Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #68560 > unrolled thread
| Started by | nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-01-19 16:50 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-01-23 14:16 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 220 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Gassee joins the fray nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2015-01-19 16:50 -0700
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-20 00:01 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-01-19 22:18 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-20 15:43 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-20 11:16 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-20 16:28 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2015-01-20 12:39 -0600
Re: Gassee joins the fray Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-21 06:18 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-01-20 14:05 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-21 06:19 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-01-20 19:53 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-21 02:40 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Lao-Ming Liu <laomingliu@gmail.com> - 2015-01-20 20:18 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-21 04:42 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-20 22:31 -0700
Re: Gassee joins the fray Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-21 21:46 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Lao-Ming Liu <laomingliu@gmail.com> - 2015-01-20 22:01 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-20 23:12 -0700
Re: Gassee joins the fray Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-21 09:56 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-21 09:22 -0600
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-21 15:49 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-21 10:59 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-21 16:29 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-21 16:52 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-21 17:06 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-21 13:40 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-01-21 19:02 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-21 14:09 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-21 19:23 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-21 19:19 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-21 19:46 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-21 19:50 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-21 20:43 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-21 20:55 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-21 14:00 -0700
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-21 21:09 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-21 16:14 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-21 21:19 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-21 23:53 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-22 00:06 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-21 13:55 -0700
Re: Gassee joins the fray Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-21 23:55 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-21 17:41 -0700
Re: Gassee joins the fray nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-21 16:13 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-21 16:10 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-21 21:12 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-21 23:57 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-01-22 15:16 +1300
Re: Gassee joins the fray Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 11:59 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-23 01:04 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-23 03:04 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-01-22 11:59 +1300
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-21 23:17 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-01-22 20:42 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-22 22:14 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-23 03:52 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-22 22:14 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-23 14:21 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-01-21 23:12 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-01-24 18:42 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-01-24 18:40 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-25 02:53 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-21 21:36 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-22 16:55 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-22 12:14 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-22 17:24 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-01-22 13:25 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-22 22:05 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-22 22:06 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-23 14:16 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-23 13:44 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-01-24 18:47 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-25 02:57 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-24 21:09 -0700
Re: Gassee joins the fray Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 09:30 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-01-25 16:19 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-25 09:22 -0700
Re: Gassee joins the fray Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 11:09 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-26 14:53 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 12:14 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-22 22:03 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-01-23 00:00 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-23 09:52 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-23 15:13 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-01-23 15:40 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 11:28 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-23 13:44 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-01-23 11:44 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-23 14:32 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-01-23 14:44 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-23 14:48 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-01-23 14:50 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-23 23:15 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-23 18:22 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-24 10:56 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-01-24 11:05 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-24 16:22 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-24 21:51 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-25 12:20 +1300
