On 03/10/2024 09:15, Joel wrote:
> David Brooks <David@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>>> You pay for their [Apple's mac]OS when you pay through the nose, for their hardware
>>> it runs on. It's actually a lot cheaper to get Winblows the same way,
>>> through an OEM preinstalled, than it is to get a Mac. If Apple were
>>> offering more kinds of software, it wouldn't all be anymore free than
>>> Final Cut Pro.
>>
>> One hasn't had to PAY for a Mac "operating system" since macOS Snow
>> Leopard, way back in 2009 IIRC.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS
>
>
> You don't *specifically* pay for it, but it's included as part of
> buying a Mac.

It is included NOW - but when I bought my first iMac, each new operating
system DID have to be purchased separately!

>> The hardware is good! I'm still using a 24 inch iMac built in 2006.
>> It's running Linux Mint 22.
>
>
> But it's not your primary device, right?

That is correct. I have a 27 inch iMac with a fantastic Retina 5K screen.
Sadly, Apple will no longer allow me to run the most up-to-date macOS on
this device, nor will Apple or its Authorised Dealers carry out any
rectification work if needed. :-(

David Brooks <David@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

>>>> You pay for their [Apple's mac]OS when you pay through the nose, for their hardware
>>>> it runs on. It's actually a lot cheaper to get Winblows the same way,
>>>> through an OEM preinstalled, than it is to get a Mac. If Apple were
>>>> offering more kinds of software, it wouldn't all be anymore free than
>>>> Final Cut Pro.
>>>
>>> One hasn't had to PAY for a Mac "operating system" since macOS Snow
>>> Leopard, way back in 2009 IIRC.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS
>>
>> You don't *specifically* pay for it, but it's included as part of
>> buying a Mac.
>
>It is included NOW - but when I bought my first iMac, each new operating
>system DID have to be purchased separately!

Yeah, but wasn't that a nominal amount to get the media, more so than
really buying a new version, in the same way M$ used to do?

>>> The hardware is good! I'm still using a 24 inch iMac built in 2006.
>>> It's running Linux Mint 22.
>>
>> But it's not your primary device, right?
>
>That is correct. I have a 27 inch iMac with a fantastic Retina 5K screen.
>Sadly, Apple will no longer allow me to run the most up-to-date macOS on
>this device, nor will Apple or its Authorised Dealers carry out any
>rectification work if needed. :-(

OEMs sell disposable computers, Apple despite the price tag is no
exception. I designed my computer to last. And switching to Linux on
it will help, with that, because it runs cleaner than Winblows. macOS,
though, is generally as clean as Linux, to its credit.

--
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 03/10/2024 09:52, Joel wrote:
> David Brooks <David@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>>>>> You pay for their [Apple's mac]OS when you pay through the nose, for their hardware
>>>>> it runs on. It's actually a lot cheaper to get Winblows the same way,
>>>>> through an OEM preinstalled, than it is to get a Mac. If Apple were
>>>>> offering more kinds of software, it wouldn't all be anymore free than
>>>>> Final Cut Pro.
>>>>
>>>> One hasn't had to PAY for a Mac "operating system" since macOS Snow
>>>> Leopard, way back in 2009 IIRC.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS
>>>
>>> You don't *specifically* pay for it, but it's included as part of
>>> buying a Mac.
>>
>> It is included NOW - but when I bought my first iMac, each new operating
>> system DID have to be purchased separately!
>
>
> Yeah, but wasn't that a nominal amount to get the media, more so than
> really buying a new version, in the same way M$ used to do?

Snow Leopard was publicly unveiled on June 8, 2009 at Apple's Worldwide
Developers Conference. On August 28, 2009, it was released worldwide,
and was made available for purchase from Apple's website and retail
stores at the price of US$29 for a single-user license.

>>>> The hardware is good! I'm still using a 24 inch iMac built in 2006.
>>>> It's running Linux Mint 22.
>>>
>>> But it's not your primary device, right?
>>
>> That is correct. I have a 27 inch iMac with a fantastic Retina 5K screen.
>> Sadly, Apple will no longer allow me to run the most up-to-date macOS on
>> this device, nor will Apple or its Authorised Dealers carry out any
>> rectification work if needed. :-(
>
> OEMs sell disposable computers, Apple despite the price tag is no
> exception. I designed my computer to last. And switching to Linux on
> it will help, with that, because it runs cleaner than Winblows. macOS,
> though, is generally as clean as Linux, to its credit.

