Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #331566 > unrolled thread
| Started by | 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-07 20:57 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-11-09 06:20 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 119 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2015-11-07 20:57 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 21:03 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2015-11-07 21:19 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine "Cola Zealot" <Cola_Zealot@fuckoff.com> - 2015-12-22 22:20 +0100
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-07 16:48 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Bob Loblaw <BL@LinuxProfessionals.com> - 2015-11-07 18:43 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-07 18:32 -0700
Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2015-11-08 11:02 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> - 2015-11-08 14:57 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine saneearth <sane@theearth.com> - 2015-11-08 15:55 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@hub.hob> - 2015-11-08 13:03 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine totsob <sane@theearth.com> - 2015-11-10 05:30 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@hub.hob> - 2015-11-10 08:22 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-09 07:35 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> - 2015-11-09 14:54 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-09 10:21 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 13:10 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-09 09:28 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-09 10:34 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> - 2015-11-09 17:14 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-09 14:53 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-09 15:07 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-09 23:21 +0100
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 22:26 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-09 15:32 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-09 23:36 +0100
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 18:10 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-10 10:15 +0100
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-10 14:01 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-09 20:43 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-10 10:14 +0100
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-10 10:29 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-10 14:03 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-10 14:02 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-11-10 09:04 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-10 15:33 +0100
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-10 08:49 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 15:02 +0000
Quiet, Turdv. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-10 14:05 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-11-11 09:34 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-10 14:04 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-11-10 02:02 +0100
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 18:08 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-09 15:31 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-11-10 09:02 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 14:10 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-10 10:42 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-10 14:06 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-09 17:11 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 18:06 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 13:12 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-11-09 21:24 +0100
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-11-09 15:33 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 16:57 -0800
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-09 16:51 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-11-09 17:02 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-09 23:12 +0100
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-09 17:33 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-11-09 17:45 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 18:15 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 18:13 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 16:54 -0800
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 18:20 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 21:20 -0800
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-10 14:11 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-09 14:51 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 21:24 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> - 2015-11-09 21:37 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-09 16:06 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-09 17:27 -0500
Yeah, we know you are an Idiot, Turdv. So what else is new? GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 18:23 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-09 16:05 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-09 23:41 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-09 16:49 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 18:23 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 18:22 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-09 15:08 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> - 2015-11-09 22:26 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 22:27 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-09 15:30 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-09 16:36 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-10 00:12 +0000
You are getting really lame and senile JED. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 18:25 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2015-11-10 08:49 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-10 07:34 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2015-11-10 13:59 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-10 15:30 +0100
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2015-11-10 15:37 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 07:51 -0800
