🚀 go-pugleaf

Joel wrote:
> Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:
>> On Jul 10, 2025 at 6:51:50?PM EDT, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> From
>>> <https://www.zdnet.com/article/this-linux-distro-combines-the-best-parts-of-windows-and-macos-and-its-gorgeous/>:
>>
>> But it doesn't run Mac software and it might run some Windows software. So if
>> all you want is a screen that LOOKS like Windows and/or Mac, then its great.
>>
>> Notice that neither Apple nor Microsoft is rushing to release anything that
>> looks anything remotely like Linux. I wonder why?
>>
>> Not to mention that Apple has already made Unix easy to use and gorgeous.
>> They did that 24 years ago. And artistically speaking, looking like Windows is
>> nothing to brag about.
>
>
> Macs suck.
>
your dick came up for discussion in another group today

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

>From
><https://www.zdnet.com/article/this-linux-distro-combines-the-best-parts-of-windows-and-macos-and-its-gorgeous/>:
>
>    Such is the case with the latest release of BlueStar Linux: a
>    distro that essentially takes KDE Plasma and twists it into a
>    different kind of desktop, one with a highly functional top bar, a
>    well-designed dock, desktop icons, and more. You're getting the
>    best of all worlds:
>
>    • A Linux-like top bar
>    • A MacOS dock
>    • Windows-like desktop icons
>
>    You might think of BlueStar Linux as the chimera of operating
>    systems.
>
>Once again, it’s not the OS that looks like this, it’s just the
>default GUI desktop environment.
>
>Given that this distro is Arch-based, presumably it has access to the
>regular Arch repos as well (unless they build their own packages with
>their own dependencies). If so, you have access to all the usual GUI
>(and other) options you get with Arch.


I don't really get it, but flavor-grade distros are now a dime a
dozen.  Debian with Cinnamon is about as Windows-like as one could
need.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:
>On Jul 10, 2025 at 6:51:50?PM EDT, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>> From
>> <https://www.zdnet.com/article/this-linux-distro-combines-the-best-parts-of-windows-and-macos-and-its-gorgeous/>:
>
>But it doesn't run Mac software and it might run some Windows software. So if
>all you want is a screen that LOOKS like Windows and/or Mac, then its great.
>
>Notice that neither Apple nor Microsoft is rushing to release anything that
>looks anything remotely like Linux. I wonder why?
>
>Not to mention that Apple has already made Unix easy to use and gorgeous.
>They did that 24 years ago. And artistically speaking, looking like Windows is
>nothing to brag about.


Macs suck.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-07-10 19:53, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 23:38:52 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 10, 2025 at 6:51:50 PM EDT, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro"
>> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Once again, it’s not the OS that looks like this, it’s just the
>>> default GUI desktop environment.
>>
>> Notice that neither Apple nor Microsoft is rushing to release anything
>> that looks anything remotely like Linux. I wonder why?
>
> Maybe it’s because there is no such thing as “looking anything remotely
> like Linux”. Linux doesn’t have any particular “look”, as I mentioned in
> my posting.
>
>> Not to mention that Apple has already made Unix easy to use and
>> gorgeous.
>
> The only thing “Unix” about Apple is the trademark.

Nope. It is still a fully certified Unix install.

On 2025-07-10 20:27, Joel wrote:
> Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:
>> On Jul 10, 2025 at 6:51:50?PM EDT, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> From
>>> <https://www.zdnet.com/article/this-linux-distro-combines-the-best-parts-of-windows-and-macos-and-its-gorgeous/>:
>>
>> But it doesn't run Mac software and it might run some Windows software. So if
>> all you want is a screen that LOOKS like Windows and/or Mac, then its great.
>>
>> Notice that neither Apple nor Microsoft is rushing to release anything that
>> looks anything remotely like Linux. I wonder why?
>>
>> Not to mention that Apple has already made Unix easy to use and gorgeous.
>> They did that 24 years ago. And artistically speaking, looking like Windows is
>> nothing to brag about.
>
>
> Macs suck.
>

Wow. What a powerful argument.

Tell it to the scientists at JPL.

On 7/10/25 5:38 PM, % wrote:
> your dick came up for discussion in another group today

Thank you for helping me update my killfile.

On Jul 10, 2025 at 6:51:50 PM EDT, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid>
wrote:

> From
> <https://www.zdnet.com/article/this-linux-distro-combines-the-best-parts-of-windows-and-macos-and-its-gorgeous/>:

But it doesn't run Mac software and it might run some Windows software. So if
all you want is a screen that LOOKS like Windows and/or Mac, then its great.

Notice that neither Apple nor Microsoft is rushing to release anything that
looks anything remotely like Linux. I wonder why?

Not to mention that Apple has already made Unix easy to use and gorgeous.
They did that 24 years ago. And artistically speaking, looking like Windows is
nothing to brag about.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 23:38:52 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
>
> On Jul 10, 2025 at 6:51:50 PM EDT, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro"
> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Once again, it’s not the OS that looks like this, it’s just the
>> default GUI desktop environment.
>
> Notice that neither Apple nor Microsoft is rushing to release anything
> that looks anything remotely like Linux. I wonder why?

Maybe it’s because there is no such thing as “looking anything remotely
like Linux”. Linux doesn’t have any particular “look”, as I mentioned in
my posting.

> Not to mention that Apple has already made Unix easy to use and
> gorgeous.

The only thing “Unix” about Apple is the trademark.

On 7/10/25 3:51 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> From
> <https://www.zdnet.com/article/this-linux-distro-combines-the-best-parts-of-windows-and-macos-and-its-gorgeous/>:
>
>      Such is the case with the latest release of BlueStar Linux: a
>      distro that essentially takes KDE Plasma and twists it into a
>      different kind of desktop, one with a highly functional top bar, a
>      well-designed dock, desktop icons, and more. You're getting the
>      best of all worlds:
>
>      • A Linux-like top bar
>      • A MacOS dock
>      • Windows-like desktop icons
>
>      You might think of BlueStar Linux as the chimera of operating
>      systems.
>
> Once again, it’s not the OS that looks like this, it’s just the
> default GUI desktop environment.
>
> Given that this distro is Arch-based, presumably it has access to the
> regular Arch repos as well (unless they build their own packages with
> their own dependencies). If so, you have access to all the usual GUI
> (and other) options you get with Arch.

