Re: OSX users are typically stupid (witness Oxford)

Discussion in 'Apple' started by Peter Köhlmann, Apr 3, 2005.

  1. begin virus.scr Oxford wrote:

    > Peter can no longer advocate Linux (for many reasons) so he has resorted
    > to childish name calling.
    >


    Well, I am not a nymshifter. That is you, Oxford.
    After all, you reside in many killfiles for your stupid posts

    > Yes, there was a time when Linux appeared strong, but OSX changed all
    > the rules, now it's a slow fade to black for people like Peter, who try
    > to prop up the inevitable.
    >


    The inevitable being what? That the toy OS OSX will gain another 0.0001%
    marketshare?

    > The unix gold is now here:
    >
    > http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/
    > http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/tiger/
    >


    OSX is no unix.

    > On "Linus Approved" hardware:
    >
    > http://www.apple.com/hardware/


    Yes, Linus has said very explicitly that this hardware he has will *never*
    run OSX. It will run linux
    Peter Köhlmann, Apr 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Peter Köhlmann

    Jay Maynard Guest

    Slam the troll all you want...but don't for a moment think he's
    representative of all OS X users. I'm an experienced Unix admin and user,
    who's been running Linux on one box or another since 0.11. My main network
    server is a Gentoo Linux system.

    My user desktop is OS X.

    On 2005-04-03, Peter Köhlmann <> wrote:
    > OSX is no unix.


    Wrong. It's not Linux, but it most certainly is Unix. I regularly compile
    Unix code on it, with no changes beyond the usual BSDisms. I'm the project
    manager for an open source IBM mainframe emulator
    (http://www.conmicro.cx/hercules), which requires very few changes between
    Linux and OS X, mainly removing some Linux-specific SCSI tape support.

    Ignore the idiots, and take an honest look at OS X. You'll be surprised,
    certainly, and impressed, most likely.
    Jay Maynard, Apr 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. begin virus.scr Jay Maynard wrote:

    > Slam the troll all you want...but don't for a moment think he's
    > representative of all OS X users.


    They may not be, but I for my part prefer to judge people on the standard
    they put onto their own proponants. And I have not noted a single instance
    where "sane" Mac users (if those exist at all) have apologized for the
    actions of their resident retards (Oxford and TravelinMan are prime
    examples)

    > I'm an experienced Unix admin and user,
    > who's been running Linux on one box or another since 0.11. My main network
    > server is a Gentoo Linux system.
    >


    Good for you

    > My user desktop is OS X.
    >


    Fine. I prefer less limited systems

    > On 2005-04-03, Peter Köhlmann <> wrote:
    >> OSX is no unix.

    >
    > Wrong. It's not Linux, but it most certainly is Unix.


    It is most certainly *not* Unix. It is a unix-like system, like BSD and
    linux, but it is not unix

    > I regularly compile Unix code on it, with no changes beyond the usual
    > BSDisms.


    Big deal.

    > I'm the project
    > manager for an open source IBM mainframe emulator
    > (http://www.conmicro.cx/hercules), which requires very few changes between
    > Linux and OS X, mainly removing some Linux-specific SCSI tape support.
    >


    And this matters how? It is still not an approved "Unix"

    > Ignore the idiots, and take an honest look at OS X. You'll be surprised,
    > certainly, and impressed, most likely.


    I already have taken a look at it. I am neither impressed or surprised
    I prefer linux by a very big margin

    And no, the idiots like Oxford or TravelinMan have little to do with that,
    although they do their very best to show the Mac-users in general as a
    bunch of utterly stupid, ignorant dimwits
    Peter Köhlmann, Apr 3, 2005
    #3
  4. Peter Köhlmann

    Jim Guest

    Peter Köhlmann <> wrote:

    > > I'm an experienced Unix admin and user,
    > > who's been running Linux on one box or another since 0.11. My main network
    > > server is a Gentoo Linux system.
    > >

    >
    > Good for you
    >
    > > My user desktop is OS X.
    > >

    >
    > Fine. I prefer less limited systems


    What limits are you perceiving?

    > > On 2005-04-03, Peter Köhlmann <> wrote:
    > >> OSX is no unix.

    > >
    > > Wrong. It's not Linux, but it most certainly is Unix.

    >
    > It is most certainly *not* Unix. It is a unix-like system, like BSD and
    > linux, but it is not unix


    Why does this matter? Honest question.

    >
    > > I regularly compile Unix code on it, with no changes beyond the usual
    > > BSDisms.

