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 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 18:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <M72dnVmXavI82dzLnZ2dnUU7-K2dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #331966 |
On 11/09/15 13:24, 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. > > Horse shit to you too. Bill Joy, when he formed Sun Microsystems, had remembered the SYSV code from AT&T days. Sun was founded on February 24, 1982. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Microsystems It was UNIX then as it is now. -- My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 16:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b081b49d-e5b2-4edd-bfde-d52e6d7f4c4e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #331957 |
On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 5:12:54 AM UTC+9, GreyCloud wrote: > 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. And hasn't been developed in a garage like the modern pseudo OSes (DOS->Windoze) BSD isn't also a rip-off of UNIX®, not developed by any marihuana powered hacker hobbysts. But the GNU still gets bugs and exploits, it's not perfect either... > -- > My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 18:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <HvCdnUVAd5rZ29zLnZ2dnUU7-LGdnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #332090 |
On 11/09/15 17:54, Takuya Saitoh wrote: > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 5:12:54 AM UTC+9, GreyCloud wrote: >> 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. > > And hasn't been developed in a garage like the modern pseudo OSes (DOS->Windoze) > I thought Bill Gates bought it from some guy near the piers of Seattle. Wasn't it for about $100 or so? > BSD isn't also a rip-off of UNIX®, not developed by any marihuana powered hacker hobbysts. But the GNU still gets bugs and exploits, it's not perfect either... > Of course. Berkeley U did a lot of their own writing with the help of the many students that went thru their curricula. From what I recall, they went hand over hand on the code to clean out any bugs they could find, plus many changes. BSD UNIX was for sale in the 80s. It wasn't cheap, so later Linus Torvalds wrote linux as a learning tool to learn UNIX for free. -- My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 21:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <71080045-11e8-4c41-9e45-208f53b4e689@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #332110 |
On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 10:20:06 AM UTC+9, GreyCloud wrote: > I thought Bill Gates bought it from some guy near the piers of Seattle. > Wasn't it for about $100 or so? http://raszl.com/blog/truth-about-companies-started-garages http://www.accountingdegree.com/blog/2011/10-big-businesses-that-started-in-a-garage/ "In 1975, Bill Gates and Paul Allen founded Microsoft, with just a few resources and an available garage space. Unlike Apple who developed both software and hardware, Microsoft homed in on the software market. Working with IBM, the company licensed their first OS for a mere $80,000. Later, they would go on to develop more sophisticated operating systems that would evolve into those we know as Windows today. The business would grow to be one of the most profitable and powerful in the world, dominating the personal computing market."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 14:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <zu6dna4MoqcAwN_LnZ2dnUU7-emdnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #332193 |
On 11/09/15 22:20, Takuya Saitoh wrote: > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 10:20:06 AM UTC+9, GreyCloud wrote: >> I thought Bill Gates bought it from some guy near the piers of Seattle. >> Wasn't it for about $100 or so? > > http://raszl.com/blog/truth-about-companies-started-garages > > http://www.accountingdegree.com/blog/2011/10-big-businesses-that-started-in-a-garage/ > > "In 1975, Bill Gates and Paul Allen founded Microsoft, with just a few resources and an available garage space. Unlike Apple who developed both software and hardware, Microsoft homed in on the software market. Working with IBM, the company licensed their first OS for a mere $80,000. Later, they would go on to develop more sophisticated operating systems that would evolve into those we know as Windows today. The business would grow to be one of the most profitable and powerful in the world, dominating the personal computing market." I don't know of anybody that has dropped out of Harvard and later became a billionaire, like Gates did. On that point, I find that very impressive. As a person, his latest statement was that the only way to save the world from global warming was socialism. http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/bill-gates-says-that-capitalism-cannot-save-us-from-climate-change--b1xNpbL8O_x Strange duck. -- My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 14:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn421r1.oua.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #331867 |
