Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #318621 > unrolled thread
| Started by | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-02 15:43 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-09-04 04:55 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 168 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-02 15:43 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-02 17:45 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-02 15:52 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 08:54 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2015-09-03 00:12 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-02 18:00 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-02 16:07 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 18:40 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-02 12:09 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 20:43 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 21:19 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 23:31 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-02 20:36 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-03 09:17 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-03 10:06 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-03 08:47 -0400
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-03 13:22 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-03 10:10 -0400
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-03 09:31 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-03 16:47 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-03 22:29 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-03 23:48 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-04 01:38 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-04 02:50 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-04 04:34 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-03 23:35 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-04 07:39 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-04 01:00 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 16:59 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 17:15 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-05 10:40 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 18:51 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-05 13:09 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-05 10:39 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-05 20:03 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 18:50 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-05 13:16 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 20:52 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-05 19:58 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-05 20:39 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 19:13 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-05 21:26 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 19:43 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 19:50 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 19:55 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 13:39 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-05 23:14 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-05 23:28 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-06 00:02 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-06 01:24 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-06 02:12 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-06 02:33 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 01:03 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-06 03:24 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-06 09:45 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-06 06:40 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-06 09:58 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-06 03:40 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2015-09-06 03:04 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2015-09-06 04:48 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2015-09-06 06:46 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-06 06:14 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-06 07:21 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-06 08:12 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-06 10:09 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-06 10:24 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-06 09:00 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-06 10:55 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-06 18:44 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 19:24 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-06 21:47 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-06 09:35 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-06 12:03 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-06 21:04 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-06 23:18 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-06 21:51 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-06 22:37 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-06 23:08 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-06 23:38 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-07 00:10 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-08 09:15 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-08 09:18 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-08 10:04 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-09 01:44 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-09 02:00 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-08 19:05 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-09 09:23 -0400
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-09 09:44 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-09 12:47 -0400
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-09 10:04 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-09 13:15 -0400
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-09 10:28 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-08 19:00 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-09 02:12 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-08 19:18 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-09 02:30 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-08 19:33 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-08 07:42 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-08 15:30 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-08 09:05 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-08 08:02 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-08 12:10 -0400
