Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #320962 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-15 19:04 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-09-16 15:11 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 142 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 19:04 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-15 19:48 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-15 20:57 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 01:04 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 01:02 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-15 20:11 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 01:18 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-15 20:26 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 12:20 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-16 10:12 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 10:43 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 18:25 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-16 21:50 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 22:16 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-16 22:27 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 22:35 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-16 23:08 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 23:18 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-16 23:35 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2015-09-16 18:46 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 00:22 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 00:44 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 18:01 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-17 09:36 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-17 14:06 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:39 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-17 08:08 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 10:39 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 10:53 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 10:41 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-18 07:52 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 07:57 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-18 17:56 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 09:11 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-18 12:39 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 11:17 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-18 12:46 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 10:26 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-18 15:24 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-18 08:42 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-18 16:04 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 08:01 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 08:05 -0700
Peter Köhlmann thinks UNIX did not exist before OS X Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 10:49 -0700
Snit Michael Glasser lying his ass off (again) Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-17 21:47 +0200
Re: Snit Michael Glasser lying his ass off (again) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 13:04 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 11:09 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2015-09-17 13:13 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 13:07 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 14:03 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 03:25 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2015-09-17 08:02 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 13:45 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 17:14 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 17:33 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 03:17 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 20:50 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-17 09:44 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 10:52 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-17 21:50 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 13:04 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 22:49 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 16:05 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-17 19:25 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 17:33 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 14:23 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 10:43 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-17 08:09 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 13:50 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 17:07 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-17 22:03 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 17:24 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-17 01:40 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2015-09-16 18:46 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 00:45 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 00:48 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-16 23:55 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:36 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:44 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-17 19:01 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 00:05 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-17 20:36 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 18:44 -0700
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:55 +0000
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 18:00 +0000
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-18 13:56 -0500
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 19:11 +0000
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 13:13 -0700
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 20:42 +0000
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 13:59 -0700
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 21:07 +0000
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-09-18 15:47 -0600
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-09-18 17:17 -0700
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 17:40 -0700
