Mac vs PC

Say what you will, but I think that GNU/Hurd has the potential to become a ubiquitous operating system within a couple of decades.

I haven't heard that term before. I personally really like linux/unix.

The only thing which makes me think it will never catch upto pace with Mac is the fact that there are way way way too many branches.

http://www.infomaticsonline.co.uk/vnunet/analysis/2132081/linux-100-flavours-counting

It looks to be a nightmare. Nothing I would want to touch. Open source is excellent. Don't get me wrong. But by the time Liunx becomes the cream of the crop. Computers may have very well evolve back into the terminal / server model.

All desktop apps could be web apps by the time it happens. Right?


Linux is the cream of the crop for the web. But it seems to be losing ground to Google/MicroSoft...

http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2007/06/web-server-software-and-malware.html

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2008/05/06/may_2008_web_server_survey.html

I haven't heard that term before. I personally really like linux/unix.

The operating system commonly referred to as "Linux" should really be termed "GNU/Linux", since it is the GNU operating system combined with the Linux kernel. The Hurd is the GNU's own kernel, which is still in active development.

The only thing which makes me think it will never catch upto pace with Mac is the fact that there are way way way too many branches.

http://www.infomaticsonline.co.uk/vnunet/analysis/2132081/linux-100-flavours-counting

That is also its strength. There are those who would go for more feature-rich distributions like OpenSUSE, and then there are those like myself who would favour distributions like gNewSense, due to their adherence to the FSF's philosophy. There are also people who might prefer the ease of use of Ubuntu (which I currently use, but I am considering switching to gNewSense in the near future).

It looks to be a nightmare. Nothing I would want to touch. Open source is excellent. Don't get me wrong. But by the time Liunx becomes the cream of the crop. Computers may have very well evolve back into the terminal / server model.

All desktop apps could be web apps by the time it happens. Right?

I don't agree. Entrusting your personal files to an online corporation is just plain stupid.

Linux is the cream of the crop for the web. But it seems to be losing ground to Google/MicroSoft...

http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2007/06/web-server-software-and-malware.html

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2008/05/06/may_2008_web_server_survey.html

Apache is free software. I don't see that it's losing ground at all.

I don't agree. Entrusting your personal files to an online corporation is just plain stupid.

That didn't stop you from getting a GMail account, did it?

That didn't stop you from getting a GMail account, did it?

It's a lot cheaper and easier than setting up my own email server. I'm talking about documents that don't need to be sent back and forth across the internet.

Like mail? You do know where mail started, don't you?

Bash is not an equivalent to AppleScript. I don't know how you made that kind of an analogy, Osama.

As for the webserver, yeah Apache is free software. Mac OS X includes Apache on every version of OS X preinstalled and configured. There is also PHP5 installed, and a simple and quick edit of httpd.conf opens that up. I believe you have to manually install those from apt. Not sure, been a while since I last did it in Linux.

I would probably still have Ubuntu installed instead of OpenSUSE11 had Canonical developers not decided to bork the perfectly good RT2500 wireless driver used in versions including Feisty Fawn and earlier.

Bash is not an equivalent to AppleScript. I don't know how you made that kind of an analogy, Osama.

Well, I don't know much about AppleScript, I just assumed that it was similar to UNIX shell scripts.

Quote from: Hara Taiki on October 11, 2008, 06:54:58 AM

Bash is not an equivalent to AppleScript. I don't know how you made that kind of an analogy, Osama.

Well, I don't know much about AppleScript, I just assumed that it was similar to UNIX shell scripts.

No, it's a very powerful scripting language. It uses the Universal Access features of OS X to either record steps to perform, or you can write a script using simple commands such as tell or find, open, etc. to accomplish tasks that would normally take a complex script in C or something to complete.

If I want to to open a movie in my external hard drive without actually opening the drive in Finder and browsing for it, I can write the following:

tell application "Finder"
activate
select window of desktop
set target of Finder window 1 to disk "Media Drive"
open document file "300.avi" of folder "300" of folder "Movies" of disk "Media Drive"
end tell
Now, I'm not a master of AppleScript, I rarely use it, but it can come in handy if you are working with a lot of documents, or need to perform complex tasks quickly and in one step rather than possibly opening a terminal constantly to perform a few tasks over and over.

I don't use AppleScript. though, I like to do things manually, it keeps my skills sharp.

I'm sure it wouldn't exactly be difficult for an experienced developer to code a free implementation of something similar to AppleScript for the GNU project.

I'm sure it wouldn't exactly be difficult for an experienced developer to code a free implementation of something similar to AppleScript for the GNU project.

