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Not if they bought the hardware piece-by-piece and built the machine
>=20
> themselves. Also, if they bought the hardware from System76, they never
>=20
> received a product key nor did they have Windows pre-installed.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >      Some of us have Macs too. So we know what BS the Apple mystique is=
..
>=20
>=20
>=20
> I'll admit that I was mesmerized by the mystique of it as well in my
>=20
> early 20's. Now, it doesn't impress me that much. I like their new
>=20
> hardware, but the software isn't that good.

Depends on what you're doing. For example, the implementation and integrati=
on between Logic and NI's Maschine II is better than anything I've encounte=
red for this class of device. Windows OSes are very good, too, but for some=
 reason they still don't do the aggregate device thing as stable as OSX (on=
ce you've set it up properly).

0
Steve
1/27/2014 6:22:32 PM
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:45:40 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> 
>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>
>>>Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix 
>>>like OS', both Windows and OSX are very much simpler to use.
>>
>> No they're not.  Troll.
> 
> Certainly Windows is not simpler.  Windows machines go down with surprising
> regularity around here.

My Windows machines are very stable and I rarely have problems.
Same for my Linux machine.
As for Windows being simpler, it's not nor is it more complex than
Linux. Just different.
The difference is a person typically purchases a machine with Windows
already loaded.
With Linux they are probably loading it themselves.
For some people that can be a complex thing.
Given a machine with a modern Linux distribution already on it and
comparing it to a Windows machine neither is simpler and both can be
used for the typical tasks people use computers for these days.
0
Richard
1/27/2014 6:37:17 PM
On 2014-01-27, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-27 16:37:36 +0000, JEDIDIAH said:
>
>> On 2014-01-27, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>>> On 2014-01-27 15:19:24 +0000, Peter Köhlmann said:
>>> 
>>>> Silver Slimer wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 26/01/2014 11:14 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>>> On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> the hell are you two even arguing about?
>>>>>> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their little
>>>>>> OS has anything to do with Apple?
>>>>> 
>>>>> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
>>>>> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
>>>>> very exclusive about that.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Neither windows nor OSX is "simple" to use. Both have real quirks which make
>>>> usage unnessessary difficult.
>>> 
>>> That's a joke right?  Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix
>>> like OS', both Windows and OSX are very much simpler to use.  With the
>>> possible exception if 'use' means 'twiddle with the OS'.  :)
>>> 
>> 
>>     Linux does not require a lot of post-installation security fixes.
>
> Hmmm....   You mean those 'updates' that I get prompted about in Ubuntu 
> are for naught?  :)

   That's an automated process asking you if it can proceed.

   That's not you personally taking extra manual steps to ensure 
that your machine is secure. 

   You have to undo Microsoft's stupid.

>
> All OS's get post install security fixes these days.

   You are trying to perpetrate the falacy of "it can't be done any better".

   It can. Microsoft is exceptionally bad.

>
>> 
>>     Linux has better software management than MacOS.
>
> Not that I've ever seen.  Neither are daunting, neither are even hard 

   Then you're just lying.

   The app store isn't even as good as it gets on Macs. There are better
an more comprehensive alternatives but even those aren't nearly as 
comprehensive or as automated as a Linux package manager.

   Your bullshit won't fly here. Some of us have proper first hand experience.

>> 
>>     Linux has better automated device driver support than either alternative.
>
> For a much more limited set of hardware support.  It is nearly 

    It's not that much more limited.

> impossible to find any hardware that Windows doesn't have a driver for 
> that is also updated periodically.  And the list that OSX doesn't 
> support gets shorter every year.

    MacOS isn't automated. I don't even think it attempts to be. At least
Microsoft tries and makes the attempt. Although it fails miserably at times
despite the allegation that it supports more.

>
>> 
>>     MacOS is fine if you have very low expectations and never intend to stray
>> from a very narrowly defined set of use cases. It also helps if you don't have
>> a lot of data or any legacy data. It also helps if you have no technical
>> understanding of what you are doing. Otherwise, you may find the sloppiness of
>> Apple tools offensive.
>
> So I can use OSX, note that MacOS has been gone a very long time, to 

    I don't care for Apple's Microsoft-esque attempts to hijack someone else's trademarks.

    It's still just MacOS.

    You would think that fanboys would not be interested in trying to disavow
Apple's glorious past. Perhaps it's too much of a bad reminder of how you 
couldn't even displace the likes of MS-DOS.

-- 
    Dickens & Shakespeare were furiously copied and are now forever in    |||
    our lexicon and will be remembered as long a there is reading.       / | \

    	                                    Anonymous Coward @ Techdirt
0
JEDIDIAH
1/27/2014 7:15:26 PM
On 1/27/14, 11:18 AM, in article hg4a.trar@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 1/27/14, 10:07 AM, in article lc63od$slh$2@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
>> <slvrslmr@lv.ca> wrote:
> 
>>> On 27/01/2014 11:41 AM, Hadron wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> I agree with K�hlmann here. While it's based on UNIX, I would have a lot
>>>>> of trouble telling people that using OS X is in any way similar to what
>>>>> people would expect from using a TRUE UNIX system with a plethora of
>>>>> CLI
>>>> 
>>>> What is a "true Unix"? OS X is a unix. That fact it doesnt ship or have
>>>> other window managers etc is neither here nor there.
>>> 
>>> K�hlmann pretty much said it: in the usage. Chances are you won't be
>>> able to accomplish much inside of OS X's CLI compared to a BSD
>>> distributuion like FreeBSD or PC-BSD. That's not to say OS X doesn't
>>> benefit from BSD's security improvements along the way.
> 
>> What can you do with the CLI in FreeBSD that you cannot on OS X? There are
>> some places the utilities tend to be behind on OS X, but do you have any
>> examples?
> 
> $ pw useradd ...

The "what can you do" part is add a new user, if that is your example.

And you can add users from the OS X command line.


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 7:16:46 PM
On 1/27/14, 11:37 AM, in article tcckoyg9vitr.1ch1w9icjhexk.dlg@40tude.net,
"Richard M" <Richard89172@iname.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:45:40 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> 
>> chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>> 
>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix
>>>> like OS', both Windows and OSX are very much simpler to use.
>>> 
>>> No they're not.  Troll.
>> 
>> Certainly Windows is not simpler.  Windows machines go down with surprising
>> regularity around here.
> 
> My Windows machines are very stable and I rarely have problems.
> Same for my Linux machine.
> As for Windows being simpler, it's not nor is it more complex than
> Linux. Just different.

I would love to see you try to support this.

> The difference is a person typically purchases a machine with Windows
> already loaded.
> With Linux they are probably loading it themselves.
> For some people that can be a complex thing.

Yes. But even when they have it loaded by someone else they usually seek out
Windows (or sometimes OS X) later. I see this very often. There was a time
when many people in my street were using Linux - they had old machines
people gave to them and they needed an OS.

Now as far as I know there is *one* person still on it and they are looking
to move away from it. And that is with having free support.

> Given a machine with a modern Linux distribution already on it and
> comparing it to a Windows machine neither is simpler and both can be
> used for the typical tasks people use computers for these days.

And what is your support for this?


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 7:23:32 PM
On 2014-01-27, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-27 17:18:51 +0000, Snit said:
>
>> 
>> Linux pushes a user to tinker with the tool... you have to. OS X users often
>> primarily focus on their tasks... because they can.
>
> I like that!!  :)
>
> And so true...
>

   No. Not really. At best, it's a trollish notion about 10 years out of date.

-- 
"Microsoft looks at new ideas, they don't evaluate whether 
the idea will move the industry forward, they ask,                    |||
'how will it help us sell more copies of Windows?'"                  / | \

                         -- Bill Gates
0
JEDIDIAH
1/27/2014 7:25:47 PM
On 1/27/14, 12:25 PM, in article slrnledclr.m3q.jedi@nomad.mishnet,
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2014-01-27, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-01-27 17:18:51 +0000, Snit said:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Linux pushes a user to tinker with the tool... you have to. OS X users often
>>> primarily focus on their tasks... because they can.
>> 
>> I like that!!  :)
>> 
>> And so true...
> 
>    No. Not really. At best, it's a trollish notion about 10 years out of date.

Do you need examples?



-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 7:39:16 PM
On 1/27/14, 12:15 PM, in article slrnledc2e.m3q.jedi@nomad.mishnet,
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

.... 
>>>> That's a joke right?  Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix like
>>>> OS', both Windows and OSX are very much simpler to use.  With the possible
>>>> exception if 'use' means 'twiddle with the OS'.  :)
>>>> 
>>> Linux does not require a lot of post-installation security fixes.
>>> 
>> Hmmm....   You mean those 'updates' that I get prompted about in Ubuntu are
>> for naught?  :)
>> 
> That's an automated process asking you if it can proceed.

On both OSs. Right.

> That's not you personally taking extra manual steps to ensure that your
> machine is secure.

On both OSs. Right.

> You have to undo Microsoft's stupid.

Microsoft does not create Windows *and* OS X, but ignoring that little
blunder of yours, yes, there is more reason to install a third party malware
detection / cleaning program on Windows than on OS X and Linux, just as
their is with Android compared to iOS.

Are you going to conclude that iOS is "simpler to use" based on this?

>> All OS's get post install security fixes these days.
>> 
> You are trying to perpetrate the falacy of "it can't be done any better".
> 
> It can. Microsoft is exceptionally bad.

As shown by...???

>>> Linux has better software management than MacOS.
>>> 
>> Not that I've ever seen.  Neither are daunting, neither are even hard
>> 
> Then you're just lying.
> 
> The app store isn't even as good as it gets on Macs. There are better an more
> comprehensive alternatives but even those aren't nearly as comprehensive or as
> automated as a Linux package manager.
> 
> Your bullshit won't fly here. Some of us have proper first hand experience.

I would say the App Store has room for improvement, such as with its
searching... and this is done better on many Linux flavors. No argument
here. Not that it is bad with OS X, but it is better elsewhere.

OK.

But now try watch a general user work to install software *not* in a
repository. See what happens. On OS X their might be some confusion as to
where to drag the file or where it has gone once you drop in in the
Applications folder. Yes: room for improvement (and, no, LaunchPad is not a
great solution here). But then watch a user try this on Linux.

Most will just give up.

There is no real contest here: Linux has repositories to deal with the utter
disaster of installation from other means. Again, does not mean repositories
are bad - they are not - but let us not pretend that Linux is even close to
the competition here. It is not - not once you leave the "walled garden". :)

>>> Linux has better automated device driver support than either alternative.
>>> 
>> For a much more limited set of hardware support.  It is nearly
>> 
> It's not that much more limited.

Go find the top five selling printers / AIO devices from, say Best Buy. Then
look on the OEM sites for drivers.

How many do you think will support Linux? How about Windows or OS X?

>> impossible to find any hardware that Windows doesn't have a driver for that
>> is also updated periodically.  And the list that OSX doesn't support gets
>> shorter every year.
>> 
> MacOS isn't automated. I don't even think it attempts to be. At least
> Microsoft tries and makes the attempt. Although it fails miserably at times
> despite the allegation that it supports more.

Sounds like you have been making the mistake to trust Peter K�hlmann:

---------------------------------------------------------------

  Peter K�hlmann, after being shown these videos:
    <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PrintFirstTime.mp4>
    <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/FirstScan.mov>
  Both show an OfficeJet Pro 8600 after being connected to a network and
  being used for the first time on a Mac. And it works very, very well.
    -----
    Scanning [on OS X] is not supported *at* *all* without jumping
    through several hoops. This includes hunting down 3 different
    software packages (libusb, sane-backend and sane) *and* installing
    them. Out of the box no scanning is supported at all. This is in
    stark contrast to linux where scanning is supported right from the
    start after setting up the printer

    The same is true about *all* OfficeJet Pro printers under OSX.
    -----    
LOL! Yes, after being shown how an OfficeJet Pro works without doing
*anything* extra Peter still makes these completely incorrect claims.

Message-ID: <l31oss$9o6$1@dont-email.me>
<http://goo.gl/600BHt>

---------------------------------------------------------------

>>> MacOS is fine if you have very low expectations and never intend to stray
>>> from a very narrowly defined set of use cases. It also helps if you don't
>>> have a lot of data or any legacy data. It also helps if you have no
>>> technical understanding of what you are doing. Otherwise, you may find the
>>> sloppiness of Apple tools offensive.
>>> 
>> So I can use OSX, note that MacOS has been gone a very long time, to
>> 
> I don't care for Apple's Microsoft-esque attempts to hijack someone else's
> trademarks.
> 
> It's still just MacOS.
> 
> You would think that fanboys would not be interested in trying to disavow
> Apple's glorious past. Perhaps it's too much of a bad reminder of how you
> couldn't even displace the likes of MS-DOS.

Can you re-write that in English please?

-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 7:48:01 PM
On 2014-01-27 19:15:26 +0000, JEDIDIAH said:

> On 2014-01-27, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-01-27 16:37:36 +0000, JEDIDIAH said:
>> 
>>> On 2014-01-27, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2014-01-27 15:19:24 +0000, Peter K�hlmann said:
>>>> 
>>>>> Silver Slimer wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 26/01/2014 11:14 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> the hell are you two even arguing about?
>>>>>>> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their little
>>>>>>> OS has anything to do with Apple?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
>>>>>> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
>>>>>> very exclusive about that.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Neither windows nor OSX is "simple" to use. Both have real quirks which make
>>>>> usage unnessessary difficult.
>>>> 
>>>> That's a joke right?  Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix
>>>> like OS', both Windows and OSX are very much simpler to use.  With the
>>>> possible exception if 'use' means 'twiddle with the OS'.  :)
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Linux does not require a lot of post-installation security fixes.
>> 
>> Hmmm....   You mean those 'updates' that I get prompted about in Ubuntu
>> are for naught?  :)
> 
>    That's an automated process asking you if it can proceed.
> 
>    That's not you personally taking extra manual steps to ensure
> that your machine is secure.
> 
>    You have to undo Microsoft's stupid.

Why would I undo a security update?  From any OS?

I don't do anything on my SurfacePro nor Acer laptop running Win8.1.  
Just the tools and security already builtin.  Of course I don't hang 
around those places well known to provide all that malware.

Like maybe the google play store....  :)

> 
>> 
>> All OS's get post install security fixes these days.
> 
>    You are trying to perpetrate the falacy of "it can't be done any better".
> 
>    It can. Microsoft is exceptionally bad.

Not at all.

I have to wonder if you really have any tech knowledge.  If so, you 
hide it well.

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Linux has better software management than MacOS.
>> 
>> Not that I've ever seen.  Neither are daunting, neither are even hard
> 
>    Then you're just lying.
> 
>    The app store isn't even as good as it gets on Macs. There are better
> an more comprehensive alternatives but even those aren't nearly as
> comprehensive or as automated as a Linux package manager.
> 
>    Your bullshit won't fly here. Some of us have proper first hand experience.

the new to Linux app stores are pretty damned good, but no better nor 
worse than the others these days.

> 
>>> 
>>> Linux has better automated device driver support than either alternative.
>> 
>> For a much more limited set of hardware support.  It is nearly
> 
>     It's not that much more limited.

Depends on whether you want full functionality or some limited version 
of it.  Then it is still more limited.

How much more is a nit I'll let you pick away at!  :)

> 
>> impossible to find any hardware that Windows doesn't have a driver for
>> that is also updated periodically.  And the list that OSX doesn't
>> support gets shorter every year.
> 
>     MacOS isn't automated. I don't even think it attempts to be. At least
> Microsoft tries and makes the attempt. Although it fails miserably at times
> despite the allegation that it supports more.

What makes you think it isn't automated?  I surely is and has been for 
quite a long while.

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> MacOS is fine if you have very low expectations and never intend to stray
>>> from a very narrowly defined set of use cases. It also helps if you don't have
>>> a lot of data or any legacy data. It also helps if you have no technical
>>> understanding of what you are doing. Otherwise, you may find the sloppiness of
>>> Apple tools offensive.
>> 
>> So I can use OSX, note that MacOS has been gone a very long time, to
> 
>     I don't care for Apple's Microsoft-esque attempts to hijack someone 
> else's trademarks.
> 
>     It's still just MacOS.
> 
>     You would think that fanboys would not be interested in trying to disavow
> Apple's glorious past. Perhaps it's too much of a bad reminder of how you
> couldn't even displace the likes of MS-DOS.

The last MacOS was version 9 something.

It is now OSX.

Terms mean things.

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/27/2014 8:04:12 PM
JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2014-01-27, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-01-27 17:18:51 +0000, Snit said:
>>
>>> 
>>> Linux pushes a user to tinker with the tool... you have to. OS X users often
>>> primarily focus on their tasks... because they can.
>>
>> I like that!!  :)
>>
>> And so true...

It's bullshit.

>    No. Not really. At best, it's a trollish notion about 10 years out of date.

At the very least it's 10 years out of date. 

-- 
"Microsoft has vast resources, literally billions of dollars in cash, or liquid assets reserves. 
Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods." 
-- Former White House adviser Richard A. Clarke --
0
William
1/27/2014 8:05:24 PM
On 2014-01-27, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-27 19:15:26 +0000, JEDIDIAH said:
>
>> On 2014-01-27, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>>> On 2014-01-27 16:37:36 +0000, JEDIDIAH said:
>>> 
>>>> On 2014-01-27, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2014-01-27 15:19:24 +0000, Peter Köhlmann said:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Silver Slimer wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 26/01/2014 11:14 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2014-01-27 00:18:27 +0000, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> said:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> the hell are you two even arguing about?
>>>>>>>> Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying their little
>>>>>>>> OS has anything to do with Apple?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> UNIX and GNU/Linux people have always enjoyed believing themselves to be
>>>>>>> too intelligent to use something as simple as Windows or OS X. They're
>>>>>>> very exclusive about that.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Neither windows nor OSX is "simple" to use. Both have real quirks which make
>>>>>> usage unnessessary difficult.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's a joke right?  Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix
>>>>> like OS', both Windows and OSX are very much simpler to use.  With the
>>>>> possible exception if 'use' means 'twiddle with the OS'.  :)
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Linux does not require a lot of post-installation security fixes.
>>> 
>>> Hmmm....   You mean those 'updates' that I get prompted about in Ubuntu
>>> are for naught?  :)
>> 
>>    That's an automated process asking you if it can proceed.
>> 
>>    That's not you personally taking extra manual steps to ensure
>> that your machine is secure.
>> 
>>    You have to undo Microsoft's stupid.
>
> Why would I undo a security update?  From any OS?

   Not security updates. Fixing bad default configuration.

[deletia]

>>> 
>>> All OS's get post install security fixes these days.
>> 
>>    You are trying to perpetrate the falacy of "it can't be done any better".
>> 
>>    It can. Microsoft is exceptionally bad.
>
> Not at all.
>
> I have to wonder if you really have any tech knowledge.  If so, you 
> hide it well.

    Insults like that are a sure sign that you have nothing meaningful 
left to say.

    It's really sad to see someone like you trying to prop up Microsoft
just to try and make Linux look bad. 

     You know that the enemy of your enemy isn't necessarily your friend.

>>>> 
>>>> Linux has better software management than MacOS.
>>> 
>>> Not that I've ever seen.  Neither are daunting, neither are even hard
>> 
>>    Then you're just lying.
>> 
>>    The app store isn't even as good as it gets on Macs. There are better
>> an more comprehensive alternatives but even those aren't nearly as
>> comprehensive or as automated as a Linux package manager.
>> 
>>    Your bullshit won't fly here. Some of us have proper first hand experience.
>
> the new to Linux app stores are pretty damned good, but no better nor 
> worse than the others these days.

     The "app store" concept in Linux is not new. It goes back to the 90s.

[deletia]

     Once again, the fanboy sees that Apple has done something and 
automatically assumes that it was Apple that invented it.

-- 
"Microsoft looks at new ideas, they don't evaluate whether 
the idea will move the industry forward, they ask,                    |||
'how will it help us sell more copies of Windows?'"                  / | \

                         -- Bill Gates
0
JEDIDIAH
1/27/2014 8:08:36 PM
On 1/27/14, 1:04 PM, in article bkns24F2qj7U1@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd  E
Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:

>>     You would think that fanboys would not be interested in trying to disavow
>> Apple's glorious past. Perhaps it's too much of a bad reminder of how you
>> couldn't even displace the likes of MS-DOS.
> 
> The last MacOS was version 9 something.
> 
> It is now OSX.
> 
> Terms mean things.

It is OS X, not OSX. :)


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 8:15:57 PM
On 2014-01-27 20:15:57 +0000, Snit said:

> On 1/27/14, 1:04 PM, in article bkns24F2qj7U1@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd  E
> Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
> 
>>> You would think that fanboys would not be interested in trying to disavow
>>> Apple's glorious past. Perhaps it's too much of a bad reminder of how you
>>> couldn't even displace the likes of MS-DOS.
>> 
>> The last MacOS was version 9 something.
>> 
>> It is now OSX.
>> 
>> Terms mean things.
> 
> It is OS X, not OSX. :)

myspacebarmustbebroke!:)

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/27/2014 8:24:36 PM
On 2014-01-27, William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On 2014-01-27, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>>> On 2014-01-27 17:18:51 +0000, Snit said:
>>>
>>>> 
>>>> Linux pushes a user to tinker with the tool... you have to. OS X users often
>>>> primarily focus on their tasks... because they can.
>>>
>>> I like that!!  :)
>>>
>>> And so true...
>
> It's bullshit.
>
>>    No. Not really. At best, it's a trollish notion about 10 years out of date.
>
> At the very least it's 10 years out of date. 

    There is this odd notion that Unix users are some kind of masochists
that actually like being subjected to extra work and bother when the truth
really couldn't be farther from that.

-- 
"Microsoft looks at new ideas, they don't evaluate whether 
the idea will move the industry forward, they ask,                    |||
'how will it help us sell more copies of Windows?'"                  / | \

                         -- Bill Gates
0
JEDIDIAH
1/27/2014 8:29:50 PM
On 1/27/14, 1:05 PM, in article 4pqira-p1o.ln1@myhost.linuxnetworkbeta.net,
"William Poaster" <wp@induh-vidual.net> wrote:

> JEDIDIAH wrote:
> 
>> On 2014-01-27, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>>> On 2014-01-27 17:18:51 +0000, Snit said:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Linux pushes a user to tinker with the tool... you have to. OS X users
>>>> often
>>>> primarily focus on their tasks... because they can.
>>> 
>>> I like that!!  :)
>>> 
>>> And so true...
> 
> It's bullshit.
> 
>>    No. Not really. At best, it's a trollish notion about 10 years out of
>> date.
> 
> At the very least it's 10 years out of date.

So let's discuss examples.

And, yes, I know this is where the "advocates" put on their running shoes
screaming excuses behind them.


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 8:32:40 PM
On 1/27/14, 1:24 PM, in article bknt8bF33dtU1@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd  E
Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:

> On 2014-01-27 20:15:57 +0000, Snit said:
> 
>> On 1/27/14, 1:04 PM, in article bkns24F2qj7U1@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd  E
>> Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> You would think that fanboys would not be interested in trying to disavow
>>>> Apple's glorious past. Perhaps it's too much of a bad reminder of how you
>>>> couldn't even displace the likes of MS-DOS.
>>> 
>>> The last MacOS was version 9 something.
>>> 
>>> It is now OSX.
>>> 
>>> Terms mean things.
>> 
>> It is OS X, not OSX. :)
> 
> myspacebarmustbebroke!:)

And you did not use capitalization! :)


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 8:32:59 PM
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:49:21 -0600, chrisv wrote:

> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> 
>>Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix like OS', both Windows
>>and OSX are very much simpler to use.
> 
> No they're not.  Troll.

The only people who claim Windows and OSX are simpler to use than Linux, 
are those who don't use Linux.

-- 
"Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist 
that there is no God." --Heywood Broun
0
RonB
1/27/2014 8:45:02 PM
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:45:40 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Certainly Windows is not simpler.  Windows machines go down with
> surprising regularity around here.

I don't know if Windows 8 uses the idiot registry (like the rest of 
Windows), but if it does, there is nothing "simple" about it. It's a 
constant accident waiting to happen.

-- 
"Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist 
that there is no God." --Heywood Broun
0
RonB
1/27/2014 8:46:40 PM
On 1/27/14, 1:08 PM, in article slrnledf64.ss0.jedi@nomad.mishnet,
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

....
> Insults like that are a sure sign that you have nothing meaningful left to
> say.

What do you think this says about the COLA "advocates" in general?

.... 
>> the new to Linux app stores are pretty damned good, but no better nor
>> worse than the others these days.
> 
>      The "app store" concept in Linux is not new. It goes back to the 90s.

Did he say otherwise?

What I will add is I think searching in the Apple app store could stand a
lot of improvement and I think it is often done better on Linux. Not that OS
X is bad, but it is not as good.

With that said, installing things *not* in a repository is a *lot* easier on
OS X that it is Linux.

>      Once again, the fanboy sees that Apple has done something and
> automatically assumes that it was Apple that invented it.

"Insults like that are a sure sign that you have nothing meaningful left to
say."

Did he ever say Apple invented the idea of a software repository?

-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 8:48:10 PM
On 1/27/14, 1:29 PM, in article slrnledgdu.rtj.jedi@nomad.mishnet,
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2014-01-27, William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> wrote:
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2014-01-27, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2014-01-27 17:18:51 +0000, Snit said:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Linux pushes a user to tinker with the tool... you have to. OS X users
>>>>> often
>>>>> primarily focus on their tasks... because they can.
>>>> 
>>>> I like that!!  :)
>>>> 
>>>> And so true...
>> 
>> It's bullshit.
>> 
>>>    No. Not really. At best, it's a trollish notion about 10 years out of
>>> date.
>> 
>> At the very least it's 10 years out of date.
> 
>     There is this odd notion that Unix users are some kind of masochists
> that actually like being subjected to extra work and bother when the truth
> really couldn't be farther from that.

So let's look at common use cases. I would love to... see which is easier to
work with: Linux (pick your distro) or OS X. We each can pick some common
tasks.


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 8:48:59 PM
In article <slrnled2vc.uvc.jedi@nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> > > Lloyd  E Parsons:
> > > Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix like OS', both
> > > Windows and OSX are very much simpler to use.
> > 
> > chrisv:
> > No they're not.  Troll.
> 
> Once you scratch the surface, either one is a bit of a rabbit hole.
> Although Windows seems to be more accomodating to the power user.
> MacOS seems intent on stopping the power user in his tracks.

Only if the user is ignorant. 

> The problem with being anti-intellectual and openly geek-hostile is
> that those geeks are going to be the one rescuing your end users
> when the reach a stumbling point. They will too. Apple even
> acknowledges this with their "Genuis" bar.

And since OSX is unix, you have the entire pelthora of geek-friendly 
BSD tools at your disposal when required for whatever reason. And you also 
have a neat layer in between called AppleScript, which you even can call 
from the command line with "osascript", and attach userland scripts to a 
cronjob for instance. Works like a charm.


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/27/2014 9:05:37 PM
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 13:37:17 -0500, Richard M wrote:

> My Windows machines are very stable and I rarely have problems.
> Same for my Linux machine.
> As for Windows being simpler, it's not nor is it more complex than
> Linux.
> Just different.
> The difference is a person typically purchases a machine with Windows
> already loaded.
> With Linux they are probably loading it themselves.
> For some people that can be a complex thing.
> Given a machine with a modern Linux distribution already on it and
> comparing it to a Windows machine neither is simpler and both can be
> used for the typical tasks people use computers for these days.

Linux was more "complicated" than Windows when I first started using it 
because, as you say, it was different. So I tried moving to it a few times 
and gave up. Finally I realized that I had many, many hours in learning 
DOS and Windows and that the reason for my frustration with Linux was 
because I expected to be as versed in Linux (immediately, without effort) 
as I had been in DOS and Windows after years of experience. It's kind of 
like trying to learn handwriting with your opposite hand. It's frustrating 
because it's automatic with normal hand, and you feel you should be able 
to do it that well right from the start when moving over. Once I figured 
it out it would take a little self-training, working through the issues -- 
and it didn't take much time -- I was soon using Linux as fluently as I 
had used Windows or DOS.

But I once I learned Linux it is *definitely* less complex than Windows. 
It has no registry file. That, in itself, makes Linux superior to Windows. 
It is also much easier to maintain and upgrade. For some reason 300 Megs 
of Windows upgrades take hours, and several reboots. With Linux a 300 Meg 
update is, at most, a 20 minute process and rebooting is optional. There's 
no worry about malware -- no running Malwarebytes, or upgrading 
Malwarebytes (or whatever malware software you choose) or upgrading and 
maintaining the anti-virus software (which often has its own issues), or 
deciding if you want to let the virus checker run in the background 
constantly, thereby slowing down your system and everything you do. You 
don't have to worry about installing and upgrading multiple applications 
from multiple sources. You don't have to worry about maintaining a record 
of your licenses, or keeping receipts in case the legality of your 
software is questioned. Installation (with upgrades) takes hours in 
Windows, it takes 40 minutes with Linux. There's nothing like the Linux 
repository system in Windows. 

There are a lot of reasons Linux is superior to Windows. If there's a 
specific application that only works in OSX or Windows, fine, that's a 
good reason to use Windows or a Mac. (I don't believe in beating my head 
against the wall.) For most PC users, however, Linux (out of the box) can 
do everything they want, and they never have to buy another application, 
or worry about licenses or contributing to monopolists again.

-- 
"Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist 
that there is no God." --Heywood Broun
0
RonB
1/27/2014 9:07:13 PM
On 1/27/14, 1:45 PM, in article lc6ggd$dnu$3@dont-email.me, "RonB"
<ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:49:21 -0600, chrisv wrote:
> 
>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>> 
>>> Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix like OS', both Windows
>>> and OSX are very much simpler to use.
>> 
>> No they're not.  Troll.
> 
> The only people who claim Windows and OSX are simpler to use than Linux,
> are those who don't use Linux.

Incorrect. Obviously.


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 9:08:47 PM
In article <87txcpcr8e.fsf@gmail.com>, Hadron wrote:

> > > Peter K�hlmann:
> > > In name, yes. In actual usage, not at all
> > 
> > Silver Slimer:
> > I agree with Köhlmann here. While it's based on UNIX, I would
> > have a lot of trouble telling people that using OS X is in any way
> > similar to what people would expect from using a TRUE UNIX system
> > with a plethora of CLI
> 
> What is a "true Unix"? OS X is a unix. That fact it doesnt ship or
> have other window managers etc is neither here nor there.

X11 is available for OSX. And you can download KDE if you want to. 


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/27/2014 9:09:22 PM
On 1/27/14, 1:46 PM, in article lc6gjg$dnu$4@dont-email.me, "RonB"
<ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:45:40 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> 
>> Certainly Windows is not simpler.  Windows machines go down with
>> surprising regularity around here.
> 
> I don't know if Windows 8 uses the idiot registry (like the rest of
> Windows), but if it does, there is nothing "simple" about it. It's a
> constant accident waiting to happen.

You pretend to be able to compare Linux to Windows and then admit you do not
even know the basics of Windows.

Truly amazing.

Do not worry, none of your cult-like herd of convenient friends will call
you out on it. 


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 9:09:32 PM
In article <hg4a.trar@rooftop.invalid>, owl wrote:

> > > > > Silver Slimer:
> > > > > I agree with Köhlmann here. While it's based on UNIX, I
> > > > > would have a lot of trouble telling people that using OS X
> > > > > is in any way similar to what people would expect from using
> > > > > a TRUE UNIX system with a plethora of CLI
> > > > 
> > > > Hadron:
> > > > What is a "true Unix"? OS X is a unix. That fact it doesnt
> > > > ship or have other window managers etc is neither here nor
> > > > there.
> > > 
> > > Silver Slimer:
> > > Köhlmann pretty much said it: in the usage. Chances are you
> > > won't be able to accomplish much inside of OS X's CLI compared
> > > to a BSD distributuion like FreeBSD or PC-BSD. That's not to say
> > > OS X doesn't benefit from BSD's security improvements along the
> > > way.
> > 
> > Snit:
> > What can you do with the CLI in FreeBSD that you cannot on OS X?
> > There are some places the utilities tend to be behind on OS X, but
> > do you have any examples?
> 
> $ pw useradd ...

$ dscl ...


(directory services command line)

Any more questions?



-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/27/2014 9:13:45 PM
In article <un5de9tsm4v7vu8udf8citoqtka9qlj68b@4ax.com>, chrisv wrote:

> > > Justin:
> > > Do UNIX people have some sort of vested interest in denying
> > > their little OS has anything to do with Apple?
>
> No, asshole.  But some people do take offense when shitty trolls use
> the OSX "UNIX certification" to bash Linux.

Not sure when or if that has actually happened. I thought we were just 
making fun of Peter's ignorance about Unix here? :)



-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/27/2014 9:16:01 PM
Sandman wrote:

> In article <87txcpcr8e.fsf@gmail.com>, Hadron wrote:
> 
>> > > Peter K�hlmann:
>> > > In name, yes. In actual usage, not at all
>> > 
>> > Silver Slimer:
>> > I agree with Köhlmann here. While it's based on UNIX, I would
>> > have a lot of trouble telling people that using OS X is in any way
>> > similar to what people would expect from using a TRUE UNIX system
>> > with a plethora of CLI
>> 
>> What is a "true Unix"? OS X is a unix. That fact it doesnt ship or
>> have other window managers etc is neither here nor there.
> 
> X11 is available for OSX. And you can download KDE if you want to.
> 

X is not even provided any more on the OS DVD
And yes, you can download KDE. It is just not even remotely as easy to 
install (and use) as in linux. It is also not up to date


0
Peter
1/27/2014 9:17:00 PM
On 1/27/14, 2:07 PM, in article lc6hq1$dnu$5@dont-email.me, "RonB"
<ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 13:37:17 -0500, Richard M wrote:
> 
>> My Windows machines are very stable and I rarely have problems.
>> Same for my Linux machine.
>> As for Windows being simpler, it's not nor is it more complex than
>> Linux.
>> Just different.
>> The difference is a person typically purchases a machine with Windows
>> already loaded.
>> With Linux they are probably loading it themselves.
>> For some people that can be a complex thing.
>> Given a machine with a modern Linux distribution already on it and
>> comparing it to a Windows machine neither is simpler and both can be
>> used for the typical tasks people use computers for these days.
> 
> Linux was more "complicated" than Windows when I first started using it
> because, as you say, it was different.

That is not what makes it harder to use. What makes it harder is the lack of
coherency in the systems, the lack of system tools, the lack of software....
the massive lack of choice.

> So I tried moving to it a few times and gave up. Finally I realized that I had
> many, many hours in learning DOS and Windows and that the reason for my
> frustration with Linux was because I expected to be as versed in Linux
> (immediately, without effort) as I had been in DOS and Windows after years of
> experience. It's kind of like trying to learn handwriting with your opposite
> hand. It's frustrating because it's automatic with normal hand, and you feel
> you should be able to do it that well right from the start when moving over.
> Once I figured it out it would take a little self-training, working through
> the issues -- and it didn't take much time -- I was soon using Linux as
> fluently as I had used Windows or DOS.

So let us compare Linux to the competition. Pick some tasks and see which is
done more easily.

> But I once I learned Linux it is *definitely* less complex than Windows.
> It has no registry file. That, in itself, makes Linux superior to Windows.

I will say the registry is a bad design choice. No argument here.
 
....



-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 9:19:36 PM
On 1/27/14, 2:05 PM, in article slrnledins.jpf.mr@irc.sandman.net, "Sandman"
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <slrnled2vc.uvc.jedi@nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> 
>>>> Lloyd  E Parsons:
>>>> Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix like OS', both
>>>> Windows and OSX are very much simpler to use.
>>> 
>>> chrisv:
>>> No they're not.  Troll.
>> 
>> Once you scratch the surface, either one is a bit of a rabbit hole.
>> Although Windows seems to be more accomodating to the power user.
>> MacOS seems intent on stopping the power user in his tracks.
> 
> Only if the user is ignorant.
> 
>> The problem with being anti-intellectual and openly geek-hostile is
>> that those geeks are going to be the one rescuing your end users
>> when the reach a stumbling point. They will too. Apple even
>> acknowledges this with their "Genuis" bar.
> 
> And since OSX is unix, you have the entire pelthora of geek-friendly
> BSD tools at your disposal when required for whatever reason. And you also
> have a neat layer in between called AppleScript, which you even can call
> from the command line with "osascript", and attach userland scripts to a
> cronjob for instance. Works like a charm.
> 
And for the less technical there is Automator. When it comes to automation
nothing beats OS X.


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 9:20:20 PM
In article <slrnled2qg.uvc.jedi@nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> > Lloyd  E Parsons:
> > That's a joke right?  Compared to Linux and most other Unix and
> > Unix like OS', both Windows and OSX are very much simpler to use. 
> > With the possible exception if 'use' means 'twiddle with the OS'. 
> > :)
> 
> Linux does not require a lot of post-installation security fixes.

Neither does OSX.

> Linux has better software management than MacOS.

How so? Before the App Store, sure. And if you mean the unix layer, both 
fink and ports are pretty decent software managers.

> Linux has better automated device driver support than either
> alternative.

This is probably true, since OSX isn't designed to run on everything from 
servers to toasters :)

> MacOS is fine if you have very low expectations and never intend to
> stray from a very narrowly defined set of use cases.

This is blatantly false. Sure, OSX is more approachable for the novice 
user, but doesn't fail to live up to "geeky" expectations due to it. 

> It also helps if you don't have a lot of data or any legacy data. It also 
> helps if you have no technical understanding of what you are doing. 
> Otherwise, you may find the sloppiness of Apple tools offensive.

There is no such sloppiness. If you dislike some of Apple's own 
applications, then just don't use them.

> The thing is, any Linux user has access to a free copy of Windows.

Huh? You mean as in the copy that came with the PC when they bought it? Why 
do you think it's free?

I have Linux installed on many servers, no free copy of Windows on any of 
them.

> Some of us have Macs too. So we know what BS the Apple mystique is.

You just can't put it into words, huh?

> A Linux user is bound to seek out different things to try "just
> because".

 bound
  noun
  a territorial limit; a boundary: the ancient bounds of the forest.
  a limitation or restriction on feeling or action

You sure you picked the right noun there? While I'm pretty confident that 
there is lots of software that won't easily compile on BSD that works fine 
on Linux, it's far from most of it. If a Mac user doesn't "try out" some 
open source software it's not because they can't.


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/27/2014 9:24:45 PM
In article <slrnledc2e.m3q.jedi@nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> > Lloyd  E Parsons:
> > Hmmm....   You mean those 'updates' that I get prompted about in
> > Ubuntu are for naught?  :)
> 
> That's an automated process asking you if it can proceed.

> That's not you personally taking extra manual steps to ensure that
> your machine is secure.

Just like on OSX.

> > > JEDIDIAH:
> > > Linux has better software management than MacOS.
> > 
> > Lloyd  E Parsons:
> > Not that I've ever seen.  Neither are daunting, neither are even
> > hard
> 
> Then you're just lying.

> The app store isn't even as good as it gets on Macs. There are
> better an more comprehensive alternatives but even those aren't
> nearly as comprehensive or as automated as a Linux package manager.

> Your bullshit won't fly here. Some of us have proper first hand
> experience.

The App Store, fink and ports aren't as automated? Of course they are!

> > > JEDIDIAH:
> > > Linux has better automated device driver support than either
> > > alternative.
> > 
> > Lloyd  E Parsons:
> > For a much more limited set of hardware support.  It is nearly
> > impossible to find any hardware that Windows doesn't have a driver
> > for that is also updated periodically.  And the list that OSX
> > doesn't support gets shorter every year.
> 
> MacOS isn't automated. I don't even think it attempts to be. At
> least Microsoft tries and makes the attempt. Although it fails
> miserably at times despite the allegation that it supports more.

What do you mean here? OSX has on demand hardware drivers. Attach a printer 
and it will detect it and download drivers from Apple, for instance. Some 
specialized hardware will require an installation, such as sound cards and 
things like that, but most is just plug and play - if drivers exists. 

> > > JEDIDIAH:
> > > MacOS is fine if you have very low expectations and never intend
> > > to stray from a very narrowly defined set of use cases. It also
> > > helps if you don't have a lot of data or any legacy data. It
> > > also helps if you have no technical understanding of what you
> > > are doing. Otherwise, you may find the sloppiness of Apple tools
> > > offensive.
> > 
> > Lloyd  E Parsons:
> > So I can use OSX, note that MacOS has been gone a very long time,
> > to
> 
> I don't care for Apple's Microsoft-esque attempts to hijack someone
> else's trademarks.

> It's still just MacOS.

> You would think that fanboys would not be interested in trying to
> disavow Apple's glorious past. Perhaps it's too much of a bad
> reminder of how you couldn't even displace the likes of MS-DOS.

