OSX 10.5 gets UNIX 03 Certification

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:51:56 -0600, Bill Gates wrote:

> Rick <none.DeleteThis@nomail.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe you can tell me what company I have been paying to "keep Linux
>> ducks in a row?.
>
> You've been paying Rick, Inc.... for all the stress and aggravation in
> keeping a Linux system up and running.

What stress and aggravation?

>
> OSX users have none of this. They pay once for the hardware and
> software, and they are done. But with Linux and Windows, you pay, and
> pay, and pay and pay.

I'm not paying anything in time for running PCLinuxOS. Things install
easily, the system is easily maintained. I don't have viruses to worry
about.

>
> Apple has the better approach, everyone knows that now.

... that would be tailor an OS to suit one set of hardware, and market
that. That's the right way?

--
Rick

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:51:56 -0600, Bill Gates wrote:

> Rick <none RemoveThis @nomail.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe you can tell me what company I have been paying to "keep Linux
>> ducks in a row?.
>
> You've been paying Rick, Inc.... for all the stress and aggravation in
> keeping a Linux system up and running.

Funny, I don't seen to have any of that. My SUSE boxes just keep running
and running, no troubles at all.

> OSX users have none of this. They pay once for the hardware and
> software, and they are done. But with Linux and Windows, you pay, and
> pay, and pay and pay.

How? I've spent nothing on my Linux boxes since they were installed. I rip
my music, watch movies, do video editing, write text, read Usenet, send
mail, surf the web, do research, listen to podcasts, and many other
things, without any difficulty whatever.

>
> Apple has the better approach, everyone knows that now.

No, not 'everyone'.

--
Kier

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

> >> Maybe you can tell me what company I have been paying to "keep Linux
> >> ducks in a row?.
> >
> > You've been paying Rick, Inc.... for all the stress and aggravation in
> > keeping a Linux system up and running.
>
> Funny, I don't seen to have any of that. My SUSE boxes just keep running
> and running, no troubles at all.

And you have never updated them. You installed some distro of Linux and
it has run ever since with time spent on your side?

> > OSX users have none of this. They pay once for the hardware and
> > software, and they are done. But with Linux and Windows, you pay, and
> > pay, and pay and pay.
>
> How? I've spent nothing on my Linux boxes since they were installed. I rip
> my music, watch movies, do video editing, write text, read Usenet, send
> mail, surf the web, do research, listen to podcasts, and many other
> things, without any difficulty whatever.

But you have spent your "time" making a klunky system work. You have
paid Kier, Inc. in this case.

> > Apple has the better approach, everyone knows that now.
>
> No, not 'everyone'.

correct, only the smart ones.

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:52:05 -0600, Bill Gates wrote:

> Kier <vallon DeleteThis @tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >> Maybe you can tell me what company I have been paying to "keep Linux
>> >> ducks in a row?.
>> >
>> > You've been paying Rick, Inc.... for all the stress and aggravation in
>> > keeping a Linux system up and running.
>>
>> Funny, I don't seen to have any of that. My SUSE boxes just keep running
>> and running, no troubles at all.
>
> And you have never updated them. You installed some distro of Linux and
> it has run ever since with time spent on your side?

Of course I've updated. Simple stuff like minor upgrades and security. All
free.

>
>> > OSX users have none of this. They pay once for the hardware and
>> > software, and they are done. But with Linux and Windows, you pay, and
>> > pay, and pay and pay.
>>
>> How? I've spent nothing on my Linux boxes since they were installed. I rip
>> my music, watch movies, do video editing, write text, read Usenet, send
>> mail, surf the web, do research, listen to podcasts, and many other
>> things, without any difficulty whatever.
>
> But you have spent your "time" making a klunky system work. You have
> paid Kier, Inc. in this case.

No, since I had to spend *no* time making any 'klunky' system work. My
SUSE installs are fine. Up and running nicely in no time at all. And they
stay running nicely.

>
>> > Apple has the better approach, everyone knows that now.
>>
>> No, not 'everyone'.
>
> correct, only the smart ones.

You call yourself smart? What a joke.

--
Kier

On Aug 3, 2007, Rick wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:00:26 -0700, Steve Hix wrote:
>
>> Tim Murray <no-spam.TakeThisOut@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.
>
> Maybe you can tell me what company I have been paying to "keep Linux ducks
> in a row?.
>

Don't be coy. Maybe YOU have not been paying anyone, but you know damned well
the complexity of Linux, even keeping its distros straight, has been a
hinderance to its adoption.

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 01:56:06 -0400, Tim Murray wrote:

> On Aug 3, 2007, Rick wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:00:26 -0700, Steve Hix wrote:
>>
>>> Tim Murray <no-spam.RemoveThis@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.
>>
>> Maybe you can tell me what company I have been paying to "keep Linux
>> ducks in a row?.
>>
>>
> Don't be coy. Maybe YOU have not been paying anyone,

I have not. Apparently many others have not.

> but you know damned well the complexity of Linux,

.... WIndows and OS X are not complex?

> even keeping its distros straight, has been a hinderance
> to its adoption.

That's possibly true, but my statement remains true, you don't have to
spend ANY money just to run Linux, and you don't have to "spend 20 more
times in TIME to run Linux".



--
Rick

On Aug 4, 2007, Rick wrote:
> That's possibly true, but my statement remains true, you don't have to
> spend ANY money just to run Linux, and you don't have to "spend 20 more
> times in TIME to run Linux".

Yes your statement is true, but you're countering the point of this thread
with Rick's experience while the IT world is well aware of the complexity and
support expense of Linux ... who do you think is reading this thread? Your
great-grandmother?