Re: An example of how/why bitter iCultists fail! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 17:24 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-18 20:55 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-18 07:49 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 13:09 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-18 09:26 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-18 10:01 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:42 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:58 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 18:02 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-16 23:21 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:34 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-17 19:04 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-16 19:44 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2015-09-16 18:48 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 03:32 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 20:53 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-17 08:45 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:51 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 11:04 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 10:55 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-17 08:40 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 14:29 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-17 12:35 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-17 18:51 +0200
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 17:05 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 17:05 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 17:22 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-09-17 06:49 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 14:05 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-09-17 07:48 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 15:35 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-17 12:32 -0400
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-09-17 10:42 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 19:54 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 17:09 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 19:48 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2015-09-17 14:59 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 22:15 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 22:19 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-17 22:33 +0000
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 15:54 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 15:55 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-09-17 19:20 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 15:52 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-17 19:24 -0500
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 13:06 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 13:07 -0700
Re: An example of how/why commercial linux desktop fails! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-16 15:11 -0500
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 17:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D21F55C1.5BC54%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #321184 |
On 9/16/15, 3:35 PM, in article d5u94qFtm0U3@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Do you think the tooth fairy is going to help with that? Or is it >>> possible that the 'advocates' and 'supporters' should be putting up a >>> little cash? >> >> Linux is not Canonical. Linux is doing fine. Nobody cares if Canonical >> dies off. Just another blip on the timeline. > > Slight correction, linux on the desktop is doing fine in the hobbyist/ > developer market and is finding some much smaller acceptance beyond > that. And that will not change until attitudes change no matter how good > linux on the desktop is or gets to be. > > Canonical and others have tried to monetize linux desktop and have found > no market. And with the 'free and open' nature of linux it never will > happen. Couple that with the really piss poor attitudes of some very > vociferous 'advocates' and 'supporters' and you have the sure fire > formula for commercial failure. The "advocates" and others like them, and they are all too common in the open source community, do more harm to desktop Linux adoption than MS or any "trolls" could possibly do. -- * 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 | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 06:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a8aef520-d149-4037-812d-b219b3073869@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #321106 |
On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 11:12:03 AM UTC-4, chrisv wrote: > > It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" take > pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an alternative > product with little apparent significance. Oh, it isn't "puzzling" at all when you choose to overlook the actual message. The actual message was (as the subject line pointed out) yet another example of how Linux has consistently failed to gain market traction. > Most of us like to see healthy competition, and to have lots of > choices. Me, I'm happy to see Apple's products in the market, even if > I choose not to buy them. Hell, I'm even glad to have Micro$oft as a > viable choice in the mobile-phone market. > > It doesn't make sense, until one considers that they are just that > scared of the competitive threat that Free software poses, after > seeing Android come from nothing to roar to market leadership in just > a few short years. It is quite interesting to hear chrisv first promote 'healthy' competition and then to try use Android as a notional example, when we all know that the reality is that Android wouldn't have existed had it not been by huge bankrolling by Google. As to just how huge, the number is at least in the tens of billions. Case in point: "Google: We're Spending $12.5 Billion on Motorola to 'Protect' Android" <http://allthingsd.com/20110815/gulp-google-buying-motorola-mobility-for-12-5-billion/> FYI, there have also been reports that Google is spending $1B/year just in marketing for Android. > The corporate shills keep beating the "desktop Linux will never > succeed" drum, but fact is that the foundations, on which the > desktop duopoly is built, are showing some cracks. The bigger question is if & how Google's business plans to compete at the OS level will pan out. Their main "cash cow" product is advertising placement, and the revenue rates here have been in decline (despite efforts). For example, the rates for CPC's (Cost per Click) declined by 25% in 2010-13, and haven't fared much better since: <https://d28wbuch0jlv7v.cloudfront.net/images/infografik/normal/chartoftheday_2840_change_of_the_average_cost_per_click_on_Google_ads_n.jpg> <http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-google-cost-per-click-change-2012-4> Overall, the bottom line remains the same: human societal structure has mechanisms to recognize and reward individual innovation such as through IP laws, which embraces commerce and income as a motivator. Because FOSS is purposefully contrary to this structure, it has a hard time participating within that structure's set of rules, which manifests itself as not being able to compete in the same way. Fortunately, in addition to classical Overmatch Theory, there's also Displacement Theory (DT) by which it could be a contender, but the problem with the DT approach is that it is sufficiently out-of-the-box such that most business-centric operators doesn't even begin to understand its implications in order to actually apply it in their business case & strategies to try to be successful with it within a capitalistic market. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 14:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sdfnv83.0f@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #321284 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >> > Overall, the bottom line remains the same: human societal > structure has mechanisms to recognize and reward individual > innovation such as through IP laws, which embraces commerce > and income as a motivator. Because FOSS is purposefully > contrary to this structure, it has a hard time participating > within that structure's set of rules, which manifests itself > as not being able to compete in the same way. > Without FOSS, there would be no OS X.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 07:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <17bea6ae-36d2-4337-989f-5e5851ae2d6b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #321286 |
owl wrote: > -hh wrote: > >> > > Overall, the bottom line remains the same: human societal > > structure has mechanisms to recognize and reward individual > > innovation such as through IP laws, which embraces commerce > > and income as a motivator. Because FOSS is purposefully > > contrary to this structure, it has a hard time participating > > within that structure's set of rules, which manifests itself > > as not being able to compete in the same way. > > > > Without FOSS, there would be no OS X. Except that Apple had OS's before they developed OS X, so there's no proof that they simply would not have just repeated what they did in the past. And even if you want to claim that OS X could not have ended up being a Unix, that line of logic is also contrary to Apple's history, as they had previously developed A/UX, in 1988 and was based on AT&T's (non-FOSS) V.2.2 Unix. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 15:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fadh.30afe@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #321290 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > owl wrote: >> -hh wrote: >> >> >> > Overall, the bottom line remains the same: human societal >> > structure has mechanisms to recognize and reward individual >> > innovation such as through IP laws, which embraces commerce >> > and income as a motivator. Because FOSS is purposefully >> > contrary to this structure, it has a hard time participating >> > within that structure's set of rules, which manifests itself >> > as not being able to compete in the same way. >> > >> >> Without FOSS, there would be no OS X. > Except that Apple had OS's before they developed OS X, > so there's no proof that they simply would not have just > repeated what they did in the past. > And even if you want to claim that OS X could not have > ended up being a Unix, that line of logic is also contrary > to Apple's history, as they had previously developed A/UX, > in 1988 and was based on AT&T's (non-FOSS) V.2.2 Unix. Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Without FOSS, there would be no OS X. Fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 12:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mtepr1$cds$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #321286 |
On 2015-09-17 10:05 AM, owl wrote: > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>> > >> Overall, the bottom line remains the same: human societal >> structure has mechanisms to recognize and reward individual >> innovation such as through IP laws, which embraces commerce >> and income as a motivator. Because FOSS is purposefully >> contrary to this structure, it has a hard time participating >> within that structure's set of rules, which manifests itself >> as not being able to compete in the same way. >> > > Without FOSS, there would be no OS X. I hope you don't actually believe that. Had they not ended up using NeXTStep as the base for their operating system (most of which was not free software), they would have used BeOS instead. In fact, I believe that the Mac would have been a better multimedia operating system had it done so and as far as I know, none of BeOS was free software. In fact, Apple had already been creating a proprietary replacement for their original OS with Copland. Adopting NeXTStep was simply a quicker, less expensive and more beneficial solution as it brought Steve Jobs along for the ride as well. However, what makes OS X special is not the free software at its base but the proprietary elements at the top. Remove those and OS X becomes uninteresting. -- A.M
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 10:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bcab934c-1a0a-4c57-8b4e-b301039f522b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #321293 |
