On 11/19/24 5:01 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 10:02:02 -0500, -hh wrote:
>
>> In any event, there's still the decade old question as to why no Linux
>> variant has felt the need for going for a formal Unix recognition.
>
> Some have done it, in the past. I think it costs money, not just to get
> it, but to keep renewing it.

I know that Apple had been doing that with OS X; I'm not aware of any of
Linux variants ever having done so, hence my comment.

> I’d say, nobody bothers with it any more because it doesn’t matter any
> more. “Linux” is the standard that everybody (including the BSDs and
> Microsoft) needs to be compatible with, “Unix” is not.

Considering that Linus's original intent in Linux's creation was
essentially to have a free Unix for himself, it would make sense for a
certification interest to have come along .. but doing so would
undermine its origins in being independent from the IP of that code
base, so it might be tempting fate in IP land to try...

-hh

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Nov 2024 17:11:28 -0500, Paul wrote:
>>
>> > It could be that UNIX (tm) is a trademark.
>> > Unix is a descriptive term (BSD or SYSV).
>>
>> Some of us prefer ?*nix? to describe the functional characteristics, to
>> avoid any accusations of infringing on the trademark.
>
> As has been said, 'Unix' is the common usage. See for example
>
> 'Unix'
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix>
>
> In any case, if you don't uppercase it ('UNIX'), you won't be
> infringing on the trademark.

I wouldn't be so sure. Huawei lost against 3M for using the term 3N.
Courts decided it was similar enough.

And the funny thing is that most likely UNIX is getting a lot of love in
the public's mind precisely due to Unix systems such as GNU, FreeBSD and
many others.

> So use 'Unix', or 'unix' if you must, but '*nix' is unneeded,
> meaningless and a bit silly.

Totally silly.

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:58:27 -0500, -hh wrote:

> On 11/19/24 5:01 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 10:02:02 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>
>>> In any event, there's still the decade old question as to why no Linux
>>> variant has felt the need for going for a formal Unix recognition.
>>
>> Some have done it, in the past. I think it costs money, not just to get
>> it, but to keep renewing it.
>
> ... I'm not aware of any of Linux variants ever having done so ...

You could have looked it up: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix> lists
“EulerOS” and “Inspur K-UX” as Linux distros that did (at least in the
past) become Unix licensees.

Never heard of them? That’s part of the point, isn’t it, that nobody cares
about such things any more.

> Considering that Linus's original intent in Linux's creation was
> essentially to have a free Unix for himself, it would make sense for a
> certification interest to have come along ..

Given that he wanted a “*nix” (something that had the right behaviour)
rather than a “Unix” (trademark licence), no, official certification would
not have made sense. What was important was adherence to de facto
standards that people (like him) actually cared about. For example, there
are some obscure parts of POSIX that they have never bothered with.

On the other hand, they paid a lot of attention to SunOS/Solaris, since
that was the technology leader in the Unix world for quite a few years.

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 22:19:52 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:

> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes:
>
>> In any case, if you don't uppercase it ('UNIX'), you won't be
>> infringing on the trademark.
>
> I wouldn't be so sure. Huawei lost against 3M for using the term 3N.
> Courts decided it was similar enough.
>
>> So use 'Unix', or 'unix' if you must, but '*nix' is unneeded,
>> meaningless and a bit silly.
>
> Totally silly.

Strange, isn’t it: above you point out how dangerous trademark
infringement can be, and here you are saying that trying to avoid it is
“totally silly”.

On Nov 19, 2024 at 5:58:27 PM MST, "-hh" wrote <vhjc7k$23olb$2@dont-email.me>:

> On 11/19/24 5:01 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 10:02:02 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>
>>> In any event, there's still the decade old question as to why no Linux
>>> variant has felt the need for going for a formal Unix recognition.
>>
>> Some have done it, in the past. I think it costs money, not just to get
>> it, but to keep renewing it.
>
> I know that Apple had been doing that with OS X; I'm not aware of any of
> Linux variants ever having done so, hence my comment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspur_K-UX

https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3617.htm

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 11/19/24 8:22 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:58:27 -0500, -hh wrote:
>
>> On 11/19/24 5:01 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 10:02:02 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>>
>>>> In any event, there's still the decade old question as to why no Linux
>>>> variant has felt the need for going for a formal Unix recognition.
>>>
>>> Some have done it, in the past. I think it costs money, not just to get
>>> it, but to keep renewing it.
>>
>> ... I'm not aware of any of Linux variants ever having done so ...
>
> You could have looked it up: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix> lists
> “EulerOS” and “Inspur K-UX” as Linux distros that did (at least in the
> past) become Unix licensees.