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-10 10:36 -0600
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 17:19 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-10 14:14 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-10 14:12 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-10 22:24 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-10 17:09 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-09 10:17 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-08 11:08 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-08 11:18 -0500
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-08 15:49 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2015-11-10 08:24 +0000
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-10 14:15 -0700
Re: Linux beats Appil and Microshaft to run on 64 CPU desktop machine Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-08 11:04 -0500
Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 22:40 -0800
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-11-09 07:49 +0100
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 00:18 -0800
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-09 06:20 -0500
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 05:30 -0800
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-09 08:36 -0500
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-09 10:19 -0500
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-11-09 17:35 +0000
And you can't even afford to go on the stock market, luser. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 13:15 -0700
And now, show the link. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 13:14 -0700
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 17:15 -0800
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-10 06:01 -0500
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-11-10 09:01 -0500
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-11-10 09:57 -0500
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-10 14:17 -0700
So name one. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-09 13:14 -0700
Re: Trading software developed for Windoze only, no Linux support at all! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-11-09 06:20 -0500
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 14:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3N2dnQQnU45hxt_LnZ2dnUU7-c-dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #332265 |
On 11/10/15 07:33, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > DFS wrote: > >> On 11/9/2015 5:36 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> >>> That is also the reason why windows has no chance of ever making it again >>> into the top-500 list. >> >> huh? There's still a Windows HPC system on the list (as of Jun 2015). >> >> Which means you're wrong again. As usual. > > What part of "again" is too difficult for you? > >> >> Its current rank is #436, but when it first appeared on the Top 500 list >> it was ranked #11. >> >> >> >>> Windows as well as OSX have no means to control large >>> numbers of processors >> >> >> The only Windows system on the latest Top 500 list has 30720 cores, >> which is in the top 35% of core counts. >> >> Which means you're wrong again. As usual. > > Now ask yourself why that many cores only rank it that low > > It is because windows can't handle many cores good enough. Instead it has to > rely on whole groups of cores. Which makes it rather inefficient Guffaw!!! Doing the side step shuffle again, after DFS spanked your silly ass? LOL!!! -- My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 02:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20151110020232.76e37ec2@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #332031 |
On 9 Nov 2015 22:26:29 GMT Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:21:58 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > > > OSX can't even try to run the hardware easily handled by linux. It > > is only found on overpriced underpowered machines mainly used by > > posers who want to impress idiots with their affinity to spend > > money needless for stuff they have no use of > > Right, OSX isn't used on crap boxes from your dumpster. Actually it is. I run OSX on crap iMac from 2008... and run Linux on one year old powerful hardware.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 18:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <M72dnV-XavLn3tzLnZ2dnUU7-K2dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #332031 |
On 11/09/15 15:26, Lloyd Parsons wrote: > On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 23:21:58 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >> Snit wrote: >> >>> On 11/9/15, 1:53 PM, in article slrnn421tf.oua.jedi@nomad.mishnet, >>> "JEDIDIAH"<jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-11-09, Saint George<stgeorge@england.eng> wrote: >>>>> On 09/11/2015 03:28 pm, chrisv wrote: >>>>>> Saint George wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Saint George wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No it didn't, Windows and OS X went 64 bit at the same time >>>>>>>>> x86_64 CPUs became available... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nothing special about Linux, it just a rip-off of UNIX®... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Idiot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix#/media/File:Unix_history- > simple.svg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Linux, MacOS X, x.BSD, Solaris - all UNIX like clones... >>>>>> >>>>>> I would not object to someone merely stating that Linux is a "UNIX >>>>>> like clone", idiot. >>>>>> >>>>> What's the matter, truth hurts? >>>> >>>> What truth? That Linux shares many of the key qualities of Unix? >>>> >>>> You say that like it's a BAD thing. >>>> >>>> Forget about 64 CPU machines. Linux runs 1024 CPU machines. >>> >>> Linux is Unix-like. Not a UNIX. >>> >>> >> Is that the reason why it can run the supercomputers and apple can not? > > One of your dumbest questions to date. The OS could if Apple either > built a super computer or licensed right to one that wanted to. > >> Is that the reason the internet is largely based on linux, and OSX does >> not even need to apply? Is that the reason no sane person would use OSX >> as company server platform, but does with linux? >> > Some more stupid questions. Linux gets the nod for internet servicing > because it is free and works well in that role. Other OS's could do just > was well but they aren't free for the most part. > >> OSX can't even try to run the hardware easily handled by linux. It is >> only found on overpriced underpowered machines mainly used by posers who >> want to impress idiots with their affinity to spend money needless for >> stuff they have no use of > > Right, OSX isn't used on crap boxes from your dumpster. > > << newsgroups snipped>> > > Most of the linux loons go dumpster diving for a PC anyway. They yell in ecstacy when they find a Celeron PC. -- My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 15:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D2666CE6.63539%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #332029 |