A.M wrote: > On 2015-09-17 10:05 AM, owl wrote: > > -hh wrote: > >> > >> Overall, the bottom line remains the same: human societal > >> structure has mechanisms to recognize and reward individual > >> innovation such as through IP laws, which embraces commerce > >> and income as a motivator. Because FOSS is purposefully > >> contrary to this structure, it has a hard time participating > >> within that structure's set of rules, which manifests itself > >> as not being able to compete in the same way. > >> > > > > Without FOSS, there would be no OS X. > > I hope you don't actually believe that. Unfortunately, they've made it pretty clear that that *is* what they believe. By the same token, there's also people out there who believe in Alien Abductions, that the WTC attack was faked, ditto NASA's moon landings, ditto that Hitler's still alive in Argentina, etc...they simply are in the la-la land of their own personal echo chamber, blithely ignoring actual reality. > Had they not ended up using NeXTStep as the base for their > operating system (most of which was not free software), > they would have used BeOS instead. Yes, and these are a couple more examples of the options that they had open to them to choose from. > In fact, I believe that the Mac would have been a > better multimedia operating system had it done so and > as far as I know, none of BeOS was free software. At least for awhile ... Apple has been succumbing to a general "dumbing down" in content creation tools for awhile now, in no small part due to market pressure from their huge success with iOS to cater to that audience. > In fact, Apple had already been creating a proprietary > replacement for their original OS with Copland. Adopting > NeXTStep was simply a quicker, less expensive and more > beneficial solution as it brought Steve Jobs along for > the ride as well. Again, illustration of the options that they had. > However, what makes OS X special is not the free software > at its base but the proprietary elements at the top. Remove > those and OS X becomes uninteresting. Which is essentially as it should be: an OS pretty much only exists for the user to access their workflow productivity functions, which is predominantly App-based. When not doing that, the OS should stay out of the way and be generally invisible. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 19:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fasdnvm83.df@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #321293 |
A.M <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > On 2015-09-17 10:05 AM, owl wrote: >> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>>> >> >>> Overall, the bottom line remains the same: human societal >>> structure has mechanisms to recognize and reward individual >>> innovation such as through IP laws, which embraces commerce >>> and income as a motivator. Because FOSS is purposefully >>> contrary to this structure, it has a hard time participating >>> within that structure's set of rules, which manifests itself >>> as not being able to compete in the same way. >>> >> >> Without FOSS, there would be no OS X. > I hope you don't actually believe that. Had they not ended up using > NeXTStep as the base for their operating system (most of which was not > free software), they would have used BeOS instead. In fact, I believe > that the Mac would have been a better multimedia operating system had it > done so and as far as I know, none of BeOS was free software. It would have been even worse than it is now. BeOS never even had a multi-user mode as far as I know. I know when I ran it it was single-user only. Kept waiting for it to be viable, then it died. > In fact, Apple had already been creating a proprietary replacement for > their original OS with Copland. Adopting NeXTStep was simply a quicker, > less expensive and more beneficial solution as it brought Steve Jobs > along for the ride as well. > However, what makes OS X special is not the free software at its base > but the proprietary elements at the top. Remove those and OS X becomes > uninteresting. Remove the FOSS parts and it's just a window manager.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 17:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d60admFga3eU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #321286 |
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:05:29 +0000, owl wrote: > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>> >>> >> Overall, the bottom line remains the same: human societal structure >> has mechanisms to recognize and reward individual innovation such as >> through IP laws, which embraces commerce and income as a motivator. >> Because FOSS is purposefully contrary to this structure, it has a hard >> time participating within that structure's set of rules, which >> manifests itself as not being able to compete in the same way. >> >> > Without FOSS, there would be no OS X. ?? -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 19:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sdfa.jvz03@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #321299 |
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:05:29 +0000, owl wrote: >> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>> Overall, the bottom line remains the same: human societal structure >>> has mechanisms to recognize and reward individual innovation such as >>> through IP laws, which embraces commerce and income as a motivator. >>> Because FOSS is purposefully contrary to this structure, it has a hard >>> time participating within that structure's set of rules, which >>> manifests itself as not being able to compete in the same way. >>> >>> >> Without FOSS, there would be no OS X. > ?? Really? You're questioning that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 14:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d60kctFiuvlU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #321346 |
On 17 Sep 2015 19:48, owl wrote: > Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:05:29 +0000, owl wrote: > >>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Overall, the bottom line remains the same: human societal structure >>>> has mechanisms to recognize and reward individual innovation such as >>>> through IP laws, which embraces commerce and income as a motivator. >>>> Because FOSS is purposefully contrary to this structure, it has a hard >>>> time participating within that structure's set of rules, which >>>> manifests itself as not being able to compete in the same way. >>>> >>>> >>> Without FOSS, there would be no OS X. > >> ?? > > Really? You're questioning that? > > Absolutely! While some FOSS has been used with OSX it didn't have to be. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 22:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sfnmc93.sjdf9@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #321349 |
