I stated before that you're either a dumbass or a troll. Considering you're from Alabama...
We are NOT in the days of Mac OS Classic. Apple is now a part of the open source community. Apple contributes code to many open source projects (Mach, KDE, KJS, KHTML, Apache, XFree86...), and gets to use code in return. It's the GPL. Apple gets code, but is forced to contribute back. Without open source, Mac OS X would not be half as good as it is.
The answer is Macintosh. Long-term costs are lower than anything out there with Mac - yes even cheaper than the so-called "Free" Linux distros.
And the last thing I want in the whole world is ANOTHER F***ING MICROSOFT!
Why? Because Mac users only have to pay for the OS, Applications and the Hardware. After that, most of them don't have to pay for IT departments to maintain their machines. IF they spend a couple of extra bucks on something like DiskWarrior, they likely won't even have to take the machine in for repairs over it's useful life.
You're an obvious dumbass here. The failure rate for Macs is about 14%.
How is this different from Linux? Any ol' numbskull can buy a Mac, set it up, and go to work within minutes doing things like burning DVDs; buying, organizing, playing music; running great apps like InDesign, Office, thousands more -- ALL without having to learn about compiling, and KDE, and XFree, and command line installs that won't work unless the slash is actually a backslash with a tilde in brackets before the incantation and pig sacrifice.
1) There are lots of Apple and Adobe apps that are better than linux apps. However, linux is growing all the time. Maybe some day it will be better. If YOU don't want choice, then you can move to GODDAMED CUBA and cheer on Castro!
2) YOU HAVE OBVIOUSLY NEVER USED LINUX IN YOUR LIFE, OR HAVE A CLUE ABOUT HOW IT WORKS.
Linux is only an alternative to Microsoft for blind companies who think that the only way is the IT way.
For any large installation of computers, the IT way is the ONLY cost effective way. There will never be a way for an idiot to manage a corporate network, because big business is all about developing the best processes, so they save the most money.
I hope to god that I never work for a company that you consult for.
I'd respond, but you have no arguments other than personal attacks, innuendo, and logic failures.
Linux sucks. People know it now.
If you want to use it, please do. If IBM wants to use it, yay!
You still can't beat the ease of use of the Mac with Mac OS X. It simply works.
Linux hardly works without tweaking - and normal humans don't know how to tweak it.
You are arguing that the solution is for everyone to learn how to use Linux, then it's cheap. Guess what - 99+% percent of the world has no interest in learning Linux, they just want the computer to let them work.
Macs do this best.
My opinion. Not yours. Get over it and act like an adult.
1) I don't advocate that people learn linux. I do advocate that in a market economy, why should people not use a product because in your opinion it "sucks"? Shouldn't the community effort that is Linux be allowed to continue, even helped along with Apple to try and eliminate MS's monopoly?
2) You now reveal in plain language that you are an insecure little dweeb who's sole pleasure in life is to complain about certain technology which is for whatever reason offensive to you.
Im'with you Barto, exept the insults. Just stop it!
Lets get back on track.
Although sco won't specify the exact code, it seems pretty clear they're talking about the linux kernel only, and not the rest of the GNU/linux OS or any open source apps.
OS X does not use the Linux kernel, so it's "clean".
Did anyone post the latest news on the issue, I might have missed it, if someone did. If not, here it goes.
Novell (which bought UNIX from AT&T an subsequently sold it to SCO) now claims that it still owns the patents and copyrights. If I understand it correctly, SCO pretty much only bought the UNIX trademark and some kind of distribution rights. If this is true, then SCO's case gets even weaker than it already was. Novell has also made it clear that they do not intend to go after linux.
I hope Linux fails since I see it as a competitor to OS X in addition to WIndows. I don't mind (or care) if programmers want to give their time freely to open source projects, I just think it's a waste of that time. My opinion.
Barto, we disagree. Leave it at that.
As for the SCO suit, even if it is a loser, there are plenty of companies that will want to avoid Linux just so they don't have to pay for their legal dept. to review the case. If anything, the suit helps MS sell more software by scaring off potential Linux users. MS is just helping to finance the suit by paying for a license.
