OSX 10.5 gets UNIX 03 Certification

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:20:57 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> Rick <none DeleteThis @nomail.com> wrote:
>
>> > I'm just trying to help people, why such the negative response?
>>
>> First, you continuously post your tripe in a grup that doesn't want to
>> hear it. Second, you make statements like "it gives people a step up when
>> they are tired of wasting time with Linux." Let me clue you in, Bunky...
>> we aren't wasting out time.
>
> if you do not like advocacy, stay out of advocacy groups.
>
> thanks.

You're posting in the wrong group, when you post Mac advocacy unrelated to
Linux in a LINUX group.

--
Kier

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:48:54 -0700, Timberwoof wrote:

> In article <13avv1kngidks41 DeleteThis @news.supernews.com>, Rick <none DeleteThis @nomail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:05:18 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>>
>> > Rick <none DeleteThis @nomail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Kier <vallon DeleteThis @tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Now companies won't have to spend extra money to run Linux, they can
>> >> > get
>> >>
>> >> They don't have to spend ANY money just to run Linux.
>> >
>> > Sure they do, they have to spend 20 more times in TIME to run Linux
>> > compared to running OSX. that is A LOT of money.
>>
>> They don't have to spend ANY money just to run Linux.
>>
>> BTW, in order to run OS X, they would have to buy Macs. In order to run
>> Linux, they would just need to DL and install a distro... very easy.
>
> Hm. The last time I set up a Linux system, I had to get a computer to
> run it on. But you say you just need to download and install a distro.
> Did you download the computer, too? That's a good trick!

It is unlikely that anyone wishing to install Linux froma download will
not have a computer handy that they can use. It's difficult to download
stuff without one.

--
Kier

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:44:41 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "Rick" <none.DeleteThis@nomail.com> stated in post 13avqrlokh53n87.DeleteThis@news.supernews.com
> on 7/31/07 7:09 PM:
>
>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:15:17 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>>
>>> Kier <vallon.DeleteThis@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> OSX 10.5 coming out in October gets approval from the Open Group!
>>>>
>>>> So what? Why tell us in COLA? We don't care.
>>>
>>> SURE you do
>>
>> What part of WE DON'T CARE is unclear?
>>
>>> since it entirely effects the viability of Linux as business
>>> standard going forward.
>>
>> What part of WE DON'T CARE is unclear?
>>
>>>
>>> Now companies won't have to spend extra money to run Linux, they can get
>>
>> They don't have to spend ANY money just to run Linux.
>>
>>> best of class hardware and software with full 03 certification by the
>>> Open Group directly through Apple!
>>
>> So what? It has NOTHING to do with Linux.
>>
>>>
>>> Good news for EVERYONE!
>>
>> What, you are leaving?
>
> Your advocacy of Linux is amazingly poor.

At least he's in the right group for it.

--
Kier

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:48:25 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> Rick <none.RemoveThis@nomail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Congrats Everyone!
>> >
>> > OSX 10.5 coming out in October gets approval from the Open Group!
>> >
>> > ----
>>
>> I didn't see Linux mentioned in the article.
>
> And why should you expect that in an Advocacy Forum?

Because we in COLA are here to advocate LINUX.

>
> Learn, Rick, Learn.

No, you learn. Keep Mac advocacy for Mac groups. That way fewer people
will despise you.

<snip repeat of Mac-related nonsense>

--
Kier

Kier wrote:

>You're posting in the wrong group, when you post Mac advocacy unrelated to
>Linux in a LINUX group.

You think he's never had this concept explained to him, huh? Idiot.

chrisv <chrisv.RemoveThis@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Kier wrote:
>
> >You're posting in the wrong group, when you post Mac advocacy unrelated to
> >Linux in a LINUX group.
>
> You think he's never had this concept explained to him, huh? Idiot.

No. I'm in the right groups. I clearly see the word ADVOCACY in both of
them. If you do not like ADVOCACY, move along to another group.

Thanks!

Snit <CSMA.RemoveThis@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> "Rick" <none.RemoveThis@nomail.com> stated in post 13avqrlokh53n87.RemoveThis@news.supernews.com
> on 7/31/07 7:09 PM:
>
> > On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:15:17 -0600, Oxford wrote:
> >
> >> Kier <vallon.RemoveThis@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> OSX 10.5 coming out in October gets approval from the Open Group!
> >>>
> >>> So what? Why tell us in COLA? We don't care.
> >>
> >> SURE you do
> >
> > What part of WE DON'T CARE is unclear?
> >
> >> since it entirely effects the viability of Linux as business
> >> standard going forward.
> >
> > What part of WE DON'T CARE is unclear?
> >
> >>
> >> Now companies won't have to spend extra money to run Linux, they can get
> >
> > They don't have to spend ANY money just to run Linux.
> >
> >> best of class hardware and software with full 03 certification by the
> >> Open Group directly through Apple!
> >
> > So what? It has NOTHING to do with Linux.
> >
> >>
> >> Good news for EVERYONE!
> >
> > What, you are leaving?
>
> Your advocacy of Linux is amazingly poor.

And do you think Oxford's style of Mac advocacy is something to be
admired?

