Zaidy036 <Zaidy036@air.isp.spam> wrote:
>On 11/15/2024 11:03 PM, Joel wrote:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> even Apple's crap has Unix components.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not enough to count as a “real” *nix any more -- if it ever did.
>>>>
>>>> I mean, it *can* function as such, not very readily ...
>>>
>>> Ken Thompson, one of the original Bell Labs crew that created Unix in the
>>> first place, and an Apple fan for many years, has given up on them and
>>> switched to Linux.
>>>
>>> That tells you all you need to know.
>>
>> You're a fucktard of a nerd, dipshit. I already said that, in my
>> post. Eat shit.
>
>You have such an eloquent way of expressing yourself.

When people snip me saying the same thing they're saying, to sound
like they came up with it, they can eat shit.

--
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 11/15/2024 10:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 21:22:01 -0500, Joel wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> even Apple's crap has Unix components.
>>>
>>> Not enough to count as a “real” *nix any more -- if it ever did.
>>
>> I mean, it *can* function as such, not very readily ...
>
> Ken Thompson, one of the original Bell Labs crew that created Unix in the
> first place, and an Apple fan for many years, has given up on them and
> switched to Linux.
>
> That tells you all you need to know.

About his lack of discernment.

On the other hand, cola Linux advocates SMelzzzzz (Branimir Maksimovic)
and Tattoo Vampire gave up Linux and switched to Mac.

And 30+ years later, and you still can't give Linux away.

MS is doomed.

On Sat, 11/16/2024 8:37 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:12:56 -0500, Joel wrote:
>>
>>> even Apple's crap has Unix components.
>>
>> Not enough to count as a ?real? *nix any more -- if it ever did.
>
> I'm no Apple fan, but macOS isn't just *nix, i.e. 'unix'/'Unix', but
> actually UNIX.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#Compliance>
>

Didn't it have some relationship to Carnegie Melon "Mach" ?

Maybe it's just a microkernel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_%28kernel%29

"Mach's derivatives are the basis of the operating system kernel
in GNU Hurd and of Apple's XNU kernel used in macOS, iOS, iPadOS,
tvOS, and watchOS."

Paul

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 11/16/2024 8:37 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:12:56 -0500, Joel wrote:
>>>
>>>> even Apple's crap has Unix components.
>>>
>>> Not enough to count as a ?real? *nix any more -- if it ever did.
>>
>> I'm no Apple fan, but macOS isn't just *nix, i.e. 'unix'/'Unix', but
>> actually UNIX.
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#Compliance>
>
>Didn't it have some relationship to Carnegie Melon "Mach" ?
>
>Maybe it's just a microkernel.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_%28kernel%29
>
> "Mach's derivatives are the basis of the operating system kernel
> in GNU Hurd and of Apple's XNU kernel used in macOS, iOS, iPadOS,
> tvOS, and watchOS."

All remarkable projects, to be sure. And yet nothing in existence has
bested Linus Torvalds' ingenious kernel. Linux is the king of
kernels.

--
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 16 Nov 2024 13:37:04 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:12:56 -0500, Joel wrote:
>>
>>> even Apple's crap has Unix components.
>>
>> Not enough to count as a “real” *nix any more -- if it ever did.
>
> I'm no Apple fan, but macOS isn't just *nix, i.e. 'unix'/'Unix', but
> actually UNIX.

So it’s an official trademark licensee (the last one still standing). That
doesn’t mean it works the way people expect when they think of “Unix”.

On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 10:52:46 -0500, DFS wrote:

> On 11/15/2024 10:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 21:22:01 -0500, Joel wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> even Apple's crap has Unix components.
>>>>
>>>> Not enough to count as a “real” *nix any more -- if it ever did.
>>>
>>> I mean, it *can* function as such, not very readily ...
>>
>> Ken Thompson, one of the original Bell Labs crew that created Unix in
>> the first place, and an Apple fan for many years, has given up on them
>> and switched to Linux.
>>
>> That tells you all you need to know.
>
> About his lack of discernment.

Really?? You are accusing one of the legendary Unix gods of “lack of
discernment”? Is that what overuse of Windows has done to your brain?