    >
    > Big deal.


    Well yes, it is a big deal. If it allows you to do the job at hand then
    it's a good thing.

    > > I'm the project
    > > manager for an open source IBM mainframe emulator
    > > (http://www.conmicro.cx/hercules), which requires very few changes between
    > > Linux and OS X, mainly removing some Linux-specific SCSI tape support.
    > >

    >
    > And this matters how? It is still not an approved "Unix"


    To quote you, "And this matters how?"

    > > Ignore the idiots, and take an honest look at OS X. You'll be surprised,
    > > certainly, and impressed, most likely.

    >
    > I already have taken a look at it. I am neither impressed or surprised
    > I prefer linux by a very big margin
    >
    > And no, the idiots like Oxford or TravelinMan have little to do with that,
    > although they do their very best to show the Mac-users in general as a
    > bunch of utterly stupid, ignorant dimwits


    Mac-trolls are pretty much the same as Linux-trolls, Unix-trolls and
    Windows-trolls.

    Jim
    --
    Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
    "We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
    laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
    event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons
    Jim, Apr 3, 2005
    #4
  5. Peter Köhlmann

    TheLetterK Guest

    Jay Maynard wrote:
    > Slam the troll all you want...but don't for a moment think he's
    > representative of all OS X users. I'm an experienced Unix admin and user,
    > who's been running Linux on one box or another since 0.11. My main network
    > server is a Gentoo Linux system.
    >
    > My user desktop is OS X.
    >
    > On 2005-04-03, Peter Köhlmann <> wrote:
    >
    >>OSX is no unix.

    >
    >
    > Wrong. It's not Linux, but it most certainly is Unix.

    The Open Group disagrees with you. Considering they have final say-so
    about what is and is not Unix, I would generally take their opinion over
    yours. OS X is a unix-like operating system, just like normal
    BSDs--regardless of it's history or codebase or close relation to AT&T Unix.

    > I regularly compile
    > Unix code on it, with no changes beyond the usual BSDisms. I'm the project
    > manager for an open source IBM mainframe emulator
    > (http://www.conmicro.cx/hercules), which requires very few changes between
    > Linux and OS X, mainly removing some Linux-specific SCSI tape support.
    >
    > Ignore the idiots, and take an honest look at OS X. You'll be surprised,
    > certainly, and impressed, most likely.
    TheLetterK, Apr 3, 2005
    #5
  6. Peter Köhlmann

    Jay Maynard Guest

    On 2005-04-03, Peter Köhlmann <> wrote:
    > begin virus.scr Jay Maynard wrote:
    >> Slam the troll all you want...but don't for a moment think he's
    >> representative of all OS X users.

    > They may not be, but I for my part prefer to judge people on the standard
    > they put onto their own proponants.


    Careful...the Linux camp has plenty of losers as bad as Oxford. Do you
    really want to go there?

    > And I have not noted a single instance where "sane" Mac users (if those
    > exist at all) have apologized for the actions of their resident retards
    > (Oxford and TravelinMan are prime examples)


    How about simply disowning them? Oxford certainly does not speak for me.

    You should also consider an axiom put forth by Larry Niven: "Ideas are not
    responsible for those who hold them. There is no idea so good that you
    cannot find a fool who supports it."

    >> My user desktop is OS X.

    > Fine. I prefer less limited systems


    Just what is limited about OS X? I have not found any limits beyond the
    differences between BSD and Linux/SysV.

    >> On 2005-04-03, Peter Köhlmann <> wrote:
    >>> OSX is no unix.

    >> Wrong. It's not Linux, but it most certainly is Unix.

    > It is most certainly *not* Unix. It is a unix-like system, like BSD and
    > linux, but it is not unix


    Okkay, so it doesn't have the X/Open Magic Seal of Approval. Big fat hairy
    deal. The important measure is that one can sit down in front of the box and
    treat it like Unix, with no more differences than commonly found between
    different Unix variants. OS X passes this test easily.

    Besides, a Linux bigot carping that OS X doesn't have the Magic Seal of
    Approval is a definite case of the pot calling the kettle black.

    >> I regularly compile Unix code on it, with no changes beyond the usual
    >> BSDisms.

    > Big deal.


    Yes, it is, actually. That's an important part of being Unix.

    >> I'm the project
    >> manager for an open source IBM mainframe emulator
    >> (http://www.conmicro.cx/hercules), which requires very few changes between
    >> Linux and OS X, mainly removing some Linux-specific SCSI tape support.