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote: > On 17 Sep 2015 19:48, owl wrote: >> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:05:29 +0000, owl wrote: >> >>>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Overall, the bottom line remains the same: human societal structure >>>>> has mechanisms to recognize and reward individual innovation such as >>>>> through IP laws, which embraces commerce and income as a motivator. >>>>> Because FOSS is purposefully contrary to this structure, it has a hard >>>>> time participating within that structure's set of rules, which >>>>> manifests itself as not being able to compete in the same way. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Without FOSS, there would be no OS X. >> >>> ?? >> >> Really? You're questioning that? >> >> > Absolutely! While some FOSS has been used with OSX it didn't have to be. "some FOSS has been used with OSX..." As if it were not basically the entirety of its core. The whole foundation of OS X is open source (Mach and FreeBSD). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU <quote> The Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) portion of the kernel provides the POSIX API (BSD system calls), the Unix process model atop Mach tasks, basic security policies, user and group ids, permissions, the networking protocols, the virtual file system code (including a filesystem independent journaling layer), several local file systems such as HFS/HFS+, the Network File System (NFS) client and server, cryptographic framework, UNIX System V inter-process communication (IPC), Audit subsystem, mandatory access control, and some of the locking primitives.[3] The BSD code present in XNU came from the FreeBSD kernel. Although much of it has been significantly modified, code sharing still occurs between Apple and the FreeBSD Project.[4] </quote> "... it didn't have to be." Coulda, shoulda, woulda. The fact is it *was*. The rest of OS X is just a glorified window manager.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 22:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d60sj2FkvfbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #321365 |
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 22:15:55 +0000, owl wrote: > Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote: >> On 17 Sep 2015 19:48, owl wrote: >>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:05:29 +0000, owl wrote: >>> >>>>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Overall, the bottom line remains the same: human societal >>>>>> structure has mechanisms to recognize and reward individual >>>>>> innovation such as through IP laws, which embraces commerce and >>>>>> income as a motivator. Because FOSS is purposefully contrary to >>>>>> this structure, it has a hard time participating within that >>>>>> structure's set of rules, which manifests itself as not being able >>>>>> to compete in the same way. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Without FOSS, there would be no OS X. >>> >>>> ?? >>> >>> Really? You're questioning that? >>> >>> >> Absolutely! While some FOSS has been used with OSX it didn't have to >> be. > > "some FOSS has been used with OSX..." > As if it were not basically the entirety of its core. > > The whole foundation of OS X is open source (Mach and FreeBSD). > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU <quote> > The Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) portion of the kernel provides > the POSIX API (BSD system calls), the Unix process model atop Mach > tasks, basic security policies, user and group ids, permissions, > the networking protocols, the virtual file system code (including a > filesystem independent journaling layer), several local file systems > such as HFS/HFS+, the Network File System (NFS) client and server, > cryptographic framework, UNIX System V inter-process communication > (IPC), Audit subsystem, mandatory access control, and some of the > locking primitives.[3] The BSD code present in XNU came from the FreeBSD > kernel. Although much of it has been significantly modified, code > sharing still occurs between Apple and the FreeBSD Project.[4] > </quote> > > "... it didn't have to be." > Coulda, shoulda, woulda. The fact is it *was*. > > The rest of OS X is just a glorified window manager. Hmm... Thanks, didn't realize they had gotten that much from FOSS. So then could we say that Apple found a hell of a way to sell FOSS for high dollars while other also-rans can't seem to figure it out?? :) -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 22:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <adfv.l09ae@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #321366 |
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 22:15:55 +0000, owl wrote: >> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote: >>> On 17 Sep 2015 19:48, owl wrote: >>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:05:29 +0000, owl wrote: >>>> >>>>>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Overall, the bottom line remains the same: human societal >>>>>>> structure has mechanisms to recognize and reward individual >>>>>>> innovation such as through IP laws, which embraces commerce and >>>>>>> income as a motivator. Because FOSS is purposefully contrary to >>>>>>> this structure, it has a hard time participating within that >>>>>>> structure's set of rules, which manifests itself as not being able >>>>>>> to compete in the same way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Without FOSS, there would be no OS X. >>>> >>>>> ?? >>>> >>>> Really? You're questioning that? >>>> >>>> >>> Absolutely! While some FOSS has been used with OSX it didn't have to >>> be. >> >> "some FOSS has been used with OSX..." >> As if it were not basically the entirety of its core. >> >> The whole foundation of OS X is open source (Mach and FreeBSD). >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU <quote> >> The Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) portion of the kernel provides >> the POSIX API (BSD system calls), the Unix process model atop Mach >> tasks, basic security policies, user and group ids, permissions, >> the networking protocols, the virtual file system code (including a >> filesystem independent journaling layer), several local file systems >> such as HFS/HFS+, the Network File System (NFS) client and server, >> cryptographic framework, UNIX System V inter-process communication >> (IPC), Audit subsystem, mandatory access control, and some of the >> locking primitives.[3] The BSD code present in XNU came from the FreeBSD >> kernel. Although much of it has been significantly modified, code >> sharing still occurs between Apple and the FreeBSD Project.[4] >> </quote> >> >> "... it didn't have to be." >> Coulda, shoulda, woulda. The fact is it *was*. >> >> The rest of OS X is just a glorified window manager. > Hmm... Thanks, didn't realize they had gotten that much from FOSS. > So then could we say that Apple found a hell of a way to sell FOSS for > high dollars while other also-rans can't seem to figure it out?? :) That's a reasonable take on it. But Apple really is more about selling the hardware than the FOSS. Redhat has made some money too, and Linus Torvalds is himself worth over a hundred million if you believe the internet. And across the board, billions have been saved by using FOSS instead of proprietary alternatives.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 15:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D22092BB.5C3CC%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #321367 |