Good luck with it, Joel. :-) (Which anti-virus software do you use?)

Maybe I should do that again, before I croak! ;-)

The alternative is to buy a Mac Studio display - and a fast Mac Mini! ;-)

David Brooks <David@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

>>>>>> You pay for their [Apple's mac]OS when you pay through the nose, for their hardware
>>>>>> it runs on. It's actually a lot cheaper to get Winblows the same way,
>>>>>> through an OEM preinstalled, than it is to get a Mac. If Apple were
>>>>>> offering more kinds of software, it wouldn't all be anymore free than
>>>>>> Final Cut Pro.
>>>>>
>>>>> One hasn't had to PAY for a Mac "operating system" since macOS Snow
>>>>> Leopard, way back in 2009 IIRC.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS
>>>>
>>>> You don't *specifically* pay for it, but it's included as part of
>>>> buying a Mac.
>>>
>>> It is included NOW - but when I bought my first iMac, each new operating
>>> system DID have to be purchased separately!
>>
>> Yeah, but wasn't that a nominal amount to get the media, more so than
>> really buying a new version, in the same way M$ used to do?
>
>Snow Leopard was publicly unveiled on June 8, 2009 at Apple's Worldwide
>Developers Conference. On August 28, 2009, it was released worldwide,
>and was made available for purchase from Apple's website and retail
>stores at the price of US$29 for a single-user license.

$29 for an Apple product is nominal, yeah. The Windows upgrades were
a lot more.

>>>>> The hardware is good! I'm still using a 24 inch iMac built in 2006.
>>>>> It's running Linux Mint 22.
>>>>
>>>> But it's not your primary device, right?
>>>
>>> That is correct. I have a 27 inch iMac with a fantastic Retina 5K screen.
>>> Sadly, Apple will no longer allow me to run the most up-to-date macOS on
>>> this device, nor will Apple or its Authorised Dealers carry out any
>>> rectification work if needed. :-(
>>
>> OEMs sell disposable computers, Apple despite the price tag is no
>> exception. I designed my computer to last. And switching to Linux on
>> it will help, with that, because it runs cleaner than Winblows. macOS,
>> though, is generally as clean as Linux, to its credit.
>
>Good luck with it, Joel. :-) (Which anti-virus software do you use?)
>
>Maybe I should do that again, before I croak! ;-)
>
>The alternative is to buy a Mac Studio display - and a fast Mac Mini! ;-)

I had Norton for Win11, with Linux I don't need antimalware software.

--
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 2024-10-03, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
> Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Oct 2, 2024 at 11:17:28?PM MST, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" wrote
>><vdlcto$3km80$1@dont-email.me>:
>>
>>>>> Microsoft and Apple have you well-trained on that wheel, haven’t they.
>>>>
>>>> What do they have to do with hamsters?
>>>
>>> Did you look at the subject line before posting?
>>
>>I did. And I see the bias in it. As ChatGPT says of it:
>>
>>-----
>>That Usenet subject line definitely grabs attention! It uses strong language
>>and imagery, implying that people are blindly following big tech companies
>>(the "sheep" metaphor). This kind of provocative phrasing can spark debates
>>and draw in those who are frustrated with tech giants, but it may also
>>alienate readers who prefer more neutral discussions.
>>
>>If you're aiming to engage others in a discussion, you might consider framing
>>it in a way that invites conversation without sounding too accusatory. For
>>example, something like “Are Microsoft and Apple Misleading Us?” could open
>>the door for a broader range of opinions while still addressing the underlying
>>concerns. What direction do you want to take with this topic?
>>-----
>
>
> People actually read this drivel from ChatGPT?
>
Snit does.
In fact lately he;'s obsessed with ChatGPT as it's given him a new method of
trolling .

