Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #104816

Re: Poor "Snit"

From nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.sys.mac.system, alt.comp.os.windows-10, alt.cellular-phone-tech
Subject Re: Poor "Snit"
Date 2017-04-21 13:25 -0400
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <210420171325587545%nospam@nospam.invalid> (permalink)
References (9 earlier) <200420171900239610%nospam@nospam.invalid> <odceeg$h8p$1@dont-email.me> <j8tjfcd65h0qkr37dt6drjbgvf8j28ej5l@4ax.com> <210420171013485537%nospam@nospam.invalid> <D51F76D9.A0A04%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

In article <D51F76D9.A0A04%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit
<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:


> >> 
> >> It's an example of the closed, unimaginative mindset so typical of a
> >> Mac fan.  He can't think of any reason why anyone would need more
> >> freedom.
> > 
> > there is no lack of freedom on a mac. anyone can do whatever the hell
> > they want with it.
> > 
> > there's actually *more* freedom with a mac because a mac can natively
> > run all mac, windows, linux and bsd apps, the widest choice of any
> > platform.
> 
> I see both points of view: on a Mac you cannot see the code to the OS. You
> cannot change it. If I want to make it so I see 100 recent files and only 5
> recent servers I cannot hack the OS and make that change and Apple does not
> have that as an option. Even if you can find work-arounds, this is a
> limitation.

a large part of macos is open source and you can not only see the code
but also modify it, and neither apple nor anyone else can stop you.

> Of course, almost nobody is going to make such changes. 

of course not. it's arguing just to argue.

> Say you do on KDE or
> Gnome or whatever. You update and your change is likely gone and you have to
> re-patch. Or your program stops working. But maybe you get lucky and it does
> not. It is possible.
>
> But that is minor. Look at the actual usage. What benefits does Linux grant?
> What tasks are done better and fast and more efficiently? Not many.

none.

> One of the things the Linux users love to brag about it portability of
> programs -- a program made for one distro will work the same on another and
> even the same on other UNIX systems. This means, by design, the GOAL is to
> make programs that work to the lowest common denominator.

yep.

portability brings compromises.

the best apps are optimized for their native platform and take *full*
advantage of everything the hardware and operating system provides.

Back to comp.sys.mac.system | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Poor "Snit" Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2017-04-20 14:23 -0500
  Re: Poor "Snit" "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 15:41 -0400
    Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-20 12:57 -0700
      Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-20 13:01 -0700
      Re: Poor "Snit" "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 16:06 -0400
        Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-20 16:20 -0400
          Re: Poor "Snit" "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 18:32 -0400
            Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-20 15:36 -0700
              Re: Poor "Snit" "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 21:13 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-20 18:29 -0700
            Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-20 19:00 -0400
              Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-20 16:17 -0700
              Re: Poor "Snit" Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-04-21 10:07 +0200
                Re: Poor "Snit" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 07:11 -0500
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 10:13 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-04-21 16:19 +0200
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 10:32 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 09:19 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 12:34 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 09:38 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 13:25 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 11:52 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 15:07 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 12:41 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 18:17 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 08:47 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 09:19 -0500
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 10:32 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 09:39 -0500
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 10:45 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 09:21 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Silver Slimer <sl@im.er> - 2017-04-21 11:59 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 09:25 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 09:18 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 08:48 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Silver Slimer <sl@im.er> - 2017-04-21 11:56 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 12:14 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Silver Slimer <sl@im.er> - 2017-04-21 12:24 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 09:36 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 12:23 -0500
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 13:26 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 12:39 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 11:17 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 12:43 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 09:24 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 08:44 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 13:25 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 11:20 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 08:23 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 13:25 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 11:18 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 10:13 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 08:21 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-04-21 12:13 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 15:19 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Silver Slimer <sl@im.er> - 2017-04-21 17:40 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 15:13 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 18:20 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 18:17 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 12:42 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2017-04-21 17:21 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 15:15 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 18:17 -0400
        Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-20 13:35 -0700
  Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-20 12:53 -0700

csiph-web