If you read the post it said 'if'. It operates in the same way of a if statement in programming.
Crap, I ctrl + z'd one too many times and replaced what I had later written to say:
There is nothing wrong with pointing out something as you write it is a assumption. Declaring a assumption as fact on the other hand makes you look like a idiot.
1. So you would like to live in a country where you are being constantly observed to stop you from littering?
Sure, what's the problem with that?
2. There are loads of reports that suggest cctv does not stop crime but at best merely forces it into different areas.
Source?
3. I don't think people should litter the street. But camera surveillance is not a proportional way of doing something about those kinds of things.
Feel free to suggest a better system.
4. This is not a personal criticism against the British so don't take it as one. The fact remains that Britain is the worst in the world at the moment when it comes to invasion of privacy and surveillance. Obviously you and some other people don't care about the right to privacy. Stupid, but hey, that's your choice.
No, I really don't care if someone sees me in a public street. Now someone seeing me and hearing me in my home is a different matter. Just try defending your 'right' to have privacy in a public place, there isn't such a right, at most you have a right to personal space.
Besides what could I be doing legally on a street that warrants privacy?
5. Saying that something bad happens elsewhere as well doesn't make it any better.
Not saying that.
6. Don't make unfounded and wrong assumptions and then call me a hypocrite based on them, it makes you look like an idiot.
If you read the post it said 'if'. It operates in the same way of a if statement in programming.
I'm not an American, I'm dutch. Furthermore I have personally taken action in my workplace against camera surveillance being used in ways that were breaking privacy law.
Okay, you stopped a camera that was breaking a existing law, but not a camera put in place of the public by a government breaking no laws and you're still telling me todo that for no good reason I can think of. Congratulations.
What have you done lately?
I help on average 21 people per hour in my free time on help channels of various opensource projects, there is nothing politically going on at the moment that I'm interested in. I really don't see cameras on the street as a invasion of privacy when you can't expect any on a public street nor is there something one does on a street that warrants the need for privacy.
I also read the political programs before an election and vote for parties that have respect for privacy and civil liberties high on their political agenda instead of making assumptions.
I do far more than just read a simple political program before considering voting -- I do a lot of research.
You think cameras make the street safer even if they are used to stop people from littering (which is a horrible offence after all).
Because obviously the police will never check the camera tapes if there was a mugging, murder etc.
Additionally -- I don't think people should have the right to litter a public street.
You don't feel like thinking of the implications for civil liberties of living in, as a recent human rights report termed it: an endemic surveillance society. Fine, be my guest.
Are you trying to tell me that the police in various states (in the US) don't have CCTVs anywhere on places that can be considered 'public'?
Assuming you are, indeed, a American, please, stop your State officials from doing it.
Otherwise you're going to come off as a hypocrite.
Anyway the choice between being shot on the spot or lifted off your bed at night, taken to a secret location and being tortured doesn't seem that much of a choice to me.
You do realize "V for Vendetta" is fiction, don't you?
After Jobs made his "get rid of DRM" speech a month or two ago, they were coming out of the woodwork blasting him for being a hypocrite. Maybe these know-nothings will now realize that he couldn't make these changes on his own, he needed the labels themselves to come along.
Because lower quality AAC files without DRM than the ones with DRM that cost the same price as a CD are what people wanted.
NOW that one of them is promoting anti-DRM versions, expect the indy stuff to follow suit.
Yay for lower quality music where one can hear artifacts?
I don't hear high pitch noises on modern computer CRTs -- I use LCD screens at home.
various computer components, and fans in said computer?
Fans don't bother me, some fluorescent lighting on the other hand...
In particular, the only computer hardware I've ever had a issue with is Apple's. More than once I've encountered Apple hardware that was emitting high pitch noises (that others couldn't hear).
You have never heard of Bon Jovi? Where have you been living for the past 25 years?
I've only been alive for the last twentytwo =).
I don't own a TV (the high pitch noises they make annoy me -- sensitive ears, never mind the adverts) or even a radio (I don't know many people my age who even listen to the radio outside of a car).
No, the reason Windows NT is not Unix is because it is not based on a prior Unix, its Unix services run as a compatibility layer (which, as I pointed out before, can emulate just about any system architecture).
OS X uses a subsystem just like Windows does for Unix compatability, it is the same conceptual system.
Mac OS X is based on BSD, which was based on Bell Labs Unix - it is a direct descendant, as I keep pointing out.