    > And this matters how? It is still not an approved "Unix"


    Neither is Linux. Neither are any of the freely available BSDs. Exactly what
    difference does this make to the average user or sysadmin?

    >> Ignore the idiots, and take an honest look at OS X. You'll be surprised,
    >> certainly, and impressed, most likely.

    > I already have taken a look at it. I am neither impressed or surprised
    > I prefer linux by a very big margin


    Why?
    It's certainly not because it's an 'approved "Unix"'.

    > And no, the idiots like Oxford or TravelinMan have little to do with that,
    > although they do their very best to show the Mac-users in general as a
    > bunch of utterly stupid, ignorant dimwits


    Careful, Mr. Pot.
    Jay Maynard, Apr 3, 2005
    #6
  7. Peter Köhlmann

    Jay Maynard Guest

    On 2005-04-03, TheLetterK <> wrote:
    >>>OSX is no unix.

    >> Wrong. It's not Linux, but it most certainly is Unix.

    > The Open Group disagrees with you. Considering they have final say-so
    > about what is and is not Unix, I would generally take their opinion over
    > yours. OS X is a unix-like operating system, just like normal
    > BSDs--regardless of it's history or codebase or close relation to AT&T Unix.


    Fine. Neither is Linux. For a Linux bigot (not you, but the other bozo I've
    been replying to) to raise this objection os downright silly.

    Besides, what matters is that one can build Unix software on it and run it
    with no more difficulty, or use the command line utilities, with no more
    difficulty than moving between any pair of Unixes, whether or not they've
    gotten the Open Group's Magic Seal of Approval. OS X and Linux both pass
    this test easily.
    Jay Maynard, Apr 3, 2005
    #7
  8. begin virus.scr Jay Maynard wrote:

    > On 2005-04-03, Peter Köhlmann <> wrote:
    >> begin virus.scr Jay Maynard wrote:
    >>> Slam the troll all you want...but don't for a moment think he's
    >>> representative of all OS X users.

    >> They may not be, but I for my part prefer to judge people on the standard
    >> they put onto their own proponants.

    >
    > Careful...the Linux camp has plenty of losers as bad as Oxford. Do you
    > really want to go there?
    >


    Well, even if that were true, I simply see not very much posts from linux
    users in mac-groups. Posts from Mac-cretins in linux groups (and not just
    advocacy, but general groups as well) are there in abundance.
    I'd say this talks volumes abbout the maturity of posters, and mac users
    seem to be very immature in comparison

    >> And I have not noted a single instance where "sane" Mac users (if those
    >> exist at all) have apologized for the actions of their resident retards
    >> (Oxford and TravelinMan are prime examples)

    >
    > How about simply disowning them? Oxford certainly does not speak for me.
    >


    I don't see any of that either. And someone who does say nothing silently
    agrees with this idiocy. It is as simple as that.
    I have *often* openly declared my disagreement with other linux posters, and
    others have done this as well. It is actually quite common
    I have never seen any disagreeing post from Mac users regarding your
    resident retards. Not once. So I have to conclude you agree with their
    actions

    > You should also consider an axiom put forth by Larry Niven: "Ideas are not
    > responsible for those who hold them. There is no idea so good that you
    > cannot find a fool who supports it."
    >
    >>> My user desktop is OS X.

    >> Fine. I prefer less limited systems

    >
    > Just what is limited about OS X? I have not found any limits beyond the
    > differences between BSD and Linux/SysV.
    >


    Not to use X as windowing system is by far the worst idea apple could come
    up with. It is totally braindead
    And no, don't even start to argue that you can add X to OSX
    Because then you break evewn more the so often mentioned argument about
    "integration" and "ease of use" and what not what the apple should have

    And in reality does not, not more than windos or linux has

    >>> On 2005-04-03, Peter Köhlmann <> wrote:
    >>>> OSX is no unix.
    >>> Wrong. It's not Linux, but it most certainly is Unix.

    >> It is most certainly *not* Unix. It is a unix-like system, like BSD and
    >> linux, but it is not unix

    >
    > Okkay, so it doesn't have the X/Open Magic Seal of Approval. Big fat hairy
    > deal.