On 11/9/15, 3:21 PM, in article n1r65v$a50$1@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > Snit wrote: > >> On 11/9/15, 1:53 PM, in article slrnn421tf.oua.jedi@nomad.mishnet, >> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: >> >>> On 2015-11-09, Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> wrote: >>>> On 09/11/2015 03:28 pm, chrisv wrote: >>>>> Saint George wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Saint George wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No it didn't, Windows and OS X went 64 bit at the same time x86_64 >>>>>>>> CPUs became available... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nothing special about Linux, it just a rip-off of UNIX®... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Idiot. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix#/media/File:Unix_history-simple.svg >>>>>> >>>>>> Linux, MacOS X, x.BSD, Solaris - all UNIX like clones... >>>>> >>>>> I would not object to someone merely stating that Linux is a "UNIX >>>>> like clone", idiot. >>>>> >>>> What's the matter, truth hurts? >>> >>> What truth? That Linux shares many of the key qualities of Unix? >>> >>> You say that like it's a BAD thing. >>> >>> Forget about 64 CPU machines. Linux runs 1024 CPU machines. >> >> Linux is Unix-like. Not a UNIX. >> > Is that the reason why it can run the supercomputers and apple can not? No. What would even give you that idea? And below you go into more ignorant screeching. Whatever. > Is that the reason the internet is largely based on linux, and OSX does not > even need to apply? Is that the reason no sane person would use OSX as > company server platform, but does with linux? > > OSX can't even try to run the hardware easily handled by linux. It is only > found on overpriced underpowered machines mainly used by posers who want to > impress idiots with their affinity to spend money needless for stuff they > have no use of Your insecurity is not the topic. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 09:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1st9t$kmv$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #332029 |
On 11/9/2015 5:21 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > OSX can't even try to run the hardware easily handled by linux. It is only > found on overpriced underpowered machines mainly used by posers who want to > impress idiots with their affinity to spend money needless for stuff they > have no use of Your son uses a Mac.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 14:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <daec67Fd1m5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #332254 |
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:02:38 -0500, DFS wrote: > On 11/9/2015 5:21 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >> OSX can't even try to run the hardware easily handled by linux. It is >> only found on overpriced underpowered machines mainly used by posers >> who want to impress idiots with their affinity to spend money needless >> for stuff they have no use of > > > Your son uses a Mac. So Petey's son is a "poser who wants to impress his idiot dad"???? -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 10:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1t35c$bbu$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #332258 |
On 2015-11-10 9:10 AM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: > On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:02:38 -0500, DFS wrote: > >> On 11/9/2015 5:21 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> >>> OSX can't even try to run the hardware easily handled by linux. It is >>> only found on overpriced underpowered machines mainly used by posers >>> who want to impress idiots with their affinity to spend money needless >>> for stuff they have no use of >> >> >> Your son uses a Mac. > > > So Petey's son is a "poser who wants to impress his idiot dad"???? Quite the opposite: he wants to dissociate himself from his father entirely by using machines his deadbeat dad can't stand. -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 14:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3N2dnQYnU47Swd_LnZ2dnUU7-c-dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #332283 |
On 11/10/15 08:42, Slimer wrote: > On 2015-11-10 9:10 AM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:02:38 -0500, DFS wrote: >> >>> On 11/9/2015 5:21 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> >>>> OSX can't even try to run the hardware easily handled by linux. It is >>>> only found on overpriced underpowered machines mainly used by posers >>>> who want to impress idiots with their affinity to spend money needless >>>> for stuff they have no use of >>> >>> >>> Your son uses a Mac. >> >> >> So Petey's son is a "poser who wants to impress his idiot dad"???? > > Quite the opposite: he wants to dissociate himself from his father > entirely by using machines his deadbeat dad can't stand. > And can't figure out. -- My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 17:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1r5ht$7i0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #331982 |