Well, it looks pretty and it is the power of Linux: yo
have a lot of choices.

But, why not use Xfce if you like that kind of doc's?
Xfce's Panel 1 is far more useful than Mac's Doc.
And Panel 1 is a lot like Windows task bar.

And who said other Linux GUI's desktop icons were
not Windows like.?

On Thu, 7/10/2025 6:51 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> From
> <https://www.zdnet.com/article/this-linux-distro-combines-the-best-parts-of-windows-and-macos-and-its-gorgeous/>:
>
>     Such is the case with the latest release of BlueStar Linux: a
>     distro that essentially takes KDE Plasma and twists it into a
>     different kind of desktop, one with a highly functional top bar, a
>     well-designed dock, desktop icons, and more. You're getting the
>     best of all worlds:
>
>     • A Linux-like top bar
>     • A MacOS dock
>     • Windows-like desktop icons
>
>     You might think of BlueStar Linux as the chimera of operating
>     systems.
>
> Once again, it’s not the OS that looks like this, it’s just the
> default GUI desktop environment.
>
> Given that this distro is Arch-based, presumably it has access to the
> regular Arch repos as well (unless they build their own packages with
> their own dependencies). If so, you have access to all the usual GUI
> (and other) options you get with Arch.
>

That Dak Wallen is on a homerun streak.

Comments at bottom:

https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=bluestar

   Paul

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>On 2025-07-10 20:27, Joel wrote:
>> Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:
>>> On Jul 10, 2025 at 6:51:50?PM EDT, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From
>>>> <https://www.zdnet.com/article/this-linux-distro-combines-the-best-parts-of-windows-and-macos-and-its-gorgeous/>:
>>>
>>> But it doesn't run Mac software and it might run some Windows software. So if
>>> all you want is a screen that LOOKS like Windows and/or Mac, then its great.
>>>
>>> Notice that neither Apple nor Microsoft is rushing to release anything that
>>> looks anything remotely like Linux. I wonder why?
>>>
>>> Not to mention that Apple has already made Unix easy to use and gorgeous.
>>> They did that 24 years ago. And artistically speaking, looking like Windows is
>>> nothing to brag about.
>>
>> Macs suck.
>
>Wow. What a powerful argument.
>
>Tell it to the scientists at JPL.


Macs get low fuel economy, so to speak.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-07-11 12:07, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2025-07-10 20:27, Joel wrote:
>>> Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 10, 2025 at 6:51:50?PM EDT, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From
>>>>> <https://www.zdnet.com/article/this-linux-distro-combines-the-best-parts-of-windows-and-macos-and-its-gorgeous/>:
>>>>
>>>> But it doesn't run Mac software and it might run some Windows software. So if
>>>> all you want is a screen that LOOKS like Windows and/or Mac, then its great.
>>>>
>>>> Notice that neither Apple nor Microsoft is rushing to release anything that
>>>> looks anything remotely like Linux. I wonder why?
>>>>
>>>> Not to mention that Apple has already made Unix easy to use and gorgeous.
>>>> They did that 24 years ago. And artistically speaking, looking like Windows is
>>>> nothing to brag about.
>>>
>>> Macs suck.
>>
>> Wow. What a powerful argument.
>>
>> Tell it to the scientists at JPL.
>
>
> Macs get low fuel economy, so to speak.
An utterly ridiculous analogy.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>> Macs suck.
>>>
>>> Wow. What a powerful argument.
>>>
>>> Tell it to the scientists at JPL.
>>
>> Macs get low fuel economy, so to speak.

>An utterly ridiculous analogy.


Let's say a Mac lasts eight years.  I could build a box that might
last longer for a lot less.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-07-11 13:48, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Macs suck.
>>>>
>>>> Wow. What a powerful argument.
>>>>
>>>> Tell it to the scientists at JPL.
>>>
>>> Macs get low fuel economy, so to speak.
>
>> An utterly ridiculous analogy.
>
>
> Let's say a Mac lasts eight years.  I could build a box that might
> last longer for a lot less.
OK. "Could".

So what?

Is the only thing that matters about a personal computer how long it lasts?

For the record, my computer immediately preceding this one was a 2015
MacBook Pro 13" that I used until December of last year, when I
purchased this M3 MacBook Air.

Nearly a decade of use isn't bad.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>> Let's say a Mac lasts eight years.  I could build a box that might
>> last longer for a lot less.

>OK. "Could".
>
>So what?
>
>Is the only thing that matters about a personal computer how long it lasts?


No, but the price does matter.


>For the record, my computer immediately preceding this one was a 2015
>MacBook Pro 13" that I used until December of last year, when I
>purchased this M3 MacBook Air.
>
>Nearly a decade of use isn't bad.


You clearly take good care of your gear.  Laptops are a challenge, in
that regard.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-07-11 14:18, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>> Let's say a Mac lasts eight years.  I could build a box that might
>>> last longer for a lot less.
>
>> OK. "Could".
>>
>> So what?
>>
>> Is the only thing that matters about a personal computer how long it lasts?
>
>
> No, but the price does matter.

So only the price and how long it lasts?

Not what software is available?

>
>
>> For the record, my computer immediately preceding this one was a 2015
>> MacBook Pro 13" that I used until December of last year, when I
>> purchased this M3 MacBook Air.
>>
>> Nearly a decade of use isn't bad.
>
>
> You clearly take good care of your gear.  Laptops are a challenge, in
> that regard.
Yup. I'm the sort of person when others are complaining about how their
cables are dirty and breaking at the strain relief, I don't even really
understand what they're on about. :-)


I did do one battery swap, which cost me about $130 about 2 years before
I moved on, but on an actual cost per year basis, I still did very well.