    It is a big deal. Because the apple retards always argue that OSX is the
    biggest selling Unix there is. This is a bald lie. OSX is not Unix, no
    matter how often liars like OxRetard or TravelinIdiot bring it forward

    > The important measure is that one can sit down in front of the box
    > and treat it like Unix, with no more differences than commonly found
    > between different Unix variants. OS X passes this test easily.
    >
    > Besides, a Linux bigot carping that OS X doesn't have the Magic Seal of
    > Approval is a definite case of the pot calling the kettle black.
    >


    Well, you can't read, obviously. Above I stated that OSX is a unix-like
    system, like linux and BSD

    >>> I regularly compile Unix code on it, with no changes beyond the usual
    >>> BSDisms.

    >> Big deal.

    >
    > Yes, it is, actually. That's an important part of being Unix.
    >


    OSX is not Unix. No matter how good you can use unix-apps
    Linux can as well, and BSD can also. This is certainly not a point where
    OSDX has *any* advantage

    >>> I'm the project
    >>> manager for an open source IBM mainframe emulator
    >>> (http://www.conmicro.cx/hercules), which requires very few changes
    >>> between Linux and OS X, mainly removing some Linux-specific SCSI tape
    >>> support.

    >> And this matters how? It is still not an approved "Unix"

    >
    > Neither is Linux. Neither are any of the freely available BSDs. Exactly
    > what difference does this make to the average user or sysadmin?
    >


    It does not. It is just worthj mentioning regarding the often repeated
    claims of OxReatrd and TravelinIdiot
    They have been corrected dozens of times, yet they still repeat this
    bullshit. It really seems it takes an especially dimwitted retard to use
    OSX. Do you guys have to practice being that dumb, or does it come natural?

    >>> Ignore the idiots, and take an honest look at OS X. You'll be surprised,
    >>> certainly, and impressed, most likely.

    >> I already have taken a look at it. I am neither impressed or surprised
    >> I prefer linux by a very big margin

    >
    > Why?
    > It's certainly not because it's an 'approved "Unix"'.
    >


    No. Because it is by far the most flexible system.

    >> And no, the idiots like Oxford or TravelinMan have little to do with
    >> that, although they do their very best to show the Mac-users in general
    >> as a bunch of utterly stupid, ignorant dimwits

    >
    > Careful, Mr. Pot.


    Well, I don't start these incredibly stupid articles in a group having
    nothing to do with it. It takes idiots like Oxford for this. It seems Mac
    users have more than their fair share of cretins among them
    Peter Köhlmann, Apr 3, 2005
    #8
  9. Peter Köhlmann

    Jim Guest

    Peter Köhlmann <> wrote:

    > > Okkay, so it doesn't have the X/Open Magic Seal of Approval. Big fat hairy
    > > deal.

    >
    > It is a big deal. Because the apple retards always argue that OSX is the
    > biggest selling Unix there is. This is a bald lie. OSX is not Unix, no
    > matter how often liars like OxRetard or TravelinIdiot bring it forward


    You are the Rev. Don Kool and I claim my killfile.

    It doesn't matter what it "is" or "isn't". What matters it what it does.

    Jim
    --
    Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
    "We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
    laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
    event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons
    Jim, Apr 3, 2005
    #9
  10. Peter Köhlmann

    Warren Oates Guest

    On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:37:14 GMT
    Jay Maynard <> wrote:

    :
    :Besides, what matters is that one can build Unix software on it and run it
    :with no more difficulty, or use the command line utilities, with no more
    :difficulty than moving between any pair of Unixes, whether or not they've
    :gotten the Open Group's Magic Seal of Approval. OS X and Linux both pass
    :this test easily.
    :

    The problem with OS X is not that it' NOT a Unix system, which it
    certainly is. The problem is that Apple have produced a mangled user
    interface in an attempt to hide some of the complexities of the Unix
    system from the customer.

    The OS X "firewall" is an instance of this. It's not a firewall at
    all, really, but the customer has been assured by Apple that OS X
    contains all the security and power of Unix, and turns this thing on
    and it really protects almost nothing.

    It's possible to build a real firewall with OS X's tools, from the
    command line, just like in any BSD system, but not with the "front end"
    that Apple ships with the system.

    --
    Looks like more of Texas to Me
    Warren Oates, Apr 3, 2005
    #10
  11. Peter Köhlmann

    ZnU Guest

    In article <oaT3e.20812$f%>,
    TheLetterK <> wrote:

    > Jay Maynard wrote:
    > > Slam the troll all you want...but don't for a moment think he's
    > > representative of all OS X users. I'm an experienced Unix admin and user,
    > > who's been running Linux on one box or another since 0.11. My main network
    > > server is a Gentoo Linux system.
    > >
    > > My user desktop is OS X.
    > >
    > > On 2005-04-03, Peter Köhlmann <> wrote:
    > >
    > >>OSX is no unix.