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:21:39 -0400, Tim Murray wrote:

> On Aug 4, 2007, Rick wrote:
>> That's possibly true, but my statement remains true, you don't have to
>> spend ANY money just to run Linux, and you don't have to "spend 20 more
>> times in TIME to run Linux".
>
> Yes your statement is true, but you're countering the point of this
> thread with Rick's experience while the IT world is well aware of the
> complexity and support expense of Linux ... who do you think is reading
> this thread? Your great-grandmother?

Do you really think the IT world is reading this thread?

And AGAIN, they don't have to spend money just to run it. They may need
support for various projects they are doing, but, in all probability they
would need support on any platform. And they still wouldn't have to
"spend 20 more times in TIME to run Linux".

BTW, the IT world is well aware of the complexity and support expense of
Windows and OS X , also.

--
Rick

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick
<none RemoveThis @nomail.com>
wrote
on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:45:18 -0000
<13b78fene977v63 RemoveThis @news.supernews.com>:
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:51:56 -0600, Bill Gates wrote:
>
>> Rick <none RemoveThis @nomail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe you can tell me what company I have been paying to "keep Linux
>>> ducks in a row?.
>>
>> You've been paying Rick, Inc.... for all the stress and aggravation in
>> keeping a Linux system up and running.
>
> What stress and aggravation?

Well, you know...the stress and aggravation of not having
to look at a solid blue screen all the time. Red and
green eye cones are a cause of so many headaches, after
all, whereas blue is soothing, calming, and relaxing...an
important issue when presented with a system crash...

>
>>
>> OSX users have none of this. They pay once for the hardware and
>> software, and they are done. But with Linux and Windows, you pay, and
>> pay, and pay and pay.
>
> I'm not paying anything in time for running PCLinuxOS. Things install
> easily, the system is easily maintained. I don't have viruses to worry
> about.
>
>>
>> Apple has the better approach, everyone knows that now.
>
> .. that would be tailor an OS to suit one set of hardware, and market
> that. That's the right way?
>

I'm not sure that's quite right; MacOSX runs presumably on
both PPC and G4/G5 hardware (IIRC, MacOS ran on 68000 and
PPC for awhile). Still, if Apple's not careful they'll
lock themselves into a bit of a pretty box.

--
#191, ewill3 RemoveThis @earthlink.net
Q: "Why is my computer doing that?"
A: "Don't do that and you'll be fine."

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Murray
<no-spam DeleteThis @thankyou.com>
wrote
on Sat, 4 Aug 2007 01:56:06 -0400
<0001HW.C2D98D3600045CFFF0182648 DeleteThis @newsgroups.bellsouth.net>:
> On Aug 3, 2007, Rick wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:00:26 -0700, Steve Hix wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Maybe you can tell me what company I have been paying to "keep Linux ducks
>> in a row?.
>>
>
> Don't be coy. Maybe YOU have not been paying anyone, but you
> know damned well the complexity of Linux, even keeping its
> distros straight, has been a hinderance to its adoption.
>

I'm not sure what you mean by "keeping its distros
straight" (there is a Linux File Standard, for starters),
but Linux is getting a little more complex as it has
grown from about 1.2 megabytes (Linux-1.0.tar.gz) to 54
megabytes (linux-2.6.22.tar.gz). To be fair, a lot of
that is loadable modules, presumably.

What do you consider complex about Linux systems?

--
#191, ewill3 DeleteThis @earthlink.net
Q: "Why is my computer doing that?"
A: "Don't do that and you'll be fine."

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

StormDrain wrote:
> In article <C2D55561.89C59%CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CSMA.RemoveThis@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "StormDrain" <Liberty.RemoveThis@MS-Free.com> stated in post
>> Liberty-35EBB1.21060531072007.RemoveThis@cnews.newsguy.com on 7/31/07 9:06 PM:
>>
>>> In article <pan.2007.07.31.21.22.45.456030.RemoveThis@tiscali.co.uk>,
>>> Kier <vallon.RemoveThis@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.
>> You have no faith in the desperation of some in CSMA to keep such debates
>> going.
>
> So far they're distancing themselves, pleading ignorance to the whole
> thing. Maybe the big guns will step up to the plate tomorrow.

I'm not aware that there was much discussion in CSMA regarding OS X as a
UNIX. AFAIK, I'm the one that's usually pointing out what a shitty
Unix-like OS X is, and I usually only start that discussion when someone
tries to claim that "anything Linux can do, OS X can do better, because
it can run the same software". UNIX certification doesn't come up very
often, mainly because few people give a damn about UNIX certification
these days.

Timberwoof wrote:
> In article
> <colalovesmacs-82A669.13210731072007.DeleteThis@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
> Oxford <colalovesmacs.DeleteThis@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Congrats Everyone!
>>
>> OSX 10.5 coming out in October gets approval from the Open Group!
>
> I'm sure that we will now learn that the Open Group is not competent to
> hand out UNIX certifications.

Oh, they're the only ones who can hand out UNIX certifications. The
problem is that UNIX certification is essentially worthless. And before
you claim that I'm waffling on that, look back through the google
record. I've maintained that UNIX certification is worthless for years
now. Pay the money, get the rubber stamp--it still doesn't make your
product a worthwhile investment, and it doesn't magically solve the
system's problems.

gimme_this_gimme_that.DeleteThis@yahoo.com wrote:
> Certification is good to have because it qualifies Apple to bid on
> governmental software projects.
>
> OS X already is the most popular version of UNIX. All non-Windows Perl
> CPAN modules have been compiling nicely on OS X for years.

That's nice.

> Similiar
> story for most other open source projects.

If by "nicely" you meant "after a healthy bit of massaging". Why do you
think Fink involves porting efforts?