No, OS X is based on NextOS, which has a kernel based on Mach with a BSD subsystem that shares very, very little code with BSD. However OS X does share much code when it comes to command line tools with BSD.
So no, I don't consider it a direct descendant and if you're going to call OS X a Unix, the same is going to apply to Windows because they're just too similar in how they implemented the features, the code sharing etc.
You seem to think that the BSD portion of XNU is like Cygwin or Interix are to Windows, but it isn't.
You seem to think the POSIX subsystem in Windows isn't integrated into the Kernel in a similar fashion the way OS X does, but it is (note: Cygwin does not make use of the POSIX subsystem in Windows and needlessly reimplemented things, Interix -- now called Windows Services for Unix does however).
It's not simply "slapped on top" as you said before; it is a BSD kernel, modified to run on Mach.
It is a BSD subsystem ontop of the kernel and the majority of code related to the subsystem is, I'm told not really match much of BSD4.x (which I've been told was the version of BSD that was used).
But I also take their usage of "Unix" to mean "Unix(TM)", i.e. this is a kind of disclaimer to Open Group.
Hm, I wonder if that acronym for XNU came out after the SCO lawsuit.
To me, that just means Mac OS X isn't a very compatible Unix. Or, if you prefer, it's a broken one.
To me, it just means OS X has gone down it's own unique path and does not wish to be a Unix.
Read some of that old literature
When I get the time, I will. =)
If BSD isn't Unix, it's only because lawyers made it so.Duly noted.
I've only heard of "Limp Bizkit" from that list, the only reason why I know them is because my sister was playing their music a lot and it annoyed the hell out of me.
But you haven't made any arguments in your other posts-- you've simply asserted that "there was only one Unix" without specifying which version you mean and sold by whom, and without any explanation of why some derivatives of that Unix are still "Unix" and some are not.
Because I'm not too sure myself. When it comes to music and one creates a 'remix', in a court of law there is a human component to determine if the 'remix' is original enough to be considered a unique song (despite the fact it may have the same melody, lyrics etc).
Let me ask you this: when BSD features like TCP/IP, VM and fast filesystem were incorporated into the "true Unix," did they then become "Unix features" where they weren't before?
It's difficult to say really.
How many nonstandard features can dilute Unix before it's no longer the "one true Unix" you believe in?
I do know that Windows is not Unix. Acknowledging that OS X is Unix will lead to acknowledging Windows is Unix.
Windows NT systems have superior support to what OS X provides for a Unix-like enviroment, everything from piping to signaling works perfectly, on OS X it doesn't. The subsystem provided on NT systems allows Unix-like applications to be executed 'natively' (just as native as win32 applications) on the system.
Windows NT systems have a lot of code sharing from BSDs too, from the shells (windows services for unix) to socket code.
I already feel the modern BSDs are somewhat too different from the Unixes to be considered a original Unix system. Linux certainly isn't close enough for that and Windows and OS X are further away from that too.
One of the biggest problems plaguing Linux in their efforts to make it on the common users desktop is software installation and updating.
Perhaps in educating users in how todo it. But the current installation and update systems are quite well refined already.
There are many dependencies which sometimes need to be hunted down before an application will work, and often times software is buggy.
Eh? The package manager should handle that automatically.
Ahead for one is porting Nero to work in Linux
I heard k3b was more advanced.
I believe Adobe is porting Photoshop as well
A possible alternative is Krita... But Adobe porting Photoshop? I haven't heard of this and I remember Chris Cox's comments on this, which expressed no interest (and backed it up with false statements).
They are also realizing how similar Windows Vista is to HAL9000
Hal-9000 saves humanity from a alien device that intends to erase humanity completely.
With you forgetting to close italics I passively ignored what I thought were quotes of me...
And why would want to do that? Aliased fonts are jagged and hard to read.
It looks like blurred crap to me, from what anti-aliasing I can disable, it does look better (to me anyway). Font anti-aliasing only useful if the font is rather large. I tend to work on very small fonts and low resolutions.
Why do you think that anti-aliasing was invented
To make larger fonts look prettier
and such a common issue on how to turn on and get right in XFree86?
Who the hell uses XFree86 in this day and age?
Do you really want to make your interface look like something from 1989?
If it looks right/good, sure.
Never had a problem. It does just work.