On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 15:34:33 -0500, Paul wrote:

> Didn't it have some relationship to Carnegie Melon "Mach" ?
>
> Maybe it's just a microkernel.

Yes, Apple’s “macOS” (nee “OS X”) is built on a microkernel. That’s
another reason it is inferior to Linux.

DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote:
>On 11/15/2024 10:21 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> Ken Thompson, one of the original Bell Labs crew that created Unix in the
>> first place, and an Apple fan for many years, has given up on them and
>> switched to Linux.
>>
>> That tells you all you need to know.
>
>About his lack of discernment.

What is your criticism of the core of GNU/Linux, pray tell? I don't
mean a criticism of desktop Linux a la Mint or something, I mean the
kernel and foundational code. What is wrong with it? It's open
source, so you can even theoretically reference 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.

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

>Is that what overuse of Windows has done to your [DFS's] brain?

DFS uses Winblows well, as I did. The difference is, he's still doing
it, whereas I have permanently flushed M$. I gave *him* my product
key. That's how certain I am, that Win11 will never curse my
beautiful computer, again.

--
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, 11/16/2024 3:48 PM, Joel wrote:
> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11/16/2024 8:37 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:12:56 -0500, Joel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> even Apple's crap has Unix components.
>>>>
>>>> Not enough to count as a ?real? *nix any more -- if it ever did.
>>>
>>> I'm no Apple fan, but macOS isn't just *nix, i.e. 'unix'/'Unix', but
>>> actually UNIX.
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#Compliance>
>>
>> Didn't it have some relationship to Carnegie Melon "Mach" ?
>>
>> Maybe it's just a microkernel.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_%28kernel%29
>>
>> "Mach's derivatives are the basis of the operating system kernel
>> in GNU Hurd and of Apple's XNU kernel used in macOS, iOS, iPadOS,
>> tvOS, and watchOS."
>
>
> All remarkable projects, to be sure. And yet nothing in existence has
> bested Linus Torvalds' ingenious kernel. Linux is the king of
> kernels.
>

If you remember your history, the legacy MacOS used cooperative multitasking,
which made it an unstable piece of crap. I used to use "G Finder" twice
a day in MacsBug, in an attempt to save open documents before a reboot.

Preemptive multitasking was the solution. Companies had to find "something"
and there were already existing prototypes with the right ingredients
for a solution.

I have a copy of this in the house. I didn't use it very much, but
it's an example of something that referenced the CMU work too.

http://www.tenon.com/products/machten/

https://web.archive.org/web/19970621064148/http://www.tenon.com/products/machten/

"MachTen is the only Macintosh product that can turn your Macintosh into a complete
Unix workstation. Based on BSD4.4 and the Mach kernel, MachTen brings the power of
Unix to your desktop at an extremely attractive price point." OK :-)

Even Linus is unlikely to have thought up everything that passed
his desk. "Everybody copies everybody else, but just the good bits."

Our OS had RPC. As a hardware designer, I used to write code and
one of my little programming efforts was an exercise in using RPC.
Well, we didn't invent RPC, and just copied it from someone else.
Windows now, is so "married" to RPC, the OS cannot run without it
being present.

Paul

On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 20:09:56 -0500, Paul wrote:

> If you remember your history, the legacy MacOS used cooperative
> multitasking, which made it an unstable piece of crap.
>
> Preemptive multitasking was the solution.

No, the problem was it didn’t have memory protection. The Amiga had
preemptive multitasking, without memory protection, and it was just as
“unstable a piece of crap”, if not more so.

> "MachTen is the only Macintosh product that can turn your Macintosh
> into a complete Unix workstation.

Apple had A/UX some years before that.

> Our OS had RPC. As a hardware designer, I used to write code and one of
> my little programming efforts was an exercise in using RPC.
> Well, we didn't invent RPC, and just copied it from someone else.
> Windows now, is so "married" to RPC, the OS cannot run without it being
> present.

There are quite a few different RPC mechanisms around. There seems to be
no “ideal” one. Was yours high-level or low-level? That’s the first major
division between them (roughly).