On 9/17/15, 3:33 PM, in article adfv.l09ae@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> The whole foundation of OS X is open source (Mach and FreeBSD). >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU <quote> >>> The Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) portion of the kernel provides >>> the POSIX API (BSD system calls), the Unix process model atop Mach >>> tasks, basic security policies, user and group ids, permissions, >>> the networking protocols, the virtual file system code (including a >>> filesystem independent journaling layer), several local file systems >>> such as HFS/HFS+, the Network File System (NFS) client and server, >>> cryptographic framework, UNIX System V inter-process communication >>> (IPC), Audit subsystem, mandatory access control, and some of the >>> locking primitives.[3] The BSD code present in XNU came from the FreeBSD >>> kernel. Although much of it has been significantly modified, code >>> sharing still occurs between Apple and the FreeBSD Project.[4] >>> </quote> >>> >>> "... it didn't have to be." >>> Coulda, shoulda, woulda. The fact is it *was*. >>> >>> The rest of OS X is just a glorified window manager. > >> Hmm... Thanks, didn't realize they had gotten that much from FOSS. > >> So then could we say that Apple found a hell of a way to sell FOSS for >> high dollars while other also-rans can't seem to figure it out?? :) > > That's a reasonable take on it. But Apple really is more about selling > the hardware than the FOSS. The hardware sells mostly because of the software. Really they sell systems - the whole enchilada. > Redhat has made some money too, and Linus Torvalds is himself worth over a > hundred million if you believe the internet. And across the board, billions > have been saved by using FOSS instead of proprietary alternatives. Would be great if the open source ecosystem matured to the point so desktop Linux distros could compete for general users. -- * 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 | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 15:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D22092EB.5C3CD%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #321366 |
On 9/17/15, 3:19 PM, in article d60sj2FkvfbU1@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 22:15:55 +0000, owl wrote: > >> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote: >>> On 17 Sep 2015 19:48, owl wrote: >>>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:05:29 +0000, owl wrote: >>>> >>>>>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Overall, the bottom line remains the same: human societal >>>>>>> structure has mechanisms to recognize and reward individual >>>>>>> innovation such as through IP laws, which embraces commerce and >>>>>>> income as a motivator. Because FOSS is purposefully contrary to >>>>>>> this structure, it has a hard time participating within that >>>>>>> structure's set of rules, which manifests itself as not being able >>>>>>> to compete in the same way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Without FOSS, there would be no OS X. >>>> >>>>> ?? >>>> >>>> Really? You're questioning that? >>>> >>>> >>> Absolutely! While some FOSS has been used with OSX it didn't have to >>> be. >> >> "some FOSS has been used with OSX..." >> As if it were not basically the entirety of its core. >> >> The whole foundation of OS X is open source (Mach and FreeBSD). >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU <quote> >> The Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) portion of the kernel provides >> the POSIX API (BSD system calls), the Unix process model atop Mach >> tasks, basic security policies, user and group ids, permissions, >> the networking protocols, the virtual file system code (including a >> filesystem independent journaling layer), several local file systems >> such as HFS/HFS+, the Network File System (NFS) client and server, >> cryptographic framework, UNIX System V inter-process communication >> (IPC), Audit subsystem, mandatory access control, and some of the >> locking primitives.[3] The BSD code present in XNU came from the FreeBSD >> kernel. Although much of it has been significantly modified, code >> sharing still occurs between Apple and the FreeBSD Project.[4] >> </quote> >> >> "... it didn't have to be." >> Coulda, shoulda, woulda. The fact is it *was*. >> >> The rest of OS X is just a glorified window manager. > > Hmm... Thanks, didn't realize they had gotten that much from FOSS. An admission of not knowing - a commendable thing not often seen in Usenet and COLA in specific. I commend you for it. Yes: OS X's underpinnings are mostly open source. > So then could we say that Apple found a hell of a way to sell FOSS for > high dollars while other also-rans can't seem to figure it out?? :) > > > -- * 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 | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 19:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <deae0f52-4c69-4b98-9ac9-60a96a79fee1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #321366 |