On 7/11/25 3:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 01:07:08 -0700, T wrote:
>
>> But, why not use Xfce if you like that kind of doc's?
>
> Presumably, being Arch-based, you have that choice.
>
> Once again, it’s not the OS that looks like this, it’s just the
> default GUI desktop environment.

Oh ya.  No fooling.  Linux has a ton of GUI choices. Windows
and Mac only have one.

>> And who said other Linux GUI's desktop icons were
>> not Windows like.?
>
> Just about everybody.
>
> *nix desktop GUIs pioneered scalable vector-based graphics on the desktop
> while Microsoft was (still is?) confined to bitmap graphics.

I frequently set up icons on Linux desktops.  Way,
way more configurable than Windows shortcuts.

As far as the user is concerned though, they function and
look just like Windows' icons.

Linux is technically superior to Windows and not by
a little, by a lot.  But Linux desktop(s) won't get
mass acceptance until Linux comes up with a way to
get the general uses base's "exact" programs to run
on Linux.   (Wine is alpha code at best.)

I am glad I no longer see that nonsense about Linux
GUI's being difficult to use.  Even weird old gnome
is easier to use than Windows 11's rip off of
Chromebooks GUI.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>> Let's say a Mac lasts eight years.  I could build a box that might
>>>> last longer for a lot less.
>>
>>> OK. "Could".
>>>
>>> So what?
>>>
>>> Is the only thing that matters about a personal computer how long it lasts?
>>
>> No, but the price does matter.
>
>So only the price and how long it lasts?
>
>Not what software is available?


Mac software is so-so.


>>> For the record, my computer immediately preceding this one was a 2015
>>> MacBook Pro 13" that I used until December of last year, when I
>>> purchased this M3 MacBook Air.
>>>
>>> Nearly a decade of use isn't bad.
>>
>> You clearly take good care of your gear.  Laptops are a challenge, in
>> that regard.

>Yup. I'm the sort of person when others are complaining about how their
>cables are dirty and breaking at the strain relief, I don't even really
>understand what they're on about. :-)


A laptop is like a car that you can let fall off your lap for it to
crash.


>I did do one battery swap, which cost me about $130 about 2 years before
>I moved on, but on an actual cost per year basis, I still did very well.


The battery is nothing, I would be more worried about a USB-C slot
failing, faulty keys on the keyboard, damage to display, etc.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-07-11 17:01, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Let's say a Mac lasts eight years.  I could build a box that might
>>>>> last longer for a lot less.
>>>
>>>> OK. "Could".
>>>>
>>>> So what?
>>>>
>>>> Is the only thing that matters about a personal computer how long it lasts?
>>>
>>> No, but the price does matter.
>>
>> So only the price and how long it lasts?
>>
>> Not what software is available?
>
>
> Mac software is so-so.

Wow.

More of that incisive critiquing you've become so famous for!

>
>
>>>> For the record, my computer immediately preceding this one was a 2015
>>>> MacBook Pro 13" that I used until December of last year, when I
>>>> purchased this M3 MacBook Air.
>>>>
>>>> Nearly a decade of use isn't bad.
>>>
>>> You clearly take good care of your gear.  Laptops are a challenge, in
>>> that regard.
>
>> Yup. I'm the sort of person when others are complaining about how their
>> cables are dirty and breaking at the strain relief, I don't even really
>> understand what they're on about. :-)
>
>
> A laptop is like a car that you can let fall off your lap for it to
> crash.
>
>
>> I did do one battery swap, which cost me about $130 about 2 years before
>> I moved on, but on an actual cost per year basis, I still did very well.
>
>
> The battery is nothing, I would be more worried about a USB-C slot
> failing, faulty keys on the keyboard, damage to display, etc.
And yet none of those things happened.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>>> Is the only thing that matters about a personal computer how long it lasts?
>>>>
>>>> No, but the price does matter.
>>>
>>> So only the price and how long it lasts?
>>>
>>> Not what software is available?
>>
>> Mac software is so-so.
>
>Wow.
>
>More of that incisive critiquing you've become so famous for!


I'm sorry, but some of us are on a higher wavelength, the iPhone has
been a success because it's a phone, but macOS is creepy nerd shit.


>>> I did do one battery swap, which cost me about $130 about 2 years before
>>> I moved on, but on an actual cost per year basis, I still did very well.
>>
>> The battery is nothing, I would be more worried about a USB-C slot
>> failing, faulty keys on the keyboard, damage to display, etc.

>And yet none of those things happened.


You are a caretaker.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:

>>>> Macs get low fuel economy, so to speak.
>>
>>> An utterly ridiculous analogy.
>>
>> Let's say a Mac lasts eight years.  I could build a box that might
>> last longer for a lot less.
>
>Let's say Macs last 11 years and counting.  I have a 2014 Mac Mini that still
>runs fine. Intel i5 and 8GB RAM. I put a 512GB SSD in it about 5 years ago. I
>am posting from it right now.
>
>Let's say Macs last 20 years and counting. I have a Dual 2.3 GHz CPU PPC G5
>Mac that still runs fine. From 2005. 14 GB RAM.
>
>Let's say Macs last 23 years and counting. I have a Dual 1.25 GHz CPU PPC G4
>Mac that still runs fine.  I fixed the power supply a few years ago. From
>2002. 2GB RAM, which is the max it can take.
>
>I can post from both of those.
>
>And before you bring up cost, none were bought new.  All were bought used on
>eBay.


Being able to run a Usenet newsreader isn't everything.  For that I'm
using a Winblows app under Wine.  I have a very functioning setup,
though, beyond an NNTP reader, even streaming movies to my TV screen
with the sound in my headphones.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 01:07:08 -0700, T wrote:

> But, why not use Xfce if you like that kind of doc's?

Presumably, being Arch-based, you have that choice.

Once again, it’s not the OS that looks like this, it’s just the
default GUI desktop environment.

> And who said other Linux GUI's desktop icons were
> not Windows like.?

Just about everybody.

*nix desktop GUIs pioneered scalable vector-based graphics on the desktop
while Microsoft was (still is?) confined to bitmap graphics.