    > >
    > >
    > > Wrong. It's not Linux, but it most certainly is Unix.

    >
    > The Open Group disagrees with you. Considering they have final say-so
    > about what is and is not Unix, I would generally take their opinion over
    > yours.


    The Open Group owns the 'UNIX' trademark, which lets them define 'UNIX'
    however they like. If they decided to call MS-DOS a UNIX system, they
    could do it. Would that make it Unix? I wouldn't think most people would
    accept that. So, using Open Group's definitions doesn't necessarily get
    you anywhere.

    Right now, Open Group considers a system 'UNIX' if it is submitted to
    their testing process and it passes their tests. Under this definition,
    many systems which are insupportably UNIX -- like, for instance, the
    original UNIX operating system, are not UNIX. And on the flip side,
    Windows XP could be a 'UNIX' if Microsoft bundled the right libraries. A
    further point is that a system which would qualify for certification is
    not a UNIX prior to certifiaction. So, an operating system can be
    not-UNIX in the morning an UNIX in the afternoon, without anyone
    changing a line of code.

    I don't think that's a very good definition. I think in common usage,
    'Unix' is used to talk about the technical features of operating systems
    and their relation to the original Unix code base.

    [snip]

    --
    "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
    ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
    -- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005
    ZnU, Apr 3, 2005
    #11
  12. Peter Köhlmann

    ZnU Guest

    In article <JzV3e.1828$>,
    Warren Oates <> wrote:

    > On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:37:14 GMT
    > Jay Maynard <> wrote:
    >
    > :
    > :Besides, what matters is that one can build Unix software on it and run it
    > :with no more difficulty, or use the command line utilities, with no more
    > :difficulty than moving between any pair of Unixes, whether or not they've
    > :gotten the Open Group's Magic Seal of Approval. OS X and Linux both pass
    > :this test easily.
    > :
    >
    > The problem with OS X is not that it' NOT a Unix system, which it
    > certainly is. The problem is that Apple have produced a mangled user
    > interface in an attempt to hide some of the complexities of the Unix
    > system from the customer.
    >
    > The OS X "firewall" is an instance of this. It's not a firewall at
    > all, really, but the customer has been assured by Apple that OS X
    > contains all the security and power of Unix, and turns this thing on
    > and it really protects almost nothing.


    Huh? It's a front-end for ipfw. It closes off incoming connections
    except on ports the user explicitly allows. If you want to filter
    outgoing traffic, or you want more complex rules, it's true that you
    can't do that sort of configuration through the GUI.

    But the thing is, most users just don't know enough to do a complex
    firewall setup, with or without a GUI -- they don't understand the
    concepts involved. Proving a GUI that allowed for more elaborate
    configurations would make life a bit easier for people who already
    understood firewalls, but it wouldn't make regular users any safer.
    (Apple does provide such a GUI on OS X Server, and there are also
    third-party front-ends you can run on the client version of OS X.)

    > It's possible to build a real firewall with OS X's tools, from the
    > command line, just like in any BSD system, but not with the "front end"
    > that Apple ships with the system.


    --
    "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
    ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
    -- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005
    ZnU, Apr 3, 2005
    #12
  13. Peter Köhlmann

    Oxford Guest

    Jay Maynard <> wrote:

    > > OSX is no unix.

    >
    > Wrong. It's not Linux, but it most certainly is Unix. I regularly compile
    > Unix code on it, with no changes beyond the usual BSDisms. I'm the project
    > manager for an open source IBM mainframe emulator
    > (http://www.conmicro.cx/hercules), which requires very few changes between
    > Linux and OS X, mainly removing some Linux-specific SCSI tape support.
    >
    > Ignore the idiots, and take an honest look at OS X. You'll be surprised,
    > certainly, and impressed, most likely.


    thanks Jay, yes I do like to spread the good word of OSX to Linux
    folks... certainly not to be annoying :) but let them know there really
    is something much better than Linux. This tide will only increase since
    we are just 4 years into this historical shift to UNIX for the masses.

    Soon there will be Apple Stores in Berlin & Paris, furthering the
    betterment of the unix community into Europe. I do feel Linux has a
    place and will continue to survive, but the days of Linux having
    influence to the desktop are largely over. OSX is just too good and only
    getting better, and now with very cheap Macs this trend will only
    accelerate. I'm just letting everyone know.