Lloyd Parsons wrote: > owl wrote: > > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > >> owl wrote: > >>> Lloyd Parsons wrote: > >>>> owl wrote: > >>> > >>>>> -hh wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Overall, the bottom line remains the same: human societal > >>>>>> structure has mechanisms to recognize and reward individual > >>>>>> innovation such as through IP laws, which embraces commerce and > >>>>>> income as a motivator. Because FOSS is purposefully contrary to > >>>>>> this structure, it has a hard time participating within that > >>>>>> structure's set of rules, which manifests itself as not being able > >>>>>> to compete in the same way. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> Without FOSS, there would be no OS X. > >>> > >>>> ?? > >>> > >>> Really? You're questioning that? > >>> > >>> > >> Absolutely! While some FOSS has been used with OSX it > >> didn't have to be. > > > > "some FOSS has been used with OSX..." > > As if it were not basically the entirety of its core. > > > > The whole foundation of OS X is open source (Mach and FreeBSD). > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU <quote> > > The Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) portion of the kernel provides > > the POSIX API (BSD system calls), the Unix process model atop Mach > > tasks, basic security policies, ... > > </quote> > > > > "... it didn't have to be." > > Coulda, shoulda, woulda. The fact is it *was*. > > > > The rest of OS X is just a glorified window manager. > > Hmm... Thanks, didn't realize they had gotten that much from FOSS. Except that it isn't relevant to the claim because (a) Apple had several technology options to choose from, excluding & including FOSS, and (b) Apple had also successfully developed, written, deployed and supported OS's before, including fully proprietary ones, which means that this "wouldn't have ever happened" claim is unsupported by historical precedence. > So then could we say that Apple found a hell of a way to sell FOSS for > high dollars while other also-rans can't seem to figure it out?? :) Not really that either, as Apple's business model relies on differentiation and while what Apple sells contains FOSS, it isn't a wholly FOSS product which anyone else could just as easy copy and sell as well. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 15:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D2209256.5C3CB%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #321365 |
On 9/17/15, 3:15 PM, in article sfnmc93.sjdf9@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> wrote: >> On 17 Sep 2015 19:48, owl wrote: >>> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:05:29 +0000, owl wrote: >>> >>>>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Overall, the bottom line remains the same: human societal structure >>>>>> has mechanisms to recognize and reward individual innovation such as >>>>>> through IP laws, which embraces commerce and income as a motivator. >>>>>> Because FOSS is purposefully contrary to this structure, it has a hard >>>>>> time participating within that structure's set of rules, which >>>>>> manifests itself as not being able to compete in the same way. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Without FOSS, there would be no OS X. >>> >>>> ?? >>> >>> Really? You're questioning that? >>> >>> >> Absolutely! While some FOSS has been used with OSX it didn't have to be. > > "some FOSS has been used with OSX..." > As if it were not basically the entirety of its core. > > The whole foundation of OS X is open source (Mach and FreeBSD). > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU > <quote> > The Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) portion of the kernel provides > the POSIX API (BSD system calls), the Unix process model atop Mach > tasks, basic security policies, user and group ids, permissions, > the networking protocols, the virtual file system code (including a > filesystem independent journaling layer), several local file systems > such as HFS/HFS+, the Network File System (NFS) client and server, > cryptographic framework, UNIX System V inter-process communication > (IPC), Audit subsystem, mandatory access control, and some of the > locking primitives.[3] The BSD code present in XNU came from the FreeBSD > kernel. Although much of it has been significantly modified, code sharing > still occurs between Apple and the FreeBSD Project.[4] > </quote> > > "... it didn't have to be." > Coulda, shoulda, woulda. The fact is it *was*. Without the open source back end NeXT and OS X would either have not existed or at the very least been much different. Absolutely. > The rest of OS X is just a glorified window manager. That and a lot of "core" technologies, etc. But, sure, they rely on the open source underpinnings. Would not matter one whit to me if Apple moved the kernel to Linux at some point. Do not expect them to, but if they did it would not matter to the vast majority of users. -- * 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 | Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 19:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mtflk6$3mu$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #321349 |
On 9/17/2015 2:59 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote: > On 17 Sep 2015 19:48, owl wrote: >> Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:05:29 +0000, owl wrote: >> >>>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Overall, the bottom line remains the same: human societal structure >>>>> has mechanisms to recognize and reward individual innovation such as >>>>> through IP laws, which embraces commerce and income as a motivator. >>>>> Because FOSS is purposefully contrary to this structure, it has a hard >>>>> time participating within that structure's set of rules, which >>>>> manifests itself as not being able to compete in the same way. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Without FOSS, there would be no OS X. >> >>> ?? >> >> Really? You're questioning that? >> >> > Absolutely! While some FOSS has been used with OSX it didn't have to be. Some FOSS was used with it? FOSS is the core and foundation of OS X! Its there any opinion you have that's not based on your wealth of ignorance?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-17 13:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D2206B46.5C398%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #321346 |
On 9/17/15, 12:48 PM, in article sdfa.jvz03@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:05:29 +0000, owl wrote: > >>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Overall, the bottom line remains the same: human societal structure >>>> has mechanisms to recognize and reward individual innovation such as >>>> through IP laws, which embraces commerce and income as a motivator. >>>> Because FOSS is purposefully contrary to this structure, it has a hard >>>> time participating within that structure's set of rules, which >>>> manifests itself as not being able to compete in the same way. >>>> >>>> >>> Without FOSS, there would be no OS X. > >> ?? > > Really? You're questioning that? > It does seem pretty obvious if you know anything about OS X. It is largely open source. -- * 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 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web