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-08 09:17 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 22:53 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-06 01:00 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-09-07 00:10 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Melzzzzz <melz@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-07 02:12 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-06 01:04 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-05 12:45 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 19:48 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-05 13:20 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-05 13:38 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 19:10 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-05 12:48 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-05 19:53 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-05 13:26 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-04 09:28 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-04 04:52 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-03 23:48 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2015-09-04 05:13 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-03 23:49 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2015-09-04 07:34 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-04 00:48 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-05 10:09 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-06 09:42 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-06 07:49 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 19:26 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-08 07:34 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-08 08:31 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-03 09:33 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-03 16:48 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-05 10:08 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-05 13:36 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 11:45 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-05 01:26 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-05 02:27 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 23:30 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-05 02:15 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 21:19 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-07 04:39 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-05 01:15 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-05 02:12 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-05 02:26 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 21:21 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-07 04:46 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-07 10:18 -0400
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-03 04:27 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-03 09:26 -0400
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-03 10:37 -0400
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 20:40 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 21:17 +0200
Snit Michael Glasser unable to do simple search Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 23:02 +0200
Re: Snit Michael Glasser unable to do simple search hifye <hifye@humanoid.net> - 2015-09-02 17:10 -0400
Re: Snit Michael Glasser unable to do simple search Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 01:09 +0200
Re: Peter Köhlmann admits he has no clue what he is talking about "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-02 17:50 -0400
Re: Peter Köhlmann admits he has no clue what he is talking about Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-05 01:17 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-03 12:02 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-03 13:02 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-03 13:16 -0500
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-02 20:42 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 09:08 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 20:35 +0200
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2015-09-03 00:12 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2015-09-03 01:07 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2015-09-03 01:39 +0000
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-03 04:28 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX Debbie Ballard <rex.ballard@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 21:10 -0700
Re: Three more weeks of UNIX owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-04 04:55 +0000
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-02 15:43 +0000 |
| Subject | Three more weeks of UNIX |
| Message-ID | <390avmv9.jiida@rooftop.invalid> |
Three more weeks until OS X Yosemite is no longer UNIX Certified. http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1201p.pdf Not a peep about UNIX Certification for THe Captain.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-02 17:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20150902174520.0220a6bc@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #318621 |
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:43:39 +0000 (UTC) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Three more weeks until OS X Yosemite is no longer UNIX Certified. > > http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1201p.pdf > > Not a peep about UNIX Certification for THe Captain. > Perhaps they will release next version which they will certify?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-02 15:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fn39.apxp@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #318623 |
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:43:39 +0000 (UTC) > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> Three more weeks until OS X Yosemite is no longer UNIX Certified. >> >> http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1201p.pdf >> >> Not a peep about UNIX Certification for THe Captain. >> > Perhaps they will release next version which they will certify? It's due out any time now. No mention of UNIX at all on this page: http://www.apple.com/osx/elcapitan-preview/ The may skip it from here on out. OS X is more like Windows 95 than unix anyway. I don't know why they bother with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-02 08:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3fdc9b2c-85ee-42a8-b2af-b180961e367b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #318627 |