On Jul 11, 2025 at 1:48:05 PM EDT, "Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Macs suck.
>>>>
>>>> Wow. What a powerful argument.
>>>>
>>>> Tell it to the scientists at JPL.
>>>
>>> Macs get low fuel economy, so to speak.
>
>> An utterly ridiculous analogy.
>
>
> Let's say a Mac lasts eight years.  I could build a box that might
> last longer for a lot less.

Let's say Macs last 11 years and counting.  I have a 2014 Mac Mini that still
runs fine. Intel i5 and 8GB RAM. I put a 512GB SSD in it about 5 years ago. I
am posting from it right now.

Let's say Macs last 20 years and counting. I have a Dual 2.3 GHz CPU PPC G5
Mac that still runs fine. From 2005. 14 GB RAM.

Let's say Macs last 23 years and counting. I have a Dual 1.25 GHz CPU PPC G4
Mac that still runs fine.  I fixed the power supply a few years ago. From
2002. 2GB RAM, which is the max it can take.

I can post from both of those.

And before you bring up cost, none were bought new.  All were bought used on
eBay.

On Jul 10, 2025 at 7:53:00 PM EDT, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid>
wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 23:38:52 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 10, 2025 at 6:51:50 PM EDT, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro"
>> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Once again, it’s not the OS that looks like this, it’s just the
>>> default GUI desktop environment.
>>
>> Notice that neither Apple nor Microsoft is rushing to release anything
>> that looks anything remotely like Linux. I wonder why?
>
> Maybe it’s because there is no such thing as “looking anything remotely
> like Linux”. Linux doesn’t have any particular “look”, as I mentioned in
> my posting.
>
>> Not to mention that Apple has already made Unix easy to use and
>> gorgeous.
>
> The only thing “Unix” about Apple is the trademark.

You have said this before. Repeating it does not make it true. MacOS IS Unix.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 00:08:56 +0000, Tyrone wrote:

> On Jul 10, 2025 at 7:53:00 PM EDT, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro"
> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The only thing “Unix” about Apple is the trademark.
>
> You have said this before. Repeating it does not make it true. MacOS IS
> Unix.

MacOS is a licensee of the “Unix” trademark, nothing more.

It does not conform to what was called the “Unix philosophy” (perhaps now
more properly called the “*nix philosophy”, for obvious reasons). I have
given examples of this elsewhere.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 16:34:36 -0700, T wrote:

> As far as the user is concerned though, they function and look just
> like Windows' icons.

What is so special about Windows’ icons, that make them different from
other icons?

> Linux is technically superior to Windows and not by a little, by a lot.
> But Linux desktop(s) won't get mass acceptance until Linux comes up with
> a way to get the general uses base's "exact" programs to run on Linux.
> (Wine is alpha code at best.)

Or by shrinking the definition of “desktop” along with falling sales of
Windows machines.

Consider the Steam Deck: it dominates a new market segment we might call
“handheld PC gaming”. Or even “handheld Windows gaming” -- because they
are Windows-specific games, after all. Except the Steam Deck doesn’t run
Windows, it runs a Linux distro called SteamOS. Using that Wine you called
“alpha code” to produce a shipping product that people actually want to
buy, in preference to its Windows-based competition.

How’s that for “mass acceptance”?

On 7/11/25 5:29 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 16:34:36 -0700, T wrote:
>
>> As far as the user is concerned though, they function and look just
>> like Windows' icons.
>
> What is so special about Windows’ icons, that make them different from
> other icons?

I was wondering abut that too.

 From the OP's link, a selling point was "Windows-like desktop icons".
When have Linux's desktop icons ever been an issue?

>> Linux is technically superior to Windows and not by a little, by a lot.
>> But Linux desktop(s) won't get mass acceptance until Linux comes up with
>> a way to get the general uses base's "exact" programs to run on Linux.
>> (Wine is alpha code at best.)
>
> Or by shrinking the definition of “desktop” along with falling sales of
> Windows machines.

Folks are switching to tables and smart phones.

> Consider the Steam Deck: it dominates a new market segment we might call
> “handheld PC gaming”. Or even “handheld Windows gaming” -- because they
> are Windows-specific games, after all. Except the Steam Deck doesn’t run
> Windows, it runs a Linux distro called SteamOS. Using that Wine you called
> “alpha code” to produce a shipping product that people actually want to
> buy, in preference to its Windows-based competition.
>
> How’s that for “mass acceptance”?

It is not.  Gaming is a niche application.  Not even
close to “mass acceptance”

If you look at
    https://appdb.winehq.org/
it is games that run well.

If you filter on "garbage"
https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?bIsQueueúlse&bIsRejectedúlse&sClass=application&sTitle=Browse+Applications&iItemsPerPage%&iPage=1&sOrderBy=appName&bAscending=true
you get 5324 entries

Wine can not run M$ Office (not 365 on line), Quick Books,
Turbotax, Quicken, any Adobe product, virtually
all CAD programs, virtually all accounting programs,
yada, yada, yada.

I run Lotus Approach, which I wrote my accounting system in,
on Wine.   Every time Wine does an upgrade, they screw something
up.  If it is not the shimmering graphics, the missing menus,
the missing smart icons bar, the missing splash screen, the
inability to configure printers, the inability to print from
Lotus Script, the global pathing not working, it is something
else.  They do (mostly) fix their regressions, but it takes
over a year for them to get to it.  Then a new version comes
out and it is bug after bug after bug after bug all over again.

Out of desperation, I have to create a qemu-kvm virtual machine
of a older version of Fedora with an older version of Wine that
will run Approach.  Wine is one step forward and three steps
backwards.  I stand behind my assertion that Wine is alpha
code at best.

Linux will not have "mass acceptance" until users
can run the exact software they run on Windows.  Asking
them to abandon everything they have learned/mastered
and do something differently is seen a doing ridiculous
harm to them.  They think you are a charlatan.  And
they have a point.

If you figure a way to get their exact application to run
under Linux, I will pitch in to erect a status to you.

