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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #104744 > unrolled thread

Re: Poor "Snit"

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#104818

In article <dlfkfc5amsk5ie9uo4raqslqa7e5b5qvjn@4ax.com>, chrisv
<chrisv@nospam.invalid> 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
> >> 
> >> He's referring to the freedom to choose your GUI as well as how the GUI
> >> will function.
> 
> There's a hell of a lot more additional freedoms besides different
> GUI's.  I have no time, today, to educate those who don't consider it
> a drawback to be controlled by a corporation.

nobody is being controlled by a corporation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104828

On 4/21/17, 10:26 AM, in article 210420171326550961%nospam@nospam.invalid,
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <dlfkfc5amsk5ie9uo4raqslqa7e5b5qvjn@4ax.com>, chrisv
> <chrisv@nospam.invalid> 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
>>>> 
>>>> He's referring to the freedom to choose your GUI as well as how the GUI
>>>> will function.
>> 
>> There's a hell of a lot more additional freedoms besides different
>> GUI's.  I have no time, today, to educate those who don't consider it
>> a drawback to be controlled by a corporation.
> 
> nobody is being controlled by a corporation.


We can get into the larger conversation of our economy, but overall, of
course not. They offer a product and I decide to buy or not.


-- 
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>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104820

On 4/21/17, 10:23 AM, in article dlfkfc5amsk5ie9uo4raqslqa7e5b5qvjn@4ax.com,
"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> slime wrote:
>>> 
>>>> chrisv 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
>>> 
>>> He's referring to the freedom to choose your GUI as well as how the GUI
>>> will function.
> 
> There's a hell of a lot more additional freedoms besides different
> GUI's.  I have no time, today, to educate those who don't consider it
> a drawback to be controlled by a corporation.

I get the idea you like the open source nature. Nothing against that. And if
that is of value to you then it is a great reason to use desktop Linux.

Can you, however, think of tasks it allows you to do better than the
competition? If so, can you show examples? Even describe them?

-- 
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>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104831

On 4/21/17, 10:23 AM, in article dlfkfc5amsk5ie9uo4raqslqa7e5b5qvjn@4ax.com,
"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> slime wrote:
>>> 
>>>> chrisv 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
>>> 
>>> He's referring to the freedom to choose your GUI as well as how the GUI
>>> will function.
> 
> There's a hell of a lot more additional freedoms besides different
> GUI's.  I have no time, today, to educate those who don't consider it
> a drawback to be controlled by a corporation.

No time to make a point... because you have none other than you focus on
license more than productivity. I am OK with that and do not belittle you
for having that focus, but let us not pretend it is something other than
that.

-- 
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>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104807

On 4/21/17, 8:56 AM, in article XYpKA.15984$kc4.9015@fx03.iad, "Silver
Slimer" <sl@im.er> wrote:

> On 2017-04-21 10:13 AM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <j8tjfcd65h0qkr37dt6drjbgvf8j28ej5l@4ax.com>, chrisv
>> <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>>>> the real question is why anyone would willingly do that because by
>>>>> doing so, they won't be able to use the vast amount of mac/windows
>>>>> software that is not available in linux. it's a downgrade.
>>>> 
>>>> Whereas windows or Mac will never run more than a small part of linux
>>>> software. The little bit which is ported makes only a small portion of the
>>>> available software
>>> 
>>> 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.
> 
> He's referring to the freedom to choose your GUI as well as how the GUI
> will function. Linux users have that, Mac users don't.
> 
He is talking about fiddling with the tool as opposed to using the tool to
get work done.

OK.

So you can fiddle with the tool more on Linux but the competition allows you
to get work done as well or better.

Fair enough.

-- 
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>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104813

On 4/21/17, 7:13 AM, in article 210420171013485537%nospam@nospam.invalid,
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <j8tjfcd65h0qkr37dt6drjbgvf8j28ej5l@4ax.com>, chrisv
> <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>>> the real question is why anyone would willingly do that because by
>>>> doing so, they won't be able to use the vast amount of mac/windows
>>>> software that is not available in linux. it's a downgrade.
>>> 
>>> Whereas windows or Mac will never run more than a small part of linux
>>> software. The little bit which is ported makes only a small portion of the
>>> available software
>> 
>> 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.