On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 9:52:18 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: > Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:43:39 +0000 (UTC) > > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > >> Three more weeks until OS X Yosemite is no longer UNIX Certified. > >> > >> http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1201p.pdf > >> > >> Not a peep about UNIX Certification for THe Captain. > >> > > > Perhaps they will release next version which they will certify? > > It's due out any time now. No mention of UNIX at all on this page: > > http://www.apple.com/osx/elcapitan-preview/ > > The may skip it from here on out. OS X is more like Windows 95 than unix > anyway. I don't know why they bother with it. I think they've historically been catering to a small segment of users that require use of an 'official' one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 00:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ms838v$ip0$2@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #318629 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 9:52:18 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: >> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:43:39 +0000 (UTC) >>> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>>> Three more weeks until OS X Yosemite is no longer UNIX Certified. >>>> >>>> http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1201p.pdf >>>> >>>> Not a peep about UNIX Certification for THe Captain. >>>> >> >>> Perhaps they will release next version which they will certify? >> >> It's due out any time now. No mention of UNIX at all on this page: >> >> http://www.apple.com/osx/elcapitan-preview/ >> >> The may skip it from here on out. OS X is more like Windows 95 than unix >> anyway. I don't know why they bother with it. > > I think they've historically been catering to a small segment of users > that require use of an 'official' one. Don't they have server version of OS X? I assume UNIX certification is good to have for server OS. -- dunno
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-02 18:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20150902180059.56f0ddc5@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #318627 |
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:52:16 +0000 (UTC) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:43:39 +0000 (UTC) > > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > >> Three more weeks until OS X Yosemite is no longer UNIX Certified. > >> > >> http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1201p.pdf > >> > >> Not a peep about UNIX Certification for THe Captain. > >> > > > Perhaps they will release next version which they will certify? > > It's due out any time now. No mention of UNIX at all on this page: > > http://www.apple.com/osx/elcapitan-preview/ > > The may skip it from here on out. OS X is more like Windows 95 than > unix anyway. I don't know why they bother with it. > It sounds nice ;) I tried hacked version of OSX yosemite in Vbox and it works like a snail. Had to thinker installation because it hangs, but anyway I got friendly GUI finally. Erased it from disk after some hour ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-02 16:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <famc9.jfi@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #318633 |
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:52:16 +0000 (UTC) > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:43:39 +0000 (UTC) >> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> Three more weeks until OS X Yosemite is no longer UNIX Certified. >> >> >> >> http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1201p.pdf >> >> >> >> Not a peep about UNIX Certification for THe Captain. >> >> >> >> > Perhaps they will release next version which they will certify? >> >> It's due out any time now. No mention of UNIX at all on this page: >> >> http://www.apple.com/osx/elcapitan-preview/ >> >> The may skip it from here on out. OS X is more like Windows 95 than >> unix anyway. I don't know why they bother with it. >> > It sounds nice ;) > I tried hacked version of OSX yosemite in Vbox and it works like a > snail. Had to thinker installation because it hangs, but anyway I got > friendly GUI finally. Erased it from disk after some hour ... I know. These new features sound fantastic: <quote> ... working in multiple apps at the same time. Searching for information. Keeping tabs on your favorite websites. Checking email. Taking notes. And much more. </quote>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-02 18:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ms78na$h81$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #318635 |
owl wrote: > Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:52:16 +0000 (UTC) >> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: >>> > On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:43:39 +0000 (UTC) >>> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> >> Three more weeks until OS X Yosemite is no longer UNIX Certified. >>> >> >>> >> http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1201p.pdf >>> >> >>> >> Not a peep about UNIX Certification for THe Captain. >>> >> >>> >>> > Perhaps they will release next version which they will certify? >>> >>> It's due out any time now. No mention of UNIX at all on this page: >>> >>> http://www.apple.com/osx/elcapitan-preview/ >>> >>> The may skip it from here on out. OS X is more like Windows 95 than >>> unix anyway. I don't know why they bother with it. >>> > >> It sounds nice ;) >> I tried hacked version of OSX yosemite in Vbox and it works like a >> snail. Had to thinker installation because it hangs, but anyway I got >> friendly GUI finally. Erased it from disk after some hour ... > > I know. These new features sound fantastic: > <quote> > ... working in multiple apps at the same time. Searching for > information. Keeping tabs on your favorite websites. Checking > email. Taking notes. And much more. > </quote> Yes. Sounds really exciting. Something we would not have expected this early from apple. After all, this was old news early in the 90th
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-02 12:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dfaeuat823o4fpn0om69a9g1q711vsbept@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #318642 |
Peter Köhlmann wrote: > bowel wrote: >> >> I know. These new features sound fantastic: >> <quote> >> ... working in multiple apps at the same time. Searching for >> information. Keeping tabs on your favorite websites. Checking >> email. Taking notes. And much more. >> </quote> > >Yes. Sounds really exciting. Something we would not have expected this early >from apple. After all, this was old news early in the 90th To be fair, Apple has to "dumb it down" in their marketing. If they used any big words, they would frighten-off the morons who love the Mac. Check-out the below Kreep attack on Homer. First, Kreep dishonestly claims that Homer's claims and positions were "all over the map". Then, Kreep uses this (false) premise to "logically" conclude that Homer has no "real beliefs or morals"! One could read what Homer posted in here, and conclude that he had no real beliefs or morals? Really? Well, I guess the Kreep's "logical argument" proves it, huh? Sheesh. What a POS, Kreep is! -- "If (Homer) actually had any real beliefs or morals he wouldn't be all over the map with his claims and positions." - Ezekreep
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-02 20:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ms7fu2$gbl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #318645 |
