Where are the computer/software companies?
It's a strange world, isn't it.
Lester Thorpe <lt@gnu.rocks> a crit:
Where are the computer/software companies?
In your ass.
Sorry for the other readers, but it's a French pun I couldn't avoid in
this case. In France, some people answer Dans ton cul which means
"In your ass" any question starting by O est... which means "Where >is...". I'm not following this rule each time, but in this case, it was
too tempting.
Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
Lester Thorpe <lt@gnu.rocks> a écrit :
Where are the computer/software companies?
In your ass.
Sorry for the other readers, but it's a French pun I couldn't avoid in
this case. In France, some people answer « Dans ton cul » which means
"In your ass" any question starting by « Où est... » which means "Where >>is...". I'm not following this rule each time, but in this case, it was
too tempting.
I like it!
Where are the computer/software companies?
Apple is not a computer company.
Apple is the largest computer and software company in the world. And every computer they sell is running Unix. From Macs to watches.
Apple is not a computer company.
Apple is the largest computer and software company in the world.
And every computer they sell is running Unix. From Macs to watches.
Apple is the largest computer and software company in the world. And every computer they sell is running Unix. From Macs to watches.
Apple is the largest computer and software company in the world. And every >computer they sell is running Unix. From Macs to watches.
Instead of cobbling together your current pile of shit computer using parts >from your grandfather's garage, maybe you should consider a modern computer >from an actual "Compamy".
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 15:48:31 +0000, Tyrone wrote:You were a college instructor?
Apple is the largest computer and software company in the world. And every >> computer they sell is running Unix. From Macs to watches.
Did I not say that Apple is not a computer and software company but rather that it is a TOY company.
Did I not fucking say that? Huh? Did I fucking not?
Who the fuck are you to attempt to overturn my infallible statements?
Huh? Who the fuck are you?
I was a college instructor and I encountered class after class of intellectual deadbeats like you who are now undoubtedly successful
in the world and who now undoubtedly prefer Apple products.
But an intellectual deadbeat, like you, cannot distinguish a real
computer from a toy.
Apple is a toy company.
The case is closed.
Fuck you.
Tyrone wrote:
Apple is the largest computer and software company in the world. And
every computer they sell is running Unix. From Macs to watches.
Instead of cobbling together your current pile of shit computer using
parts from your grandfather's garage, maybe you should consider a modern >>computer from an actual "Compamy".
No thanks, I prefer to build my own.
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 13:45:21 -0500, chrisv wrote:
Tyrone wrote:
Apple is the largest computer and software company in the world. And >>>every computer they sell is running Unix. From Macs to watches.
Instead of cobbling together your current pile of shit computer using >>>parts from your grandfather's garage, maybe you should consider a modern >>>computer from an actual "Compamy".
No thanks, I prefer to build my own.
The thrill of that wore off for me some time ago. 'I certainly hope >everything in that big box of crap from NewEgg rally plays well together.' >And that was after happy hours of researching CPUs, mobos, etc. Lemme see, >Intel or AMD? Socket 666 or LGA 1234?
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 13:45:21 -0500, chrisv wrote:
Tyrone wrote:
Apple is the largest computer and software company in the world. And
every computer they sell is running Unix. From Macs to watches.
Instead of cobbling together your current pile of shit computer using
parts from your grandfather's garage, maybe you should consider a modern >>> computer from an actual "Compamy".
No thanks, I prefer to build my own.
The thrill of that wore off for me some time ago. 'I certainly hope everything in that big box of crap from NewEgg rally plays well together.' And that was after happy hours of researching CPUs, mobos, etc. Lemme see, Intel or AMD? Socket 666 or LGA 1234?
rbowman wrote:
chrisv wrote:
No thanks, I prefer to build my own.
The thrill of that wore off for me some time ago. 'I certainly hope
everything in that big box of crap from NewEgg rally plays well together.' >> And that was after happy hours of researching CPUs, mobos, etc. Lemme see, >> Intel or AMD? Socket 666 or LGA 1234?
Same here.
I spent MANY years building my own, mainly because it was cheaper. Yes, it is >fun for a while, but eventually your time is worth more than whatever money >you save.
These days, I would just rather buy something that works when I take it out of >the box and plug it in. I am no longer interested in being a systems >integrator without getting paid for it.
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 15:48:31 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
Apple is not a computer company.
Apple is the largest computer and software company in the world.
Fun fact: they dropped the word “Computer” from their name decades ago.\
And every computer they sell is running Unix. From Macs to watches.
What is “Unix”? It’s just a trademark. The original meaning of a particular way for a computer system (OS and userland) to operate has
gone, and Apple played an instrumental part in killing it.
On Sun, 01 Jun 2025 15:48:31 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
Apple is not a computer company.
Apple is the largest computer and software company in the world.
Fun fact: they dropped the word “Computer” from their name decades ago.
Fun fact: Macs/iPhones/iPads make up the largest installed base of Unix computers by a single company in the world.
Unix does not look dead to me.
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 23:14:24 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
Fun fact: Macs/iPhones/iPads make up the largest installed base of Unix
computers by a single company in the world.
What is “Unix”? It’s just a trademark. The original meaning of a particular way for a computer system (OS and userland) to operate has
gone, and Apple played an instrumental part in killing it.
Unix does not look dead to me.
When people think “Unix” nowadays, they really mean a Linux or BSD system.
That’s what works they way they expect a “Unix” system to work. Not Apple.
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 23:14:24 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
Fun fact: Macs/iPhones/iPads make up the largest installed base of Unix
computers by a single company in the world.
What is “Unix”? It’s just a trademark. The original meaning of a particular way for a computer system (OS and userland) to operate has
gone, and Apple played an instrumental part in killing it.
Unix does not look dead to me.
When people think “Unix” nowadays, they really mean a Linux or BSD system.
That’s what works they way they expect a “Unix” system to work. Not Apple.
On 2025-06-03 17:08, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
When people think “Unix” nowadays, they really mean a Linux or BSD
system. That’s what works they way they expect a “Unix” system to work.
Not Apple.
And yet the folks who run Linux systems are mostly putting GUIs on top
of them.
On Jun 3, 2025 at 8:08:29 PM EDT, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
What is “Unix”? It’s just a trademark. The original meaning of a
particular way for a computer system (OS and userland) to operate has
gone, and Apple played an instrumental part in killing it.
You repeating this does not make it true.
When people think “Unix” nowadays, they really mean a Linux or BSD
system. That’s what works they way they expect a “Unix” system to work.
Not Apple.
Only because everyone expects a "Unix" system to be ugly and obtuse.
It sounds like you are confusing the GUI with the underlying OS.
Underneath it is a descendent of BSD, with a userland mainly from
FreeBSD.
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 17:14:29 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-03 17:08, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
When people think “Unix” nowadays, they really mean a Linux or BSD
system. That’s what works they way they expect a “Unix” system to work.
Not Apple.
And yet the folks who run Linux systems are mostly putting GUIs on top
of them.
You get the same choice of GUIs on BSD, pretty much. On Linux and BSD, the GUI is a modular, replaceable layer. Switching GUIs is as easy as logging
out of one and logging into another. Or you can run with no GUI at all --
the usual case on servers. You know, those servers that provide the infrastructure for the entire Internet.
Which is not true for Apple’s “Unix”.
On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 01:03:52 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
On Jun 3, 2025 at 8:08:29 PM EDT, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid> >> wrote:
What is “Unix”? It’s just a trademark. The original meaning of a
particular way for a computer system (OS and userland) to operate has
gone, and Apple played an instrumental part in killing it.
You repeating this does not make it true.
I’m looking at build scripts for cross-platform software which contain lines like “if(UNIX AND NOT APPLE)”. Why would that be necessary, do you think?
When people think “Unix” nowadays, they really mean a Linux or BSD
system. That’s what works they way they expect a “Unix” system to work.
Not Apple.
Only because everyone expects a "Unix" system to be ugly and obtuse.
It sounds like you are confusing the GUI with the underlying OS.
I said nothing about the GUI, you did.
Underneath it is a descendent of BSD, with a userland mainly from
FreeBSD.
On Apple, the GUI is inextricably bound into the OS kernel. On Linux and
(true) BSD, it is not -- it remains a modular, replaceable (and removable) layer, the way it is supposed to be on “Unix” systems (without the trademark).
On 2025-06-03 18:27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
I’m looking at build scripts for cross-platform software which contain
lines like “if(UNIX AND NOT APPLE)”. Why would that be necessary, do
you think?