On 2025-07-11 19:34, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Is the only thing that matters about a personal computer how long it lasts?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, but the price does matter.
>>>>
>>>> So only the price and how long it lasts?
>>>>
>>>> Not what software is available?
>>>
>>> Mac software is so-so.
>>
>> Wow.
>>
>> More of that incisive critiquing you've become so famous for!
>
>
> I'm sorry, but some of us are on a higher wavelength, the iPhone has
> been a success because it's a phone, but macOS is creepy nerd shit.

Oh, of course...

....you're on a "higher wavelength"...

...but why don't you give an example of how macOS is "creepy nerd shit"...

...just for us lowly types.

>
>
>>>> I did do one battery swap, which cost me about $130 about 2 years before
>>>> I moved on, but on an actual cost per year basis, I still did very well.
>>>
>>> The battery is nothing, I would be more worried about a USB-C slot
>>> failing, faulty keys on the keyboard, damage to display, etc.
>
>> And yet none of those things happened.
>
>
> You are a caretaker.
If you mean that I take care of things I own, you're right.

Don't you?

On 2025-07-11 21:08, Joel wrote:
> Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:
>
>>>>> Macs get low fuel economy, so to speak.
>>>
>>>> An utterly ridiculous analogy.
>>>
>>> Let's say a Mac lasts eight years.  I could build a box that might
>>> last longer for a lot less.
>>
>> Let's say Macs last 11 years and counting.  I have a 2014 Mac Mini that still
>> runs fine. Intel i5 and 8GB RAM. I put a 512GB SSD in it about 5 years ago. I
>> am posting from it right now.
>>
>> Let's say Macs last 20 years and counting. I have a Dual 2.3 GHz CPU PPC G5
>> Mac that still runs fine. From 2005. 14 GB RAM.
>>
>> Let's say Macs last 23 years and counting. I have a Dual 1.25 GHz CPU PPC G4
>> Mac that still runs fine.  I fixed the power supply a few years ago. From
>> 2002. 2GB RAM, which is the max it can take.
>>
>> I can post from both of those.
>>
>> And before you bring up cost, none were bought new.  All were bought used on
>> eBay.
>
>
> Being able to run a Usenet newsreader isn't everything.  For that I'm
> using a Winblows app under Wine.

So Linux isn't up to the job.

Got it.

> I have a very functioning setup,
> though, beyond an NNTP reader, even streaming movies to my TV screen
> with the sound in my headphones.
Wow. So ONE task.

On 2025-07-11 20:25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 00:08:56 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
>
>> On Jul 10, 2025 at 7:53:00 PM EDT, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro"
>> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> The only thing “Unix” about Apple is the trademark.
>>
>> You have said this before. Repeating it does not make it true. MacOS IS
>> Unix.
>
> MacOS is a licensee of the “Unix” trademark, nothing more.

Nope. macOS meets the STANDARDS necessary for being certified AS Unix.

>
> It does not conform to what was called the “Unix philosophy” (perhaps now
> more properly called the “*nix philosophy”, for obvious reasons). I have
> given examples of this elsewhere.

And to what parts of that "philosophy" doesn't it conform?

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>> Being able to run a Usenet newsreader isn't everything.  For that I'm
>> using a Winblows app under Wine.
>
>So Linux isn't up to the job.
>
>Got it.


Actually, it is.  It runs Agent very well.


>> I have a very functioning setup,
>> though, beyond an NNTP reader, even streaming movies to my TV screen
>> with the sound in my headphones.

>Wow. So ONE task.


I mean, there could be some "OK boomer" activities applied to a Mac,
today, but it's more interesting to just exist online, Linux is what
allows that.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 7/12/25 1:20 AM, vallor wrote:
> Have you tried proton?  It's WINE on steroids, and is used to run
> games on Steam.

If it is the one I am thinking  of, it is a wrapper for
Wine.  If it does not work in straight Wine, it won't
work on a wrapped Wine.

Anyone remember Windows programs running better on
OS2 than Windows?  I wonder is any of those developers
are still around?

On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 00:08:56 +0000, Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote in
<4Y-cnboznacFOuz1nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@supernews.com>:

> On Jul 10, 2025 at 7:53:00 PM EDT, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro"
> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 23:38:52 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 10, 2025 at 6:51:50 PM EDT, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro"
>>> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Once again, it’s not the OS that looks like this, it’s just the
>>>> default GUI desktop environment.
>>>
>>> Notice that neither Apple nor Microsoft is rushing to release anything
>>> that looks anything remotely like Linux. I wonder why?
>>
>> Maybe it’s because there is no such thing as “looking anything remotely
>> like Linux”. Linux doesn’t have any particular “look”, as I mentioned
>> in my posting.
>>
>>> Not to mention that Apple has already made Unix easy to use and
>>> gorgeous.
>>
>> The only thing “Unix” about Apple is the trademark.
>
> You have said this before. Repeating it does not make it true. MacOS IS
> Unix.

I agree with a lot that Lawrence says, but this ad nauseum argument
from him isn't one of them.

MacOS isn't just a Unix, it is UNIX(r).

I don't think Lawrence has ever used a MacOS command line.  It has
both the bash and zsh shells, for two, and sports a POSIX environment.

_[/Users/vallor]_(vallor@Mac)🍏_
$ id
uidP4(vallor) gid (staff) groups (staff),12(everyone),
61(localaccounts),399(com.apple.access_ssh),701(com.apple.sharepoint.group.
1),100(_lpoperator)
_[/Users/vallor]_(vallor@Mac)🍏_
$ uname -a
Darwin Mac 24.3.0 Darwin Kernel Version 24.3.0: Thu Jan  2 20:24:23 PST
2025; root:xnu-11215.81.4~3/RELEASE_ARM64_T6020 arm64
_[/Users/vallor]_(vallor@Mac)🍏_
$ type talk
talk is /usr/bin/talk
_[/Users/vallor]_(vallor@Mac)🍏_
$ perl --version | head -5

This is perl 5, version 34, subversion 1 (v5.34.1) built for darwin-thread-
multi-2level
(with 2 registered patches, see perl -V for more detail)

Copyright 1987-2022, Larry Wall
 _ _ _ _ _ _ _

It's UNIX with the Darwin kernel.  Lawrence's beef with it is that the
GUI portion is tightly-integrated with the system -- but that's to
be expected for a consumer Unix system.  Might as well complain that
Chromebooks "aren't Unix" either.