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-25 02:38 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-01-24 15:32 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-23 23:14 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-23 18:22 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 10:29 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-24 15:35 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-01-24 12:38 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 10:33 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-23 14:30 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-01-23 14:42 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-23 14:54 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-01-23 15:00 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-24 08:50 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-24 17:07 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-24 16:35 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-01-25 00:03 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 09:19 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-23 23:13 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 11:01 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-01-26 21:34 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-23 23:07 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-23 18:22 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-23 14:12 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-23 09:49 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-23 15:08 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-23 10:49 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-23 16:18 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-23 11:30 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-23 16:55 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-23 12:03 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-23 17:07 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-23 13:44 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-01-23 11:41 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-23 14:39 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-01-23 14:45 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-24 16:19 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-24 21:38 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-24 18:45 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-25 03:04 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-23 11:17 -0700
Re: Gassee joins the fray nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-23 13:44 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-23 18:46 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-01-24 10:46 +1300
Re: Gassee joins the fray Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-01-24 10:54 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-24 13:55 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-24 10:42 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-24 16:14 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-25 03:54 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-01-23 17:34 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-23 17:49 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-01-23 18:05 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-23 18:37 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-23 11:41 -0700
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-23 18:43 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 14:13 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-23 12:23 -0700
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-23 19:28 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 10:58 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 10:58 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-26 14:46 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-01-23 20:46 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-24 10:17 +1300
Re: Gassee joins the fray Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 14:05 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-23 19:08 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-23 11:20 -0700
Re: Gassee joins the fray Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-23 14:40 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-23 18:23 -0700
Re: Gassee joins the fray Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-23 18:21 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-23 20:50 -0700
Re: Gassee joins the fray Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-24 10:15 +1300
Re: Gassee joins the fray sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-01-23 23:19 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-24 13:16 +1300
Re: Gassee joins the fray Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-24 08:48 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-01-24 09:20 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-01-23 15:38 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-23 14:36 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-01-23 14:45 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-23 23:17 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-24 17:14 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-24 22:37 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-25 12:24 +1300
Re: Gassee joins the fray Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 10:40 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-26 13:39 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-23 18:22 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-23 18:22 -0700
Re: Gassee joins the fray Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-23 18:21 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-23 22:05 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-23 20:46 -0700
Re: Gassee joins the fray Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-23 19:55 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-23 21:05 -0700
Re: Gassee joins the fray Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-23 20:57 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-01-23 21:01 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-24 00:12 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-24 18:31 +1300
Re: Gassee joins the fray Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-01-23 23:17 -0700