On Sun, 17 Nov 2024 05:34:21 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 20:09:56 -0500, Paul wrote:
>
>> Our OS had RPC. As a hardware designer, I used to write code and one of
>> my little programming efforts was an exercise in using RPC.
>> Well, we didn't invent RPC, and just copied it from someone else.
>> Windows now, is so "married" to RPC, the OS cannot run without it being
>> present.
>
> There are quite a few different RPC mechanisms around. There seems to be
> no “ideal” one. Was yours high-level or low-level? That’s the first
> major division between them (roughly).

Oops, sorry, I misread that as “IPC”.

Have you read Andrew Tanenbaum’s “A Critique Of The Remote Procedure Call
Paradigm”?

<https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/Publications/Papers/euteco-1988.pdf>

On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 21:44:31 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <vhb3nu$7g3u$3@dont-email.me>:

> On 16 Nov 2024 13:37:04 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
>> In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:12:56 -0500, Joel wrote:
>>>
>>>> even Apple's crap has Unix components.
>>>
>>> Not enough to count as a “real” *nix any more -- if it ever did.
>>
>> I'm no Apple fan, but macOS isn't just *nix, i.e. 'unix'/'Unix', but
>> actually UNIX.
>
> So it’s an official trademark licensee (the last one still standing).
That
> doesn’t mean it works the way people expect when they think of “Unix”.

It is recognized that you have a funny sense of "Unix".

What does the Mac not do that "Unix" (as you call it[*]) can do?

$ ssh mac-studio.local
Last login: Sat Nov 16 22:46:27 2024 from 10.1.10.253
[...]
$ uptime
22:53 up 19 days, 11:34, 2 users, load averages: 1.37 1.25 1.31
[...]
$ uname -a
Darwin Mac-Studio 23.2.0 Darwin Kernel Version 23.2.0: Wed Nov 15 21:55:06
PST 2023; root:xnu-10002.61.3~2/RELEASE_ARM64_T6020 arm64
$ echo $SHELL
/bin/bash

It's a POSIX system -- annoyingly so at times, I prefer GNU tools
for the most part. (And they avoid them -- run "gcc" and you
get clang.)

But you keep saying it's "not Unix", when it most certainly
is by any objective examination.

[*] "Unix" has become a de-facto generic term, which you continue
to ignore with your archaism "*nix".

UNIX® is a registered trademark of The Open Group.

WARNING: This post must be quoted in full, with no snippage, for
replies to be taken seriously. Lawrence.

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.11.8 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
"File not found. Should I fake it? (Y/N)"

On 17 Nov 2024 07:05:15 GMT, vallor wrote:

> It is recognized that you have a funny sense of "Unix".

It’s not just me:

ldo@theon:blender> cat $(find . -name CMakeLists.txt) | grep -Fc 'if(UNIX AND NOT APPLE'
26
ldo@theon:blender> cat $(find . -name CMakeLists.txt) | grep -Fc 'if(UNIX)'
8

On Sun, 11/17/2024 2:23 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On 17 Nov 2024 07:05:15 GMT, vallor wrote:
>
>> It is recognized that you have a funny sense of "Unix".
>
> It’s not just me:
>
> ldo@theon:blender> cat $(find . -name CMakeLists.txt) | grep -Fc 'if(UNIX AND NOT APPLE'
> 26
> ldo@theon:blender> cat $(find . -name CMakeLists.txt) | grep -Fc 'if(UNIX)'
> 8
>

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/27660048/cmake-check-if-mac-os-x-use-apple-or-apple

"The CMake mailing lists mentions that this is not technically foolproof:
"Darwin is the Unix underpinnings of OS X and it is Open Source.
I could run a Darwin system and have it NOT be OS X.".
Other than APPLE, I couldn't find any strong alternatives.
"

It could be that UNIX (tm) is a trademark.
Unix is a descriptive term (BSD or SYSV).
And Darwin might well be the name of the OS in that example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28operating_system%29

...BSD

I don't recollect seeing "UNIX" as such in an old Makefile.
Keywords might be BSD4.3 BSD4.4 SYSV .

The Unix subsets can be mutually exclusive. Something you're
building could be mainly for BSD or mainly for SYSV, but not for both.