Now now, you assume I haven't been using OS X and don't know it's issues, but I do, here are the filesharing specific issues I've experienced with OS X:
In 10.3,
Unable to use win98 shares (I haven't tried in 10.4) -- Could in Windows and Linux systems
couldn't browse the network anymore, finding windows machines -- Other Linux and Windows systems had no problems..
Keychain keeps forgetting logic credentials so auto mounting that requires logging in doesn't work -- Other Linux and Windows systems didn't forget credentials.
Could mount volumes from a running AD server (has to be a AD server, not just windows server OS in this case) but couldn't view the file contents -- I needed to change one local security policy to get mount working properly on Linux, but it still didn't work on OS X and additionally, Windows systems had no problems.
in 10.4,
Network browsing was still broken for a while, but eventually fixed
For some unknown reasons... I do not know why, Windows can't seem to connect to the 10.4 shares unless I go into the terminal and start writing my own samba.conf from scratch since OS X's sharing GUI is broken (I never really looked to see what bad samba.conf things it was doing)?
SMB support was spotty (sometimes worked, sometimes didn't) with some computers that worked fine from Linux and Windows, never figured out what the pattern in question was.
The 'connect to server' GUI was broken for logins here until 10.4.9.
Well gee. If you wre really that concerned, you could have simply just fixed the problem yourself, either through a reconfiging apache, or low and behold compiling apache yourself. But wait! MacOSX isn't unix, so of course that isn't a solution.
Oh! But I did! I took Apache 2.x from Apache's website, compiled, installed and great, next issues, when there were several connections to the webserver downloading things, I could actually see the desktop starting to freeze up.. Spindle/beachball of death, cursor skipping across the screen etc. -- Turned out the kernel wasn't very good at handling threading with multiple child processes on a single core (something I wouldn't have a issue on under Windows, Linux or one of the BSDs)
I still use OS X, but I choose Linux over it particularly because in my uses, I've had much more issues with OS X and I am uncomfortable with OS X.
I find your advice rather ill founded as you're making it rather clear with your talk with outdated knowledge on Linux that you aren't using Linux anymore (or at least a upto date version) leaving for a bad comparison against the OSes. To top it off, then you're taking that bad comparison you made and you're trying to get people to decide on things using your flawed logic/knowledge.
Well you haven't actually made a comparison with this statement have you? Unless of course, you're comparing to zero, which isn't a very bold comparison now is it? Macs do have less hardware issues than windows and linux in particular.
You're going to have to make a more coherent argument than a simple google search, especially one where the first hit actually explains how MacOSX is POSIX complient and based on FreeBSD and NeXTStep, both of which are bonified unicies. So unless your argument is "If it looks like a duck and quacks like duck, it must be rock," then try again.
See my other posts.
My hardware is supported.
Yes, I've seen OS X's superior support, where having 3GB RAM breaks graphic drivers or where wireless cards spontaneously have issues after OS updates and take entire OS revisions to get fixed, some of which not fixed yet.
I've never seen hardware 100% supported under linux.
I have, but if you're having such a problem with hardware you could always buy Linux supported hardware from places like... I don't know... Dell? IBM? System76?
Wireless drivers that don't support WPA
I've had wireless cards not work at all on OS X, I've had wireless cards no longer work after service pack 2 on Windows XP -- no driver updates to fix it.
Graphics cards that don't support 3d acceleration.
Had this issue with my current laptop's, it was "designed for Windows XP", but if you use Windows XP service pack 2, the graphic drivers do not work and there are no driver updates for it.
Kernels having to be patched for usb support.
Never, ever, had todo this myself with all the USB devices I've had and hardware. Never saw it in Linux help channels either.
Hell, I had to actually patch (i.e. modify the source) to get linux to recognize my digital camera (a Sony DSC-F707)
How long ago was this? Wasn't that camera released in 1999?
even though it was supported as a simple usb storage device.
Well, apparently it wasn't officially supported hardware. The fact you could get it working via a simple patch to a driver is another story.
(The patch was incrementing a hex number in unusualdevs.h. Simple yes, but completely unacceptable.) Modules that refuse to insert automatically.
I'm sorry you had todo that, but, you are patching the drivers and support there, NOBODY expects a Windows user to patch their drivers, even if they have the source. The same with OS X and nobody is expecting you should on Linux, the fact you are is another story all together.
This case is certainly better than mine, where I have a USB bluetooth dongle here that if I plug into any Mac, the Mac will kernel panic, even though it's a standard Bluetooth device that is supported just fine on the other OSes and I have verified myself that there is nothing uniquely wrong/non-standard about it.