Having said that, I _much_ prefer Linux.  There are "features" in MacOS
that aren't like other Unices, which I won't go into now.

Finally, I see the term "*nix" being used.  That's a throwback to the 90's.
"Unix" is not a trademark.  "UNIX(r)" is a trademark of X/Open.

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090Ti 24G
   OS: Linux 6.15.5 D: Mint 22.1 DE: Xfce 4.18
   NVIDIA: 575.64.03 Mem: 258G
   "Camera men on strike, Slides at 11."

On 2025-07-12 03:23, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On 12 Jul 2025 06:45:58 GMT, vallor wrote:
>
>> MacOS isn't just a Unix, it is UNIX(r).
>
> The two are no longer the same thing. I mentioned the example of MacOS not
> conforming to the *nix philosophy elsewhere.

Without every explaining:

What the "*nix philosophy is".

Or how macOS doesn't conform to it.

Convenient, no?

On 2025-07-12 01:53, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>> Being able to run a Usenet newsreader isn't everything.  For that I'm
>>> using a Winblows app under Wine.
>>
>> So Linux isn't up to the job.
>>
>> Got it.
>
>
> Actually, it is.  It runs Agent very well.
>
>
>>> I have a very functioning setup,
>>> though, beyond an NNTP reader, even streaming movies to my TV screen
>>> with the sound in my headphones.
>
>> Wow. So ONE task.
>
>
> I mean, there could be some "OK boomer" activities applied to a Mac,
> today, but it's more interesting to just exist online, Linux is what
> allows that.
>

What does it allow you to do that the Mac doesn't?

On 12 Jul 2025 06:45:58 GMT, vallor wrote:

> MacOS isn't just a Unix, it is UNIX(r).

The two are no longer the same thing. I mentioned the example of MacOS not
conforming to the *nix philosophy elsewhere.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>> I have a very functioning setup,
>>>> though, beyond an NNTP reader, even streaming movies to my TV screen
>>>> with the sound in my headphones.
>>
>>> Wow. So ONE task.
>>
>> I mean, there could be some "OK boomer" activities applied to a Mac,
>> today, but it's more interesting to just exist online, Linux is what
>> allows that.
>
>What does it allow you to do that the Mac doesn't?


It allows you to do it without having to buy a Mac.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 07:23:15 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <104t2h2$21df2$1@dont-email.me>:

> On 12 Jul 2025 06:45:58 GMT, vallor wrote:
>
>> MacOS isn't just a Unix, it is UNIX(r).
>
> The two are no longer the same thing. I mentioned the example of MacOS
> not conforming to the *nix philosophy elsewhere.

 ...and nobody agrees with you, despite the constant
repetition.

Argumentum ad nauseam
This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to
be true, or is more likely to be accepted as true, the more
often it is heard. So an Argumentum ad Nauseam is one that
employs constant repetition in asserting something; saying the
same thing over and over again until you’re sick of hearing it.

On the Net, your argument is often less likely to be heard if
you repeat it over and over again, as people will tend to put
you in their kill files.

https://infidels.org/library/modern/constructing-a-logical-argument/#nauseam

--
-v ASUS TUF DASH F15 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3060 Mobile 6G
   OS: Linux 6.8.0-63-generic D: Mint 22.1 DE: Xfce 4.18 Mem: 15.9G
   "Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do."

On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 01:06:29 -0700, T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<104t525$1mv05$2@dont-email.me>:

> On 7/11/25 5:29 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 16:34:36 -0700, T wrote:
>>
>>> As far as the user is concerned though, they function and look just
>>> like Windows' icons.
>>
>> What is so special about Windows’ icons, that make them different from
>> other icons?
>
> I was wondering abut that too.
>
>  From the OP's link, a selling point was "Windows-like desktop icons".
> When have Linux's desktop icons ever been an issue?
>
>>> Linux is technically superior to Windows and not by a little, by a lot.
>>> But Linux desktop(s) won't get mass acceptance until Linux comes up with
>>> a way to get the general uses base's "exact" programs to run on Linux.
>>> (Wine is alpha code at best.)
>>
>> Or by shrinking the definition of “desktop” along with falling sales of
>> Windows machines.
>
> Folks are switching to tables and smart phones.
>
>> Consider the Steam Deck: it dominates a new market segment we might call
>> “handheld PC gaming”. Or even “handheld Windows gaming” -- because they
>> are Windows-specific games, after all. Except the Steam Deck doesn’t run
>> Windows, it runs a Linux distro called SteamOS. Using that Wine you called
>> “alpha code” to produce a shipping product that people actually want to
>> buy, in preference to its Windows-based competition.
>>
>> How’s that for “mass acceptance”?
>
> It is not.  Gaming is a niche application.  Not even
> close to “mass acceptance”
>
> If you look at
>     https://appdb.winehq.org/
> it is games that run well.
>
> If you filter on "garbage"
> https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?bIsQueueúlse&bIsRejectedúlse&sClass=application&sTitle=Browse+Applications&iItemsPerPage%&iPage=1&sOrderBy=appName&bAscending=true
> you get 5324 entries
>
> Wine can not run M$ Office (not 365 on line), Quick Books,
> Turbotax, Quicken, any Adobe product, virtually
> all CAD programs, virtually all accounting programs,
> yada, yada, yada.
>
> I run Lotus Approach, which I wrote my accounting system in,
> on Wine.   Every time Wine does an upgrade, they screw something
> up.  If it is not the shimmering graphics, the missing menus,
> the missing smart icons bar, the missing splash screen, the
> inability to configure printers, the inability to print from
> Lotus Script, the global pathing not working, it is something
> else.  They do (mostly) fix their regressions, but it takes
> over a year for them to get to it.  Then a new version comes
> out and it is bug after bug after bug after bug all over again.
>
> Out of desperation, I have to create a qemu-kvm virtual machine
> of a older version of Fedora with an older version of Wine that
> will run Approach.  Wine is one step forward and three steps
> backwards.  I stand behind my assertion that Wine is alpha
> code at best.
>
> Linux will not have "mass acceptance" until users
> can run the exact software they run on Windows.  Asking
> them to abandon everything they have learned/mastered
> and do something differently is seen a doing ridiculous
> harm to them.  They think you are a charlatan.  And
> they have a point.
>
> If you figure a way to get their exact application to run
> under Linux, I will pitch in to erect a status to you.