Not sure what you're on about here... 


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/27/2014 9:30:30 PM
In article <lc6icc$pik$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann  wrote:

> > > > Silver Slimer:
> > > > I agree with Köhlmann here. While it's based
> > > > on UNIX, I would have a lot of trouble telling people that
> > > > using OS X is in any way similar to what people would expect
> > > > from using a TRUE UNIX system with a plethora of CLI
> > > 
> > > Hadron:
> > > What is a "true Unix"? OS X is a unix. That fact it doesnt ship
> > > or have other window managers etc is neither here nor there.
> > 
> > Sandman:
> > X11 is available for OSX. And you can download KDE if you want to.
> 
> X is not even provided any more on the OS DVD

Since there is no OS DVD.

> And yes, you can download KDE. It is just not even remotely as easy to 
> install (and use) as in linux. It is also not up to date

With ports you can install KDE 4.11.5 and with fink you can install 4.4.1.

Last stable release is 4.12.1 as of january 14. 

fink installs from source, so it will obviously take some time. ports 
downloads binaries, but there's probably going to be a lot (been quite a 
while since I done it) so it may take some time. But it's as "easy" as 
typing "ports install kde4" and then grab a cup of coffee. Or several :)


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/27/2014 9:51:39 PM
On 2014-01-27, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 13:37:17 -0500, Richard M wrote:
>
>> My Windows machines are very stable and I rarely have problems.
>> Same for my Linux machine.
>> As for Windows being simpler, it's not nor is it more complex than
>> Linux.
>> Just different.
>> The difference is a person typically purchases a machine with Windows
>> already loaded.
>> With Linux they are probably loading it themselves.
>> For some people that can be a complex thing.
>> Given a machine with a modern Linux distribution already on it and
>> comparing it to a Windows machine neither is simpler and both can be
>> used for the typical tasks people use computers for these days.
>
> Linux was more "complicated" than Windows when I first started using it 
> because, as you say, it was different. So I tried moving to it a few times 
> and gave up. Finally I realized that I had many, many hours in learning 
> DOS and Windows and that the reason for my frustration with Linux was 
> because I expected to be as versed in Linux (immediately, without effort) 
> as I had been in DOS and Windows after years of experience. It's kind of 

    I adopted Linux much earlier on so I didn't have a great deal of 
attachment for DOS or Windows. In fact, upon finally giving into the
monopoly hegeomony I found that it wasn't nearly all it was cracked up
to be. I quickly wondered if I had made a good choice. So I was very
open to alternatives.

    I would have bought OpenStep or Solaris if they had been more 
accomdating to my relatively plebian PC hardware.

[deletia]

> But I once I learned Linux it is *definitely* less complex than Windows. 
> It has no registry file. That, in itself, makes Linux superior to Windows. 

   I never like the registry.

> It is also much easier to maintain and upgrade. For some reason 300 Megs 
> of Windows upgrades take hours, and several reboots. With Linux a 300 Meg 
> update is, at most, a 20 minute process and rebooting is optional. There's 

   Windows updates also like to do things like turn your firewall
back on or enable automatic reboots. This can be especially annoying
on a server or just prone to bugger Microsoft's own protocols.

[deletia]

> There are a lot of reasons Linux is superior to Windows. If there's a 
> specific application that only works in OSX or Windows, fine, that's a 
> good reason to use Windows or a Mac. (I don't believe in beating my head 
> against the wall.) For most PC users, however, Linux (out of the box) can 
> do everything they want, and they never have to buy another application, 
> or worry about licenses or contributing to monopolists again.

   Most people really don't need a lot. This is why tablets are so successful.
They avoid the mental block associated with an alternate PC OS. They seem so
different to the laymen that their usual Lemming inspired mental block doesn't
seem relevant.

-- 
"Microsoft looks at new ideas, they don't evaluate whether 
the idea will move the industry forward, they ask,                    |||
'how will it help us sell more copies of Windows?'"                  / | \

                         -- Bill Gates
0
JEDIDIAH
1/27/2014 9:55:48 PM
In article <lc6ggd$dnu$3@dont-email.me>, RonB wrote:

> > > Lloyd  E Parsons:
> > > Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix like OS', both
> > > Windows and OSX are very much simpler to use.
> > 
> > chrisv:
> > No they're not.  Troll.
> 
> The only people who claim Windows and OSX are simpler to use than
> Linux, are those who don't use Linux.

True enough, in the sense that any tool that you're familliar with will be 
the easiest to use. It's hard to be objective about that. I suppose that 
some independent tests with novice users could determine the veracity of 
the claim though.

Linux is a choice you make when you already have Windows on your computer, 
so the people making that choice are obviously the people that aren't 
intimidated by trying something new and something probably not used by 
their friends and collegues.


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/27/2014 9:56:03 PM
On 1/27/14, 2:17 PM, in article lc6icc$pik$1@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> Sandman wrote:
> 
>> In article <87txcpcr8e.fsf@gmail.com>, Hadron wrote:
>> 
>>>>> Peter K�hlmann:
>>>>> In name, yes. In actual usage, not at all
>>>> 
>>>> Silver Slimer:
>>>> I agree with Köhlmann here. While it's based on UNIX, I would
>>>> have a lot of trouble telling people that using OS X is in any way
>>>> similar to what people would expect from using a TRUE UNIX system
>>>> with a plethora of CLI
>>> 
>>> What is a "true Unix"? OS X is a unix. That fact it doesnt ship or
>>> have other window managers etc is neither here nor there.
>> 
>> X11 is available for OSX. And you can download KDE if you want to.
>> 
> 
> X is not even provided any more on the OS DVD

What OS X DVD?

LOL!

You cannot help but show off your ignorance!

> And yes, you can download KDE. It is just not even remotely as easy to
> install (and use) as in linux. It is also not up to date
> 
> 



-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 9:57:46 PM
In article <lc6gjg$dnu$4@dont-email.me>, RonB wrote:

> > Chris Ahlstrom:
> > Certainly Windows is not simpler.  Windows machines go down with
> > surprising regularity around here.
> 
> I don't know if Windows 8 uses the idiot registry (like the rest of
> Windows), but if it does, there is nothing "simple" about it. It's a
> constant accident waiting to happen.

I always thought the registry was just a database of settings, and that 
when corrupted could mess up the entire system. Linux more often than not 
use flatfiles for configurations, but few use a consistent format for it so 
for the user, you often have to learn just how the file works.

OSX uses XML files, and have both a CLI and GUI editor for the files. So 
you don't have a huge database, but a consistent format. Though, even if 
the format is the same, the way each application saves values to it may 
differ :)

-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/27/2014 9:59:20 PM
On 1/27/14, 2:51 PM, in article slrnledle6.jpf.mr@irc.sandman.net, "Sandman"
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <lc6icc$pik$1@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann  wrote:
> 
>>>>> Silver Slimer:
>>>>> I agree with K�hlmann here. While it's based
>>>>> on UNIX, I would have a lot of trouble telling people that
>>>>> using OS X is in any way similar to what people would expect
>>>>> from using a TRUE UNIX system with a plethora of CLI
>>>> 
>>>> Hadron:
>>>> What is a "true Unix"? OS X is a unix. That fact it doesnt ship
>>>> or have other window managers etc is neither here nor there.
>>> 
>>> Sandman:
>>> X11 is available for OSX. And you can download KDE if you want to.
>> 
>> X is not even provided any more on the OS DVD
> 
> Since there is no OS DVD.

Exactly. You can make your own, of course, but Apple does not sell OS X on a
DVD.

Peter just cannot help but put his foot in his mouth on every topic.

Heck, it was news to him that you can compile code on one device and then
run it on another kind. And he claims to be a programmer!

.... 



-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 10:01:24 PM
On 1/27/14, 2:56 PM, in article slrnledlme.jpf.mr@irc.sandman.net, "Sandman"
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <lc6ggd$dnu$3@dont-email.me>, RonB wrote:
> 
>>>> Lloyd  E Parsons:
>>>> Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix like OS', both
>>>> Windows and OSX are very much simpler to use.
>>> 
>>> chrisv:
>>> No they're not.  Troll.
>> 
>> The only people who claim Windows and OSX are simpler to use than
>> Linux, are those who don't use Linux.
> 
> True enough, in the sense that any tool that you're familliar with will be
> the easiest to use. It's hard to be objective about that. I suppose that
> some independent tests with novice users could determine the veracity of
> the claim though.

We can look at specific tasks and make reasoned judgments. Yes, there will
be some subjectivity, but in many cases it is pretty much black and white:

    <http://youtu.be/ootjP-cFVO8>

I mean, really: black and white. For those set of tasks LibreOffice suck.

> Linux is a choice you make when you already have Windows on your computer,
> so the people making that choice are obviously the people that aren't
> intimidated by trying something new and something probably not used by
> their friends and collegues.
> 



-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 10:03:02 PM
In article <lc6hq1$dnu$5@dont-email.me>, RonB wrote:

> > Richard M:
> > My Windows machines are very stable and I rarely have problems.
> > Same for my Linux machine. As for Windows being simpler, it's not
> > nor is it more complex than Linux. Just different. The difference
> > is a person typically purchases a machine with Windows already
> > loaded. With Linux they are probably loading it themselves. For
> > some people that can be a complex thing. Given a machine with a
> > modern Linux distribution already on it and comparing it to a
> > Windows machine neither is simpler and both can be used for the
> > typical tasks people use computers for these days.
> 
> Linux was more "complicated" than Windows when I first started using
> it because, as you say, it was different. So I tried moving to it a
> few times and gave up. Finally I realized that I had many, many
> hours in learning DOS and Windows and that the reason for my
> frustration with Linux was because I expected to be as versed in
> Linux (immediately, without effort) as I had been in DOS and Windows
> after years of experience. It's kind of like trying to learn
> handwriting with your opposite hand. It's frustrating because it's
> automatic with normal hand, and you feel you should be able to do it
> that well right from the start when moving over. Once I figured it
> out it would take a little self-training, working through the issues
> -- and it didn't take much time -- I was soon using Linux as
> fluently as I had used Windows or DOS.

Agreed, this is how we work as humans. As an anecdote, I am having the same 
problems when trying to play first person shooters with a console 
controller when used to playing it with a mouse and keybaord for decades. 

> But I once I learned Linux it is *definitely* less complex than
> Windows. It has no registry file. That, in itself, makes Linux
> superior to Windows. It is also much easier to maintain and upgrade.
> For some reason 300 Megs of Windows upgrades take hours, and several
> reboots. With Linux a 300 Meg update is, at most, a 20 minute
> process and rebooting is optional.

Surely that's probably because the Windows update is one large file and the 
Linux update are several smaller files which can be downloaded in 
parallell? I mean, it's not like Linux makes your broadband 10 times faster 
:)

> There's no worry about malware -- no running Malwarebytes, or upgrading 
> Malwarebytes (or whatever malware software you choose) or upgrading and 
> maintaining the anti-virus software (which often has its own issues), or 
> deciding if you want to let the virus checker run in the background 
> constantly, thereby slowing down your system and everything you do. You 
> don't have to worry about installing and upgrading multiple applications 
> from multiple sources. You don't have to worry about maintaining a record 
> of your licenses, or keeping receipts in case the legality of your 
> software is questioned. Installation (with upgrades) takes hours in 
> Windows, it takes 40 minutes with Linux. There's nothing like the Linux 
> repository system in Windows.

Huh. I mean, the Windows App Store contains both normal and Metro apps. 
It's far from complete though.

> There are a lot of reasons Linux is superior to Windows. If there's
> a specific application that only works in OSX or Windows, fine,
> that's a good reason to use Windows or a Mac. (I don't believe in
> beating my head against the wall.) For most PC users, however, Linux
> (out of the box) can do everything they want, and they never have to
> buy another application, or worry about licenses or contributing to
> monopolists again.

Agreed. I think Linux - or rather a nice decent and modern Linux distro, 
would suffice for most people. Problem is, though, that they've bought a 
new PC that comes with Windows, and why would they install Linux on it? I 
agree that Linux would fit pretty much all their needs, but still, that's 
no reason to switch to it, because Windows does that as well. And even if 
you argue that Linux has benefits over Windows even for those "shallow" 
users, it's still not enough for them to download and install Linux on 
their shiny new PC...


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/27/2014 10:05:50 PM
On 1/27/14, 2:55 PM, in article slrnledlf4.ml7.jedi@nomad.mishnet,
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

>> Linux was more "complicated" than Windows when I first started using it
>> because, as you say, it was different. So I tried moving to it a few times
>> and gave up. Finally I realized that I had many, many hours in learning DOS
>> and Windows and that the reason for my frustration with Linux was because I
>> expected to be as versed in Linux (immediately, without effort) as I had been
>> in DOS and Windows after years of experience. It's kind of
>> 
> I adopted Linux much earlier on so I didn't have a great deal of attachment
> for DOS or Windows. In fact, upon finally giving into the monopoly hegeomony I
> found that it wasn't nearly all it was cracked up to be. I quickly wondered if
> I had made a good choice. So I was very open to alternatives.
> 
> I would have bought OpenStep or Solaris if they had been more accomdating to
> my relatively plebian PC hardware.

I am one of the few people who started learning Macs, UNIX, and PCs (DOS) at
the same time - literally on the same day (some time in August of 1987).

I did know the Apple IIe fairly well before then, but the Mac was completely
different...  

> [deletia]
> 
>> But I once I learned Linux it is *definitely* less complex than Windows. It
>> has no registry file. That, in itself, makes Linux superior to Windows.
>> 
> I never like the registry.

Agreed. I think it is a horrible design decision from MS. It causes a *lot*
less problems in Win 7 / 8 than it did in earlier versions but it is still a
bad design. 

>> It is also much easier to maintain and upgrade. For some reason 300 Megs of
>> Windows upgrades take hours, and several reboots. With Linux a 300 Meg update
>> is, at most, a 20 minute process and rebooting is optional. There's
>> 
> Windows updates also like to do things like turn your firewall back on or
> enable automatic reboots. This can be especially annoying on a server or just
> prone to bugger Microsoft's own protocols.
> 
> [deletia]
> 
>> There are a lot of reasons Linux is superior to Windows. If there's a
>> specific application that only works in OSX or Windows, fine, that's a good
>> reason to use Windows or a Mac. (I don't believe in beating my head against
>> the wall.) For most PC users, however, Linux (out of the box) can do
>> everything they want, and they never have to buy another application, or
>> worry about licenses or contributing to monopolists again.
>> 
> Most people really don't need a lot. This is why tablets are so successful.
> They avoid the mental block associated with an alternate PC OS. They seem so
> different to the laymen that their usual Lemming inspired mental block doesn't
> seem relevant.

People do not need to do a lot, perhaps, but they want what they do to be
easy. It is one reason traditional desktop Linux does so poorly.


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 10:20:44 PM
On 1/27/14, 2:59 PM, in article slrnledlsj.jpf.mr@irc.sandman.net, "Sandman"
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <lc6gjg$dnu$4@dont-email.me>, RonB wrote:
> 
>>> Chris Ahlstrom:
>>> Certainly Windows is not simpler.  Windows machines go down with
>>> surprising regularity around here.
>> 
>> I don't know if Windows 8 uses the idiot registry (like the rest of
>> Windows), but if it does, there is nothing "simple" about it. It's a
>> constant accident waiting to happen.
> 
> I always thought the registry was just a database of settings, and that
> when corrupted could mess up the entire system. Linux more often than not
> use flatfiles for configurations, but few use a consistent format for it so
> for the user, you often have to learn just how the file works.
> 
> OSX uses XML files, and have both a CLI and GUI editor for the files. So
> you don't have a huge database, but a consistent format. Though, even if
> the format is the same, the way each application saves values to it may
> differ :)

And if you edit them directly your edits might not be saved because of the
new caching mechanism. There should at least be a way to turn that on and
off! Turn it off - make changes - turn it back on!


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 10:24:03 PM
Snit wrote:

> On 1/27/14, 2:51 PM, in article slrnledle6.jpf.mr@irc.sandman.net,
> "Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> 
>> In article <lc6icc$pik$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann  wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> Silver Slimer:
>>>>>> I agree with Köhlmann here. While it's based
>>>>>> on UNIX, I would have a lot of trouble telling people that
>>>>>> using OS X is in any way similar to what people would expect
>>>>>> from using a TRUE UNIX system with a plethora of CLI
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hadron:
>>>>> What is a "true Unix"? OS X is a unix. That fact it doesnt ship
>>>>> or have other window managers etc is neither here nor there.
>>>> 
>>>> Sandman:
>>>> X11 is available for OSX. And you can download KDE if you want to.
>>> 
>>> X is not even provided any more on the OS DVD
>> 
>> Since there is no OS DVD.
> 
> Exactly. You can make your own, of course, but Apple does not sell OS X on
> a DVD.

Please explain when apple ceased to provide X on its install DVDs

Hint: it was not with "Mavericks"

0
Peter
1/27/2014 10:27:18 PM
On 1/27/14, 3:27 PM, in article lc6mg5$lln$1@dont-email.me, "Peter K�hlmann"
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> On 1/27/14, 2:51 PM, in article slrnledle6.jpf.mr@irc.sandman.net,
>> "Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <lc6icc$pik$1@dont-email.me>, Peter K�hlmann  wrote:
>>> 
>>>>>>> Silver Slimer:
>>>>>>> I agree with K�hlmann here. While it's based
>>>>>>> on UNIX, I would have a lot of trouble telling people that
>>>>>>> using OS X is in any way similar to what people would expect
>>>>>>> from using a TRUE UNIX system with a plethora of CLI
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hadron:
>>>>>> What is a "true Unix"? OS X is a unix. That fact it doesnt ship
>>>>>> or have other window managers etc is neither here nor there.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sandman:
>>>>> X11 is available for OSX. And you can download KDE if you want to.
>>>> 
>>>> X is not even provided any more on the OS DVD
>>> 
>>> Since there is no OS DVD.
>> 
>> Exactly. You can make your own, of course, but Apple does not sell OS X on
>> a DVD.
> 
> Please explain when apple ceased to provide X on its install DVDs
> 
> Hint: it was not with "Mavericks"

Your comment:
    -----
    X is not even provided any more on the OS DVD
    -----

And now clearly even you see this is wrong. Good.

-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 10:34:11 PM
On 27/01/2014 1:08 PM, Snit wrote:

>> Try installing Ubuntu 13.10 right now. You'll notice a crapload of
>> security fix downloads upon first connecting to the Internet with your
>> new operating system.
> 
> Every time I install Ubuntu I see this. Heck, if I go a while without
> running it there are always a ton of updates waiting for me.

When I ran Fedora, I had updates every day. When I ran Debian Jessie, I
had updates once a day. When I ran OpenSUSE Tumbleweed, I had updates
every day. The impression that security updates are not necessary is
insane UNLESS you use Debian Stable only.

>> Not if they bought the hardware piece-by-piece and built the machine
>> themselves. Also, if they bought the hardware from System76, they never
>> received a product key nor did they have Windows pre-installed.
> 
> The idea that Linux comes with a free copy of Windows is just complete and
> utter nonsense. 

I think he means that people who buy PC hardware are automatically
gifted with a copy of Windows which is true. However, there are
manufacturers who don't bundle Windows with a new computer and if you
build a PC yourself, you don't need to buy it either.


-- 
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism
0
Silver
1/27/2014 11:13:24 PM
On 27/01/2014 1:10 PM, Snit wrote:

>> K�hlmann pretty much said it: in the usage. Chances are you won't be
>> able to accomplish much inside of OS X's CLI compared to a BSD
>> distributuion like FreeBSD or PC-BSD. That's not to say OS X doesn't
>> benefit from BSD's security improvements along the way.
> 
> What can you do with the CLI in FreeBSD that you cannot on OS X? There are
> some places the utilities tend to be behind on OS X, but do you have any
> examples?

To be honest, I've NEVER used UNIX for more than just a few minutes so I
wouldn't really know. I'm just going by what the UNIX people here are
saying. From what I read, users can't be added from the CLI and neither
can their password be changed from there.

-- 
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism
0
Silver
1/27/2014 11:15:24 PM
Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.ca> writes:

> On 27/01/2014 1:08 PM, Snit wrote:
>
>>> Try installing Ubuntu 13.10 right now. You'll notice a crapload of
>>> security fix downloads upon first connecting to the Internet with your
>>> new operating system.
>> 
>> Every time I install Ubuntu I see this. Heck, if I go a while without
>> running it there are always a ton of updates waiting for me.
>
> When I ran Fedora, I had updates every day. When I ran Debian Jessie,
> I

Jessie is currently testing. You would expect it.

> had updates once a day. When I ran OpenSUSE Tumbleweed, I had updates
> every day. The impression that security updates are not necessary is
> insane UNLESS you use Debian Stable only.

What are you talking about? I think you make things up....

Debian Stable *also* gets security updates. 


-- 
"I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact." 
The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree.
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
0
Hadron
1/27/2014 11:19:23 PM
On 1/27/14, 4:13 PM, in article lc6p6l$c1a$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<slvrslmr@lv.ca> wrote:

> On 27/01/2014 1:08 PM, Snit wrote:
> 
>>> Try installing Ubuntu 13.10 right now. You'll notice a crapload of
>>> security fix downloads upon first connecting to the Internet with your
>>> new operating system.
>> 
>> Every time I install Ubuntu I see this. Heck, if I go a while without
>> running it there are always a ton of updates waiting for me.
> 
> When I ran Fedora, I had updates every day. When I ran Debian Jessie, I
> had updates once a day. When I ran OpenSUSE Tumbleweed, I had updates
> every day. The impression that security updates are not necessary is
> insane UNLESS you use Debian Stable only.

And even then if it is not getting the updates then it is *behind* on
security updates. While I can understand not wanting to do updates in a
production environment there is also a downside to this.

>>> Not if they bought the hardware piece-by-piece and built the machine
>>> themselves. Also, if they bought the hardware from System76, they never
>>> received a product key nor did they have Windows pre-installed.
>> 
>> The idea that Linux comes with a free copy of Windows is just complete and
>> utter nonsense. 
> 
> I think he means that people who buy PC hardware are automatically
> gifted with a copy of Windows which is true.

True... but you can get a system without Windows. System 76 is mentioned
above but they are hardly the only source.

> However, there are
> manufacturers who don't bundle Windows with a new computer and if you
> build a PC yourself, you don't need to buy it either.

Right. It is correct to say you generally get Windows when you get a new PC
(other than a Mac) but it is not definitely true. But I can see where
calling him out in this was a bit nit picky. :)


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 11:40:40 PM
On 1/27/14, 4:15 PM, in article lc6pad$c1a$2@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<slvrslmr@lv.ca> wrote:

> On 27/01/2014 1:10 PM, Snit wrote:
> 
>>> K�hlmann pretty much said it: in the usage. Chances are you won't be
>>> able to accomplish much inside of OS X's CLI compared to a BSD
>>> distributuion like FreeBSD or PC-BSD. That's not to say OS X doesn't
>>> benefit from BSD's security improvements along the way.
>> 
>> What can you do with the CLI in FreeBSD that you cannot on OS X? There are
>> some places the utilities tend to be behind on OS X, but do you have any
>> examples?
> 
> To be honest, I've NEVER used UNIX for more than just a few minutes so I
> wouldn't really know. I'm just going by what the UNIX people here are
> saying. From what I read, users can't be added from the CLI and neither
> can their password be changed from there.

You can add user and change passwords from the CLI on every UNIX, as far as
I know. With that said, there is a *lot* about UNIX I do not know and I have
not added a user with the command line from OS X or any other UNIX in years.


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 11:42:33 PM
RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:49:21 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>
>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>> 
>>>Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix like OS', both Windows
>>>and OSX are very much simpler to use.
>> 
>> No they're not.  Troll.
>
> The only people who claim Windows and OSX are simpler to use than Linux, 
> are those who don't use Linux.

Well, there are a wide range of "Linuxen".  I've been forced to wrestle with
CentOS, and it is nowhere near as convenient as Debian Unstable.  It's not
even as convenient as Fedora.

It's still easier than Windows, though.  Windows:  stick in a disk or start
and installing, and wonder what the hell it is doing, and why it doesn't act
as you expect.

-- 
Seize the day, put no trust in the morrow!
		-- Quintus Horatius Flaccus (Horace)
0
Chris
1/27/2014 11:45:20 PM
RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 13:37:17 -0500, Richard M wrote:
>
>> My Windows machines are very stable and I rarely have problems.
>> Same for my Linux machine.
>> As for Windows being simpler, it's not nor is it more complex than
>> Linux.
>> Just different.
>> The difference is a person typically purchases a machine with Windows
>> already loaded.
>> With Linux they are probably loading it themselves.
>> For some people that can be a complex thing.
>> Given a machine with a modern Linux distribution already on it and
>> comparing it to a Windows machine neither is simpler and both can be
>> used for the typical tasks people use computers for these days.
>
> Linux was more "complicated" than Windows when I first started using it 
> because, as you say, it was different. So I tried moving to it a few times 
> and gave up. Finally I realized that I had many, many hours in learning 
> DOS and Windows and that the reason for my frustration with Linux was 
> because I expected to be as versed in Linux (immediately, without effort) 
> as I had been in DOS and Windows after years of experience. It's kind of 
> like trying to learn handwriting with your opposite hand. It's frustrating 
> because it's automatic with normal hand, and you feel you should be able 
> to do it that well right from the start when moving over. Once I figured 
> it out it would take a little self-training, working through the issues -- 
> and it didn't take much time -- I was soon using Linux as fluently as I 
> had used Windows or DOS.
>
> But I once I learned Linux it is *definitely* less complex than Windows. 
> It has no registry file. That, in itself, makes Linux superior to Windows. 
> It is also much easier to maintain and upgrade. For some reason 300 Megs 
> of Windows upgrades take hours, and several reboots. With Linux a 300 Meg 
> update is, at most, a 20 minute process and rebooting is optional. There's 
> no worry about malware -- no running Malwarebytes, or upgrading 
> Malwarebytes (or whatever malware software you choose) or upgrading and 
> maintaining the anti-virus software (which often has its own issues), or 
> deciding if you want to let the virus checker run in the background 
> constantly, thereby slowing down your system and everything you do. You 
> don't have to worry about installing and upgrading multiple applications 
> from multiple sources. You don't have to worry about maintaining a record 
> of your licenses, or keeping receipts in case the legality of your 
> software is questioned. Installation (with upgrades) takes hours in 
> Windows, it takes 40 minutes with Linux. There's nothing like the Linux 
> repository system in Windows. 
>
> There are a lot of reasons Linux is superior to Windows. If there's a 
> specific application that only works in OSX or Windows, fine, that's a 
> good reason to use Windows or a Mac. (I don't believe in beating my head 
> against the wall.) For most PC users, however, Linux (out of the box) can 
> do everything they want, and they never have to buy another application, 
> or worry about licenses or contributing to monopolists again.

 +1

-- 
NATHAN ... your PARENTS were in a CARCRASH!!  They're VOIDED -- They
COLLAPSED They had no CHAINSAWS ... They had no MONEY MACHINES ... They
did PILLS in SKIMPY GRASS SKIRTS ... Nathan, I EMULATED them ... but
they were OFF-KEY ...
0
Chris
1/27/2014 11:46:31 PM
RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:45:40 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Certainly Windows is not simpler.  Windows machines go down with
>> surprising regularity around here.
>
> I don't know if Windows 8 uses the idiot registry (like the rest of 
> Windows), but if it does, there is nothing "simple" about it. It's a 
> constant accident waiting to happen.

It's the SOS.  Same Old Shit.

Now, I'm sure Microsoft added new features and fixed a few bugs, maybe even
made the system faster.  But it is still Windows... a hodge-podge of
technologies somehow lacking the modularity of UNIX and using the stilted
conventions of DOS/VMS.

-- 
Well, I think Perl should run faster than C.  :-)
		-- Larry Wall in <199801200306.TAA11638@wall.org>
0
Chris
1/27/2014 11:48:21 PM
On 1/27/14, 4:19 PM, in article 87eh3t57yc.fsf@gmail.com, "Hadron"
<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:

> Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.ca> writes:
> 
>> On 27/01/2014 1:08 PM, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>>> Try installing Ubuntu 13.10 right now. You'll notice a crapload of
>>>> security fix downloads upon first connecting to the Internet with your
>>>> new operating system.
>>> 
>>> Every time I install Ubuntu I see this. Heck, if I go a while without
>>> running it there are always a ton of updates waiting for me.
>> 
>> When I ran Fedora, I had updates every day. When I ran Debian Jessie,
>> I
> 
> Jessie is currently testing. You would expect it.
> 
>> had updates once a day. When I ran OpenSUSE Tumbleweed, I had updates
>> every day. The impression that security updates are not necessary is
>> insane UNLESS you use Debian Stable only.
> 
> What are you talking about? I think you make things up....
> 
> Debian Stable *also* gets security updates.
> 
I do not run Debian (any flavor) but I would hope so.


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/27/2014 11:50:32 PM
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:45:20 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Well, there are a wide range of "Linuxen".  I've been forced to wrestle
> with CentOS, and it is nowhere near as convenient as Debian Unstable.
> It's not even as convenient as Fedora.

The only reason I quit using CentOS is because it was "behind the times" 
in support for some of the applications I wanted to use. But I was used to 
it -- it didn't seem hard to install or maintain to me. It definitely 
*wasn't* "cutting edge" however.

I'm happy now with Linux Mint. Unless something drastically changes, I 
doubt that I'll go anywhere else.

-- 
"Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist 
that there is no God." --Heywood Broun
0
RonB
1/28/2014 12:02:06 AM
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:48:21 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> 
>> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:45:40 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> Certainly Windows is not simpler.  Windows machines go down with
>>> surprising regularity around here.
>>
>> I don't know if Windows 8 uses the idiot registry (like the rest of
>> Windows), but if it does, there is nothing "simple" about it. It's a
>> constant accident waiting to happen.
> 
> It's the SOS.  Same Old Shit.
> 
> Now, I'm sure Microsoft added new features and fixed a few bugs, maybe
> even made the system faster.  But it is still Windows... a hodge-podge
> of technologies somehow lacking the modularity of UNIX and using the
> stilted conventions of DOS/VMS.

I suspected that they didn't go away from the registry but, since I didn't 
know for certain, I didn't want to make that claim. 

-- 
"Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist 
that there is no God." --Heywood Broun
0
RonB
1/28/2014 12:03:43 AM
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:45:20 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> 
>> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:49:21 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>> 
>>>>Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix like OS', both Windows
>>>>and OSX are very much simpler to use.
>>> 
>>> No they're not.  Troll.
>>
>> The only people who claim Windows and OSX are simpler to use than Linux, 
>> are those who don't use Linux.
> 
> Well, there are a wide range of "Linuxen".  I've been forced to wrestle with
> CentOS, and it is nowhere near as convenient as Debian Unstable.  It's not
> even as convenient as Fedora.

I used to use Fedora and then went to Ubuntu and now I am currently
using Mint.

I had little to no difficulty moving between distributions.

 
> It's still easier than Windows, though.  Windows:  stick in a disk or start
> and installing, and wonder what the hell it is doing, and why it doesn't act
> as you expect.

Most people have never installed and configured Windows and all their
applications from scratch.

As for churning, the upgrade from Windows 8.0 to Windows 8.1 did
exactly that. It churned and churned and took forever. I don't even
have a disk to use in event of a failure, although I do have my
original Windows 8.0 DVD I downloaded when I originally purchased
Windows 8.0.
So if I need to re-install if say my backup fails for some reason, I
have to install Windows 8.0 first and then update to Windows 8.1
through the store.
That bothers me.
0
Richard
1/28/2014 12:17:31 AM
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 21:07:13 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 13:37:17 -0500, Richard M wrote:
> 
>> My Windows machines are very stable and I rarely have problems.
>> Same for my Linux machine.
>> As for Windows being simpler, it's not nor is it more complex than
>> Linux.
>> Just different.
>> The difference is a person typically purchases a machine with Windows
>> already loaded.
>> With Linux they are probably loading it themselves.
>> For some people that can be a complex thing.
>> Given a machine with a modern Linux distribution already on it and
>> comparing it to a Windows machine neither is simpler and both can be
>> used for the typical tasks people use computers for these days.
> 
> Linux was more "complicated" than Windows when I first started using it 
> because, as you say, it was different. So I tried moving to it a few times 
> and gave up. Finally I realized that I had many, many hours in learning 
> DOS and Windows and that the reason for my frustration with Linux was 
> because I expected to be as versed in Linux (immediately, without effort) 
> as I had been in DOS and Windows after years of experience. It's kind of 
> like trying to learn handwriting with your opposite hand. It's frustrating 
> because it's automatic with normal hand, and you feel you should be able 
> to do it that well right from the start when moving over. Once I figured 
> it out it would take a little self-training, working through the issues -- 
> and it didn't take much time -- I was soon using Linux as fluently as I 
> had used Windows or DOS.
> 
> But I once I learned Linux it is *definitely* less complex than Windows. 
> It has no registry file. That, in itself, makes Linux superior to Windows. 
> It is also much easier to maintain and upgrade. For some reason 300 Megs 
> of Windows upgrades take hours, and several reboots. With Linux a 300 Meg 
> update is, at most, a 20 minute process and rebooting is optional. There's 
> no worry about malware -- no running Malwarebytes, or upgrading 
> Malwarebytes (or whatever malware software you choose) or upgrading and 
> maintaining the anti-virus software (which often has its own issues), or 
> deciding if you want to let the virus checker run in the background 
> constantly, thereby slowing down your system and everything you do. You 
> don't have to worry about installing and upgrading multiple applications 
> from multiple sources. You don't have to worry about maintaining a record 
> of your licenses, or keeping receipts in case the legality of your 
> software is questioned. Installation (with upgrades) takes hours in 
> Windows, it takes 40 minutes with Linux. There's nothing like the Linux 
> repository system in Windows. 
> 
> There are a lot of reasons Linux is superior to Windows. If there's a 
> specific application that only works in OSX or Windows, fine, that's a 
> good reason to use Windows or a Mac. (I don't believe in beating my head 
> against the wall.) For most PC users, however, Linux (out of the box) can 
> do everything they want, and they never have to buy another application, 
> or worry about licenses or contributing to monopolists again.

You said it better than I could have.
I agree 100 percent.
0
Richard
1/28/2014 12:20:40 AM
On 27/01/2014 3:46 PM, RonB wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:45:40 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> 
>> Certainly Windows is not simpler.  Windows machines go down with
>> surprising regularity around here.
> 
> I don't know if Windows 8 uses the idiot registry (like the rest of 
> Windows), but if it does, there is nothing "simple" about it. It's a 
> constant accident waiting to happen.

The desktop version of Windows 8 still uses it. For my own purposes, the
registry has never been a problem. It's very easy to sort out if ever it
DOES cause problems though.
-- 
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism
0
Silver
1/28/2014 12:29:19 AM
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 19:17:31 -0500, Richard M wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:45:20 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> 
>> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:49:21 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix like OS', both Windows
>>>>>and OSX are very much simpler to use.
>>>> 
>>>> No they're not.  Troll.
>>>
>>> The only people who claim Windows and OSX are simpler to use than
>>> Linux,
>>> are those who don't use Linux.
>> 
>> Well, there are a wide range of "Linuxen".  I've been forced to wrestle
>> with CentOS, and it is nowhere near as convenient as Debian Unstable. 
>> It's not even as convenient as Fedora.
> 
> I used to use Fedora and then went to Ubuntu and now I am currently
> using Mint.
> 
> I had little to no difficulty moving between distributions.

Same here. Probably the most (slightly more) difficult distribution I used 
was Vector Linux (which was based on Slackware). But even it was pretty 
easy. 

For CentOS ... yum install joe

For Linux Mint ... apt-get install joe

I've found apt to be a bit more robust than yum. Every now and then I used 
to have to 'yum clean' (or something like that) to clear errors. But that 
could have been because I was using a couple other "side" repositories 
when I used CentOS (for multimedia, mostly).
 
>> It's still easier than Windows, though.  Windows:  stick in a disk or
>> start and installing, and wonder what the hell it is doing, and why it
>> doesn't act as you expect.
> 
> Most people have never installed and configured Windows and all their
> applications from scratch.
> 
> As for churning, the upgrade from Windows 8.0 to Windows 8.1 did exactly
> that. It churned and churned and took forever. I don't even have a disk
> to use in event of a failure, although I do have my original Windows 8.0
> DVD I downloaded when I originally purchased Windows 8.0.
> So if I need to re-install if say my backup fails for some reason, I
> have to install Windows 8.0 first and then update to Windows 8.1 through
> the store.
> That bothers me.

I've had to rebuild too many Windows machines (mostly XP). I try to avoid 
it at all costs. My oldest son now finishes up the updates, etc., when one 
of my kids' Windows computers crashes and burns. As I get older, I'm 
forgetting more and more about Windows ... and I don't want to relearn it.

-- 
"Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist 
that there is no God." --Heywood Broun
0
RonB
1/28/2014 12:39:43 AM
On 27/01/2014 6:19 PM, Hadron wrote:

>> When I ran Fedora, I had updates every day. When I ran Debian Jessie,
>> I
> 
> Jessie is currently testing. You would expect it.
> 
>> had updates once a day. When I ran OpenSUSE Tumbleweed, I had updates
>> every day. The impression that security updates are not necessary is
>> insane UNLESS you use Debian Stable only.
> 
> What are you talking about? I think you make things up....
> 
> Debian Stable *also* gets security updates. 

Try to follow. I wrote *every* *day* for several distributions. Debian
Stable doesn't get security updates on a daily basis.
-- 
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism
0
Silver
1/28/2014 12:40:31 AM
On 1/27/14, 5:02 PM, in article lc6s1u$p8m$1@dont-email.me, "RonB"
<ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:45:20 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> 
>> Well, there are a wide range of "Linuxen".  I've been forced to wrestle
>> with CentOS, and it is nowhere near as convenient as Debian Unstable.
>> It's not even as convenient as Fedora.
> 
> The only reason I quit using CentOS is because it was "behind the times"
> in support for some of the applications I wanted to use. But I was used to
> it -- it didn't seem hard to install or maintain to me. It definitely
> *wasn't* "cutting edge" however.
> 
> I'm happy now with Linux Mint. Unless something drastically changes, I
> doubt that I'll go anywhere else.

Mint is my current distro of choice as well.


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/28/2014 12:46:56 AM
On 1/27/14, 5:29 PM, in article lc6tkv$ur0$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<slvrslmr@lv.ca> wrote:

> On 27/01/2014 3:46 PM, RonB wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:45:40 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> 
>>> Certainly Windows is not simpler.  Windows machines go down with
>>> surprising regularity around here.
>> 
>> I don't know if Windows 8 uses the idiot registry (like the rest of
>> Windows), but if it does, there is nothing "simple" about it. It's a
>> constant accident waiting to happen.
> 
> The desktop version of Windows 8 still uses it. For my own purposes, the
> registry has never been a problem. It's very easy to sort out if ever it
> DOES cause problems though.

It still causes problems - it is tied to the design choices which make it
hard to copy a program from one computer to another. Heck, if your OS blows
up on you there are still too many times you have to not just re-install the
OS but every program. That is insane.


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/28/2014 12:53:08 AM
On 1/27/14, 5:40 PM, in article lc6u9v$ur0$2@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<slvrslmr@lv.ca> wrote:

> On 27/01/2014 6:19 PM, Hadron wrote:
> 
>>> When I ran Fedora, I had updates every day. When I ran Debian Jessie,
>>> I
>> 
>> Jessie is currently testing. You would expect it.
>> 
>>> had updates once a day. When I ran OpenSUSE Tumbleweed, I had updates
>>> every day. The impression that security updates are not necessary is
>>> insane UNLESS you use Debian Stable only.
>> 
>> What are you talking about? I think you make things up....
>> 
>> Debian Stable *also* gets security updates.
> 
> Try to follow. I wrote *every* *day* for several distributions. Debian
> Stable doesn't get security updates on a daily basis.

Fair enough. I missed that as well.


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/28/2014 12:53:33 AM
Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <hg4a.trar@rooftop.invalid>, owl wrote:

> > > > > > Silver Slimer:
> > > > > > I agree with Köhlmann here. While it's based on UNIX, I
> > > > > > would have a lot of trouble telling people that using OS X
> > > > > > is in any way similar to what people would expect from using
> > > > > > a TRUE UNIX system with a plethora of CLI
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hadron:
> > > > > What is a "true Unix"? OS X is a unix. That fact it doesnt
> > > > > ship or have other window managers etc is neither here nor
> > > > > there.
> > > > 
> > > > Silver Slimer:
> > > > Köhlmann pretty much said it: in the usage. Chances are you
> > > > won't be able to accomplish much inside of OS X's CLI compared
> > > > to a BSD distributuion like FreeBSD or PC-BSD. That's not to say
> > > > OS X doesn't benefit from BSD's security improvements along the
> > > > way.
> > > 
> > > Snit:
> > > What can you do with the CLI in FreeBSD that you cannot on OS X?
> > > There are some places the utilities tend to be behind on OS X, but
> > > do you have any examples?
> > 
> > $ pw useradd ...