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

"Peter Hayes" <notinuse2.TakeThisOut@btinternet.com> stated in post
1i25yau.ky6quc126azgwN%notinuse2@btinternet.com on 8/1/07 2:57 AM:

> Snit <CSMA.TakeThisOut@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "Rick" <none.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> stated in post 13avqrlokh53n87.TakeThisOut@news.supernews.com
>> on 7/31/07 7:09 PM:
>>
>>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:15:17 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kier <vallon.TakeThisOut@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> OSX 10.5 coming out in October gets approval from the Open Group!
>>>>>
>>>>> So what? Why tell us in COLA? We don't care.
>>>>
>>>> SURE you do
>>>
>>> What part of WE DON'T CARE is unclear?
>>>
>>>> since it entirely effects the viability of Linux as business
>>>> standard going forward.
>>>
>>> What part of WE DON'T CARE is unclear?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now companies won't have to spend extra money to run Linux, they can get
>>>
>>> They don't have to spend ANY money just to run Linux.
>>>
>>>> best of class hardware and software with full 03 certification by the
>>>> Open Group directly through Apple!
>>>
>>> So what? It has NOTHING to do with Linux.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good news for EVERYONE!
>>>
>>> What, you are leaving?
>>
>> Your advocacy of Linux is amazingly poor.
>
> And do you think Oxford's style of Mac advocacy is something to be
> admired?

No.


--
€ Nuclear arms are arms
€ OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP
€ Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:48:54 -0700, Timberwoof wrote:

> In article <13avv1kngidks41 DeleteThis @news.supernews.com>, Rick <none DeleteThis @nomail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:05:18 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>>
>> > Rick <none DeleteThis @nomail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Kier <vallon DeleteThis @tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Now companies won't have to spend extra money to run Linux, they
>> >> > can get
>> >>
>> >> They don't have to spend ANY money just to run Linux.
>> >
>> > Sure they do, they have to spend 20 more times in TIME to run Linux
>> > compared to running OSX. that is A LOT of money.
>>
>> They don't have to spend ANY money just to run Linux.
>>
>> BTW, in order to run OS X, they would have to buy Macs. In order to run
>> Linux, they would just need to DL and install a distro... very easy.
>
> Hm. The last time I set up a Linux system, I had to get a computer to
> run it on. But you say you just need to download and install a distro.
> Did you download the computer, too? That's a good trick!

Yes, at some point I bought a computer. However, when I first started, I
ran Linux on a Mac, which I already had. When I switched to x86, I used a
computer someone gave me. I could have just downloaded Linux and
installed it, although I did pay for the distro. In order for people to
move TO a Mac, they would have to BUY a Mac, which is much more expensive
than merely installing Linux on an existing machine, even if you pay for
the distro.

--
Rick

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:06:05 -0700, StormDrain wrote:

> In article <pan.2007.07.31.21.22.45.456030.TakeThisOut@tiscali.co.uk>,
> Kier <vallon.TakeThisOut@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:21:07 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>>
>>
>> > OSX 10.5 coming out in October gets approval from the Open Group!
>> >
>> >
>> So what? Why tell us in COLA? We don't care.
>
> Because we hear so much about how OS X is not UNIX (harumph!), it's just
> Unix. Or maybe it's the other way around. Anyhow, this thoroughly
> squashes that debate.

... except that it has nothing to do with Linux. It should be kept in Mac
or UNIX related groups.

--
Rick

After takin' a swig o' grog, Timberwoof belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> In article <787b3$46af9e32$544a537b$11280@news.hispeed.ch>,
> Ian Hilliard <nospam.RemoveThis@hilliardtech.com> wrote:
>
>> There was a time when being Unix certified meant something, but greed
>> amongst the Unix vendors and Microsoft's exploitation of that greed, killed
>> that off. Now it is just a battle to find any common sense in the computer
>> industry, when faced with the Microsoft Marketing Machine.
>>
>> Ian
>
> There was a time just a year ago when various Windroids and Linux
> weenies were screaming hysterically every time someone said that OS X
> was Unix. They pointed at how the Open Group had not certified OS X as
> Unix, therefore it wasn't.
>
> It comes as no surprise that now that they have, it's considered a
> worthless certification.

I think it is a /good/ thing. I'm not sure that is has a lot of /value/
these days, but it is nice anyway.

--
Tux rox!

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:20:57 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> Rick <none RemoveThis @nomail.com> wrote:
>
>> > I'm just trying to help people, why such the negative response?
>>
>> First, you continuously post your tripe in a grup that doesn't want to
>> hear it. Second, you make statements like "it gives people a step up
>> when they are tired of wasting time with Linux." Let me clue you in,
>> Bunky... we aren't wasting out time.
>
> if you do not like advocacy, stay out of advocacy groups.
>
> thanks.

Look, jerk, your post had NOTHING to do with advocating Linux. It had
everything to do with your trying to push the Mac on people that don't
want to read about it. That is why CSMA and related Mac groups exist.
Then you insult those very people again by telling them they are wasting
time using an OS and system they had made a conscious choice to use. And
AGAIN, some of us switched FROM OS X to Linux.

So why don't just post your Mac stuff to Mac groups. People that want to
read about Macs will go there. Even Linux users. Really.

Thanks.

--
Rick

Rick <none.RemoveThis@nomail.com> wrote:

> > if you do not like advocacy, stay out of advocacy groups.
> >
> > thanks.
>
> Look, jerk, your post had NOTHING to do with advocating Linux. It had
> everything to do with your trying to push the Mac on people that don't
> want to read about it. That is why CSMA and related Mac groups exist.
> Then you insult those very people again by telling them they are wasting
> time using an OS and system they had made a conscious choice to use. And
> AGAIN, some of us switched FROM OS X to Linux.
>
> So why don't just post your Mac stuff to Mac groups. People that want to
> read about Macs will go there. Even Linux users. Really.

It's important for system admins of ANY flavor to know that the upcoming
version of OSX is a "true" UNIX.

Sorry, but that is helpful news to Linux admins as well since they now
can move up to OSX without issue.

Rick, you can learn more about it here:

http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/leopard/