Re: Gassee joins the fray Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-24 08:52 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-24 18:40 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-25 03:03 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 09:27 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-01-26 01:50 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 22:25 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-01-25 14:56 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-25 20:19 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-01-26 21:55 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-01-23 20:07 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-23 23:57 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 10:45 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-01-26 21:52 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 10:37 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-01-26 21:49 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 11:26 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-01-24 10:20 +1300
Re: Gassee joins the fray Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-23 14:43 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2015-01-23 14:48 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-01-26 10:56 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-23 13:44 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-01-22 20:37 -0500
Re: Gassee joins the fray nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2015-01-22 20:55 -0700
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-23 03:59 +0000
Re: Gassee joins the fray Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-22 22:09 -0800
Re: Gassee joins the fray Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-01-23 14:16 +0000
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
| From | Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 22:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <m9so6h$7np$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #68670 |
On 2015-01-22 17:14:19 +0000, Warren Oates said: > In article <m9q27p$t0q$1@dont-email.me>, > Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> the whole system, write man pages for all the new Unix programs that >> are suddenly running, > > Which ones? Many of them. Just going off the running processes on my machine right now, I will start at the top and list just the processes starting with A: accountd - no man page AddressBookSourceSync - no man page AirPlayUIAgent - no man page airportd - has man page, no real info though amfid - has man page, no real info though appleeventsd - has man page, surprisingly lists options and relevant config files AppleIDAuthAgent - no man page AppleMobileDeviceHelper - no man page apsd - has man page, no real info though askpermissiond - no man page ath - no man page authd - no man page autofsd - has man page, surprisingly lists options and relevant config files awdd - no man page I assure you this is representative of the whole system. The majority of daemons are undocumented, and the ones that are are usually older (Steve era). This is just another illustration of Apple's slide into shitware. I expect undocumented processes from Microsoft, but not Apple.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 00:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <m9sv31$hhg$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #68735 |
On 2015-01-23 06:03:29 +0000, Oregonian Haruspex said: > On 2015-01-22 17:14:19 +0000, Warren Oates said: > >> In article <m9q27p$t0q$1@dont-email.me>, >> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> the whole system, write man pages for all the new Unix programs that >>> are suddenly running, >> >> Which ones? > > Many of them. > > Just going off the running processes on my machine right now, I will > start at the top and list just the processes starting with A: > > accountd - no man page > AddressBookSourceSync - no man page > AirPlayUIAgent - no man page > airportd - has man page, no real info though > amfid - has man page, no real info though > appleeventsd - has man page, surprisingly lists options and relevant > config files > AppleIDAuthAgent - no man page > AppleMobileDeviceHelper - no man page > apsd - has man page, no real info though > askpermissiond - no man page > ath - no man page > authd - no man page > autofsd - has man page, surprisingly lists options and relevant config files > awdd - no man page > > I assure you this is representative of the whole system. The majority > of daemons are undocumented, and the ones that are are usually older > (Steve era). > > This is just another illustration of Apple's slide into shitware. I > expect undocumented processes from Microsoft, but not Apple. Sorry, but man pages are essentially documentation about how to interact with a process; what command options it supports, etc. Why should there be man pages for processes that have no method of interaction?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 09:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54c2602c$0$1156$b1db1813$7968482@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #68739 |
On 15-01-23 03:00, Alan Baker wrote: > Why should there be man pages for processes that have no method of interaction? Because you need to know about the options and arguments to manage the daemon's start/stop/management Yeah, the average Starbucks hipster doesn't need to know that, but a real system manager wants to know that info is avaialble if/when needed. And in unix-land "man" is where such doc is put.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 15:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cif6ocFlcqdU9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #68750 |
On 2015-01-23, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 15-01-23 03:00, Alan Baker wrote: > >> Why should there be man pages for processes that have no method of interaction? > > Because you need to know about the options and arguments to manage the > daemon's start/stop/management Nope. The tools listed aren't ones that users should be messing with, which is why there is no end user documentation about them. They are internal to the operating system. If you want to fiddle with internals, you want Linux. The rest of us want something better. > Yeah, the average Starbucks hipster There you are again, apparently trying to insult those of us who don't think like you with silly names. How immature of you. > doesn't need to know that, but a real system manager wants to know > that info is avaialble if/when needed. And in unix-land "man" is > where such doc is put. "System manager"? Where'd you get that job description - the 80s? Anyhow, I doubt you would know one if he were standing in front of you. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 15:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <230120151540360391%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #68750 |