Snit wrote: > On 9/2/15, 10:09 AM, in article > dfaeuat823o4fpn0om69a9g1q711vsbept@4ax.com, "chrisv" > <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> >>> bowel wrote: >>>> >>>> I know. These new features sound fantastic: >>>> <quote> >>>> ... working in multiple apps at the same time. Searching for >>>> information. Keeping tabs on your favorite websites. Checking >>>> email. Taking notes. And much more. >>>> </quote> >>> >>> Yes. Sounds really exciting. Something we would not have expected this >>> early from apple. After all, this was old news early in the 90th >> >> To be fair, Apple has to "dumb it down" in their marketing. If they >> used any big words, they would frighten-off the morons who love the >> Mac. > > You say this as you guys show that what they said went over your head. > > They are not speaking of being able to do these things - but doing them > better. Focusing on productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction. > And removing things which have already worked. Let them continue that way, and OSX will nearly have the level of capabilities of the Sinclair Z80
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-02 21:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ms7i10$pg5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #318664 |
Snit wrote: > On 9/2/15, 11:43 AM, in article ms7fu2$gbl$2@dont-email.me, "Peter > Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > >> Snit wrote: >> >>> On 9/2/15, 10:09 AM, in article >>> dfaeuat823o4fpn0om69a9g1q711vsbept@4ax.com, "chrisv" >>> <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>> >>>>> bowel wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I know. These new features sound fantastic: >>>>>> <quote> >>>>>> ... working in multiple apps at the same time. Searching for >>>>>> information. Keeping tabs on your favorite websites. Checking >>>>>> email. Taking notes. And much more. >>>>>> </quote> >>>>> >>>>> Yes. Sounds really exciting. Something we would not have expected this >>>>> early from apple. After all, this was old news early in the 90th >>>> >>>> To be fair, Apple has to "dumb it down" in their marketing. If they >>>> used any big words, they would frighten-off the morons who love the >>>> Mac. >>> >>> You say this as you guys show that what they said went over your head. >>> >>> They are not speaking of being able to do these things - but doing them >>> better. Focusing on productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction. >>> >> >> And removing things which have already worked. Let them continue that >> way, and OSX will nearly have the level of capabilities of the Sinclair >> Z80 > > And yet I will STILL be able to show how it does things you cannot show > Linux doing. Count on it. :) > You will still show things nobody else will show, no matter which OS. Count on it. Few people are as stupid as you need them to be to fall into that trap
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-02 23:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ms80td$ioq$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #318666 |
On Wed, 02 Sep 2015 21:19:41 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > You will still show things nobody else will show, no matter which OS. > Count on it. Few people are as stupid as you need them to be to fall > into that trap Does the troll imagine we should spend our lives trying to find ways to jump through his hoops? What a self-centered, small-minded asshole. -- Zero tolerance for LYING WinDrones & iCultists
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-02 20:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfha.fa8@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #318664 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 9/2/15, 12:11 PM, in article d4ovvhFl3ghU3@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd > Parsons" <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Yes. Sounds really exciting. Something we would not have expected this >>>>>> early from apple. After all, this was old news early in the 90th >>>>>> >>>>> To be fair, Apple has to "dumb it down" in their marketing. If they used >>>>> any big words, they would frighten-off the morons who love the Mac. >>>>> >>>> You say this as you guys show that what they said went over your head. >>>> >>>> They are not speaking of being able to do these things - but doing them >>>> better. Focusing on productivity, efficiency, and error-reduction. >>>> >>>> >>> And removing things which have already worked. Let them continue that way, >>> and OSX will nearly have the level of capabilities of the Sinclair Z80 >>> >> >> >> since it is already way beyond that I doubt they'd take the step backwards. >> And in UI, they are miles ahead of Linux in any form. > Owl has kindly gone out of his way to show that. Ha!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 09:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <famdnv83.ajdfi@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #318682 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 9/2/15, 1:36 PM, in article pfha.fa8@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > ... >>>> since it is already way beyond that I doubt they'd take the step backwards. >>>> And in UI, they are miles ahead of Linux in any form. >> >>> Owl has kindly gone out of his way to show that. >> >> Ha! >> > Hey, from what you and I show OS X is more than 4 times faster than Linux, > right? :) > Mine: <https://youtu.be/akFfpX77z-E> 18 seconds for 22 files > average = 0.8 / file > Yours: <https://vid.me/X4kA> 70 seconds for 20 files! > average = 3.5 / file > 3.5 / 0.8 = 4.37 > Thus the Mac is over four times faster than Linux. Owl has proved it! Why does the menu bar not switch to say "Safari" when you click on the URL in that window? Why does it still say "Finder"? Here's the way it looked before in another video when you clicked on the site to get the links individually: http://i.imgur.com/v1LAf2p.png The menu bar switched to say "Safari." Here's how it looks now when you click on the URL to get the menu to run your script: http://i.imgur.com/n5r9DNz.png The menu bar still says "Finder." Is that a screenshot of the allrecipes.com site taken with paparazzi that you are viewing? What's with the YemuZip icon on your toolbar? http://i.imgur.com/Ks7dEyz.png What exactly does the menu mean by "Download linked allrecipes.com recipes"? What does it mean by "linked"? Are those just files just links to the online printer-friendly pages that you have named with a PDF extension? Alternatively, are you just extracting a local archive in this video? Enquiring minds want to know... How about you do it again and show the current time along with the timestamps of the downloaded and converted files. Open them in a PDF viewer and show file properties.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 10:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D20DCC34.59D74%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #318756 |
On 9/3/15, 2:17 AM, in article famdnv83.ajdfi@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 9/2/15, 1:36 PM, in article pfha.fa8@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>
>> ...