> $ dscl ...


> (directory services command line)

> Any more questions?

The question was what can you do with the CLI in FreeBSD...

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=dscl&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+10.0-RELEASE&arch=default&format=html
<quote>
FreeBSD Man Pages
....
Sorry, no data found for `dscl'. Please try a keyword search.
</quote>

I had seen examples using dscl already.  This is more like Windows dsadd.
And the users are not even to be seen in /etc/passwd?  You call this
"like FreeBSD"?

0
owl
1/28/2014 1:11:36 AM
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 1/27/14, 11:18 AM, in article hg4a.trar@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> On 1/27/14, 10:07 AM, in article lc63od$slh$2@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
> >> <slvrslmr@lv.ca> wrote:
> > 
> >>> On 27/01/2014 11:41 AM, Hadron wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>>> I agree with Köhlmann here. While it's based on UNIX, I would have a lot
> >>>>> of trouble telling people that using OS X is in any way similar to what
> >>>>> people would expect from using a TRUE UNIX system with a plethora of
> >>>>> CLI
> >>>> 
> >>>> What is a "true Unix"? OS X is a unix. That fact it doesnt ship or have
> >>>> other window managers etc is neither here nor there.
> >>> 
> >>> Köhlmann pretty much said it: in the usage. Chances are you won't be
> >>> able to accomplish much inside of OS X's CLI compared to a BSD
> >>> distributuion like FreeBSD or PC-BSD. That's not to say OS X doesn't
> >>> benefit from BSD's security improvements along the way.
> > 
> >> What can you do with the CLI in FreeBSD that you cannot on OS X? There are
> >> some places the utilities tend to be behind on OS X, but do you have any
> >> examples?
> > 
> > $ pw useradd ...

> The "what can you do" part is add a new user, if that is your example.

> And you can add users from the OS X command line.

Is there a concept of "local user" in OS X?
Even Windows differentiates local and domain user accounts.

0
owl
1/28/2014 1:13:12 AM
On 1/27/14, 6:13 PM, in article hga0a3.gae3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

.... 
>>> $ pw useradd ...
> 
>> The "what can you do" part is add a new user, if that is your example.
> 
>> And you can add users from the OS X command line.
> 
> Is there a concept of "local user" in OS X?
> Even Windows differentiates local and domain user accounts.
> 
There are local and network users.


-- 
Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world... would
do this, it would change the earth. -- William Faulkner

0
Snit
1/28/2014 1:25:01 AM
In article <hg00.agw3@rooftop.invalid>, owl wrote:

> > > > > Silver Slimer:
> > > > > Köhlmann pretty much said it: in the usage.
> > > > > Chances are you won't be able to accomplish much inside of
> > > > > OS X's CLI compared to a BSD distributuion like FreeBSD or
> > > > > PC-BSD. That's not to say OS X doesn't benefit from BSD's
> > > > > security improvements along the way.
> > > > 
> > > > Snit:
> > > > What can you do with the CLI in FreeBSD that you cannot
> > > > on OS X? There are some places the utilities tend to be behind
> > > > on OS X, but do you have any examples?
> > > 
> > > owl:
> > > $ pw useradd ...
> > 
> > Sandman:
> > $ dscl ...
> 
> > (directory services command line)
> 
> > Any more questions?
> 
> The question was what can you do with the CLI in FreeBSD...

Exactly. Not *how* you do it, but *what* you do. useradd adds a user, and 
you can add a user with dscl. So adding users is not a *what* you can do in 
FreeBSD CLI and not in OSX.

> I had seen examples using dscl already.  This is more like Windows
> dsadd. And the users are not even to be seen in /etc/passwd?

/etc/passwd is only used when booting into single user mode, otherwise user 
information is stored in Open Directory, a fairly comprehensive LDAP 
service for both local and network. As you know, if you install LDAP server 
on your Linux, you can make it ignore /etc/passwd as well. It's an 
implimentation detail. Just edit your /etc/nsswitch.conf and have it ignore 
files and only authenticate via LDAP - now you can no longer use "useradd" 
in Linux either. 

> You call this "like FreeBSD"?

LDAP services are available for any BSD flavor, so absolutely.


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/28/2014 6:24:34 AM
In article <lc6mg5$lln$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann  wrote:

> > > > Peter K�hlmann:
> > > > X is not even provided any more on the OS DVD
> > > 
> > > Sandman:
> > > Since there is no OS DVD.
> > 
> > Snit:
> > Exactly. You can make your own, of course, but Apple does not sell
> > OS X on a DVD.
> 
> Please explain when apple ceased to provide X on its install DVDs

When they stopped selling installation DVD's. 



-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/28/2014 6:26:25 AM
In article <hga0a3.gae3@rooftop.invalid>, owl wrote:

> Is there a concept of "local user" in OS X?

Of course.



-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/28/2014 6:27:21 AM
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 1/27/14, 6:13 PM, in article hga0a3.gae3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> ... 
> >>> $ pw useradd ...
> > 
> >> The "what can you do" part is add a new user, if that is your example.
> > 
> >> And you can add users from the OS X command line.
> > 
> > Is there a concept of "local user" in OS X?
> > Even Windows differentiates local and domain user accounts.
> > 
> There are local and network users.

But local LDAP only, right?

0
owl
1/28/2014 7:09:33 AM
Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <hg00.agw3@rooftop.invalid>, owl wrote:

> > > > > > Silver Slimer:
> > > > > > Köhlmann pretty much said it: in the usage.
> > > > > > Chances are you won't be able to accomplish much inside of
> > > > > > OS X's CLI compared to a BSD distributuion like FreeBSD or
> > > > > > PC-BSD. That's not to say OS X doesn't benefit from BSD's
> > > > > > security improvements along the way.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Snit:
> > > > > What can you do with the CLI in FreeBSD that you cannot
> > > > > on OS X? There are some places the utilities tend to be behind
> > > > > on OS X, but do you have any examples?
> > > > 
> > > > owl:
> > > > $ pw useradd ...
> > > 
> > > Sandman:
> > > $ dscl ...
> > 
> > > (directory services command line)
> > 
> > > Any more questions?
> > 
> > The question was what can you do with the CLI in FreeBSD...

> Exactly. Not *how* you do it, but *what* you do. useradd adds a user, and 
> you can add a user with dscl. So adding users is not a *what* you can do in 
> FreeBSD CLI and not in OSX.

So you cannot add local user accounts outside LDAP.  Why did Apple see
the need for requiring the overhead of LDAP?

> > I had seen examples using dscl already.  This is more like Windows
> > dsadd. And the users are not even to be seen in /etc/passwd?

> /etc/passwd is only used when booting into single user mode, otherwise user 
> information is stored in Open Directory, a fairly comprehensive LDAP 
> service for both local and network. As you know, if you install LDAP server 
> on your Linux, you can make it ignore /etc/passwd as well. It's an 
> implimentation detail. Just edit your /etc/nsswitch.conf and have it ignore 
> files and only authenticate via LDAP - now you can no longer use "useradd" 
> in Linux either. 

Sure, you could fubar your Linux system that way.

> > You call this "like FreeBSD"?

> LDAP services are available for any BSD flavor, so absolutely.

But no need to require it like Apple has done.

0
owl
1/28/2014 7:13:36 AM
Silver Slimer wrote:

> On 27/01/2014 6:19 PM, Hadron wrote:
> 
>>> When I ran Fedora, I had updates every day. When I ran Debian Jessie,
>>> I
>> 
>> Jessie is currently testing. You would expect it.
>> 
>>> had updates once a day. When I ran OpenSUSE Tumbleweed, I had updates
>>> every day. The impression that security updates are not necessary is
>>> insane UNLESS you use Debian Stable only.
>> 
>> What are you talking about? I think you make things up....
>> 
>> Debian Stable *also* gets security updates.
> 
> Try to follow. I wrote *every* *day* for several distributions. Debian
> Stable doesn't get security updates on a daily basis.

Neither do other distros
0
Peter
1/28/2014 7:15:49 AM
Sandman wrote:

> In article <lc6mg5$lln$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann  wrote:
> 
>> > > > Peter K�hlmann:
>> > > > X is not even provided any more on the OS DVD
>> > > 
>> > > Sandman:
>> > > Since there is no OS DVD.
>> > 
>> > Snit:
>> > Exactly. You can make your own, of course, but Apple does not sell
>> > OS X on a DVD.
>> 
>> Please explain when apple ceased to provide X on its install DVDs
> 
> When they stopped selling installation DVD's.
> 

You mean with Mavericks.
Well, if you download that, it too does not include X

0
Peter
1/28/2014 7:19:37 AM
In article <noi3.f3wpp@rooftop.invalid>, owl wrote:

> > > owl:
> > > The question was what can you do with the CLI in FreeBSD...
> > 
> > Sandman:
> > Exactly. Not *how* you do it, but *what* you do. useradd adds a
> > user, and you can add a user with dscl. So adding users is not a
> > *what* you can do in FreeBSD CLI and not in OSX.
> 
> So you cannot add local user accounts outside LDAP.  Why did Apple
> see the need for requiring the overhead of LDAP?

Probably because it is more flexible. The users are local since the service 
is local. There is no difference other than where and how the information 
is stored. LDAP can be used on the network, making networked user 
management built in and default for every OSX system, not something you 
need to add and configure. 

> > Sandman:
> > /etc/passwd is only used when booting into single user mode,
> > otherwise user information is stored in Open Directory, a fairly
> > comprehensive LDAP service for both local and network. As you
> > know, if you install LDAP server on your Linux, you can make it
> > ignore /etc/passwd as well. It's an implimentation detail. Just
> > edit your /etc/nsswitch.conf and have it ignore files and only
> > authenticate via LDAP - now you can no longer use "useradd" in
> > Linux either.
> 
> Sure, you could fubar your Linux system that way.

Why would you ever consider LDAP to fubar a system? LDAP is a very 
effective and useful system, and many many linux servers use it to good 
effect. 

> > > owl:
> > > You call this "like FreeBSD"?
> > 
> > Sandman:
> > LDAP services are available for any BSD flavor, so absolutely.
> 
> But no need to require it like Apple has done.

Apple has chosen a particular method of user management that is an industry 
standard of the highest quality. The flexibility of that choice lends great 
power to the system, as it does to any Linux system that also employs it. 
The fact that Linux by default use an older and less powerful user 
management system doesn't take anything away from OD.

You are running around with the goal posts like crazy, you thought user 
management wasn't available on OSX and now you've learned that not only is 
it available, but it is also immensly more flexible and powerful than 
flatfiles - AND a unix standard - so you try to make it seem like the 
default way most Linux distributions do it is the only correct way to do 
it.

OD was introduced in OSX Server a decade ago, and rolled into the "client" 
version soon afterwards since it is a more powerful system. Ask any Linux 
admin that handles multiple systems and they will tell you why. 

-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/28/2014 9:19:00 AM
In article <lc7lm9$6co$2@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann  wrote:

> > > > > > Peter K�hlmann:
> > > > > > Peter K�hlmann: X is not even provided any more on the
> > > > > > OS DVD
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sandman:
> > > > > Since there is no OS DVD.
> > > > 
> > > > Snit:
> > > > Exactly. You can make your own, of course, but Apple
> > > > does not sell OS X on a DVD.
> > > 
> > > Peter K�hlmann:
> > > Please explain when apple ceased to provide X on its install
> > > DVDs
> > 
> > Sandman:
> > When they stopped selling installation DVD's.
> 
> You mean with Mavericks.

No. I mean when they stopped selling installation DVD's. 

> Well, if you download that, it too does not
> include X

Neither does this:

http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/7.3.0/amd64/iso-cd/debian-7.3.0-amd64-netinst.iso

Including it in the installation medium is of no consequence. X11 exists 
for OSX and when needed, the system will help you install it for you. 


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/28/2014 9:24:05 AM
On 01/27/2014 02:05 PM, William Poaster wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On 2014-01-27, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>>> On 2014-01-27 17:18:51 +0000, Snit said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Linux pushes a user to tinker with the tool... you have to. OS X users often
>>>> primarily focus on their tasks... because they can.
>>>
>>> I like that!!  :)
>>>
>>> And so true...
>
> It's bullshit.
>
>>     No. Not really. At best, it's a trollish notion about 10 years out of date.
>
> At the very least it's 10 years out of date.

It's the same thing they used to say about Windows.  They took the same 
old sentence and just replaced "Windows" with "Linux."

I'm wondering why all this "tinkering" I'm supposed to have had to do 
with either Ubuntu or PCLOS 2013 didn't happen.

0
Nobody
1/28/2014 9:54:28 AM
On 01/28/2014 03:24 AM, Sandman wrote:
> In article <lc7lm9$6co$2@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann  wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Peter K�hlmann:
>>>>>>> Peter K�hlmann: X is not even provided any more on the
>>>>>>> OS DVD
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sandman:
>>>>>> Since there is no OS DVD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Snit:
>>>>> Exactly. You can make your own, of course, but Apple
>>>>> does not sell OS X on a DVD.
>>>>
>>>> Peter K�hlmann:
>>>> Please explain when apple ceased to provide X on its install
>>>> DVDs
>>>
>>> Sandman:
>>> When they stopped selling installation DVD's.
>>
>> You mean with Mavericks.
>
> No. I mean when they stopped selling installation DVD's.

Apple stopped selling OSX on DVD when they found out their EULA couldn't 
legally keep buyers from installing OSX on non-Apple PCs.

0
Nobody
1/28/2014 11:04:45 AM
Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Silver Slimer wrote:
>
>> On 27/01/2014 6:19 PM, Hadron wrote:
>> 
>>>> When I ran Fedora, I had updates every day. When I ran Debian Jessie,
>>>> I
>>> 
>>> Jessie is currently testing. You would expect it.
>>> 
>>>> had updates once a day. When I ran OpenSUSE Tumbleweed, I had updates
>>>> every day. The impression that security updates are not necessary is
>>>> insane UNLESS you use Debian Stable only.
>>> 
>>> What are you talking about? I think you make things up....
>>> 
>>> Debian Stable *also* gets security updates.
>> 
>> Try to follow. I wrote *every* *day* for several distributions. Debian
>> Stable doesn't get security updates on a daily basis.
>
> Neither do other distros

Nor does Windows.

-- 
I went into the business for the money, and the art grew out of it.  If
people are disillusioned by that remark, I can't help it.  It's the truth.
		-- Charlie Chaplin
0
Chris
1/28/2014 11:07:22 AM
On 01/28/2014 01:19 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> Sandman wrote:
>
>> In article <lc6mg5$lln$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann  wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Peter K�hlmann:
>>>>>> X is not even provided any more on the OS DVD
>>>>>
>>>>> Sandman:
>>>>> Since there is no OS DVD.
>>>>
>>>> Snit:
>>>> Exactly. You can make your own, of course, but Apple does not sell
>>>> OS X on a DVD.
>>>
>>> Please explain when apple ceased to provide X on its install DVDs
>>
>> When they stopped selling installation DVD's.
>>
>
> You mean with Mavericks.
> Well, if you download that, it too does not include X

I think they stopped selling DVDs with Snow Leopard.

0
Nobody
1/28/2014 11:08:00 AM
In article <lc82se$k12$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody wrote:

> > > > > > > > Peter K�hlmann:
> > > > > > > > Peter K�hlmann: Peter K�hlmann: X is not even
> > > > > > > > provided any more on the OS DVD
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Sandman:
> > > > > > > Since there is no OS DVD.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Snit:
> > > > > > Exactly. You can make your own, of course, but Apple
> > > > > > does not sell OS X on a DVD.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Peter K�hlmann:
> > > > > Peter K�hlmann: Please explain when apple ceased to
> > > > > provide X on its install DVDs
> > > > 
> > > > Sandman:
> > > > When they stopped selling installation DVD's.
> > > 
> > > Peter K�hlmann:
> > > You mean with Mavericks.
> > 
> > Sandman:
> > No. I mean when they stopped selling installation DVD's.
> 
> Apple stopped selling OSX on DVD when they found out their EULA
> couldn't legally keep buyers from installing OSX on non-Apple PCs.

Nice claim, and a nice space below where support of it would have been:


















-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/28/2014 11:15:49 AM
Nobody wrote:

> On 01/27/2014 02:05 PM, William Poaster wrote:
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014-01-27, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2014-01-27 17:18:51 +0000, Snit said:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux pushes a user to tinker with the tool... you have to. OS X users often
>>>>> primarily focus on their tasks... because they can.
>>>>
>>>> I like that!!  :)
>>>>
>>>> And so true...
>>
>> It's bullshit.
>>
>>>     No. Not really. At best, it's a trollish notion about 10 years out of date.
>>
>> At the very least it's 10 years out of date.
>
> It's the same thing they used to say about Windows.  They took the same 
> old sentence and just replaced "Windows" with "Linux."
>
> I'm wondering why all this "tinkering" I'm supposed to have had to do 
> with either Ubuntu or PCLOS 2013 didn't happen.

I've no idea. I've not had to "tinker" with my distro either.

-- 
"Microsoft has vast resources, literally billions of dollars in cash, or liquid assets reserves. 
Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods." 
-- Former White House adviser Richard A. Clarke --
0
William
1/28/2014 11:19:16 AM
On 01/28/2014 05:15 AM, Sandman wrote:
> In article <lc82se$k12$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> Peter K�hlmann:
>>>>>>>>> Peter K�hlmann: Peter K�hlmann: X is not even
>>>>>>>>> provided any more on the OS DVD
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sandman:
>>>>>>>> Since there is no OS DVD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Snit:
>>>>>>> Exactly. You can make your own, of course, but Apple
>>>>>>> does not sell OS X on a DVD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter K�hlmann:
>>>>>> Peter K�hlmann: Please explain when apple ceased to
>>>>>> provide X on its install DVDs
>>>>>
>>>>> Sandman:
>>>>> When they stopped selling installation DVD's.
>>>>
>>>> Peter K�hlmann:
>>>> You mean with Mavericks.
>>>
>>> Sandman:
>>> No. I mean when they stopped selling installation DVD's.
>>
>> Apple stopped selling OSX on DVD when they found out their EULA
>> couldn't legally keep buyers from installing OSX on non-Apple PCs.
>
> Nice claim, and a nice space below where support of it would have been:

The shill can't remember HackInToshes.  Nor the court cases Apple lost 
in Germany.

0
Nobody
1/28/2014 11:26:55 AM
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 03:54:28 -0600, Nobody wrote:

> On 01/27/2014 02:05 PM, William Poaster wrote:
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014-01-27, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2014-01-27 17:18:51 +0000, Snit said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Linux pushes a user to tinker with the tool... you have to. OS X
>>>>> users often primarily focus on their tasks... because they can.
>>>>
>>>> I like that!!  :)
>>>>
>>>> And so true...
>>
>> It's bullshit.
>>
>>>     No. Not really. At best, it's a trollish notion about 10 years out
>>>     of date.
>>
>> At the very least it's 10 years out of date.
> 
> It's the same thing they used to say about Windows.  They took the same
> old sentence and just replaced "Windows" with "Linux."
> 
> I'm wondering why all this "tinkering" I'm supposed to have had to do
> with either Ubuntu or PCLOS 2013 didn't happen.

You "tinker" a lot more with Windows than you ever do with Linux. Just 
tinkering with the anti-malware applications takes more time than 
tinkering with Linux Mint. With Linux Mint I've added a weather app and a 
workspace switcher to my panel, changed the display from military time to 
AM/PM on my clock, changed the background and made my panel slightly 
larger. Oh, and I've changed the behavior of Caja to single-click and its 
default icon size to 66%. All of which takes about 3 minutes. That's about 
all the tinkering I've ever done in two years. These trolls just make this 
crap up out of whole cloth, don't they?

-- 
"Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist 
that there is no God." --Heywood Broun
0
RonB
1/28/2014 11:34:36 AM
In article <lc845v$nht$1@news.albasani.net>, Nobody wrote:

> > > > Sandman:
> > > > No. I mean when they stopped selling installation
> > > > DVD's.
> > > 
> > > Nobody:
> > > Apple stopped selling OSX on DVD when they found out their EULA
> > > couldn't legally keep buyers from installing OSX on non-Apple
> > > PCs.
> > 
> > Sandman:
> > Nice claim, and a nice space below where support of it would have
> > been:
> 
> The shill can't remember HackInToshes.  Nor the court cases Apple
> lost in Germany.

The fanboy can't support his claim that this is what prompted Apple to sell 
their operating system over the internet.


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/28/2014 11:38:08 AM
On 2014-01-28 11:34:36 +0000, RonB said:

> On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 03:54:28 -0600, Nobody wrote:
> 
>> On 01/27/2014 02:05 PM, William Poaster wrote:
>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2014-01-27, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2014-01-27 17:18:51 +0000, Snit said:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Linux pushes a user to tinker with the tool... you have to. OS X
>>>>>> users often primarily focus on their tasks... because they can.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I like that!!  :)
>>>>> 
>>>>> And so true...
>>> 
>>> It's bullshit.
>>> 
>>>> No. Not really. At best, it's a trollish notion about 10 years out
>>>> of date.
>>> 
>>> At the very least it's 10 years out of date.
>> 
>> It's the same thing they used to say about Windows.  They took the same
>> old sentence and just replaced "Windows" with "Linux."
>> 
>> I'm wondering why all this "tinkering" I'm supposed to have had to do
>> with either Ubuntu or PCLOS 2013 didn't happen.
> 
> You "tinker" a lot more with Windows than you ever do with Linux. Just
> tinkering with the anti-malware applications takes more time than
> tinkering with Linux Mint. With Linux Mint I've added a weather app and a
> workspace switcher to my panel, changed the display from military time to
> AM/PM on my clock, changed the background and made my panel slightly
> larger. Oh, and I've changed the behavior of Caja to single-click and its
> default icon size to 66%. All of which takes about 3 minutes. That's about
> all the tinkering I've ever done in two years. These trolls just make this
> crap up out of whole cloth, don't they?

With Windows 8.1 anti-malware apps from 3rd parties are not so much 
needed.  MS has done a very good job with Defender which is installed 
and used by default.

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 12:40:25 PM
On 2014-01-28 00:17:31 +0000, Richard M said:

> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:45:20 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> 
>> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:49:21 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix like OS', both Windows
>>>>> and OSX are very much simpler to use.
>>>> 
>>>> No they're not.  Troll.
>>> 
>>> The only people who claim Windows and OSX are simpler to use than Linux,
>>> are those who don't use Linux.
>> 
>> Well, there are a wide range of "Linuxen".  I've been forced to wrestle with
>> CentOS, and it is nowhere near as convenient as Debian Unstable.  It's not
>> even as convenient as Fedora.
> 
> I used to use Fedora and then went to Ubuntu and now I am currently
> using Mint.
> 
> I had little to no difficulty moving between distributions.
> 
> 
>> It's still easier than Windows, though.  Windows:  stick in a disk or start
>> and installing, and wonder what the hell it is doing, and why it doesn't act
>> as you expect.
> 
> Most people have never installed and configured Windows and all their
> applications from scratch.
> 
> As for churning, the upgrade from Windows 8.0 to Windows 8.1 did
> exactly that. It churned and churned and took forever. I don't even
> have a disk to use in event of a failure, although I do have my
> original Windows 8.0 DVD I downloaded when I originally purchased
> Windows 8.0.
> So if I need to re-install if say my backup fails for some reason, I
> have to install Windows 8.0 first and then update to Windows 8.1
> through the store.
> That bothers me.

That's one thing that irritates me.  These days if you use the Windows 
tools to wipe out the disk, it installs the version of Windows that was 
on it when you buy it.  For instance, on the Surface Pro 1 I have, the 
initial OS is Win8.  If you wipe and 'refresh' it, it loads that 
original OS which then needs 69 updates before you can upgrade it to 
Windows 8.1.  There is no way I've found that allows for the recovery 
section of the HD to be updated to the OS that you want on it.

Very much a PITA though it does work.

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 12:46:19 PM
On 2014-01-27 21:17:00 +0000, Peter Köhlmann said:

> Sandman wrote:
> 
>> In article <87txcpcr8e.fsf@gmail.com>, Hadron wrote:
>> 
>>>>> Peter K�hlmann:
>>>>> In name, yes. In actual usage, not at all
>>>> 
>>>> Silver Slimer:
>>>> I agree with Köhlmann here. While it's based on UNIX, I would
>>>> have a lot of trouble telling people that using OS X is in any way
>>>> similar to what people would expect from using a TRUE UNIX system
>>>> with a plethora of CLI
>>> 
>>> What is a "true Unix"? OS X is a unix. That fact it doesnt ship or
>>> have other window managers etc is neither here nor there.
>> 
>> X11 is available for OSX. And you can download KDE if you want to.
>> 
> 
> X is not even provided any more on the OS DVD
> And yes, you can download KDE. It is just not even remotely as easy to
> install (and use) as in linux. It is also not up to date

There is no OS DVD for the Mac anymore.

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 12:51:32 PM
Sandman wrote:

>I think Linux - or rather a nice decent and modern Linux distro, 
>would suffice for most people. Problem is, though, that they've bought a 
>new PC that comes with Windows, and why would they install Linux on it?

Of course, that is the problem.  Only the most knowledgable and
motivated are going to scratch the "good enough to get the job done"
Windows and install something else.

-- 
Advocate:  The purpose of "Linux" is to be a platform for
applications.

"Hadron" responds:  Huh? What? Makes ZERO sense.   (Because his
beloved Windows has *more* apps, you see.)
0
chrisv
1/28/2014 1:03:13 PM
RonB wrote:

>You "tinker" a lot more with Windows than you ever do with Linux. Just 
>tinkering with the anti-malware applications takes more time than 
>tinkering with Linux Mint. With Linux Mint I've added a weather app and a 
>workspace switcher to my panel, changed the display from military time to 
>AM/PM on my clock, changed the background and made my panel slightly 
>larger. Oh, and I've changed the behavior of Caja to single-click and its 
>default icon size to 66%. All of which takes about 3 minutes. That's about 
>all the tinkering I've ever done in two years. These trolls just make this 
>crap up out of whole cloth, don't they?

Indeed, there's almost nothing to do, after installing Linux (assuming
you've picked a distro which suits you).  Contrasted with Windoze,
which requires significant gathering and installing of software,
setting-up of security, cleaning-up the mickey-mouse default
configuration...

-- 
"To you maybe. To everyone else its, err, a PC to be used for running
their existing SW."  -  "Hadron", arguing against a home having even a
*single* non-Windows PC
0
chrisv
1/28/2014 1:14:02 PM
Lloyd E Parsons wrote:

> On 2014-01-27 21:17:00 +0000, Peter Köhlmann said:
> 
>> Sandman wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <87txcpcr8e.fsf@gmail.com>, Hadron wrote:
>>> 
>>>>>> Peter K�hlmann:
>>>>>> In name, yes. In actual usage, not at all
>>>>> 
>>>>> Silver Slimer:
>>>>> I agree with Köhlmann here. While it's based on UNIX, I would
>>>>> have a lot of trouble telling people that using OS X is in any way
>>>>> similar to what people would expect from using a TRUE UNIX system
>>>>> with a plethora of CLI
>>>> 
>>>> What is a "true Unix"? OS X is a unix. That fact it doesnt ship or
>>>> have other window managers etc is neither here nor there.
>>> 
>>> X11 is available for OSX. And you can download KDE if you want to.
>>> 
>> 
>> X is not even provided any more on the OS DVD
>> And yes, you can download KDE. It is just not even remotely as easy to
>> install (and use) as in linux. It is also not up to date
> 
> There is no OS DVD for the Mac anymore.
> 

Irrelevant. Call it "install medium" instead, no matter if DVD, USB stick or 
file downloaded

You MAK retards cling to words instead of the topic, knowing fully well that 
the claim made is correct. X is dead for all practical purposes on Macs
0
Peter
1/28/2014 1:14:46 PM
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 00:39:43 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 19:17:31 -0500, Richard M wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:45:20 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> 
>>> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:49:21 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix like OS', both Windows
>>>>>>and OSX are very much simpler to use.
>>>>> 
>>>>> No they're not.  Troll.
>>>>
>>>> The only people who claim Windows and OSX are simpler to use than
>>>> Linux,
>>>> are those who don't use Linux.
>>> 
>>> Well, there are a wide range of "Linuxen".  I've been forced to wrestle
>>> with CentOS, and it is nowhere near as convenient as Debian Unstable. 
>>> It's not even as convenient as Fedora.
>> 
>> I used to use Fedora and then went to Ubuntu and now I am currently
>> using Mint.
>> 
>> I had little to no difficulty moving between distributions.
> 
> Same here. Probably the most (slightly more) difficult distribution I used 
> was Vector Linux (which was based on Slackware). But even it was pretty 
> easy. 
> 
> For CentOS ... yum install joe
> 
> For Linux Mint ... apt-get install joe
> 
> I've found apt to be a bit more robust than yum. Every now and then I used 
> to have to 'yum clean' (or something like that) to clear errors. But that 
> could have been because I was using a couple other "side" repositories 
> when I used CentOS (for multimedia, mostly).

I prefer apt to yum  but just because I have had less problems with
apt. The biggest problems at least for me occur when I enable the
"side repositories" as you call them. I remember with Suse I enabled
some multimedia repository in order to get proprietary files and it
kind of made a mess of things because it was looking for older
versions of dependencies and I probably answered the questions it was
asking me incorrectly. 

  
>>> It's still easier than Windows, though.  Windows:  stick in a disk or
>>> start and installing, and wonder what the hell it is doing, and why it
>>> doesn't act as you expect.
>> 
>> Most people have never installed and configured Windows and all their
>> applications from scratch.
>> 
>> As for churning, the upgrade from Windows 8.0 to Windows 8.1 did exactly
>> that. It churned and churned and took forever. I don't even have a disk
>> to use in event of a failure, although I do have my original Windows 8.0
>> DVD I downloaded when I originally purchased Windows 8.0.
>> So if I need to re-install if say my backup fails for some reason, I
>> have to install Windows 8.0 first and then update to Windows 8.1 through
>> the store.
>> That bothers me.
> 
> I've had to rebuild too many Windows machines (mostly XP). I try to avoid 
> it at all costs. My oldest son now finishes up the updates, etc., when one 
> of my kids' Windows computers crashes and burns. As I get older, I'm 
> forgetting more and more about Windows ... and I don't want to relearn it.

Things have gotten a lot better since Windows XP however the amount
of drive by malware like websites and toolbar type things has
increased dramatically. If you are maintaining the family computers
the best advice I can offer is to download Macrium Free and set it up
to create an image once every few days. Make sure you create the
bootable rescue disk and store it in a safe place. It will save you
time and frustration when jr's computer goes tits up.

You can do the same thing with Clonezilla BTW.
I like Macrium though.
0
Richard
1/28/2014 1:16:14 PM
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:34:36 +0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 03:54:28 -0600, Nobody wrote:
> 
>> On 01/27/2014 02:05 PM, William Poaster wrote:
>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2014-01-27, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2014-01-27 17:18:51 +0000, Snit said:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Linux pushes a user to tinker with the tool... you have to. OS X
>>>>>> users often primarily focus on their tasks... because they can.
>>>>>
>>>>> I like that!!  :)
>>>>>
>>>>> And so true...
>>>
>>> It's bullshit.
>>>
>>>>     No. Not really. At best, it's a trollish notion about 10 years out
>>>>     of date.
>>>
>>> At the very least it's 10 years out of date.
>> 
>> It's the same thing they used to say about Windows.  They took the same
>> old sentence and just replaced "Windows" with "Linux."
>> 
>> I'm wondering why all this "tinkering" I'm supposed to have had to do
>> with either Ubuntu or PCLOS 2013 didn't happen.
> 
> You "tinker" a lot more with Windows than you ever do with Linux. Just 
> tinkering with the anti-malware applications takes more time than 
> tinkering with Linux Mint. With Linux Mint I've added a weather app and a 
> workspace switcher to my panel, changed the display from military time to 
> AM/PM on my clock, changed the background and made my panel slightly 
> larger. Oh, and I've changed the behavior of Caja to single-click and its 
> default icon size to 66%. All of which takes about 3 minutes. That's about 
> all the tinkering I've ever done in two years. These trolls just make this 
> crap up out of whole cloth, don't they?

I change Caja to NOT preview audio or video files when
hovering/clickin. That scared the life out of me the first time it
happened.

I add a workspace switcher as well. I can't understand why that is
not default?

Weather app is another one I do as well.

I set all my drives to auto-mount and display on the desktop.

Make the overall font (dpi) larger and play a little with the
background and maybe the theme.

I then install some applications that are not defaults and change the
default file open setting. VLC being one of them.

With the exception of automounting the drives, it's really nothing
different than I do with Windows EXCEPT with Windows I now have to
begin to install all my applications which takes hours.

I fiddle far less with Linux than I do with Windows.
Especially once it's set up. 
I don't understand where these fiddling complaints with Linux come
from?
Usually with Linux if I'm fiddling it's because I want to explore.
I'm like a kid in a candy store and it's by choice not because I have
to.
With Windows I'm afraid to upgrade on patch Tuesday because I have
been to well and the water was poisoned and it wasn't a one off but
has happened several times.
0
Richard
1/28/2014 1:25:38 PM
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 06:40:25 -0600, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:

> On 2014-01-28 11:34:36 +0000, RonB said:
> 
>> On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 03:54:28 -0600, Nobody wrote:
>> 
>>> On 01/27/2014 02:05 PM, William Poaster wrote:
>>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2014-01-27, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2014-01-27 17:18:51 +0000, Snit said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Linux pushes a user to tinker with the tool... you have to. OS X
>>>>>>> users often primarily focus on their tasks... because they can.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I like that!!  :)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And so true...
>>>> 
>>>> It's bullshit.
>>>> 
>>>>> No. Not really. At best, it's a trollish notion about 10 years out
>>>>> of date.
>>>> 
>>>> At the very least it's 10 years out of date.
>>> 
>>> It's the same thing they used to say about Windows.  They took the same
>>> old sentence and just replaced "Windows" with "Linux."
>>> 
>>> I'm wondering why all this "tinkering" I'm supposed to have had to do
>>> with either Ubuntu or PCLOS 2013 didn't happen.
>> 
>> You "tinker" a lot more with Windows than you ever do with Linux. Just
>> tinkering with the anti-malware applications takes more time than
>> tinkering with Linux Mint. With Linux Mint I've added a weather app and a
>> workspace switcher to my panel, changed the display from military time to
>> AM/PM on my clock, changed the background and made my panel slightly
>> larger. Oh, and I've changed the behavior of Caja to single-click and its
>> default icon size to 66%. All of which takes about 3 minutes. That's about
>> all the tinkering I've ever done in two years. These trolls just make this
>> crap up out of whole cloth, don't they?
> 
> With Windows 8.1 anti-malware apps from 3rd parties are not so much 
> needed.  MS has done a very good job with Defender which is installed 
> and used by default.

Microsoft Defender's rating is horrible.

http://www.informationweek.com/security/vulnerabilities-and-threats/microsoft-windows-defender-stumbles-in-malware-tests/d/d-id/1111240?
0
Richard
1/28/2014 1:27:38 PM
On 2014-01-28 13:03:13 +0000, chrisv said:

> Sandman wrote:
> 
>> I think Linux - or rather a nice decent and modern Linux distro,
>> would suffice for most people. Problem is, though, that they've bought a
>> new PC that comes with Windows, and why would they install Linux on it?
> 
> Of course, that is the problem.  Only the most knowledgable and
> motivated are going to scratch the "good enough to get the job done"
> Windows and install something else.

Yep, that is the problem in a nutshell!  You buy the computer to do 
something and if it does it the way it came to you, why switch?

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 1:28:58 PM
On 2014-01-28 13:14:46 +0000, Peter Köhlmann said:

> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> 
>> On 2014-01-27 21:17:00 +0000, Peter Köhlmann said:
>> 
>>> Sandman wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In article <87txcpcr8e.fsf@gmail.com>, Hadron wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>>> Peter K�hlmann:
>>>>>>> In name, yes. In actual usage, not at all
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Silver Slimer:
>>>>>> I agree with Köhlmann here. While it's based on UNIX, I would
>>>>>> have a lot of trouble telling people that using OS X is in any way
>>>>>> similar to what people would expect from using a TRUE UNIX system
>>>>>> with a plethora of CLI
>>>>> 
>>>>> What is a "true Unix"? OS X is a unix. That fact it doesnt ship or
>>>>> have other window managers etc is neither here nor there.
>>>> 
>>>> X11 is available for OSX. And you can download KDE if you want to.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> X is not even provided any more on the OS DVD
>>> And yes, you can download KDE. It is just not even remotely as easy to
>>> install (and use) as in linux. It is also not up to date
>> 
>> There is no OS DVD for the Mac anymore.
>> 
> 
> Irrelevant. Call it "install medium" instead, no matter if DVD, USB stick or
> file downloaded
> 
> You MAK retards cling to words instead of the topic, knowing fully well that
> the claim made is correct. X is dead for all practical purposes on Macs

Always was because almost no one wanted it there to begin with.  Bottom 
line is that X is there if you want it and no more or less daunting to 
install than it ever was.

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 1:30:43 PM
On 2014-01-28 13:14:02 +0000, chrisv said:

> RonB wrote:
> 
>> You "tinker" a lot more with Windows than you ever do with Linux. Just
>> tinkering with the anti-malware applications takes more time than
>> tinkering with Linux Mint. With Linux Mint I've added a weather app and a
>> workspace switcher to my panel, changed the display from military time to
>> AM/PM on my clock, changed the background and made my panel slightly
>> larger. Oh, and I've changed the behavior of Caja to single-click and its
>> default icon size to 66%. All of which takes about 3 minutes. That's about
>> all the tinkering I've ever done in two years. These trolls just make this
>> crap up out of whole cloth, don't they?
> 
> Indeed, there's almost nothing to do, after installing Linux (assuming
> you've picked a distro which suits you).  Contrasted with Windoze,
> which requires significant gathering and installing of software,
> setting-up of security, cleaning-up the mickey-mouse default
> configuration...

What are you babbling about?

After you install your Linux most likely you will be gathering and 
installing software, just like you would with a Windows or OSX box.

Setting up security is mostly done at install with nothing more needed 
except in some case, just like your Linux box.

And the default config will work fine for most, just like that Linux 
distro.  And just like that Linux distro, some will want to make 
changes to them, some won't.

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 1:33:35 PM
Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2014-01-28 11:34:36 +0000, RonB said:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 03:54:28 -0600, Nobody wrote:
>> 
>>> On 01/27/2014 02:05 PM, William Poaster wrote:
>>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2014-01-27, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2014-01-27 17:18:51 +0000, Snit said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Linux pushes a user to tinker with the tool... you have to. OS X
>>>>>>> users often primarily focus on their tasks... because they can.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I like that!!  :)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And so true...
>>>> 
>>>> It's bullshit.
>>>> 
>>>>> No. Not really. At best, it's a trollish notion about 10 years out
>>>>> of date.
>>>> 
>>>> At the very least it's 10 years out of date.
>>> 
>>> It's the same thing they used to say about Windows.  They took the same
>>> old sentence and just replaced "Windows" with "Linux."
>>> 
>>> I'm wondering why all this "tinkering" I'm supposed to have had to do
>>> with either Ubuntu or PCLOS 2013 didn't happen.
>> 
>> You "tinker" a lot more with Windows than you ever do with Linux. Just
>> tinkering with the anti-malware applications takes more time than
>> tinkering with Linux Mint. With Linux Mint I've added a weather app and a
>> workspace switcher to my panel, changed the display from military time to
>> AM/PM on my clock, changed the background and made my panel slightly
>> larger. Oh, and I've changed the behavior of Caja to single-click and its
>> default icon size to 66%. All of which takes about 3 minutes. That's about
>> all the tinkering I've ever done in two years. These trolls just make this
>> crap up out of whole cloth, don't they?
>
> With Windows 8.1 anti-malware apps from 3rd parties are not so much 
> needed.  MS has done a very good job with Defender which is installed 
> and used by default.

   http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Defender

   Windows Defender Developer(s)   Microsoft
   Initial release   October 24, 2006[1]
   Stable release    1.1.1593.0 / May 23, 2007[2][3]
   Development status   Deprecated on 10 April 2012[4]

??????