The fact you're complaining about a camera that appears to not be standard compliant (hence why you needed to modify unusualdevs.h and got it working) is just amusing to me.
It's hard to tell when which distributions are supporting this camera right now, but I see there have been patches sent into kernel development at least since 2001 on this camera. So I feel this complaint is somewhat dated already.
And you have some evidence that the Unix(TM) kernel has never been redesigned, restructured, or included new code?
Nope, but neither does the person who claims OS X is Unix.
And the Unix(TM) kernel is called what?
As you said, 'the Unix(TM) kernel' actually.
How does the name affect what its function is?
Unix is Unix, OS X is OS X. You can claim that this kernel (I didn't actually do this, just for argument's sake) I just downloaded from kernel.org and renamed to 'Blargh'. You can claim 'Blargh' is 'Linux'. But you cannot claim that OS X is Unix, OS X does not mirror Unix, plain and simple.
Want to call it a derivative of Unix? Go ahead, there is reasonable evidence that can support that, but there isn't any that supports OS X being Unix.
BSD was originally based on AT&T Unix, but it was re-implemented to avoid infringing code.
BSD is not Unix as I've said before. What's with this circular logic?
No, I'm saying that what makes them "Unix" is not the trademark, it's the design philosophy, standard interfaces, etc. They all share this common design, including Darwin/Mac OS X.
Are you trying to call Windows 'Unix' since it has subsystems that support those interfaces and design philosophies?
I don't agree with this standard of determining what is Unix.
I also don't agree that this would make Windows a Unix derivative just because it has a implementation of Unix-like system available.
Yes, written by people who know a lot more about what makes a Unix than you do.
I have my doubts they would disagree with me.
Good counter-argument. I'll take that as an admission that BSD is Unix?
With your anonymous postings, I sense you're trying to get a rise out of me and you know you're in the wrong (making up excuses against this won't make me believe otherwise at this point).
Ah, so all those references to "BSD Unix" are bullshit. Thanks for clarifying. Unfortunately, it was called "BSD Unix" long before nitpickers like you came along.
BSD Unix is not Unix, BSD Unix is a derivative of Unix. Why don't you understand that?
Oh, so all Unix systems work exactly alike, and have never changed over the years? Thanks for clarifying.
There was only one Unix system, for it to be Unix-like, it would have to follow Unix's original concepts.
I didn't say Solaris; Solaris is System-V based. Sun sold a lot of "Unix workstations" running a BSD variant. I don't remember people complaining that it wasn't "really Unix."
I made it clear I don't know enough about SunOS or whatever it is. No point bringing it up.
Out of the box?
What? You want to come up with instances where you can't compile unix applications on BSD or Linux out of the box? Because that's easy, just don't have the software needed.
Does Windows have built in support for POSIX? Since WinNT, Windows has had internal support for POSIX under a subsystem, the same way Win32 is supported. Does one need to use the subsystem to compile Unix applications under Windows? No, there are plenty of alternative ways to get them running under Windows.
If I compile a Win32 package and run it in Virtual PC on my G4, I guess that means my Mac is actually a Windows system, huh?
Eh?
I see. So, because it's not the same as other Unixes you're used to, it's not really Unix. Thanks for clarifying.
Twisting my words around, assuming you were the previous AC, you said:
Put it this way: you can't compile Unix software on non-Unix systems. You can do this with minimal effort on Mac OS X; ergo, bottom-line, it's a Unix platform.
I was arguing that fact, it's easier for me to compile (and get working) Unix software under Windows than it was for me under OS X.
No, I don't think that's a good standard to determine if a system is 'Unix' or not.
A bunch of Google hits (most of which contain good arguments disagreeing with you)?
Unix-like and Unix are different things. I don't oppose entirely the definition 'Unix-like'. But it certainly isn't based on Unix, it's based on a Mach kernel that had a BSD subsystem slapped ontop (some code based on some BSD code however there is no evidence this code was in the original Unix OS either), the resulting kernel is called Xnu.
If it's not based on Unix, it can't be a 'new version' of Unix either.
It's like calling FreeBSD, unix or Linux, unix just because they shared a bit of code...
If that's your standard of proof, then a Googlefight should settle the issue
I don't see really many arguments on "OS X is Unix" search results though.
Or how about this book
OH NOS, A BOOK!