    Thanks!

    and for a real eye opening experience, look here:

    http://www.apple.com/software/

    (Linux will never have this level of quality within the apps)
    Oxford, Apr 3, 2005
    #13
  14. Peter Köhlmann

    Kier Guest

    On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 13:25:33 -0600, Oxford wrote:

    > Jay Maynard <> wrote:
    >
    >> > OSX is no unix.

    >>
    >> Wrong. It's not Linux, but it most certainly is Unix. I regularly compile
    >> Unix code on it, with no changes beyond the usual BSDisms. I'm the project
    >> manager for an open source IBM mainframe emulator
    >> (http://www.conmicro.cx/hercules), which requires very few changes between
    >> Linux and OS X, mainly removing some Linux-specific SCSI tape support.
    >>
    >> Ignore the idiots, and take an honest look at OS X. You'll be surprised,
    >> certainly, and impressed, most likely.

    >
    > thanks Jay, yes I do like to spread the good word of OSX to Linux
    > folks... certainly not to be annoying :) but let them know there really
    > is something much better than Linux.


    No, not better. Different. And different doesn't equal better. If OSX
    doesn't do what a particular user wants, and Linux does, then OSX isn't
    better.

    > This tide will only increase since
    > we are just 4 years into this historical shift to UNIX for the masses.


    Sure, sure, we believe you... not. OSX is not UNIX, anyway. Just
    unix-like, same as Linux.


    >
    > Soon there will be Apple Stores in Berlin & Paris, furthering the
    > betterment of the unix community into Europe. I do feel Linux has a
    > place and will continue to survive, but the days of Linux having
    > influence to the desktop are largely over.


    Feel all you like, it won't make you right.

    OSX is just too good and only
    > getting better, and now with very cheap Macs this trend will only
    > accelerate. I'm just letting everyone know.


    What makes you think the posters here in COLA *want* to know? Or that
    we're incapable of finding out, should we want to know? Linux is
    developing and improving constantly, too, and you aren't forced to buy
    special hardware for it, either.

    >
    > Thanks!
    >
    > and for a real eye opening experience, look here:
    >
    > http://www.apple.com/software/
    >
    > (Linux will never have this level of quality within the apps)


    So you say. Your judgement is flawed.

    --
    Kier
    Kier, Apr 3, 2005
    #14
  15. Peter Köhlmann

    Zaphod B Guest

    Kier <> wrote:

    > > getting better, and now with very cheap Macs this trend will only
    > > accelerate. I'm just letting everyone know.

    >
    > What makes you think the posters here in COLA *want* to know? Or that
    > we're incapable of finding out, should we want to know? Linux is
    > developing and improving constantly, too, and you aren't forced to buy
    > special hardware for it, either.


    Sorry, people of COLA. I'm a Mac user of fifteen years, but I apologize
    for this kind of Mac evangelism, which I find obnoxious and most
    inappropriate, as I would have found the mirror image of it, Linux
    advocacy on Mac groups.

    On behalf of many of us, please be assured that we don't like it,
    either.
    --
    /Z
    Zaphod B, Apr 3, 2005
    #15
  16. Peter Köhlmann

    Jay Maynard Guest

    On 2005-04-03, Peter Köhlmann <> wrote:
    > begin virus.scr Jay Maynard wrote:
    >> Careful...the Linux camp has plenty of losers as bad as Oxford. Do you
    >> really want to go there?

    > Well, even if that were true,


    It is. Ever hung around Slashdot?

    > I simply see not very much posts from linux users in mac-groups. Posts
    > from Mac-cretins in linux groups (and not just advocacy, but general
    > groups as well) are there in abundance. I'd say this talks volumes abbout
    > the maturity of posters, and mac users seem to be very immature in
    > comparison


    And what does this say about your maturity? I'm reading this in
    comp.sys.mac.misc; while I do read a few Linux groups, I don't recall seeing
    any Mac advocates there.

    >> How about simply disowning them? Oxford certainly does not speak for me.

    > I don't see any of that either. And someone who does say nothing silently
    > agrees with this idiocy. It is as simple as that.


    What do you call my statement, then? Cottage cheese?

    > I have never seen any disagreeing post from Mac users regarding your
    > resident retards. Not once. So I have to conclude you agree with their
    > actions


    I just said he does not speak for me. That's a disagreeing post. I do not
    agree with anyone's actions of going into Linux groups and doing nothing
    but advocating OS X.