Hmmmm...because there are detail difference between different versions
of the same basic OS?
Are you really saying that such differences never crop up with Linux or
other Unix systems?
On Apple, the GUI is inextricably bound into the OS kernel.
No. It really isn't.
I spent MANY years building my own, mainly because it was cheaper. Yes,
it is fun for a while, but eventually your time is worth more than
whatever money you save.
On 2025-06-03 18:24, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 17:14:29 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-03 17:08, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
When people think “Unix” nowadays, they really mean a Linux or BSD >>>> system. That’s what works they way they expect a “Unix” system to >>>> work. Not Apple.
And yet the folks who run Linux systems are mostly putting GUIs on top
of them.
You get the same choice of GUIs on BSD, pretty much. On Linux and BSD,
the GUI is a modular, replaceable layer. Switching GUIs is as easy as
logging out of one and logging into another. Or you can run with no GUI
at all -- the usual case on servers. You know, those servers that
provide the infrastructure for the entire Internet.
Which is not true for Apple’s “Unix”.
So having a choice of GUIs somehow makes the underlying OS components different?
As for "infrastructure of the entire Internet"...
...what does it matter if there's a GUI or not on those servers...
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:34:22 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-03 18:24, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 17:14:29 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-03 17:08, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
When people think “Unix” nowadays, they really mean a Linux or BSD >>>>> system. That’s what works they way they expect a “Unix” system to >>>>> work. Not Apple.
And yet the folks who run Linux systems are mostly putting GUIs on top >>>> of them.
You get the same choice of GUIs on BSD, pretty much. On Linux and BSD,
the GUI is a modular, replaceable layer. Switching GUIs is as easy as
logging out of one and logging into another. Or you can run with no GUI
at all -- the usual case on servers. You know, those servers that
provide the infrastructure for the entire Internet.
Which is not true for Apple’s “Unix”.
So having a choice of GUIs somehow makes the underlying OS components
different?
It is macOS that is “different” from how people expect a “Unix” system to
behave, not the Linuxes and BSDs. Offering a choice of GUIs (or no GUI at all), is part of how people expect a “Unix” system to behave.
As for "infrastructure of the entire Internet"...
...what does it matter if there's a GUI or not on those servers...
Precisely my point.
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:35:34 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-03 18:27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
I’m looking at build scripts for cross-platform software which contain >>> lines like “if(UNIX AND NOT APPLE)”. Why would that be necessary, do >>> you think?
Hmmmm...because there are detail difference between different versions
of the same basic OS?
Why is it the “UNIX” case is able to cover both Linux and BSD, but not the
one OS that is officially entitled to use the trademark?
Are you really saying that such differences never crop up with Linux or
other Unix systems?
Do you see the difference between “Unix” the trademark, versus “Unix” the
way people expect an OS to behave?
On Apple, the GUI is inextricably bound into the OS kernel.
No. It really isn't.
Where are the alternative GUIs for macOS, then? Or the option to boot it headless? They don’t exist.
There were a few years where the Celerons were just *killing* the
Pentium II's and III's in performance/dollar.
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 00:08:29 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
When people think “Unix” nowadays, they really mean a Linux or BSD
system. That’s what works they way they expect a “Unix” system to work.
Not Apple.
I think AIX. It's System V with tweaks. Back in the early '80s we have something that looked a lot like Unix running on a PDP-11 but it
couldn't have been Unix since you couldn't really buy Unix.
Unix always was a mine field, as SCO found out when their principal
product was lawsuits.
On 2025-06-03 19:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Where are the alternative GUIs for macOS, then? Or the option to boot
it headless? They don’t exist.
Why is that relevant?
On 2025-06-03 19:43, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:34:22 -0700, Alan wrote:
So having a choice of GUIs somehow makes the underlying OS components
different?
It is macOS that is “different” from how people expect a “Unix” system
to behave, not the Linuxes and BSDs. Offering a choice of GUIs (or no
GUI at all), is part of how people expect a “Unix” system to behave.
That doesn't even attempt to answer my question.
As for "infrastructure of the entire Internet"...
...what does it matter if there's a GUI or not on those servers...
Precisely my point.
Which is what?
MacOS/iOS/iPadOS are, in fact, Unix. Whether you like it or not.
When people think “Unix” nowadays, they really mean a Linux or BSD system. That’s what works they way they expect a “Unix” system to work. Not Apple.
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 19:49:20 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-03 19:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Where are the alternative GUIs for macOS, then? Or the option to boot
it headless? They don’t exist.
Why is that relevant?
That’s part of how “Unix” (the concept, not the trademark) is supposed to
work.
vallor wrote:
On 4 Jun 2025 03:30:11 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote inare you going to dedicate your head to science
<ma9su2Fgg9qU3@mid.individual.net>:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 00:08:29 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
When people think “Unix” nowadays, they really mean a Linux or BSD >>>> system. That’s what works they way they expect a “Unix” system to >>>> work.
Not Apple.
I think AIX. It's System V with tweaks. Back in the early '80s we have
something that looked a lot like Unix running on a PDP-11 but it
couldn't have been Unix since you couldn't really buy Unix.
Unix always was a mine field, as SCO found out when their principal
product was lawsuits.
Insert here boilerplate that I should save as a FAQ:
UNIX® is a registered trademark of The Open Group.
https://unix.org/trademark.html
The trademark is capitalized. The lower-case usage is generic.
LINUX, for all intents and purposes, is a Unix. So is BSD.
MacOS is UNIX®. We've had a Mac mini, and iMac, and now a Mac Studio.
I ssh into it remotely to fiddle, and it has a better-than-POSIX shell
environment. When I need to get at GUI apps, I vnc into it, which can
be enabled in MacOS as "screen sharing".
The GUI interface is based on Cocoa from NeXTStep, which also has a lot
of components available in GNUStep on Linux.
(Indeed, my Linux desktop runs Cairo dock, which looks and acts like
the MacOS dock.) The display server is integrated into the window
manager -- much like Wayland's architecture.
I suspect this is why there's the "!APPLE" config flag that Lawrence is
harping on -- by default, MacOS doesn't have an X11 display server.
Penultimately, Apple does contribute to the open source community.
CUPS, for example, is maintained by Apple, and is what makes Linux
printing so easy.
And finally: I once bought a car in the 00's that came with an iPod.
So when Underworld was having an "exclusive" concert online only for
Apple devices, I was able to get a shell on the iPod and find the URL
for the concert -- then played it using mplayer on my Linux box. In
this way (at least at the time), iOS is to MacOS what Android is to
Linux -- both exercises in embedded Unix.
The non-*nix “quirks” on Apple’s “Unix” extend beyond the absence of
X11. Here’s a small excerpt from Blender’s build scripts, to show the sort of “quirks” I mean:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 19:48:33 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-03 19:43, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:34:22 -0700, Alan wrote:
So having a choice of GUIs somehow makes the underlying OS components
different?
It is macOS that is “different” from how people expect a “Unix” system
to behave, not the Linuxes and BSDs. Offering a choice of GUIs (or no
GUI at all), is part of how people expect a “Unix” system to behave.
That doesn't even attempt to answer my question.
You were the one trying to imply, somehow, that Apple’s “Unix” hews closer
to the tradition of what “Unix” is supposed to be about. It’s not.
As for "infrastructure of the entire Internet"...
...what does it matter if there's a GUI or not on those servers...
Precisely my point.
Which is what?
It is macOS that is “different” from how people expect a “Unix” system to
behave, not the Linuxes and BSDs. Offering a choice of GUIs (or no GUI at all), is part of how people expect a “Unix” system to behave.
On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 01:03:52 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
MacOS/iOS/iPadOS are, in fact, Unix. Whether you like it or not.
https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/11/macos_15_is_unix/
The Open Group has spoken.
On 4 Jun 2025 03:50:21 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote in <ma9u3sFgg9qU4@mid.individual.net>:
On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 01:03:52 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
MacOS/iOS/iPadOS are, in fact, Unix. Whether you like it or not.
https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/11/macos_15_is_unix/
The Open Group has spoken.
Thank you for the link.
...and whoever was saying Linux was "stolen" from Linux should
read the article, especially in how Linus approached Linux -- a POSIX operating system.
On 4 Jun 2025 03:50:21 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote in <ma9u3sFgg9qU4@mid.individual.net>:
On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 01:03:52 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
MacOS/iOS/iPadOS are, in fact, Unix. Whether you like it or not.
https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/11/macos_15_is_unix/
The Open Group has spoken.