In the mean time, we can pray for the dissolution of the SCO Group, and the release of all of their intellectual property into the public domain.
Is there SCO code in Linux? Yes, of course: SCO was a Linux distributor for a while, and they contributed code to Linux. The fact that they had to hire someone else to tell them this is hilarious.
NEWSFLASH: It's all over people. Novell came in and put SCO and MS in their place -- turns out it's them that actually own the rights that SCO tried to leverage with MS financial aid.
Is there SCO code in Linux? Yes, of course: SCO was a Linux distributor for a while, and they contributed code to Linux. The fact that they had to hire someone else to tell them this is hilarious.
So what about Apple? Is there any "SCO code" in OS X? If there is, I can see someday, Msft and SCO winners and OS X and Linux, the losers in all this.
So what about Apple? Is there any "SCO code" in OS X? If there is, I can see someday, Msft and SCO winners and OS X and Linux, the losers in all this.
OS X is based (more or less) on FreeBSD and NetBSD, both of which went through their own version of this back in the early '90s with AT&T. I'm not sure that the BSDs are being targeted here, but considering that lawyers have already been all over that codebase, I'd be surprised if there are any IP issues left.
Unless SCO contributed to the BSD tree as well, and they just haven't gotten around to hiring a team of experts to find that out for them.
So what about Apple? Is there any "SCO code" in OS X? If there is, I can see someday, Msft and SCO winners and OS X and Linux, the losers in all this.
First off, a few clarifications.
SCO may license UNIX (the original one) under certain conditions. They now claim that Linux contains UNIX code from SCO. Since IBM makes use of Linux, they sue IBM.
Linux, though, was written from scratch by Linus Torvalds, over a decade ago. It is being updated all the time by developers all around the world, however, only someone who worked at a company that licensed UNIX code from SCO (or someone who worked at SCO) could add such code to Linux, and in that case, SCO shouldn't sue IBM, but the person in question.
Simply put, Linux is a GNU-based OS, and GNU stands for "GNU's not UNIX"...
Mac OS X is a BSD-based OS (with a modified Mach kernel and lots of other stuff that makes it an unusual BSD, but yes, most of the POSIX part is BSD), and BSD (the Berkeley Software Distribution) isn't based off UNIX either.
So whilst it is very possible that people stealed code from UNIX to add it to GNU/Linux or to BSD (and thus possibly to OS X), it is unlikely, and it certainly doesn't justify this lawsuit at all. The real reason is that SCO needs money, or else they'll be bankrupt in a while.
Simply put, Linux is a GNU-based OS, and GNU stands for "GNU's not UNIX"...
Slight correction: Linux is not a GNU-based OS. Linux is a kernel (not developed for the GNU Project nor by the FSF). The operating system(es) which use this kernel is (are) (more properly) called GNU/Linux.
Slight correction: Linux is not a GNU-based OS. Linux is a kernel (not developed for the GNU Project nor by the FSF). The operating system(es) which use this kernel is (are) (more properly) called GNU/Linux.
Hence I said simply put. You're right; however, most view Linux as an operating system (even though it's technically wrong).
SCO may license UNIX (the original one) under certain conditions. They now claim that Linux contains UNIX code from SCO. Since IBM makes use of Linux, they sue IBM.
Linux, though, was written from scratch by Linus Torvalds, over a decade ago. It is being updated all the time by developers all around the world, however, only someone who worked at a company that licensed UNIX code from SCO (or someone who worked at SCO) could add such code to Linux, and in that case, SCO shouldn't sue IBM, but the person in question.
Simply put, Linux is a GNU-based OS, and GNU stands for "GNU's not UNIX"...
Well, the very reason why SCO is suing IBM (and IBM only, at least so far...)is not because IBM "uses" linux, but because SCO claims IBM copied code from AIX (built on code licensed from SCO) and put it into the linux kernel. IBM has been contributing alot to the linux kernel in the last year or so. As far as i know, IBM has not made any contributions to OSX or BSD, so this still shouldn't have anything to do with OSX at all. At least not as far as technology or legality (is that a word?) goes. As far as "the market" goes, well...