On 2015-11-09, Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> 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... So? Linux can do the heavy lifting that Windows can't because it's a Unix. Linux can do the heavy lifting that Macs won't because it's a Unix. Pretending that the Unix-ness of Linux is "nothing special" is just a sad way of deflecting. Linux makes Unix "cool" and cheap. It makes the world safe for Unix against a monopoly juggernaut. MacOS is hardly a "unix clone" really.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 21:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dach7sFtq0rU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #331983 |
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 14:51:45 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2015-11-09, Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> 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... > > So? Linux can do the heavy lifting that Windows can't because it's a > Unix. Nope, Linux is not unix. > Linux can do the heavy lifting that Macs won't because it's a Unix. > Pretending that the Unix-ness of Linux is "nothing special" is just a > sad way of deflecting. > Nope, linux is not unix. > Linux makes Unix "cool" and cheap. > LOL! I'll give you the cheap part, but 'cool'?? Utter crap! Linux gives you cheap and geeky. > It makes the world safe for Unix against a monopoly juggernaut. > > MacOS is hardly a "unix clone" really. Correct, MacOS is not and has never been a 'unix clone'. OSX however is a certified unix. You really are a terminally stupid person. <<newsgroups trimmed>> -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 21:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1r3ia$vfp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #331983 |
On 09/11/2015 08:51 pm, JEDIDIAH wrote: > MacOS is hardly a "unix clone" really. > Yes, it is, the MacOS X kernal 'Darwin' is based on BSD, as was it's predecessor NeXTSTEP... It even has UNIX 03 Certification, Linux doesn't have that... OS X[edit] Apple's OS X is a UNIX 03 registered product,[15] first becoming registered with Mac OS X v10.5 "Leopard" on October 26, 2007 (when run on Macs with Intel processors).[16][17] All newer versions of OS X (except Mac OS X Lion) have been registered.[18] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 16:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <c6624b1onv9h2vd88vh2c7d0vteb7sauo4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #331999 |
Saint George wrote: > (snip) Idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 17:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1r6gh$a1o$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #332015 |
On 2015-11-09 5:06 PM, chrisv wrote: > Saint George wrote: > >> (snip) > > Idiot. Thank you for accurately signing your name. -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 18:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Yeah, we know you are an Idiot, Turdv. So what else is new? |
| Message-ID | <HvCdnUZAd5q22tzLnZ2dnUU7-LGdnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #332015 |
On 11/09/15 15:06, chrisv wrote: > Saint George wrote: > >> (snip) > > Idiot. > -- My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 16:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn4264l.oua.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #331999 |
On 2015-11-09, Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> wrote:
> On 09/11/2015 08:51 pm, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> MacOS is hardly a "unix clone" really.
>>
>
> Yes, it is,
Not from the point of view of an actual end user.
This includes both the "never gonna see the terminal" typical sort of
Mac user as well as the dyed in the wool genuine Unix user.
[deletia]
> It even has UNIX 03 Certification, Linux doesn't have that...
So? That certification is pretty much meaningless to anyone but silly
consumers that feel butthurt that their pet brand seems inferior.
