This article says “Apple approves driver that lets Nvidia eGPUs work
with Arm Macs” <https://www.theverge.com/tech/907003/apple-approves-driver-that-lets-nvidia-egpus-work-with-arm-macs>.
Note that you need to run Docker in order to actually build it for
your system.
But isn’t Docker a Linux-only technology?
That’s right: you will need a Linux-based container system installed
on your Mac in order to use this driver.
This article says “Apple approves driver that lets Nvidia eGPUs worknvidia-egpus-work-with-arm-macs>.
with Arm Macs” <https://www.theverge.com/tech/907003/apple-approves-driver-that-lets-
Note that you need to run Docker in order to actually build it for your system.
But isn’t Docker a Linux-only technology?
That’s right: you will need a Linux-based container system installed on your Mac in order to use this driver.
This article says “Apple approves driver that lets Nvidia eGPUs work
with Arm Macs” <https://www.theverge.com/tech/907003/apple-approves-driver-that-lets-nvidia-egpus-work-with-arm-macs>.
Note that you need to run Docker in order to actually build it for
your system.
But isn’t Docker a Linux-only technology?
That’s right: you will need a Linux-based container system installed
on your Mac in order to use this driver.
On 4/5/26 4:51 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
This article says “Apple approves driver that lets Nvidia eGPUs
work with Arm Macs”
<https://www.theverge.com/tech/907003/apple-approves-driver-that-lets-nvidia-egpus-work-with-arm-macs>.
Note that you need to run Docker in order to actually build it for
your system.
But isn’t Docker a Linux-only technology?
That’s right: you will need a Linux-based container system
installed on your Mac in order to use this driver.
So one tiny corner of non-standard Apple hardware ...
This article says “Apple approves driver that lets Nvidia eGPUs work
with Arm Macs” <https://www.theverge.com/tech/907003/apple-approves-driver-that-lets-nvidia-egpus-work-with-arm-macs>.
Note that you need to run Docker in order to actually build it for
your system.
But isn’t Docker a Linux-only technology?
That’s right: you will need a Linux-based container system installed
on your Mac in order to use this driver.
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 19:15:12 -0400, Tom Elam wrote:
On 4/5/26 4:51 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
This article says “Apple approves driver that lets Nvidia eGPUs
work with Arm Macs”
<https://www.theverge.com/tech/907003/apple-approves-driver-that-lets-nvidia-egpus-work-with-arm-macs>.
Note that you need to run Docker in order to actually build it for
your system.
But isn’t Docker a Linux-only technology?
That’s right: you will need a Linux-based container system
installed on your Mac in order to use this driver.
So one tiny corner of non-standard Apple hardware ...
Ummm ... you *do* know that NVidia is the biggest name in GPUs, right?
On 2026-04-05 16:43, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 19:15:12 -0400, Tom Elam wrote:
On 4/5/26 4:51 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
This article says “Apple approves driver that lets Nvidia eGPUs
work with Arm Macs”
<https://www.theverge.com/tech/907003/apple-approves-driver-that-lets-nvidia-egpus-work-with-arm-macs>.
Note that you need to run Docker in order to actually build it for
your system.
But isn’t Docker a Linux-only technology?
That’s right: you will need a Linux-based container system
installed on your Mac in order to use this driver.
So one tiny corner of non-standard Apple hardware ...
Ummm ... you *do* know that NVidia is the biggest name in GPUs, right?
Ummmmm...you *DO* know that this is still just one product, right?
His point is to try to make Apple look bad by noting where Apple
does things that make sense and help their customers.
The use of Docker to build Mac drivers highlights a healthy
partnership rather than a flaw. Since Docker is a Linux-native
technology, macOS runs it via a lightweight virtual machine to
ensure a consistent, error-free build environment.
On 06 Apr 2026 00:27:33 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
His point is to try to make Apple look bad by noting where Apple
does things that make sense and help their customers.
Not something they can do on their own any more, without help, it
appears ...
On 06 Apr 2026 00:07:24 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
The use of Docker to build Mac drivers highlights a healthy
partnership rather than a flaw. Since Docker is a Linux-native
technology, macOS runs it via a lightweight virtual machine to
ensure a consistent, error-free build environment.
The only thing “lightweight” about it is depending on Linux containers
to avoid the need to run multiple full VMs.
It would be even more “lightweight” if the macOS kernel could support
its own style of containers directly, and avoid the need for a full
Linux VM entirely.
But it can’t manage that, can it?
On Apr 5, 2026 at 5:36:18 PM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote <10quv61$1pi2v$4@dont-email.me>:
On 06 Apr 2026 00:27:33 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
His point is to try to make Apple look bad by noting where Apple
does things that make sense and help their customers.
Not something they can do on their own any more, without help, it
appears ...
MacOS is almost as filled with open source as you are with an
agenda.
On Apr 5, 2026 at 5:38:14 PM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote <10quv9l$1pi2v$5@dont-email.me>:
On 06 Apr 2026 00:07:24 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
The use of Docker to build Mac drivers highlights a healthy
partnership rather than a flaw. Since Docker is a Linux-native
technology, macOS runs it via a lightweight virtual machine to
ensure a consistent, error-free build environment.
The only thing “lightweight” about it is depending on Linux
containers to avoid the need to run multiple full VMs.
It would be even more “lightweight” if the macOS kernel could
support its own style of containers directly, and avoid the need
for a full Linux VM entirely.
But it can’t manage that, can it?
Who cares? The sad thing is you think you are making a point.
On 06 Apr 2026 04:47:13 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 5, 2026 at 5:38:14 PM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote
<10quv9l$1pi2v$5@dont-email.me>:
On 06 Apr 2026 00:07:24 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
The use of Docker to build Mac drivers highlights a healthy
partnership rather than a flaw. Since Docker is a Linux-native
technology, macOS runs it via a lightweight virtual machine to
ensure a consistent, error-free build environment.