Have you tried proton?  It's WINE on steroids, and is used to run
games on Steam.

--
-v ASUS TUF DASH F15 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3060 Mobile 6G
   OS: Linux 6.8.0-63-generic D: Mint 22.1 DE: Xfce 4.18
   NVIDIA: 510.47.03 Mem: 15.9G
   "How many of you believe in telekinesis? Raise MY hand!"

Tyrone wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On Jul 10, 2025 at 7:53:00 PM EDT, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 23:38:52 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 10, 2025 at 6:51:50 PM EDT, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro"
>>> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Once again, it’s not the OS that looks like this, it’s just
>>>> the default GUI desktop environment.
>>>
>>> Notice that neither Apple nor Microsoft is rushing to release
>>> anything that looks anything remotely like Linux. I wonder
>>> why?
>>
>> Maybe it’s because there is no such thing as “looking anything
>> remotely like Linux”. Linux doesn’t have any particular “look”,
>> as I mentioned in my posting.
>>
>>> Not to mention that Apple has already made Unix easy to use
>>> and gorgeous.
>>
>> The only thing “Unix” about Apple is the trademark.
>
> You have said this before. Repeating it does not make it true.
> MacOS IS Unix.

    <https://www.reddit.com/r/unix/comments/qwklm4/is_macos_unix/>

    MacOS is officially Unix™ (as a slew of pedantic nerds will
    inevitably point out in every thread like this) so that
    clueless managers can tick boxes on forms. Meanwhile, that's
    not what the rest of us mean. If you say something is running
    on a Unix system, MacOS is obviously not what comes to mind.
    Describing Macs as "Unix" is just being unnecessarily obtuse.

    The software itself also betrays this reality. It's certified
    Unix™, yet, for example, POSIX semaphores don't work. There is
    a stub header they added in there that just silently does
    nothing, which is apparently okay. There are many things like
    that. This is more "Unix" than, say, FreeBSD? Hah. I guess it
    is if you care more about bureaucracy than reality...

    MacOS is clearly more Unix than Windows, and clearly less Unix
    than *BSD. This becomes obvious when you port "Unix" software
    across these systems: porting across BSDs and Linux is usually
    a "fix up a few minor details" sort of task. MacOS and
    Windows, on the other hand, both tend to require whole new
    portability layers because the systems are significantly
    different.

    Sometimes Windows is even easier, since if you need to touch
    the Mac level stuff, you have to interact with an entirely
    different universe that clearly doesn't stem from Unix at all.
    The interfaces aren't even in C! The Open Group can - for a
    price - call that Unix™ if they like. I don't care.

--
History, n.: Papa Hegel he say that all we learn from history is that we
learn nothing from history.  I know people who can't even learn from
what happened this morning.  Hegel must have been taking the long view.
    -- Chad C. Mulligan, "The Hipcrime Vocab"

On 2025-07-12 07:30, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> I have a very functioning setup,
>>>>> though, beyond an NNTP reader, even streaming movies to my TV screen
>>>>> with the sound in my headphones.
>>>
>>>> Wow. So ONE task.
>>>
>>> I mean, there could be some "OK boomer" activities applied to a Mac,
>>> today, but it's more interesting to just exist online, Linux is what
>>> allows that.
>>
>> What does it allow you to do that the Mac doesn't?
>
>
> It allows you to do it without having to buy a Mac.
So nothing else.

Got it.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>> there could be some "OK boomer" activities applied to a Mac,
>>>> today, but it's more interesting to just exist online, Linux is what
>>>> allows that.
>>>
>>> What does it allow you to do that the Mac doesn't?
>>
>> It allows you to do it without having to buy a Mac.

>So nothing else.
>
>Got it.


It's also the liberated feeling of not having a commercial operating
system.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-07-12 10:11, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> there could be some "OK boomer" activities applied to a Mac,
>>>>> today, but it's more interesting to just exist online, Linux is what
>>>>> allows that.
>>>>
>>>> What does it allow you to do that the Mac doesn't?
>>>
>>> It allows you to do it without having to buy a Mac.
>
>> So nothing else.
>>
>> Got it.
>
>
> It's also the liberated feeling of not having a commercial operating
> system.
>

So nothing else... ...because that's nothing.

Like always, you have nothing.

On Jul 12, 2025 at 9:45:49 AM EDT, "Daniel70" <daniel47@eternal-september.org>
wrote:

> Once the vast majority of Users (90% or so, I think) got used to using
> Windows programs, it was difficult for any other OS to make any great
> inroads into the Market.

And yet today in the U.S., Windows is 63%, Macs are 24% and Linux is 5%.
Those are some pretty big inroads.

On 2025-07-12 19:13, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> One important part of the *nix philosophy is “mechanism, not policy”. That
> is, the kernel and core userland should be a toolbox of useful
> functionality, that the user/developer/sysadmin can customize to solve
> their particular problems. The mechanisms themselves do not dictate how
> they should be used, that comes from the configuration.

OK...

Give a concrete example of how you cannot use that philsophy on a Mac.

>
> Consider how traditional *nix GUIs all built, previously on X11, and now
> Wayland: all of these take the form of modular, replaceable toolkits that
> very much conform to the “mechanism, not policy”, dictum.
>
> But Apple’s GUI, like Microsoft’s, is inextricably bound into the OS
> kernel. It is mechanism and policy, all rolled into one, with no way to
> separate them out.

