OSX 10.5 gets UNIX 03 Certification

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:10:23 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> chrisv <chrisv.TakeThisOut@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!

Linux advocacy, you jerk. Linux advocacy. Learn.

--
Rick

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:15:11 +0100, Kier wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:06:52 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> So? What does that matter? Linux is Linux. It's not UNIX.
>
>
>> Sorry, but that is helpful news to Linux admins as well since they now
>> can move up to OSX without issue.
>
> Show us evidence that they want to.

He won't. He can't. He is that person that in days past, would have his
butt kicked on the playground because he kept showing up where he wasn't
wanted, and then insulting people.

--
Rick

Timberwoof wrote:
> Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> ...until someone, such as Redhat, gets a Linux certified as
>> Unix, and then it will be a big point in Linux advocacy
>> arguments.
>
> I never decided which OS to use based on whether it was UNIX
> certified. I'm sure that the people who write software for
> Linux (RedHat, SuSe, Ubunto, etc), BSD, OS X, etc. don't care
> much either. The previous lack of certification was only
> important to those who could it as a handy bludgeon to beat OS
> X users with and say, with authority, that it was NOT a real
> UNIX system.

About the only time it seems pertinent when it comes to
particular government contracts. If it says for the particular
deliverables that it must have it, then the contractor is obliged
to comply.

Otherwise, it seems to be a mute point.

I was pleasantly surprised to see Macs showing up in a local
department store about a year ago. (I was glad to see a
competitor to Microsoft.) I don't think the buyers care whether
it is UNIX certified. IMHO, they were looking for something more
secure than Windows.

Several years ago (may be 5), the Army's White Sands Missile
Range installed Macs as web servers, because their Windows
servers had been hacked a couple times by outsiders.

Linux is gaining ground in both server and desktop market.
People aren't buying them for UNIX certification.

At a user level, concern about UNIX certification would remind me
of those who buy a particular motorcycle because the rest have
it, not because they want to ride it.

--
HPT

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:06:52 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> 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.

So? What does that matter? Linux is Linux. It's not UNIX.

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

Show us evidence that they want to.

--
Kier

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:10:23 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> chrisv <chrisv.TakeThisOut@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.

And miss the obvious: COLA has the word LINUX in it, which says if you
post Mac-related advocacy here, you are in the wrong group.

--
Kier

Kier wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:10:23 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>
>> chrisv <chrisv DeleteThis @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.
>
>And miss the obvious: COLA has the word LINUX in it, which says if you
>post Mac-related advocacy here, you are in the wrong group.

Tell him again, Kier! Feed him some more! THAT will make him stop!

Sheesh.

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:11:36 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> Rick <none.RemoveThis@nomail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Rick, you can learn more about it here:
>> >
>> > http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/leopard/
>>
>> I already know what I need to know. OS X is now a certified UNIX. Good
>> for Apple. As a Linux user, it has no meaning for me.
>
> great! then you may now go on about your business.
>
> I'm just here to let others know the good news. nothing wrong with that.
>
> Here is the Certification Info!
>
> http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3555.htm
>
> and all the great discussion about this big event on SlashDot.
>
> http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/01/123258
>
> enjoy!

Oddly enough, we don't.

Oh, and while you're at it, why have you added *another* Linux group, and
a tech group at that?

--
Kier

Kier <vallon DeleteThis @tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> > http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/01/123258
> >
> > enjoy!
>
> Oddly enough, we don't.
>
> Oh, and while you're at it, why have you added *another* Linux group, and
> a tech group at that?

for maximum good news!

but mainly just to piss off Rick since he STILL doesn't understand how
USENET works.

i will post when i want, where i want and to whom i want. that's the
spirit of USENET, so you can either understand that fact or ignore it.

-

In article
<colalovesmacs-82A669.13210731072007.TakeThisOut@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>
,
Oxford <colalovesmacs.TakeThisOut@mac.com> wrote:

> Software developers should also keep
> in mind that the Leopard client OS is the same as Apple's server, minus
> the quite exceptional administrative tools

Actually no, that is not the case. Not all of Mac OS X 10.5
Server's services will be included in the client version. This
includes:

Application Server
DHCP
DNS
Mail
NAT
NetBoot
Open Directory
Print
QuickTime Streaming
Internet Web
Blog server
WebObjects
iCal server
Wiki server
Podcast Producer
Spotlight server
iChat Server

That's kind of a lot I'd say. That is one reason Mac OS X Server
costs considerably more than the client version.

But certainly the client version has some decent services built
in that you can use if you know how to set them up and administer
them via the CLI.

:-Derek

--
Fortune Magazine 11-29-05: What's your computer setup today?
Frederick Brooks: I happily use a Macintosh. It's not been
equalled for ease of use, and I want my computer to be a tool,
not a challenge.
<http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/12/12/8363107/>
[Frederick Brooks is the author of 'The Mythical Man Month'.
He spearheaded the movement to modernize computer software
engineering in 1975.]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 11:23:51 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> Kier <vallon.RemoveThis@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> > http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/01/123258
>> >
>> > enjoy!
>>
>> Oddly enough, we don't.
>>
>> Oh, and while you're at it, why have you added *another* Linux group, and
>> a tech group at that?
>
> for maximum good news!

I doubt the inhabitants of that group will be overjoyed at your blathering
about an OS they have no interest in, particualrly in a tech group devoted
to sorting out issues with UBUNTU.

> but mainly just to piss off Rick since he STILL doesn't understand how
> USENET works.

I'd say he understands it far better than you.

>
> i will post when i want, where i want and to whom i want. that's the
> spirit of USENET, so you can either understand that fact or ignore it.

I understand you're an annoying twerp.

--
Kier

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:21:45 -0700, Timberwoof wrote:

> In article <13b0qhbsv2l6d91 DeleteThis @news.supernews.com>, Rick <none DeleteThis @nomail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Ahh.... but you're counting on someone having an existing machine that
> they can just wipe and install Linux on. If a company needs to buy new
> workstations or servers, then damn right they have to spend money!

If my gran-mamma had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

Read the above comment that I responded to intially:

"Now companies won't have to spend extra money to run Linux"...
My response "They don't have to spend ANY money just to run Linux"...
.... and they don't.

In the situation noted above by Oxford, a company would have to buy Macs
to OS X. Companies don't have to buy machines just to run Linux, unless
they need more machines. Still, it wouldn't cost "20 more times in TIME
to run Linux".

--
Rick

On Jul 31, 2007, Rick wrote:
>>> 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.
>

The companies who exist solely to keep Linux ducks in a row and provide
support hope you are wrong.

In article <0001HW.C2D8287D00085B44F0182648 DeleteThis @newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,
Tim Murray <no-spam DeleteThis @thankyou.com> wrote:

> On Jul 31, 2007, Rick wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >
>
> The companies who exist solely to keep Linux ducks in a row and provide
> support hope you are wrong.

And they've been right so far.