Notice it doesn't say "The Design and Implementation of the 4.3 BSD UNIX-like Operating System"
Yes, it is Unix, every bit as much as any BSD is Unix.
BSD isn't UNIX either, so you've pretty much lost that argument.
Additionally OS X doesn't even keep within the ideals of unix systems such as low execution costs for forking and IPCs, so I wouldn't really say it's close to unix-like, especially when the kernel is a hybrid kernel with just a simple BSD interface subsystem.
then all Sun workstations running the BSD-based versions of SunOS are also not "Unix workstations."
I don't know enough about Solaris to make such a decision, so fine with me.
Just because Mac OS X includes some proprietary things, and has its own unique problems (as does any Unix variant), doesn't mean that it's not Unix.
It does far more than include other things, it is a whole other beast all together.
Put it this way: you can't compile Unix software on non-Unix systems.
Yes I can. Especially on Windows.
You can do this with minimal effort on Mac OS X; ergo, bottom-line, it's a Unix platform.
Actually I have more difficulty porting things to OS X with things like bad support for signaling etc.
they'll have to spend some time checking whether or not the hardware two years down the line requres a new kernel from the distributor - and if drivers for the hardware haven't made it to the distribution's kernel yet, you'll have to compile your own.
No you don't. Worst case scenario, you just build the kernel module for that hardware support and you can automate with DKMS (Dell's Dynamic Kernel Module Support) so you don't even need to care about doing when you update the kernel due to security issues etc. You obviously don't know much about maintaining Linux within this decade.
Restore from backup? What backup? I don't know anywhere that backs up its workstations
I know a few places which do, simply due to the fact the systems in question require somewhat non-standard configuration, this is no different.
that's what the servers are there for.
There is no problem using one of the easy to use GUIs to regulary backup the entire installation to the servers if need be
The best you're likely to get is an image of a desktop PC to install onto the new one - see my comments above.
Yeah, compiling one's own kernel... I don't actually know anyone who does that for hardware support and I am someone who helps out in #Ubuntu, #Kubuntu, #mandriva, #SuSE and #Debian on Freenode, helping users with their problems almost daily on my free time.
I also hold recognized certifications in dealing with Linux systems -- Now, if I don't hear about (re)compiling their kernels for hardware support then I have to conclude you're spreading lies.
usually put forward by someone who promptly demonstrates that they've got no idea how an IT department in the real world functions.
I currently work in a IT department in the real world and I have worked in others. I honestly do not see the validity of those particular arguments you have given so far.
From what I can tell, since you appear to not know Linux that well, you're trying to subconsciously convince yourself coming up with rational fears based on the little knowledge you have against Linux.
You claim:
IT will have to support a system that they do not know, which is ran by someone who obviously knows their tech already (in this case, referring to the article). -- I do not agree they have to.
It takes more time to get another computer running when the existing breaks -- Yes, I agree. But you failed to address the point I made that it's unlikely it will effect the productivity of this particular user who can do much more on the OS he's asking for (how often does a single computer break anyway? -- Not often).
IT is unable to make exceptions -- I see no problem with making informed decisions (which I've done in the past).
You need to (re)compile the kernel to get support for unsupported hardware by the current installation -- I disagree too.
In the real world, the IT department has to be pragmatic and cater for the majority.
This certainly isn't true with execs/CEOs etc. always wanting things their way. It's also the IT department's job to make things as efficient as possible for the user so they can actually get to work.
The remainder will generally have to learn to live with that, and tools like SSH, Cygwin/X and Hummingbird Exceed are what you use in order to live with it.
If they can do the job with just the tools available on Windows. If they're being slowed down by hours, it's not good either.
What the hell are you talking about? I get more crap on OS X than on Windows or Linux. I can't even turn off anti-aliasing on that big white bar.
After 12 years of linux
I've used OS X since 10.1 to 10.4.9 (infact I still do). Half of the things I see on the adverts on Apple's website are a lie.
No reboots? Just install a quicktime update. Seamless integration with windows networks? Samba keeps breaking. Performs better? Windows and Linux seem faster to me for most things. Easy to setup? Maybe... if it worked... I remember the time using the Apache that came with the OS X CD... It could only send the first 13kb (I think it was 13kb) of a file, and that was it. Well known issue, took entire OS updates to fix. Less hardware issues because it all comes from Apple? I've seen everything, wireless driver issues, graphic driver issues etc. some of which to this day haven't been even fixed.