--
pothead
Kamala Harris Word Salad Special Of The Day
Served Complete With Venn Diagram Dressing

On Oct 2, 2024 at 11:32:44 PM MST, "Joel" wrote
<dfesfjd7p1f3ctvgrp8i1t20q8t4035u41@4ax.com>:

> Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 2, 2024 at 11:17:28?PM MST, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" wrote
>> <vdlcto$3km80$1@dont-email.me>:
>>
>>>>> Microsoft and Apple have you well-trained on that wheel, haven’t they.
>>>>
>>>> What do they have to do with hamsters?
>>>
>>> Did you look at the subject line before posting?
>>
>> I did. And I see the bias in it. As ChatGPT says of it:
>>
>> -----
>> That Usenet subject line definitely grabs attention! It uses strong language
>> and imagery, implying that people are blindly following big tech companies
>> (the "sheep" metaphor). This kind of provocative phrasing can spark debates
>> and draw in those who are frustrated with tech giants, but it may also
>> alienate readers who prefer more neutral discussions.
>>
>> If you're aiming to engage others in a discussion, you might consider framing
>> it in a way that invites conversation without sounding too accusatory. For
>> example, something like “Are Microsoft and Apple Misleading Us?” could open
>> the door for a broader range of opinions while still addressing the underlying
>> concerns. What direction do you want to take with this topic?
>> -----
>
>
> People actually read this drivel from ChatGPT?

It has been amazingly "instightful" but, of course, you have to take it in
context and use it as *A* tool, not assuming it is the oracle of all knowledge
and assessments.

--
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.

Snit wrote:
> On Oct 2, 2024 at 6:56:30 PM MST, "%" wrote
> <3tudnXeQQ4tTZGD7nZ2dnZfqnPYAAAAA@giganews.com>:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On 03 Oct 2024 00:58:04 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 2, 2024 at 5:42:20 PM MST, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" wrote
>>>> <vdkp9b$3ed1r$7@dont-email.me>:
>>>>
>>>>> You’re not one of these “software pirates”, are you?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> No you are, or yes you’re not?
>>>
>> if he was then he wouldn't be
>
> If I did, you would, then we all might, so I won't.
>
i never have but i will just to prove i liked it

Snit wrote:
> On Oct 2, 2024 at 6:20:43 PM MST, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" wrote
> <vdkrha$3ep7f$2@dont-email.me>:
>
>> On 03 Oct 2024 00:58:04 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 2, 2024 at 5:42:20 PM MST, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" wrote
>>> <vdkp9b$3ed1r$7@dont-email.me>:
>>>
>>>> You’re not one of these “software pirates”, are you?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> No you are, or yes you’re not?
>
> I am not a pirate.
>
no ardy ar ar

On Oct 3, 2024 at 9:13:33 AM MST, "%" wrote
<Vw2dnTbC4rMqX2P7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>:

> Snit wrote:
>> On Oct 2, 2024 at 6:20:43 PM MST, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" wrote
>> <vdkrha$3ep7f$2@dont-email.me>:
>>
>>> On 03 Oct 2024 00:58:04 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 2, 2024 at 5:42:20 PM MST, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" wrote
>>>> <vdkp9b$3ed1r$7@dont-email.me>:
>>>>
>>>>> You’re not one of these “software pirates”, are you?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> No you are, or yes you’re not?
>>
>> I am not a pirate.
>>
> no ardy ar ar

May Tea?

--
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 Oct 3, 2024 at 9:09:45 AM MST, "%" wrote
<Vw2dnTTC4rNPXGP7nZ2dnZfqnPiu4p2d@giganews.com>:

> Snit wrote:
>> On Oct 2, 2024 at 6:56:30 PM MST, "%" wrote
>> <3tudnXeQQ4tTZGD7nZ2dnZfqnPYAAAAA@giganews.com>:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On 03 Oct 2024 00:58:04 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 2, 2024 at 5:42:20 PM MST, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" wrote
>>>>> <vdkp9b$3ed1r$7@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You’re not one of these “software pirates”, are you?
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> No you are, or yes you’re not?
>>>>
>>> if he was then he wouldn't be
>>
>> If I did, you would, then we all might, so I won't.
>>
> i never have but i will just to prove i liked it

What if you hate it?

--
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 10/3/2024 7:36 AM, Andrew W wrote:
> On 10/2/2024 2:20 PM, John Smyth wrote:
>> 1. They said
>>
>> 2.They said Trump was a Russian asset.
>
> That's not a lie; he is.

That's a Hillary Clinton toilet class lie.

>>
>> 3.They said Trump would start WW3.
>
> No, "they" didn't.