-- 
The little town that time forgot,
Where all the women are strong,
The men are good-looking,
And the children above-average.
		-- Prairie Home Companion
0
Chris
1/28/2014 1:36:57 PM
On 2014-01-28 13:27:38 +0000, Richard M said:

> On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 06:40:25 -0600, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> 
>> On 2014-01-28 11:34:36 +0000, RonB said:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 03:54:28 -0600, Nobody wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 01/27/2014 02:05 PM, William Poaster wrote:
>>>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2014-01-27, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2014-01-27 17:18:51 +0000, Snit said:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Linux pushes a user to tinker with the tool... you have to. OS X
>>>>>>>> users often primarily focus on their tasks... because they can.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I like that!!  :)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And so true...
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's bullshit.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> No. Not really. At best, it's a trollish notion about 10 years out
>>>>>> of date.
>>>>> 
>>>>> At the very least it's 10 years out of date.
>>>> 
>>>> It's the same thing they used to say about Windows.  They took the same
>>>> old sentence and just replaced "Windows" with "Linux."
>>>> 
>>>> I'm wondering why all this "tinkering" I'm supposed to have had to do
>>>> with either Ubuntu or PCLOS 2013 didn't happen.
>>> 
>>> You "tinker" a lot more with Windows than you ever do with Linux. Just
>>> tinkering with the anti-malware applications takes more time than
>>> tinkering with Linux Mint. With Linux Mint I've added a weather app and a
>>> workspace switcher to my panel, changed the display from military time to
>>> AM/PM on my clock, changed the background and made my panel slightly
>>> larger. Oh, and I've changed the behavior of Caja to single-click and its
>>> default icon size to 66%. All of which takes about 3 minutes. That's about
>>> all the tinkering I've ever done in two years. These trolls just make this
>>> crap up out of whole cloth, don't they?
>> 
>> With Windows 8.1 anti-malware apps from 3rd parties are not so much
>> needed.  MS has done a very good job with Defender which is installed
>> and used by default.
> 
> Microsoft Defender's rating is horrible.
> 
> http://www.informationweek.com/security/vulnerabilities-and-threats/microsoft-windows-defender-stumbles-in-malware-tests/d/d-id/1111240? 
> 

Mostly for zero-day stuff :
http://searchenterprisedesktop.techtarget.com/tip/Comparing-Windows-Defender-in-Windows-8-vs-third-party-malware-tools 


In reality, if the user insists on going to sites and such that are 
known malware hosts, it won't matter a hell of a lot which AV software 
they use.

Defender is good enough for most of us at home.

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 1:45:28 PM
On 2014-01-28 13:36:57 +0000, Chris Ahlstrom said:

> Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> 
>> On 2014-01-28 11:34:36 +0000, RonB said:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 03:54:28 -0600, Nobody wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 01/27/2014 02:05 PM, William Poaster wrote:
>>>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2014-01-27, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2014-01-27 17:18:51 +0000, Snit said:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Linux pushes a user to tinker with the tool... you have to. OS X
>>>>>>>> users often primarily focus on their tasks... because they can.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I like that!!  :)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And so true...
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's bullshit.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> No. Not really. At best, it's a trollish notion about 10 years out
>>>>>> of date.
>>>>> 
>>>>> At the very least it's 10 years out of date.
>>>> 
>>>> It's the same thing they used to say about Windows.  They took the same
>>>> old sentence and just replaced "Windows" with "Linux."
>>>> 
>>>> I'm wondering why all this "tinkering" I'm supposed to have had to do
>>>> with either Ubuntu or PCLOS 2013 didn't happen.
>>> 
>>> You "tinker" a lot more with Windows than you ever do with Linux. Just
>>> tinkering with the anti-malware applications takes more time than
>>> tinkering with Linux Mint. With Linux Mint I've added a weather app and a
>>> workspace switcher to my panel, changed the display from military time to
>>> AM/PM on my clock, changed the background and made my panel slightly
>>> larger. Oh, and I've changed the behavior of Caja to single-click and its
>>> default icon size to 66%. All of which takes about 3 minutes. That's about
>>> all the tinkering I've ever done in two years. These trolls just make this
>>> crap up out of whole cloth, don't they?
>> 
>> With Windows 8.1 anti-malware apps from 3rd parties are not so much
>> needed.  MS has done a very good job with Defender which is installed
>> and used by default.
> 
>    http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Defender
> 
>    Windows Defender Developer(s)   Microsoft
>    Initial release   October 24, 2006[1]
>    Stable release    1.1.1593.0 / May 23, 2007[2][3]
>    Development status   Deprecated on 10 April 2012[4]
> 
> ??????

That's talking about a very old version which was much more limited in 
what it does.  And that version is long gone as you note.

Win8.1 has a new Defender in it which is not the same thing at all.

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 1:46:40 PM
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 06:46:19 -0600, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:

> On 2014-01-28 00:17:31 +0000, Richard M said:
> 
>> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:45:20 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> 
>>> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:49:21 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix like OS', both Windows
>>>>>> and OSX are very much simpler to use.
>>>>> 
>>>>> No they're not.  Troll.
>>>> 
>>>> The only people who claim Windows and OSX are simpler to use than Linux,
>>>> are those who don't use Linux.
>>> 
>>> Well, there are a wide range of "Linuxen".  I've been forced to wrestle with
>>> CentOS, and it is nowhere near as convenient as Debian Unstable.  It's not
>>> even as convenient as Fedora.
>> 
>> I used to use Fedora and then went to Ubuntu and now I am currently
>> using Mint.
>> 
>> I had little to no difficulty moving between distributions.
>> 
>> 
>>> It's still easier than Windows, though.  Windows:  stick in a disk or start
>>> and installing, and wonder what the hell it is doing, and why it doesn't act
>>> as you expect.
>> 
>> Most people have never installed and configured Windows and all their
>> applications from scratch.
>> 
>> As for churning, the upgrade from Windows 8.0 to Windows 8.1 did
>> exactly that. It churned and churned and took forever. I don't even
>> have a disk to use in event of a failure, although I do have my
>> original Windows 8.0 DVD I downloaded when I originally purchased
>> Windows 8.0.
>> So if I need to re-install if say my backup fails for some reason, I
>> have to install Windows 8.0 first and then update to Windows 8.1
>> through the store.
>> That bothers me.
> 
> That's one thing that irritates me.  These days if you use the Windows 
> tools to wipe out the disk, it installs the version of Windows that was 
> on it when you buy it.  For instance, on the Surface Pro 1 I have, the 
> initial OS is Win8.  If you wipe and 'refresh' it, it loads that 
> original OS which then needs 69 updates before you can upgrade it to 
> Windows 8.1.  There is no way I've found that allows for the recovery 
> section of the HD to be updated to the OS that you want on it.
> 
> Very much a PITA though it does work.

And that is a real PITA.
Unless I'm missing an alternative, the way I see it is if my Windows
8.1 installation goes tits up and let's say my backup doesn't work, I
am forced to install Windows 8.0 from DVD first, go through 8 zillion
updates and THEN go to the store and update to Windows 8.1?

If that's the procedure, that sucks.
0
Richard
1/28/2014 1:54:49 PM
Lloyd E Parsons wrote:

> chrisv said:
>> 
>> Indeed, there's almost nothing to do, after installing Linux (assuming
>> you've picked a distro which suits you).  Contrasted with Windoze,
>> which requires significant gathering and installing of software,
>> setting-up of security, cleaning-up the mickey-mouse default
>> configuration...
>
>What are you babbling about?
>
>After you install your Linux most likely you will be gathering and 
>installing software, just like you would with a Windows or OSX box.

Err... The typical Linux distro comes-with a lot more software.  I
don't know about Macs, but Windwoes needs *everything* installed from
scratch, from text editors to Web browsers.

>Setting up security is mostly done at install with nothing more needed 
>except in some case, just like your Linux box.

Bullshit, "Lloyd".

>And the default config will work fine for most, just like that Linux 
>distro.  And just like that Linux distro, some will want to make 
>changes to them, some won't.

Sure, "some" will run things like file-name extensions hidden.  I
consider that insanity.

-- 
"And when people order a computer with no OS or *not* the OS they
expected and return the computer who takes the loss then?"  -
trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel", arguing that it's "too risky" for OEM's to
sell PC's without Windows pre-installed
0
chrisv
1/28/2014 2:03:46 PM
Lloyd E Parsons wrote:

> On 2014-01-28 13:14:02 +0000, chrisv said:
> 
>> RonB wrote:
>> 
>>> You "tinker" a lot more with Windows than you ever do with Linux. Just
>>> tinkering with the anti-malware applications takes more time than
>>> tinkering with Linux Mint. With Linux Mint I've added a weather app and
>>> a workspace switcher to my panel, changed the display from military time
>>> to AM/PM on my clock, changed the background and made my panel slightly
>>> larger. Oh, and I've changed the behavior of Caja to single-click and
>>> its default icon size to 66%. All of which takes about 3 minutes. That's
>>> about all the tinkering I've ever done in two years. These trolls just
>>> make this crap up out of whole cloth, don't they?
>> 
>> Indeed, there's almost nothing to do, after installing Linux (assuming
>> you've picked a distro which suits you).  Contrasted with Windoze,
>> which requires significant gathering and installing of software,
>> setting-up of security, cleaning-up the mickey-mouse default
>> configuration...
> 
> What are you babbling about?
> 
> After you install your Linux most likely you will be gathering and
> installing software, just like you would with a Windows or OSX box.

What "gathering and installing software"?
When you set up a typical distro, the usual software is already installed, 
like Open/LibreOffice, media players and editors, the usual stuff

And you don't "gather software just as with windows or OSX", because 99.9% 
of all needed software is already included in the distro, some clicks in the 
package manager away from install

In linux you do *not* act like in windows or OSX

0
Peter
1/28/2014 2:08:31 PM
On 2014-01-28 13:54:49 +0000, Richard M said:

> On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 06:46:19 -0600, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> 
>> On 2014-01-28 00:17:31 +0000, Richard M said:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:45:20 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> 
>>>> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:49:21 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Compared to Linux and most other Unix and Unix like OS', both Windows
>>>>>>> and OSX are very much simpler to use.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> No they're not.  Troll.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The only people who claim Windows and OSX are simpler to use than Linux,
>>>>> are those who don't use Linux.
>>>> 
>>>> Well, there are a wide range of "Linuxen".  I've been forced to wrestle with
>>>> CentOS, and it is nowhere near as convenient as Debian Unstable.  It's not
>>>> even as convenient as Fedora.
>>> 
>>> I used to use Fedora and then went to Ubuntu and now I am currently
>>> using Mint.
>>> 
>>> I had little to no difficulty moving between distributions.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> It's still easier than Windows, though.  Windows:  stick in a disk or start
>>>> and installing, and wonder what the hell it is doing, and why it doesn't act
>>>> as you expect.
>>> 
>>> Most people have never installed and configured Windows and all their
>>> applications from scratch.
>>> 
>>> As for churning, the upgrade from Windows 8.0 to Windows 8.1 did
>>> exactly that. It churned and churned and took forever. I don't even
>>> have a disk to use in event of a failure, although I do have my
>>> original Windows 8.0 DVD I downloaded when I originally purchased
>>> Windows 8.0.
>>> So if I need to re-install if say my backup fails for some reason, I
>>> have to install Windows 8.0 first and then update to Windows 8.1
>>> through the store.
>>> That bothers me.
>> 
>> That's one thing that irritates me.  These days if you use the Windows
>> tools to wipe out the disk, it installs the version of Windows that was
>> on it when you buy it.  For instance, on the Surface Pro 1 I have, the
>> initial OS is Win8.  If you wipe and 'refresh' it, it loads that
>> original OS which then needs 69 updates before you can upgrade it to
>> Windows 8.1.  There is no way I've found that allows for the recovery
>> section of the HD to be updated to the OS that you want on it.
>> 
>> Very much a PITA though it does work.
> 
> And that is a real PITA.
> Unless I'm missing an alternative, the way I see it is if my Windows
> 8.1 installation goes tits up and let's say my backup doesn't work, I
> am forced to install Windows 8.0 from DVD first, go through 8 zillion
> updates and THEN go to the store and update to Windows 8.1?
> 
> If that's the procedure, that sucks.

Assuming the HD itself isn't toasted, most Win8 installs have a 
recovery partition that you would recover from so the install DVD 
wouldn't necessarily be needed.  But otherwise that seems to be the 
only way.

Refresh to factory image then update/upgrade from there.  And yeah, 
that is a big PITA!!

I've read confusing articles both saying that you can't really clone 
and recover, and that you can.  So I'm damned if I know which is 
correct.  I think, but do not know, that if the system is new enough to 
have all the secure boot crap, that cloning is not a good option for 
some reasons.

I do know that Win8/8.1 do not have the tools builtin to make a clone 
of the drive as they used to with Win7 and some prior versions, not 
even mfg provided ones from what I've read.

On the Surface Pro with its SSD the procedure doesn't take to long to 
get back to factory, and if offers a refresh that doesn't booger 
everything too, but then you need 69 updates before you can even get 
the 8.1 upgrade.  Figger a few hours to do it all and then re-install 
apps.  Can pretty much shoot down 1/2 a day, though it isn't all 
attended.

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 2:11:18 PM
Lloyd E Parsons wrote:

> On 2014-01-28 13:14:46 +0000, Peter Köhlmann said:
> 
>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2014-01-27 21:17:00 +0000, Peter Köhlmann said:
>>> 
>>>> Sandman wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> In article <87txcpcr8e.fsf@gmail.com>, Hadron wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Peter K�hlmann:
>>>>>>>> In name, yes. In actual usage, not at all
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Silver Slimer:
>>>>>>> I agree with Köhlmann here. While it's based on UNIX, I would
>>>>>>> have a lot of trouble telling people that using OS X is in any way
>>>>>>> similar to what people would expect from using a TRUE UNIX system
>>>>>>> with a plethora of CLI
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What is a "true Unix"? OS X is a unix. That fact it doesnt ship or
>>>>>> have other window managers etc is neither here nor there.
>>>>> 
>>>>> X11 is available for OSX. And you can download KDE if you want to.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> X is not even provided any more on the OS DVD
>>>> And yes, you can download KDE. It is just not even remotely as easy to
>>>> install (and use) as in linux. It is also not up to date
>>> 
>>> There is no OS DVD for the Mac anymore.
>>> 
>> 
>> Irrelevant. Call it "install medium" instead, no matter if DVD, USB stick
>> or file downloaded
>> 
>> You MAK retards cling to words instead of the topic, knowing fully well
>> that the claim made is correct. X is dead for all practical purposes on
>> Macs
> 
> Always was because almost no one wanted it there to begin with.  

Because it does not integrate *at* *all* with the Mac GUI.
It is alien, whereas on linux or other Unix systems it *is* the GUI 
foundation

> Bottom
> line is that X is there if you want it and no more or less daunting to
> install than it ever was.
> 

And still as useless as it always was. X in itself is pretty much useless as 
you will not find too much to run on bare X
0
Peter
1/28/2014 2:12:35 PM
On 2014-01-28 14:03:46 +0000, chrisv said:

> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> 
>> chrisv said:
>>> 
>>> Indeed, there's almost nothing to do, after installing Linux (assuming
>>> you've picked a distro which suits you).  Contrasted with Windoze,
>>> which requires significant gathering and installing of software,
>>> setting-up of security, cleaning-up the mickey-mouse default
>>> configuration...
>> 
>> What are you babbling about?
>> 
>> After you install your Linux most likely you will be gathering and
>> installing software, just like you would with a Windows or OSX box.
> 
> Err... The typical Linux distro comes-with a lot more software.  I
> don't know about Macs, but Windwoes needs *everything* installed from
> scratch, from text editors to Web browsers.

Uh, no.

Windows from a DVD installs a web browser and text editor and quite a 
few 'standard' MS provided apps.  Useable if not ideal, and probably at 
least some apps would need installing depending on what you want to do. 
 With Win8/8.1 you get a slew of 'modern' apps as well as quite a few 
desktop apps.

But I don't know where you get your info about needing to install 
'everything', it has been a hell of a long time since you needed 
anything approaching that with Windows.

But few actually do that these days.  The hardware is so cheap you buy 
a new one that already has Windows on it with a plethora of apps.  Some 
from MS, some from the mfg or others.

> 
>> Setting up security is mostly done at install with nothing more needed
>> except in some case, just like your Linux box.
> 
> Bullshit, "Lloyd".

Not at all.

> 
>> And the default config will work fine for most, just like that Linux
>> distro.  And just like that Linux distro, some will want to make
>> changes to them, some won't.
> 
> Sure, "some" will run things like file-name extensions hidden.  I
> consider that insanity.

What you consider doesn't matter, but you can change things around if 
you so desire.  Most home users actually don't do much with those 
'tweaks' though some businesses do, probably most in a networked 
environment.

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 2:17:50 PM
On 2014-01-28 14:08:31 +0000, Peter K�hlmann said:

> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> 
>> On 2014-01-28 13:14:02 +0000, chrisv said:
>> 
>>> RonB wrote:
>>> 
>>>> You "tinker" a lot more with Windows than you ever do with Linux. Just
>>>> tinkering with the anti-malware applications takes more time than
>>>> tinkering with Linux Mint. With Linux Mint I've added a weather app and
>>>> a workspace switcher to my panel, changed the display from military time
>>>> to AM/PM on my clock, changed the background and made my panel slightly
>>>> larger. Oh, and I've changed the behavior of Caja to single-click and
>>>> its default icon size to 66%. All of which takes about 3 minutes. That's
>>>> about all the tinkering I've ever done in two years. These trolls just
>>>> make this crap up out of whole cloth, don't they?
>>> 
>>> Indeed, there's almost nothing to do, after installing Linux (assuming
>>> you've picked a distro which suits you).  Contrasted with Windoze,
>>> which requires significant gathering and installing of software,
>>> setting-up of security, cleaning-up the mickey-mouse default
>>> configuration...
>> 
>> What are you babbling about?
>> 
>> After you install your Linux most likely you will be gathering and
>> installing software, just like you would with a Windows or OSX box.
> 
> What "gathering and installing software"?
> When you set up a typical distro, the usual software is already installed,
> like Open/LibreOffice, media players and editors, the usual stuff

Same with Windows and OSX.

> 
> And you don't "gather software just as with windows or OSX", because 99.9%
> of all needed software is already included in the distro, some clicks in the
> package manager away from install

Utter bullshit Peter.  If all needed software was included in the 
distro, then you wouldn't need to 'click' in the package manager.  IOW, 
that's 'gathering software'!

> 
> In linux you do *not* act like in windows or OSX

Yes you do, just in different ways.

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 2:19:56 PM
On 2014-01-28 14:12:35 +0000, Peter K�hlmann said:

> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> 
>> On 2014-01-28 13:14:46 +0000, Peter Köhlmann said:
>> 
>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2014-01-27 21:17:00 +0000, Peter Köhlmann said:
>>>> 
>>>>> Sandman wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> In article <87txcpcr8e.fsf@gmail.com>, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Peter K�hlmann:
>>>>>>>>> In name, yes. In actual usage, not at all
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Silver Slimer:
>>>>>>>> I agree with Köhlmann here. While it's based on UNIX, I would
>>>>>>>> have a lot of trouble telling people that using OS X is in any way
>>>>>>>> similar to what people would expect from using a TRUE UNIX system
>>>>>>>> with a plethora of CLI
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What is a "true Unix"? OS X is a unix. That fact it doesnt ship or
>>>>>>> have other window managers etc is neither here nor there.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> X11 is available for OSX. And you can download KDE if you want to.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> X is not even provided any more on the OS DVD
>>>>> And yes, you can download KDE. It is just not even remotely as easy to
>>>>> install (and use) as in linux. It is also not up to date
>>>> 
>>>> There is no OS DVD for the Mac anymore.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Irrelevant. Call it "install medium" instead, no matter if DVD, USB stick
>>> or file downloaded
>>> 
>>> You MAK retards cling to words instead of the topic, knowing fully well
>>> that the claim made is correct. X is dead for all practical purposes on
>>> Macs
>> 
>> Always was because almost no one wanted it there to begin with.
> 
> Because it does not integrate *at* *all* with the Mac GUI.
> It is alien, whereas on linux or other Unix systems it *is* the GUI
> foundation

And your point is?

> 
>> Bottom
>> line is that X is there if you want it and no more or less daunting to
>> install than it ever was.
>> 
> 
> And still as useless as it always was. X in itself is pretty much useless as
> you will not find too much to run on bare X

So you add what you need.

You make a big deal of it not being there when it actually is as 
available as it always was, then you want to shift the goalpost and say 
well you can get it but it isn't good enough.

Of course, for Mac folks, we don't give a shit about X for the most 
part, that's why it isn't installed by default.  Not needed nor wanted.

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 2:22:26 PM
Lloyd E Parsons wrote:

>Windows from a DVD installs a web browser and text editor and quite a 
>few 'standard' MS provided apps.  Useable if not ideal, (snipped, unread)

Whatever, "Lloyd".

-- 
'If "advocates" want to take credit for the success that Samsung has
had with Android Linux then they also have to shoulder some of the
criticism that Samsung is receiving.'    -  trolling fsckwit
"Ezekiel", lying shamelessly 
0
chrisv
1/28/2014 2:22:27 PM
On 2014-01-28 14:22:27 +0000, chrisv said:

> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> 
>> Windows from a DVD installs a web browser and text editor and quite a
>> few 'standard' MS provided apps.  Useable if not ideal, (snipped, unread)
> 
> Whatever, "Lloyd".

IOW, you original reply was just bullshit, so you snip away.

Coward!!  :)

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 2:31:25 PM
Lloyd E Parsons wrote:

> On 2014-01-28 14:08:31 +0000, Peter Köhlmann said:
> 
>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2014-01-28 13:14:02 +0000, chrisv said:
>>> 
>>>> RonB wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> You "tinker" a lot more with Windows than you ever do with Linux. Just
>>>>> tinkering with the anti-malware applications takes more time than
>>>>> tinkering with Linux Mint. With Linux Mint I've added a weather app
>>>>> and a workspace switcher to my panel, changed the display from
>>>>> military time to AM/PM on my clock, changed the background and made my
>>>>> panel slightly larger. Oh, and I've changed the behavior of Caja to
>>>>> single-click and its default icon size to 66%. All of which takes
>>>>> about 3 minutes. That's about all the tinkering I've ever done in two
>>>>> years. These trolls just make this crap up out of whole cloth, don't
>>>>> they?
>>>> 
>>>> Indeed, there's almost nothing to do, after installing Linux (assuming
>>>> you've picked a distro which suits you).  Contrasted with Windoze,
>>>> which requires significant gathering and installing of software,
>>>> setting-up of security, cleaning-up the mickey-mouse default
>>>> configuration...
>>> 
>>> What are you babbling about?
>>> 
>>> After you install your Linux most likely you will be gathering and
>>> installing software, just like you would with a Windows or OSX box.
>> 
>> What "gathering and installing software"?
>> When you set up a typical distro, the usual software is already
>> installed, like Open/LibreOffice, media players and editors, the usual
>> stuff
> 
> Same with Windows and OSX.

No. You don't get anything near as capable like OpenOffice installed out of 
the box on windows or OSX

>> 
>> And you don't "gather software just as with windows or OSX", because
>> 99.9% of all needed software is already included in the distro, some
>> clicks in the package manager away from install
> 
> Utter bullshit Peter.  If all needed software was included in the
> distro, then you wouldn't need to 'click' in the package manager.  IOW,
> that's 'gathering software'!

You know Jack Shit about linux.
The distro is *not* what is installed on the disk, it is the "thing" which 
contains the stuff you *can* install
Some of that is preselected at setup time (when you install linux from it).

The stuff which is not preselected (like development software for example) 
is some clicks away

>> 
>> In linux you do *not* act like in windows or OSX
> 
> Yes you do, just in different ways.
> 

You are truly an idiot. You know absolutely nothing about the stuff you are 
blubbering about, just like the other dimwitted MAK retards who invade 
lately here in COLA

0
Peter
1/28/2014 2:53:27 PM
Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> 

Why so obtuse?

-- 
The Lord prefers common-looking people.  That is the reason that He makes
so many of them.
		-- Abraham Lincoln
0
Chris
1/28/2014 2:59:23 PM
Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2014-01-28 13:36:57 +0000, Chris Ahlstrom said:
>
>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>> 
>>> With Windows 8.1 anti-malware apps from 3rd parties are not so much
>>> needed.  MS has done a very good job with Defender which is installed
>>> and used by default.
>> 
>>    http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Defender
>> 
>>    Windows Defender Developer(s)   Microsoft
>>    Initial release   October 24, 2006[1]
>>    Stable release    1.1.1593.0 / May 23, 2007[2][3]
>>    Development status   Deprecated on 10 April 2012[4]
>> 
>> ??????
>
> That's talking about a very old version which was much more limited in 
> what it does.  And that version is long gone as you note.
>
> Win8.1 has a new Defender in it which is not the same thing at all.

Then why not a new name?  "Windows Defenestrator" would be a good one.

-- 
My mother loved children -- she would have given anything if I had been one.
		-- Groucho Marx
0
Chris
1/28/2014 3:00:43 PM
On 2014-01-28 15:00:43 +0000, Chris Ahlstrom said:

> Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> 
>> On 2014-01-28 13:36:57 +0000, Chris Ahlstrom said:
>> 
>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>> 
>>>> With Windows 8.1 anti-malware apps from 3rd parties are not so much
>>>> needed.  MS has done a very good job with Defender which is installed
>>>> and used by default.
>>> 
>>> http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Defender
>>> 
>>> Windows Defender Developer(s)   Microsoft
>>> Initial release   October 24, 2006[1]
>>> Stable release    1.1.1593.0 / May 23, 2007[2][3]
>>> Development status   Deprecated on 10 April 2012[4]
>>> 
>>> ??????
>> 
>> That's talking about a very old version which was much more limited in
>> what it does.  And that version is long gone as you note.
>> 
>> Win8.1 has a new Defender in it which is not the same thing at all.
> 
> Then why not a new name?  "Windows Defenestrator" would be a good one.

Who knows.

From some readings it appears that the new Defender is the old one with 
the added benefits of Microsoft Security Essentials all in one package.

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 3:03:14 PM
On 2014-01-28 14:53:27 +0000, Peter K�hlmann said:

> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> 
>> On 2014-01-28 14:08:31 +0000, Peter K�hlmann said:
>> 
>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2014-01-28 13:14:02 +0000, chrisv said:
>>>> 
>>>>> RonB wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> You "tinker" a lot more with Windows than you ever do with Linux. Just
>>>>>> tinkering with the anti-malware applications takes more time than
>>>>>> tinkering with Linux Mint. With Linux Mint I've added a weather app
>>>>>> and a workspace switcher to my panel, changed the display from
>>>>>> military time to AM/PM on my clock, changed the background and made my
>>>>>> panel slightly larger. Oh, and I've changed the behavior of Caja to
>>>>>> single-click and its default icon size to 66%. All of which takes
>>>>>> about 3 minutes. That's about all the tinkering I've ever done in two
>>>>>> years. These trolls just make this crap up out of whole cloth, don't
>>>>>> they?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Indeed, there's almost nothing to do, after installing Linux (assuming
>>>>> you've picked a distro which suits you).  Contrasted with Windoze,
>>>>> which requires significant gathering and installing of software,
>>>>> setting-up of security, cleaning-up the mickey-mouse default
>>>>> configuration...
>>>> 
>>>> What are you babbling about?
>>>> 
>>>> After you install your Linux most likely you will be gathering and
>>>> installing software, just like you would with a Windows or OSX box.
>>> 
>>> What "gathering and installing software"?
>>> When you set up a typical distro, the usual software is already
>>> installed, like Open/LibreOffice, media players and editors, the usual
>>> stuff
>> 
>> Same with Windows and OSX.
> 
> No. You don't get anything near as capable like OpenOffice installed out of
> the box on windows or OSX

True, but so what?  OpenOffice (and the clones) and other apps are a 
simple click away.

But then that brings up a question.

Why would you want all that extra software if it isn't needed?

> 
>>> 
>>> And you don't "gather software just as with windows or OSX", because
>>> 99.9% of all needed software is already included in the distro, some
>>> clicks in the package manager away from install
>> 
>> Utter bullshit Peter.  If all needed software was included in the
>> distro, then you wouldn't need to 'click' in the package manager.  IOW,
>> that's 'gathering software'!
> 
> You know Jack Shit about linux.
> The distro is *not* what is installed on the disk, it is the "thing" which
> contains the stuff you *can* install
> Some of that is preselected at setup time (when you install linux from it).
> 
> The stuff which is not preselected (like development software for example)
> is some clicks away

Yep, pretty much the same with any OS.

> 
>>> 
>>> In linux you do *not* act like in windows or OSX
>> 
>> Yes you do, just in different ways.
>> 
> 
> You are truly an idiot. You know absolutely nothing about the stuff you are
> blubbering about, just like the other dimwitted MAK retards who invade
> lately here in COLA


-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 3:27:56 PM
On 28/01/2014 2:15 AM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> Silver Slimer wrote:
> 
>> On 27/01/2014 6:19 PM, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>>> When I ran Fedora, I had updates every day. When I ran Debian Jessie,
>>>> I
>>>
>>> Jessie is currently testing. You would expect it.
>>>
>>>> had updates once a day. When I ran OpenSUSE Tumbleweed, I had updates
>>>> every day. The impression that security updates are not necessary is
>>>> insane UNLESS you use Debian Stable only.
>>>
>>> What are you talking about? I think you make things up....
>>>
>>> Debian Stable *also* gets security updates.
>>
>> Try to follow. I wrote *every* *day* for several distributions. Debian
>> Stable doesn't get security updates on a daily basis.
> 
> Neither do other distros

Rolling distributions always get some, that goes without saying though.
I haven't used too many frozen distributions so I won't comment on that.
However, Ubuntu is essentially frozen until the next release 6 months
later and they got security updates pretty regularly.
-- 
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism
0
Silver
1/28/2014 3:45:19 PM
On 1/28/14, 12:19 AM, in article lc7lm9$6co$2@dont-email.me, "Peter
Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> Sandman wrote:
> 
>> In article <lc6mg5$lln$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann  wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> Peter K�hlmann:
>>>>>> X is not even provided any more on the OS DVD
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sandman:
>>>>> Since there is no OS DVD.
>>>> 
>>>> Snit:
>>>> Exactly. You can make your own, of course, but Apple does not sell
>>>> OS X on a DVD.
>>> 
>>> Please explain when apple ceased to provide X on its install DVDs
>> 
>> When they stopped selling installation DVD's.
>> 
> 
> You mean with Mavericks.
> Well, if you download that, it too does not include X

Good, less bloat. Why include something most would never use or what to use?

You can download it if you need it.


-- 
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

0
Snit
1/28/2014 3:47:08 PM
On 1/28/14, 4:04 AM, in article lc82se$k12$1@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

> On 01/28/2014 03:24 AM, Sandman wrote:
>> In article <lc7lm9$6co$2@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann  wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>>> Peter K�hlmann:
>>>>>>>> Peter K�hlmann: X is not even provided any more on the
>>>>>>>> OS DVD
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sandman:
>>>>>>> Since there is no OS DVD.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Snit:
>>>>>> Exactly. You can make your own, of course, but Apple
>>>>>> does not sell OS X on a DVD.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Peter K�hlmann:
>>>>> Please explain when apple ceased to provide X on its install
>>>>> DVDs
>>>> 
>>>> Sandman:
>>>> When they stopped selling installation DVD's.
>>> 
>>> You mean with Mavericks.
>> 
>> No. I mean when they stopped selling installation DVD's.
> 
> Apple stopped selling OSX on DVD when they found out their EULA couldn't
> legally keep buyers from installing OSX on non-Apple PCs.

Are you suggesting there is a cause and effect relationship here and no
other reason?


-- 
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

0
Snit
1/28/2014 3:48:00 PM
On 2014-01-28, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 01/28/2014 01:19 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> Sandman wrote:
>>
>>> In article <lc6mg5$lln$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann  wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Peter K�hlmann:
>>>>>>> X is not even provided any more on the OS DVD
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sandman:
>>>>>> Since there is no OS DVD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Snit:
>>>>> Exactly. You can make your own, of course, but Apple does not sell
>>>>> OS X on a DVD.
>>>>
>>>> Please explain when apple ceased to provide X on its install DVDs
>>>
>>> When they stopped selling installation DVD's.
>>>
>>
>> You mean with Mavericks.
>> Well, if you download that, it too does not include X
>
> I think they stopped selling DVDs with Snow Leopard.
>

    No. I have a Snow Leopard DVD.

-- 
        Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons.          |||
	       I want the pretty buttons to push themelves.         / | \
0
JEDIDIAH
1/28/2014 3:58:26 PM
On 1/28/14, 7:19 AM, in article bkps7hFfmt2U1@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd  E
Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:

>>> After you install your Linux most likely you will be gathering and
>>> installing software, just like you would with a Windows or OSX box.
>> 
>> What "gathering and installing software"?
>> When you set up a typical distro, the usual software is already installed,
>> like Open/LibreOffice, media players and editors, the usual stuff
> 
> Same with Windows and OSX.

Linux distros tend to come with a lot more pre-installed software.

Of course, if the situation was reversed it would be deemed "bloat". :)


-- 
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

0
Snit
1/28/2014 4:05:09 PM
On 2014-01-28, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-28 13:14:02 +0000, chrisv said:
>
>> RonB wrote:
>> 
>>> You "tinker" a lot more with Windows than you ever do with Linux. Just
>>> tinkering with the anti-malware applications takes more time than
>>> tinkering with Linux Mint. With Linux Mint I've added a weather app and a
>>> workspace switcher to my panel, changed the display from military time to
>>> AM/PM on my clock, changed the background and made my panel slightly
>>> larger. Oh, and I've changed the behavior of Caja to single-click and its
>>> default icon size to 66%. All of which takes about 3 minutes. That's about
>>> all the tinkering I've ever done in two years. These trolls just make this
>>> crap up out of whole cloth, don't they?
>> 
>> Indeed, there's almost nothing to do, after installing Linux (assuming
>> you've picked a distro which suits you).  Contrasted with Windoze,
>> which requires significant gathering and installing of software,
>> setting-up of security, cleaning-up the mickey-mouse default
>> configuration...
>
> What are you babbling about?
>
> After you install your Linux most likely you will be gathering and 
> installing software, just like you would with a Windows or OSX box.

    apt-get install remove-stupid-troll

    It's like the App Store or Bodega but on steroids and with fewer
limitations as it's baked into the OS and is intended to be a user
extensible toolset rather than just a limited app silo or "store".

    "3rd party vendors" can tie directly into the system or some power
user can provide bleeding edge packages if that's your think and is all
entirely optional and driven by the user.

    The Linux equivalent of Quicktime can even load plugins on demand
for you as you find you need them rather than you seeking these out on
your own.

[deletia]

    Tracking down and installing Windows or MacOS apps isn't remotely
comparable. Even the Apple Debian knockoff can't compare. It has too 
much of a crippled "corporate IT" mindset.

-- 
        Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons.          |||
	       I want the pretty buttons to push themelves.         / | \
0
JEDIDIAH
1/28/2014 4:05:44 PM
Silver Slimer wrote:

> On 28/01/2014 2:15 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> Silver Slimer wrote:
>> 
>>> On 27/01/2014 6:19 PM, Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>>> When I ran Fedora, I had updates every day. When I ran Debian Jessie,
>>>>> I
>>>>
>>>> Jessie is currently testing. You would expect it.
>>>>
>>>>> had updates once a day. When I ran OpenSUSE Tumbleweed, I had updates
>>>>> every day. The impression that security updates are not necessary is
>>>>> insane UNLESS you use Debian Stable only.
>>>>
>>>> What are you talking about? I think you make things up....
>>>>
>>>> Debian Stable *also* gets security updates.
>>>
>>> Try to follow. I wrote *every* *day* for several distributions. Debian
>>> Stable doesn't get security updates on a daily basis.
>> 
>> Neither do other distros
> 
> Rolling distributions always get some, that goes without saying though.
> I haven't used too many frozen distributions so I won't comment on that.
> However, Ubuntu is essentially frozen until the next release 6 months
> later and they got security updates pretty regularly.

Still bullshit. Updates are not automatically all for security. In fact, 
only a small minority are

0
Peter
1/28/2014 4:08:30 PM
On 2014-01-28, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-28 14:22:27 +0000, chrisv said:
>
>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>> 
>>> Windows from a DVD installs a web browser and text editor and quite a
>>> few 'standard' MS provided apps.  Useable if not ideal, (snipped, unread)
>> 
>> Whatever, "Lloyd".
>
> IOW, you original reply was just bullshit, so you snip away.

   No. Your reply was bullshit.

   You might have "got him" on the whole notepad + IE thing. Although who
really wants to use either of those?

   My favorite example of the Windows "snipe hunt" is something that goes
by the name of Shark007 and lives on a homepage that's a veritable land 
mine of spamware links.

   Then there are the spamware versions of well known apps that add some
shovelware to the standard versions. The unwary may be fooled into 
installing crap they don't want/need because they aren't familiar enough 
with the product and can't immediately distinguish the real thing from 
it's shovelware variants.

   It's like coming home after an extended absence and discovering that
the house next door is an abandoned crack house and their back yard has
turned into the Amazon.

-- 
        Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons.          |||
	       I want the pretty buttons to push themelves.         / | \
0
JEDIDIAH
1/28/2014 4:11:51 PM
On 2014-01-28, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-28 14:53:27 +0000, Peter Köhlmann said:
>
>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2014-01-28 14:08:31 +0000, Peter Köhlmann said:
>>> 
>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2014-01-28 13:14:02 +0000, chrisv said:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> RonB wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You "tinker" a lot more with Windows than you ever do with Linux. Just
>>>>>>> tinkering with the anti-malware applications takes more time than
>>>>>>> tinkering with Linux Mint. With Linux Mint I've added a weather app
>>>>>>> and a workspace switcher to my panel, changed the display from
>>>>>>> military time to AM/PM on my clock, changed the background and made my
>>>>>>> panel slightly larger. Oh, and I've changed the behavior of Caja to
>>>>>>> single-click and its default icon size to 66%. All of which takes
>>>>>>> about 3 minutes. That's about all the tinkering I've ever done in two
>>>>>>> years. These trolls just make this crap up out of whole cloth, don't
>>>>>>> they?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Indeed, there's almost nothing to do, after installing Linux (assuming
>>>>>> you've picked a distro which suits you).  Contrasted with Windoze,
>>>>>> which requires significant gathering and installing of software,
>>>>>> setting-up of security, cleaning-up the mickey-mouse default
>>>>>> configuration...
>>>>> 
>>>>> What are you babbling about?
>>>>> 
>>>>> After you install your Linux most likely you will be gathering and
>>>>> installing software, just like you would with a Windows or OSX box.
>>>> 
>>>> What "gathering and installing software"?
>>>> When you set up a typical distro, the usual software is already
>>>> installed, like Open/LibreOffice, media players and editors, the usual
>>>> stuff
>>> 
>>> Same with Windows and OSX.
>> 
>> No. You don't get anything near as capable like OpenOffice installed out of
>> the box on windows or OSX
>
> True, but so what?  OpenOffice (and the clones) and other apps are a 
> simple click away.

     No it isn't. You have to go looking for it. You have to search
the web. You might end up getting more than you bargained for. Not
everyone is comfortable with this (oddly enough).

     This is probably why Apple is abandoning this "let them fend
for themselves" approach.

     The moment someone decides to bring up "Android malware", you
will be the first one to change your tune in this regard.

>
> But then that brings up a question.
>
> Why would you want all that extra software if it isn't needed?

     On Linux is is equally easy to remove and that removal process
is much more reliable. In the worst case, you can just resort to
ripping it out manually and there will be no cruft left over after.

[deletia]

-- 
        Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons.          |||
	       I want the pretty buttons to push themelves.         / | \
0
JEDIDIAH
1/28/2014 4:16:02 PM
On 2014-01-28 16:05:44 +0000, JEDIDIAH said:

> On 2014-01-28, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-01-28 13:14:02 +0000, chrisv said:
>> 
>>> RonB wrote:
>>> 
>>>> You "tinker" a lot more with Windows than you ever do with Linux. Just
>>>> tinkering with the anti-malware applications takes more time than
>>>> tinkering with Linux Mint. With Linux Mint I've added a weather app and a
>>>> workspace switcher to my panel, changed the display from military time to
>>>> AM/PM on my clock, changed the background and made my panel slightly
>>>> larger. Oh, and I've changed the behavior of Caja to single-click and its
>>>> default icon size to 66%. All of which takes about 3 minutes. That's about
>>>> all the tinkering I've ever done in two years. These trolls just make this
>>>> crap up out of whole cloth, don't they?
>>> 
>>> Indeed, there's almost nothing to do, after installing Linux (assuming
>>> you've picked a distro which suits you).  Contrasted with Windoze,
>>> which requires significant gathering and installing of software,
>>> setting-up of security, cleaning-up the mickey-mouse default
>>> configuration...
>> 
>> What are you babbling about?
>> 
>> After you install your Linux most likely you will be gathering and
>> installing software, just like you would with a Windows or OSX box.
> 
>     apt-get install remove-stupid-troll
> 
>     It's like the App Store or Bodega but on steroids and with fewer
> limitations as it's baked into the OS and is intended to be a user
> extensible toolset rather than just a limited app silo or "store".
> 
>     "3rd party vendors" can tie directly into the system or some power
> user can provide bleeding edge packages if that's your think and is all
> entirely optional and driven by the user.
> 
>     The Linux equivalent of Quicktime can even load plugins on demand
> for you as you find you need them rather than you seeking these out on
> your own.
> 
> [deletia]
> 
>     Tracking down and installing Windows or MacOS apps isn't remotely
> comparable. Even the Apple Debian knockoff can't compare. It has too
> much of a crippled "corporate IT" mindset.