>
> OS X[edit]
> Apple's OS X is a UNIX 03 registered product,[15] first becoming
> registered with Mac OS X v10.5 "Leopard" on October 26, 2007 (when run
> on Macs with Intel processors).[16][17] All newer versions of OS X
> (except Mac OS X Lion) have been registered.[18]
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification
...again, nothing to impress anyone but the clueless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 23:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <56412f45$0$1667$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #332017 |
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:05:09 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2015-11-09, Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> wrote: >> On 09/11/2015 08:51 pm, JEDIDIAH wrote: >> >>> MacOS is hardly a "unix clone" really. >>> >>> >> Yes, it is, > > Not from the point of view of an actual end user. > > This includes both the "never gonna see the terminal" typical sort of > Mac user as well as the dyed in the wool genuine Unix user. > > [deletia] > >> It even has UNIX 03 Certification, Linux doesn't have that... > > So? That certification is pretty much meaningless to anyone but silly > consumers that feel butthurt that their pet brand seems inferior. IKR? <troll> Linux isn't UNIX(R)! <LinuxUser> Who cares? Besides, Linux is _a_ "Unix" -- that is to say, a "Unix-like operating system" -- and has all but taken over the world. Linux is computing done right. -- -v Kernel:4.3.0-sd Desktop:Xfce 4.12.2 Distro:Linux Mint 17.2 Rafaela
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 16:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D2667F06.6357B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #332068 |
On 11/9/15, 4:41 PM, in article 56412f45$0$1667$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com, "vallor" <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >> >> Not from the point of view of an actual end user. >> >> This includes both the "never gonna see the terminal" typical sort of >> Mac user as well as the dyed in the wool genuine Unix user. >> >> [deletia] >> >>> It even has UNIX 03 Certification, Linux doesn't have that... >> >> So? That certification is pretty much meaningless to anyone but silly >> consumers that feel butthurt that their pet brand seems inferior. > > IKR? > > <troll> Linux isn't UNIX(R)! > <LinuxUser> Who cares? > > Besides, Linux is _a_ "Unix" -- that is to say, a "Unix-like operating > system" -- and has all but taken over the world. > > Linux is computing done right. Would love to see some examples on the desktop where it handles things better than the competition. Here are some example tasks... but feel free to come up with your own! * From a single online recipe (or art project, lesson plan, whatever) save it and email a PDF version where you add notes to it. Now I know this can be done on Linux; save, open, edit, email. Just curious to see how you people would generally do it and how streamlined the workflow would be. A couple ways I might: <https://youtu.be/NPM_WldEBs0>. * Make a video, as Owl and I have been, but with cursor replacement / resizing (post production), window highlighting, zooming, arbitrary area highlighting. For me these were done just to show something else: <https://youtu.be/aSNpnYpmKag>. I have many other options but picked these because they fit the real-world example I did shortly before coming up with the "challenge". * Getting a WayBackArchive page and getting images of all links, the HTML validation and CSS validation from W3.org, and a active link to the archive page, as I did here (does not have to look the exact same, of course): <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>. -- * 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 | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 18:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <HvCdnUdAd5qU2tzLnZ2dnUU7-LGdnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #332068 |
On 11/09/15 16:41, vallor wrote: > On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:05:09 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote: > >> On 2015-11-09, Saint George<stgeorge@england.eng> wrote: >>> On 09/11/2015 08:51 pm, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>> >>>> MacOS is hardly a "unix clone" really. >>>> >>>> >>> Yes, it is, >> >> Not from the point of view of an actual end user. >> >> This includes both the "never gonna see the terminal" typical sort of >> Mac user as well as the dyed in the wool genuine Unix user. >> >> [deletia] >> >>> It even has UNIX 03 Certification, Linux doesn't have that... >> >> So? That certification is pretty much meaningless to anyone but silly >> consumers that feel butthurt that their pet brand seems inferior. > > IKR? > > <troll> Linux isn't UNIX(R)! > <LinuxUser> Who cares? > > Besides, Linux is _a_ "Unix" -- that is to say, a "Unix-like operating > system" -- and has all but taken over the world. > > Linux is computing done right. > You mean "Almost done right". -- My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 18:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <HvCdnURAd5pA29zLnZ2dnUU7-LGdnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #332017 |