Probably not, change a few commands like for the Finder to Nautilus or every other filebrowser out there, and done.

So I was right, the whole time you were calling me arrogant and thick headed and stubborn you weren't really reading my posts? Typical of someone who doesn't seem to like losing an argument.

I never said Mac OS X was similar to Linux. I said it was similar to BSD and so is Linux.

My penguin/ostrich argument still stands, and it even works with cars: While there are many knock off cars, those knocks offs have to come from somewhere, and it would be the original car that's getting "knocked off", so yes, they are based on the original car. The same concept applies to software. They wouldn't be called "UNIX-like" systems if they weren't "knock offs" of UNIX in terms of functionality, which determines the family they fall under, and that family happens to be UNIX.

My language is unimportant.

Also:

No I had read every post except you your last one. Notice how I said "post" instead of posts? Learn to understand plurals in the english language.

You have never been right, you are just changing the subject around all the time. You are just rambling on.

Unix Like implies the operating system was influenced by unix. Unix-based implies the code is actually based on UNIX.

You are unbelievably stubborn. Almost all your posts have flaws in them. You are too stubborn to go back and check. Lets take your last post as an example:

I never said Mac OS X was similar to Linux. I said it was similar to BSD and so is Linux.

Here you go:

How is Mac OS X being based on linux fundamentally false?

Look, you initially said LINUX AND MACOSX come from the same ancestor. While OSX came from a further development of UNIX; Linux was designed straight from the ground up and was influenced by an example operating system that was influenced by UNIX.

By your same logic it could be argued that the Ford GT and the Porsche 911 share the same ancestor because they both use an internal combustion engine. Your thinking is not logical.

You are too stupid to figure out that this whole argument is about bickering over what unix-like means. I do not have time to baby you around by point out flaws in your posts anymore, you are no less ignorant and probably more arrogant then before. No one else has agreed with you. I will not reply to anything you say, because all you do is insist you are right and call me names for no reason. Good day.

Now please lets get on topic: What are the merits of the various operating systems.

It's called a typo, you literalist fuck. Get over yourself.

I am stubborn because I am pedantic. Either way, it's still widely accepted that UNIX-like implies a system based upon the functionality of UNIX. You do not need to share code to be like something, although it does help. Notice how no one refers to FreeBSD as "UNIX-based" but instead "UNIX-like"? Even BSD itself is referred to as "UNIX-like". Isn't BSD UNIX itself?

If you don't believe me, I will show you:







The images are also links to their respective articles.

There's even a definition for what "UNIX-like" means:

A Unix-like (sometimes shortened to *nix) operating system is one that behaves in a manner similar to a Unix system, while not necessarily conforming to or being certified to any version of the Single UNIX Specification. The term can include free software / open source operating systems inspired by Bell Labs’ Unix or designed to emulate its features, commercial and proprietary work-alikes, and even versions based on the licensed UNIX source code (which may be deemed so “Unix-like” that they are certified to bear the “UNIX” trademark).

The bold parts are exactly what I have been arguing.

To be UNIX-like, a system must function similar to UNIX does (but can expand upon it), and doesn't need to share ANY code from BSD to be like UNIX.

They therefore share BSD as an ancestor.

So again:

I am right.

I'm sure it wouldn't exactly be difficult for an experienced developer to code a free implementation of something similar to AppleScript for the GNU project.

I think the trick is that Apple provides good libraries for developers to "hook" into the windowing platform.

Essentially... when you port something to Mac you are required to rewrite it to make it compatible with it's framework rather than make it compatible with the chip set or something other ( since that is already abstracted, not entirely sure ).

Apple Script has been around forever. And it's amazing should you be in a position where you need to make automated use of a closed source program. If you wanted to ( and I did a few years ago ) you could essentially turn PhotoShop, illustrator or whatever program you want into a server based application.

The language is meant to be very easy to understand. And it is by no means limited in anyway except by the program your interfacing with.

Let's say you were running an MMORPG... and you build a form online which allows you to select your character of upload a custom image map for their face, ect... Rather than getting right into the source and recompiling a whole new portion of the program made to generate a brand new 3d file... (with Applescript) you could take the form data as submitted from the web and pass it along to Photoshop where it would open the files and trim them to what you need them to be trimmed to and perhaps make a separate high contrast black and white bitmap in the process and then pass those files along to Maya or some other 3d program where the bitmaps where assembled to a skeleton and them exported. Then an ftp program could take over and upload the new character to a third party game server if need be.

It probably a bad example. But sometimes it can allow you to do things you otherwise would have no opportunity to do due tot he close source nature of most programs.


It's a hack solution... probably involves a little bit more work an sacrifices a bit of robustness... but it can be useful.