EDIT: The formatting of this thred is not very friendly to my 15" monitor.I suspect it's because of Ebby's pic. Would Ebby or some mod be so kind as to do something about it?
Comments
I stated before that you're either a dumbass or a troll. Considering you're from Alabama...
We are NOT in the days of Mac OS Classic. Apple is now a part of the open source community. Apple contributes code to many open source projects (Mach, KDE, KJS, KHTML, Apache, XFree86...), and gets to use code in return. It's the GPL. Apple gets code, but is forced to contribute back. Without open source, Mac OS X would not be half as good as it is.
The answer is Macintosh. Long-term costs are lower than anything out there with Mac - yes even cheaper than the so-called "Free" Linux distros.
And the last thing I want in the whole world is ANOTHER F***ING MICROSOFT!
Why? Because Mac users only have to pay for the OS, Applications and the Hardware. After that, most of them don't have to pay for IT departments to maintain their machines. IF they spend a couple of extra bucks on something like DiskWarrior, they likely won't even have to take the machine in for repairs over it's useful life.
You're an obvious dumbass here. The failure rate for Macs is about 14%.
How is this different from Linux? Any ol' numbskull can buy a Mac, set it up, and go to work within minutes doing things like burning DVDs; buying, organizing, playing music; running great apps like InDesign, Office, thousands more -- ALL without having to learn about compiling, and KDE, and XFree, and command line installs that won't work unless the slash is actually a backslash with a tilde in brackets before the incantation and pig sacrifice.
1) There are lots of Apple and Adobe apps that are better than linux apps. However, linux is growing all the time. Maybe some day it will be better. If YOU don't want choice, then you can move to GODDAMED CUBA and cheer on Castro!
2) YOU HAVE OBVIOUSLY NEVER USED LINUX IN YOUR LIFE, OR HAVE A CLUE ABOUT HOW IT WORKS.
Linux is only an alternative to Microsoft for blind companies who think that the only way is the IT way.
For any large installation of computers, the IT way is the ONLY cost effective way. There will never be a way for an idiot to manage a corporate network, because big business is all about developing the best processes, so they save the most money.
I hope to god that I never work for a company that you consult for.
Barto
I'd respond, but you have no arguments other than personal attacks, innuendo, and logic failures.
Linux sucks. People know it now.
If you want to use it, please do. If IBM wants to use it, yay!
You still can't beat the ease of use of the Mac with Mac OS X. It simply works.
Linux hardly works without tweaking - and normal humans don't know how to tweak it.
You are arguing that the solution is for everyone to learn how to use Linux, then it's cheap. Guess what - 99+% percent of the world has no interest in learning Linux, they just want the computer to let them work.
Macs do this best.
My opinion. Not yours. Get over it and act like an adult.
2) You now reveal in plain language that you are an insecure little dweeb who's sole pleasure in life is to complain about certain technology which is for whatever reason offensive to you.
Barto
Lets get back on track.
Although sco won't specify the exact code, it seems pretty clear they're talking about the linux kernel only, and not the rest of the GNU/linux OS or any open source apps.
OS X does not use the Linux kernel, so it's "clean".
Did anyone post the latest news on the issue, I might have missed it, if someone did. If not, here it goes.
Novell (which bought UNIX from AT&T an subsequently sold it to SCO) now claims that it still owns the patents and copyrights. If I understand it correctly, SCO pretty much only bought the UNIX trademark and some kind of distribution rights. If this is true, then SCO's case gets even weaker than it already was. Novell has also made it clear that they do not intend to go after linux.
Barto, we disagree. Leave it at that.
As for the SCO suit, even if it is a loser, there are plenty of companies that will want to avoid Linux just so they don't have to pay for their legal dept. to review the case. If anything, the suit helps MS sell more software by scaring off potential Linux users. MS is just helping to finance the suit by paying for a license.
Is there SCO code in Linux? Yes, of course: SCO was a Linux distributor for a while, and they contributed code to Linux. The fact that they had to hire someone else to tell them this is hilarious.