    >> You should also consider an axiom put forth by Larry Niven: "Ideas are not
    >> responsible for those who hold them. There is no idea so good that you
    >> cannot find a fool who supports it."


    You should consider this point...or should I take your silence to mean that
    you agree with it? That's your reasoning, after all.

    >> Just what is limited about OS X? I have not found any limits beyond the
    >> differences between BSD and Linux/SysV.

    > Not to use X as windowing system is by far the worst idea apple could come
    > up with. It is totally braindead


    Wrong. Not using X as the default windowing system was an enlightened idea:
    X is overgrown and unsuited for use as a single-user desktop. It's a network
    GUI in a world where GUI apps aren't displayed across systems any more.

    X is a pain to configure, a pain to use, and a pain to get around in.

    > And no, don't even start to argue that you can add X to OSX


    I didn't have to. It's already there. I do use it regularly in my work -
    which is one of the few cases where having a GUI be networked is actually
    useful, and that only because the application was designed in 1995.

    > Because then you break evewn more the so often mentioned argument about
    > "integration" and "ease of use" and what not what the apple should have


    It gets along just fine.

    >> Okkay, so it doesn't have the X/Open Magic Seal of Approval. Big fat hairy
    >> deal.

    > It is a big deal. Because the apple retards always argue that OSX is the
    > biggest selling Unix there is. This is a bald lie. OSX is not Unix, no
    > matter how often liars like OxRetard or TravelinIdiot bring it forward


    OS X is as much Unix as Linux is. By the reasonable man standard, OS X (and
    BSD, and Linux) is a Unix system.

    Or do you slavishly follow the Open Group's definition? If so, then you
    consider IBM's z/OS mainframe OS a Unix.

    > Well, you can't read, obviously. Above I stated that OSX is a unix-like
    > system, like linux and BSD


    Good. Then quit carping about it.

    > OSX is not Unix. No matter how good you can use unix-apps
    > Linux can as well, and BSD can also. This is certainly not a point where
    > OSDX has *any* advantage


    I didn't say it was an advantage over Linux, which is what you're carping
    about.

    >>> And this matters how? It is still not an approved "Unix"

    >> Neither is Linux. Neither are any of the freely available BSDs. Exactly
    >> what difference does this make to the average user or sysadmin?

    > It does not. It is just worthj mentioning regarding the often repeated
    > claims of OxReatrd and TravelinIdiot


    I have never seen any messages from the folks you're complaining about. I'm
    making my own arguments. Quit stuffing their words in my mouth.

    > They have been corrected dozens of times, yet they still repeat this
    > bullshit. It really seems it takes an especially dimwitted retard to use
    > OSX. Do you guys have to practice being that dumb, or does it come natural?


    That depends. Do Linux users have to practice being assholes, or does it
    come natural?

    You see, I can associate your methods with Linux just as much as you can
    associate the methods of Oxford (which I do not support, and haven't even
    read) with OS X.

    >>> I prefer linux by a very big margin

    >> Why?
    >> It's certainly not because it's an 'approved "Unix"'.

    > No. Because it is by far the most flexible system.


    Linux is no more flexible than OS X or any other Unix.

    > Well, I don't start these incredibly stupid articles in a group having
    > nothing to do with it. It takes idiots like Oxford for this.


    Oh? Until you dragged this into comp.sys.mac.misc, I had never seen a word
    of it. By your definition, that makes you an idiot.

    > It seems Mac users have more than their fair share of cretins among them


    Careful, Mr. Pot. You're using the exact tactics you deride.
    Jay Maynard, Apr 3, 2005
    #16
  17. Peter Köhlmann

    Jay Maynard Guest

    On 2005-04-03, Oxford <> wrote:
    > thanks Jay, yes I do like to spread the good word of OSX to Linux
    > folks... certainly not to be annoying :) but let them know there really
    > is something much better than Linux. This tide will only increase since
    > we are just 4 years into this historical shift to UNIX for the masses.


    Sorry, but 1) you're wrong: while I prefer OS X as a desktop, I prefer Linux
    as a server OS. I know and use both, and appreciate each one's strengths;
    and 2) You're just giving Linux bigots ammunition to claim that OS X users
    are assholes. Sorry, but I do not appreciate getting tarred with that brush.

    > OSX is just too good and only getting better, and now with very cheap Macs
    > this trend will only accelerate. I'm just letting everyone know.