>>>>> since it is already way beyond that I doubt they'd take the step
>>>>> backwards.
>>>>> And in UI, they are miles ahead of Linux in any form.
>>>
>>>> Owl has kindly gone out of his way to show that.
>>>
>>> Ha!
>>>
>> Hey, from what you and I show OS X is more than 4 times faster than Linux,
>> right? :)
>
>> Mine: <https://youtu.be/akFfpX77z-E> 18 seconds for 22 files
>> average = 0.8 / file
>> Yours: <https://vid.me/X4kA> 70 seconds for 20 files!
>> average = 3.5 / file
>
>> 3.5 / 0.8 = 4.37
>
>> Thus the Mac is over four times faster than Linux. Owl has proved it!
>
> Why does the menu bar not switch to say "Safari" when you click on
> the URL in that window? Why does it still say "Finder"?
As we have discussed: OS X has what I believe you call "sloppy focus" with
the scroll wheel and right clicking.
> Here's the way it looked before in another video when you clicked on
> the site to get the links individually:
>
> http://i.imgur.com/v1LAf2p.png
>
> The menu bar switched to say "Safari."
>
> Here's how it looks now when you click on the URL to get the menu to run
> your script:
>
> http://i.imgur.com/n5r9DNz.png
>
> The menu bar still says "Finder."
Depends on if I single click or not.
> Is that a screenshot of the allrecipes.com site taken with paparazzi
> that you are viewing? What's with the YemuZip icon on your toolbar?
>
> http://i.imgur.com/Ks7dEyz.png
YemuZip is not even relevant. I have that in my toolbar because I like the
way it zips files over how OS X does it natively (OS X includes the
Apple-specific "hidden" files).
> What exactly does the menu mean by "Download linked allrecipes.com
> recipes"? What does it mean by "linked"? Are those just files just
> links to the online printer-friendly pages that you have named with a
> PDF extension? Alternatively, are you just extracting a local archive
> in this video? Enquiring minds want to know...
The name of the Service is what I gave it. I could call it "sing to the
elephants". What is does is gets the links from the page I click on, pulls
out the ones tied to recipes, modifies them to include the "print" option,
and then downloads those files.
In real time.
> How about you do it again and show the current time along with the
> timestamps of the downloaded and converted files. Open them in a PDF
> viewer and show file properties.
In other words the Mac is so good you cannot believe it does what it does.
LOL! Love it. But, sure, with no post processing at all - not even to swap
the mouse pointer:
<http://youtu.be/lmuGvTR4uF0>
* Show the time.
* Show editing what is showing on the time (this would be harder to
fake... and even show time on menu but time on System Preferences
both covered, partially covered, and not - making it harder to
"fake")
* Run the script, careful to not left click on Safari so that it
will not say "Safari" as before. I can have it say it if you
want.
* Show running the script... waiting until the top of a minute
to make it easier to see how long it takes
* Show date stamps of all files, in Finder and Info / Inspector
screen.
* Show opening a file.
You also can see the progress bar in the Dock (I could turn that on or off
by the way) and the creator of the file: Paparazzi. I was open before about
how I was using that tool... one I *already* had. Only thing different is I
updated it when I first opened it for the first time in a long time... I did
this a few days ago as I said.