Sure, but as I mentioned, this was from a very old COLA challenge, and
none of these fanboys did the legwork back then, nor since (until now).

> Never heard of them? That’s part of the point, isn’t it, that nobody cares
> about such things any more.

Not necessarily "not care", as both are from Chinese corporations, and
in this era, they were taking steps to prevent capture/lock-in from
Google in the Android market space.

From their perspective, the Unix certification process was just part of
that effort of in-house development and more IP on testing to exploit.
Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being
sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects (while not taking the same
position on Android - how odd! /s), that's what they should have raised.

-hh

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> -highhorse wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>> -highhorse wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In any event, there's still the decade old question as to why no Linux
>>>> variant has felt the need for going for a formal Unix recognition.
>>>
>>> Some have done it, in the past. I think it costs money, not just to get
>>> it, but to keep renewing it.
>>
>> ... I'm not aware of any of Linux variants ever having done so ...
>
>You could have looked it up: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix> lists
>“EulerOS” and “Inspur K-UX” as Linux distros that did (at least in the
>past) become Unix licensees.
>
>Never heard of them? That’s part of the point, isn’t it, that nobody cares
>about such things any more.
>
>> Considering that Linus's original intent in Linux's creation was
>> essentially to have a free Unix for himself, it would make sense for a
>> certification interest to have come along ..
>
>Given that he wanted a “*nix” (something that had the right behaviour)
>rather than a “Unix” (trademark licence), no, official certification would
>not have made sense. What was important was adherence to de facto
>standards that people (like him) actually cared about. For example, there
>are some obscure parts of POSIX that they have never bothered with.

-highhorse likes to bicker-about and second-guess the results of a
healthy, competitive market. As stupid and ignorant as he is, he
often thinks that he knows better.

-hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On 11/19/24 8:22 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> You could have looked it up: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix> lists
>> “EulerOS” and “Inspur K-UX” as Linux distros that did (at least in the
>> past) become Unix licensees.
>
> Sure, but as I mentioned, this was from a very old COLA challenge, and
> none of these fanboys did the legwork back then, nor since (until now).
>
>> Never heard of them? That’s part of the point, isn’t it, that nobody cares
>> about such things any more.
>
> Not necessarily "not care", as both are from Chinese corporations, and
> in this era, they were taking steps to prevent capture/lock-in from
> Google in the Android market space.
>
> From their perspective, the Unix certification process was just part of
> that effort of in-house development and more IP on testing to exploit.
> Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being
> sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects (while not taking the same
> position on Android - how odd! /s), that's what they should have raised.

Heh. My response, unless you can dig up something to the contrary, was
"Meh. Who cares?"

--
As to the Adjective: when in doubt, strike it out.
-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 22:01:29 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 10:02:02 -0500, -hh wrote:
>
> > In any event, there's still the decade old question as to why no Linux
> > variant has felt the need for going for a formal Unix recognition.
>
> Some have done it, in the past. I think it costs money, not just to get
> it, but to keep renewing it.
>
> I’d say, nobody bothers with it any more because it doesn’t matter any
> more. “Linux” is the standard that everybody (including the BSDs and
> Microsoft) needs to be compatible with, “Unix” is not.

A lot of it seems to hang on supporting 'pax'; which linux can't be
bothered with; BIMWBW.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Wed, 11/13/2024 3:34 PM, Paul wrote:
> On Wed, 11/13/2024 12:27 PM, Joel wrote:
>> https://www.techradar.com/computing/windows/microsoft-stealthily-installs-windows-10-update-to-nag-you-to-upgrade-to-windows-11-and-not-for-the-first-time
>>
>> "We should clarify that
>
> There is no copy of "KB5001716" in the room.
>
> I even poured a chum bucket off the end of the
> dock, and... "nothing".
>
> is the sun shining ? Let me check.
>
> https://www.grc.com/incontrol.htm
>
> Yes, the sun is shining.
>
> The skies are not cloudy all day here.
>
> Paul
>

OK, I did manage to reproduce this, as a result of another
experiment involving virtual machines (Linux Host, Win Guest).