Thank you for the link.
Obquote:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Unix is just a newer name for POSIX
On 2025-06-03 21:10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 19:48:33 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-03 19:43, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:34:22 -0700, Alan wrote:
So having a choice of GUIs somehow makes the underlying OS
components different?
It is macOS that is “different” from how people expect a “Unix” >>>> system to behave, not the Linuxes and BSDs. Offering a choice of GUIs
(or no GUI at all), is part of how people expect a “Unix” system to >>>> behave.
That doesn't even attempt to answer my question.
You were the one trying to imply, somehow, that Apple’s “Unix” hews
closer to the tradition of what “Unix” is supposed to be about. It’s >> not.
Nope.
Literally nothing I said implied anything like that.
It is macOS that is “different” from how people expect a “Unix” system
to behave, not the Linuxes and BSDs. Offering a choice of GUIs (or no
GUI at all), is part of how people expect a “Unix” system to behave.
People's expectations don't define what something is.
On 2025-06-03 21:09, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 19:49:20 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-03 19:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Where are the alternative GUIs for macOS, then? Or the option to
boot it headless? They don’t exist.
Why is that relevant?
That’s part of how “Unix” (the concept, not the trademark) is
supposed to work.
Where is that mandated, exactly?
chrisv wrote:
There were a few years where the Celerons were just *killing* the
Pentium II's and III's in performance/dollar.
Celerys? I always considered them the KMarts of the processor world.
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 21:45:14 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-03 21:10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 19:48:33 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-03 19:43, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:34:22 -0700, Alan wrote:
So having a choice of GUIs somehow makes the underlying OS
components different?
It is macOS that is “different” from how people expect a “Unix” >>>>> system to behave, not the Linuxes and BSDs. Offering a choice of GUIs >>>>> (or no GUI at all), is part of how people expect a “Unix” system to >>>>> behave.
That doesn't even attempt to answer my question.
You were the one trying to imply, somehow, that Apple’s “Unix” hews >>> closer to the tradition of what “Unix” is supposed to be about. It’s >>> not.
Nope.
Literally nothing I said implied anything like that.
Your words are right up there: “So having a choice of GUIs somehow makes the underlying OS components different?” Did you mean them, or didn’t you?
It is macOS that is “different” from how people expect a “Unix” system
to behave, not the Linuxes and BSDs. Offering a choice of GUIs (or no
GUI at all), is part of how people expect a “Unix” system to behave.
People's expectations don't define what something is.
That’s how language works. Words mean what they are generally expected to mean.
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 21:41:04 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-03 21:09, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 19:49:20 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-03 19:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Where are the alternative GUIs for macOS, then? Or the option to
boot it headless? They don’t exist.
Why is that relevant?
That’s part of how “Unix” (the concept, not the trademark) is
supposed to work.
Where is that mandated, exactly?
If you want an unbroken line of descent from the original Bell Labs
Unix, then look at the BSDs.
If you want an unbroken line of descent from the team that worked on
the original Bell Labs Unix, then look at Ken Thompson. He has given
up on Apple’s platform, and switched to Linux.
<https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/unix-pioneer-ken-thompson-announces-hes-switching-from-mac-to-linux.88451/>
Nobody was disputing that Apple is a licensee of the “Unix” trademark, and
is entitled to use it to label their products.
This is why I like to use the term “*nix” with a meaning that has nothing to do with the trademark, for how a system is supposed to work. POSIX is a core part of that, of course. But there’s a lot more to it. Linux and the BSDs conform to this “*nix” concept, while Apple’s OSes do not.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-04 00:12, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 21:45:14 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-03 21:10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
People's expectations don't define what something is.
It is macOS that is “different” from how people expect a “Unix” system
to behave, not the Linuxes and BSDs. Offering a choice of GUIs (or no >>>>> GUI at all), is part of how people expect a “Unix” system to behave. >>>>
That’s how language works. Words mean what they are generally expected to >>> mean.
And?
Just because Apple uses Unix in a different manner doesn't make it into
"not Unix".
To the extent that Apple's brand of Unix makes it a much sleeker OS
than M$'s, I fully endorse that. It's powerful software. The problem
I have with Macs is more the expense. Building a PC to run Linux is inexpensive, I have two NVMe drives, now, the second one was like $30.
It is macOS that is “different” from how people expect a “Unix” system
to behave, not the Linuxes and BSDs. Offering a choice of GUIs (or no
GUI at all), is part of how people expect a “Unix” system to behave.
On 2025-06-04 00:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Nobody was disputing that Apple is a licensee of the “Unix”
trademark, and is entitled to use it to label their products.
This is why I like to use the term “*nix” with a meaning that has
nothing to do with the trademark, for how a system is supposed to
work. POSIX is a core part of that, of course. But there’s a lot
more to it. Linux and the BSDs conform to this “*nix” concept,
while Apple’s OSes do not.
To which "core parts" do Apple's OSes not conform exactly?
Where is it a mandated part of Unix that it be able to use multiple GUIs?
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:40:27 -0700, Alan wrote:
Where is it a mandated part of Unix that it be able to use multiple GUIs?
Is that “Unix” the concept, or “Unix” the trademark?
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:41:29 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 00:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Nobody was disputing that Apple is a licensee of the “Unix” trademark, >>> and is entitled to use it to label their products.
This is why I like to use the term “*nix” with a meaning that has
nothing to do with the trademark, for how a system is supposed to
work. POSIX is a core part of that, of course. But there’s a lot more
to it. Linux and the BSDs conform to this “*nix” concept, while
Apple’s OSes do not.
To which "core parts" do Apple's OSes not conform exactly?
How about you go away and actually use some proper *nix systems for a
few years, then you can come back and show us how you’ve answered the question for yourself.
On 2025-06-04 15:47, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:40:27 -0700, Alan wrote:
Where is it a mandated part of Unix that it be able to use multiple
GUIs?
Is that “Unix” the concept, or “Unix” the trademark?
You're the one who has made the claim, so whichever one YOU mean.
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 22:48:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <101qig6$13glj$3@dont-email.me>:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:41:29 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 00:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Nobody was disputing that Apple is a licensee of the “Unix” trademark, >>>> and is entitled to use it to label their products.
This is why I like to use the term “*nix” with a meaning that has
nothing to do with the trademark, for how a system is supposed to
work. POSIX is a core part of that, of course. But there’s a lot more >>>> to it. Linux and the BSDs conform to this “*nix” concept, while
Apple’s OSes do not.
To which "core parts" do Apple's OSes not conform exactly?
How about you go away and actually use some proper *nix systems for a
few years, then you can come back and show us how you’ve answered the
question for yourself.
Actually, how about you log in to a shell on an Apple system
and "see for yourself".
It's not only Unix, it's UNIX(r).
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 15:58:36 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 15:47, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:40:27 -0700, Alan wrote:
Where is it a mandated part of Unix that it be able to use multiple
GUIs?
Is that “Unix” the concept, or “Unix” the trademark?
You're the one who has made the claim, so whichever one YOU mean.
The fact that every single *nix system is able to do it, except the one
that has officially licensed the trademark, should answer your question.
s/not only/not/
The two are completely orthogonal.
On 2025-06-04 16:13, vallor wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 22:48:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <101qig6$13glj$3@dont-email.me>:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:41:29 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 00:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Nobody was disputing that Apple is a licensee of the “Unix”
trademark,
and is entitled to use it to label their products.
This is why I like to use the term “*nix” with a meaning that has >>>>> nothing to do with the trademark, for how a system is supposed to
work. POSIX is a core part of that, of course. But there’s a lot
more to it. Linux and the BSDs conform to this “*nix” concept, while >>>>> Apple’s OSes do not.
To which "core parts" do Apple's OSes not conform exactly?
How about you go away and actually use some proper *nix systems for a
few years, then you can come back and show us how you’ve answered the
question for yourself.
Actually, how about you log in to a shell on an Apple system and "see
for yourself".
It's not only Unix, it's UNIX(r).
Yup!
I don't use the Terminal app all that often, but it's certainly there,
with the full suite of Unix programs.
:-)
Sorry, but that doesn't make it "mandated".
Or do you not know what "mandate" actually means?
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 16:17:13 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in <101qk5p$13n57$7@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-06-04 16:13, vallor wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 22:48:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <101qig6$13glj$3@dont-email.me>:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:41:29 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 00:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Nobody was disputing that Apple is a licensee of the “Unix”
trademark,
and is entitled to use it to label their products.