Usually snip out ending the video. Did not even do that. Notice even that is
faster on a Mac... I mean you have to run to a terminal screen - you show it
in your every video. Me, I go to a menu... and, as I show, could even use a
hot key (you can see the hot key in the menu). Even this is faster on a Mac,
right? :)
Aren't you a programmer? I am not. And yet on this scripting / programming
task, I am able to get my Mac to do a scripted task more than four times
faster than you are on Linux. So fast, in fact, that your public reaction is
to assume it is not likely to be true and to ask for proof. LOL! Come on,
Owl... no trickery here. Just showing the Mac and what it can do with YOUR
handpicked scripting task... in the hands of a non-programmer.
Usually for these I do not keep the raw video files - I have it so I can
zoom if you want or whatever.
--
* 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 | "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 08:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ms9fd5$upa$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #318682 |
On 2015-09-02 6:58 PM, Snit wrote: > On 9/2/15, 1:36 PM, in article pfha.fa8@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > ... >>>> since it is already way beyond that I doubt they'd take the step backwards. >>>> And in UI, they are miles ahead of Linux in any form. >> >>> Owl has kindly gone out of his way to show that. >> >> Ha! >> > Hey, from what you and I show OS X is more than 4 times faster than Linux, > right? :) > > Mine: <https://youtu.be/akFfpX77z-E> 18 seconds for 22 files > average = 0.8 / file > Yours: <https://vid.me/X4kA> 70 seconds for 20 files! > average = 3.5 / file > > 3.5 / 0.8 = 4.37 > > Thus the Mac is over four times faster than Linux. Owl has proved it! Hooray for the Mac demonstrating its superiority - with owl's help no less - over Linux! When Linux can't even beat the most sluggish operating system on the market, you know it sucks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 13:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <famvn83.sadfj@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #318768 |
A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > On 2015-09-02 6:58 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 9/2/15, 1:36 PM, in article pfha.fa8@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >> ... >>>>> since it is already way beyond that I doubt they'd take the step backwards. >>>>> And in UI, they are miles ahead of Linux in any form. >>> >>>> Owl has kindly gone out of his way to show that. >>> >>> Ha! >>> >> Hey, from what you and I show OS X is more than 4 times faster than Linux, >> right? :) >> >> Mine: <https://youtu.be/akFfpX77z-E> 18 seconds for 22 files >> average = 0.8 / file >> Yours: <https://vid.me/X4kA> 70 seconds for 20 files! >> average = 3.5 / file >> >> 3.5 / 0.8 = 4.37 >> >> Thus the Mac is over four times faster than Linux. Owl has proved it! > Hooray for the Mac demonstrating its superiority - with owl's help no > less - over Linux! When Linux can't even beat the most sluggish > operating system on the market, you know it sucks. You mean when he fakes it with local files.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 10:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ms9k8o$jdd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #318778 |
On 2015-09-03 9:22 AM, owl wrote: > A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> On 2015-09-02 6:58 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 9/2/15, 1:36 PM, in article pfha.fa8@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>>> since it is already way beyond that I doubt they'd take the step backwards. >>>>>> And in UI, they are miles ahead of Linux in any form. >>>> >>>>> Owl has kindly gone out of his way to show that. >>>> >>>> Ha! >>>> >>> Hey, from what you and I show OS X is more than 4 times faster than Linux, >>> right? :) >>> >>> Mine: <https://youtu.be/akFfpX77z-E> 18 seconds for 22 files >>> average = 0.8 / file >>> Yours: <https://vid.me/X4kA> 70 seconds for 20 files! >>> average = 3.5 / file >>> >>> 3.5 / 0.8 = 4.37 >>> >>> Thus the Mac is over four times faster than Linux. Owl has proved it! > >> Hooray for the Mac demonstrating its superiority - with owl's help no >> less - over Linux! When Linux can't even beat the most sluggish >> operating system on the market, you know it sucks. > > You mean when he fakes it with local files. To be honest, I was kidding around. I don't think OS X would beat Linux in anything; the operating system (other than being intuitive) sucks for me. I just took offense to the fact that you called me a sock and wanted to bother you. I thought that you knew me better. -- A.M