Yes they did. Except Biden and Harris just did using Israel and Iran to
try and subvert the will of the people of the USA.

>>
>> 4 They said COVID did not come from a lab.
>
> No evidence that it did.

Where did it come from then?

>>
>> 5. They said masks and distancing worked.
>
> Masks and distancing work.

No they don't. Numerous studies confirmed that they did not. Hospitals
don't even require anyone wear the stupid masks any longer.

>>
>> 6. They said Hunter Biden's laptop was no real.
>
> No, "they" didn't.

Yes they did.

>>
>> 7.  They said Biden was sharp as a tack.
>
> No, "they" didn't. However, he is anyway.

Yes they did. He's a stupid puppet for Obama and his communists.

>>
>> 8. They said human-trafficking was a conspiracy theory.
>
> No, "they" didn't.

Yes they did.

>>
>> 9. They said there was no humanitarian crisis at the border
>
> No, "they" didn't.

Yes they did.

>>
>> 10. They said the vaccines were safe and effective.
>
> The vaccines *are* safe and effective...at reducing the seriousness of
> illness.

If that's the case, why haven't they cured the flu and common cold?

>>
>> ALL OF IT........Turned out to be a LIE.
>
> *None* of it turned out to be a lie.

Any time a Democrat opens their mouth they are lying.

"Weakling Walz" <Y@X.con> wrote in message
news:vdmp1e$1p8hp$1@news.mixmin.net...
> On 10/3/2024 7:36 AM, Andrew W wrote:
>> On 10/2/2024 2:20 PM, John Smyth wrote:
>>> 1. They said
>>>
>>> 2.They said Trump was a Russian asset.
>>
>> That's not a lie; he is.
>
> That's a Hillary Clinton toilet class lie.
>
>>>
>>> 3.They said Trump would start WW3.
>>
>> No, "they" didn't.
>
> Yes they did. Except Biden and Harris just did using Israel and Iran to
> try and subvert the will of the people of the USA.
>
>>>
>>> 4 They said COVID did not come from a lab.
>>
>> No evidence that it did.
>
> Where did it come from then?

Actually, we know the US money was going into research on modifying such a
disease, we also have genetic markets in Covid typically seen in gene
splicing, and we had the origin as the place where the biolab was conducting
such research. Now if it weren't protected by the cloak of secrecy that the
Chinese threw over the whole thing we might be able to conclusive prove it.
However, what we do have is very strong evidence given the signs of genetic
manipulation, the lab being engaged in just such research on just that
disease and the point of origin.

Then we have the question of whether it was released intentionally or
accidently.

I lean towards deliberate as the government in China was about to lose
control over the demonstrations concerning Hong Kong and saw it as a chance
to do 3 things at once.
1) end the protests by locking down the country
2) gather up and dispose of identified or suspect dissidents
3) Test to see whether they could indeed protect themselves against the
release of such a bio-weapon

#1 was a total success
#2 was a total success
And thankfully
#3 was an utter failure.

>>> 5. They said masks and distancing worked.
>>
>> Masks and distancing work.
>
> No they don't. Numerous studies confirmed that they did not. Hospitals
> don't even require anyone wear the stupid masks any longer.

Actually there are studied showing the masking was much more likely to
infect people since the masks provided a nice little collection/breeding
ground for the buggers as people rarely maintained their masks even per the
guideline much less what would be necessary. The masks provided, at best,
such a minimum protection it amounted to little more than a placebo. The
appearance of doing something, while actually not.

>
>>>
>>> 6. They said Hunter Biden's laptop was no real.
>>
>> No, "they" didn't.
>
> Yes they did.

And some still downplay it today if they even admit of it's existence.

>
>>>
>>> 7. They said Biden was sharp as a tack.
>>
>> No, "they" didn't. However, he is anyway.
>
> Yes they did. He's a stupid puppet for Obama and his communists.

What is notable about Biden is the only ability he's ever shown was an
ability to get elected and hold office.

Once there.. he accomplished nothing. In his entire government service,
other than being elected, he did nothing of note. However, he did use his
position both to enrich himself and those around him, and to prevent people
from looking into how he was peddling his influence.

>>> 8. They said human-trafficking was a conspiracy theory.
>>
>> No, "they" didn't.
>
> Yes they did.