On 2015-11-09 3:53 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2015-11-09, Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> wrote: >> On 09/11/2015 03:28 pm, chrisv wrote: >>> Saint George wrote: >>> >>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Saint George wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> No it didn't, Windows and OS X went 64 bit at the same time x86_64 CPUs >>>>>> became available... >>>>>> >>>>>> Nothing special about Linux, it just a rip-off of UNIX®... >>>>> >>>>> Idiot. >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix#/media/File:Unix_history-simple.svg >>>> >>>> Linux, MacOS X, x.BSD, Solaris - all UNIX like clones... >>> >>> I would not object to someone merely stating that Linux is a "UNIX >>> like clone", idiot. >>> >> What's the matter, truth hurts? > > What truth? That Linux shares many of the key qualities of Unix? > > You say that like it's a BAD thing. > > Forget about 64 CPU machines. Linux runs 1024 CPU machines. LOL and _still_ won't run people's favourite games. -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 18:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <M72dnVyXavK03tzLnZ2dnUU7-K2dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #331982 |
On 11/09/15 13:53, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2015-11-09, Saint George<stgeorge@england.eng> wrote: >> On 09/11/2015 03:28 pm, chrisv wrote: >>> Saint George wrote: >>> >>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Saint George wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> No it didn't, Windows and OS X went 64 bit at the same time x86_64 CPUs >>>>>> became available... >>>>>> >>>>>> Nothing special about Linux, it just a rip-off of UNIX®... >>>>> >>>>> Idiot. >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix#/media/File:Unix_history-simple.svg >>>> >>>> Linux, MacOS X, x.BSD, Solaris - all UNIX like clones... >>> >>> I would not object to someone merely stating that Linux is a "UNIX >>> like clone", idiot. >>> >> What's the matter, truth hurts? > > What truth? That Linux shares many of the key qualities of Unix? > > You say that like it's a BAD thing. > > Forget about 64 CPU machines. Linux runs 1024 CPU machines. Yet the linux advocates go dumpster diving for Celerons, let alone anything with more than 8 cores. LOL!!! -- My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 13:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4o2dnZBD0KXfY93LnZ2dnUU7-RudnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #331867 |
On 11/09/15 07:54, Saint George wrote: > On 09/11/2015 01:35 pm, chrisv wrote: >> Saint George wrote: >> >>> No it didn't, Windows and OS X went 64 bit at the same time x86_64 CPUs >>> became available... >>> >>> Nothing special about Linux, it just a rip-off of UNIX®... >> >> Idiot. >> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix#/media/File:Unix_history-simple.svg > > Linux, MacOS X, x.BSD, Solaris - all UNIX like clones... > > Linux is a unix like os. OS X is a UNIX. Solaris is SYSV UNIX. The last two are real UNIXes. It's a matter of paying the OpenGroup money to get the moniker UNIX. Solaris has been around long before Linux and it is a real UNIX. -- My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 21:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20151109212415.0053a9a3@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #331957 |
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 13:12:49 -0700 GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote: > > Solaris has been around long before Linux and it is a real UNIX. Bullshit. Solaris is from 1992, Linux is from 1991. > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 15:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1qvps$g4q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #331966 |
"Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote in message news:20151109212415.0053a9a3@maxa-pc... > On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 13:12:49 -0700 > GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote: > >> >> Solaris has been around long before Linux and it is a real UNIX. > > Bullshit. Solaris is from 1992, Linux is from 1991. > SunOS has been around since the early 1980's. The change to "Solaris" was a market based name change. Solaris didn't just appear out of nowhere in 1992.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 16:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d50866ad-2976-4a01-ae6f-ee473e5c54b6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #331968 |
On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 5:33:12 AM UTC+9, Ezekiel wrote: > "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote in message > news:20151109212415.0053a9a3@maxa-pc... > > On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 13:12:49 -0700 > > GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> Solaris has been around long before Linux and it is a real UNIX. > > > > Bullshit. Solaris is from 1992, Linux is from 1991. > > > > SunOS has been around since the early 1980's. The change to "Solaris" was a > market based name change. > > Solaris didn't just appear out of nowhere in 1992. Yep, it did not stand the hobbyware pressure, now Oracle also turned to Linux. And the RedHat once used to be the bad hacker guy...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 16:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1r4dc$tu$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #331966 |
On 2015-11-09 3:24 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 13:12:49 -0700 > GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote: > >> >> Solaris has been around long before Linux and it is a real UNIX. > > Bullshit. Solaris is from 1992, Linux is from 1991. Lying Serbian twat. -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 17:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1r526$5lk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #332006 |
"Slimer" <.m@nsn.s> wrote in message news:n1r4dc$tu$4@dont-email.me... > On 2015-11-09 3:24 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >> On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 13:12:49 -0700 >> GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Solaris has been around long before Linux and it is a real UNIX. >> >> Bullshit. Solaris is from 1992, Linux is from 1991. > > Lying Serbian twat. > Melzzzzz thinks that just because marketing at Sun decided to change the name from SunOS to Solaris in 1992 that somehow this means that Solaris was written/developed in 1992. In the automotive world, Datsun became Nissan in 1984. So Melzzzz must think that Nissan didn't build cars until the mid-1980's.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 23:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n1r5js$7vl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #332013 |