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

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.

As a specific example, look at LibreOffice on macOS and Linux (a program
which is not really done well on the Mac in the first place):

LibreOffice on the Mac:

* A saved status indicator. At a glance know if your file is
  changed.

* Right-click on name in title bar to get full path to the file.
  This is an "active" list: click on any part of the path to get
  there.

* Proxy icon to allow for copies or aliases (links) from the open
  window, or to allow you to drag the file to email it or drag it
  to another program

* Access to your media browser to help select an image directly
  from whatever category you want: moments, collections, years,
  places, or albums.

* Terms and placement and hotkeys for quitting and preferences
  which are consistent with the system.

* Help system where you can type the name of any menu command and
  easily find it, even if in a submenu.

* Full screen system which ties into the system's full screen /
  workspace manager

* Recent items from the launcher... and it works even if the file
  has been renamed or moved (though it does not show the correct
  name in that case, it does still open the file)

* Print to PDF to any program you want... for example converting
  it to a PDF and sending it to a mail program or chat client or
  the like.

* You can close all the windows and not have to have the start
  screen as a place holder.

* It shows not just recent files but currently open files in the
  launcher.

* If you copy from it then close the program you can still paste
  elsewhere.

* In the system itself you can use QuickLook to view files (in the
  Finder, Mail, etc.).
  
* Ties into the standard system Print and File dialogs

* Drag and drop installer, and program can be moved easily (though Linux has
it tying into its installation system so maybe this is not as big of a deal)

LibreOffice on Linux:

* Window widgets (things such as window shade and keeping the window
  on top)
  
* Copy on select (a mixed blessing)

To use Linux means you accept such limitations, at least for now. Maybe
someday that will change (and I and others are supporting that while the
"advocates" push back against such progress).



-- 
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>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104816

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104822

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>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104812

On 4/21/17, 5:11 AM, in article j8tjfcd65h0qkr37dt6drjbgvf8j28ej5l@4ax.com,
"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> 
>> nospam wrote:
>>> 
>>> the real question is why anyone would willingly do that because by
>>> doing so, they won't be able to use the vast amount of mac/windows
>>> software that is not available in linux. it's a downgrade.
>> 
>> Whereas windows or Mac will never run more than a small part of linux
>> software. The little bit which is ported makes only a small portion of the
>> available software
> 
> 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.

If you use Linux because of the license I get that. I find it great.

But let us not pretend that the license makes it where you can get your work
done better. As even Stallman says, if people used open source software
(which he insists on calling "Free") then there is a good chance you would
not be able to get as much done but he is OK with that.

-- 
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>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104815

In article <D51F71E6.A09F6%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit
<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> 
> But let us not pretend that the license makes it where you can get your work
> done better. As even Stallman says, if people used open source software
> (which he insists on calling "Free") then there is a good chance you would
> not be able to get as much done but he is OK with that.

who cares what stallman likes or doesn't like. that guy is a complete
and utter nutjob.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104821

On 4/21/17, 10:25 AM, in article 210420171325587509%nospam@nospam.invalid,
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <D51F71E6.A09F6%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit
> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> But let us not pretend that the license makes it where you can get your work
>> done better. As even Stallman says, if people used open source software
>> (which he insists on calling "Free") then there is a good chance you would
>> not be able to get as much done but he is OK with that.
> 
> who cares what stallman likes or doesn't like. that guy is a complete
> and utter nutjob.

Absolutely no argument here. None. I love the GPL -- great license (or set
of licenses, really) to protect your IP -- but Stallman is a repulsive man
who should be investigated for possible child sexual abuse (which he
actively says he supports).