Slashdot Mirror
There is nothing wrong with pointing out something as you write it is a assumption. Declaring a assumption as fact on the other hand makes you look like a idiot.
Besides what could I be doing legally on a street that warrants privacy?Not saying that.If you read the post it said 'if'. It operates in the same way of a if statement in programming.Okay, you stopped a camera that was breaking a existing law, but not a camera put in place of the public by a government breaking no laws and you're still telling me todo that for no good reason I can think of. Congratulations.I help on average 21 people per hour in my free time on help channels of various opensource projects, there is nothing politically going on at the moment that I'm interested in. I really don't see cameras on the street as a invasion of privacy when you can't expect any on a public street nor is there something one does on a street that warrants the need for privacy.I do far more than just read a simple political program before considering voting -- I do a lot of research.
Additionally -- I don't think people should have the right to litter a public street.Are you trying to tell me that the police in various states (in the US) don't have CCTVs anywhere on places that can be considered 'public'?
Assuming you are, indeed, a American, please, stop your State officials from doing it.
Otherwise you're going to come off as a hypocrite.
Sorry, I think only the smashmyps3 crew can afford it.
'apt-get install openoffice' works on my 64bit Linux system.
In particular, the only computer hardware I've ever had a issue with is Apple's. More than once I've encountered Apple hardware that was emitting high pitch noises (that others couldn't hear).
I don't own a TV (the high pitch noises they make annoy me -- sensitive ears, never mind the adverts) or even a radio (I don't know many people my age who even listen to the radio outside of a car).
So no, I don't consider it a direct descendant and if you're going to call OS X a Unix, the same is going to apply to Windows because they're just too similar in how they implemented the features, the code sharing etc.You seem to think the POSIX subsystem in Windows isn't integrated into the Kernel in a similar fashion the way OS X does, but it is (note: Cygwin does not make use of the POSIX subsystem in Windows and needlessly reimplemented things, Interix -- now called Windows Services for Unix does however).It is a BSD subsystem ontop of the kernel and the majority of code related to the subsystem is, I'm told not really match much of BSD4.x (which I've been told was the version of BSD that was used).Hm, I wonder if that acronym for XNU came out after the SCO lawsuit.To me, it just means OS X has gone down it's own unique path and does not wish to be a Unix.When I get the time, I will. =)
I've only heard of "Limp Bizkit" from that list, the only reason why I know them is because my sister was playing their music a lot and it annoyed the hell out of me.
Windows NT systems have superior support to what OS X provides for a Unix-like enviroment, everything from piping to signaling works perfectly, on OS X it doesn't. The subsystem provided on NT systems allows Unix-like applications to be executed 'natively' (just as native as win32 applications) on the system.
Windows NT systems have a lot of code sharing from BSDs too, from the shells (windows services for unix) to socket code.
I already feel the modern BSDs are somewhat too different from the Unixes to be considered a original Unix system. Linux certainly isn't close enough for that and Windows and OS X are further away from that too.
I think a better comparison might be:
Preinstalled Windows (like from Dell) VS preinstalled Linux (like from System76).
It looks like blurred crap to me, from what anti-aliasing I can disable, it does look better (to me anyway). Font anti-aliasing only useful if the font is rather large. I tend to work on very small fonts and low resolutions.
To make larger fonts look prettier
Who the hell uses XFree86 in this day and age?
If it looks right/good, sure.
Now now, you assume I haven't been using OS X and don't know it's issues, but I do, here are the filesharing specific issues I've experienced with OS X:
In 10.3,
in 10.4,
Oh! But I did! I took Apache 2.x from Apache's website, compiled, installed and great, next issues, when there were several connections to the webserver downloading things, I could actually see the desktop starting to freeze up.. Spindle/beachball of death, cursor skipping across the screen etc. -- Turned out the kernel wasn't very good at handling threading with multiple child processes on a single core (something I wouldn't have a issue on under Windows, Linux or one of the BSDs)
I still use OS X, but I choose Linux over it particularly because in my uses, I've had much more issues with OS X and I am uncomfortable with OS X.
I find your advice rather ill founded as you're making it rather clear with your talk with outdated knowledge on Linux that you aren't using Linux anymore (or at least a upto date version) leaving for a bad comparison against the OSes. To top it off, then you're taking that bad comparison you made and you're trying to get people to decide on things using your flawed logic/knowledge.