Some more of your inane babbling.

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 4:19:00 PM
On 2014-01-28, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-28 13:03:13 +0000, chrisv said:
>
>> Sandman wrote:
>> 
>>> I think Linux - or rather a nice decent and modern Linux distro,
>>> would suffice for most people. Problem is, though, that they've bought a
>>> new PC that comes with Windows, and why would they install Linux on it?
>> 
>> Of course, that is the problem.  Only the most knowledgable and
>> motivated are going to scratch the "good enough to get the job done"
>> Windows and install something else.
>
> Yep, that is the problem in a nutshell!  You buy the computer to do 
> something and if it does it the way it came to you, why switch?

    It doesn't do it the way it came to you.

    It's just that people have bought the persistent propaganda that
Lemming trolls have been pushing for the last 30 years. They have 
bought into the idea that they can't escape Microsoft. So they don't
even try.

    Then along comes something that seems so alien that the old fear
mongering doesn't seem relevant.

-- 
        Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons.          |||
	       I want the pretty buttons to push themelves.         / | \
0
JEDIDIAH
1/28/2014 4:22:47 PM
On 2014-01-28, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-28 16:05:44 +0000, JEDIDIAH said:
>
>> On 2014-01-28, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>>> On 2014-01-28 13:14:02 +0000, chrisv said:
>>> 
>>>> RonB wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> You "tinker" a lot more with Windows than you ever do with Linux. Just
>>>>> tinkering with the anti-malware applications takes more time than
>>>>> tinkering with Linux Mint. With Linux Mint I've added a weather app and a
>>>>> workspace switcher to my panel, changed the display from military time to
>>>>> AM/PM on my clock, changed the background and made my panel slightly
>>>>> larger. Oh, and I've changed the behavior of Caja to single-click and its
>>>>> default icon size to 66%. All of which takes about 3 minutes. That's about
>>>>> all the tinkering I've ever done in two years. These trolls just make this
>>>>> crap up out of whole cloth, don't they?
>>>> 
>>>> Indeed, there's almost nothing to do, after installing Linux (assuming
>>>> you've picked a distro which suits you).  Contrasted with Windoze,
>>>> which requires significant gathering and installing of software,
>>>> setting-up of security, cleaning-up the mickey-mouse default
>>>> configuration...
>>> 
>>> What are you babbling about?
>>> 
>>> After you install your Linux most likely you will be gathering and
>>> installing software, just like you would with a Windows or OSX box.
>> 
>>     apt-get install remove-stupid-troll
>> 
>>     It's like the App Store or Bodega but on steroids and with fewer
>> limitations as it's baked into the OS and is intended to be a user
>> extensible toolset rather than just a limited app silo or "store".
>> 
>>     "3rd party vendors" can tie directly into the system or some power
>> user can provide bleeding edge packages if that's your think and is all
>> entirely optional and driven by the user.
>> 
>>     The Linux equivalent of Quicktime can even load plugins on demand
>> for you as you find you need them rather than you seeking these out on
>> your own.
>> 
>> [deletia]
>> 
>>     Tracking down and installing Windows or MacOS apps isn't remotely
>> comparable. Even the Apple Debian knockoff can't compare. It has too
>> much of a crippled "corporate IT" mindset.
>
> Some more of your inane babbling.

    Yet you have nothing meaningful to add to contradict this actual Bogega user.

-- 
        Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons.          |||
	       I want the pretty buttons to push themelves.         / | \
0
JEDIDIAH
1/28/2014 4:44:48 PM
JEDIDIAH wrote:

> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>
>> chrisv said:
>>>
>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Windows from a DVD installs a web browser and text editor and quite a
>>>> few 'standard' MS provided apps.  Useable if not ideal, (snipped, unread)
>>> 
>>> Whatever, "Lloyd".
>>
>> IOW, you original reply was just bullshit, so you snip away.

Oh, is it "bullshit" that typical Linux distros come with more and
better software, so there is less to do, after the initial install,
"Lloyd"?

Idiot.

>   No. Your reply was bullshit.
>
>   You might have "got him" on the whole notepad + IE thing. Although who
>really wants to use either of those?

We all know that Windows is not *completely* devoid of apps.  IE is, I
suppose, sufficient, as a browser.  Everything else is either clearly
substandard or missing entirely, AFAIK.

-- 
"By definition, the busiest site in the world is MSN, because it's the
default home page for most people with Internet explorer as their
browser."  -  Erik Funkenbusch
0
chrisv
1/28/2014 4:52:31 PM
In article <slrnleflao.8fr.jedi@nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> > Lloyd  E Parsons:
> > What are you babbling about?
> 
> > After you install your Linux most likely you will be gathering and
> > installing software, just like you would with a Windows or OSX
> > box.
> 
> apt-get install remove-stupid-troll

> It's like the App Store or Bodega but on steroids and with fewer
> limitations as it's baked into the OS and is intended to be a user
> extensible toolset rather than just a limited app silo or "store".

I love apt-get and use it almost daily, but it's hardly an App Store on 
"steroids", it's a package distribution system that has little automation, 
and come pre-installed on most system with just one source of packages - 
hardly much "steroids" there.

As long as you don't add your own sources, it's a reliable system, but just 
as "sideloading" apps on a Mac can pose a security risk, so could adding 
sources to your apt installation as well. Well, if there were any malware 
for Linux, that is. Or for Macs...

> "3rd party vendors" can tie directly into the system or some power
> user can provide bleeding edge packages if that's your think and is
> all entirely optional and driven by the user.

3rd party vendors can't tie in to the system, the user has to manually add 
third party vendors to APT. The user need to pay attention to Linux 
distribution versions and such as well, of course. And when doing so, he 
also need to install the repo gpg key in many cases. It's worth it in many 
cases, but it's a bit of manual labor to get it working.

> The Linux equivalent of Quicktime can even load plugins on demand
> for you as you find you need them rather than you seeking these out
> on your own.

There is no "Linux equivalent" to QuickTime. Linux is not a company and 
there is no preinstalled official media player for Linux. There are many 
media players, and some have fewer or more features than QuickTime (or any 
other media player). This is not a function of *Linux*, it's a function of 
the developers of that application, whose name you forgot to mention.

> Tracking down and installing Windows or MacOS apps isn't remotely
> comparable. Even the Apple Debian knockoff can't compare. It has too
> much of a crippled "corporate IT" mindset.

No tracking down required at all. The App Store has been quite successful 
and while not all-encompassing, it contains tons of great software just a 
click away. 


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/28/2014 4:55:54 PM
In article <slrnlefman.8fr.jedi@nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> > > > owl:
> > > > I think Linux - or rather a nice decent and modern Linux
> > > > distro, would suffice for most people. Problem is, though,
> > > > that they've bought a new PC that comes with Windows, and why
> > > > would they install Linux on it?
> > > 
> > > chrisv:
> > > Of course, that is the problem.  Only the most knowledgable and
> > > motivated are going to scratch the "good enough to get the job
> > > done" Windows and install something else.
> > 
> > Lloyd  E Parsons:
> > Yep, that is the problem in a nutshell!  You buy the computer to
> > do something and if it does it the way it came to you, why switch?
> 
> It doesn't do it the way it came to you.

> It's just that people have bought the persistent propaganda that
> Lemming trolls have been pushing for the last 30 years. They have
> bought into the idea that they can't escape Microsoft. So they don't
> even try.

Some conspiracy theory you've got there. Even if that was true - what is 
their reason for "escaping"?

> Then along comes something that seems so alien that the old fear
> mongering doesn't seem relevant.

What seems alien? Linux?


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/28/2014 4:57:30 PM
In article <slrnleflu2.8fr.jedi@nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> > Lloyd  E Parsons:
> > But then that brings up a question.
> 
> > Why would you want all that extra software if it isn't needed?
> 
> On Linux is is equally easy to remove and that removal process is
> much more reliable.

So the distro wastes bandwidth and disk space installing tons of software 
you didn't ask for and then the redeeming feature is that it's easy to 
remove?

> In the worst case, you can just resort to ripping it out manually and 
> there will be no cruft left over after.

Sounds like OSX.


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/28/2014 5:00:59 PM
Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <noi3.f3wpp@rooftop.invalid>, owl wrote:

> > > > owl:
> > > > The question was what can you do with the CLI in FreeBSD...
> > > 
> > > Sandman:
> > > Exactly. Not *how* you do it, but *what* you do. useradd adds a
> > > user, and you can add a user with dscl. So adding users is not a
> > > *what* you can do in FreeBSD CLI and not in OSX.
> > 
> > So you cannot add local user accounts outside LDAP.  Why did Apple
> > see the need for requiring the overhead of LDAP?

> Probably because it is more flexible. The users are local since the service 
> is local. There is no difference other than where and how the information 
> is stored. LDAP can be used on the network, making networked user 
> management built in and default for every OSX system, not something you 
> need to add and configure. 

I believe you mentioned earlier that OS X only consults /etc/passwd
in single-user mode.  Have you verified this?  Can you manually
add a user to /etc/passwd and login with that user on normal boot?
 
> > > Sandman:
> > > /etc/passwd is only used when booting into single user mode,
> > > otherwise user information is stored in Open Directory, a fairly
> > > comprehensive LDAP service for both local and network. As you
> > > know, if you install LDAP server on your Linux, you can make it
> > > ignore /etc/passwd as well. It's an implimentation detail. Just
> > > edit your /etc/nsswitch.conf and have it ignore files and only
> > > authenticate via LDAP - now you can no longer use "useradd" in
> > > Linux either.
> > 
> > Sure, you could fubar your Linux system that way.

> Why would you ever consider LDAP to fubar a system? LDAP is a very 
> effective and useful system, and many many linux servers use it to good 
> effect. 

I consider the system fubar'd if only LDAP logins are allowed.

> > > > owl:
> > > > You call this "like FreeBSD"?
> > > 
> > > Sandman:
> > > LDAP services are available for any BSD flavor, so absolutely.
> > 
> > But no need to require it like Apple has done.

> Apple has chosen a particular method of user management that is an industry 
> standard of the highest quality. The flexibility of that choice lends great 
> power to the system, as it does to any Linux system that also employs it. 

That must be why no linux system I'm aware of has LDAP as the default,
and only, user account system.

> The fact that Linux by default use an older and less powerful user 
> management system doesn't take anything away from OD.

> You are running around with the goal posts like crazy, you thought user 
> management wasn't available on OSX and now you've learned that not only is 
> it available, but it is also immensly more flexible and powerful than 
> flatfiles - AND a unix standard - so you try to make it seem like the 
> default way most Linux distributions do it is the only correct way to do 
> it.

No.  I'm not moving the goal posts.  This is all about what people coming 
from basically *any* other Unix expect to find on OS X.  OS X is more
like Windows than it is like Unix.  But hell, even Windows doesn't require
that every machine be a Domain Controller. 

> OD was introduced in OSX Server a decade ago, and rolled into the "client" 
> version soon afterwards since it is a more powerful system. Ask any Linux 
> admin that handles multiple systems and they will tell you why. 

It makes no sense at all to have LDAP as the user account system now
that OS X is dead in the water as a server OS.  Why on earth does a
system that is invariably used in a workstation roll have LDAP 
controlling local logins?

0
owl
1/28/2014 5:08:11 PM
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:03:46 -0600, chrisv wrote:

> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:

>>After you install your Linux most likely you will be gathering and
>>installing software, just like you would with a Windows or OSX box.
> 
> Err... The typical Linux distro comes-with a lot more software.  I don't
> know about Macs, but Windwoes needs *everything* installed from scratch,
> from text editors to Web browsers.

Mac comes with almost nothing. Windross comes with nothing. If you want 
something, look for the box or find the download link because you won't 
find it on the final install.

With linux I end up installing a lot of stuff, and uninstalling a lot 
more. But those are things I choose, not stuff I need to be able to do 
something. If I left it as-is I could still surf the net, write emails, 
get on IRC, write letters and more involved documentation, play music, 
watch movies, burn CDs/DVDs, play simple games, manipulate graphics and 
pictures, etc. Basically, anything you could do on a default Windummie or 
iCrapple box, and then some.

>>Setting up security is mostly done at install with nothing more needed
>>except in some case, just like your Linux box.
> 
> Bullshit, "Lloyd".

I do about 5 CPUs every day at work. They are mostly XP, but more and 
more they're becoming 7 Windopes. Every one of them starts by warning me 
that I need to have "protection" from the outside world. First about 
antivirus, then about the firewall. And it keeps the annoying popups 
coming on end until I'm finally finished configuring it.

Lloyd lives in Pretendland.

-- 
Excuse my English.  I went to US public school.
0
Sinister
1/28/2014 5:11:02 PM
Sandman wrote:

>So the distro wastes bandwidth and disk space installing tons of software 
>you didn't ask for 

Oh, dear, it must be *pennys* worth of "waste".

At least it's free.  Care to guess who many people have the massive
MSO suite on their PC's, but who only use Word?  *Maybe* Excel?

Advantage:  Linux.

>and then the redeeming feature is that it's easy to remove?

Sure better than the *very* painful process of removing unwanted
bundleware from a Windoze PC.

Advantage:  Linux.

-- 
"And there in a nutshell we see how Desktop linux is going nowhere
fast. People who need income are terrified a freetard will simply
steal all their hard work and give it away."  -  "True Linux advocate"
Hadron Quark
0
chrisv
1/28/2014 5:11:03 PM
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10:08:11 AM UTC-7, owl wrote:
> Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <noi3.f3wpp@rooftop.invalid>, owl wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > > > > owl:
> 
> > > > > The question was what can you do with the CLI in FreeBSD...
> 
> > > > 
> 
> > > > Sandman:
> 
> > > > Exactly. Not *how* you do it, but *what* you do. useradd adds a
> 
> > > > user, and you can add a user with dscl. So adding users is not a
> 
> > > > *what* you can do in FreeBSD CLI and not in OSX.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > So you cannot add local user accounts outside LDAP.  Why did Apple
> 
> > > see the need for requiring the overhead of LDAP?
> 
> 
> 
> > Probably because it is more flexible. The users are local since the service 
> 
> > is local. There is no difference other than where and how the information 
> 
> > is stored. LDAP can be used on the network, making networked user 
> 
> > management built in and default for every OSX system, not something you 
> 
> > need to add and configure. 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you mentioned earlier that OS X only consults /etc/passwd
> 
> in single-user mode.  Have you verified this?  Can you manually
> 
> add a user to /etc/passwd and login with that user on normal boot?
> 
>  
> 
> > > > Sandman:
> 
> > > > /etc/passwd is only used when booting into single user mode,
> 
> > > > otherwise user information is stored in Open Directory, a fairly
> 
> > > > comprehensive LDAP service for both local and network. As you
> 
> > > > know, if you install LDAP server on your Linux, you can make it
> 
> > > > ignore /etc/passwd as well. It's an implimentation detail. Just
> 
> > > > edit your /etc/nsswitch.conf and have it ignore files and only
> 
> > > > authenticate via LDAP - now you can no longer use "useradd" in
> 
> > > > Linux either.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > Sure, you could fubar your Linux system that way.
> 
> 
> 
> > Why would you ever consider LDAP to fubar a system? LDAP is a very 
> 
> > effective and useful system, and many many linux servers use it to good 
> 
> > effect. 
> 
> 
> 
> I consider the system fubar'd if only LDAP logins are allowed.

Why?

> 
> 
> 
> > > > > owl:
> 
> > > > > You call this "like FreeBSD"?
> 
> > > > 
> 
> > > > Sandman:
> 
> > > > LDAP services are available for any BSD flavor, so absolutely.
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > But no need to require it like Apple has done.
> 
> 
> 
> > Apple has chosen a particular method of user management that is an industry 
> 
> > standard of the highest quality. The flexibility of that choice lends great 
> 
> > power to the system, as it does to any Linux system that also employs it. 
> 
> 
> 
> That must be why no linux system I'm aware of has LDAP as the default,
> 
> and only, user account system.
> 
> 
> 
> > The fact that Linux by default use an older and less powerful user 
> 
> > management system doesn't take anything away from OD.
> 
> 
> 
> > You are running around with the goal posts like crazy, you thought user 
> 
> > management wasn't available on OSX and now you've learned that not only is 
> 
> > it available, but it is also immensly more flexible and powerful than 
> 
> > flatfiles - AND a unix standard - so you try to make it seem like the 
> 
> > default way most Linux distributions do it is the only correct way to do 
> 
> > it.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I'm not moving the goal posts.  This is all about what people coming 
> 
> from basically *any* other Unix expect to find on OS X.  OS X is more
> 
> like Windows than it is like Unix. 

Why do you say this?

> But hell, even Windows doesn't require
> 
> that every machine be a Domain Controller. 
> 
> 
> 
> > OD was introduced in OSX Server a decade ago, and rolled into the "client" 
> 
> > version soon afterwards since it is a more powerful system. Ask any Linux 
> 
> > admin that handles multiple systems and they will tell you why. 
> 
> 
> 
> It makes no sense at all to have LDAP as the user account system now
> 
> that OS X is dead in the water as a server OS.  Why on earth does a
> 
> system that is invariably used in a workstation roll have LDAP 
> 
> controlling local logins?

My guess: Workgroups
0
Steve
1/28/2014 5:22:23 PM
On 28/01/2014 6:34 AM, RonB wrote:

> You "tinker" a lot more with Windows than you ever do with Linux.

Most people just tend to use Windows as-is, so I'm not sure where you
get this impression. Installing software is not tinkering.

> Just 
> tinkering with the anti-malware applications takes more time than 
> tinkering with Linux Mint.

This is completely wrong and you know it. You don't TINKER with an
anti-malware application. You install it and assume that you're
protected. What kind of tinkering would you do with one exactly?
Customize its look?

> With Linux Mint I've added a weather app and a 
> workspace switcher to my panel, changed the display from military time to 
> AM/PM on my clock, changed the background and made my panel slightly 
> larger. Oh, and I've changed the behavior of Caja to single-click and its 
> default icon size to 66%. All of which takes about 3 minutes. That's about 
> all the tinkering I've ever done in two years. These trolls just make this 
> crap up out of whole cloth, don't they?

So let's just assume that everyone does exactly like you. Meanwhile, the
reality is that a lot of people spend time downloading new icons and
themes, installing them, installing the applications they need, changing
the wallpaper, adding or removing widgets if they're available, etc..
Your personal experience is just that, PERSONAL. What you do doesn't
apply to the general population.
-- 
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism
0
Silver
1/28/2014 5:27:34 PM
On 28/01/2014 7:40 AM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:

> With Windows 8.1 anti-malware apps from 3rd parties are not so much
> needed.  MS has done a very good job with Defender which is installed
> and used by default.

What's also installed as default is Internet Explorer. And Internet
Explorer's default settings, regardless of what anyone claims, WILL let
malware in. Use a default install of IE, venture to www.thefirstrow.eu
and see how long it takes before your system is infected.
-- 
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism
0
Silver
1/28/2014 5:30:35 PM
In article <ghea.feau0@rooftop.invalid>, owl wrote:

> > Sandman:
> > Probably because it is more flexible. The users are local since
> > the service is local. There is no difference other than where and
> > how the information is stored. LDAP can be used on the network,
> > making networked user management built in and default for every
> > OSX system, not something you need to add and configure.
> 
> I believe you mentioned earlier that OS X only consults /etc/passwd
> in single-user mode.  Have you verified this?  Can you manually add
> a user to /etc/passwd and login with that user on normal boot?

I have not verified that, but it's writte in in plain text in the 
/etc/passwd file:

~> head /etc/passwd
##
# User Database
# 
# Note that this file is consulted directly only when the system is running
# in single-user mode.  At other times this information is provided by
# Open Directory.
#
# See the opendirectoryd(8) man page for additional information about
# Open Directory.
##

> > > > Sandman:
> > > > /etc/passwd is only used when booting into single
> > > > user mode, otherwise user information is stored in Open
> > > > Directory, a fairly comprehensive LDAP service for both local
> > > > and network. As you know, if you install LDAP server on your
> > > > Linux, you can make it ignore /etc/passwd as well. It's an
> > > > implimentation detail. Just edit your /etc/nsswitch.conf and
> > > > have it ignore files and only authenticate via LDAP - now you
> > > > can no longer use "useradd" in Linux either.
> > > 
> > > owl:
> > > Sure, you could fubar your Linux system that way.
> > 
> > Sandman:
> > Why would you ever consider LDAP to fubar a system? LDAP is a very
> > effective and useful system, and many many linux servers use it to
> > good effect.
> 
> I consider the system fubar'd if only LDAP logins are allowed.

Then there are millions of "fubar:ed" Linux systems out there. LDAP is by 
far the most used network management tool for Linux. And like OSX, flatfile 
is only used for single user modes. This is quite common.

> > > > > owl:
> > > > > You call this "like FreeBSD"?
> > > > 
> > > > Sandman:
> > > > LDAP services are available for any BSD flavor, so
> > > > absolutely.
> > > 
> > > owl:
> > > But no need to require it like Apple has done.
> > 
> > Sandman:
> > Apple has chosen a particular method of user management that is an
> > industry standard of the highest quality. The flexibility of that
> > choice lends great power to the system, as it does to any Linux
> > system that also employs it.
> 
> That must be why no linux system I'm aware of has LDAP as the
> default, and only, user account system.

We have already established that you are not aware of many things regarding 
BSD and Linux.

Even so, these are both equally valid methods of authentication and user 
management. One is vastly more flexible, powerful and sueprior to the 
other. Apple chose to make that one the default one. A very wise choice.

> > Sandman:
> > The fact that Linux by default use an older and less powerful user
> > management system doesn't take anything away from OD.
> 
> > You are running around with the goal posts like crazy, you thought
> > user management wasn't available on OSX and now you've learned
> > that not only is it available, but it is also immensly more
> > flexible and powerful than flatfiles - AND a unix standard - so
> > you try to make it seem like the default way most Linux
> > distributions do it is the only correct way to do it.
> 
> No.  I'm not moving the goal posts.  This is all about what people
> coming from basically *any* other Unix expect to find on OS X.

No it wasn't. It was about what can be done from the CLI. You thought user 
management couldn't be done from the CLI and you were wrong. Someone coming 
from *any* other Unix to a LDAP-configured Linux network will face the same 
need to user another command for user management, but they can do it from 
the command line.

> OS X is more like Windows than it is like Unix.

That's just a plain out dumb statement. LDAP was developed mostly by the 
IETF and widely deployed first by Sun Microsystems back in 1996. It is a 
unix standard as firm as there ever was one. 

> But hell, even Windows doesn't require that every machine be a Domain 
> Controller.

Whatever that has to do with LDAP is anyone's guess. It seems you're just 
very very confused about everything that has to do with Linux, LDAP and 
OSX.

> > Sandman:
> > OD was introduced in OSX Server a decade ago, and rolled into the
> > "client" version soon afterwards since it is a more powerful
> > system. Ask any Linux admin that handles multiple systems and they
> > will tell you why.
> 
> It makes no sense at all to have LDAP as the user account system now
> that OS X is dead in the water as a server OS.

How is it dead in the water as a server OS? It's a very competent server OS 
and network user management is built in to the server software. Apple sells 
cheap server hardware that will let you handle file sharing, calendar 
sharing and user management on small (or large) networks. It also supports 
networked home directories, useful in floating workstations.

Sure, it's not the most used function of OSX, but thousands of admins would 
rip out their hair if the feature was lifted. 

> Why on earth does a system that is invariably used in a workstation roll 
> have LDAP controlling local logins?

Why does Linux default to multi-user setup when most workstations are used 
by one user? Because it's more powerful when the need arises. I really 
can't understand your objection to this. Linux is using an older, less 
reliable and less flexible solution for user management than OX does, yet 
you seem to want to make it seem like the "Linux" way is the only correct 
way?

Why not just go "Oh, it uses LDAP, that's cool, explains why the command 
tools are different". 


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/28/2014 5:34:25 PM
On 1/28/14, 10:27 AM, in article lc8paf$nlf$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<slvrslmr@lv.ca> wrote:

> On 28/01/2014 6:34 AM, RonB wrote:
> 
>> You "tinker" a lot more with Windows than you ever do with Linux.
> 
> Most people just tend to use Windows as-is, so I'm not sure where you
> get this impression. Installing software is not tinkering.
> 
>> Just 
>> tinkering with the anti-malware applications takes more time than
>> tinkering with Linux Mint.
> 
> This is completely wrong and you know it. You don't TINKER with an
> anti-malware application. You install it and assume that you're
> protected. What kind of tinkering would you do with one exactly?
> Customize its look?

I turn off many of the annoying popups on AVG. That is about it.

>> With Linux Mint I've added a weather app and a
>> workspace switcher to my panel, changed the display from military time to
>> AM/PM on my clock, changed the background and made my panel slightly
>> larger. Oh, and I've changed the behavior of Caja to single-click and its
>> default icon size to 66%. All of which takes about 3 minutes. That's about
>> all the tinkering I've ever done in two years. These trolls just make this
>> crap up out of whole cloth, don't they?
> 
> So let's just assume that everyone does exactly like you. Meanwhile, the
> reality is that a lot of people spend time downloading new icons and
> themes, installing them, installing the applications they need, changing
> the wallpaper, adding or removing widgets if they're available, etc..
> Your personal experience is just that, PERSONAL. What you do doesn't
> apply to the general population.

When it is noted how Linux looks like it was designed in the 1990s the
standard response is you can get themes to make it look decent.

-- 
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

0
Snit
1/28/2014 5:36:19 PM
On 1/28/14, 9:05 AM, in article slrnleflao.8fr.jedi@nomad.mishnet,
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

>> What are you babbling about?
>> 
>> After you install your Linux most likely you will be gathering and
>> installing software, just like you would with a Windows or OSX box.
> 
>     apt-get install remove-stupid-troll
> 
>     It's like the App Store or Bodega but on steroids and with fewer
> limitations as it's baked into the OS and is intended to be a user
> extensible toolset rather than just a limited app silo or "store".

Applications from the Apple app store can be deleted from LaunchPad. It is
not as if it is not "baked in" as well.

>     "3rd party vendors" can tie directly into the system or some power
> user can provide bleeding edge packages if that's your think and is all
> entirely optional and driven by the user.
> 
>     The Linux equivalent of Quicktime can even load plugins on demand
> for you as you find you need them rather than you seeking these out on
> your own.
> 
> [deletia]
> 
>     Tracking down and installing Windows or MacOS apps isn't remotely
> comparable. Even the Apple Debian knockoff can't compare. It has too
> much of a crippled "corporate IT" mindset.

How so?

-- 
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

0
Snit
1/28/2014 5:37:47 PM
On 28/01/2014 7:46 AM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:

> That's one thing that irritates me.  These days if you use the Windows
> tools to wipe out the disk, it installs the version of Windows that was
> on it when you buy it.  For instance, on the Surface Pro 1 I have, the
> initial OS is Win8.  If you wipe and 'refresh' it, it loads that
> original OS which then needs 69 updates before you can upgrade it to
> Windows 8.1.  There is no way I've found that allows for the recovery
> section of the HD to be updated to the OS that you want on it.
> 
> Very much a PITA though it does work.

To be fair, this is the case for any Windows computer which comes with a
recovery partition or recovery disks.
-- 
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism
0
Silver
1/28/2014 5:37:56 PM
In article <52e7e4a5$0$24919$a8266bb1@newsreader.readnews.com>, Sinister Midget wrote:

> > > Lloyd  E Parsons:
> > > After you install your Linux most likely you will be gathering
> > > and installing software, just like you would with a Windows or
> > > OSX box.
> > 
> > chrisv:
> > Err... The typical Linux distro comes-with a lot more software.  I
> > don't know about Macs, but Windwoes needs *everything* installed
> > from scratch, from text editors to Web browsers.
> 
> Mac comes with almost nothing.

How does one make such a claim with a straight face?

> With linux I end up installing a lot of stuff, and uninstalling a
> lot more.

So... you end up with less software than you started with?

> But those are things I choose, not stuff I need to be able
> to do something.

Wait, what? You choose to install things you don't need to be able to.. do 
something? 

> If I left it as-is I could still surf the net,

Just like OSX

> write emails

Just like OSX

> get on IRC

Right, OSX doesn't come with an IRC client. Score one to the fourteen year 
old :)

> write letters

Just as OSX

> and more involved documentation

Sure, also on OSX.

> play music

Absolutely, right out of the box on OSX.

> watch movies

Yep, OSX.

> burn CDs/DVDs

Also OSX

> play simple games

OSX

> manipulate graphics and pictures, etc.

Also OSX.

> Basically, anything you could do on a default Windummie or iCrapple box, 
> and then some.

So, basically you have no argument - other than the fact that you'll be on 
irc faster than a normal Mac user? :-D



-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/28/2014 5:39:20 PM
In article <ptofe9h6dlcm7lovao4fhis2qh1fjimn0t@4ax.com>, chrisv wrote:

> > Sandman:
> > So the distro wastes bandwidth and disk space installing tons of
> > software you didn't ask for
> 
> Oh, dear, it must be *pennys* worth of "waste".

Yeah, sure. I just found it funny when owl recently complain about the 
supposed "overhead" of an LDAP service :)

> At least it's free.  Care to guess who many people have the massive
> MSO suite on their PC's, but who only use Word?  *Maybe* Excel?

Pages, Keynote and Numbers on Mac is... free.

> Advantage:  Linux.

Or Macs, then. 

> > Sandman:
> > and then the redeeming feature is that it's easy to remove?
> 
> Sure better than the *very* painful process of removing unwanted
> bundleware from a Windoze PC.

> Advantage:  Linux.

No bundleware on Macs, advantage Mac, then. 


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/28/2014 5:41:24 PM
On 28/01/2014 8:36 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>    http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Defender
> 
>    Windows Defender Developer(s)   Microsoft
>    Initial release   October 24, 2006[1]
>    Stable release    1.1.1593.0 / May 23, 2007[2][3]
>    Development status   Deprecated on 10 April 2012[4]
> 
> ??????

I usually disable it. I have no respect for Microsoft when it comes to
security products.
-- 
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism
0
Silver
1/28/2014 5:42:08 PM
On 28/01/2014 9:53 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

>>> What "gathering and installing software"?
>>> When you set up a typical distro, the usual software is already
>>> installed, like Open/LibreOffice, media players and editors, the usual
>>> stuff
>>
>> Same with Windows and OSX.
> 
> No. You don't get anything near as capable like OpenOffice installed out of 
> the box on windows or OSX

Peter's right. It's a simple download away, but if people have never
heard of Libre or OpenOffice, they'll try to manage with WordPad and be
laughed at by the whole of society.

> You are truly an idiot. You know absolutely nothing about the stuff you are 
> blubbering about, just like the other dimwitted MAK retards who invade 
> lately here in COLA

See Peter, the insults are unnecessary. If your goal is to get rid of
the trolls, and I think it is, NOT insulting them will actually
discourage them from responding. Killing them with facts is a lot more
effective than hoping that you'll eventually find the right insult to
drive them away.
-- 
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism
0
Silver
1/28/2014 5:56:21 PM
Sandman wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> At least it's free.  Care to guess who many people have the massive
>> MSO suite on their PC's, but who only use Word?  *Maybe* Excel?
>
>Pages, Keynote and Numbers on Mac is... free.

Are they "free", or is the cost built-in to the (high) price of buying
a Mac?

For extra $, many OEM's will install MSO onto your Windwoes box for
you, too.

>> Advantage:  Linux.

-- 
'Unfortunately I believed the COLA gang when they said "it all just
works".'  -  "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark
0
chrisv
1/28/2014 6:02:29 PM
On 28/01/2014 11:08 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

>> Rolling distributions always get some, that goes without saying though.
>> I haven't used too many frozen distributions so I won't comment on that.
>> However, Ubuntu is essentially frozen until the next release 6 months
>> later and they got security updates pretty regularly.
> 
> Still bullshit. Updates are not automatically all for security. In fact, 
> only a small minority are

Considering rolling distributions get something like 40 updates a day, I
doubt anyone checks to see whether they only upgrade the version of a
program or patch security holes.
-- 
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism
0
Silver
1/28/2014 6:04:01 PM
Sandman wrote:

>Some conspiracy theory you've got there. Even if that was true - what is 
>their reason for "escaping"?

Getting a product that works better for them.  Windows may "work", but
it's not the optimal product for everyone who is using it.  Many would
indeed be better-off with GNU/Linux.

Unfortunately, there is too much fear, uncertainty, and doubt, for Joe
Average to scratch Windows off his new PC.

-- 
"Windows works for them - and by screaming at them that it doesn't
until you're blue in the face wont change a thing."  -  "True Linux
advocate" Hadron Quark
0
chrisv
1/28/2014 6:09:13 PM
Lloyd E Parsons wrote:

>Yes.

Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.

So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as the
Free alternative?

We can live with that.

-- 
"Over the years I had various laptops. Never once a problem with XP on
them."  -  "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark
0
chrisv
1/28/2014 6:21:48 PM
On 2014-01-28 17:37:56 +0000, Silver Slimer said:

> On 28/01/2014 7:46 AM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> 
>> That's one thing that irritates me.  These days if you use the Windows
>> tools to wipe out the disk, it installs the version of Windows that was
>> on it when you buy it.  For instance, on the Surface Pro 1 I have, the
>> initial OS is Win8.  If you wipe and 'refresh' it, it loads that
>> original OS which then needs 69 updates before you can upgrade it to
>> Windows 8.1.  There is no way I've found that allows for the recovery
>> section of the HD to be updated to the OS that you want on it.
>> 
>> Very much a PITA though it does work.
> 
> To be fair, this is the case for any Windows computer which comes with a
> recovery partition or recovery disks.

Sure, it is fairly much a PITA!  :)

I don't have a problem with the recovery partition as I think it is a 
good idea for most of the times short of the HD/SSD totally crapping 
out.  What I do have a problem with is that there is no way to refresh 
it to the current OS.

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 6:21:55 PM
On 2014-01-28 18:02:29 +0000, chrisv said:

> Sandman wrote:
> 
>> chrisv wrote:
>>> 
>>> At least it's free.  Care to guess who many people have the massive
>>> MSO suite on their PC's, but who only use Word?  *Maybe* Excel?
>> 
>> Pages, Keynote and Numbers on Mac is... free.
> 
> Are they "free", or is the cost built-in to the (high) price of buying
> a Mac?

You mean the fair price for the equipment and the superb after sale 
support offered?

Yes.

Apple just doesn't make the cheap crap you seem to be enamored of.

> 
> For extra $, many OEM's will install MSO onto your Windwoes box for
> you, too.

Or if you don't need all the stuff the full version of MSO has,  you 
can use the free web versions.  No install needed.

> 
>>> Advantage:  Linux.

So no advantage to Linux.  (troll)


-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 6:24:41 PM
On 2014-01-28 17:42:08 +0000, Silver Slimer said:

> On 28/01/2014 8:36 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> 
>> http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Defender
>> 
>> Windows Defender Developer(s)   Microsoft
>> Initial release   October 24, 2006[1]
>> Stable release    1.1.1593.0 / May 23, 2007[2][3]
>> Development status   Deprecated on 10 April 2012[4]
>> 
>> ??????
> 
> I usually disable it. I have no respect for Microsoft when it comes to
> security products.

OK, I'm fine with you doing that.

OTOH, I'm fine with me using Win8.1's Defender which has worked just fine.

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 6:25:27 PM
On 2014-01-28 17:56:21 +0000, Silver Slimer said:

> On 28/01/2014 9:53 AM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> 
>>>> What "gathering and installing software"?
>>>> When you set up a typical distro, the usual software is already
>>>> installed, like Open/LibreOffice, media players and editors, the usual
>>>> stuff
>>> 
>>> Same with Windows and OSX.
>> 
>> No. You don't get anything near as capable like OpenOffice installed out of
>> the box on windows or OSX
> 
> Peter's right. It's a simple download away, but if people have never
> heard of Libre or OpenOffice, they'll try to manage with WordPad and be
> laughed at by the whole of society.

Or use the online versions of whatever.

> 
>> You are truly an idiot. You know absolutely nothing about the stuff you are
>> blubbering about, just like the other dimwitted MAK retards who invade
>> lately here in COLA
> 
> See Peter, the insults are unnecessary. If your goal is to get rid of
> the trolls, and I think it is, NOT insulting them will actually
> discourage them from responding. Killing them with facts is a lot more
> effective than hoping that you'll eventually find the right insult to
> drive them away.

Peter knows no other way.  It is in his genes!

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 6:26:48 PM
Lloyd E Parsons wrote:

> (snipped, unread)

0
chrisv
1/28/2014 6:28:17 PM
"Lloyd E Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote in message
news:bkqai6FirgjU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 2014-01-28 18:02:29 +0000, chrisv said:
>
>> Sandman wrote:
>>
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>> At least it's free.  Care to guess who many people have the massive
>>>> MSO suite on their PC's, but who only use Word?  *Maybe* Excel?
>>>
>>> Pages, Keynote and Numbers on Mac is... free.
>>
>> Are they "free", or is the cost built-in to the (high) price of buying
>> a Mac?
>
> You mean the fair price for the equipment and the superb after sale 
> support offered?
>
> Yes.
>
> Apple just doesn't make the cheap crap you seem to be enamored of.
>

Ah yes... the old myth that fan-bois tell themselves that the Apple hardware
is so extremely overpriced.

There are many more articles like this on the web. If you want to buy cheap
shit ($19 power supply, flimsy case, etc) then you could probably save a few
dollars by shopping on eBay for your components.

<quote>
Testing the 'Apple tax': What would it cost to build a Windows version of
the new Mac Pro?
Dec 26, 2013

The new Mac Pro is the most powerful and flexible computer Apple has ever
created, and it's also extremely expensive - or is it? With a price tag that
can climb up around $10,000, Apple's latest enterprise workhorse clearly 
isn't
cheap. For businesses with a need for all that muscle, however, is that
steep price justifiable or is there a premium "Apple tax" that companies
will have to pay? Shortly after the new Mac Pro was finally made available
for purchase last week, one PC enthusiast set out to answer that question
and in order to do so, he asked another one: How much would it cost to build
a comparable Windows 8 machine?

Futurelooks editor Stephen Fung started out by configuring a nearly
top-of-the-line Mac Pro on Apple's website. He ended up with a machine that
included 64 GB of RAM, a 1TB SSD, two AMD D700 graphics cards and a 2.7GHz
12-core Intel Xeon processor.

The cost of this beastly machine? $9,599.

So Fung, a do-it-yourself PC specialist, set out to test the Apple tax and
see just how much cheaper it would be to build a comparable machine that
runs Windows. His findings might surprise you.

"After tabulating all the major component costs (plus another $99.99 US for
Windows 8 Pro), we are at a total of around $11,530.54 US using today's
prices at retailers that actually stock the hardware," he wrote. "I'm not
afraid to admit that compared to the asking price of $9,599 US, the new Mac
Pro seems like one heckuva deal for these components."

The cost of Fung's Mac Pro rival rang up at a steep 20% over Apple's Mac
Pro, and that doesn't assign any value to the time it would take to build
the machine once you have all the parts.

But what about the entry-level version of the Mac Pro? Surely a less
powerful version of the rig could be matched by Windows at a more reasonable
price point, right? In a follow-up to his first piece, Fung set out to see
what it would cost to build the Windows equivalent of Apple's base Mac Pro.

Again, the results were surprising.