This is why I like to use the term “*nix” with a meaning that has >>>>>> nothing to do with the trademark, for how a system is supposed to
work. POSIX is a core part of that, of course. But there’s a lot >>>>>> more to it. Linux and the BSDs conform to this “*nix” concept, while >>>>>> Apple’s OSes do not.
To which "core parts" do Apple's OSes not conform exactly?
How about you go away and actually use some proper *nix systems for a
few years, then you can come back and show us how you’ve answered the >>>> question for yourself.
Actually, how about you log in to a shell on an Apple system and "see
for yourself".
It's not only Unix, it's UNIX(r).
Yup!
I don't use the Terminal app all that often, but it's certainly there,
with the full suite of Unix programs.
:-)
He's trolling. He's never logged in to a MacOS system.
Tell you what, Lawrence -- if you're interested, I can facilitate you
logging in to a MacOS system (which is a Mac Studio, lower-end
workstation class), and you can satisfy yourself that it meets all
the POSIX requirements, both library and tools.
But you know that's the case, because it's certified. Or do you not
trust the Open Group to make that determination?
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 16:26:45 -0700, Alan wrote:
Sorry, but that doesn't make it "mandated".
Or do you not know what "mandate" actually means?
You were the one who keeps using the word, perhaps you should be the one
to look it up.
Like I said, the trademark is pretty meaningless nowadays. Even Ken
Thompson can’t be bothered with it any more.
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 22:48:38 -0000 (UTC), I wrote:
How about you go away and actually use some proper *nix systems for a
few years, then you can come back and show us how you’ve answered the
question for yourself.
In particular, go look up something called the “Unix philosophy”.
The OS+userland core is just a toolkit: its job is to provide mechanism,
not policy. Policy is something that should be configurable for a
particular application/installation, by the users/administrators of that application/installation.
Logically, this extends to the GUI toolkits as well: they should provide tools for constructing GUIs, without mandating how a particular GUI should look. This is why we have themes, for example. Look at how the
architecture of X11, and its successor Wayland, both facilitate this way
of looking at things, while Apple’s (and Microsoft’s) GUI-integrated-into-
the-kernel do not.
Remember: “mechanism, not policy”.
How about you go away and actually use some proper *nix systems for a
few years, then you can come back and show us how you’ve answered the question for yourself.
Like I said, the trademark is pretty meaningless nowadays. Even Ken
Thompson can’t be bothered with it any more.
My main exposure to MacOS X was with a former (now defunct) very Mac-heavy client. The company was founded by someone I knew from my own Mac days,
which is why he brought me in to do various sysadmin/development work for him. I put in a pair of Linux servers running the Asterisk telephony
engine.
One day, in their offices, I needed to SSH into one of the Linux boxes to
fix something. I tried using the MacOS X terminal, logged into Linux, and started Emacs.
Soon as I pressed the equivalent of control-space to start selecting text, the search system, “Spotlight”, kicked in. Which I didn’t want. And could
find no way of disabling.
At that point, I gave up and asked if they had a Windows machine, running Putty. They did. That worked a lot better.
Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 15:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:41:29 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 00:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Nobody was disputing that Apple is a licensee of the “Unix”
trademark, and is entitled to use it to label their products.
This is why I like to use the term “*nix” with a meaning that has >>>>> nothing to do with the trademark, for how a system is supposed to
work. POSIX is a core part of that, of course. But there’s a lot
more to it. Linux and the BSDs conform to this “*nix” concept,
while Apple’s OSes do not.
To which "core parts" do Apple's OSes not conform exactly?
How about you go away and actually use some proper *nix systems for a
few years, then you can come back and show us how you’ve answered the
question for yourself.
So you can't answer.
Got it.
i can i'm just being rude and not doing it
Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 18:07, % wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 15:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:41:29 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 00:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Nobody was disputing that Apple is a licensee of the “Unix”
trademark, and is entitled to use it to label their products.
This is why I like to use the term “*nix” with a meaning that has >>>>>>> nothing to do with the trademark, for how a system is supposed to >>>>>>> work. POSIX is a core part of that, of course. But there’s a lot >>>>>>> more to it. Linux and the BSDs conform to this “*nix” concept, >>>>>>> while Apple’s OSes do not.
To which "core parts" do Apple's OSes not conform exactly?
How about you go away and actually use some proper *nix systems for a >>>>> few years, then you can come back and show us how you’ve answered the >>>>> question for yourself.
So you can't answer.
Got it.
i can i'm just being rude and not doing it
Are you saying that you're also posting as Lawrence D'Oliveiro?
Because he's the one to whom my words were addressed.
:-)
this is a public format you addressed comp.os.linux.advocacy
Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 18:13, % wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 18:07, % wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 15:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:41:29 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 00:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Nobody was disputing that Apple is a licensee of the “Unix” >>>>>>>>> trademark, and is entitled to use it to label their products. >>>>>>>>>
This is why I like to use the term “*nix” with a meaning that has >>>>>>>>> nothing to do with the trademark, for how a system is supposed to >>>>>>>>> work. POSIX is a core part of that, of course. But there’s a lot >>>>>>>>> more to it. Linux and the BSDs conform to this “*nix” concept, >>>>>>>>> while Apple’s OSes do not.
To which "core parts" do Apple's OSes not conform exactly?
How about you go away and actually use some proper *nix systems
for a
few years, then you can come back and show us how you’ve answered >>>>>>> the
question for yourself.
So you can't answer.
Got it.
i can i'm just being rude and not doing it
Are you saying that you're also posting as Lawrence D'Oliveiro?
Because he's the one to whom my words were addressed.
:-)
this is a public format you addressed comp.os.linux.advocacy
I understand that...
...but that doesn't mean words aren't directed to what previous people
have said.
did someone elect you to be the newsgroup cop ,
or did you just elect yourself and then start ,
either way we got a problem due to the fact ,
that i do as i please here
Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 19:00, % wrote:do you have a paragraph you would like to submit here ,
Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 18:13, % wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 18:07, % wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 15:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:41:29 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 00:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Nobody was disputing that Apple is a licensee of the “Unix” >>>>>>>>>>> trademark, and is entitled to use it to label their products. >>>>>>>>>>>
This is why I like to use the term “*nix” with a meaning that >>>>>>>>>>> has nothing to do with the trademark, for how a system is >>>>>>>>>>> supposed to work. POSIX is a core part of that, of course. But >>>>>>>>>>> there’s a lot more to it. Linux and the BSDs conform to this >>>>>>>>>>> “*nix” concept, while Apple’s OSes do not.
To which "core parts" do Apple's OSes not conform exactly?
How about you go away and actually use some proper *nix systems >>>>>>>>> for a few years, then you can come back and show us how you’ve >>>>>>>>> answered the question for yourself.
So you can't answer.
Got it.
i can i'm just being rude and not doing it
Are you saying that you're also posting as Lawrence D'Oliveiro?
Because he's the one to whom my words were addressed.
:-)
this is a public format you addressed comp.os.linux.advocacy
I understand that...
...but that doesn't mean words aren't directed to what previous
people have said.
did someone elect you to be the newsgroup cop ,
Nope.
Why is it people like you assume that a comment is an attempt to
police?
Or since you're commenting about me, can I assume you think YOU've been
elected?
or did you just elect yourself and then start ,
either way we got a problem due to the fact , that i do as i please
here
As do I.
The difference is:
You whine about it.
i thought i saw you talking about you
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 19:33:46 -0700, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote in <b92cnbY9xeCFn9z1nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 19:00, % wrote:do you have a paragraph you would like to submit here ,
Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 18:13, % wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 18:07, % wrote:
Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 15:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:41:29 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 00:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:How about you go away and actually use some proper *nix systems >>>>>>>>>> for a few years, then you can come back and show us how you’ve >>>>>>>>>> answered the question for yourself.
Nobody was disputing that Apple is a licensee of the “Unix” >>>>>>>>>>>> trademark, and is entitled to use it to label their products. >>>>>>>>>>>>
This is why I like to use the term “*nix” with a meaning that >>>>>>>>>>>> has nothing to do with the trademark, for how a system is >>>>>>>>>>>> supposed to work. POSIX is a core part of that, of course. But >>>>>>>>>>>> there’s a lot more to it. Linux and the BSDs conform to this >>>>>>>>>>>> “*nix” concept, while Apple’s OSes do not.