Ezekiel wrote: > > > "Slimer" <.m@nsn.s> wrote in message news:n1r4dc$tu$4@dont-email.me... >> On 2015-11-09 3:24 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 13:12:49 -0700 >>> GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Solaris has been around long before Linux and it is a real UNIX. >>> >>> Bullshit. Solaris is from 1992, Linux is from 1991. >> >> Lying Serbian twat. >> > > Melzzzzz thinks that just because marketing at Sun decided to change the > name from SunOS to Solaris in 1992 that somehow this means that Solaris > was written/developed in 1992. No. Solaris 2 was released in 1992. After having been newly developed on base of System V Release 4. It was *not* based on SunOS. The previous Solaris 1 was based on SunOS4 and was a dead end
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 17:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1r6s3$cil$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #332022 |
On 2015-11-09 5:12 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Ezekiel wrote: > >> >> >> "Slimer" <.m@nsn.s> wrote in message news:n1r4dc$tu$4@dont-email.me... >>> On 2015-11-09 3:24 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 13:12:49 -0700 >>>> GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Solaris has been around long before Linux and it is a real UNIX. >>>> >>>> Bullshit. Solaris is from 1992, Linux is from 1991. >>> >>> Lying Serbian twat. >>> >> >> Melzzzzz thinks that just because marketing at Sun decided to change the >> name from SunOS to Solaris in 1992 that somehow this means that Solaris >> was written/developed in 1992. > > No. Solaris 2 was released in 1992. After having been newly developed on > base of System V Release 4. It was *not* based on SunOS. > > The previous Solaris 1 was based on SunOS4 and was a dead end Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about your claim: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_(operating_system)#History> "In 1987, AT&T Corporation and Sun announced that they were collaborating on a project to merge the most popular Unix variants on the market at that time: BSD, System V, and Xenix. This became Unix System V Release 4 (SVR4).[11] On September 4, 1991, Sun announced that it would replace its existing BSD-derived Unix, SunOS 4, with one based on SVR4. This was identified internally as SunOS 5, but a new marketing name was introduced at the same time: Solaris 2.[12] Although SunOS 4.1.x micro releases were retroactively named Solaris 1 by Sun, the Solaris name is used almost exclusively to refer to the SVR4-derived SunOS 5.0 and later.[13] So the operating system, which was retroactively named Solaris for previous releases (ensuring that the versions released in the 1980s were Solaris and indeed came before Linux) changed the base of the operating system. It started off as a derivative of BSD and ended up as a derivative of SystemV Release 4 in a manner similar to how a Linux distribution will go from being based on Ubuntu to being based on Debian without changing its name. In other words, you're wrong again, Peter. -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 17:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1r7h6$f5r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #332022 |
"Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:n1r5js$7vl$1@dont-email.me...
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Slimer" <.m@nsn.s> wrote in message news:n1r4dc$tu$4@dont-email.me...
>>> On 2015-11-09 3:24 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 13:12:49 -0700
>>>> GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Solaris has been around long before Linux and it is a real UNIX.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit. Solaris is from 1992, Linux is from 1991.
>>>
>>> Lying Serbian twat.
>>>
>>
>> Melzzzzz thinks that just because marketing at Sun decided to change the
>> name from SunOS to Solaris in 1992 that somehow this means that Solaris
>> was written/developed in 1992.
>
> No. Solaris 2 was released in 1992. After having been newly developed on
> base of System V Release 4. It was *not* based on SunOS.
>
> The previous Solaris 1 was based on SunOS4 and was a dead end
It was a dead-end but it wasn't a complete rewrite from scratch either.
From the book: "Solaris Internals: Core Kernel Components"
"SVR4 UNIX incorporated the features from SunOS, SVR3, BSD UNIX and
Xenix as shown below...."
https://books.google.com/books?id=r_cecYD4AKkC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=sunos+and+solaris+history&source=bl&ots=oDskdYzDAR&sig=YD_ColwnFUWGqPKlbyDvu9Q5_M4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCTgKahUKEwi-zs2CsITJAhWMPiYKHUAVAXY#v=onepage&q=sunos%20and%20solaris%20history&f=false
So the "new Solaris" was partially based on features taken from the "old
Solaris" also known as SunOS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 18:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <M72dnViXavLV2NzLnZ2dnUU7-K2dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #332022 |
On 11/09/15 15:12, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Ezekiel wrote: > >> >> >> "Slimer"<.m@nsn.s> wrote in message news:n1r4dc$tu$4@dont-email.me... >>> On 2015-11-09 3:24 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 13:12:49 -0700 >>>> GreyCloud<cumulus@mist.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Solaris has been around long before Linux and it is a real UNIX. >>>> >>>> Bullshit. Solaris is from 1992, Linux is from 1991. >>> >>> Lying Serbian twat. >>> >> >> Melzzzzz thinks that just because marketing at Sun decided to change the >> name from SunOS to Solaris in 1992 that somehow this means that Solaris >> was written/developed in 1992. > > No. Solaris 2 was released in 1992. After having been newly developed on > base of System V Release 4. It was *not* based on SunOS. > > The previous Solaris 1 was based on SunOS4 and was a dead end BS! Bill Joy remembered all of the AT&T UNIX code. He used most of it to write Sun OS. It was UNIX then just as it is now. Where you get your braindead ideas, only the devil knows. -- My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web