In article <54c2602c$0$1156$b1db1813$7968482@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >On 15-01-23 03:00, Alan Baker wrote: > >> Why should there be man pages for processes that have no method of >> interaction? > >Because you need to know about the options and arguments to manage the >daemon's start/stop/management > >Yeah, the average Starbucks hipster doesn't need to know that, but a >real system manager wants to know that info is avaialble if/when needed. >And in unix-land "man" is where such doc is put. Yeah, and too often man tells me: 1) the man page is missing 2) the man page refers to a different version anyway 3) the tool in question is "built-in" or somesuch and so doesn't have a fucking man page -- "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 11:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54c276c7$0$24967$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #68750 |
In article <54c2602c$0$1156$b1db1813$7968482@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 15-01-23 03:00, Alan Baker wrote: > > > Why should there be man pages for processes that have no method of > > interaction? > > Because you need to know about the options and arguments to manage the > daemon's start/stop/management > > Yeah, the average Starbucks hipster doesn't need to know that, but a > real system manager wants to know that info is avaialble if/when needed. > And in unix-land "man" is where such doc is put. Aww, no mention of texinfo? At one point, Stallman wanted to do away with "man pages" altogether. -- Where's the Vangelis music? Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her. They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene. -- notes for Blade Runner
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 13:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <230120151344515849%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #68760 |
In article <54c276c7$0$24967$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com>, Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Why should there be man pages for processes that have no method of > > > interaction? > > > > Because you need to know about the options and arguments to manage the > > daemon's start/stop/management > > > > Yeah, the average Starbucks hipster doesn't need to know that, but a > > real system manager wants to know that info is avaialble if/when needed. > > And in unix-land "man" is where such doc is put. > > Aww, no mention of texinfo? At one point, Stallman wanted to do away > with "man pages" altogether. there are many who want to do away with stallman, so it all evens out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 11:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <m9u8aj$bfl$2@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #68750 |
On 2015-01-23 14:52:28 +0000, JF Mezei said: > On 15-01-23 03:00, Alan Baker wrote: > >> Why should there be man pages for processes that have no method of interaction? > > Because you need to know about the options and arguments to manage the > daemon's start/stop/management Why would you need that if the daemon should never be stopped, or started or managed? > > Yeah, the average Starbucks hipster doesn't need to know that, but a > real system manager wants to know that info is avaialble if/when needed. > And in unix-land "man" is where such doc is put.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 14:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <m9ui5b$7br$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #68788 |
On 2015-01-23 19:44:19 +0000, Alan Baker said: > On 2015-01-23 14:52:28 +0000, JF Mezei said: > >> On 15-01-23 03:00, Alan Baker wrote: >> >>> Why should there be man pages for processes that have no method of interaction? >> >> Because you need to know about the options and arguments to manage the >> daemon's start/stop/management > > Why would you need that if the daemon should never be stopped, or > started or managed? That's up to the user, and not Apple. At least, in the Unix philosophy, it should be. In the Steve era at least these kinds of processes had man pages informing you that the process was not meant to be interacted with by the user.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 14:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <m9uirg$u2a$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #68803 |
On 2015-01-23 22:32:43 +0000, Oregonian Haruspex said: > On 2015-01-23 19:44:19 +0000, Alan Baker said: > >> On 2015-01-23 14:52:28 +0000, JF Mezei said: >> >>> On 15-01-23 03:00, Alan Baker wrote: >>> >>>> Why should there be man pages for processes that have no method of interaction? >>> >>> Because you need to know about the options and arguments to manage the >>> daemon's start/stop/management >> >> Why would you need that if the daemon should never be stopped, or >> started or managed? > > That's up to the user, and not Apple. At least, in the Unix > philosophy, it should be. And Macs have never been built to the Unix philosophy. May I suggest you go and run and Unix system instead? Oh, right: you want software! > In the Steve era at least these kinds of processes had man pages > informing you that the process was not meant to be interacted with by > the user. And that was more useful... ...how?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 14:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <m9uj2u$ab6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #68809 |