To which "core parts" do Apple's OSes not conform exactly? >>>>>>>>>>
So you can't answer.
Got it.
i can i'm just being rude and not doing it
Are you saying that you're also posting as Lawrence D'Oliveiro?
Because he's the one to whom my words were addressed.
:-)
this is a public format you addressed comp.os.linux.advocacy
I understand that...
...but that doesn't mean words aren't directed to what previous
people have said.
did someone elect you to be the newsgroup cop ,
Nope.
Why is it people like you assume that a comment is an attempt to
police?
Or since you're commenting about me, can I assume you think YOU've been
elected?
or did you just elect yourself and then start ,
either way we got a problem due to the fact , that i do as i please
here
As do I.
The difference is:
You whine about it.
i thought i saw you talking about you
Admit it, % -- he beat you at your own game.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-04 16:13, vallor wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 22:48:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <101qig6$13glj$3@dont-email.me>:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:41:29 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 00:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Nobody was disputing that Apple is a licensee of the “Unix” trademark,
and is entitled to use it to label their products.
This is why I like to use the term “*nix” with a meaning that has >>>>>> nothing to do with the trademark, for how a system is supposed to
work. POSIX is a core part of that, of course. But there’s a lot more >>>>>> to it. Linux and the BSDs conform to this “*nix” concept, while >>>>>> Apple’s OSes do not.
To which "core parts" do Apple's OSes not conform exactly?
How about you go away and actually use some proper *nix systems for a
few years, then you can come back and show us how you’ve answered the >>>> question for yourself.
Actually, how about you log in to a shell on an Apple system
and "see for yourself".
It's not only Unix, it's UNIX(r).
Yup!
I don't use the Terminal app all that often, but it's certainly there,
with the full suite of Unix programs.
:-)
No matter what I say about Apple, make no mistake, macOS is at its
core a better OS than M$ Winblows, because it doesn't try to be every imaginable thing. It's sleek, like Linux is. That is priceless.
On 2025-06-04 20:22, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:I used to make my living by supporting mostly Mac users.
On 2025-06-04 16:13, vallor wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 22:48:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <101qig6$13glj$3@dont-email.me>:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:41:29 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 00:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Nobody was disputing that Apple is a licensee of the “Unix”
trademark,
and is entitled to use it to label their products.
This is why I like to use the term “*nix” with a meaning that has >>>>>>> nothing to do with the trademark, for how a system is supposed to >>>>>>> work. POSIX is a core part of that, of course. But there’s a lot >>>>>>> more to it. Linux and the BSDs conform to this “*nix” concept, >>>>>>> while Apple’s OSes do not.
To which "core parts" do Apple's OSes not conform exactly?
How about you go away and actually use some proper *nix systems for
a few years, then you can come back and show us how you’ve answered >>>>> the question for yourself.
Actually, how about you log in to a shell on an Apple system and "see
for yourself".
It's not only Unix, it's UNIX(r).
Yup!
I don't use the Terminal app all that often, but it's certainly there,
with the full suite of Unix programs.
:-)
No matter what I say about Apple, make no mistake, macOS is at its core
a better OS than M$ Winblows, because it doesn't try to be every
imaginable thing. It's sleek, like Linux is. That is priceless.
Nothing has made it more clear how superior macOS is to Windows than the
fact that despite there being more a larger percentage of people using
Macs these days, I nearly never need to support my Mac-using clients.
I make my living now with my Windows clients
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 20:51:38 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in <101r48a$1a9ik$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-06-04 20:22, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:I used to make my living by supporting mostly Mac users.
On 2025-06-04 16:13, vallor wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 22:48:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <101qig6$13glj$3@dont-email.me>:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:41:29 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 00:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Nobody was disputing that Apple is a licensee of the “Unix” >>>>>>>> trademark,
and is entitled to use it to label their products.
This is why I like to use the term “*nix” with a meaning that has >>>>>>>> nothing to do with the trademark, for how a system is supposed to >>>>>>>> work. POSIX is a core part of that, of course. But there’s a lot >>>>>>>> more to it. Linux and the BSDs conform to this “*nix” concept, >>>>>>>> while Apple’s OSes do not.
To which "core parts" do Apple's OSes not conform exactly?
How about you go away and actually use some proper *nix systems for >>>>>> a few years, then you can come back and show us how you’ve answered >>>>>> the question for yourself.
Actually, how about you log in to a shell on an Apple system and "see >>>>> for yourself".
It's not only Unix, it's UNIX(r).
Yup!
I don't use the Terminal app all that often, but it's certainly there, >>>> with the full suite of Unix programs.
:-)
No matter what I say about Apple, make no mistake, macOS is at its core
a better OS than M$ Winblows, because it doesn't try to be every
imaginable thing. It's sleek, like Linux is. That is priceless.
Nothing has made it more clear how superior macOS is to Windows than the
fact that despite there being more a larger percentage of people using
Macs these days, I nearly never need to support my Mac-using clients.
I make my living now with my Windows clients
Do you have any Linux clients? And if so...what is the support load
there?
On 2025-06-04 21:20, vallor wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 20:51:38 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in
<101r48a$1a9ik$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-06-04 20:22, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:I used to make my living by supporting mostly Mac users.
On 2025-06-04 16:13, vallor wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 22:48:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <101qig6$13glj$3@dont-email.me>:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:41:29 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 00:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Nobody was disputing that Apple is a licensee of the “Unix” >>>>>>>>> trademark,
and is entitled to use it to label their products.
This is why I like to use the term “*nix” with a meaning that has >>>>>>>>> nothing to do with the trademark, for how a system is supposed to >>>>>>>>> work. POSIX is a core part of that, of course. But there’s a lot >>>>>>>>> more to it. Linux and the BSDs conform to this “*nix” concept, >>>>>>>>> while Apple’s OSes do not.
To which "core parts" do Apple's OSes not conform exactly?
How about you go away and actually use some proper *nix systems for >>>>>>> a few years, then you can come back and show us how you’ve answered >>>>>>> the question for yourself.
Actually, how about you log in to a shell on an Apple system and "see >>>>>> for yourself".
It's not only Unix, it's UNIX(r).
Yup!
I don't use the Terminal app all that often, but it's certainly there, >>>>> with the full suite of Unix programs.
:-)
No matter what I say about Apple, make no mistake, macOS is at its core >>>> a better OS than M$ Winblows, because it doesn't try to be every
imaginable thing. It's sleek, like Linux is. That is priceless.
Nothing has made it more clear how superior macOS is to Windows than the >>> fact that despite there being more a larger percentage of people using
Macs these days, I nearly never need to support my Mac-using clients.
I make my living now with my Windows clients
Do you have any Linux clients? And if so...what is the support load
there?
I'm sorry, I don't.
I think very much the people who choose Linux are the sorts of people
who are self-supporting.
On 2025-06-04 21:20, vallor wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 20:51:38 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in
<101r48a$1a9ik$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-06-04 20:22, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:I used to make my living by supporting mostly Mac users.
On 2025-06-04 16:13, vallor wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 22:48:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <101qig6$13glj$3@dont-email.me>:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 08:41:29 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-04 00:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Nobody was disputing that Apple is a licensee of the “Unix” >>>>>>>>> trademark,
and is entitled to use it to label their products.
This is why I like to use the term “*nix” with a meaning that has >>>>>>>>> nothing to do with the trademark, for how a system is supposed to >>>>>>>>> work. POSIX is a core part of that, of course. But there’s a lot >>>>>>>>> more to it. Linux and the BSDs conform to this “*nix” concept, >>>>>>>>> while Apple’s OSes do not.
To which "core parts" do Apple's OSes not conform exactly?
How about you go away and actually use some proper *nix systems for >>>>>>> a few years, then you can come back and show us how you’ve answered >>>>>>> the question for yourself.
Actually, how about you log in to a shell on an Apple system and "see >>>>>> for yourself".
It's not only Unix, it's UNIX(r).
Yup!
I don't use the Terminal app all that often, but it's certainly there, >>>>> with the full suite of Unix programs.
:-)
No matter what I say about Apple, make no mistake, macOS is at its core >>>> a better OS than M$ Winblows, because it doesn't try to be every
imaginable thing. It's sleek, like Linux is. That is priceless.
Nothing has made it more clear how superior macOS is to Windows than the >>> fact that despite there being more a larger percentage of people using
Macs these days, I nearly never need to support my Mac-using clients.