-- 
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>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104778

In article <odceeg$h8p$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> >> >>> Some DEs do not have the New Folder hot key work on the desktop and
> >> >>> if you go fast with your pressing of hot keys they can get
> >> >>> "confused". Others, such
> >> >>> as most Gnome based ones, handle it better. But here is the issue
> >> >>> that was being discussed:
> >> >>
> >> >> 'tis the beauty of Linux. Don't like that DE, then pick another to
> >> >> suit you. That is in contrast to MS or Apple where you are stuck with
> >> >> whatever they tell you to have.
> >> >
> >> > wrong.
> >> 
> >> How so?
> > 
> > neither apple nor microsoft stop anyone from running whatever they want.
> 
> Wrong

not wrong. 

> > macos is unix under the hood and win10 has a bash shell which even
> > supports linux binaries. xwindows runs under it, as well as plenty
> > more.
> 
> Wrong again. The "windows bash shell" (as half assed as it is) will *never* 
> be able to "support" linux binaries. Those will not run under windows, no 
> matter what.

nonsense. it's not half-assed and supports linux binaries.

<https://www.hanselman.com/blog/DevelopersCanRunBashShellAndUsermodeUbun
tuLinuxBinariesOnWindows10.aspx>
  This isn't Bash or Ubuntu running in a VM. This is a real native Bash
  Linux binary running on Windows itself. It's fast and lightweight and
  it's the real binaries. This is an genuine Ubuntu image on top of
  Windows with all the Linux tools I use like awk, sed, grep, vi, etc.
  It's fast and it's lightweight. The binaries are downloaded by you -
  using apt-get - just as on Linux, because it is Linux. You can
  apt-get and download other tools like Ruby, Redis, emacs, and on and
  on. This is brilliant for developers that use a diverse set of tools
  like me.

> > the real question is why anyone would willingly do that because by
> > doing so, they won't be able to use the vast amount of mac/windows
> > software that is not available in linux. it's a downgrade.
> 
> Whereas windows or Mac will never run more than a small part of linux 
> software. The little bit which is ported makes only a small portion of the 
> available software

all linux software runs perfectly fine on a mac with the lone exception
of non-portable apps that assumes stuff specific to linux. those same
apps won't run on a generic bsd box either. blame the authors of the
apps, not apple.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104793

On 4/21/17, 1:07 AM, in article odceeg$h8p$1@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> nospam wrote:
> 
>> In article <odbcnp$7ba$1@dont-email.me>, Jonathan N. Little
>> <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> Some DEs do not have the New Folder hot key work on the desktop and
>>>>>> if you go fast with your pressing of hot keys they can get
>>>>>> "confused". Others, such
>>>>>> as most Gnome based ones, handle it better. But here is the issue
>>>>>> that was being discussed:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 'tis the beauty of Linux. Don't like that DE, then pick another to
>>>>> suit you. That is in contrast to MS or Apple where you are stuck with
>>>>> whatever they tell you to have.
>>>> 
>>>> wrong.
>>> 
>>> How so?
>> 
>> neither apple nor microsoft stop anyone from running whatever they want.
> 
> Wrong

What program do you think Apple or MS stops me from running? Be specific.

>> macos is unix under the hood and win10 has a bash shell which even
>> supports linux binaries. xwindows runs under it, as well as plenty
>> more.
> 
> Wrong again. The "windows bash shell" (as half assed as it is) will *never*
> be able to "support" linux binaries. Those will not run under windows, no
> matter what.
> 
>> the real question is why anyone would willingly do that because by
>> doing so, they won't be able to use the vast amount of mac/windows
>> software that is not available in linux. it's a downgrade.
> 
> Whereas windows or Mac will never run more than a small part of linux
> software. The little bit which is ported makes only a small portion of the
> available software

Why not list some of the software, say, you run which does not run on a Mac?

Keep in mind I, and other Mac users, can easily run Windows and Linux in
virtual machines.


-- 
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>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104826

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:21:24 -0700, Snit
<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

[snip]

>What program do you think Apple or MS stops me from running? Be specific.