And that's if a build, even needs that kind of filtering during the build.
A Hello World sample program is unlikely to need any of that stuff.
Maybe if you're building a daemon or a system service, you need some
filtering.

APPLE is a good term, since that covers the many unique smells it has got.

Paul

sticks wrote:

>You're in a fuckhead class all your own, as you
>continue to prove.

+1

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.

> And that's if a build, even needs that kind of filtering during the
> build.

Blender is over a million lines of source code. Yes, it needs that kind of
discrimination.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> 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.

-highghorse thinks that not paying a hefty amount of money so that a
Linux distro may legally be called a "Unix" means that "any of the
customer-centric expectations of quality assurance" must be "lacking"

Yeah, -highhorse really is that much of a ridiculous, trolling
jackass.

>> And that's if a build, even needs that kind of filtering during the
>> build.
>
>Blender is over a million lines of source code. Yes, it needs that kind of
>discrimination.

Another example of great Free software that improves our world.
Facilitated by the great GPL.

--
Advocate: No linux distro was stupid enough to pay a hefty amount of
money (...) to be able to legally call a linux distro a "unix".

Lying asshole "-hh": And as a result, lacks any of the
customer-centric expectations of quality assurance

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.

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

[...]

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
[...]

> It could be that UNIX (tm) is a trademark.
> Unix is a descriptive term (BSD or SYSV).
> And Darwin might well be the name of the OS in that example.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28operating_system%29
>
> ...BSD
>
> I don't recollect seeing "UNIX" as such in an old Makefile.
> Keywords might be BSD4.3 BSD4.4 SYSV .

See the '(UNIX)' in my User-Agent header.

I don't know if that comes from a Makefile, nor if it comes from the
tin part or the Cygwin part.

It probably comes from tin as that seems to use 'UNIX' in several
(most? all?) places. If you want to find out for yourself, see tin.org.

[...]

On 18 Nov 2024 18:18:09 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> In any case, if you don't uppercase it ('UNIX'), you won't be
> infringing on the trademark.

Trademarks can be infringed if you have something that looks too close.
Would you really want to argue that “Unix” is distinct enough from “UNIX”?
I wouldn’t. And I’m not even a lawyer.

In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2024 18:18:09 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> > In any case, if you don't uppercase it ('UNIX'), you won't be
> > infringing on the trademark.
>
> Trademarks can be infringed if you have something that looks too close.
> Would you really want to argue that ?Unix? is distinct enough from ?UNIX??
> I wouldn?t. And I?m not even a lawyer.

Don't take my word for it. Read the Wikipedia page, especially the
'Branding' section. You'll see that 'Unix' is the preferred/recommended
usage.

On 11/19/24 7:00 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> On 18 Nov 2024 18:18:09 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>>> In any case, if you don't uppercase it ('UNIX'), you won't be
>>> infringing on the trademark.
>>
>> Trademarks can be infringed if you have something that looks too close.
>> Would you really want to argue that ?Unix? is distinct enough from ?UNIX??
>> I wouldn?t. And I?m not even a lawyer.
>
> Don't take my word for it. Read the Wikipedia page, especially the
> 'Branding' section. You'll see that 'Unix' is the preferred/recommended
> usage.

Seems that its become a 'Kleenex'-esque legality question.

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.
In the past, I've noted that its similar to how Underwriters Laboratory
(UL) or even the ancient "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval": an
independent assessment of product quality. Of course, these all have
both technical requirements as well as money spent to pay for it.

However ... given how there's increased reports of agents inserting
deliberately malicious code through GitHub into open source, from a
security standpoint it sounds like the traditional open source approach
needs to evolve to a much stronger "know your programmers". One obvious
& old school solution is to bring it in-house, both the code and to have
more readily vetted in-house programmers to make all changes.

-hh

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 10:02:02 -0500, -hh wrote:

>
> Seems that its become a 'Kleenex'-esque legality question.
>

Is that what you use to wipe your stinkin' ass?

Haaaaaa. ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Gotta keep the smell of fresh feces away from those
pecuniary halls.

Haaaaaa, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

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.