I make my living now with my Windows clients
Do you have any Linux clients? And if so...what is the support load
there?
I'm sorry, I don't.
I think very much the people who choose Linux are the sorts of people who are self-supporting.
:-)
Alan wrote:
I used to make my living by supporting mostly Mac users.
Nothing has made it more clear how superior macOS is to Windows than the
fact that despite there being more a larger percentage of people using
Macs these days, I nearly never need to support my Mac-using clients.
I make my living now with my Windows clients
no you don't
On 05.06.25 15:38, % wrote:
Alan wrote:
I used to make my living by supporting mostly Mac users.
Nothing has made it more clear how superior macOS is to Windows than the >>> fact that despite there being more a larger percentage of people using
Macs these days, I nearly never need to support my Mac-using clients.
I make my living now with my Windows clients
no you don't
Troll.
On 2025-06-04, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 02:43:19 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
It is macOS that is “different” from how people expect a “Unix” system
to behave, not the Linuxes and BSDs. Offering a choice of GUIs (or no
GUI at all), is part of how people expect a “Unix” system to behave.
https://www.macrumors.com/2025/05/29/macos-26-rumored-to-drop-support-for- >> these-macs/
I was surprised by that. Like the Windows 10 people who can't go forward
it sounds like Apple amy cause people with older Macs to go to Linux.
Since Apple sells both the hardware and OS, it seems even more self-serving for them to "obsolete" their older Macs — although Microsoft might as well own the OEM PC hardware market since they have a near strangle hold on it.
On 2025-06-04, Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:
On Jun 3, 2025 at 8:08:29 PM EDT, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid> >> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 23:14:24 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
Fun fact: Macs/iPhones/iPads make up the largest installed base of Unix >>>> computers by a single company in the world.
What is “Unix”? It’s just a trademark. The original meaning of a
particular way for a computer system (OS and userland) to operate has
gone, and Apple played an instrumental part in killing it.
You repeating this does not make it true.
Unix does not look dead to me.
When people think “Unix” nowadays, they really mean a Linux or BSD system.
That’s what works they way they expect a “Unix” system to work. Not Apple.
Only because everyone expects a "Unix" system to be ugly and obtuse.
It sounds like you are confusing the GUI with the underlying OS. Underneath >> it is a descendent of BSD, with a userland mainly from FreeBSD.
MacOS/iOS/iPadOS are, in fact, Unix. Whether you like it or not.
Some people make the same argument for Android... I don't completely buy
into it, but Android does use the Linux (UNIX) kernel.
On 2025-06-05 08:28, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 05.06.25 15:38, % wrote:
Alan wrote:
I used to make my living by supporting mostly Mac users.
Nothing has made it more clear how superior macOS is to Windows than the >>>> fact that despite there being more a larger percentage of people using >>>> Macs these days, I nearly never need to support my Mac-using clients.
I make my living now with my Windows clients
no you don't
Troll.
Meh.
I've already decided just to ignore him.
:-)
On 2025-06-05 00:55, RonB wrote:for-
On 2025-06-04, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 02:43:19 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
It is macOS that is “different” from how people expect a “Unix” >>>> system to behave, not the Linuxes and BSDs. Offering a choice of GUIs
(or no GUI at all), is part of how people expect a “Unix” system to >>>> behave.
https://www.macrumors.com/2025/05/29/macos-26-rumored-to-drop-support-
You're kidding, right?these-macs/
I was surprised by that. Like the Windows 10 people who can't go
forward it sounds like Apple amy cause people with older Macs to go to
Linux.
Since Apple sells both the hardware and OS, it seems even more
self-serving for them to "obsolete" their older Macs — although
Microsoft might as well own the OEM PC hardware market since they have
a near strangle hold on it.
The latest OS is macOS Sequoia 15.5...
...and it's compatible with Macs going back as far as 2017.
8 years of support is more than reasonable
On 05.06.25 18:15, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-05 08:28, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
On 05.06.25 15:38, % wrote:
Alan wrote:
I used to make my living by supporting mostly Mac users.
Nothing has made it more clear how superior macOS is to Windows
than the
fact that despite there being more a larger percentage of people using >>>>> Macs these days, I nearly never need to support my Mac-using clients. >>>>>
I make my living now with my Windows clients
no you don't
Troll.
Meh.
I've already decided just to ignore him.
:-)
And I consider to killfile him.
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 09:27:24 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-05 00:55, RonB wrote:for-
On 2025-06-04, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 02:43:19 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
It is macOS that is “different” from how people expect a “Unix” >>>>> system to behave, not the Linuxes and BSDs. Offering a choice of GUIs >>>>> (or no GUI at all), is part of how people expect a “Unix” system to >>>>> behave.
https://www.macrumors.com/2025/05/29/macos-26-rumored-to-drop-support-
You're kidding, right?these-macs/
I was surprised by that. Like the Windows 10 people who can't go
forward it sounds like Apple amy cause people with older Macs to go to >>>> Linux.
Since Apple sells both the hardware and OS, it seems even more
self-serving for them to "obsolete" their older Macs — although
Microsoft might as well own the OEM PC hardware market since they have
a near strangle hold on it.
The latest OS is macOS Sequoia 15.5...
...and it's compatible with Macs going back as far as 2017.
8 years of support is more than reasonable
https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/05/28/macos-26-may-not-support-2018- macbook-pros-2019-imacs-or-the-imac-pro
Unless you have a 2020 Intel MacBook Air...
On 2025-06-05, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-05 00:55, RonB wrote:
On 2025-06-04, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 02:43:19 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
It is macOS that is “different” from how people expect a “Unix” systemhttps://www.macrumors.com/2025/05/29/macos-26-rumored-to-drop-support-for- >>>> these-macs/
to behave, not the Linuxes and BSDs. Offering a choice of GUIs (or no >>>>> GUI at all), is part of how people expect a “Unix” system to behave. >>>>
I was surprised by that. Like the Windows 10 people who can't go forward >>>> it sounds like Apple amy cause people with older Macs to go to Linux.
Since Apple sells both the hardware and OS, it seems even more self-serving >>> for them to "obsolete" their older Macs — although Microsoft might as well
own the OEM PC hardware market since they have a near strangle hold on it. >>>
You're kidding, right?
The latest OS is macOS Sequoia 15.5...
...and it's compatible with Macs going back as far as 2017.
8 years of support is more than reasonable
First, did you read the article linked that I was responding to? According
to them, the next Mac OS release is rumored to drop support for the
following Macs (one that came out in 2020)...
MacBook Pro (2018)
iMac (2019)> iMac Pro (2017)
Mac mini (2018)
MacBook Air (2020, Intel-based)
Second, even if the rumor is false (it comes from Apple Insider) 2017 would mean the computer I'm now typing on would be "too old" by four years since
it came out in 2013, twelve years ago. (And it works fine.) Fortunately I
use Linux and don't have to worry about built-in obsolescence. I can still use Linux on my computers as old as 2007. One computer I installed the
newest version of Linux Mint on was a 2012 Mac Mini — and it works fine.
It's amazing what can be done when greed is taken out of the equation. To
me, NOT mandating an arbitrary EOL for your OS is "reasonable." Especially
in Apple's case where support is limited to a relatively few number of Mac models. (Compare this to Microsoft's and Linux's support for almost endless number of hardware configurations.)
On 2025-06-05, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-05 00:57, RonB wrote:
On 2025-06-04, Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:
On Jun 3, 2025 at 8:08:29 PM EDT, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid> >>>> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 23:14:24 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
Fun fact: Macs/iPhones/iPads make up the largest installed base of Unix >>>>>> computers by a single company in the world.
What is “Unix”? It’s just a trademark. The original meaning of a >>>>> particular way for a computer system (OS and userland) to operate has >>>>> gone, and Apple played an instrumental part in killing it.
You repeating this does not make it true.
Unix does not look dead to me.
When people think “Unix” nowadays, they really mean a Linux or BSD system.
That’s what works they way they expect a “Unix” system to work. Not Apple.
Only because everyone expects a "Unix" system to be ugly and obtuse.
It sounds like you are confusing the GUI with the underlying OS. Underneath
it is a descendent of BSD, with a userland mainly from FreeBSD.
MacOS/iOS/iPadOS are, in fact, Unix. Whether you like it or not.
Some people make the same argument for Android... I don't completely buy >>> into it, but Android does use the Linux (UNIX) kernel.
macOS being Unix is a verifiable fact.