It glues everything together... apparently you can do the same on windows. But after years I have yet to see it happen or even hear about it in use. Not sure if it even works. Their mechanism however would be through the use of JavaScript or activeX (can't remember... never tried it.)


Last I checked... There was a command line program which would allow you to launch the applescript from the shell. But... you have to make sure your using a program which supports shutting off the windowing aspect of the program. Again. Can't remember entirely.

The thing I think is most innovative of OSX over Windows is automator. Its a great tool for people who want to get things done fast and don't want to mess around with scripting.

The thing I think is most innovative of OSX over Windows is automator. Its a great tool for lazy people who shouldn't be using a computer in the first place.

I fixed that for you.

1. Uninstalling or installing a program is as easy as dragging a folder.

Actually, that not 100% true. In order to do a good job you need to buy shareware like appzapper. Its really annoying...

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on October 11, 2008, 04:17:17 PM

The thing I think is most innovative of OSX over Windows is automator. Its a great tool for lazy people who shouldn't be using a computer in the first place.

I fixed that for you.

You can't expect everyone to have the time to know how to interface with many different software applications manually. There are better things to do.

It's called a typo, you literalist fuck. Get over yourself.

I am stubborn because I am pedantic. Either way, it's still widely accepted that UNIX-like implies a system based upon the functionality of UNIX. You do not need to share code to be like something, although it does help. Notice how no one refers to FreeBSD as "UNIX-based" but instead "UNIX-like"? Even BSD itself is referred to as "UNIX-like". Isn't BSD UNIX itself?

If you don't believe me, I will show you:







The images are also links to their respective articles.

There's even a definition for what "UNIX-like" means:

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix-like

A Unix-like (sometimes shortened to *nix) operating system is one that behaves in a manner similar to a Unix system, while not necessarily conforming to or being certified to any version of the Single UNIX Specification. The term can include free software / open source operating systems inspired by Bell Labs’ Unix or designed to emulate its features, commercial and proprietary work-alikes, and even versions based on the licensed UNIX source code (which may be deemed so “Unix-like” that they are certified to bear the “UNIX” trademark).

The bold parts are exactly what I have been arguing.

Quote from: Hara Taiki on October 10, 2008, 04:14:30 PM

To be UNIX-like, a system must function similar to UNIX does (but can expand upon it), and doesn't need to share ANY code from BSD to be like UNIX.

They therefore share BSD as an ancestor.

So again:

Quote from: Hara Taiki on October 10, 2008, 04:14:30 PM

I am right.

Ok, I lied I will have to reply to this because it is so funny.

Whos talking about FreeBSD? I am talking about you claiming Linux and Mac OSX to have a common ancestor. Using your same proof method (wikipedia rofl). You obviously either don't read my posts or are too stupid to comprehend them.

I have proof you are wrong.

From darwin page:

"Darwin is an open source UNIX-based computer operating system released by Apple Inc. "

Apparently someone does use the term unix based somewhere in the world.

And look at the classification of OSX:



UNIX. NOT UNIX LIKE.


I am done arguing. If you do not accept this argument (using your standards of proof) then you never will accept anything. Swearing doesn't make you more right or cooler then anyone else. It just exposes you as a 15 year old kid incapable of a civilized discussion based on merit vs ramblings.

Uh, why are you now talking about OS X? We agreed that Mac OS X was a offspring of BSD.

Funny how OS X gets the actual UNIX branding and BSD doesn't, even though Mac OS X Leopard is based on BSD. Darwin is based on FreeBSD, and Mac OS X is built upon Darwin. Watch a couple Apple Keynotes which explain the core operation of Mac OS X. BSD dev's also worked on FreeBSD as well. Follow the chain, it's not hard.

Also, read the definition of UNIX-like. You obviously missed that part.

You cannot ignore the fact that BSD, Linux and FreeBSD (written by some of the BSD devs) are all labeled as UNIX-like, and that by the very definition I found and sourced you too are all related to each other by function. Which is what I have been arguing all along. I doubt you caught any of it.

You're trying to use small, semantic methods to get out of being wrong, and it's not working. Face the evidence, the definitions, the labels, etc to which I have provided and maybe you will understand. I have a feeling you once again skimmed my post to merely pick out parts you deem incorrect and not address any of the facts I provided. This method of debate doesn't make you right, it makes you look like an idiot. I don't personally think you are an idiot, I just think you like to ignore important points and focus instead on insignificant differences which have no bearing on the topic at hand.