Is there SCO code in Linux? Yes, of course: SCO was a Linux distributor for a while, and they contributed code to Linux. The fact that they had to hire someone else to tell them this is hilarious.
So what about Apple? Is there any "SCO code" in OS X? If there is, I can see someday, Msft and SCO winners and OS X and Linux, the losers in all this.
Originally posted by sc_markt
So what about Apple? Is there any "SCO code" in OS X? If there is, I can see someday, Msft and SCO winners and OS X and Linux, the losers in all this.
OS X is based (more or less) on FreeBSD and NetBSD, both of which went through their own version of this back in the early '90s with AT&T. I'm not sure that the BSDs are being targeted here, but considering that lawyers have already been all over that codebase, I'd be surprised if there are any IP issues left.
Unless SCO contributed to the BSD tree as well, and they just haven't gotten around to hiring a team of experts to find that out for them.
Originally posted by sc_markt
So what about Apple? Is there any "SCO code" in OS X? If there is, I can see someday, Msft and SCO winners and OS X and Linux, the losers in all this.
First off, a few clarifications.
SCO may license UNIX (the original one) under certain conditions. They now claim that Linux contains UNIX code from SCO. Since IBM makes use of Linux, they sue IBM.
Linux, though, was written from scratch by Linus Torvalds, over a decade ago. It is being updated all the time by developers all around the world, however, only someone who worked at a company that licensed UNIX code from SCO (or someone who worked at SCO) could add such code to Linux, and in that case, SCO shouldn't sue IBM, but the person in question.
Simply put, Linux is a GNU-based OS, and GNU stands for "GNU's not UNIX"...
Mac OS X is a BSD-based OS (with a modified Mach kernel and lots of other stuff that makes it an unusual BSD, but yes, most of the POSIX part is BSD), and BSD (the Berkeley Software Distribution) isn't based off UNIX either.
So whilst it is very possible that people stealed code from UNIX to add it to GNU/Linux or to BSD (and thus possibly to OS X), it is unlikely, and it certainly doesn't justify this lawsuit at all. The real reason is that SCO needs money, or else they'll be bankrupt in a while.
Originally posted by Chucker
Simply put, Linux is a GNU-based OS, and GNU stands for "GNU's not UNIX"...
Slight correction: Linux is not a GNU-based OS. Linux is a kernel (not developed for the GNU Project nor by the FSF). The operating system(es) which use this kernel is (are) (more properly) called GNU/Linux.
Originally posted by thuh Freak
Slight correction: Linux is not a GNU-based OS. Linux is a kernel (not developed for the GNU Project nor by the FSF). The operating system(es) which use this kernel is (are) (more properly) called GNU/Linux.
Hence I said simply put. You're right; however, most view Linux as an operating system (even though it's technically wrong).
I posted this in a topic already a while back.
Originally posted by Chucker
First off, a few clarifications.
SCO may license UNIX (the original one) under certain conditions. They now claim that Linux contains UNIX code from SCO. Since IBM makes use of Linux, they sue IBM.
Linux, though, was written from scratch by Linus Torvalds, over a decade ago. It is being updated all the time by developers all around the world, however, only someone who worked at a company that licensed UNIX code from SCO (or someone who worked at SCO) could add such code to Linux, and in that case, SCO shouldn't sue IBM, but the person in question.
Simply put, Linux is a GNU-based OS, and GNU stands for "GNU's not UNIX"...
Well, the very reason why SCO is suing IBM (and IBM only, at least so far...)is not because IBM "uses" linux, but because SCO claims IBM copied code from AIX (built on code licensed from SCO) and put it into the linux kernel. IBM has been contributing alot to the linux kernel in the last year or so. As far as i know, IBM has not made any contributions to OSX or BSD, so this still shouldn't have anything to do with OSX at all. At least not as far as technology or legality (is that a word?) goes. As far as "the market" goes, well...
EDIT: The formatting of this thred is not very friendly to my 15" monitor.I suspect it's because of Ebby's pic. Would Ebby or some mod be so kind as to do something about it?