Whoop dee doo. Traditional UNIX trails modern Linux in features by a lot. Color me unimpressed by the UNIX trademark. You do realize that the top 500 supercomputers all run Linux now, right? (Not one UNIX computer amonst them and Windows presence in that list disappeared even earlier.) I don't think Apple ever had any in that list. But, if they did, that was a long time ago.
On 2025-06-05, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-05 10:54, rbowman wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 09:27:24 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-05 00:55, RonB wrote:
On 2025-06-04, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:You're kidding, right?
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 02:43:19 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>>>>
It is macOS that is “different” from how people expect a “Unix” >>>>>>> system to behave, not the Linuxes and BSDs. Offering a choice of GUIs >>>>>>> (or no GUI at all), is part of how people expect a “Unix” system to >>>>>>> behave.
https://www.macrumors.com/2025/05/29/macos-26-rumored-to-drop-support- >>> for-
these-macs/
I was surprised by that. Like the Windows 10 people who can't go
forward it sounds like Apple amy cause people with older Macs to go to >>>>>> Linux.
Since Apple sells both the hardware and OS, it seems even more
self-serving for them to "obsolete" their older Macs — although
Microsoft might as well own the OEM PC hardware market since they have >>>>> a near strangle hold on it.
The latest OS is macOS Sequoia 15.5...
...and it's compatible with Macs going back as far as 2017.
8 years of support is more than reasonable
https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/05/28/macos-26-may-not-support-2018- >>> macbook-pros-2019-imacs-or-the-imac-pro
Unless you have a 2020 Intel MacBook Air...
That is a speculation about what "may" happen in the future.
Why don't we just wait a few days and find out?
It's coming from Apple Insider. I'm guessing it's probably true, considering Apple's desire to get away from Intel CPUs. But even if not true, there's a lot of good working Mac hardware already no longer supported. (A lot of them are now running Linux.)
RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-05, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-05 00:57, RonB wrote:
On 2025-06-04, Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:
On Jun 3, 2025 at 8:08:29?PM EDT, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
When people think “Unix” nowadays, they really mean a Linux or BSD system.
That’s what works they way they expect a “Unix” system to work. Not Apple.
Only because everyone expects a "Unix" system to be ugly and obtuse. >>>>>
It sounds like you are confusing the GUI with the underlying OS. Underneath
it is a descendent of BSD, with a userland mainly from FreeBSD.
MacOS/iOS/iPadOS are, in fact, Unix. Whether you like it or not.
Some people make the same argument for Android... I don't completely buy >>>> into it, but Android does use the Linux (UNIX) kernel.
macOS being Unix is a verifiable fact.
Whoop dee doo. Traditional UNIX trails modern Linux in features by a lot.
Color me unimpressed by the UNIX trademark. You do realize that the top 500 >> supercomputers all run Linux now, right? (Not one UNIX computer amonst them >> and Windows presence in that list disappeared even earlier.) I don't think >> Apple ever had any in that list. But, if they did, that was a long time ago.
macOS is nonexistent on a supercomputer, the fact that Windows NT canUsing Macs for supercomputers would be silly, but it says nothing
operate one is a novelty I guess, but you're absolutely correct that
Linux rules that world, because it''s not proprietary, it;s open-
source, even.
On 2025-06-05 21:41, RonB wrote:support-
On 2025-06-05, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-05 10:54, rbowman wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 09:27:24 -0700, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-05 00:55, RonB wrote:
On 2025-06-04, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 02:43:19 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
wrote:
It is macOS that is “different” from how people expect a “Unix”
system to behave, not the Linuxes and BSDs. Offering a choice of >>>>>>>> GUIs (or no GUI at all), is part of how people expect a “Unix” >>>>>>>> system to behave.
https://www.macrumors.com/2025/05/29/macos-26-rumored-to-drop-
support-2018-for-
You're kidding, right?these-macs/
I was surprised by that. Like the Windows 10 people who can't go >>>>>>> forward it sounds like Apple amy cause people with older Macs to >>>>>>> go to Linux.
Since Apple sells both the hardware and OS, it seems even more
self-serving for them to "obsolete" their older Macs — although
Microsoft might as well own the OEM PC hardware market since they
have a near strangle hold on it.
The latest OS is macOS Sequoia 15.5...
...and it's compatible with Macs going back as far as 2017.
8 years of support is more than reasonable
https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/05/28/macos-26-may-not-
macbook-pros-2019-imacs-or-the-imac-proThat is a speculation about what "may" happen in the future.
Unless you have a 2020 Intel MacBook Air...
Why don't we just wait a few days and find out?
It's coming from Apple Insider. I'm guessing it's probably true,
considering Apple's desire to get away from Intel CPUs. But even if not
true, there's a lot of good working Mac hardware already no longer
supported. (A lot of them are now running Linux.)
You mean you WANT it to be true.
Did I not say that Apple is not a computer and software company but rather that it is a TOY company.
Did I not fucking say that? Huh? Did I fucking not?
Who the fuck are you to attempt to overturn my infallible statements?
Huh? Who the fuck are you?
I was a college instructor
and I encountered class after class of
intellectual deadbeats like you who are now undoubtedly successful
in the world and who now undoubtedly prefer Apple products.
Fuck you.
Fun fact: Macs/iPhones/iPads make up the largest installed base of Unix computers by a single company in the world.
Only because everyone expects a "Unix" system to be ugly and obtuse.
It sounds like you are confusing the GUI with the underlying OS.
On 2025-06-06, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-05 21:38, RonB wrote:
On 2025-06-05, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:And older Macs continue to work with older OSes...
On 2025-06-05 00:55, RonB wrote:
On 2025-06-04, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 02:43:19 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>>>>Since Apple sells both the hardware and OS, it seems even more self-serving
It is macOS that is “different” from how people expect a “Unix” system
to behave, not the Linuxes and BSDs. Offering a choice of GUIs (or no >>>>>>> GUI at all), is part of how people expect a “Unix” system to behave.
https://www.macrumors.com/2025/05/29/macos-26-rumored-to-drop-support-for-
these-macs/
I was surprised by that. Like the Windows 10 people who can't go forward >>>>>> it sounds like Apple amy cause people with older Macs to go to Linux. >>>>>
for them to "obsolete" their older Macs — although Microsoft might as well
own the OEM PC hardware market since they have a near strangle hold on it.
You're kidding, right?
The latest OS is macOS Sequoia 15.5...
...and it's compatible with Macs going back as far as 2017.
8 years of support is more than reasonable
First, did you read the article linked that I was responding to? According >>> to them, the next Mac OS release is rumored to drop support for the
following Macs (one that came out in 2020)...
MacBook Pro (2018)
iMac (2019)> iMac Pro (2017)
Mac mini (2018)
MacBook Air (2020, Intel-based)
Second, even if the rumor is false (it comes from Apple Insider) 2017 would >>> mean the computer I'm now typing on would be "too old" by four years since >>> it came out in 2013, twelve years ago. (And it works fine.) Fortunately I >>> use Linux and don't have to worry about built-in obsolescence. I can still >>> use Linux on my computers as old as 2007. One computer I installed the
newest version of Linux Mint on was a 2012 Mac Mini — and it works fine. >>
Without updates or security updates. Completely different than running the newest version of Debian (for example) on a 2007 computer.
It's amazing what can be done when greed is taken out of the equation. To >>> me, NOT mandating an arbitrary EOL for your OS is "reasonable." Especially >>> in Apple's case where support is limited to a relatively few number of Mac >>> models. (Compare this to Microsoft's and Linux's support for almost endless >>> number of hardware configurations.)
So a business is expected to maintain compatibility with every piece of
software its ever built?
No, but security updates for older Macs would be nice. Linux is superior in this regard. Old computers can still run the latest applications.
Le 04-06-2025, Tyrone <none@none.none> a écrit :
Only because everyone expects a "Unix" system to be ugly and obtuse.
It sounds like you are confusing the GUI with the underlying OS.
Read the first sentence I let again. And tell me you are not
confusing a Unix system with a GUI in the second sentence. Because the
ugly part can only be about the GUI. Which is not ugly if you don't want
it to be ugly. Unlike Apple who decide for you how you must use your computer, Linux can look like anything you want.
On 2025-06-06, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-05 21:45, RonB wrote:
On 2025-06-05, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-05 00:57, RonB wrote:
On 2025-06-04, Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:
On Jun 3, 2025 at 8:08:29 PM EDT, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 23:14:24 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
Fun fact: Macs/iPhones/iPads make up the largest installed base of Unix
computers by a single company in the world.