     16-bit software on 64-bit Windows.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104827

In article <aemkfc5anc5oi2ljm188drmimt5q9akt6t@4ax.com>, Gene Wirchenko
<genew@telus.net> wrote:

> >What program do you think Apple or MS stops me from running? Be specific.
> 
>      16-bit software on 64-bit Windows.

they can still be run, just with minor additional hoops.

not that anyone actually wants to run 16 bit software anymore.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104833

On 2017-04-21 3:19 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <aemkfc5anc5oi2ljm188drmimt5q9akt6t@4ax.com>, Gene Wirchenko
> <genew@telus.net> wrote:
> 
>>> What program do you think Apple or MS stops me from running? Be specific.
>>
>>      16-bit software on 64-bit Windows.
> 
> they can still be run, just with minor additional hoops.
> 
> not that anyone actually wants to run 16 bit software anymore.

It's actually fairly insane that anyone would want to run 16-bit
software on modern Windows unless they're gamers and want to play a
specific game from yesterday. In that case though, they're better off
running the game in a virtual session than hope that Microsoft will
allow them to do it natively.


-- 
Silver Slimer
OpenMedia & EFF Member
Gab.ai: @silverslimer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104834

On 4/21/17, 2:40 PM, in article b%uKA.23284$0%5.19167@fx38.iad, "Silver
Slimer" <sl@im.er> wrote:

> On 2017-04-21 3:19 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <aemkfc5anc5oi2ljm188drmimt5q9akt6t@4ax.com>, Gene Wirchenko
>> <genew@telus.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>> What program do you think Apple or MS stops me from running? Be specific.
>>> 
>>>      16-bit software on 64-bit Windows.
>> 
>> they can still be run, just with minor additional hoops.
>> 
>> not that anyone actually wants to run 16 bit software anymore.
> 
> It's actually fairly insane that anyone would want to run 16-bit
> software on modern Windows unless they're gamers and want to play a
> specific game from yesterday. In that case though, they're better off
> running the game in a virtual session than hope that Microsoft will
> allow them to do it natively.
> 
Not many people want to run software that old but the fact most of it still
will run is actually pretty amazing.

-- 
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>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104839

In article <D51FD22E.A0AF8%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit
<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> > It's actually fairly insane that anyone would want to run 16-bit
> > software on modern Windows unless they're gamers and want to play a
> > specific game from yesterday. In that case though, they're better off
> > running the game in a virtual session than hope that Microsoft will
> > allow them to do it natively.
> > 
> Not many people want to run software that old but the fact most of it still
> will run is actually pretty amazing.

lode runner, an app that first came out for the mac in 1985 or so, ran
perfectly fine on a powerpc mac running os x tiger 10.4, some 20 years
later, which had a different processor, a different operating system, a
much larger colour display, along with quite a bit more that was
different.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104836

In article <b%uKA.23284$0%5.19167@fx38.iad>, Silver Slimer <sl@im.er>
wrote:

> >>> What program do you think Apple or MS stops me from running? Be specific.
> >>
> >>      16-bit software on 64-bit Windows.
> > 
> > they can still be run, just with minor additional hoops.
> > 
> > not that anyone actually wants to run 16 bit software anymore.
> 
> It's actually fairly insane that anyone would want to run 16-bit
> software on modern Windows unless they're gamers and want to play a
> specific game from yesterday. In that case though, they're better off
> running the game in a virtual session than hope that Microsoft will
> allow them to do it natively.

they can run win98, win95 or even win 3.1 in a vm.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104830

On 4/21/17, 12:13 PM, in article aemkfc5anc5oi2ljm188drmimt5q9akt6t@4ax.com,
"Gene Wirchenko" <genew@telus.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:21:24 -0700, Snit
> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> What program do you think Apple or MS stops me from running? Be specific.
> 
>      16-bit software on 64-bit Windows.

<https://www.groovypost.com/howto/enable-16-bit-application-support-windows-
10/> OR <https://gpo.st/4q5>

-- 
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>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web