Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.alt.net!not-for-mail
From: owl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.freeware,comp.sys.mac.system,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Unhackable" Apple Confirms Malware-Infected Apps Found And Removed From Its Chinese App Store
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 19:34:56 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: O.W.L.
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <fsdnmv83.ajd@rooftop.invalid>
References: <86549329f10d815d2e5922dee68cf94a@anemone.mooo.com>   <mvgoaj$sh3$1@dont-email.me> <D2413406.60150%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <mvgrus$b4h$1@dont-email.me> <D241438B.6016E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <mvgtjd$j14$1@dont-email.me> <slrnn1qb76.4kk.jedi@nomad.mishnet> <d84v5gFo6scU2@mid.individual.net> <TbKdnRzETe1sHoDLnZ2dnUU7-dGdnZ2d@bresnan.com> <fsdnvm930.a3p@rooftop.invalid> <561d9250$0$7230$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com> <slrnn1sq7o.e43.jedi@nomad.mishnet>
NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.rooftop.invalid
User-Agent: tin/2.2.1-20140504 ("Tober an Righ") (UNIX) (Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64 (x86_64))
Xref: csiph.com alt.comp.freeware:246435 comp.sys.mac.system:83443 comp.os.linux.advocacy:326579

In comp.os.linux.advocacy JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2015-10-13, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 23:12:25 +0000, owl wrote:
>>
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/15 12:00, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-10-13, JEDIDIAH<jedi@nomad.mishnet>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't even matter if Apple owns all of the code.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only reason it's being discussed at all is because Peter hates
>>>>> everything Apple.
>>>>>
>>>> I think the reason is that he can't grok Objective-C very well.
>>>> He complained that things aren't where they should be in the system.
>>>> Neither are things in the same place in Solaris.  Finding the X11 libs
>>>> in Solaris is buried pretty deep and not in /usr/libs/X11/libs.  Things
>>>> like that bother him for some reason.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> On my Solaris VM, X11 headers and libs are in /usr/include/X11 and
>>> /usr/X11/lib (as symlinks to /usr/lib/*).  Those are the standard,
>>> expected locations afaik.
>>> 
>>> anon@solaris:~$ locate Xlib.h /usr/include/X11/Xlib.h anon@solaris:~$
>>> locate libX11.so /usr/X11/lib/libX11.so /usr/X11/lib/libX11.so.4
>>> /usr/X11/lib/libX11.so.5 /usr/X11/lib/amd64/libX11.so
>>> /usr/X11/lib/amd64/libX11.so.4 /usr/X11/lib/amd64/libX11.so.5
>>> /usr/lib/libX11.so /usr/lib/libX11.so.4 /usr/lib/libX11.so.5
>>> /usr/lib/amd64/libX11.so /usr/lib/amd64/libX11.so.4
>>> /usr/lib/amd64/libX11.so.5 anon@solaris:~$
>>> 
>>> Contrast with debian screwball location (with no /usr/X11/lib symlinks):
>>> anon@lowtide:~$ locate libX11.so /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libX11.so
>>> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libX11.so.6
>>> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libX11.so.6.3.0 anon@lowtide:~$
>>
>> Does it matter where they are kept, as long as "-lX11" does the right 
>> thing?
> 
> ...no, and that's kind of the point. A lot of the cries for 'standardization'
> ignore the fact that Unix has always had the capability to be flexible while
> still being functional. It's not totally brittle like some single user OS from
> the 80s.
> 

So let's make square pegs just 'cause we can.  Why not toss out /usr while
we're at it?

>    Again, this is no surprise to someone that actually understands Unix.
> 

Um hmm.

>    Whining about this kind of minutia is what seperates the actual Unix users
> from the pathetic wannabes.
> 

Jeb, if I wanted to whine about minutia, I would ask why you spelled
"separates" that way.