On 11/09/15 15:05, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2015-11-09, Saint George<stgeorge@england.eng> wrote: >> On 09/11/2015 08:51 pm, JEDIDIAH wrote: >> >>> MacOS is hardly a "unix clone" really. >>> >> >> Yes, it is, > > Not from the point of view of an actual end user. > Um, dude, MacOS isn't OS X. > This includes both the "never gonna see the terminal" typical sort of > Mac user as well as the dyed in the wool genuine Unix user. > > [deletia] > >> It even has UNIX 03 Certification, Linux doesn't have that... > > So? That certification is pretty much meaningless to anyone but silly > consumers that feel butthurt that their pet brand seems inferior. > You keep repeating that Mantra a lot. Worthless to a lot of people tho. >> >> OS X[edit] >> Apple's OS X is a UNIX 03 registered product,[15] first becoming >> registered with Mac OS X v10.5 "Leopard" on October 26, 2007 (when run >> on Macs with Intel processors).[16][17] All newer versions of OS X >> (except Mac OS X Lion) have been registered.[18] >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification > > ...again, nothing to impress anyone but the clueless. At least in your mind. -- My problem is that I don't have enough middle fingers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 15:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D2666769.6350E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #331983 |
On 11/9/15, 1:51 PM, in article slrnn421r1.oua.jedi@nomad.mishnet, "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: > On 2015-11-09, Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> 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... > > So? Linux can do the heavy lifting that Windows can't because it's a Unix. > Linux can do the heavy lifting that Macs won't because it's a Unix. Pretending > that the Unix-ness of Linux is "nothing special" is just a sad way of > deflecting. > > Linux makes Unix "cool" and cheap. > > It makes the world safe for Unix against a monopoly juggernaut. > > MacOS is hardly a "unix clone" really. MacOS was not at all a Unix-like system. OS X is a certified UNIX. -- * 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 | Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 22:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1r6f6$ba0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #332019 |
On 09/11/2015 10:08 pm, Snit wrote: > On 11/9/15, 1:51 PM, in article slrnn421r1.oua.jedi@nomad.mishnet, > "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: > >> On 2015-11-09, Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> 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... >> >> So? Linux can do the heavy lifting that Windows can't because it's a Unix. >> Linux can do the heavy lifting that Macs won't because it's a Unix. Pretending >> that the Unix-ness of Linux is "nothing special" is just a sad way of >> deflecting. >> >> Linux makes Unix "cool" and cheap. >> >> It makes the world safe for Unix against a monopoly juggernaut. >> >> MacOS is hardly a "unix clone" really. > > MacOS was not at all a Unix-like system. OS X is a certified UNIX. > > Apple did have a Unix enviroment for the "Classic" MacOS back in the '90s called A/UX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A/UX
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 22:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dackuvFc9qU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #332033 |
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 22:26:54 +0000, Saint George wrote: > On 09/11/2015 10:08 pm, Snit wrote: >> On 11/9/15, 1:51 PM, in article slrnn421r1.oua.jedi@nomad.mishnet, >> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: >> >>> On 2015-11-09, Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> 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... >>> >>> So? Linux can do the heavy lifting that Windows can't because it's >>> a Unix. >>> Linux can do the heavy lifting that Macs won't because it's a Unix. >>> Pretending that the Unix-ness of Linux is "nothing special" is just a >>> sad way of deflecting. >>> >>> Linux makes Unix "cool" and cheap. >>> >>> It makes the world safe for Unix against a monopoly juggernaut. >>> >>> MacOS is hardly a "unix clone" really. >> >> MacOS was not at all a Unix-like system. OS X is a certified UNIX. >> >> > Apple did have a Unix enviroment for the "Classic" MacOS back in the > '90s called A/UX > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A/UX A/UX was a Unix -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 15:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D2666C86.63538%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #332033 |
On 11/9/15, 3:26 PM, in article n1r6f6$ba0$1@dont-email.me, "Saint George" <stgeorge@england.eng> wrote: > On 09/11/2015 10:08 pm, Snit wrote: >> On 11/9/15, 1:51 PM, in article slrnn421r1.oua.jedi@nomad.mishnet, >> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: >> >>> On 2015-11-09, Saint George <stgeorge@england.eng> 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... >>> >>> So? Linux can do the heavy lifting that Windows can't because it's a >>> Unix. >>> Linux can do the heavy lifting that Macs won't because it's a Unix. >>> Pretending >>> that the Unix-ness of Linux is "nothing special" is just a sad way of >>> deflecting. >>> >>> Linux makes Unix "cool" and cheap. >>> >>> It makes the world safe for Unix against a monopoly juggernaut. >>> >>> MacOS is hardly a "unix clone" really. >> >> MacOS was not at all a Unix-like system. OS X is a certified UNIX. >> >> > Apple did have a Unix enviroment for the "Classic" MacOS back in the > '90s called A/UX > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A/UX > Yes. I even used it some... but I meant the standard Mac OS. I doubt JEDIDIAH meant A/UX. He is just lost. -- * 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]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web