No. Apple's GUI isn't "inextricably bound into the OS kernel".

And who cares.

It's a thing.

It does a job, and if you don't like the job it does, what is stopping
you from using another thing to do the same job?

>
> That is contrary to the *nix philosophy.

Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
> Tyrone wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
> > On Jul 10, 2025 at 7:53:00?PM EDT, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 23:38:52 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
[...]
> >> Maybe it?s because there is no such thing as ?looking anything
> >> remotely like Linux?. Linux doesn?t have any particular ?look?,
> >> as I mentioned in my posting.
> >>
> >>> Not to mention that Apple has already made Unix easy to use
> >>> and gorgeous.
> >>
> >> The only thing ?Unix? about Apple is the trademark.
> >
> > You have said this before. Repeating it does not make it true.
> > MacOS IS Unix.
>
>     <https://www.reddit.com/r/unix/comments/qwklm4/is_macos_unix/>
>
>     MacOS is officially Unix? (as a slew of pedantic nerds will
>     inevitably point out in every thread like this) so that
>     clueless managers can tick boxes on forms. Meanwhile, that's
>     not what the rest of us mean. If you say something is running
>     on a Unix system, MacOS is obviously not what comes to mind.
>     Describing Macs as "Unix" is just being unnecessarily obtuse.
>
>     The software itself also betrays this reality. It's certified
>     Unix?, yet, for example, POSIX semaphores don't work. There is

  POSIX both pre-dates and post-dates UNIX(R), so someone making this
complaint clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, standards wise.

  For their (and your?) education:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX#POSIX-certified>

>     a stub header they added in there that just silently does
>     nothing, which is apparently okay. There are many things like
>     that. This is more "Unix" than, say, FreeBSD? Hah. I guess it
>     is if you care more about bureaucracy than reality...
>
>     MacOS is clearly more Unix than Windows, and clearly less Unix
>     than *BSD. This becomes obvious when you port "Unix" software
>     across these systems: porting across BSDs and Linux is usually
>     a "fix up a few minor details" sort of task.

  Ah, the bias comes out! It's not about being UNIX or Unix-like, but
about it being *Linux*-like. Guess what, UNIX(R) isn't Linux, never was
and never will be, *and* vice versa.

>     a "fix up a few minor details" sort of task. MacOS and
>     Windows, on the other hand, both tend to require whole new
>     portability layers because the systems are significantly
>     different.
>
>     Sometimes Windows is even easier, since if you need to touch
>     the Mac level stuff, you have to interact with an entirely
>     different universe that clearly doesn't stem from Unix at all.
>     The interfaces aren't even in C!

  Wow! The 'arguments' become weaker and weaker by the minute.

>				       The Open Group can - for a
>     price - call that Unix? if they like. I don't care.

  Bit of a bummer that the Open Group does *not* call it Unix, they call
it UNIX.

--
Frank Slootweg, hindered by a grasp of de facto versus de jure standards.

One important part of the *nix philosophy is “mechanism, not policy”. That
is, the kernel and core userland should be a toolbox of useful
functionality, that the user/developer/sysadmin can customize to solve
their particular problems. The mechanisms themselves do not dictate how
they should be used, that comes from the configuration.

Consider how traditional *nix GUIs all built, previously on X11, and now
Wayland: all of these take the form of modular, replaceable toolkits that
very much conform to the “mechanism, not policy”, dictum.

But Apple’s GUI, like Microsoft’s, is inextricably bound into the OS
kernel. It is mechanism and policy, all rolled into one, with no way to
separate them out.

That is contrary to the *nix philosophy.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 23:45:49 +1000, Daniel70 wrote:

> Seems to me that "Everybody uses Windows" because of the "Marketing
> manoeuver" between Intel and Microsoft ...

But now Intel is only a shadow of its former self. And Microsoft is
putting a lot of effort into making Windows more like Linux; Windows can
only be considered to own the “desktop” market only insofar as the
definition of “desktop” keeps shrinking to exclude new market segments
like the Raspberry Pi and the Steam Deck. Oh, and Chromebooks.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 18:48:43 +0000, Tyrone wrote:

> And yet today in the U.S., Windows is 63%, Macs are 24% and Linux is 5%.
> Those are some pretty big inroads.

Where do you get those figures from? Not from StatCounter, I trust ...

On 12/07/2025 9:34 am, T wrote:
> On 7/11/25 3:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 01:07:08 -0700, T wrote:
>>
>>> But, why not use Xfce if you like that kind of doc's?
>>
>> Presumably, being Arch-based, you have that choice.
>>
>> Once again, it’s not the OS that looks like this, it’s just the
>> default GUI desktop environment.
>
> Oh ya.  No fooling.  Linux has a ton of GUI choices. Windows
> and Mac only have one.
>
>>> And who said other Linux GUI's desktop icons were
>>> not Windows like.?
>>
>> Just about everybody.
>>
>> *nix desktop GUIs pioneered scalable vector-based graphics on the desktop
>> while Microsoft was (still is?) confined to bitmap graphics.
>
> I frequently set up icons on Linux desktops.  Way,
> way more configurable than Windows shortcuts.
>
> As far as the user is concerned though, they function and
> look just like Windows' icons.
>
> Linux is technically superior to Windows and not by
> a little, by a lot.  But Linux desktop(s) won't get
> mass acceptance until Linux comes up with a way to
> get the general uses base's "exact" programs to run
> on Linux.   (Wine is alpha code at best.)
>
> I am glad I no longer see that nonsense about Linux
> GUI's being difficult to use.  Even weird old gnome
> is easier to use than Windows 11's rip off of
> Chromebooks GUI.
>
Seems to me that "Everybody uses Windows" because of the "Marketing
manoeuver" between Intel and Microsoft (back on the Bill Gates days,
late 80's/early 90s) when nearly every Home Computer came with Windows 3
(or thereabouts) pre-installed for nothing.

Once the vast majority of Users (90% or so, I think) got used to using
Windows programs, it was difficult for any other OS to make any great
inroads into the Market.
--
Daniel70