Yep, even today it's largely down played and rarely even mentioned

>
>>>
>>> 9. They said there was no humanitarian crisis at the border
>>
>> No, "they" didn't.
>
> Yes they did.

Boy did they ever.. and made it worse by inviting yet more to come there

>>> 10. They said the vaccines were safe and effective.
>>
>> The vaccines *are* safe and effective...at reducing the seriousness of
>> illness.
>
> If that's the case, why haven't they cured the flu and common cold?

Heck for that matter why have they been banned?

I mean if they were so effective why has virtually ever country in the
world, including the US, banned their use.

I knew something was wrong when the companies required total and utter
immunity from anything related to the vaccines.

I mean if they are effective, or even safe.. why would you demand immunity
first?

>>> ALL OF IT........Turned out to be a LIE.
>>
>> *None* of it turned out to be a lie.
>
> Any time a Democrat opens their mouth they are lying.

As confirmed by the person you have to keep correcting about their
statements......

Snit wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2024 at 9:09:45 AM MST, "%" wrote
> <Vw2dnTTC4rNPXGP7nZ2dnZfqnPiu4p2d@giganews.com>:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> On Oct 2, 2024 at 6:56:30 PM MST, "%" wrote
>>> <3tudnXeQQ4tTZGD7nZ2dnZfqnPYAAAAA@giganews.com>:
>>>
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> On 03 Oct 2024 00:58:04 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 2, 2024 at 5:42:20 PM MST, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" wrote
>>>>>> <vdkp9b$3ed1r$7@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You’re not one of these “software pirates”, are you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>> No you are, or yes you’re not?
>>>>>
>>>> if he was then he wouldn't be
>>>
>>> If I did, you would, then we all might, so I won't.
>>>
>> i never have but i will just to prove i liked it
>
> What if you hate it?
>
i'll do it more

Snit wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2024 at 10:29:46 AM MST, "%" wrote
> <FUqdnaTZerMWSWP7nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> On Oct 3, 2024 at 9:13:33 AM MST, "%" wrote
>>> <Vw2dnTbC4rMqX2P7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>>
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 2, 2024 at 6:20:43 PM MST, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" wrote
>>>>> <vdkrha$3ep7f$2@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03 Oct 2024 00:58:04 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 2, 2024 at 5:42:20 PM MST, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" wrote
>>>>>>> <vdkp9b$3ed1r$7@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You’re not one of these “software pirates”, are you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No you are, or yes you’re not?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not a pirate.
>>>>>
>>>> no ardy ar ar
>>>
>>> May Tea?
>>>
>> another harbor party
>
> Harbors a lot of resentment.
>
harbor some self control

Snit wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2024 at 10:29:46 AM MST, "%" wrote
> <FUqdnaTZerMWSWP7nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> On Oct 3, 2024 at 9:13:33 AM MST, "%" wrote
>>> <Vw2dnTbC4rMqX2P7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>>
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 2, 2024 at 6:20:43 PM MST, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" wrote
>>>>> <vdkrha$3ep7f$2@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03 Oct 2024 00:58:04 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 2, 2024 at 5:42:20 PM MST, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" wrote
>>>>>>> <vdkp9b$3ed1r$7@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You’re not one of these “software pirates”, are you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No you are, or yes you’re not?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not a pirate.
>>>>>
>>>> no ardy ar ar
>>>
>>> May Tea?
>>>
>> another harbor party
>
> Harbors a lot of resentment.
>
wait

harboring a fugitive

Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> They make you pay money for their products, and then, in an attempt to
>>> compete with Free Software, make it seem like they’re doing you a big
>>> favour by offering you even more limited crippleware versions, at a cheap
>>> price or as “freeware”. And you say to yourself “such a deal!” and fall
>>> for it.
>>
>> AFAIAK Apple only charge for one piece of software: Final cut pro.
>> Everything else is available for free.
>>
>> Apple doesn't "make" anyone pay for FCP. Those that do choose to do so as
>> there isn't a suitable free alternative. What would you recommend?
>
>
> You pay for their OS when you pay through the nose, for their hardware
> it runs on.

Not really. Back in the intel days if you specced out a similar standard of
windows machine it came to approx the same price.

What you pay through the nose for is OEM windows installs. Paying over £100
for crippled Home version is robbery. There's a reason why there's a huge
market for "second hand" licences.