On 2015-01-23 22:44:00 +0000, Alan Baker said: > On 2015-01-23 22:32:43 +0000, Oregonian Haruspex said: > >> On 2015-01-23 19:44:19 +0000, Alan Baker said: >> >>> On 2015-01-23 14:52:28 +0000, JF Mezei said: >>> >>>> On 15-01-23 03:00, Alan Baker wrote: >>>> >>>>> Why should there be man pages for processes that have no method of interaction? >>>> >>>> Because you need to know about the options and arguments to manage the >>>> daemon's start/stop/management >>> >>> Why would you need that if the daemon should never be stopped, or >>> started or managed? >> >> That's up to the user, and not Apple. At least, in the Unix >> philosophy, it should be. > > And Macs have never been built to the Unix philosophy. May I suggest > you go and run and Unix system instead? You say this but you're wrong. Ever since Rhapsody came out, the Unix philosophy has been a central part of the Mac experience for many users. Even years before that, Apple made some AIX machines. > Oh, right: you want software! If I wanted software I'd run Windows. I want a quality Unix desktop environment. >> In the Steve era at least these kinds of processes had man pages >> informing you that the process was not meant to be interacted with by >> the user. > > And that was more useful... ...how? It's called fit and finish. Throwing a process into the OS without a man page is like building a car and not painting it. Sure, the car will go just as good without paint, but it's just not finished without the paint. As I said before, in the old days Steve wouldn't have tolerated daemons that have no man page at all. He wasn't perfect (he never bothered to make his programmers get Server working right for example) but he is a lot better than Mr. Chinese Factory Interaction Man, Tim Cook.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 14:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <m9uj8d$uvg$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #68812 |
On 2015-01-23 22:48:30 +0000, Oregonian Haruspex said: > On 2015-01-23 22:44:00 +0000, Alan Baker said: > >> On 2015-01-23 22:32:43 +0000, Oregonian Haruspex said: >> >>> On 2015-01-23 19:44:19 +0000, Alan Baker said: >>> >>>> On 2015-01-23 14:52:28 +0000, JF Mezei said: >>>> >>>>> On 15-01-23 03:00, Alan Baker wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Why should there be man pages for processes that have no method of interaction? >>>>> >>>>> Because you need to know about the options and arguments to manage the >>>>> daemon's start/stop/management >>>> >>>> Why would you need that if the daemon should never be stopped, or >>>> started or managed? >>> >>> That's up to the user, and not Apple. At least, in the Unix >>> philosophy, it should be. >> >> And Macs have never been built to the Unix philosophy. May I suggest >> you go and run and Unix system instead? > > You say this but you're wrong. Ever since Rhapsody came out, the Unix > philosophy has been a central part of the Mac experience for many users. And Scientology is a central part of reality to many people. It doesn't make it true. > > Even years before that, Apple made some AIX machines. OK. Irrelevant, but OK. > >> Oh, right: you want software! > > If I wanted software I'd run Windows. I want a quality Unix desktop > environment. Good. Off you go then! > >>> In the Steve era at least these kinds of processes had man pages >>> informing you that the process was not meant to be interacted with by >>> the user. >> >> And that was more useful... ...how? > > It's called fit and finish. Throwing a process into the OS without a > man page is like building a car and not painting it. Sure, the car > will go just as good without paint, but it's just not finished without > the paint. No. It is absolutely nothing like that. Does your cars manual tell you how to rebuild the engine? No. Think about it. > > As I said before, in the old days Steve wouldn't have tolerated daemons > that have no man page at all. He wasn't perfect (he never bothered to > make his programmers get Server working right for example) but he is a > lot better than Mr. Chinese Factory Interaction Man, Tim Cook. Cite...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 23:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cig309FtvaiU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #68812 |
On 2015-01-23, Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote: > As I said before, in the old days Steve wouldn't have tolerated daemons > that have no man page at all. Bullshit. [More bullshit deleted] -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 18:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <230120151822526694%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #68812 |
In article <m9uj2u$ab6$1@dont-email.me>, Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> Why would you need that if the daemon should never be stopped, or > >>> started or managed? > >> > >> That's up to the user, and not Apple. At least, in the Unix > >> philosophy, it should be. > > > > And Macs have never been built to the Unix philosophy. May I suggest > > you go and run and Unix system instead? > > You say this but you're wrong. Ever since Rhapsody came out, the Unix > philosophy has been a central part of the Mac experience for many users. not for very many. in fact, almost none. mac users want to get stuff done, not waste time reading indecipherable man pages and fucking around with the unix layer. > Even years before that, Apple made some AIX machines. they didn't sell well. > > Oh, right: you want software! > > If I wanted software I'd run Windows. I want a quality Unix desktop > environment. you want a computer but no software? wtf? > >> In the Steve era at least these kinds of processes had man pages > >> informing you that the process was not meant to be interacted with by > >> the user. > > > > And that was more useful... ...how? > > It's called fit and finish. Throwing a process into the OS without a > man page is like building a car and not painting it. Sure, the car > will go just as good without paint, but it's just not finished without > the paint. does your car come with man pages for the ecu module? oh yea, it doesn't. not only that but 99% of car buyers don't need to know auto mechanics to drive to the grocery store. > As I said before, in the old days Steve wouldn't have tolerated daemons > that have no man page at all. He wasn't perfect (he never bothered to > make his programmers get Server working right for example) but he is a > lot better than Mr. Chinese Factory Interaction Man, Tim Cook. nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-24 10:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cihc3bF8sc6U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #68809 |
On 2015-01-23, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> On 2015-01-23 22:32:43 +0000, Oregonian Haruspex said:
>
>> On 2015-01-23 19:44:19 +0000, Alan Baker said:
>>
>>> On 2015-01-23 14:52:28 +0000, JF Mezei said:
>>>
>>>> On 15-01-23 03:00, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why should there be man pages for processes that have no method of interaction?
>>>>
>>>> Because you need to know about the options and arguments to manage the
>>>> daemon's start/stop/management
>>>
>>> Why would you need that if the daemon should never be stopped, or
>>> started or managed?
>>
>> That's up to the user, and not Apple. At least, in the Unix
>> philosophy, it should be.
>
> And Macs have never been built to the Unix philosophy. May I suggest
> you go and run and Unix system instead?
>
> Oh, right: you want software!
And you want killfiling.