What comparison? The support is
It's hard to tell when distributions started supporting this currently supported camera right now,
This case is certainly better than mine, where I have a USB bluetooth dongle here that if I plug into any Mac, the Mac will kernel panic, even though it's a standard Bluetooth device that is supported just fine on the other OSes and I have verified myself that there is nothing uniquely wrong/non-standard about it.
The fact you're complaining about a camera that appears to not be standard compliant (hence why you needed to modify unusualdevs.h and got it working) is just amusing to me.
It's hard to tell when which distributions are supporting this camera right now, but I see there have been patches sent into kernel development at least since 2001 on this camera. So I feel this complaint is somewhat dated already.
Want to call it a derivative of Unix? Go ahead, there is reasonable evidence that can support that, but there isn't any that supports OS X being Unix.BSD is not Unix as I've said before. What's with this circular logic?Are you trying to call Windows 'Unix' since it has subsystems that support those interfaces and design philosophies?
I don't agree with this standard of determining what is Unix.
I also don't agree that this would make Windows a Unix derivative just because it has a implementation of Unix-like system available.I have my doubts they would disagree with me.With your anonymous postings, I sense you're trying to get a rise out of me and you know you're in the wrong (making up excuses against this won't make me believe otherwise at this point).
Does Windows have built in support for POSIX? Since WinNT, Windows has had internal support for POSIX under a subsystem, the same way Win32 is supported. Does one need to use the subsystem to compile Unix applications under Windows? No, there are plenty of alternative ways to get them running under Windows.Eh?Twisting my words around, assuming you were the previous AC, you said:I was arguing that fact, it's easier for me to compile (and get working) Unix software under Windows than it was for me under OS X.
No, I don't think that's a good standard to determine if a system is 'Unix' or not.
If it's not based on Unix, it can't be a 'new version' of Unix either.
It's like calling FreeBSD, unix or Linux, unix just because they shared a bit of code...I don't see really many arguments on "OS X is Unix" search results though.OH NOS, A BOOK!OMGWTFBBQ!
Additionally OS X doesn't even keep within the ideals of unix systems such as low execution costs for forking and IPCs, so I wouldn't really say it's close to unix-like, especially when the kernel is a hybrid kernel with just a simple BSD interface subsystem.I don't know enough about Solaris to make such a decision, so fine with me.It does far more than include other things, it is a whole other beast all together.Yes I can. Especially on Windows.Actually I have more difficulty porting things to OS X with things like bad support for signaling etc.
I also hold recognized certifications in dealing with Linux systems -- Now, if I don't hear about (re)compiling their kernels for hardware support then I have to conclude you're spreading lies.I currently work in a IT department in the real world and I have worked in others. I honestly do not see the validity of those particular arguments you have given so far.
From what I can tell, since you appear to not know Linux that well, you're trying to subconsciously convince yourself coming up with rational fears based on the little knowledge you have against Linux.
You claim:
- IT will have to support a system that they do not know, which is ran by someone who obviously knows their tech already (in this case, referring to the article). -- I do not agree they have to.
- It takes more time to get another computer running when the existing breaks -- Yes, I agree. But you failed to address the point I made that it's unlikely it will effect the productivity of this particular user who can do much more on the OS he's asking for (how often does a single computer break anyway? -- Not often).
- IT is unable to make exceptions -- I see no problem with making informed decisions (which I've done in the past).
- You need to (re)compile the kernel to get support for unsupported hardware by the current installation -- I disagree too.
This certainly isn't true with execs/CEOs etc. always wanting things their way. It's also the IT department's job to make things as efficient as possible for the user so they can actually get to work.If they can do the job with just the tools available on Windows. If they're being slowed down by hours, it's not good either.No reboots? Just install a quicktime update.
Seamless integration with windows networks? Samba keeps breaking.
Performs better? Windows and Linux seem faster to me for most things.
Easy to setup? Maybe... if it worked... I remember the time using the Apache that came with the OS X CD... It could only send the first 13kb (I think it was 13kb) of a file, and that was it. Well known issue, took entire OS updates to fix.
Less hardware issues because it all comes from Apple? I've seen everything, wireless driver issues, graphic driver issues etc. some of which to this day haven't been even fixed.I don't use Macs so often, guess why.
So I'm just going to assume you have no experience with attempting to manage such systems from Windows.
Microsoft Office Enterprise 2007 full install according to "Add or Remove programs" is 630MB.