Plus macOS is fully functional as it comes with the majority of software
you need day to day.

> It's actually a lot cheaper to get Winblows the same way,
> through an OEM preinstalled, than it is to get a Mac.

Only if you buy cheap. Then all macOS upgrades are free and have been for
nearly 10 years. You have to jump through hoops to get similar service from
MS.

> If Apple were
> offering more kinds of software, it wouldn't all be anymore free than
> Final Cut Pro.

You mean like a fully functional Office suite?

vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 07:14:29 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
> in <vdlg8l$3l4ku$1@dont-email.me>:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>> They make you pay money for their products, and then, in an attempt to
>>> compete with Free Software, make it seem like they’re doing you a big
>>> favour by offering you even more limited crippleware versions, at a
>>> cheap price or as “freeware”. And you say to yourself “such a deal!”
>>> and fall for it.
>>
>> AFAIAK Apple only charge for one piece of software: Final cut pro.
>> Everything else is available for free.
>>
>> Apple doesn't "make" anyone pay for FCP. Those that do choose to do so
>> as there isn't a suitable free alternative. What would you recommend?
>
> Black Magic Design's Davinci Resolve is proper. There is a free version
> that will edit up to 4K media (iirc, there's some limit), including
> for MacOS and Linux.

Useful to know, thanks.

Although, by Lawrence's standards that would be considered a free
crippleware version.

David Brooks <David@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> On 03/10/2024 09:15, Joel wrote:
>> David Brooks <David@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> You pay for their [Apple's mac]OS when you pay through the nose, for their hardware
>>>> it runs on. It's actually a lot cheaper to get Winblows the same way,
>>>> through an OEM preinstalled, than it is to get a Mac. If Apple were
>>>> offering more kinds of software, it wouldn't all be anymore free than
>>>> Final Cut Pro.
>>>
>>> One hasn't had to PAY for a Mac "operating system" since macOS Snow
>>> Leopard, way back in 2009 IIRC.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS
>>
>>
>> You don't *specifically* pay for it, but it's included as part of
>> buying a Mac.
>
> It is included NOW - but when I bought my first iMac, each new operating
> system DID have to be purchased separately!
>
>>> The hardware is good! I'm still using a 24 inch iMac built in 2006.
>>> It's running Linux Mint 22.
>>
>>
>> But it's not your primary device, right?
>
> That is correct. I have a 27 inch iMac with a fantastic Retina 5K screen.
> Sadly, Apple will no longer allow me to run the most up-to-date macOS on
> this device, nor will Apple or its Authorised Dealers carry out any
> rectification work if needed. :-(

OCLP provides versions of macOS that will run on older hardware. Lots of
people use it.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

>> You pay for their [mac]OS when you pay through the nose, for their hardware
>> it runs on.
>
>Not really. Back in the intel days if you specced out a similar standard of
>windows machine it came to approx the same price.
>
>What you pay through the nose for is OEM windows installs. Paying over £100
>for crippled Home version is robbery. There's a reason why there's a huge
>market for "second hand" licences.

That's more than in the U.S., but I believe you.

>Plus macOS is fully functional as it comes with the majority of software
>you need day to day.

So does Linux.

>> It's actually a lot cheaper to get Winblows the same way,
>> through an OEM preinstalled, than it is to get a Mac.
>
>Only if you buy cheap. Then all macOS upgrades are free and have been for
>nearly 10 years. You have to jump through hoops to get similar service from
>MS.

Same thing with them, I got Win10 free in 2015, Win11 free in 2021.

>> If Apple were
>> offering more kinds of software, it wouldn't all be anymore free than
>> Final Cut Pro.
>
>You mean like a fully functional Office suite?

As if LO isn't available for all platforms?