What is “Unix”? It’s just a trademark. The original meaning of a >>>>>>> particular way for a computer system (OS and userland) to operate has >>>>>>> gone, and Apple played an instrumental part in killing it.
You repeating this does not make it true.
Unix does not look dead to me.
When people think “Unix” nowadays, they really mean a Linux or BSD system.
That’s what works they way they expect a “Unix” system to work. Not Apple.
Only because everyone expects a "Unix" system to be ugly and obtuse. >>>>>>
It sounds like you are confusing the GUI with the underlying OS. Underneath
it is a descendent of BSD, with a userland mainly from FreeBSD.
MacOS/iOS/iPadOS are, in fact, Unix. Whether you like it or not.
Some people make the same argument for Android... I don't completely buy >>>>> into it, but Android does use the Linux (UNIX) kernel.
macOS being Unix is a verifiable fact.
Whoop dee doo. Traditional UNIX trails modern Linux in features by a lot. >>> Color me unimpressed by the UNIX trademark. You do realize that the top 500 >>> supercomputers all run Linux now, right? (Not one UNIX computer amonst them >>> and Windows presence in that list disappeared even earlier.) I don't think >>> Apple ever had any in that list. But, if they did, that was a long time ago.
And this is important to what ordinary PEOPLE need from computers...
...how exactly?
I don't know. You're the one going on about UNIX in Macs.
On 2025-06-06 11:18, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
Le 04-06-2025, Tyrone <none@none.none> a écrit :
Only because everyone expects a "Unix" system to be ugly and obtuse.
It sounds like you are confusing the GUI with the underlying OS.
Read the first sentence I let again. And tell me you are not
confusing a Unix system with a GUI in the second sentence. Because the
ugly part can only be about the GUI. Which is not ugly if you don't want
it to be ugly. Unlike Apple who decide for you how you must use your
computer, Linux can look like anything you want.
What so many of you fail to understand is that most people don't WANT to
make things "look like anything [they] want".
They want consistency and usability.
What so many of you fail to understand is that most people don't WANT to
make things "look like anything [they] want".
They want consistency and usability.
On 2025-06-06, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-06 11:18, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
Le 04-06-2025, Tyrone <none@none.none> a écrit :
Only because everyone expects a "Unix" system to be ugly and obtuse.
It sounds like you are confusing the GUI with the underlying OS.
Read the first sentence I let again. And tell me you are not
confusing a Unix system with a GUI in the second sentence. Because the
ugly part can only be about the GUI. Which is not ugly if you don't want >>> it to be ugly. Unlike Apple who decide for you how you must use your
computer, Linux can look like anything you want.
What so many of you fail to understand is that most people don't WANT to
make things "look like anything [they] want".
They want consistency and usability.
Or so you claim. And yet that's one the common complaints about Windows — that it puts its users in a straight jacket, without the ability to
customize the desktop. Linux proves that people LIKE choice, that's why there's a dozen (or so) desktops, often customized in completely different ways.
What you mean is Mac users want "conformity" and that's fine for them. I don't like Mac OS because its developers think they know best how I should want to use my computer. I don't like my computer controlling me, I want to control it.
As far as usability goes, I find the usability is better in Linux than in
the Mac or Windows. It works how I want it to work.
I use Windows at work, and it isn't consistent. The top title bar
differs from program to program, decorations are different depending on whether I'm using Outlook, Adobe or Firefox.
Or so you claim. And yet that's one the common complaints about Windows
—
that it puts its users in a straight jacket, without the ability to
customize the desktop. Linux proves that people LIKE choice, that's why there's a dozen (or so) desktops, often customized in completely
different ways.
File open and save dialogs also seem to differ and ways to access the filesystem from said dialogs differ.
On 2025-06-06, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-06 11:18, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
Le 04-06-2025, Tyrone <none@none.none> a écrit :
Only because everyone expects a "Unix" system to be ugly and obtuse.
It sounds like you are confusing the GUI with the underlying OS.
Read the first sentence I let again. And tell me you are not
confusing a Unix system with a GUI in the second sentence. Because the
ugly part can only be about the GUI. Which is not ugly if you don't want >>> it to be ugly. Unlike Apple who decide for you how you must use your
computer, Linux can look like anything you want.
What so many of you fail to understand is that most people don't WANT to
make things "look like anything [they] want".
They want consistency and usability.
Or so you claim.
And yet that's one the common complaints about Windows —
that it puts its users in a straight jacket, without the ability to
customize the desktop. Linux proves that people LIKE choice, that's why there's a dozen (or so) desktops, often customized in completely different ways.
What you mean is Mac users want "conformity" and that's fine for them. I don't like Mac OS because its developers think they know best how I should want to use my computer. I don't like my computer controlling me, I want to control it.
As far as usability goes, I find the usability is better in Linux than inAgain: bully for you!
the Mac or Windows. It works how I want it to work.
I can remember Microsoft offering standardized open/save dialogs for
Windows developers to use in their apps. And then ... using entirely different ones in their own Microsoft Office.
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 12:46:14 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
File open and save dialogs also seem to differ and ways to access the
filesystem from said dialogs differ.
I can remember Microsoft offering standardized open/save dialogs for
Windows developers to use in their apps. And then ... using entirely different ones in their own Microsoft Office.
Leadership by example, they have heard of it!
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 12:46:14 +0000, Borax Man wrote:
I use Windows at work, and it isn't consistent. The top title bar
differs from program to program, decorations are different depending on
whether I'm using Outlook, Adobe or Firefox.
The most ridulous design flaw of M$ Winblows, which has existed from the
very beginning, is the inability to easily control how a window gains
focus.
In M$ Winblows, a window gains focus only with a mouse click and this makes copy/paste operations between windows extremely awkward and cumbersome.
For me, copy/paste operations between windows are critical and I do them
all the time. On my GNU/Linux machine I have configured windows to gain focus via the mouse pointer alone (no clicking is needed). This allows
very smooth and efficient copy/paster operations. However, that cannot
be done on that junk M$ Windows and consequently copy/paste is always a
big headache.
I believe that there is some obscure registry setting in M$ Winblows that enables focus via the mouse pointer alone but that setting will also lead
to undesirable side effects.
With GNU/Linux I can configure my GUI to serve me the way I want to be served.
With M$ Winblows it is one-size-fits-all and take-it-or-leave-it.
Well guess what. I left it. Forever.
On 2025-06-09, Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 12:46:14 +0000, Borax Man wrote:
<snip>
I believe that there is some obscure registry setting in M$ Winblows that
enables focus via the mouse pointer alone but that setting will also lead
to undesirable side effects.
<snip>
I use focus follows mouse at home, and Windows at work. I do believe I
had focus follows mouse at work as well on Windows.
https://www.elevenforum.com/t/turn-on-or-off-activate-window-by-hovering-over-with-mouse-pointer-in-windows-11.6104/
Seems it is still possible.
Most of my "copy and paste" issues have to do with not wanting to copy formatting, or people putting images of extracts of Excel data in
documents, which I have to *type* into another document because I can't
copy and paste. ITs how colleagues share data that is the issue, having
to alt-tab is in comparison, minor. Clunky management of data is a far bigger problem.
I use focus follows mouse at home, and Windows at work. I do believe I
had focus follows mouse at work as well on Windows.
Most of my "copy and paste" issues have to do with not wanting to copy formatting, or people putting images of extracts of Excel data in
documents, which I have to *type* into another document because I can't
copy and paste. ITs how colleagues share data that is the issue, having
to alt-tab is in comparison, minor. Clunky management of data is a far bigger problem.
... in all my years, of all the complaints people have heard about
the computer, consistent dialogs is not one. Same with the
titlebars, to be honest, most people don't notice, or don't care or
simply got used to it ...
People that *actually have work to do* just get on with their work.
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 12:46:14 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
File open and save dialogs also seem to differ and ways to access the
filesystem from said dialogs differ.
I can remember Microsoft offering standardized open/save dialogs for
Windows developers to use in their apps. And then ... using entirely different ones in their own Microsoft Office.
Leadership by example, they have heard of it!
With my GNU/Linux window manager, I can configure that the focus granted
will also not raise the window, and this will greatly facilitate copy/paste operations.
To be clear, there are two issues here:
1) Granting focus to the chosen window
2) Mandating whether or not the window that is granted focus will be raised or not.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 164:16:39 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,518 |