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 09:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D20DC40E.59D5E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #318778 |
On 9/3/15, 6:22 AM, in article famvn83.sadfj@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> On 2015-09-02 6:58 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 9/2/15, 1:36 PM, in article pfha.fa8@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>>> since it is already way beyond that I doubt they'd take the step >>>>>> backwards. >>>>>> And in UI, they are miles ahead of Linux in any form. >>>> >>>>> Owl has kindly gone out of his way to show that. >>>> >>>> Ha! >>>> >>> Hey, from what you and I show OS X is more than 4 times faster than Linux, >>> right? :) >>> >>> Mine: <https://youtu.be/akFfpX77z-E> 18 seconds for 22 files >>> average = 0.8 / file >>> Yours: <https://vid.me/X4kA> 70 seconds for 20 files! >>> average = 3.5 / file >>> >>> 3.5 / 0.8 = 4.37 >>> >>> Thus the Mac is over four times faster than Linux. Owl has proved it! > >> Hooray for the Mac demonstrating its superiority - with owl's help no >> less - over Linux! When Linux can't even beat the most sluggish >> operating system on the market, you know it sucks. > > You mean when he fakes it with local files. > Nope. No local files. That is all happening real time, as you watch. -- * 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 | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 16:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fsmcn8.vzkci@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #318812 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 9/3/15, 6:22 AM, in article famvn83.sadfj@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>> On 2015-09-02 6:58 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> On 9/2/15, 1:36 PM, in article pfha.fa8@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>> ... >>>>>>> since it is already way beyond that I doubt they'd take the step >>>>>>> backwards. >>>>>>> And in UI, they are miles ahead of Linux in any form. >>>>> >>>>>> Owl has kindly gone out of his way to show that. >>>>> >>>>> Ha! >>>>> >>>> Hey, from what you and I show OS X is more than 4 times faster than Linux, >>>> right? :) >>>> >>>> Mine: <https://youtu.be/akFfpX77z-E> 18 seconds for 22 files >>>> average = 0.8 / file >>>> Yours: <https://vid.me/X4kA> 70 seconds for 20 files! >>>> average = 3.5 / file >>>> >>>> 3.5 / 0.8 = 4.37 >>>> >>>> Thus the Mac is over four times faster than Linux. Owl has proved it! >> >>> Hooray for the Mac demonstrating its superiority - with owl's help no >>> less - over Linux! When Linux can't even beat the most sluggish >>> operating system on the market, you know it sucks. >> >> You mean when he fakes it with local files. >> > Nope. No local files. That is all happening real time, as you watch. Bullshit. Answer these questions: Why does the menu bar not switch to say "Safari" when you click on the URL in that window? Why does it still say "Finder"? Here's the way it looked before in another video when you clicked on the site to get the links individually: http://i.imgur.com/v1LAf2p.png The menu bar switched to say "Safari." Here's how it looks now when you click on the URL to get the menu to run your script: http://i.imgur.com/n5r9DNz.png The menu bar still says "Finder." Is that a screenshot of the allrecipes.com site taken with paparazzi that you are viewing? What's with the YemuZip icon on your toolbar? http://i.imgur.com/Ks7dEyz.png What exactly does the menu mean by "Download linked allrecipes.com recipes"? What does it mean by "linked"? Are those just files just links to the online printer-friendly pages that you have named with a PDF extension? Alternatively, are you just extracting a local archive in this video? Enquiring minds want to know... How about you do it again and show the current time along with the timestamps of the downloaded and converted files. Show the folder with detailed listing showing file creation dates as they arrive Open them in a PDF viewer and show file properties. And open a netstat window so we can see it connect: BSD nestat doesn't have a '-c' option, so this will let it loop: $ while [ 1 ]; do netstat -an -f inet; sleep 1;clear; done
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web