--
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 03/10/2024 21:48, Chris wrote:
> David Brooks <David@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> On 03/10/2024 09:15, Joel wrote:
>>> David Brooks <David@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You pay for their [Apple's mac]OS when you pay through the nose, for their hardware
>>>>> it runs on. It's actually a lot cheaper to get Winblows the same way,
>>>>> through an OEM preinstalled, than it is to get a Mac. If Apple were
>>>>> offering more kinds of software, it wouldn't all be anymore free than
>>>>> Final Cut Pro.
>>>>
>>>> One hasn't had to PAY for a Mac "operating system" since macOS Snow
>>>> Leopard, way back in 2009 IIRC.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS
>>>
>>>
>>> You don't *specifically* pay for it, but it's included as part of
>>> buying a Mac.
>>
>> It is included NOW - but when I bought my first iMac, each new operating
>> system DID have to be purchased separately!
>>
>>>> The hardware is good! I'm still using a 24 inch iMac built in 2006.
>>>> It's running Linux Mint 22.
>>>
>>>
>>> But it's not your primary device, right?
>>
>> That is correct. I have a 27 inch iMac with a fantastic Retina 5K screen.
>> Sadly, Apple will no longer allow me to run the most up-to-date macOS on
>> this device, nor will Apple or its Authorised Dealers carry out any
>> rectification work if needed. :-(
>
> OCLP provides versions of macOS that will run on older hardware. Lots of
> people use it.

I am aware, Chris - but thank you. :-)

On Oct 3, 2024 at 11:01:52 AM MST, "%" wrote
<GuWdnf3O76aNQWP7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>:

> Snit wrote:
>> On Oct 3, 2024 at 10:29:46 AM MST, "%" wrote
>> <FUqdnaTZerMWSWP7nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> On Oct 3, 2024 at 9:13:33 AM MST, "%" wrote
>>>> <Vw2dnTbC4rMqX2P7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 2, 2024 at 6:20:43 PM MST, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" wrote
>>>>>> <vdkrha$3ep7f$2@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 03 Oct 2024 00:58:04 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 2, 2024 at 5:42:20 PM MST, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" wrote
>>>>>>>> <vdkp9b$3ed1r$7@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You’re not one of these “software pirates”, are you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No you are, or yes you’re not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not a pirate.
>>>>>>
>>>>> no ardy ar ar
>>>>
>>>> May Tea?
>>>>
>>> another harbor party
>>
>> Harbors a lot of resentment.
>>
> wait
>
> harboring a fugitive

Uh oh, I think I might need a bigger hiding spot.

--
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.

Snit wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2024 at 11:01:52 AM MST, "%" wrote
> <GuWdnf3O76aNQWP7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>> On Oct 3, 2024 at 10:29:46 AM MST, "%" wrote
>>> <FUqdnaTZerMWSWP7nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>>
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 3, 2024 at 9:13:33 AM MST, "%" wrote
>>>>> <Vw2dnTbC4rMqX2P7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 2, 2024 at 6:20:43 PM MST, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" wrote
>>>>>>> <vdkrha$3ep7f$2@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 03 Oct 2024 00:58:04 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 2, 2024 at 5:42:20 PM MST, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" wrote
>>>>>>>>> <vdkp9b$3ed1r$7@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You’re not one of these “software pirates”, are you?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No you are, or yes you’re not?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not a pirate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> no ardy ar ar
>>>>>
>>>>> May Tea?
>>>>>
>>>> another harbor party
>>>
>>> Harbors a lot of resentment.
>>>
>> wait
>>
>> harboring a fugitive
>
> Uh oh, I think I might need a bigger hiding spot.
>
you're going to need a bigger shark

On 03 Oct 2024 06:24:50 GMT, Snit wrote:

> I did. And I see the bias in it. As ChatGPT says of it:

If you need a machine to tell you what to think, or to validate what you
think ... I think that just confirms my point.

On 3 Oct 2024 08:15:07 GMT, vallor wrote:

> Personally, I used kdenlive -- but my editing needs are minimal.

There are YouTube content creators using kdenlive, so it is not exactly a
toy contender.

Blender also works as a video editor, believe it or not. And it integrates
a compositor (plus 3D modelling/animation/physics) into the same workflow.
Try doing that with any other software.

On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 11:50:26 -0700, Weakling Walz <Y@X.con> wrote:

>On 10/3/2024 7:36 AM, Andrew W wrote:
>> On 10/2/2024 2:20 PM, John Smyth wrote:
>>> 1. They said
>>>
>>> 2.They said Trump was a Russian asset.
>>
>> That's not a lie; he is.
>
>That's a Hillary Clinton toilet class lie.

No lie. Trump is Putin's best asset.

--

One more reason to not vote for Trump in 34 days.

25) Trump recognized Israel's occupation of the Golan
Heights, which is considered illegal under international law.