Fung's match to Apple's $2,999 Mac Pro ended up costing $3,994.65 in parts,
a whopping 33% more expensive than the Mac Pro. And once again, that price
does not include labor.
</quote>

http://bgr.com/2013/12/26/mac-pro-windows-diy-cost/


-- 
"(Ezekiel) actually thought that "pagination" was just putting page numbers
on documents"

Another proven lie from the turdv liar
Aug 26, 2013
<jjdn19tq3orocg2sjl5omovi3vp07723ig@4ax.com>



0
Ezekiel
1/28/2014 6:31:27 PM
On 28/01/2014 12:36 PM, Snit wrote:

>> So let's just assume that everyone does exactly like you. Meanwhile, the
>> reality is that a lot of people spend time downloading new icons and
>> themes, installing them, installing the applications they need, changing
>> the wallpaper, adding or removing widgets if they're available, etc..
>> Your personal experience is just that, PERSONAL. What you do doesn't
>> apply to the general population.
> 
> When it is noted how Linux looks like it was designed in the 1990s the
> standard response is you can get themes to make it look decent.
> 

You can get themes to make it look like a different OS from the 1990's. :)

-- 
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism
0
Silver
1/28/2014 6:32:33 PM
On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:

> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> 
>> Yes.
> 
> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
> 
> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as the
> Free alternative?
> 
> We can live with that.

I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I insist 
on, my boxes are mostly top quality.

the MacBook Pro, Surface Pro and other more quality lines vs the cheap 
stuff.  Nothing against the cheap stuff, just isn't my cup of tea.

When looking at very good ultrabooks with similar specs to the MacBook 
Pro the prices are in line.

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 6:32:42 PM
On 28/01/2014 1:26 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:

>> Peter's right. It's a simple download away, but if people have never
>> heard of Libre or OpenOffice, they'll try to manage with WordPad and be
>> laughed at by the whole of society.
> 
> Or use the online versions of whatever.

If you're referring to Google Docs, it's shit.
-- 
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism
0
Silver
1/28/2014 6:38:19 PM
Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>
>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes.
>> 
>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>> 
>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as the
>> Free alternative?
>> 
>> We can live with that.
>
> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I insist 
> on, my boxes are mostly top quality.

You're wasting your money.  Even a low-end machine these days has more power
than you'll need for day-to-day work.

Still, it's your (retirement) money.

> the MacBook Pro, Surface Pro and other more quality lines vs the cheap 
> stuff.  Nothing against the cheap stuff, just isn't my cup of tea.
>
> When looking at very good ultrabooks with similar specs to the MacBook 
> Pro the prices are in line.


-- 
Anyone can do any amount of work provided it isn't the work he is supposed
to be doing at the moment.
		-- Robert Benchley
0
Chris
1/28/2014 6:42:03 PM
"Lloyd E Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote in message 
news:bkqb17FiunjU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>
>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>>
>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as the
>> Free alternative?
>>
>> We can live with that.
>
> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I insist 
> on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
>
> the MacBook Pro, Surface Pro and other more quality lines vs the cheap 
> stuff.  Nothing against the cheap stuff, just isn't my cup of tea.
>
> When looking at very good ultrabooks with similar specs to the MacBook Pro 
> the prices are in line.
>

The other "hidden cost" to consider is the future resale value of your 
hardware. I don't keep anything forever and generally I've been pretty good 
at finding the right time on when to sell my old hardware.

Buy cheap crap like these guys seem fond of and in 2-3 years it will be 
worth next to nothing. Pay just a little more (if that) and buy quality 
hardware and in a couple years time when you sell it you will more than make 
up for the little extra that you paid. Plus I get to use quality hardware 
the entire time before I sell it.

Buying cheap junk is penny wise but pound foolish.

-- 
"Fact is, All 250 neighbors in my neighborhood have CONVERTED their 
computers to Linux Mint 13, in the past year!!!"

Another delusional "advocate" liar.

Message-ID: <c1ce3e55-f6a5-48c9-94c1-8ad7e50a1284@googlegroups.com>
11 Jul 2013 12:33



0
Ezekiel
1/28/2014 6:42:23 PM
On 2014-01-28 18:42:03 +0000, Chris Ahlstrom said:

> Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> 
>> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>> 
>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Yes.
>>> 
>>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>>> 
>>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as the
>>> Free alternative?
>>> 
>>> We can live with that.
>> 
>> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I insist
>> on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
> 
> You're wasting your money.  Even a low-end machine these days has more power
> than you'll need for day-to-day work.

IYO, I obviously don't agree.  :)


> 
> Still, it's your (retirement) money.

Absolutely!  And I'm enjoying it.

> 
>> the MacBook Pro, Surface Pro and other more quality lines vs the cheap
>> stuff.  Nothing against the cheap stuff, just isn't my cup of tea.
>> 
>> When looking at very good ultrabooks with similar specs to the MacBook
>> Pro the prices are in line.

To be fair I could do with much less machine since I don't do much that 
actually needs all that power and performance.  But that's what I've 
always bought and can't think of a good reason to change now.

I do have one $350 new Acer laptop doing a single chore and that's run 
the Playon Media server.  Does it just fine.  It sits on its side on 
the floor beside the desk just doing its thing.  No updates for quite a 
long time 'cause they aren't needed.  No AV software other than 
Defender and that only because it was part of the upgrade to Win8.1.  
The reality is it doesn't even need that as it isn't used for anything 
else.

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 6:46:49 PM
On 2014-01-28 18:38:19 +0000, Silver Slimer said:

> On 28/01/2014 1:26 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> 
>>> Peter's right. It's a simple download away, but if people have never
>>> heard of Libre or OpenOffice, they'll try to manage with WordPad and be
>>> laughed at by the whole of society.
>> 
>> Or use the online versions of whatever.
> 
> If you're referring to Google Docs, it's shit.

MS Office online apps and others are out there.

It all depends on how much of the toys you like to embed in your 
documents and stuff.  For the vast majority it is more than good enough.

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 6:47:49 PM
On 1/28/14, 11:32 AM, in article lc8t42$fkp$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<slvrslmr@lv.ca> wrote:

> On 28/01/2014 12:36 PM, Snit wrote:
> 
>>> So let's just assume that everyone does exactly like you. Meanwhile, the
>>> reality is that a lot of people spend time downloading new icons and
>>> themes, installing them, installing the applications they need, changing
>>> the wallpaper, adding or removing widgets if they're available, etc..
>>> Your personal experience is just that, PERSONAL. What you do doesn't
>>> apply to the general population.
>> 
>> When it is noted how Linux looks like it was designed in the 1990s the
>> standard response is you can get themes to make it look decent.
>> 
> 
> You can get themes to make it look like a different OS from the 1990's. :)

Pretty much. :)


-- 
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

0
Snit
1/28/2014 6:48:54 PM
"Lloyd E Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote in message
news:bkqbrlFj4spU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 2014-01-28 18:42:03 +0000, Chris Ahlstrom said:
>
>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>>>
>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>>>>
>>>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as the
>>>> Free alternative?
>>>>
>>>> We can live with that.
>>>
>>> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I insist
>>> on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
>>
>> You're wasting your money.  Even a low-end machine these days has more 
>> power
>> than you'll need for day-to-day work.
>
> IYO, I obviously don't agree.  :)

It's not about computing power. It's about the quality of the hardware and
future resale value. I'll take something that's solidly built in a strong
metal case over some piece of crap in a plastic case.




>>
>> Still, it's your (retirement) money.
>
> Absolutely!  And I'm enjoying it.

In most cases, buying quality products is the better financial choice over
the long term. Whether it's furniture, electronics, vehicles, appliances,
etc. There's usually a good reason why something is priced so cheap - it's
because it's cheap shit.

Take the $10k Mac Pro in my other post. How much will that be worth in 2-3
years when the owner sells the machine and upgrades?

Compare that to a computer that some guy "built all by himself" and spent
roughly the same amount of money on it. What's that PC going to be worth
just 6 months from now?


-- 
"I wouldn't work for Microsoft for a billion dollars."

Chris Ahlstrom and his high-horse strawman morality.
Message-ID: <jh60uj$22g$3@dont-email.me>



0
Ezekiel
1/28/2014 6:49:46 PM
On 28/01/2014 1:47 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> On 2014-01-28 18:38:19 +0000, Silver Slimer said:
> 
>> On 28/01/2014 1:26 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>
>>>> Peter's right. It's a simple download away, but if people have never
>>>> heard of Libre or OpenOffice, they'll try to manage with WordPad and be
>>>> laughed at by the whole of society.
>>>
>>> Or use the online versions of whatever.
>>
>> If you're referring to Google Docs, it's shit.
> 
> MS Office online apps and others are out there.
> 
> It all depends on how much of the toys you like to embed in your
> documents and stuff.  For the vast majority it is more than good enough.

Microsoft's suite is no longer free online. Unless I am not looking in
the right places, it's 10$ a month for end-users. I've already posted this.
-- 
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism
0
Silver
1/28/2014 6:51:10 PM
Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <ghea.feau0@rooftop.invalid>, owl wrote:

> > > Sandman:
> > > Probably because it is more flexible. The users are local since
> > > the service is local. There is no difference other than where and
> > > how the information is stored. LDAP can be used on the network,
> > > making networked user management built in and default for every
> > > OSX system, not something you need to add and configure.
> > 
> > I believe you mentioned earlier that OS X only consults /etc/passwd
> > in single-user mode.  Have you verified this?  Can you manually add
> > a user to /etc/passwd and login with that user on normal boot?

> I have not verified that, but it's writte in in plain text in the 
> /etc/passwd file:

> ~> head /etc/passwd
> ##
> # User Database
> # 
> # Note that this file is consulted directly only when the system is running
> # in single-user mode.  At other times this information is provided by
> # Open Directory.
> #
> # See the opendirectoryd(8) man page for additional information about
> # Open Directory.
> ##

I see what it says, but what actually happens if you manually add a user?

> > > > > Sandman:
> > > > > /etc/passwd is only used when booting into single
> > > > > user mode, otherwise user information is stored in Open
> > > > > Directory, a fairly comprehensive LDAP service for both local
> > > > > and network. As you know, if you install LDAP server on your
> > > > > Linux, you can make it ignore /etc/passwd as well. It's an
> > > > > implimentation detail. Just edit your /etc/nsswitch.conf and
> > > > > have it ignore files and only authenticate via LDAP - now you
> > > > > can no longer use "useradd" in Linux either.
> > > > 
> > > > owl:
> > > > Sure, you could fubar your Linux system that way.
> > > 
> > > Sandman:
> > > Why would you ever consider LDAP to fubar a system? LDAP is a very
> > > effective and useful system, and many many linux servers use it to
> > > good effect.
> > 
> > I consider the system fubar'd if only LDAP logins are allowed.

> Then there are millions of "fubar:ed" Linux systems out there. LDAP is by 
> far the most used network management tool for Linux. And like OSX, flatfile 
> is only used for single user modes. This is quite common.

/etc/passwd is not used *only* in single-user mode under Linux.


> > > > > > owl:
> > > > > > You call this "like FreeBSD"?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sandman:
> > > > > LDAP services are available for any BSD flavor, so
> > > > > absolutely.
> > > > 
> > > > owl:
> > > > But no need to require it like Apple has done.
> > > 
> > > Sandman:
> > > Apple has chosen a particular method of user management that is an
> > > industry standard of the highest quality. The flexibility of that
> > > choice lends great power to the system, as it does to any Linux
> > > system that also employs it.
> > 
> > That must be why no linux system I'm aware of has LDAP as the
> > default, and only, user account system.

> We have already established that you are not aware of many things regarding 
> BSD and Linux.

Do you understand the meaning of the words "default" and "only"?
As for who knows what about what, do you still stand by your earlier
proclamation that OS X does not support hard links to directories?

> Even so, these are both equally valid methods of authentication and user 
> management. One is vastly more flexible, powerful and sueprior to the 
> other. Apple chose to make that one the default one. A very wise choice.

> > > Sandman:
> > > The fact that Linux by default use an older and less powerful user
> > > management system doesn't take anything away from OD.
> > 
> > > You are running around with the goal posts like crazy, you thought
> > > user management wasn't available on OSX and now you've learned
> > > that not only is it available, but it is also immensly more
> > > flexible and powerful than flatfiles - AND a unix standard - so
> > > you try to make it seem like the default way most Linux
> > > distributions do it is the only correct way to do it.
> > 
> > No.  I'm not moving the goal posts.  This is all about what people
> > coming from basically *any* other Unix expect to find on OS X.

> No it wasn't. It was about what can be done from the CLI. You thought user 
> management couldn't be done from the CLI and you were wrong. Someone coming 
> from *any* other Unix to a LDAP-configured Linux network will face the same 
> need to user another command for user management, but they can do it from 
> the command line.

But with OS X, LDAP is your *only* option.

> > OS X is more like Windows than it is like Unix.

> That's just a plain out dumb statement. LDAP was developed mostly by the 
> IETF and widely deployed first by Sun Microsystems back in 1996. It is a 
> unix standard as firm as there ever was one. 

So.  On no other system is it either the default, or especially the
only allowed, user account system.

> > But hell, even Windows doesn't require that every machine be a Domain 
> > Controller.

> Whatever that has to do with LDAP is anyone's guess. It seems you're just 
> very very confused about everything that has to do with Linux, LDAP and 
> OSX.

Yeah, whatever does LDAP have to do with Active Directory.
*rolls eyes* 

> > > Sandman:
> > > OD was introduced in OSX Server a decade ago, and rolled into the
> > > "client" version soon afterwards since it is a more powerful
> > > system. Ask any Linux admin that handles multiple systems and they
> > > will tell you why.
> > 
> > It makes no sense at all to have LDAP as the user account system now
> > that OS X is dead in the water as a server OS.

> How is it dead in the water as a server OS?

Nobody uses it.  Even Apple doesn't use it.

> It's a very competent server OS 
> and network user management is built in to the server software. Apple sells 
> cheap server hardware that will let you handle file sharing, calendar 
> sharing and user management on small (or large) networks. It also supports 
> networked home directories, useful in floating workstations.

But nobody uses it.

> Sure, it's not the most used function of OSX, but thousands of admins would 
> rip out their hair if the feature was lifted. 

> > Why on earth does a system that is invariably used in a workstation roll 
> > have LDAP controlling local logins?

> Why does Linux default to multi-user setup when most workstations are used 
> by one user?

Because requiring a root login for everything would be stupid and dangerous.

> Because it's more powerful when the need arises. I really 
> can't understand your objection to this. Linux is using an older, less 
> reliable and less flexible solution for user management than OX does, yet 
> you seem to want to make it seem like the "Linux" way is the only correct 
> way?

> Why not just go "Oh, it uses LDAP, that's cool, explains why the command 
> tools are different". 

It's cool that there is command-line user management.  It's nothing like
FreeBSD default method, but hey whatever.

0
owl
1/28/2014 6:52:10 PM
On 2014-01-28 18:42:23 +0000, Ezekiel said:

> "Lloyd E Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote in message 
> news:bkqb17FiunjU1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>> 
>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Yes.
>>> 
>>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>>> 
>>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as the
>>> Free alternative?
>>> 
>>> We can live with that.
>> 
>> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I insist 
>> on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
>> 
>> the MacBook Pro, Surface Pro and other more quality lines vs the cheap 
>> stuff.  Nothing against the cheap stuff, just isn't my cup of tea.
>> 
>> When looking at very good ultrabooks with similar specs to the MacBook 
>> Pro the prices are in line.
>> 
> 
> The other "hidden cost" to consider is the future resale value of your 
> hardware. I don't keep anything forever and generally I've been pretty 
> good at finding the right time on when to sell my old hardware.
> 
> Buy cheap crap like these guys seem fond of and in 2-3 years it will be 
> worth next to nothing. Pay just a little more (if that) and buy quality 
> hardware and in a couple years time when you sell it you will more than 
> make up for the little extra that you paid. Plus I get to use quality 
> hardware the entire time before I sell it.
> 
> Buying cheap junk is penny wise but pound foolish.

Yep, every Mac I've ever sold used has recovered at least 50% of new 
cost and usually more like 70%.

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 6:56:25 PM
On 1/28/14, 11:52 AM, in article hg80a.0aj@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

.... 
>> I have not verified that, but it's writte in in plain text in the
>> /etc/passwd file:
> 
>> ~> head /etc/passwd
>> ##
>> # User Database
>> # 
>> # Note that this file is consulted directly only when the system is running
>> # in single-user mode.  At other times this information is provided by
>> # Open Directory.
>> #
>> # See the opendirectoryd(8) man page for additional information about
>> # Open Directory.
>> ##
> 
> I see what it says, but what actually happens if you manually add a user?

Just a guess: a user is added. :)
.... 



-- 
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

0
Snit
1/28/2014 7:01:12 PM
On 2014-01-28 18:51:10 +0000, Silver Slimer said:

> On 28/01/2014 1:47 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>> On 2014-01-28 18:38:19 +0000, Silver Slimer said:
>> 
>>> On 28/01/2014 1:26 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> Peter's right. It's a simple download away, but if people have never
>>>>> heard of Libre or OpenOffice, they'll try to manage with WordPad and be
>>>>> laughed at by the whole of society.
>>>> 
>>>> Or use the online versions of whatever.
>>> 
>>> If you're referring to Google Docs, it's shit.
>> 
>> MS Office online apps and others are out there.
>> 
>> It all depends on how much of the toys you like to embed in your
>> documents and stuff.  For the vast majority it is more than good enough.
> 
> Microsoft's suite is no longer free online. Unless I am not looking in
> the right places, it's 10$ a month for end-users. I've already posted this.

You're thinking of Office 365.

Look at skydrive.live.com

Click on 'Create' at the top of the page.

It is not the same as the full featured Office and doesn't include all 
of Office Pro, but it works just fine for most things.

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 7:04:48 PM
In article <dtrfe9t9nic4nhgqi59cau8jl0cekddo5u@4ax.com>, chrisv wrote:

> > > chrisv:
> > > At least it's free.  Care to guess who many people have the
> > > massive MSO suite on their PC's, but who only use Word?  *Maybe*
> > > Excel?
> > 
> > Sandman:
> > Pages, Keynote and Numbers on Mac is... free.
> 
> Are they "free", or is the cost built-in to the (high) price of
> buying a Mac?

Well, the Macs doesn't cost any more than before they were free, so no - 
they're just free. They come free with every new Mac, and if you run the 
latest OS, you can download them for free as well. If you have an older 
Mac, they do cost money though. But it's a pretty sweet deal for new and 
existing customers. 

> For extra $, many OEM's will install MSO onto your Windwoes box for
> you, too.

For no extra money, you get iWork (Pages, Numbers and Keynote) and iLife 
(Garageband, iPhoto and iMovie) from Apple. 

Also, the operating system is free as well. If you have a supported Mac 
that is currently running at least Snow Leopard (which it has to be to be 
supported), then just click and get Mavericks, free.

The cost of the Mac is the usual "dodge" here, but as we know, Macs are 
priced very comparably, even if you can get "lesser" PCs for less money 
(who needs Thunderbolt, anyhow? :)




-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/28/2014 7:05:30 PM
On 01/28/2014 12:56 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> On 2014-01-28 18:42:23 +0000, Ezekiel said:
>
>> "Lloyd E Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote in message
>> news:bkqb17FiunjU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>>>
>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>>>>
>>>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as the
>>>> Free alternative?
>>>>
>>>> We can live with that.
>>>
>>> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I
>>> insist on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
>>>
>>> the MacBook Pro, Surface Pro and other more quality lines vs the
>>> cheap stuff.  Nothing against the cheap stuff, just isn't my cup of tea.
>>>
>>> When looking at very good ultrabooks with similar specs to the
>>> MacBook Pro the prices are in line.
>>>
>>
>> The other "hidden cost" to consider is the future resale value of your
>> hardware. I don't keep anything forever and generally I've been pretty
>> good at finding the right time on when to sell my old hardware.
>>
>> Buy cheap crap like these guys seem fond of and in 2-3 years it will
>> be worth next to nothing. Pay just a little more (if that) and buy
>> quality hardware and in a couple years time when you sell it you will
>> more than make up for the little extra that you paid. Plus I get to
>> use quality hardware the entire time before I sell it.
>>
>> Buying cheap junk is penny wise but pound foolish.
>
> Yep, every Mac I've ever sold used has recovered at least 50% of new
> cost and usually more like 70%.

You can see here what "Mac Advocacy" is really all about: keeping a 
steady stream of suckers interested so you can recover some of what you 
paid to buy an overpriced Apple product.  I'd rather buy a $400-$500 new 
PC every 2-3 years then try to find a sucker to buy my old Mac that cost 
$1000 or more.  The added benefit is I sit have the old PC as well, 
which I can either find support roles for, or even give away, with brand 
new Linux installed.

0
Nobody
1/28/2014 7:05:47 PM
In article <r4tfe995amstlv758enbt5okf4iao9m3j8@4ax.com>, chrisv wrote:

> > Lloyd  E Parsons:
> > Yes.
> 
> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.

> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as
> the Free alternative?

Huh? What greatly increased cost??



-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/28/2014 7:06:08 PM
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 1/28/14, 11:52 AM, in article hg80a.0aj@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> ... 
> >> I have not verified that, but it's writte in in plain text in the
> >> /etc/passwd file:
> > 
> >> ~> head /etc/passwd
> >> ##
> >> # User Database
> >> # 
> >> # Note that this file is consulted directly only when the system is running
> >> # in single-user mode.  At other times this information is provided by
> >> # Open Directory.
> >> #
> >> # See the opendirectoryd(8) man page for additional information about
> >> # Open Directory.
> >> ##
> > 
> > I see what it says, but what actually happens if you manually add a user?

> Just a guess: a user is added. :)
> ... 

You snipped context, in which "manually add" means manually add to /etc/passwd.
I'm curious if the system would allow that user to login.  I would test myself,
but I don't have a Mac (not to be confused with a MAC -- case is important :). 

0
owl
1/28/2014 7:12:03 PM
In article <b9sfe9hum48j22o7v0ofqfsv7m4feeivd6@4ax.com>, chrisv wrote:

> > Sandman:
> > Some conspiracy theory you've got there. Even if that was true -
> > what is their reason for "escaping"?
> 
> Getting a product that works better for them.  Windows may "work",
> but it's not the optimal product for everyone who is using it.

But if they don't know that, which we've established that they don't, then 
from where is supposed reason to escape coming from? For most people, 
Windows works just fine, and it's not like they're sitting around thinking 
about how to "escape" Microsoft or anything.

> Many would indeed be better-off with GNU/Linux.

Or Macs for that matter. But how would they know? I mean, many may know or 
understand the benefits of the Mac, but surely pretty much no one knows 
about Linux and any supposed benefits. Yeah, they know *of* Linux, but not 
why they would even consider using it.

> Unfortunately, there is too much fear, uncertainty, and doubt, for
> Joe Average to scratch Windows off his new PC.

Fear of *what*? I hope you're not saying fear of Linux here, because that 
would be one good reason NOT to install it. And if they fear Linux, why do 
they do it? It's not like Microsoft or Apple has some form of anti-Linux 
propaganda going on.

Ignorance is what is keeping them with Windows, not fear. They are not 
interested in, nor have a reason to, contemplate alternatives - since 
Windows actually works out fine for them.

I have many many clients using Windows and none "fear" Linux and none are 
looking for an alternative, in spite of the occasional quirk of Windows 
they dislike.


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/28/2014 7:12:14 PM
On 2014-01-28, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>
>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes.
>> 
>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>> 
>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as the
>> Free alternative?
>> 
>> We can live with that.
>
> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I insist 
> on, my boxes are mostly top quality.

    No. You just go for the fruity logo. Any notions of quality are entirely 
irrelevant. You probably have no clue what you are actually buying.

[deletia]

-- 
        Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons.          |||
	       I want the pretty buttons to push themelves.         / | \
0
JEDIDIAH
1/28/2014 7:16:10 PM
On 2014-01-28, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-28 18:42:03 +0000, Chris Ahlstrom said:
>
>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>> 
>>> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>>> 
>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Yes.
>>>> 
>>>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>>>> 
>>>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as the
>>>> Free alternative?
>>>> 
>>>> We can live with that.
>>> 
>>> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I insist
>>> on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
>> 
>> You're wasting your money.  Even a low-end machine these days has more power
>> than you'll need for day-to-day work.
>
> IYO, I obviously don't agree.  :)

    I am very confident that you are far too ignorant to be aware one way or the other.

    You're probably proud of that ignorance too.

[deletia]

    That was one thing that annoyed me about the Mac desktop and GNOME3 both.
Neither really was terribly good allowing you to be aware of what's going on
in the system in an informative and unobtrusive manner.

    ...and GNOME3's problems arise primarily from trying to be too Mac-like.

-- 
        Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons.          |||
	       I want the pretty buttons to push themelves.         / | \
0
JEDIDIAH
1/28/2014 7:18:31 PM
In article <hg80a.0aj@rooftop.invalid>, owl wrote:

> I see what it says, but what actually happens if you manually add a
> user?

I suppose you'll have to trust the info from Apple here, I'm not going to 
actually try it out. :)

> > > owl:
> > > I consider the system fubar'd if only LDAP logins are allowed.
> > 
> > Sandman:
> > Then there are millions of "fubar:ed" Linux systems out there.
> > LDAP is by far the most used network management tool for Linux.
> > And like OSX, flatfile is only used for single user modes. This is
> > quite common.
> 
> /etc/passwd is not used *only* in single-user mode under Linux.

It is quite common in large Linux networks, yes. 

> > > owl:
> > > That must be why no linux system I'm aware of has LDAP as the
> > > default, and only, user account system.
> > 
> > Sandman:
> > We have already established that you are not aware of many things
> > regarding BSD and Linux.
> 
> Do you understand the meaning of the words "default" and "only"? As
> for who knows what about what, do you still stand by your earlier
> proclamation that OS X does not support hard links to directories?

I've already substantiated that with links to the documentation, remember?

> > Sandman:
> > No it wasn't. It was about what can be done from the CLI. You
> > thought user management couldn't be done from the CLI and you were
> > wrong. Someone coming from *any* other Unix to a LDAP-configured
> > Linux network will face the same need to user another command for
> > user management, but they can do it from the command line.
> 
> But with OS X, LDAP is your *only* option.

Indeed. As it is with many large Linux installations as well, or rather - 
correctly configured large installations.

> > > owl:
> > > OS X is more like Windows than it is like Unix.
> > 
> > Sandman:
> > That's just a plain out dumb statement. LDAP was developed mostly
> > by the IETF and widely deployed first by Sun Microsystems back in
> > 1996. It is a unix standard as firm as there ever was one.
> 
> So.  On no other system is it either the default, or especially the
> only allowed, user account system.

I wouldn't know, really. This doesn't make it any less "unix" or 
applicable. More unix systems *should* use it by default if not many 
already do. 

> > > owl:
> > > But hell, even Windows doesn't require that every machine be a
> > > Domain Controller.
> > 
> > Sandman:
> > Whatever that has to do with LDAP is anyone's guess. It seems
> > you're just very very confused about everything that has to do
> > with Linux, LDAP and OSX.
> 
> Yeah, whatever does LDAP have to do with Active Directory. *rolls
> eyes*

Indeed.

> > > > Sandman:
> > > > OD was introduced in OSX Server a decade ago, and
> > > > rolled into the "client" version soon afterwards since it is a
> > > > more powerful system. Ask any Linux admin that handles
> > > > multiple systems and they will tell you why.
> > > 
> > > owl:
> > > It makes no sense at all to have LDAP as the user account system
> > > now that OS X is dead in the water as a server OS.
> > 
> > Sandman:
> > How is it dead in the water as a server OS?
> 
> Nobody uses it.  Even Apple doesn't use it.

I use it. There are entire businesses that run OSX server for hosting. 

> > Sandman:
> > It's a very competent server OS and network user management is
> > built in to the server software. Apple sells cheap server hardware
> > that will let you handle file sharing, calendar sharing and user
> > management on small (or large) networks. It also supports
> > networked home directories, useful in floating workstations.
> 
> But nobody uses it.

Incorrect.

> > Sandman:
> > Sure, it's not the most used function of OSX, but thousands of
> > admins would rip out their hair if the feature was lifted.
> 
> > > owl:
> > > Why on earth does a system that is invariably used in a
> > > workstation roll have LDAP controlling local logins?
> > 
> > Sandman:
> > Why does Linux default to multi-user setup when most workstations
> > are used by one user?
> 
> Because requiring a root login for everything would be stupid and
> dangerous.

Of course not. A single-user Ubuntu has the single user put into the 
sudo:ers giving him full control of the machine. 

> > Sandman:
> > Because it's more powerful when the need arises. I really can't
> > understand your objection to this. Linux is using an older, less
> > reliable and less flexible solution for user management than OX
> > does, yet you seem to want to make it seem like the "Linux" way is
> > the only correct way?
> 
> > Why not just go "Oh, it uses LDAP, that's cool, explains why the
> > command tools are different".
> 
> It's cool that there is command-line user management.  It's nothing
> like FreeBSD default method, but hey whatever.

Wow, if only this had been your first reply. Would have saved you a lot of 
face.


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
1/28/2014 7:21:01 PM
"Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> writes:

> "Lloyd E Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote in message
> news:bkqai6FirgjU1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 2014-01-28 18:02:29 +0000, chrisv said:
>>
>>> Sandman wrote:
>>>
>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> At least it's free.  Care to guess who many people have the massive
>>>>> MSO suite on their PC's, but who only use Word?  *Maybe* Excel?
>>>>
>>>> Pages, Keynote and Numbers on Mac is... free.
>>>
>>> Are they "free", or is the cost built-in to the (high) price of buying
>>> a Mac?
>>
>> You mean the fair price for the equipment and the superb after sale 
>> support offered?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Apple just doesn't make the cheap crap you seem to be enamored of.
>>
>
> Ah yes... the old myth that fan-bois tell themselves that the Apple hardware
> is so extremely overpriced.
>
> There are many more articles like this on the web. If you want to buy cheap
> shit ($19 power supply, flimsy case, etc) then you could probably save a few
> dollars by shopping on eBay for your components.
>
> <quote>
> Testing the 'Apple tax': What would it cost to build a Windows version of
> the new Mac Pro?
> Dec 26, 2013
>
> The new Mac Pro is the most powerful and flexible computer Apple has ever
> created, and it's also extremely expensive - or is it? With a price tag that
> can climb up around $10,000, Apple's latest enterprise workhorse clearly 
> isn't
> cheap. For businesses with a need for all that muscle, however, is that
> steep price justifiable or is there a premium "Apple tax" that companies
> will have to pay? Shortly after the new Mac Pro was finally made available
> for purchase last week, one PC enthusiast set out to answer that question
> and in order to do so, he asked another one: How much would it cost to build
> a comparable Windows 8 machine?
>
> Futurelooks editor Stephen Fung started out by configuring a nearly
> top-of-the-line Mac Pro on Apple's website. He ended up with a machine that
> included 64 GB of RAM, a 1TB SSD, two AMD D700 graphics cards and a 2.7GHz
> 12-core Intel Xeon processor.
>
> The cost of this beastly machine? $9,599.
>
> So Fung, a do-it-yourself PC specialist, set out to test the Apple tax and
> see just how much cheaper it would be to build a comparable machine that
> runs Windows. His findings might surprise you.
>
> "After tabulating all the major component costs (plus another $99.99 US for
> Windows 8 Pro), we are at a total of around $11,530.54 US using today's
> prices at retailers that actually stock the hardware," he wrote. "I'm not
> afraid to admit that compared to the asking price of $9,599 US, the new Mac
> Pro seems like one heckuva deal for these components."


I think Kohlkopf, turd and that idiot wRonG need to be made
aware of this. I would add Jed but he's simply insane.


-- 
"I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact." 
The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree.
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
0
Hadron
1/28/2014 7:21:16 PM
Sandman wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>> 
>> Getting a product that works better for them.  Windows may "work",
>> but it's not the optimal product for everyone who is using it.
>
>But if they don't know that, which we've established that they don't, then 
>from where is supposed reason to escape coming from? For most people, 
>Windows works just fine, and it's not like they're sitting around thinking 
>about how to "escape" Microsoft or anything.

"Ignorance is bliss", eh?"  Nice argument. 

You are being ridiculous.  I'm for improving the world, that's why I
advocate software freedom.

>> Unfortunately, there is too much fear, uncertainty, and doubt, for
>> Joe Average to scratch Windows off his new PC.
>
>Fear of *what*? 

Fear of leaving the herd.  Fear of some "killer" app or hardware
coming-along that won't work with your machine.

Difficult to figure-out?

> (snip trolling)

-- 
"If Linux had gotten to the market on time and would have been
presented in an effective way, many more people would be using it,
too.  But that did not happen and the chance is forever lost."  -
"True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark
0
chrisv
1/28/2014 7:22:25 PM
On 2014-01-28, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-28 18:42:23 +0000, Ezekiel said:
>
>> "Lloyd E Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote in message 
>> news:bkqb17FiunjU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>>> 
>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:

[deletia]

>> Buy cheap crap like these guys seem fond of and in 2-3 years it will be 
>> worth next to nothing. Pay just a little more (if that) and buy quality 

    Like I care. I have no interest in being a PC merchant. I want to
use stuff. I also want to use it for as long as I can and get the most
bang for the buck out of it.

    It also might be nice to avoid helping to rape the planet by adding
more highly toxic crap to the local landfill (or one in India).

    Bragging that you pay more is just bragging that you waste more.

>> hardware and in a couple years time when you sell it you will more than 
>> make up for the little extra that you paid. Plus I get to use quality 
>> hardware the entire time before I sell it.
>> 
>> Buying cheap junk is penny wise but pound foolish.
>
> Yep, every Mac I've ever sold used has recovered at least 50% of new 
> cost and usually more like 70%.

    The "merchant of venice argument". How lame.

    The payback you get is for the fruity logo, not the components that
could just as easily have come from a Dell. You are paying for consumerist
stupidity and the right to run MacOS without bother.

    I would feel guilty about getting more for my Mac than the sum of it's
spare parts would fetch in a sale of the comparable PC. I would feel like 
a thief and a fraud and would not relish the fact that I had taken advantage
of a fool.

-- 
        Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons.          |||
	       I want the pretty buttons to push themelves.         / | \
0
JEDIDIAH
1/28/2014 7:23:11 PM
Sandman wrote:

>Well, the Macs doesn't cost any more than before they were free, so no - 
>they're just free.  (snipped, unread)

Nonsense.

-- 
"One of the reasons so much good SW exists for Windows is that the
APIs *are* well documented and supported."  -  "True Linux advocate"
Hadron Quark
0
chrisv
1/28/2014 7:23:42 PM
On 01/28/2014 12:49 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
> "Lloyd E Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote in message
> news:bkqbrlFj4spU1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 2014-01-28 18:42:03 +0000, Chris Ahlstrom said:
>>
>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>>>>
>>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as the
>>>>> Free alternative?
>>>>>
>>>>> We can live with that.
>>>>
>>>> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I insist
>>>> on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
>>>
>>> You're wasting your money.  Even a low-end machine these days has more
>>> power
>>> than you'll need for day-to-day work.
>>
>> IYO, I obviously don't agree.  :)
>
> It's not about computing power. It's about the quality of the hardware and
> future resale value. I'll take something that's solidly built in a strong
> metal case over some piece of crap in a plastic case.

In all the years I've dealt with computers, I've never seen a PC, no 
matter how old it was, or how cheap it was, that fell apart because it 
was "a piece of crap in a plastic case."  Most PCs I've seen are old 
workhorses that keep plodding along in productive service, in spite of 
being covered in dust and grime from years of neglect.

It's not something I'd expect a retired guy who uses computing tools for 
idle amusement to appreciate or even understand.

>>> Still, it's your (retirement) money.
>>
>> Absolutely!  And I'm enjoying it.
>
> In most cases, buying quality products is the better financial choice over
> the long term. Whether it's furniture, electronics, vehicles, appliances,
> etc. There's usually a good reason why something is priced so cheap - it's
> because it's cheap shit.

That reasoning gives rise to an age old marketing practice called 
prestige pricing, something that Apple, Inc. is a master of.  Prestige 
pricing is the practice of making something appear to have more value by 
simply charging a higher purchase price.  Companies have been known to 
produce identical products with different brands, and charge more for 
the one with the prestige branding.

> Take the $10k Mac Pro in my other post. How much will that be worth in 2-3
> years when the owner sells the machine and upgrades?

It'll be worth zero to me.  The scourge of the Mac world is used 
machines are just as overpriced, if not more so, than new Macs are. 
IMNSHO, it's the main reason Apple hasn't achieved more than 5% market 
share in thirty years of trying.

> Compare that to a computer that some guy "built all by himself" and spent
> roughly the same amount of money on it. What's that PC going to be worth
> just 6 months from now?

It'll be worth whatever work can be accomplished with it, and more, 
it'll be a source of satisfaction and pride for its owner than no Mac 
buyer can ever have.

0
Nobody
1/28/2014 7:23:56 PM
On 2014-01-28 19:05:47 +0000, Nobody said:

> On 01/28/2014 12:56 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>> On 2014-01-28 18:42:23 +0000, Ezekiel said:
>> 
>>> "Lloyd E Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote in message
>>> news:bkqb17FiunjU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>>>> 
>>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as the
>>>>> Free alternative?
>>>>> 
>>>>> We can live with that.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I
>>>> insist on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
>>>> 
>>>> the MacBook Pro, Surface Pro and other more quality lines vs the
>>>> cheap stuff.  Nothing against the cheap stuff, just isn't my cup of tea.
>>>> 
>>>> When looking at very good ultrabooks with similar specs to the
>>>> MacBook Pro the prices are in line.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> The other "hidden cost" to consider is the future resale value of your
>>> hardware. I don't keep anything forever and generally I've been pretty
>>> good at finding the right time on when to sell my old hardware.
>>> 
>>> Buy cheap crap like these guys seem fond of and in 2-3 years it will
>>> be worth next to nothing. Pay just a little more (if that) and buy
>>> quality hardware and in a couple years time when you sell it you will
>>> more than make up for the little extra that you paid. Plus I get to
>>> use quality hardware the entire time before I sell it.
>>> 
>>> Buying cheap junk is penny wise but pound foolish.
>> 
>> Yep, every Mac I've ever sold used has recovered at least 50% of new
>> cost and usually more like 70%.
> 
> You can see here what "Mac Advocacy" is really all about: keeping a 
> steady stream of suckers interested so you can recover some of what you 
> paid to buy an overpriced Apple product.  I'd rather buy a $400-$500 
> new PC every 2-3 years then try to find a sucker to buy my old Mac that 
> cost $1000 or more.  The added benefit is I sit have the old PC as 
> well, which I can either find support roles for, or even give away, 
> with brand new Linux installed.

since damned few people participate in usenet these days, I doubt that 
any advocacy expressed here has an impact on anything at all except 
message traffic!  :)

And you are free to buy shitboxes, that's why they make them.

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 7:24:26 PM
Sandman wrote:

> (snip trolling)

0
chrisv
1/28/2014 7:24:35 PM
On 2014-01-28, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 01/28/2014 12:56 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>> On 2014-01-28 18:42:23 +0000, Ezekiel said:
>>
>>> "Lloyd E Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote in message
>>> news:bkqb17FiunjU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>>>>
>>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as the
>>>>> Free alternative?
>>>>>
>>>>> We can live with that.
>>>>
>>>> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I
>>>> insist on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
>>>>
>>>> the MacBook Pro, Surface Pro and other more quality lines vs the
>>>> cheap stuff.  Nothing against the cheap stuff, just isn't my cup of tea.
>>>>
>>>> When looking at very good ultrabooks with similar specs to the
>>>> MacBook Pro the prices are in line.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The other "hidden cost" to consider is the future resale value of your
>>> hardware. I don't keep anything forever and generally I've been pretty
>>> good at finding the right time on when to sell my old hardware.
>>>
>>> Buy cheap crap like these guys seem fond of and in 2-3 years it will
>>> be worth next to nothing. Pay just a little more (if that) and buy
>>> quality hardware and in a couple years time when you sell it you will
>>> more than make up for the little extra that you paid. Plus I get to
>>> use quality hardware the entire time before I sell it.
>>>
>>> Buying cheap junk is penny wise but pound foolish.
>>
>> Yep, every Mac I've ever sold used has recovered at least 50% of new
>> cost and usually more like 70%.
>
> You can see here what "Mac Advocacy" is really all about: keeping a 
> steady stream of suckers interested so you can recover some of what you 
> paid to buy an overpriced Apple product.  I'd rather buy a $400-$500 new 
> PC every 2-3 years then try to find a sucker to buy my old Mac that cost 
> $1000 or more.  The added benefit is I sit have the old PC as well, 
> which I can either find support roles for, or even give away, with brand 
> new Linux installed.

     A 5 year old craptacular clone can displace a new Mac (or PC). 

     That's one less machine for the local landfill.

     If I want something overpowered, I can have that too at about 1/2 to 1/3rd 
the price that I would have to pay Apple for it. Such a machine will last longer 
than the Mac due to better cooling and better maintainablity.