[Picture]

https://i.postimg.cc/mZY3SXgg/W10-Pushy-Update-KB5001716-Band.gif

As Van already pointed out, if you turn off your TPM in the BIOS for
example, the area in the red box in the picture, contains a *different*
prompt. The prompt knows/claims that the box isn't suited to the W11 update,
and the URLs in that box, take you to web pages that basically... lead nowhere.
Nothing to fear from that box. You can run the PC Health check
(a separate download of a .msi), and maybe it tells you that
you have no TPM or something.

However, I was working on Secure Boot issues in a Guest, and
trying to emulate a year 2025 "only Secure Boot" setup, where
the user no longer has choices.

I turned on the TPM. I turned on the Secure Boot option in the
BIOS, instead of the normal (CSM) "Other OS" boot option (the
one used for Win7 or Linux sometimes). I got that light blue
YeeHaw box in the picture.

Still fine, not pissed as a Windows user yet.

Then I reboot and... a banner covers the entire screen. Pressing
control-alt-delete has the normal five items. I wanted to select
Task Manager. There is a flash. And no Task Manager appears. Eventually
I selected "Sign Out" to escape from the box (without doing a dirty
shutdown).

The options in the Ransom Screen are pretty simple. But that's not
the point. The screen is pushy. It's decide to defer this upgrade
or start the upgrade right now, kind of thing. Like, I was panicking.
The thing was, I did a shift-Printscreen and didn't get to keep the
picture. The band is gone now, and it does not come back. I really should
have calmed down, and taken a picture with the digital camera.

*******

Here is the band I got (if your screen is 1920x1080,
then this picture is also 1920x1080 and covers the screen):

https://www.ghacks.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/upgrade-to-windows-11.png

( https://www.ghacks.net/2024/03/07/microsofts-sneaky-kb5001716-windows-10-update-pushes-windows-11/ )

If you turn off TPM or use InControl to control the release number,
you'll be fine and won't get that.

Paul

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 07:40:48 -0500, -hh wrote:

> Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being
> sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects ...

You just made that up, didn’t you?

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 17:31:34 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 22:01:29 -0000 (UTC)
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I’d say, nobody bothers with it any more because it doesn’t matter any
>> more. “Linux” is the standard that everybody (including the BSDs and
>> Microsoft) needs to be compatible with, “Unix” is not.
>
> A lot of it seems to hang on supporting 'pax'; which linux can't be
> bothered with ...

<https://packages.debian.org/bookworm/pax>?

On 11/20/24 6:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 07:40:48 -0500, -hh wrote:
>
>> Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being
>> sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects ...
>
> You just made that up, didn’t you?

Unfortunately, no. COLA has had a history of purist & elite attitudes,
which has included various crude insults directed at anyone who didn't
exclusively use Linux for their OS.

IIRC, these insults ended when it was thrown back in their face by
noting that they were insulting their own non-Linux family members.

-hh

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 19:13:47 -0500, -hh wrote:

> On 11/20/24 6:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 07:40:48 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>
>>> Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being
>>> sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects ...
>>
>> You just made that up, didn’t you?
>
> Unfortunately, no. COLA has had a history ...

So you should be able to back up your claim, that “hardcore Linux
advocates rejected” those distros.

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

> On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 22:19:52 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:
>
>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> In any case, if you don't uppercase it ('UNIX'), you won't be
>>> infringing on the trademark.
>>
>> I wouldn't be so sure. Huawei lost against 3M for using the term 3N.
>> Courts decided it was similar enough.
>>
>>> So use 'Unix', or 'unix' if you must, but '*nix' is unneeded,
>>> meaningless and a bit silly.
>>
>> Totally silly.
>
> Strange, isn’t it: above you point out how dangerous trademark
> infringement can be, and here you are saying that trying to avoid it is
> “totally silly”.

There's no contradiction there. That the world is a dangerous place,
that's pretty clear. One tries to use ``3N'' and get sued by 3M. But
that's very silly. It's silliness that comes from legislation. I can
think of that as silly and still describe the consequences of all this
silliness in the world. Is that still strange? :) Knock yourself out.