    You're harming the cause with your tactics. Knock it off.
    Jay Maynard, Apr 3, 2005
    #17
  18. begin virus.scr Jay Maynard wrote:

    < snip >

    >> Well, I don't start these incredibly stupid articles in a group having
    >> nothing to do with it. It takes idiots like Oxford for this.

    >
    > Oh? Until you dragged this into comp.sys.mac.misc, I had never seen a word
    > of it. By your definition, that makes you an idiot.


    I told Oxford before that I will drag his actions into mac-groups
    Complain to him
    You also seem to think that *reacting* to a cretin is equal to start the
    cretinous posts
    >
    >> It seems Mac users have more than their fair share of cretins among them

    >
    > Careful, Mr. Pot. You're using the exact tactics you deride.


    Nope. But I will include even more mac groups if Oxford does not stop his
    spamming actions


    I have *never* started any posts in groups having nothing to do with the
    topic. But if some retard like Oxford (he is not the only one, but the
    dumbest of the lot) thinks he can stir up shit, he will see that he
    *really* can. On a scale he will not like
    Peter Köhlmann, Apr 3, 2005
    #18
  19. Peter Köhlmann

    Jay Maynard Guest

    On 2005-04-03, Peter Köhlmann <> wrote:
    > begin virus.scr Jay Maynard wrote:
    >>> Well, I don't start these incredibly stupid articles in a group having
    >>> nothing to do with it. It takes idiots like Oxford for this.

    >> Oh? Until you dragged this into comp.sys.mac.misc, I had never seen a word
    >> of it. By your definition, that makes you an idiot.

    > I told Oxford before that I will drag his actions into mac-groups
    > Complain to him


    No, I'm complaining to you. You're the one who's dragged this into
    > comp.sys.mac.*.


    > You also seem to think that *reacting* to a cretin is equal to start the
    > cretinous posts


    Yes, I do, actually.

    >>> It seems Mac users have more than their fair share of cretins among them

    >> Careful, Mr. Pot. You're using the exact tactics you deride.

    > Nope. But I will include even more mac groups if Oxford does not stop his
    > spamming actions


    "Waaaah! Mommy, look what he made me do!"

    That doesn't cut it when a 6-year old does it, and that appears to be your
    level of maturity.

    Into the killfile with you.
    Jay Maynard, Apr 3, 2005
    #19
  20. Peter Köhlmann

    Warren Oates Guest

    On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 14:13:08 -0400
    ZnU <> wrote:

    :Huh? It's a front-end for ipfw. It closes off incoming connections
    :except on ports the user explicitly allows. If you want to filter
    :eek:utgoing traffic, or you want more complex rules, it's true that you
    :can't do that sort of configuration through the GUI.
    :
    :But the thing is, most users just don't know enough to do a complex
    :firewall setup, with or without a GUI -- they don't understand the
    :concepts involved. Proving a GUI that allowed for more elaborate
    :configurations would make life a bit easier for people who already
    :understood firewalls, but it wouldn't make regular users any safer.
    :(Apple does provide such a GUI on OS X Server, and there are also
    :third-party front-ends you can run on the client version of OS X.)

    Take a semi-savvy normal intelligent guy who knows he should have a
    firewall and happens to have a G4 (say) networked to his kids' PC
    running Windows Something. And he really should buy a router, but he
    hasn't yet, so he turns on the G4 firewall, and then turns on
    "Internet sharing" to put his PC on the Internet, and then turns on
    "Windows Filesharing" because it's something he wants and, voila, his
    kids' PC is accessible over the whole known Internet because there's
    nothing in the GUI that lets him configure it any other way.

    For third party, I recommend Firewalk X, which doesn't use ipfw, but
    can work with it, and locks up the machine nicely, including "port 0"
    which I've never figured out how to do with ipfw.

    --
    Looks like more of Texas to Me
    Warren Oates, Apr 4, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tim McNamara
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    283
    Tim McNamara
    Dec 1, 2003
  2. timberfish
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    293
    timberfish
    Apr 8, 2005
  3. Daniel L. Snyder

    Oxford firewire chip and OSX

    Daniel L. Snyder, Sep 11, 2005, in forum: Apple
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    345
    Sandstone
    Sep 12, 2005
  4. Michelle Steiner

    Stupid, Stupid, Stupid

    Michelle Steiner, Apr 7, 2008, in forum: Apple
    Replies:
    54
    Views:
    739
    Michelle Steiner
    Apr 21, 2008
  5. hyliandanny
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,213
    hyliandanny
    Nov 19, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page