Oh wait, you argue for FE theory, why am I not surprised? When you accept the fact that I argued correctly the definition of what UNIX-like implies (and then later proved my claim which you ignored), then you will have gained some respect from me. But until then, I consider you to be a script kiddie, and that's obvious for the reasons I have explained.

Uh, why are you now talking about OS X? We agreed that Mac OS X was a offspring of BSD.

Quit calling me names.

Because this whole argument is about whether Linux and OSX share the same ancestry. Somehow you think they do. Look back and read.

The very definition you quoted "unix-like" says the requirements to be classified as unix like are "inspired like unix". I don't think being inspired by "something" makes "something" its ancestor. I'm sure everyone will agree with me.

Darwin is compliant with SUS3. Just because something is based off something else doesn't mean it is the same as the thing it is based on.

To recap -

OSX is very similar to unix, even qualifies as unix and is a direct further development of BSD unix.

Linux was inspired by a operating system with a viewable source code that was in some aspects similar in functionality to unix. Linux was developed from the ground up.

Your argument that Darwin and Linux share the same ancestry is very weak.

You two should get nekkid and wrestle.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Unix_history-simple.png

Notice, Linux and MINIX are not derived from any actual UNIX, or UNIX-offspring; while obviously Mac OSX is.

It says "Unix like" for all other versions, though, in the picture you posted.

Your argument that Darwin and Linux share the same ancestry is very weak.

I disagree, read again.

Linux was inspired by a operating system with a viewable source code that was in some aspects similar in functionality to unix. Linux was developed from the ground up.

You're right. But that's not what's at stake. By the definition of UNIX-like, and the fact that FreeBSD is labeled as such as well as BSD itself being labeled UNIX-like, because linux was inspired by UNIX, it is a descendant of UNIX as well. Why is that so hard to understand? I'm not ignoring your interpretation, but you really haven't provided any compelling evidence to suggest otherwise.

I'm sure everyone will agree with me.

How sure are you? Because I just asked in a IRC chat I am always in with a bunch of BSD, linux, and Mac OS X nerds and here's the response I got so far:



Looks like you are wrong, again, not everyone agrees with you afterall.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Unix_history-simple.png

Notice, Linux and MINIX are not derived from any actual UNIX, or UNIX-offspring; while obviously Mac OSX is.

While they are not directly derived from UNIX, by the definition of UNIX-like, since they are inspired by UNIX and function similar to UNIX, they can be considered descendants of UNIX.

What I don't understand is why that is such a hard concept for him to understand, but I guess that is typical of a script kiddie. I do understand how they can be considered not descendants, but the way I interpret it, it doesn't matter, because of how they are labeled and how that label is defined.

Oh, and:

Quit calling me names.

You'll get over it.

You can't just say something is a descendant because it is similar. That is what divito is trying to say. It doesn't matter what the definition of unix like is. It matters if it actually was derived from unix. And again, just because OSX uses some FreeBSD code doesn't mean it is FreeBSD. It is modified to be more like UNIX.

Its one thing to say that something is influenced by something, it is quite a different thing to claim they share a common ancestor. For that matter you could probably throw any OS in the mix because most modern OSes have learned a bit from unix...

And again, just because OSX uses some FreeBSD code doesn't mean it is FreeBSD. It is modified to be more like UNIX.

Never said it was. I said it has FreeBSD code in it, along with actual BSD code as well. I believe it also has OpenBSD in it as well, and I know for a fact that the iPhone OS has OpenBSD code in it, I own an iPod touch and am part of the jailbreaking community.

Its one thing to say that something is influenced by something, it is quite a different thing to claim they share a common ancestor. For that matter you could probably throw any OS in the mix because most modern OSes have learned a bit from unix...

I'm not saying you are wrong, but the definition and terminology are pretty clear to me, Linux has roots in BSD for being similar to how it functions at the core. There is no denying that. ReactOS has roots in Windows XP based on how similar it functions, even though it's entirely new code based on Wine's free Win32 API's. I really do think you can consider that being a descendant. As long as the inspiration and functionality source from something else, it works. I wouldn't dare say that Windows is a relative of GNU/Linux, despite the fact that you can emulate certain GNU/Linux operations through Cygwin, because it does not function similarly at the core. See where I am going with this? You are really making this much more difficult than it really needs to be. Just remember, I am also not disagreeing with you, I do see your interpretation, I just think mine is more accurate, based on the evidence.

You can't just say something is a descendant because it is similar.

Exactly; you can have UNIX-like and not be a derivative.

MINIX and Linux are prime examples. They were constructed with UNIX design and function in mind (as are all UNIX-like OSes), but were not derived from UNIX. OSX on the other hand is a derivative of UNIX, through BSD. This is where the distinction lies.