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 21:57:30 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 22:19:52 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:
>>
>>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> In any case, if you don't uppercase it ('UNIX'), you won't be
>>>> infringing on the trademark.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't be so sure. Huawei lost against 3M for using the term 3N.
>>> Courts decided it was similar enough.
>>>
>>>> So use 'Unix', or 'unix' if you must, but '*nix' is unneeded,
>>>> meaningless and a bit silly.
>>>
>>> Totally silly.
>>
>> Strange, isn’t it: above you point out how dangerous trademark
>> infringement can be, and here you are saying that trying to avoid it
>> is “totally silly”.
>
> One tries to use ``3N'' and get sued by 3M. But
> that's very silly. It's silliness that comes from legislation.

But above you were describing as “silly” not the legislation, but measures
to avoid being caught by it. Surely self-preservation is an entirely
rational response.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 19:13:47 -0500, -hh wrote:
>
>> On 11/20/24 6:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 07:40:48 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being
>>>> sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects ...
>>>
>>> You just made that up, didn’t you?

-highhorse? Make things up? No!

Was -highhorse making things up when he claimed that the cola
advocates "scream and rant" at people who try Linux but choose
someting else? No!

Was -highhorse *lying* when used the above to attack cola advocates as
"hypocrites"? No!
>> (snip lies)
>
>So you should be able to back up your claim, that “hardcore Linux
>advocates rejected” those distros.

-highhorse is a loser and liar who is lashing-out in anger.

--
"I used his story as YA example of the hypocrisy that there is within
the Android/Linux 'community' for when people run into IT problems:
the COLA Herd is quick to deflect blame into such classics as improper
data backup strategies, 'stupidity' of getting hit with malware,
broken hardware, etc...all the classical 'Blame the User'
deflections.'" - lying asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly

On 11/20/24 7:50 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 19:13:47 -0500, -hh wrote:
>
>> On 11/20/24 6:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 07:40:48 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being
>>>> sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects ...
>>>
>>> You just made that up, didn’t you?
>>
>> Unfortunately, no. COLA has had a history ...
>
> So you should be able to back up your claim, that “hardcore Linux
> advocates rejected” those distros.

I did say "perhaps", as I've not read every last COLA thread and have
perfect retention on all of them. But checking just the COLA archives
on Google where one of these certified Unix versions were mentioned by
name, I did find the following:

"...Linux has features that are better than the official Unix."

YMMV on the degree to which this is arrogant/elitist, while it misses
the point of having an independent certification.

Plus there's evidence of loathing anything commercial, such as this 2015
thread by the late Lloyd Parsons who called out chrisv & others:

<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.linux.advocacy/c/g22CaJS0e2s/m/3nt8Vc40DgAJ>

Including therein:

[quote]
cv>> It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" take
cv>> pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an alternative
cv>> product with little apparent significance.
lp>
lp> No pleasure taken, just noting that the failures exist and that
lp> you linux loonies are a big part of that problem. How many of
lp> you bought software in their software center? Hell, how many of
lp> you bought and/or donated to Canonical to help ensure the success
lp> of a small business that is trying to get Linux on the desktop to
lp> be a viable and profitable product?
lp>
lp> I know the answer, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOU!
[/quote]

[quote]
o>> No market for their crap. What were they selling again? Unity?
o>> Support?
o>> Peace on Earth and goodwill toward man?
lp>
lp> Application software, which you probably already knew. But the
lp> tone of your comments speaks to the larger issue. And that is
lp> the extremely piss poor attitude of the linux community as a group.
lp> "I don't like it so it must suck" is not a valid complaint, it is
lp> just bitching. A possible future linux desktop user would be
lp> totally put off by comments like that.
lp>
lp> Add it to the long list of why linux desktop is such an abject
lp> failure despite being a pretty good OS overall.
[/quote]

[quote]
o>> That's pretty bold, coming from a Mactard.
lp>
lp> You mean a 'mactard' that uses OSX, Linux, Windows 8/10,
lp> iOS, Android and Windows Phone? I'd say that makes me much
lp> more knowledgeable about the comparisons of the various OS's.
[/quote]