-- 
        Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons.          |||
	       I want the pretty buttons to push themelves.         / | \
0
JEDIDIAH
1/28/2014 7:29:31 PM
On 01/28/2014 01:24 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> On 2014-01-28 19:05:47 +0000, Nobody said:
>
>> On 01/28/2014 12:56 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>> On 2014-01-28 18:42:23 +0000, Ezekiel said:
>>>
>>>> "Lloyd E Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:bkqb17FiunjU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as the
>>>>>> Free alternative?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can live with that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I
>>>>> insist on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
>>>>>
>>>>> the MacBook Pro, Surface Pro and other more quality lines vs the
>>>>> cheap stuff.  Nothing against the cheap stuff, just isn't my cup of
>>>>> tea.
>>>>>
>>>>> When looking at very good ultrabooks with similar specs to the
>>>>> MacBook Pro the prices are in line.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The other "hidden cost" to consider is the future resale value of your
>>>> hardware. I don't keep anything forever and generally I've been pretty
>>>> good at finding the right time on when to sell my old hardware.
>>>>
>>>> Buy cheap crap like these guys seem fond of and in 2-3 years it will
>>>> be worth next to nothing. Pay just a little more (if that) and buy
>>>> quality hardware and in a couple years time when you sell it you will
>>>> more than make up for the little extra that you paid. Plus I get to
>>>> use quality hardware the entire time before I sell it.
>>>>
>>>> Buying cheap junk is penny wise but pound foolish.
>>>
>>> Yep, every Mac I've ever sold used has recovered at least 50% of new
>>> cost and usually more like 70%.
>>
>> You can see here what "Mac Advocacy" is really all about: keeping a
>> steady stream of suckers interested so you can recover some of what
>> you paid to buy an overpriced Apple product.  I'd rather buy a
>> $400-$500 new PC every 2-3 years then try to find a sucker to buy my
>> old Mac that cost $1000 or more.  The added benefit is I still have the
>> old PC as well, which I can either find support roles for, or even
>> give away, with brand new Linux installed.
>
> since damned few people participate in usenet these days, I doubt that
> any advocacy expressed here has an impact on anything at all except
> message traffic!  :)

The false smile isn't fooling anybody, shill.   You're here for your own 
money interest in Apple, probably from what Apple pays you to do it. 
You're not here for friendly conversation.  You've showed your nasty 
side too many times to convince anybody of that.

> And you are free to buy shitboxes, that's why they make them.

I've never bought a "shitbox" in my life, shill, but your closing remark 
bolsters my assessment of you.

0
Nobody
1/28/2014 7:29:49 PM
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
news:slrnleg18r.q6e.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2014-01-28, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 01/28/2014 12:56 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>
>     A 5 year old craptacular clone can displace a new Mac (or PC).
>
>     That's one less machine for the local landfill.
>
>     If I want something overpowered, I can have that too at about 1/2 to 
> 1/3rd
> the price that I would have to pay Apple for it.

Ah yes... more empty words from JED with zero to back it up. Sounds like 
Homer and how he could convert all of Munich to using Linux in 6-months... 
guaranteed.

This guy at BGR couldn't do it for the same price. But some anonymous moron 
claims he can do it for 1/2 to 1/3rd the price.

Put down the glue bag JED...  I think your brain cells have had enough 
"treatment" for today.


<quote>
Testing the 'Apple tax': What would it cost to build a Windows version of
the new Mac Pro?
Dec 26, 2013

The new Mac Pro is the most powerful and flexible computer Apple has ever
created, and it's also extremely expensive - or is it? With a price tag that
can climb up around $10,000, Apple's latest enterprise workhorse clearly
isn't
cheap. For businesses with a need for all that muscle, however, is that
steep price justifiable or is there a premium "Apple tax" that companies
will have to pay? Shortly after the new Mac Pro was finally made available
for purchase last week, one PC enthusiast set out to answer that question
and in order to do so, he asked another one: How much would it cost to build
a comparable Windows 8 machine?

Futurelooks editor Stephen Fung started out by configuring a nearly
top-of-the-line Mac Pro on Apple's website. He ended up with a machine that
included 64 GB of RAM, a 1TB SSD, two AMD D700 graphics cards and a 2.7GHz
12-core Intel Xeon processor.

The cost of this beastly machine? $9,599.

So Fung, a do-it-yourself PC specialist, set out to test the Apple tax and
see just how much cheaper it would be to build a comparable machine that
runs Windows. His findings might surprise you.

"After tabulating all the major component costs (plus another $99.99 US for
Windows 8 Pro), we are at a total of around $11,530.54 US using today's
prices at retailers that actually stock the hardware," he wrote. "I'm not
afraid to admit that compared to the asking price of $9,599 US, the new Mac
Pro seems like one heckuva deal for these components."

The cost of Fung's Mac Pro rival rang up at a steep 20% over Apple's Mac
Pro, and that doesn't assign any value to the time it would take to build
the machine once you have all the parts.

But what about the entry-level version of the Mac Pro? Surely a less
powerful version of the rig could be matched by Windows at a more reasonable
price point, right? In a follow-up to his first piece, Fung set out to see
what it would cost to build the Windows equivalent of Apple's base Mac Pro.

Again, the results were surprising.

Fung's match to Apple's $2,999 Mac Pro ended up costing $3,994.65 in parts,
a whopping 33% more expensive than the Mac Pro. And once again, that price
does not include labor.
</quote>

http://bgr.com/2013/12/26/mac-pro-windows-diy-cost/


-- 
Then ask yourself why it /really/ took Munich 7 years to migrate 15,000
computers to Linux. With a small team of technicians and engineers, I
could have done that in less than six months, even allowing for complete
re-engineering of otherwise "irreplaceable" proprietary components, and
I guarantee I would have come well under the budget Munich wasted, as
they stood around bitching and scratching their balls. Any company
claiming that isn't possible is simply lying (or incompetent).


Homer, the amazingly incredible IT super-hero.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/eb6773f5eac728f1?hl=en



0
Ezekiel
1/28/2014 7:34:29 PM
On 2014-01-28 19:16:10 +0000, JEDIDIAH said:

> On 2014-01-28, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>> 
>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Yes.
>>> 
>>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>>> 
>>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as the
>>> Free alternative?
>>> 
>>> We can live with that.
>> 
>> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I insist
>> on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
> 
>     No. You just go for the fruity logo. Any notions of quality are entirely
> irrelevant. You probably have no clue what you are actually buying.
> 
> [deletia]

Really?  I have a 'fruity logon' on my Surface Pro? and Asus?  and 
Acer?  and Nooks?

based on most of your highly technical posts, I'm a fucking genius!!  :)

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 7:38:48 PM
On 1/28/14, 12:12 PM, in article hgu0.9hjta4w@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 1/28/14, 11:52 AM, in article hg80a.0aj@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> ... 
>>>> I have not verified that, but it's writte in in plain text in the
>>>> /etc/passwd file:
>>> 
>>>> ~> head /etc/passwd
>>>> ##
>>>> # User Database
>>>> # 
>>>> # Note that this file is consulted directly only when the system is running
>>>> # in single-user mode.  At other times this information is provided by
>>>> # Open Directory.
>>>> #
>>>> # See the opendirectoryd(8) man page for additional information about
>>>> # Open Directory.
>>>> ##
>>> 
>>> I see what it says, but what actually happens if you manually add a user?
> 
>> Just a guess: a user is added. :)
>> ... 
> 
> You snipped context, in which "manually add" means manually add to
> /etc/passwd. I'm curious if the system would allow that user to login.  I
> would test myself, but I don't have a Mac (not to be confused with a MAC --
> case is important :).
> 
Well, I was kidding... but I am sure they can log in if they have an
account. But to be clear I have not tested and this is only a guess.

And, yes, case is important. I know you, too, are just joking but to be
clear nobody has said otherwise.


-- 
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

0
Snit
1/28/2014 7:38:54 PM
On 01/28/2014 01:39 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> On 2014-01-28 19:29:31 +0000, JEDIDIAH said:
>
>> On 2014-01-28, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> On 01/28/2014 12:56 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>> On 2014-01-28 18:42:23 +0000, Ezekiel said:
>>>>
>>>>> "Lloyd E Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:bkqb17FiunjU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy
>>>>>>> to use as the Free alternative?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can live with that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality
>>>>>> that I insist on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the MacBook Pro, Surface Pro and other more quality lines
>>>>>> vs the cheap stuff.  Nothing against the cheap stuff, just
>>>>>> isn't my cup of tea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When looking at very good ultrabooks with similar specs to
>>>>>> the MacBook Pro the prices are in line.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The other "hidden cost" to consider is the future resale
>>>>> value of your hardware. I don't keep anything forever and
>>>>> generally I've been pretty good at finding the right time on
>>>>> when to sell my old hardware.
>>>>>
>>>>> Buy cheap crap like these guys seem fond of and in 2-3 years
>>>>> it will be worth next to nothing. Pay just a little more (if
>>>>> that) and buy quality hardware and in a couple years time
>>>>> when you sell it you will more than make up for the little
>>>>> extra that you paid. Plus I get to use quality hardware the
>>>>> entire time before I sell it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Buying cheap junk is penny wise but pound foolish.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, every Mac I've ever sold used has recovered at least 50%
>>>> of new cost and usually more like 70%.
>>>
>>> You can see here what "Mac Advocacy" is really all about: keeping
>>> a steady stream of suckers interested so you can recover some of
>>> what you paid to buy an overpriced Apple product.  I'd rather buy
>>> a $400-$500 new PC every 2-3 years then try to find a sucker to
>>> buy my old Mac that cost $1000 or more.  The added benefit is I
>>> still have the old PC as well, which I can either find support
>>> roles for, or even give away, with brand new Linux installed.
>>
>> A 5 year old craptacular clone can displace a new Mac (or PC).
>>
>> That's one less machine for the local landfill.
>>
>> If I want something overpowered, I can have that too at about 1/2
>> to 1/3rd the price that I would have to pay Apple for it. Such a
>> machine will last longer than the Mac due to better cooling and
>> better maintainablity.
>
> Bullshit.

The shill is angry.  He lost his smiley as well as his ability to 
formulate counter-arguments.

0
Nobody
1/28/2014 7:39:09 PM
On 2014-01-28 19:29:31 +0000, JEDIDIAH said:

> On 2014-01-28, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 01/28/2014 12:56 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>> On 2014-01-28 18:42:23 +0000, Ezekiel said:
>>> 
>>>> "Lloyd E Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:bkqb17FiunjU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as the
>>>>>> Free alternative?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We can live with that.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I
>>>>> insist on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
>>>>> 
>>>>> the MacBook Pro, Surface Pro and other more quality lines vs the
>>>>> cheap stuff.  Nothing against the cheap stuff, just isn't my cup of tea.
>>>>> 
>>>>> When looking at very good ultrabooks with similar specs to the
>>>>> MacBook Pro the prices are in line.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The other "hidden cost" to consider is the future resale value of your
>>>> hardware. I don't keep anything forever and generally I've been pretty
>>>> good at finding the right time on when to sell my old hardware.
>>>> 
>>>> Buy cheap crap like these guys seem fond of and in 2-3 years it will
>>>> be worth next to nothing. Pay just a little more (if that) and buy
>>>> quality hardware and in a couple years time when you sell it you will
>>>> more than make up for the little extra that you paid. Plus I get to
>>>> use quality hardware the entire time before I sell it.
>>>> 
>>>> Buying cheap junk is penny wise but pound foolish.
>>> 
>>> Yep, every Mac I've ever sold used has recovered at least 50% of new
>>> cost and usually more like 70%.
>> 
>> You can see here what "Mac Advocacy" is really all about: keeping a
>> steady stream of suckers interested so you can recover some of what you
>> paid to buy an overpriced Apple product.  I'd rather buy a $400-$500 new
>> PC every 2-3 years then try to find a sucker to buy my old Mac that cost
>> $1000 or more.  The added benefit is I sit have the old PC as well,
>> which I can either find support roles for, or even give away, with brand
>> new Linux installed.
> 
>      A 5 year old craptacular clone can displace a new Mac (or PC).
> 
>      That's one less machine for the local landfill.
> 
>      If I want something overpowered, I can have that too at about 1/2 to 1/3rd
> the price that I would have to pay Apple for it. Such a machine will 
> last longer
> than the Mac due to better cooling and better maintainablity.

Bullshit.

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 7:39:13 PM
Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <hg80a.0aj@rooftop.invalid>, owl wrote:

> > I see what it says, but what actually happens if you manually add a
> > user?

> I suppose you'll have to trust the info from Apple here, I'm not going to 
> actually try it out. :)

It can be done safely with vipw and vigr.


> > > > owl:
> > > > That must be why no linux system I'm aware of has LDAP as the
> > > > default, and only, user account system.
> > > 
> > > Sandman:
> > > We have already established that you are not aware of many things
> > > regarding BSD and Linux.
> > 
> > Do you understand the meaning of the words "default" and "only"? As
> > for who knows what about what, do you still stand by your earlier
> > proclamation that OS X does not support hard links to directories?

> I've already substantiated that with links to the documentation, remember?

http://osxbook.com/blog/2008/11/09/hfsdebug-40-and-new-hfs-features/
<quote>
Directory Hard Links
....
Leopard at the time of this writing requires the following conditions
to be met for a directory hard link’s creation to be allowed. In the
following list, “source” refers to the existing directory that will
be pointed at by the new directory hard link “destination” that’s
being created.

    The file system must be journaled HFS+.
    The parent directories of the source and destination must be different.
    The source’s parent must not be the root directory.
    The destination must not be in the root directory.
    The destination must not be a descendent of the source.
    The destination must not have any ancestor that’s a directory hard link.

If you meet all these conditions, you could create a directory hard link
on an HFS+ volume under Mac OS X 10.5 and above. It’s then a matter
of writing a program that uses the link() system call.
</quote>


> > > > owl:
> > > > But hell, even Windows doesn't require that every machine be a
> > > > Domain Controller.
> > > 
> > > Sandman:
> > > Whatever that has to do with LDAP is anyone's guess. It seems
> > > you're just very very confused about everything that has to do
> > > with Linux, LDAP and OSX.
> > 
> > Yeah, whatever does LDAP have to do with Active Directory. *rolls
> > eyes*

> Indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Directory
<quote>
Active Directory makes use of Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP) versions 2 and 3, Microsoft's version of Kerberos, and DNS.
</quote>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directory_services#LDAP_implementations
<quote>
LDAP implementations

Among the LDAP/X.500 based implementations are:

Active Directory: Microsoft's modern directory service for Windows,
....
Open Directory: Apple's Mac OS X Server uses a directory service named
Open Directory,
</quote>

> > > > > Sandman:
> > > > > OD was introduced in OSX Server a decade ago, and
> > > > > rolled into the "client" version soon afterwards since it is a
> > > > > more powerful system. Ask any Linux admin that handles
> > > > > multiple systems and they will tell you why.
> > > > 
> > > > owl:
> > > > It makes no sense at all to have LDAP as the user account system
> > > > now that OS X is dead in the water as a server OS.
> > > 
> > > Sandman:
> > > How is it dead in the water as a server OS?
> > 
> > Nobody uses it.  Even Apple doesn't use it.

> I use it. There are entire businesses that run OSX server for hosting. 

Why doesn't Apple use it?

> > > Sandman:
> > > Sure, it's not the most used function of OSX, but thousands of
> > > admins would rip out their hair if the feature was lifted.
> > 
> > > > owl:
> > > > Why on earth does a system that is invariably used in a
> > > > workstation roll have LDAP controlling local logins?
> > > 
> > > Sandman:
> > > Why does Linux default to multi-user setup when most workstations
> > > are used by one user?
> > 
> > Because requiring a root login for everything would be stupid and
> > dangerous.

> Of course not. A single-user Ubuntu has the single user put into the 
> sudo:ers giving him full control of the machine. 

Having a single user in sudoers is not at all the same as thing as a
single-user system.


0
owl
1/28/2014 7:41:02 PM
JEDIDIAH wrote:

> Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I insist 
>> on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
>
>    No. You just go for the fruity logo. Any notions of quality are entirely 
>irrelevant. You probably have no clue what you are actually buying.

"You get what you pay for" does not always come true.  Some people
just pay more than they should.

-- 
"These whining hypocrites are never happy."  -  trolling fsckwit
"Ezekiel", lying shamelessly to attack (claiming advocate "hypocrisy"
regarding Apple and CUPS)
0
chrisv
1/28/2014 7:43:32 PM
On 01/28/2014 01:38 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> On 2014-01-28 19:16:10 +0000, JEDIDIAH said:
>
>> On 2014-01-28, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>>> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>>>
>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>>>>
>>>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as the
>>>> Free alternative?
>>>>
>>>> We can live with that.
>>>
>>> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I insist
>>> on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
>>
>>     No. You just go for the fruity logo. Any notions of quality are
>> entirely
>> irrelevant. You probably have no clue what you are actually buying.
>>
>> [deletia]
>
> Really?  I have a 'fruity logon' on my Surface Pro? and Asus?  and
> Acer?  and Nooks?

Why do you have those?  Did you develop a hankering for "shitboxes," for 
"something cheap in a plastic case," that made you forgo your need for 
resale value?   Or did you think buying those (assuming you really did 
buy them) lends credibility to your Apple shilling?

> based on most of your highly technical posts, I'm a fucking genius!!  :)

I'm sure that's how you see yourself, but it has nothing to do with 
Jed's post.   More likely you, Snit, and Sandman have the same ego 
problems.  Probably the same employer who pays you to shill Usenet as well.

0
Nobody
1/28/2014 7:45:01 PM
"Nobody" <nobody@invalid.com> wrote in message 
news:lc904d$hua$1@news.albasani.net...
> On 01/28/2014 12:49 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
>> "Lloyd E Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote in message
>> news:bkqbrlFj4spU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 2014-01-28 18:42:03 +0000, Chris Ahlstrom said:
>>>
>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as the
>>>>>> Free alternative?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can live with that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I 
>>>>> insist
>>>>> on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
>>>>
>>>> You're wasting your money.  Even a low-end machine these days has more
>>>> power
>>>> than you'll need for day-to-day work.
>>>
>>> IYO, I obviously don't agree.  :)
>>
>> It's not about computing power. It's about the quality of the hardware 
>> and
>> future resale value. I'll take something that's solidly built in a strong
>> metal case over some piece of crap in a plastic case.
>
> In all the years I've dealt with computers, I've never seen a PC, no 
> matter how old it was, or how cheap it was, that fell apart because it was 
> "a piece of crap in a plastic case."  Most PCs I've seen are


"PC Laptops"
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/laptop-computers/pc-laptops/pcmcat247400050000.c?id=pcmcat247400050000

A desktop PC basically just "sits there" and isn't likely to wear out no 
matter what material it's made of.

A PC laptop on the other hand is a mobile device and cheap plastic cases 
flex which causes the innerds to flex which causes things to break.



>>>> Still, it's your (retirement) money.
>>>
>>> Absolutely!  And I'm enjoying it.
>>
>> In most cases, buying quality products is the better financial choice 
>> over
>> the long term. Whether it's furniture, electronics, vehicles, appliances,
>> etc. There's usually a good reason why something is priced so cheap - 
>> it's
>> because it's cheap shit.
>
> That reasoning gives rise to an age old marketing practice called prestige 
> pricing,

No problem. I'll buy my "pretige priced" solid oak bookshelf and you can buy 
the $49 particle board crap at Walmart that will sag and break within a few 
weeks. I'll spend good money for a pair of shoes that will be comfortable 
and last me several years while you avoid the "prestige pricing" and buy 
some no-brand crap at K-Mart that will blister your feet and make them smell 
since the "100% genuine leatherette" shoes don't breathe adequately.  Rinse 
and repeat.

>> Take the $10k Mac Pro in my other post. How much will that be worth in 
>> 2-3
>> years when the owner sells the machine and upgrades?
>
> It'll be worth zero to me.

That's because you're someone who prefers to buy cheap garbage. Why would I 
care what it's worth to you?


> The scourge of the Mac world is used machines are just as overpriced

Quality items hold their resale value. Period. It's not something that I 
expect cheapskates to understand.


>> Compare that to a computer that some guy "built all by himself" and spent
>> roughly the same amount of money on it. What's that PC going to be worth
>> just 6 months from now?
>
> It'll be worth whatever work can be accomplished with it, and more,

It'll be worth exactlly what someone is willing to pay for it. And nothing 
more.


> it'll be a source of satisfaction and pride for its owner t

All that "satisfaction and pride" plus $3.50 will get him a medium coffee at 
Dunkin Donuts.




0
Ezekiel
1/28/2014 7:45:40 PM
On 01/28/2014 01:47 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> On 2014-01-28 19:39:09 +0000, Nobody said:
>
>> On 01/28/2014 01:39 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>> On 2014-01-28 19:29:31 +0000, JEDIDIAH said:
>>>
>>>> On 2014-01-28, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 01/28/2014 12:56 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>>>> On 2014-01-28 18:42:23 +0000, Ezekiel said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Lloyd E Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:bkqb17FiunjU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy
>>>>>>>>> to use as the Free alternative?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We can live with that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality
>>>>>>>> that I insist on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the MacBook Pro, Surface Pro and other more quality lines
>>>>>>>> vs the cheap stuff.  Nothing against the cheap stuff, just
>>>>>>>> isn't my cup of tea.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When looking at very good ultrabooks with similar specs to
>>>>>>>> the MacBook Pro the prices are in line.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The other "hidden cost" to consider is the future resale
>>>>>>> value of your hardware. I don't keep anything forever and
>>>>>>> generally I've been pretty good at finding the right time on
>>>>>>> when to sell my old hardware.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Buy cheap crap like these guys seem fond of and in 2-3 years
>>>>>>> it will be worth next to nothing. Pay just a little more (if
>>>>>>> that) and buy quality hardware and in a couple years time
>>>>>>> when you sell it you will more than make up for the little
>>>>>>> extra that you paid. Plus I get to use quality hardware the
>>>>>>> entire time before I sell it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Buying cheap junk is penny wise but pound foolish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep, every Mac I've ever sold used has recovered at least 50%
>>>>>> of new cost and usually more like 70%.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can see here what "Mac Advocacy" is really all about: keeping
>>>>> a steady stream of suckers interested so you can recover some of
>>>>> what you paid to buy an overpriced Apple product.  I'd rather buy
>>>>> a $400-$500 new PC every 2-3 years then try to find a sucker to
>>>>> buy my old Mac that cost $1000 or more.  The added benefit is I
>>>>> still have the old PC as well, which I can either find support
>>>>> roles for, or even give away, with brand new Linux installed.
>>>>
>>>> A 5 year old craptacular clone can displace a new Mac (or PC).
>>>>
>>>> That's one less machine for the local landfill.
>>>>
>>>> If I want something overpowered, I can have that too at about 1/2
>>>> to 1/3rd the price that I would have to pay Apple for it. Such a
>>>> machine will last longer than the Mac due to better cooling and
>>>> better maintainablity.
>>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>
>> The shill is angry.  He lost his smiley as well as his ability to
>> formulate counter-arguments.
>
> Why waste words when one describes it so well?

We'll just take your reply as your one word autobiography.

0
Nobody
1/28/2014 7:46:23 PM
Lloyd E Parsons wrote:

> 
> Yep, every Mac I've ever sold used has recovered at least 50% of new
> cost and usually more like 70%.
> 

Translation: You lost about the amount of money what it would cost to buy a 
brand new windows machine. If you do that lets say every 2 years, you will 
lose the equivalent of a non-apple machine with about same computing power 
and still have one just machine (as the older one is sold now).
The non-suckers who can actually do simple arithmetics end up with 2, 3 or 4 
machines after some years. All still working. 
Or, since most machines are easily powerful enough for years, end up equally 
with 1 machine. And have paid at most a quarter of that sum you are willing 
to squander

Yes, you are really *extremely* stupid. Keep on that "good accounting" you 
are doing there. Apple absolutely needs such brainless suckers

0
Peter
1/28/2014 7:47:45 PM
On 2014-01-28 19:39:09 +0000, Nobody said:

> On 01/28/2014 01:39 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>> On 2014-01-28 19:29:31 +0000, JEDIDIAH said:
>> 
>>> On 2014-01-28, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> On 01/28/2014 12:56 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>>> On 2014-01-28 18:42:23 +0000, Ezekiel said:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> "Lloyd E Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:bkqb17FiunjU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy
>>>>>>>> to use as the Free alternative?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We can live with that.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality
>>>>>>> that I insist on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> the MacBook Pro, Surface Pro and other more quality lines
>>>>>>> vs the cheap stuff.  Nothing against the cheap stuff, just
>>>>>>> isn't my cup of tea.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> When looking at very good ultrabooks with similar specs to
>>>>>>> the MacBook Pro the prices are in line.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The other "hidden cost" to consider is the future resale
>>>>>> value of your hardware. I don't keep anything forever and
>>>>>> generally I've been pretty good at finding the right time on
>>>>>> when to sell my old hardware.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Buy cheap crap like these guys seem fond of and in 2-3 years
>>>>>> it will be worth next to nothing. Pay just a little more (if
>>>>>> that) and buy quality hardware and in a couple years time
>>>>>> when you sell it you will more than make up for the little
>>>>>> extra that you paid. Plus I get to use quality hardware the
>>>>>> entire time before I sell it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Buying cheap junk is penny wise but pound foolish.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yep, every Mac I've ever sold used has recovered at least 50%
>>>>> of new cost and usually more like 70%.
>>>> 
>>>> You can see here what "Mac Advocacy" is really all about: keeping
>>>> a steady stream of suckers interested so you can recover some of
>>>> what you paid to buy an overpriced Apple product.  I'd rather buy
>>>> a $400-$500 new PC every 2-3 years then try to find a sucker to
>>>> buy my old Mac that cost $1000 or more.  The added benefit is I
>>>> still have the old PC as well, which I can either find support
>>>> roles for, or even give away, with brand new Linux installed.
>>> 
>>> A 5 year old craptacular clone can displace a new Mac (or PC).
>>> 
>>> That's one less machine for the local landfill.
>>> 
>>> If I want something overpowered, I can have that too at about 1/2
>>> to 1/3rd the price that I would have to pay Apple for it. Such a
>>> machine will last longer than the Mac due to better cooling and
>>> better maintainablity.
>> 
>> Bullshit.
> 
> The shill is angry.  He lost his smiley as well as his ability to 
> formulate counter-arguments.

Why waste words when one describes it so well?

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 7:47:54 PM
On 01/28/2014 01:43 PM, chrisv wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I insist
>>> on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
>>
>>     No. You just go for the fruity logo. Any notions of quality are entirely
>> irrelevant. You probably have no clue what you are actually buying.
>
> "You get what you pay for" does not always come true.  Some people
> just pay more than they should.

Exactly!   Did you notice how Intel PCs and Unix were terrible to Apple 
fans until Apple started putting their logo on them?

0
Nobody
1/28/2014 7:47:58 PM
On 2014-01-28 19:45:01 +0000, Nobody said:

> On 01/28/2014 01:38 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>> On 2014-01-28 19:16:10 +0000, JEDIDIAH said:
>> 
>>> On 2014-01-28, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>>>> 
>>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as the
>>>>> Free alternative?
>>>>> 
>>>>> We can live with that.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I insist
>>>> on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
>>> 
>>> No. You just go for the fruity logo. Any notions of quality are
>>> entirely
>>> irrelevant. You probably have no clue what you are actually buying.
>>> 
>>> [deletia]
>> 
>> Really?  I have a 'fruity logon' on my Surface Pro? and Asus?  and
>> Acer?  and Nooks?
> 
> Why do you have those?  Did you develop a hankering for "shitboxes," 
> for "something cheap in a plastic case," that made you forgo your need 
> for resale value?   Or did you think buying those (assuming you really 
> did buy them) lends credibility to your Apple shilling?

Bought them all, use them all.

> 
>> based on most of your highly technical posts, I'm a fucking genius!!  :)
> 
> I'm sure that's how you see yourself, but it has nothing to do with 
> Jed's post.   More likely you, Snit, and Sandman have the same ego 
> problems.  Probably the same employer who pays you to shill Usenet as 
> well.

I don't do 'employer'.

-- 
Lloyd

0
Lloyd
1/28/2014 7:53:56 PM
On 01/28/2014 01:24 PM, chrisv wrote:
> Sandman wrote:
>
>> (snip trolling)

Why are these Apple clowns here?  Because Apple doesn't advertise 
enough?  Do they think Linux users are unaware of Apple's overpriced, 
underpowered offerings?  That we want to lock Unix down to a single 
vendor?
0
Nobody
1/28/2014 7:55:44 PM
On 01/28/2014 01:53 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> On 2014-01-28 19:45:01 +0000, Nobody said:
>
>> On 01/28/2014 01:38 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>> On 2014-01-28 19:16:10 +0000, JEDIDIAH said:
>>>
>>>> On 2014-01-28, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as the
>>>>>> Free alternative?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can live with that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I
>>>>> insist
>>>>> on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
>>>>
>>>> No. You just go for the fruity logo. Any notions of quality are
>>>> entirely
>>>> irrelevant. You probably have no clue what you are actually buying.
>>>>
>>>> [deletia]
>>>
>>> Really?  I have a 'fruity logon' on my Surface Pro? and Asus?  and
>>> Acer?  and Nooks?
>>
>> Why do you have those?  Did you develop a hankering for "shitboxes,"
>> for "something cheap in a plastic case," that made you forgo your need
>> for resale value?   Or did you think buying those (assuming you really
>> did buy them) lends credibility to your Apple shilling?
>
> Bought them all, use them all.

You evaded my questions.

>>
>>> based on most of your highly technical posts, I'm a fucking genius!!  :)
>>
>> I'm sure that's how you see yourself, but it has nothing to do with
>> Jed's post.   More likely you, Snit, and Sandman have the same ego
>> problems.  Probably the same employer who pays you to shill Usenet as
>> well.
>
> I don't do 'employer'.

Sure thing, shill.  Does Apple pay you by the post or by the word?

I see you don't deny your common ego problems though.

0
Nobody
1/28/2014 8:02:18 PM
On 2014-01-28, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-28 19:16:10 +0000, JEDIDIAH said:
>
>> On 2014-01-28, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>>> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>>> 
>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Yes.
>>>> 
>>>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>>>> 
>>>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as the
>>>> Free alternative?
>>>> 
>>>> We can live with that.
>>> 
>>> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I insist
>>> on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
>> 
>>     No. You just go for the fruity logo. Any notions of quality are entirely
>> irrelevant. You probably have no clue what you are actually buying.
>> 
>> [deletia]
>
> Really?  I have a 'fruity logon' on my Surface Pro? and Asus?  and 
> Acer?  and Nooks?
>
> based on most of your highly technical posts, I'm a fucking genius!!  :)
>

    A weak ass insult doesn't make you any smarter than anyone else.

-- 
        Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons.          |||
	       I want the pretty buttons to push themelves.         / | \
0
JEDIDIAH
1/28/2014 8:20:36 PM
On 01/28/2014 01:45 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
> "Nobody" <nobody@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:lc904d$hua$1@news.albasani.net...
>> On 01/28/2014 12:49 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
>>> "Lloyd E Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote in message
>>> news:bkqbrlFj4spU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 2014-01-28 18:42:03 +0000, Chris Ahlstrom said:
>>>>
>>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as the
>>>>>>> Free alternative?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can live with that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I
>>>>>> insist
>>>>>> on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're wasting your money.  Even a low-end machine these days has more
>>>>> power
>>>>> than you'll need for day-to-day work.
>>>>
>>>> IYO, I obviously don't agree.  :)
>>>
>>> It's not about computing power. It's about the quality of the hardware
>>> and
>>> future resale value. I'll take something that's solidly built in a strong
>>> metal case over some piece of crap in a plastic case.
>>
>> In all the years I've dealt with computers, I've never seen a PC, no
>> matter how old it was, or how cheap it was, that fell apart because it was
>> "a piece of crap in a plastic case."  Most PCs I've seen are
>
>
> "PC Laptops"
> http://www.bestbuy.com/site/laptop-computers/pc-laptops/pcmcat247400050000.c?id=pcmcat247400050000
>
> A desktop PC basically just "sits there" and isn't likely to wear out no
> matter what material it's made of.
>
> A PC laptop on the other hand is a mobile device and cheap plastic cases
> flex which causes the innerds to flex which causes things to break.

I've never seen a PC laptop, regardless of how cheap or old it is, whose 
innards have broken due to flexing of the case.

>
>
>>>>> Still, it's your (retirement) money.
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely!  And I'm enjoying it.
>>>
>>> In most cases, buying quality products is the better financial choice
>>> over
>>> the long term. Whether it's furniture, electronics, vehicles, appliances,
>>> etc. There's usually a good reason why something is priced so cheap -
>>> it's
>>> because it's cheap shit.
>>
>> That reasoning gives rise to an age old marketing practice called prestige
>> pricing,
>
> No problem. I'll buy my "pretige priced" solid oak bookshelf and you can buy
> the $49 particle board crap at Walmart that will sag and break within a few
> weeks. I'll spend good money for a pair of shoes that will be comfortable
> and last me several years while you avoid the "prestige pricing" and buy
> some no-brand crap at K-Mart that will blister your feet and make them smell
> since the "100% genuine leatherette" shoes don't breathe adequately.  Rinse
> and repeat.

What's with you Apple fans and your made up, fictitious "comparisons" 
that you use as analogies to Apple products?   As if the only way to 
save money over "solid oak" is "particle board crap."  Lets not even 
bother with the crap you made up about shoes...

>>> Take the $10k Mac Pro in my other post. How much will that be worth in
>>> 2-3
>>> years when the owner sells the machine and upgrades?
>>
>> It'll be worth zero to me.
>
> That's because you're someone who prefers to buy cheap garbage.

No I'm not.

> Why would I
> care what it's worth to you?

Why should anybody care about what things are worth to you either?
>
>> The scourge of the Mac world is used machines are just as overpriced
>
> Quality items hold their resale value. Period. It's not something that I
> expect cheapskates to understand.

Apple needs to write better scripts for you shills.  Insulting people in 
that manner does nothing to convince people to buy Macs.

Macs hold their resale value because your only way to save money on an 
overpriced new Mac is to be gouged by somebody selling an old Mac, and 
you'll still be called a "cheapskate" for not being up to date with the 
latest and greatest from Apple, Inc.

>
>>> Compare that to a computer that some guy "built all by himself" and spent
>>> roughly the same amount of money on it. What's that PC going to be worth
>>> just 6 months from now?
>>
>> It'll be worth whatever work can be accomplished with it, and more,
>
> It'll be worth exactlly what someone is willing to pay for it. And nothing
> more.

I disagree, and go with what I wrote above.

>
>>  it'll be a source of satisfaction and pride for its owner than no Mac buyer can ever have.

> All that "satisfaction and pride" plus $3.50 will get him a medium coffee at
> Dunkin Donuts.

They must charge you an E-Shriek-iel tax at DD.  They probably serve 
yours with a complementary knee to your groin as well.

0
Nobody
1/28/2014 8:27:21 PM
On 2014-01-28, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
> On 2014-01-28 19:29:31 +0000, JEDIDIAH said:
>
>> On 2014-01-28, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> On 01/28/2014 12:56 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>> On 2014-01-28 18:42:23 +0000, Ezekiel said:
>>>> 
>>>>> "Lloyd E Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:bkqb17FiunjU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as the
>>>>>>> Free alternative?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We can live with that.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I
>>>>>> insist on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> the MacBook Pro, Surface Pro and other more quality lines vs the
>>>>>> cheap stuff.  Nothing against the cheap stuff, just isn't my cup of tea.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> When looking at very good ultrabooks with similar specs to the
>>>>>> MacBook Pro the prices are in line.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The other "hidden cost" to consider is the future resale value of your
>>>>> hardware. I don't keep anything forever and generally I've been pretty
>>>>> good at finding the right time on when to sell my old hardware.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Buy cheap crap like these guys seem fond of and in 2-3 years it will
>>>>> be worth next to nothing. Pay just a little more (if that) and buy
>>>>> quality hardware and in a couple years time when you sell it you will
>>>>> more than make up for the little extra that you paid. Plus I get to
>>>>> use quality hardware the entire time before I sell it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Buying cheap junk is penny wise but pound foolish.
>>>> 
>>>> Yep, every Mac I've ever sold used has recovered at least 50% of new
>>>> cost and usually more like 70%.
>>> 
>>> You can see here what "Mac Advocacy" is really all about: keeping a
>>> steady stream of suckers interested so you can recover some of what you
>>> paid to buy an overpriced Apple product.  I'd rather buy a $400-$500 new
>>> PC every 2-3 years then try to find a sucker to buy my old Mac that cost
>>> $1000 or more.  The added benefit is I sit have the old PC as well,
>>> which I can either find support roles for, or even give away, with brand
>>> new Linux installed.
>> 
>>      A 5 year old craptacular clone can displace a new Mac (or PC).
>> 
>>      That's one less machine for the local landfill.
>> 
>>      If I want something overpowered, I can have that too at about 1/2 to 1/3rd
>> the price that I would have to pay Apple for it. Such a machine will 
>> last longer
>> than the Mac due to better cooling and better maintainablity.
>
> Bullshit.
>

....such a compelling argument you have there.

   I have had 3 Macs. One of them suffered a partial component failure
early on. On a PC, that would have been easily repairable with a PCI
expansion card. Another one suffered a catastrophic failure while it
was still under warranty. It failed again afterwards. A bigger machine
with better heat dissipation would have avoided that. My 3rd Mac is a
doorstop. If it were a PC, I could give it a modern video card. That
Mac is also an orphan. No more OS updates. Also no support for that 
overpriced screencaster that the fanboys were blithering about not so
long ago.

   I've lately done that with 2 PCs of a similar vintage. Ironically
enough I did that with the same brand of video card that could not
function in an Apple chassis design.

   I also recently spec'ed out an overpowered cube PC for someone.
It's smallish with all of the PC bells and whistles including multiple
drive bays. Going Intel meant it was 1/2 the price of a comparable Mac.
Had I gone with an AMD approach, I probably could have gotten that down
to 1/3rd.

   Limited options and a fetish for smallness are a disadvantage.

   Whereas a chip from Intel is the same whether or not you are buying
it from Apple, Dell, or some whitebox vendor the fanboys would really
sneer at.

-- 
        Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons.          |||
	       I want the pretty buttons to push themelves.         / | \
0
JEDIDIAH
1/28/2014 8:34:27 PM
"Nobody" <nobody@invalid.com> wrote in message 
news:lc93r9$pi1$1@news.albasani.net...
> On 01/28/2014 01:45 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
>> "Nobody" <nobody@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> IYO, I obviously don't agree.  :)
>>>>
>>>> It's not about computing power. It's about the quality of the hardware
>>>> and
>>>> future resale value. I'll take something that's solidly built in a 
>>>> strong
>>>> metal case over some piece of crap in a plastic case.
>>>
>>> In all the years I've dealt with computers, I've never seen a PC, no
>>> matter how old it was, or how cheap it was, that fell apart because it 
>>> was
>>> "a piece of crap in a plastic case."  Most PCs I've seen are
>>
>>
>> "PC Laptops"
>> http://www.bestbuy.com/site/laptop-computers/pc-laptops/pcmcat247400050000.c?id=pcmcat247400050000
>>
>> A desktop PC basically just "sits there" and isn't likely to wear out no
>> matter what material it's made of.
>>
>> A PC laptop on the other hand is a mobile device and cheap plastic cases
>> flex which causes the innerds to flex which causes things to break.
>
> I've never seen a PC laptop, regardless of how cheap or old it is, whose 
> innards have broken due to flexing of the case.
>
>>
>>
>>>>>> Still, it's your (retirement) money.
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely!  And I'm enjoying it.
>>>>
>>>> In most cases, buying quality products is the better financial choice
>>>> over
>>>> the long term. Whether it's furniture, electronics, vehicles, 
>>>> appliances,
>>>> etc. There's usually a good reason why something is priced so cheap -
>>>> it's
>>>> because it's cheap shit.
>>>
>>> That reasoning gives rise to an age old marketing practice called 
>>> prestige
>>> pricing,
>>
>> No problem. I'll buy my "pretige priced" solid oak bookshelf and you can 
>> buy
>> the $49 particle board crap at Walmart that will sag and break within a 
>> few
>> weeks. I'll spend good money for a pair of shoes that will be comfortable
>> and last me several years while you avoid the "prestige pricing" and buy
>> some no-brand crap at K-Mart that will blister your feet and make them 
>> smell
>> since the "100% genuine leatherette" shoes don't breathe adequately. 
>> Rinse
>> and repeat.
>
> What's with you Apple fans and your made up, fictitious "comparisons" that 
> you use as analogies to Apple products?   As if the only way to save money 
> over "solid oak" is "particle board crap."  Lets not even bother with the 
> crap you made up about shoes...
>
>>>> Take the $10k Mac Pro in my other post. How much will that be worth in
>>>> 2-3
>>>> years when the owner sells the machine and upgrades?
>>>
>>> It'll be worth zero to me.
>>
>> That's because you're someone who prefers to buy cheap garbage.
>

Fine. Continue to buy your cheap shit. But don't try to convince me that it 
makes financial sense to buy cheap garbage over quality merchandise. I know 
better.