--
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 24th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3181
I don't have an attitude problem. If you have a problem with my attitude,
that's your problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-24 11:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ma0qdr$3pj$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #68854 |
On 2015-01-24 10:56:43 +0000, Huge said: > On 2015-01-23, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote: >> On 2015-01-23 22:32:43 +0000, Oregonian Haruspex said: >> >>> On 2015-01-23 19:44:19 +0000, Alan Baker said: >>> >>>> On 2015-01-23 14:52:28 +0000, JF Mezei said: >>>> >>>>> On 15-01-23 03:00, Alan Baker wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Why should there be man pages for processes that have no method of interaction? >>>>> >>>>> Because you need to know about the options and arguments to manage the >>>>> daemon's start/stop/management >>>> >>>> Why would you need that if the daemon should never be stopped, or >>>> started or managed? >>> >>> That's up to the user, and not Apple. At least, in the Unix >>> philosophy, it should be. >> >> And Macs have never been built to the Unix philosophy. May I suggest >> you go and run and Unix system instead? >> >> Oh, right: you want software! > > And you want killfiling. You're right: the best response it to put your fingers in your ears.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-24 16:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54c40d05$0$56543$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #68809 |
BTW, not sure if it still does, but it wasn't so long ago that Apple marketed OS-X as the Unix with the largest installed base in the world. Seems to me like having Unix under OS-X was seen as an important asset for Apple to attract business and scientific users. It also worked hard to add multiprocessing capabilities and ability to use graphics cards for intence scientific computing. (Believe it came with Snow Leopard). It wasn't just to play games. I don't think I have heard that since "Back to Mac" started.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-24 21:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ciiif5Fis8rU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #68885 |
On 2015-01-24, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > BTW, not sure if it still does, but it wasn't so long ago that Apple > marketed OS-X as the Unix with the largest installed base in the world. > Seems to me like having Unix under OS-X was seen as an important asset > for Apple to attract business and scientific users. It also worked hard > to add multiprocessing capabilities and ability to use graphics cards > for intence scientific computing. (Believe it came with Snow Leopard). > > It wasn't just to play games. > > I don't think I have heard that since "Back to Mac" started. Revisionist history is expected from a well-known troll such as yourself. * Apple's "Back to Mac" event was in October 2010. * Apple has published lots of documents showing off Mac OS X's Unix roots, such as the "OS X for UNIX Users Technology Brief" (published *after* 2010, BTW) and others: <https://www.apple.com/media/us/osx/2012/docs/OSX_for_UNIX_Users_TB_July2011.pdf> * Apple has an entire web site dedicated to the many Unix open source projects Apple maintains: <https://www.apple.com/opensource/> * Apple's web site describing the latest version of Mac OS X clearly boasts its "rock-solid UNIX foundation": <https://www.apple.com/osx/what-is/> I could go on, but you're not interested anyway. You hear what you want to hear, and see what you want to see. And you clearly just love trolling Apple and spreading misinformation about them. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-25 12:20 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <250120151220379622%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #68885 |
In article <54c40d05$0$56543$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > BTW, not sure if it still does, but it wasn't so long ago that Apple > marketed OS-X as the Unix with the largest installed base in the world. > Seems to me like having Unix under OS-X was seen as an important asset > for Apple to attract business and scientific users. It also worked hard > to add multiprocessing capabilities and ability to use graphics cards > for intence scientific computing. (Believe it came with Snow Leopard). > > It wasn't just to play games. > > I don't think I have heard that since "Back to Mac" started. The switch to Unix was largely a pointless marketing exercise (just like the switch to Intel CPUs). It didn't really attract "big business" and 95%+ of the users couldn't care less or even know about it. "Big business" started switching to Macs because they were frustrated with Microsloth and Windoze, and because of the "halo" effect of the iPhone and iPad (partly due to employees wanting to use Apple equipment) ... for the vast majority of users it had bugger all to do with Unix, multi-tasking, or any of the other geeky buzzwords that get bandied about. Anyone who really needed Unix could already do that on a Mac. In fact the original few releases of OS X were such a step backwards that few people actually wanted to use it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-25 02:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cij388Fn0i3U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #68899 |
On 2015-01-24, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > The switch to Unix was largely a pointless marketing exercise (just > like the switch to Intel CPUs). It didn't really attract "big business" > and 95%+ of the users couldn't care less or even know about it. Apple chose NeXT because it gave them an efficient way to provide their vision of the Mac experience to their customers with a solid platform underneath. > "Big business" started switching to Macs because they were frustrated > with Microsloth and Windoze, and because of the "halo" effect of the > iPhone and iPad (partly due to employees wanting to use Apple > equipment) It was *mostly* due to employees wanting to use Apple gear. > for the vast majority of users it had bugger all to do > with Unix, multi-tasking, or any of the other geeky buzzwords that get > bandied about. They certainly helped. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web