[quote]
rb>> I don't think so. But they would definitely cut into the Windows'
rb>> monopoly. Unfortunately for iCultists it's never going to
rb>> happen because Apple likes to gouge their suckers ... err ...
rb>> customers for huge their profit margins.
lp>
lp> Those grapes are really sour huh, wRonG?
[/quote]

[quote]
cv>> It doesn't make sense, until one considers that they are just that
cv>> scared of the competitive threat that Free software poses, after
cv>> seeing Android come from nothing to roar to market leadership in
cv>> just a few short years.
hh>
hh> It is quite interesting to hear chrisv first promote 'healthy'
hh> competition and then to try use Android as a notional example, when
hh> we all know that the reality is that Android wouldn't have existed
hh> had it not been by huge bankrolling by Google. As to just how
hh> huge, the number is at least in the tens of billions. Case in
hh> point:
hh>
hh> "Google: We're Spending $12.5 Billion on Motorola to 'Protect'
hh> Android"
hh>
hh>
<http://allthingsd.com/20110815/gulp-google-buying-motorola-mobility-for-12-5-billion/>
[/quote]

Plus there's also what DFS just posted here yesterday on duplicity from
his own keyword searchable database:

[quote]
On 11/20/24 7:15 PM, DFS wrote:
> On 11/18/2024 6:59 PM, shitv wrote:
>
>
>> a group of mostly decent, reasonable advocates of software Freedom.
>
>
> The decency and reasonableness of cola Linux advocates is off the charts:
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Feeb on ONE DAY!: "technical loser, incompetent technical idiot, retard,
> pathetic, brain-dead loser, damn bitch, Microshit assholes, inferior
> piece of genetic trash, extermination camps should be brought back, Fuck
> you, fuck your degenerate family, abysmal, know-nothing moron, lame ass
> steaming pile of festering garbage known as Microshit Winblows, fucking
> loser, fucking plagiarist, Fucking loser, incompetent loser,
> mutherfucking imbecilic asshole, Fuck you, Incompetent ass-sucking
> ignoramus idiot asshole mutherfucker, fucking clueless plagiarist,
> mutherfucking, cocksucking, plagiarizing asshole, Fucking loser,
> Fucking plagiarizing loser, I'd throw you out a third-story window,
> mutherfucking imbecilic asshole, pathetic, sad-sack sexual loser, Black
> girls would spit in your sorry face"
>
> Ruben Safir: "go stick your head in an oven and turn on the gas."
>
> Tattoo Deadbeat: "Please make a New Years' resolution to commit suicide.
> Better yet, murder/suicide and take your fellow trolls with you."
>
> Doug Menthol: "Fuck off, get cancer and die a long and painfull death."
>
> Tattoo Deadbeat: "Somebody needs to shoot DFS in the head."
>
> [H]ypocrite [H]omer: "Shut your fat mouth you stupid fucking American
> inbred Redneck"
>
> [H]ypocrite [H]omer: "Burn in Hell"
>
> Creepy Christopher John Ahlstrom: "dumb fucker", "Lying Hadron Cunt",
> "fucking dumb", "shitty little assholes", "go to Hell", "true pieces of
> shit", "fuckhead"
>
> Telnet Porter: "And they do have a lot to fear, between me shoving
> their teeth down their throats..."
>
> (p)Rick: "Fuck you, you lying bitch."
>
> Nobody: "Shouldn't you be on a ledge somewhere?"
> Dumb Willie followup: "With a crowd shouting "Jump!"
>
> Scott 'vallor' Doty: "incompetent", "psychopaths", "sociopaths",