Here's a link to a $44 Android tablet you can buy for yourself.

  http://www.ahappydeal.com/product-99202.html?currency=USD&gclid=CLzZwdzbobwCFe5lOgod_hsAeQ

It's total shit but you can convince yourself how great it is because you 
saved a few dollars.

Next you'll be trying to convince me how that furniture you got at "Rent to 
Own" is such great deal.

Feel free to buy all the trash products you want. But don't waste my time 
telling me how I should spend my money.




0
Ezekiel
1/28/2014 8:39:27 PM
On 01/28/2014 01:16 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2014-01-28, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>>
>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>>>
>>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as the
>>> Free alternative?
>>>
>>> We can live with that.
>>
>> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I insist
>> on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
>
>      No. You just go for the fruity logo. Any notions of quality are entirely
> irrelevant. You probably have no clue what you are actually buying.
>
> [deletia]

I once asked Sandman why "older Macs" were abandoned by Apple OSX 
updates.   He had no answer to what in OSX requires greater than a dual 
core processor running at 2 GHz.

0
Nobody
1/28/2014 8:40:07 PM
"Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> writes:

> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
> news:slrnleg18r.q6e.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>> On 2014-01-28, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> On 01/28/2014 12:56 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>
>>     A 5 year old craptacular clone can displace a new Mac (or PC).
>>
>>     That's one less machine for the local landfill.
>>
>>     If I want something overpowered, I can have that too at about 1/2 to 
>> 1/3rd
>> the price that I would have to pay Apple for it.
>
> Ah yes... more empty words from JED with zero to back it up. Sounds like 
> Homer and how he could convert all of Munich to using Linux in 6-months... 
> guaranteed.

Jed would be too busy writing Halo 2 from scratch with another beard in
the outside toilet in two weeks. "Guaranteed". "Lemmings" like us dont
understand the power of the FOSS toolchain and would waste time with
"GUIs" doing the details planetsized 3d landscapes and 30,000 polygon
main characters...... silly us!


>
> This guy at BGR couldn't do it for the same price. But some anonymous moron 
> claims he can do it for 1/2 to 1/3rd the price.

All fear Super Jed.

He IS quite insane.
0
Hadron
1/28/2014 8:44:44 PM
Nobody wrote:

> Kreep wrote:
>>
>> Quality items hold their resale value. Period. It's not something that I
>> expect cheapskates to understand.

Even "high quality" tech products lose their value.  Period.

Pretty stupid of you, Kreep, to be talking of "solid oak bookshelves".

>Macs hold their resale value because your only way to save money on an 
>overpriced new Mac is to be gouged by somebody selling an old Mac,

Yeah, if, for some reason, you think you need a Mac, that's
pretty-much the story.  There's no alternate source of Macs - no
competition except to go to Windows land.

-- 
"You mean the way that Roy Schestowitz and his herd of freetards wait
until Windows-7 is actually released before calling it a failure?"  -
trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel"
0
chrisv
1/28/2014 8:56:00 PM
On 01/28/2014 01:05 PM, Sandman wrote:
> In article <dtrfe9t9nic4nhgqi59cau8jl0cekddo5u@4ax.com>, chrisv wrote:
>
>>>> chrisv:
>>>> At least it's free.  Care to guess who many people have the
>>>> massive MSO suite on their PC's, but who only use Word?  *Maybe*
>>>> Excel?
>>>
>>> Sandman:
>>> Pages, Keynote and Numbers on Mac is... free.
>>
>> Are they "free", or is the cost built-in to the (high) price of
>> buying a Mac?
>
> Well, the Macs doesn't cost any more than before they were free, so no -
> they're just free. They come free with every new Mac,

Having their price bundled with the price of Mac hardware does not make 
them "free."


0
Nobody
1/28/2014 8:57:32 PM
On 01/28/2014 02:39 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
> "Nobody" <nobody@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:lc93r9$pi1$1@news.albasani.net...
>> On 01/28/2014 01:45 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
>>> "Nobody" <nobody@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IYO, I obviously don't agree.  :)
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not about computing power. It's about the quality of the hardware
>>>>> and
>>>>> future resale value. I'll take something that's solidly built in a
>>>>> strong
>>>>> metal case over some piece of crap in a plastic case.
>>>>
>>>> In all the years I've dealt with computers, I've never seen a PC, no
>>>> matter how old it was, or how cheap it was, that fell apart because it
>>>> was
>>>> "a piece of crap in a plastic case."  Most PCs I've seen are
>>>
>>>
>>> "PC Laptops"
>>> http://www.bestbuy.com/site/laptop-computers/pc-laptops/pcmcat247400050000.c?id=pcmcat247400050000
>>>
>>> A desktop PC basically just "sits there" and isn't likely to wear out no
>>> matter what material it's made of.
>>>
>>> A PC laptop on the other hand is a mobile device and cheap plastic cases
>>> flex which causes the innerds to flex which causes things to break.
>>
>> I've never seen a PC laptop, regardless of how cheap or old it is, whose
>> innards have broken due to flexing of the case.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Still, it's your (retirement) money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely!  And I'm enjoying it.
>>>>>
>>>>> In most cases, buying quality products is the better financial choice
>>>>> over
>>>>> the long term. Whether it's furniture, electronics, vehicles,
>>>>> appliances,
>>>>> etc. There's usually a good reason why something is priced so cheap -
>>>>> it's
>>>>> because it's cheap shit.
>>>>
>>>> That reasoning gives rise to an age old marketing practice called
>>>> prestige
>>>> pricing,
>>>
>>> No problem. I'll buy my "pretige priced" solid oak bookshelf and you can
>>> buy
>>> the $49 particle board crap at Walmart that will sag and break within a
>>> few
>>> weeks. I'll spend good money for a pair of shoes that will be comfortable
>>> and last me several years while you avoid the "prestige pricing" and buy
>>> some no-brand crap at K-Mart that will blister your feet and make them
>>> smell
>>> since the "100% genuine leatherette" shoes don't breathe adequately.
>>> Rinse
>>> and repeat.
>>
>> What's with you Apple fans and your made up, fictitious "comparisons" that
>> you use as analogies to Apple products?   As if the only way to save money
>> over "solid oak" is "particle board crap."  Lets not even bother with the
>> crap you made up about shoes...
>>
>>>>> Take the $10k Mac Pro in my other post. How much will that be worth in
>>>>> 2-3
>>>>> years when the owner sells the machine and upgrades?
>>>>
>>>> It'll be worth zero to me.
>>>
>>> That's because you're someone who prefers to buy cheap garbage.

No I'm not.
>
> Fine. Continue to buy your cheap shit.

I'll have to start before I can continue.

> But don't try to convince me that it
> makes financial sense to buy cheap garbage over quality merchandise.

I never have tried to convince you of that.

> I know better.

I'm sure you think so.

> Here's a link to a $44 Android tablet you can buy for yourself.
>
>    http://www.ahappydeal.com/product-99202.html?currency=USD&gclid=CLzZwdzbobwCFe5lOgod_hsAeQ
>
> It's total shit but you can convince yourself how great it is because you
> saved a few dollars.

Is that shoddy straw man the only one that's weak enough for you to topple?

> Next you'll be trying to convince me how that furniture you got at "Rent to
> Own" is such great deal.

Do you hear voices?

> Feel free to buy all the trash products you want.

Still at zero.

> But don't waste my time
> telling me how I should spend my money.

How about you stop wasting your time shilling for Apple, Inc?

0
Nobody
1/28/2014 9:06:18 PM
"Hadron" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:87wqhjalab.fsf@gmail.com...
> "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> writes:
>
>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>> news:slrnleg18r.q6e.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>>> On 2014-01-28, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> On 01/28/2014 12:56 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>
>>>     A 5 year old craptacular clone can displace a new Mac (or PC).
>>>
>>>     That's one less machine for the local landfill.
>>>
>>>     If I want something overpowered, I can have that too at about 1/2 to
>>> 1/3rd
>>> the price that I would have to pay Apple for it.
>>
>> Ah yes... more empty words from JED with zero to back it up. Sounds like
>> Homer and how he could convert all of Munich to using Linux in 
>> 6-months...
>> guaranteed.
>
> Jed would be too busy writing Halo 2 from scratch with another beard in
> the outside toilet in two weeks. "Guaranteed". "Lemmings" like us dont
> understand the power of the FOSS toolchain and would waste time with
> "GUIs" doing the details planetsized 3d landscapes and 30,000 polygon
> main characters...... silly us!
>
>
>>
>> This guy at BGR couldn't do it for the same price. But some anonymous 
>> moron
>> claims he can do it for 1/2 to 1/3rd the price.
>
> All fear Super Jed.
>
> He IS quite insane.

If there was ever any doubt about JED being a moron this should pretty much 
settle it.

The fully loaded Mac Pro in the article costs just under $10k. JED claims he 
can "I can have that too at about 1/2 to 1/3rd the price that I would have 
to pay Apple for it."

That's quite an impressive accomplishment given the fact that the $10k Mac 
Pro comes with dual AMD FirePro D700 video cards which have a street price 
of over $3100 *EACH*.  Just the video cards alone would run JED over $6200. 
So perhaps in his head once he adds in all the other components (CPUs, 1TB 
SSD, RAM, etc) they'll magically add up to some negative amount of money.


-- 
(Iterating nodes in an XML document) "kind of defeats the point of XML."
JED the clueless poser
March 16, 2012
<slrnjm7bum.k2p.jedi@nomad.mishnet>




0
Ezekiel
1/28/2014 9:12:22 PM
On 01/28/2014 03:12 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
> "Hadron" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:87wqhjalab.fsf@gmail.com...
>> "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> writes:
>>
>>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnleg18r.q6e.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>>>> On 2014-01-28, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 01/28/2014 12:56 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
[...]
>
> The fully loaded Mac Pro in the article costs just under $10k. JED claims he
> can "I can have that too at about 1/2 to 1/3rd the price that I would have
> to pay Apple for it."

Anybody who has been following this thread knows Jedidiah never made 
that claim.  You made it for him with an out of context quote.

> That's quite an impressive accomplishment given the fact that the $10k Mac
> Pro comes with dual AMD FirePro D700 video cards which have a street price
> of over $3100 *EACH*.  Just the video cards alone would run JED over $6200.
> So perhaps in his head once he adds in all the other components (CPUs, 1TB
> SSD, RAM, etc) they'll magically add up to some negative amount of money.

Your straw men show no signs of improving.

0
Nobody
1/28/2014 9:24:22 PM
JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:

">    I have had 3 Macs. One of them suffered a partial component failure
> early on. On a PC, that would have been easily repairable with a PCI
> expansion card. Another one suffered a catastrophic failure while it
> was still under warranty. It failed again afterwards. A bigger machine
> with better heat dissipation would have avoided that. My 3rd Mac is a
> doorstop. If it were a PC, I could give it a modern video card. That
> Mac is also an orphan. No more OS updates. Also no support for that 
> overpriced screencaster that the fanboys were blithering about not so
> long ago.
>

Jed, you're either retarded, the unluckiest man in the world or a
liar. I tend to go for a mixture of 1 & 3 : which by default assigns a
portion of 2.



-- 
"I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact." 
The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree.
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
0
Hadron
1/28/2014 9:25:07 PM
On 01/28/2014 03:25 PM, Hadron wrote:
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>
> ">    I have had 3 Macs. One of them suffered a partial component failure
>> early on. On a PC, that would have been easily repairable with a PCI
>> expansion card. Another one suffered a catastrophic failure while it
>> was still under warranty. It failed again afterwards. A bigger machine
>> with better heat dissipation would have avoided that. My 3rd Mac is a
>> doorstop. If it were a PC, I could give it a modern video card. That
>> Mac is also an orphan. No more OS updates. Also no support for that
>> overpriced screencaster that the fanboys were blithering about not so
>> long ago.
>>
>
> Jed, you're either retarded, the unluckiest man in the world or a
> liar. I tend to go for a mixture of 1 & 3 : which by default assigns a
> portion of 2.

Your shilling is ineffective.  Apple needs to recall you for training or 
replacement.

0
Nobody
1/28/2014 9:26:46 PM
On 01/28/2014 12:31 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
> "Lloyd E Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote in message
> news:bkqai6FirgjU1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 2014-01-28 18:02:29 +0000, chrisv said:
>>
>>> Sandman wrote:
>>>
>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> At least it's free.  Care to guess who many people have the massive
>>>>> MSO suite on their PC's, but who only use Word?  *Maybe* Excel?
>>>>
>>>> Pages, Keynote and Numbers on Mac is... free.
>>>
>>> Are they "free", or is the cost built-in to the (high) price of buying
>>> a Mac?
>>
>> You mean the fair price for the equipment and the superb after sale
>> support offered?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Apple just doesn't make the cheap crap you seem to be enamored of.
>>
>
> Ah yes... the old myth that fan-bois tell themselves that the Apple hardware
> is so extremely overpriced.

A Mac Mini sans monitor, keyboard, and mouse costs $600.   I can get a 
much better laptop computer for that price or less.

[...]

0
Nobody
1/28/2014 9:32:52 PM
"Nobody" <nobody@invalid.com> wrote in message 
news:lc9767$118$1@news.albasani.net...
> On 01/28/2014 03:12 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
>> "Hadron" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:87wqhjalab.fsf@gmail.com...
>>> "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>>>> news:slrnleg18r.q6e.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>>>>> On 2014-01-28, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/28/2014 12:56 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> The fully loaded Mac Pro in the article costs just under $10k. JED claims 
>> he
>> can "I can have that too at about 1/2 to 1/3rd the price that I would 
>> have
>> to pay Apple for it."
>
> Anybody who has been following this thread knows Jedidiah never made that 
> claim.  You made it for him with an out of context quote.

<quote>
If I want something overpowered, I can have that too at about 1/2 to 1/3rd
the price that I would have to pay Apple for it. Such a machine will last 
longer
than the Mac due to better cooling and better maintainablity.
</quote>

Perhaps one of you two morons can take any arbitrary Mac and show exactly 
how you're going to build a comparable system for "1/2 to 1/3rd the price."

I won't be holding my breath.


>> That's quite an impressive accomplishment given the fact that the $10k 
>> Mac
>> Pro comes with dual AMD FirePro D700 video cards which have a street 
>> price
>> of over $3100 *EACH*.  Just the video cards alone would run JED over 
>> $6200.
>> So perhaps in his head once he adds in all the other components (CPUs, 
>> 1TB
>> SSD, RAM, etc) they'll magically add up to some negative amount of money.
>
> Your straw men show no signs of improving.
>

Your reading comprehension failures aren't improving either.

-- 
"It's now illegal to use an iPhone like a desktop or a server."

JED
Date: 25 Jan 2013
Message-ID: <slrnkg59ba.4dd.jedi@nomad.mishnet>


0
Ezekiel
1/28/2014 9:33:22 PM
Nobody wrote:

> Kreep wrote:
>>
>> The fully loaded Mac Pro in the article costs just under $10k. JED claims he
>> can "I can have that too at about 1/2 to 1/3rd the price that I would have
>> to pay Apple for it."

So, the exception disproves the rule, does it, Kreep?

>Anybody who has been following this thread knows Jedidiah never made 
>that claim.  You made it for him with an out of context quote.

Kreep being dishonest?  Now there is something "new".

-- 
"And since you're a freetard you once again don't have the slightest
clue of what you're talking about."  -  trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel"
0
chrisv
1/28/2014 9:33:30 PM
On 2014-01-28, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 01/28/2014 01:45 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
>> "Nobody" <nobody@invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:lc904d$hua$1@news.albasani.net...
>>> On 01/28/2014 12:49 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>> "Lloyd E Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:bkqbrlFj4spU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> On 2014-01-28 18:42:03 +0000, Chris Ahlstrom said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:

[deletia]

>>> In all the years I've dealt with computers, I've never seen a PC, no
>>> matter how old it was, or how cheap it was, that fell apart because it was
>>> "a piece of crap in a plastic case."  Most PCs I've seen are
>>
>>
>> "PC Laptops"
>> http://www.bestbuy.com/site/laptop-computers/pc-laptops/pcmcat247400050000.c?id=pcmcat247400050000
>>
>> A desktop PC basically just "sits there" and isn't likely to wear out no
>> matter what material it's made of.
>>
>> A PC laptop on the other hand is a mobile device and cheap plastic cases
>> flex which causes the innerds to flex which causes things to break.

    Nope. Never experienced this either. I also had a MBA style machine back
before Apple decided to "invent" that idea. 

>
> I've never seen a PC laptop, regardless of how cheap or old it is, whose 
> innards have broken due to flexing of the case.

[deletia]

-- 
        Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons.          |||
	       I want the pretty buttons to push themelves.         / | \
0
JEDIDIAH
1/28/2014 9:35:47 PM
> Hadron quacked:
>>
>> Jed, you're either retarded, the unluckiest man in the world or a
>> liar. I tend to go for a mixture of 1 & 3 : which by default assigns a
>> portion of 2.

Quack, you're a shameless, documented liar, and pretty-much incapable
of telling the truth about an advocate : which by default means that
Jed is being both reasonable and honest.

-- 
'And all because once again I highlight "advocate" lies AND provide a
super solution for screen shots.'  -  "Hadron", lying his ass off,
after being shown to be utterly *wrong* about the issue
0
chrisv
1/28/2014 9:36:47 PM
"Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> writes:

> "Nobody" <nobody@invalid.com> wrote in message 
> news:lc9767$118$1@news.albasani.net...
>> On 01/28/2014 03:12 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
>>> "Hadron" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:87wqhjalab.fsf@gmail.com...
>>>> "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>>>>> news:slrnleg18r.q6e.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>>>>>> On 2014-01-28, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 01/28/2014 12:56 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
>>> The fully loaded Mac Pro in the article costs just under $10k. JED claims 
>>> he
>>> can "I can have that too at about 1/2 to 1/3rd the price that I would 
>>> have
>>> to pay Apple for it."
>>
>> Anybody who has been following this thread knows Jedidiah never made that 
>> claim.  You made it for him with an out of context quote.
>
> <quote>
> If I want something overpowered, I can have that too at about 1/2 to 1/3rd
> the price that I would have to pay Apple for it. Such a machine will last 
> longer
> than the Mac due to better cooling and better maintainablity.
> </quote>
>
> Perhaps one of you two morons can take any arbitrary Mac and show exactly 
> how you're going to build a comparable system for "1/2 to 1/3rd the price."
>
> I won't be holding my breath.

"Nobody" should be renamed "NoBrain" or "NoRecall".

He's up there with Jed, Kohlkopf, Gortard and Terry Porter for the dumbest moron
ever to venture an opinion in quite such an authoritative manner yet
time and time again be immediately proven to be wrong and bordering on
insanely dense.


>
>>> That's quite an impressive accomplishment given the fact that the $10k 
>>> Mac
>>> Pro comes with dual AMD FirePro D700 video cards which have a street 
>>> price
>>> of over $3100 *EACH*.  Just the video cards alone would run JED over 
>>> $6200.
>>> So perhaps in his head once he adds in all the other components (CPUs, 
>>> 1TB
>>> SSD, RAM, etc) they'll magically add up to some negative amount of money.
>>
>> Your straw men show no signs of improving.
>>
>
> Your reading comprehension failures aren't improving either.

They can't deteriorate that's for sure.


-- 
"I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact." 
The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree.
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
0
Hadron
1/28/2014 9:37:57 PM
On 2014-01-28, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 01/28/2014 01:16 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2014-01-28, Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:
>>> On 2014-01-28 18:21:48 +0000, chrisv said:
>>>
>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Poor "Lloyd".  Such a fanboi.
>>>>
>>>> So, for greatly increased cost, your Mac can be as easy to use as the
>>>> Free alternative?
>>>>
>>>> We can live with that.
>>>
>>> I don't buy crap machines Chris.  At the level of quality that I insist
>>> on, my boxes are mostly top quality.
>>
>>      No. You just go for the fruity logo. Any notions of quality are entirely
>> irrelevant. You probably have no clue what you are actually buying.
>>
>> [deletia]
>
> I once asked Sandman why "older Macs" were abandoned by Apple OSX 
> updates.   He had no answer to what in OSX requires greater than a dual 
> core processor running at 2 GHz.
>

   My i945 Mini is an orphan. Perhaps the GPU is the culprit. It seems
trendy these days pretty much require a decent gaming video card for 
even the most basic use of a PC.

-- 
        Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons.          |||
	       I want the pretty buttons to push themelves.         / | \
0
JEDIDIAH
1/28/2014 9:38:28 PM
"Hadron" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:87sis7ajf0.fsf@gmail.com...
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>
> ">    I have had 3 Macs. One of them suffered a partial component failure
>> early on. On a PC, that would have been easily repairable with a PCI
>> expansion card. Another one suffered a catastrophic failure while it
>> was still under warranty. It failed again afterwards. A bigger machine
>> with better heat dissipation would have avoided that. My 3rd Mac is a
>> doorstop. If it were a PC, I could give it a modern video card. That
>> Mac is also an orphan. No more OS updates. Also no support for that
>> overpriced screencaster that the fanboys were blithering about not so
>> long ago.
>>
>
> Jed, you're either retarded, the unluckiest man in the world or a
> liar. I tend to go for a mixture of 1 & 3 : which by default assigns a
> portion of 2.
>

JED is the same moron who cried and whined about backing up a Mac except 
that every single one of his gripes, complaints and whines were shown to be 
clueless bullshit. Notice the CAPS - it's JED trying to make a point. The 
point he appears to have made is that he has no clue what he's talking 
about.

<quote>
> Yes. A "Time Capsule" rather than just any generic bit
> of storage that you can copy your stuff to. NO. An Apple user
> can't just use any generic device, they have to use an APPLE
> BRANDED device. Apple's backup software won't play nice with
> anything that doesn't go out of it's way to pander to
> Apple-only protocols.

hh> Golly now that's funny:  a standard USB2 external drive works fine.
hh>
hh> See:  <http://pondini.org/TM/5.html>
hh> And:  <http://pondini.org/TM/21.html>"

And:

On Monday, December 30, 2013 5:06:11 PM UTC-5, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> Why not just a "Time Capsule". Why not any machine attached
> to the network including other Macs (or even PCs).

hh> "Backing up one Mac to another via TM does work.
hh>
hh> See: <http://pondini.org/TM/22.html>
hh> Also:  <http://pondini.org/TM/4.html>
hh> And:  <http://pondini.org/TM/32.html> "
hh>
hh>
hh> And backing up to a NAS also work just fine, so
hh> long at it meets Specs.  For example, here's
hh> Synology's support page, entitled:  "How to back
hh> up data from Mac to Synology NAS with Time Machine":
hh>
hh> <http://www.synology.com/en-us/support/tutorials/481> "
</quote>


-- 
"Patent has the interesting effect of making my work someone else's 
property."
JED - Aug 22, 2012
<slrnk3a51g.c65.jedi@nomad.mishnet>



0
Ezekiel
1/28/2014 9:40:10 PM
On 2014-01-28, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 01/28/2014 03:25 PM, Hadron wrote:
>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>>
>> ">    I have had 3 Macs. One of them suffered a partial component failure
>>> early on. On a PC, that would have been easily repairable with a PCI
>>> expansion card. Another one suffered a catastrophic failure while it
>>> was still under warranty. It failed again afterwards. A bigger machine
>>> with better heat dissipation would have avoided that. My 3rd Mac is a
>>> doorstop. If it were a PC, I could give it a modern video card. That
>>> Mac is also an orphan. No more OS updates. Also no support for that
>>> overpriced screencaster that the fanboys were blithering about not so
>>> long ago.
>>>
>>
>> Jed, you're either retarded, the unluckiest man in the world or a
>> liar. I tend to go for a mixture of 1 & 3 : which by default assigns a
>> portion of 2.

    You are confused. I didn't say anything bad about your particular pet
brand (namely Microsoft). You should really mind your own business since 
you don't even have a horse in this particular race.

    You are also far outside your depth.

>
> Your shilling is ineffective.  Apple needs to recall you for training or 
> replacement.
>



-- 
        Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons.          |||
	       I want the pretty buttons to push themelves.         / | \
0
JEDIDIAH
1/28/2014 9:43:53 PM
On 01/28/2014 12:24 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> On 2014-01-28 18:02:29 +0000, chrisv said:
>
>> Sandman wrote:
>>
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>> At least it's free.  Care to guess who many people have the massive
>>>> MSO suite on their PC's, but who only use Word?  *Maybe* Excel?
>>>
>>> Pages, Keynote and Numbers on Mac is... free.
>>
>> Are they "free", or is the cost built-in to the (high) price of buying
>> a Mac?
>
> You mean the fair price for the equipment and the superb after sale
> support offered?

I don't call $1000 for a laptop with no DVD drive a "fair price."

> Yes.
>
> Apple just doesn't make the cheap crap you seem to be enamored of.

Yet you claim to have bought the same "cheap crap."  I guess Apple 
wouldn't give you a free MacBook to be a Playon Server?

>>
>> For extra $, many OEM's will install MSO onto your Windwoes box for
>> you, too.
>
> Or if you don't need all the stuff the full version of MSO has,  you can
> use the free web versions.  No install needed.

I'll just use Open Office or LibreOffice.

>>
>>>> Advantage:  Linux.
>
> So no advantage to Linux.  (troll)

Apple needs to train you shills better.


0
Nobody
1/28/2014 9:44:32 PM
On 2014-01-28, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 01/28/2014 03:12 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
>> "Hadron" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:87wqhjalab.fsf@gmail.com...
>>> "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>>>> news:slrnleg18r.q6e.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>>>>> On 2014-01-28, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/28/2014 12:56 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> The fully loaded Mac Pro in the article costs just under $10k. JED claims he
>> can "I can have that too at about 1/2 to 1/3rd the price that I would have
>> to pay Apple for it."
>
> Anybody who has been following this thread knows Jedidiah never made 
> that claim.  You made it for him with an out of context quote.

    That's how these Hadronisms get started.

[deletia]

-- 
        Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons.          |||
	       I want the pretty buttons to push themelves.         / | \
0
JEDIDIAH
1/28/2014 9:44:42 PM
On 2014-01-28, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 01/28/2014 01:05 PM, Sandman wrote:
>> In article <dtrfe9t9nic4nhgqi59cau8jl0cekddo5u@4ax.com>, chrisv wrote:
>>
>>>>> chrisv:
>>>>> At least it's free.  Care to guess who many people have the
>>>>> massive MSO suite on their PC's, but who only use Word?  *Maybe*
>>>>> Excel?
>>>>
>>>> Sandman:
>>>> Pages, Keynote and Numbers on Mac is... free.
>>>
>>> Are they "free", or is the cost built-in to the (high) price of
>>> buying a Mac?
>>
>> Well, the Macs doesn't cost any more than before they were free, so no -
>> they're just free. They come free with every new Mac,
>
> Having their price bundled with the price of Mac hardware does not make 
> them "free."

     Are updates free too?

     I have an iLife DVD. That wasn't free. It was for a version of those
apps newer than what came with my Macs. Same goes for my Snow Leopard DVD.

-- 
        Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons.          |||
	       I want the pretty buttons to push themelves.         / | \
0
JEDIDIAH
1/28/2014 9:46:19 PM
"Nobody" <nobody@invalid.com> wrote in message 
news:lc97m4$184$1@news.albasani.net...
> On 01/28/2014 12:31 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
>> "Lloyd E Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote in message
>> news:bkqai6FirgjU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 2014-01-28 18:02:29 +0000, chrisv said:
>>>
>>>> Sandman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At least it's free.  Care to guess who many people have the massive
>>>>>> MSO suite on their PC's, but who only use Word?  *Maybe* Excel?
>>>>>
>>>>> Pages, Keynote and Numbers on Mac is... free.
>>>>
>>>> Are they "free", or is the cost built-in to the (high) price of buying
>>>> a Mac?
>>>
>>> You mean the fair price for the equipment and the superb after sale
>>> support offered?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> Apple just doesn't make the cheap crap you seem to be enamored of.
>>>
>>
>> Ah yes... the old myth that fan-bois tell themselves that the Apple 
>> hardware
>> is so extremely overpriced.
>
> A Mac Mini sans monitor, keyboard, and mouse costs $600.   I can get a 
> much better laptop computer for that price or less.
>

Are you stupid enough to think that a 7" x 7" x 1.5"  ultra small 
form-factor computer is the same as a laptop?

If you don't think they're the same thing then why are do you bother to 
compare the two?  Show me another computer the size and form factor of a Mac 
mini and then we can compare the price.

Otherwise - shit... I can build a better desktop computer for $1300 than the 
Chromebook Pixel. They're not nearly the same thing but that doesn't seem to 
be an issue for you.

-- 
"There's no such thing as intellectual property."
Mark Kent - Linux "advocate"
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/1ae8d9d52bec3298






0
Ezekiel
1/28/2014 9:47:30 PM
On 01/28/2014 03:33 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
> "Nobody" <nobody@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:lc9767$118$1@news.albasani.net...
>> On 01/28/2014 03:12 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
>>> "Hadron" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:87wqhjalab.fsf@gmail.com...
>>>> "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>>>>> news:slrnleg18r.q6e.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>>>>>> On 2014-01-28, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 01/28/2014 12:56 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
>>> The fully loaded Mac Pro in the article costs just under $10k. JED claims
>>> he
>>> can "I can have that too at about 1/2 to 1/3rd the price that I would
>>> have
>>> to pay Apple for it."
>>
>> Anybody who has been following this thread knows Jedidiah never made that
>> claim.  You made it for him with an out of context quote.
>
> <quote>
> If I want something overpowered, I can have that too at about 1/2 to 1/3rd
> the price that I would have to pay Apple for it. Such a machine will last
> longer
> than the Mac due to better cooling and better maintainablity.
> </quote>
>
> Perhaps one of you two morons can take any arbitrary Mac and show exactly
> how you're going to build a comparable system for "1/2 to 1/3rd the price."

Easy.  Any $300 PC notebook against a $600 Mac Mini.

> I won't be holding my breath.

At least have a breath mint then.

>
>>> That's quite an impressive accomplishment given the fact that the $10k
>>> Mac
>>> Pro comes with dual AMD FirePro D700 video cards which have a street
>>> price
>>> of over $3100 *EACH*.  Just the video cards alone would run JED over
>>> $6200.
>>> So perhaps in his head once he adds in all the other components (CPUs,
>>> 1TB
>>> SSD, RAM, etc) they'll magically add up to some negative amount of money.
>>
>> Your straw men show no signs of improving.
>>
>
> Your reading comprehension failures aren't improving either.

Since those "failures" are non-existent, I can't improve on them.

0
Nobody
1/28/2014 9:54:04 PM
"Nobody" <nobody@invalid.com> wrote in message 
news:lc98tt$4f9$1@news.albasani.net...
> On 01/28/2014 03:33 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
>> "Nobody" <nobody@invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:lc9767$118$1@news.albasani.net...
>>> On 01/28/2014 03:12 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>> "Hadron" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:87wqhjalab.fsf@gmail.com...
>>>>> "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:slrnleg18r.q6e.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>>>>>>> On 2014-01-28, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 01/28/2014 12:56 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> The fully loaded Mac Pro in the article costs just under $10k. JED 
>>>> claims
>>>> he
>>>> can "I can have that too at about 1/2 to 1/3rd the price that I would
>>>> have
>>>> to pay Apple for it."
>>>
>>> Anybody who has been following this thread knows Jedidiah never made 
>>> that
>>> claim.  You made it for him with an out of context quote.
>>
>> <quote>
>> If I want something overpowered, I can have that too at about 1/2 to 
>> 1/3rd
>> the price that I would have to pay Apple for it. Such a machine will last
>> longer
>> than the Mac due to better cooling and better maintainablity.
>> </quote>
>>
>> Perhaps one of you two morons can take any arbitrary Mac and show exactly
>> how you're going to build a comparable system for "1/2 to 1/3rd the 
>> price."
>
> Easy.  Any $300 PC notebook against a $600 Mac Mini.

LOL - Try comparing something that's even remotely close to the Mac Mini 
form factor.  I realize that you're not very bright but at least try to 
compare similar products.

Hey look!!!  The desktop that I just built is way better than that $1300 
Chromebook Pixel.



>> I won't be holding my breath.
>
> At least have a breath mint then.

Is that what people have been telling you?


>>
>>>> That's quite an impressive accomplishment given the fact that the $10k
>>>> Mac
>>>> Pro comes with dual AMD FirePro D700 video cards which have a street
>>>> price
>>>> of over $3100 *EACH*.  Just the video cards alone would run JED over
>>>> $6200.
>>>> So perhaps in his head once he adds in all the other components (CPUs,
>>>> 1TB
>>>> SSD, RAM, etc) they'll magically add up to some negative amount of 
>>>> money.
>>>
>>> Your straw men show no signs of improving.
>>>
>>
>> Your reading comprehension failures aren't improving either.
>
> Since those "failures" are non-existent, I can't improve on them.
>

So you're too stupid to know when you're wrong?



0
Ezekiel
1/28/2014 10:00:18 PM
On 01/28/2014 03:47 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
> "Nobody" <nobody@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:lc97m4$184$1@news.albasani.net...
>> On 01/28/2014 12:31 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
>>> "Lloyd E Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote in message
>>> news:bkqai6FirgjU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 2014-01-28 18:02:29 +0000, chrisv said:
>>>>
>>>>> Sandman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At least it's free.  Care to guess who many people have the massive
>>>>>>> MSO suite on their PC's, but who only use Word?  *Maybe* Excel?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pages, Keynote and Numbers on Mac is... free.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are they "free", or is the cost built-in to the (high) price of buying
>>>>> a Mac?
>>>>
>>>> You mean the fair price for the equipment and the superb after sale
>>>> support offered?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Apple just doesn't make the cheap crap you seem to be enamored of.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah yes... the old myth that fan-bois tell themselves that the Apple
>>> hardware
>>> is so extremely overpriced.
>>
>> A Mac Mini sans monitor, keyboard, and mouse costs $600.   I can get a
>> much better laptop computer for that price or less.
>>
>
> Are you stupid enough to think that a 7" x 7" x 1.5"  ultra small
> form-factor computer is the same as a laptop?

You do realize it has that form factor because it's full of laptop 
parts, right?

> If you don't think they're the same thing then why are do you bother to
> compare the two?

Because the PC laptop can be used for anything that a Mac Mini can, but 
gives so much more for so much less money.

> Show me another computer the size and form factor of a Mac
> mini and then we can compare the price.

No, Apple is not the baseline.  We don't start by duplicating Apple's 
mistakes and go from there.

> Otherwise - shit... I can build a better desktop computer for $1300 than the
> Chromebook Pixel. They're not nearly the same thing but that doesn't seem to
> be an issue for you.

You must be using the Snit School of Reasoning.

0
Nobody
1/28/2014 10:01:02 PM
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:08:30 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Silver Slimer wrote:
> 
>> On 28/01/2014 2:15 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> Silver Slimer wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 27/01/2014 6:19 PM, Hadron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> When I ran Fedora, I had updates every day. When I ran Debian
>>>>>> Jessie,
>>>>>> I
>>>>>
>>>>> Jessie is currently testing. You would expect it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> had updates once a day. When I ran OpenSUSE Tumbleweed, I had
>>>>>> updates every day. The impression that security updates are not
>>>>>> necessary is insane UNLESS you use Debian Stable only.
>>>>>
>>>>> What are you talking about? I think you make things up....
>>>>>
>>>>> Debian Stable *also* gets security updates.
>>>>
>>>> Try to follow. I wrote *every* *day* for several distributions.
>>>> Debian Stable doesn't get security updates on a daily basis.
>>> 
>>> Neither do other distros
>> 
>> Rolling distributions always get some, that goes without saying though.
>> I haven't used too many frozen distributions so I won't comment on
>> that.
>> However, Ubuntu is essentially frozen until the next release 6 months
>> later and they got security updates pretty regularly.
> 
> Still bullshit. Updates are not automatically all for security. In fact,
> only a small minority are

What a load of crap. My Linux Mint is updated at least two times a week -- 
and it's based on Ubuntu. And the updates library updates. Where do these 
idiots come up with their BS?

-- 
"Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist 
that there is no God." --Heywood Broun
0
RonB
1/28/2014 10:04:37 PM
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 15:32:52 -0600, Nobody wrote:

> A Mac Mini sans monitor, keyboard, and mouse costs $600.   I can get a
> much better laptop computer for that price or less.

Exactly. They try floating this BS over and over -- it never flies because 
it's a lie. Macs are more expensive (mostly, much more expensive) and 
you're restricted to a very limited hardware set. I've done comparisons on 
this newsgroup in the past -- their claim simply doesn't apply, especially 
you compare specs. 

And now your next lie ... Zeke.

-- 
"Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist 
that there is no God." --Heywood Broun
0
RonB
1/28/2014 10:07:40 PM
On 01/28/2014 04:00 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
> "Nobody" <nobody@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:lc98tt$4f9$1@news.albasani.net...
>> On 01/28/2014 03:33 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
>>> "Nobody" <nobody@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>> news:lc9767$118$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>> On 01/28/2014 03:12 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>>> "Hadron" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:87wqhjalab.fsf@gmail.com...
>>>>>> "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:slrnleg18r.q6e.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>>>>>>>> On 2014-01-28, Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 01/28/2014 12:56 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> The fully loaded Mac Pro in the article costs just under $10k. JED
>>>>> claims
>>>>> he
>>>>> can "I can have that too at about 1/2 to 1/3rd the price that I would
>>>>> have
>>>>> to pay Apple for it."
>>>>
>>>> Anybody who has been following this thread knows Jedidiah never made
>>>> that
>>>> claim.  You made it for him with an out of context quote.
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>> If I want something overpowered, I can have that too at about 1/2 to
>>> 1/3rd
>>> the price that I would have to pay Apple for it. Such a machine will last
>>> longer
>>> than the Mac due to better cooling and better maintainablity.
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> Perhaps one of you two morons can take any arbitrary Mac and show exactly
>>> how you're going to build a comparable system for "1/2 to 1/3rd the
>>> price."
>>
>> Easy.  Any $300 PC notebook against a $600 Mac Mini.
>
> LOL - Try comparing something that's even remotely close to the Mac Mini
> form factor.  I realize that you're not very bright but at least try to
> compare similar products.

Hey bright boy, how big is Mac Mini when you add in the power supply, 
the monitor, the keyboard, and the mouse?   What you have is a 
non-portable laptop computer.  Quite the Apple "innovation."

> Hey look!!!  The desktop that I just built is way better than that $1300
> Chromebook Pixel.

You must be proud of yourself.

>
>
>>> I won't be holding my breath.
>>
>> At least have a breath mint then.
>
> Is that what people have been telling you?

No.  Have a mint?

>
>>>
>>>>> That's quite an impressive accomplishment given the fact that the $10k
>>>>> Mac
>>>>> Pro comes with dual AMD FirePro D700 video cards which have a street
>>>>> price
>>>>> of over $3100 *EACH*.  Just the video cards alone would run JED over
>>>>> $6200.
>>>>> So perhaps in his head once he adds in all the other components (CPUs,
>>>>> 1TB
>>>>> SSD, RAM, etc) they'll magically add up to some negative amount of
>>>>> money.
>>>>
>>>> Your straw men show no signs of improving.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your reading comprehension failures aren't improving either.
>>
>> Since those "failures" are non-existent, I can't improve on them.
>>
>
> So you're too stupid to know when you're wrong?

Is my name Ezekiel?

0
Nobody
1/28/2014 10:07:46 PM
On 1/28/14, 3:01 PM, in article lc99av$5j3$1@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
<nobody@invalid.com> wrote:

>>> A Mac Mini sans monitor, keyboard, and mouse costs $600.   I can get a
>>> much better laptop computer for that price or less.
>>> 
>> 
>> Are you stupid enough to think that a 7" x 7" x 1.5"  ultra small
>> form-factor computer is the same as a laptop?
> 
> You do realize it has that form factor because it's full of laptop
> parts, right?

One: Completely unsupported.
Two: So?

>> If you don't think they're the same thing then why are do you bother to
>> compare the two?
> 
> Because the PC laptop can be used for anything that a Mac Mini can, but
> gives so much more for so much less money.

Incorrect.

>> Show me another computer the size and form factor of a Mac
>> mini and then we can compare the price.
> 
> No, Apple is not the baseline.  We don't start by duplicating Apple's
> mistakes and go from there.

In other words you cannot. OK.

>> Otherwise - shit... I can build a better desktop computer for $1300 than the
>> Chromebook Pixel. They're not nearly the same thing but that doesn't seem to
>> be an issue for you.
> 
> You must be using the Snit School of Reasoning.

He is using logic and reason. Sure.



-- 
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

0