Re: Poor "Snit"

From	Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
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 11:20 -0700
Message-ID	<D51F9B94.A0A9B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink)
References	(10 earlier) <odceeg$h8p$1@dont-email.me> <j8tjfcd65h0qkr37dt6drjbgvf8j28ej5l@4ax.com> <210420171013485537%nospam@nospam.invalid> <D51F76D9.A0A04%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <210420171325587545%nospam@nospam.invalid>

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/21/17, 10:25 AM, in article 210420171325587545%nospam@nospam.invalid,
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> 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.

True. But say I want to have better numbering for Pages, even if I wanted to
and had the skill to code I could not really do it. Now, of course, if I
used LibreOffice I would not be able to do much to improve it either... if
people could it would not suck so bad with basic things like working with
images in a text document.

>> Of course, almost nobody is going to make such changes.
> 
> of course not. it's arguing just to argue.

For the most part, yes.

>> 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.

I am open to those who claim otherwise to make their case. I bet they will
not.

>> 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.

While I can offer some disclaimers, overall agree strongly.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

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

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