> "asshole", "jerk", "half-wit"
>
> yttrx: "fucking moron."
>
> Greg Shearman: "fuckwit lying cunt"
>
> Tattoo Deadbeat: "Get the fuck out, then, bitch."
>
> Kier: "go fuck yourself"
>
> Philip Callan: "You ignorant fuck ..."
>
> Fraud 7: "No good flat fsck. You are an in-bread American commie
> troll... You produce nothing of value to America..."
>
> JED: "stupid", "idiot", "moron", "loser"
>
>
> And the previous King Of Nasty Little Fucks: yourself:
>
> (in one post): "Fsck you...snotty POS....asshole...worthless waste of
> skin...you suck shit...God-damned...fsckwit...Wintroll fsckwits."
>
> (in 17 days during June 2012):
> "idiot, stupid, morons and assholes, fucking moron, true stupidity,
> puerile assholery, worthless POS, evil bastards, trolling assholes,
> jackass, dumb bastard, Wintroll circle-jerk, trolls are filthy, lying
> piece of shit, piece of shit, POS, POS, what an *asshole*, fucking
> *assholes*, shitty and dishonest Linux-haters, prick shit-canned, filthy
> lying *asshole*, shit-brained arsehole, *stupidity* of epic proportions,
> stupid* pile of shit, *jackass*, too God-damned *stupid*, trolling
> shitwits, *stupid*, assholery, brain-damaged fucktard, piece of shit,
> drooling retard/liar, drooling retard/liar, stupid piece of shit wannabe
> dictators, jackass, clueless and lying idiot, ignorant ass, Stupid
> fuckwit!, You stepped in your own shit, fuckwitted asshole, extremely
> shitty, lying asshole, trolling fuckwit, you *stupid* asshole, POS,
> asshole, shitty dishonesty, piece of shit, asshole, fuckwit, fuckwit,
> lying fuckwit, you POS, you stupid piece of shit, couple of dishonest
> little shits, a disease infesting the planet, POS and liar, fucktard
> trolls, Windows-loving asshole, shitty, filthy Wintroll, bald-faced
> liar, you piece of shit liar, shitty, useless Linux-haters, you stupid
> piece of shit, piece of shit, Utterly worthless liar, filthy Win troll,
> lying pieces of shit, fricken jackass, worthless lying POS jackass,
> shamelessly lying POS, worthless, shit-brained asshole, POS liar, the
> filthy liar, evil selfish bastards, fucking idiot, fucking *stupid*,
> ignorant, spews garbage, jackass, idiot asshole, piece of shit, stupid
> POS, trolling fuckwit, POS, lies his ass off, vile thing, shitty, liar,
> ignorant lying piece of shit, vile bastard asshole liar, fucking *liar*,
> worthless, shameless jackass, shitty, piece of shit liar, shameless
> jackass, filthy lying assholes, jackass, cram it up your ass, asshole,
> POS, filthy, immoral, dogshit brains, shitty little freedom-hating
> dictator wannabee, fucking idiot, piece of shit, stupid, ignorant,
> shameless asshole. Linux-hating pieces of shit, fucking, shit, shitty,
> shitty, shitty, selfish assholes, shamelessly dishonest POS, vile lying
> bastards, filthy liar, filthy fucks, fucking *assholes*, disgusting
> scumbag, vile filthy mean, fuckwit, filthy fucking, liar, trolling
> fuckwit, POS, filthy fuckwit, vile pukes, you shit, vile bastards,
> filthy fuck, mentally-defective bigots disgusting freaks, piece of shit,
> filthy lying bigot, shitty, filthy bigots, trolling fuckwit and shit,
> vile bigot, fuckwit piece of shit disgusting freak"
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 06:56:47 -0500, -hh wrote:

> On 11/20/24 7:50 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 19:13:47 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/20/24 6:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 07:40:48 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being
>>>>> sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects ...
>>>>
>>>> You just made that up, didn’t you?
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, no. COLA has had a history ...
>>
>> So you should be able to back up your claim, that “hardcore Linux
>> advocates rejected” those distros.
>
> I did say "perhaps" ...

Ah, like the way a certain political leader says “some people say” when
spouting his rubbish without being more specific about where the claim is
actually coming from. Pure insinuation on your part, in other words.
Understood.

> "...Linux has features that are better than the official Unix."
>
> YMMV on the degree to which this is arrogant/elitist, while it misses
> the point of having an independent certification.

It’s simple fact, as borne out by the popularity of Linux itself. It’s
what the users need in today’s computing milieu. Which is why that old
“independent certification”, originating from the environment that was in
place back in the 1980s, no longer matters.

On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 06:56:47 -0500, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
wrote in <vhn75v$aeqt$2@dont-email.me>:

> "incompetent", "psychopaths", "sociopaths",
> > "asshole", "jerk", "half-wit"

Describing DFS himself, of course.

Guess that hit pretty close to home...

--
-v

-hh wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being
>>>>> sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects ...
>>>>
>>>> You just made that up, didn’t you?
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, no. COLA has had a history ...
>>
>> So you should be able to back up your claim, that “hardcore Linux
>> advocates rejected” those distros.
>
>I did say "perhaps", as I've not read every last COLA thread and have
>perfect retention on all of them. But checking just the COLA archives
>on Google where one of these certified Unix versions were mentioned by
>name, I did find the following:
>
>"...Linux has features that are better than the official Unix."
>
> (further idiocy and evasions snipped)

Read it, folks. There's not one shred of support for -highhorse's
claim of "hardcore Linux advocates" "rejecting" "insufficiently pure"
Open Source projects.

Instead, in classic -highhorse fashion, he evades and blows it up into
an unwieldy mess that no normal person can respond to it all.

-highhorse does have a nice collection of filthy, lying, idiot asshole
trolls getting cussed-out, I will say.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> -highhorse wrote:
>>
>> I did say "perhaps" ...
>
>Ah, like the way a certain political leader says “some people say” when
>spouting his rubbish without being more specific about where the claim is
>actually coming from. Pure insinuation on your part, in other words.

Pure trolling, on his part. -highhorse can take the most reasonable
behavior, and attack it as something "bad".

--
"Even RedHat only stands behind their product while you're actively
paying for support." - lying asshole "-hh", whining that Free
software doesn't come with free support.

On 11/21/24 5:02 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 06:56:47 -0500, -hh wrote:
>
>> On 11/20/24 7:50 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 19:13:47 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/20/24 6:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 07:40:48 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being
>>>>>> sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects ...
>>>>>
>>>>> You just made that up, didn’t you?
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, no. COLA has had a history ...
>>>
>>> So you should be able to back up your claim, that “hardcore Linux
>>> advocates rejected” those distros.
>>
>> I did say "perhaps" ...
>
> Ah, like the way a certain political leader says “some people say” when
> spouting his rubbish without being more specific about where the claim is
> actually coming from.

Except for how you snipped the substantiating specifics.

>> "...Linux has features that are better than the official Unix."
>>
>> YMMV on the degree to which this is arrogant/elitist, while it misses
>> the point of having an independent certification.
>
> It’s simple fact, as borne out by the popularity of Linux itself.

That quote was from Feeb. Plus a claim of more features is based on
what COLA has derided Microsoft for, namely "bloatware".

-hh

On 11/21/24 7:52 PM, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> -hh wrote:
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being
>>>>>> sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects ...
>>>>>
>>>>> You just made that up, didn’t you?
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, no. COLA has had a history ...
>>>
>>> So you should be able to back up your claim, that “hardcore Linux
>>> advocates rejected” those distros.
>>
>> I did say "perhaps", as I've not read every last COLA thread and have
>> perfect retention on all of them. But checking just the COLA archives
>> on Google where one of these certified Unix versions were mentioned by
>> name, I did find the following:
>>
>> "...Linux has features that are better than the official Unix."
>>
>> (further idiocy and evasions snipped)
>
> Read it, folks. There's not one shred of support for -highhorse's
> claim of "hardcore Linux advocates" "rejecting" "insufficiently pure"
> Open Source projects.

Yes, they should read everything that you snipped.

Especially the part of how posters have said crude things about Windows
users ... which includes their own Windows-using daughter.

-hh

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

> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 21:57:30 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 22:19:52 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> In any case, if you don't uppercase it ('UNIX'), you won't be
>>>>> infringing on the trademark.
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't be so sure. Huawei lost against 3M for using the term 3N.
>>>> Courts decided it was similar enough.
>>>>
>>>>> So use 'Unix', or 'unix' if you must, but '*nix' is unneeded,
>>>>> meaningless and a bit silly.
>>>>
>>>> Totally silly.
>>>
>>> Strange, isn’t it: above you point out how dangerous trademark
>>> infringement can be, and here you are saying that trying to avoid it
>>> is “totally silly”.
>>
>> One tries to use ``3N'' and get sued by 3M. But
>> that's very silly. It's silliness that comes from legislation.
>
> But above you were describing as “silly” not the legislation, but measures
> to avoid being caught by it. Surely self-preservation is an entirely
> rational response.

The legislation is indeed silly. Preserving oneself is not silly, but
it's silly to preserve oneself when there's no danger. Nobody is going
to sue us because we're writing UNIX over here, for example. That's not
really how it works. So in such circumstances, it's silly to worry
about that.