The only thing “lightweight” about it is depending on Linux
containers to avoid the need to run multiple full VMs.
It would be even more “lightweight” if the macOS kernel could
support its own style of containers directly, and avoid the need
for a full Linux VM entirely.
But it can’t manage that, can it?
Who cares? The sad thing is you think you are making a point.
The sad thing is that you have been taken in by Apple’s marketing spin
on their increasing dependence on Linux.
What happened to Apple’s
homegrown technological innovation?
They are reduced to the point
where, like Microsoft, they have to try and squeeze more revenue out
of a declining platform, by any means necessary.
On 06 Apr 2026 04:46:31 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 5, 2026 at 5:36:18 PM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote
<10quv61$1pi2v$4@dont-email.me>:
On 06 Apr 2026 00:27:33 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
His point is to try to make Apple look bad by noting where Apple
does things that make sense and help their customers.
Not something they can do on their own any more, without help, it
appears ...
MacOS is almost as filled with open source as you are with an
agenda.
They abandoned Bash, because of some unexplainable allergy to GPLv3.
They abandoned GCC (which meant getting rid of Objective C), for the
same reason.
I think they don’t even support CUPS development any more.
What version of Python do you get with your macOS installation?
Again, you make my point. Linux is an exercise on fiddling around with >drivers to get stuff working. Ever hear of just Plug and Play?
Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> wrote:
Again, you make my point. Linux is an exercise on fiddling around with
drivers to get stuff working. Ever hear of just Plug and Play?
I have wasted WAY more time of my life to get things working on
Windows. Maybe the reason is that I base my hardware choice on whether
it is well supported on Linux. I have therefore just owned one nVidia graphics card, and that one was a pain in the ass.
On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 19:15:12 -0400, Tom Elam wrote:
On 4/5/26 4:51 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
This article says “Apple approves driver that lets Nvidia eGPUs
work with Arm Macs”
<https://www.theverge.com/tech/907003/apple-approves-driver-that-lets-nvidia-egpus-work-with-arm-macs>.
Note that you need to run Docker in order to actually build it for
your system.
But isn’t Docker a Linux-only technology?
That’s right: you will need a Linux-based container system
installed on your Mac in order to use this driver.
So one tiny corner of non-standard Apple hardware ...
Ummm ... you *do* know that NVidia is the biggest name in GPUs, right?
But I haven't touched windows beyond XP anyway.
Ive always used Nvidia cards and found that the Nvidia Linux drivers
work pretty well.
Until I discovered that Intel onboard was just as good.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
But I haven't touched windows beyond XP anyway.
Ive always used Nvidia cards and found that the Nvidia Linux drivers
work pretty well.
Until I discovered that Intel onboard was just as good.
The drivers for Intel onboard graphics are inside the kernel tree.
That is one order of magnitude less painful than nVidia.
Btw, I had to ditch the Nvidia Graphics Card because nVidia decided to
pull the plug on that particular chip. Thankfully the world around
that has developed in the mean time and I could connect two DVI
displays to the machine without nVidia then.
And my memory of secret magic spells buried deep in The Registry is
still vivid..
They abandoned Bash, because of some unexplainable allergy to GPLv3.
On 06 Apr 2026 00:27:33 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
His point is to try to make Apple look bad by noting where Apple
does things that make sense and help their customers.
Not something they can do on their own any more, without help, it
appears ...
On 2026-04-05 17:36, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On 06 Apr 2026 00:27:33 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
His point is to try to make Apple look bad by noting where Apple
does things that make sense and help their customers.
Not something they can do on their own any more, without help, it
appears ...
"Can do"? It's obvious bullshit to claim that Apple COULDN'T do it.
On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 11:08:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And my memory of secret magic spells buried deep in The Registry is
still vivid..
At one time I had a book that described the registry in detail.
There were many keys that could be set if you knew they existed. For example the cmd terminal emulator didn't have tab completion in
Windows 2000 but you could create the super secret key and set it to
1. It escapes me why that wasn't the default.
On 06 Apr 2026 04:46:31 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 5, 2026 at 5:36:18 PM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote
<10quv61$1pi2v$4@dont-email.me>:
On 06 Apr 2026 00:27:33 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
His point is to try to make Apple look bad by noting where Apple
does things that make sense and help their customers.
Not something they can do on their own any more, without help, it
appears ...
MacOS is almost as filled with open source as you are with an
agenda.
They abandoned Bash, because of some unexplainable allergy to GPLv3.
They abandoned GCC (which meant getting rid of Objective C), for the
same reason.
I think they don’t even support CUPS development any more.
What version of Python do you get with your macOS installation?
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-04-05 17:36, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On 06 Apr 2026 00:27:33 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
His point is to try to make Apple look bad by noting where Apple
does things that make sense and help their customers.
Not something they can do on their own any more, without help, it
appears ...
"Can do"? It's obvious bullshit to claim that Apple COULDN'T do it.
I don’t know why he’s so against open source. It’s weird.
In comp.os.linux.misc Brock McNuggets <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-04-05 17:36, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On 06 Apr 2026 00:27:33 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
His point is to try to make Apple look bad by noting where Apple
does things that make sense and help their customers.
Not something they can do on their own any more, without help, it
appears ...
"Can do"? It's obvious bullshit to claim that Apple COULDN'T do it.
I don’t know why he’s so against open source. It’s weird.
If you see a post authored by Lawrence, then the post is more often
than not a trolling post.
It is generally best to add the "Lawrence D’Oliveiro" nick to your killfile and simply ignore its rants from underneath its bridge.
If you see a post authored by Lawrence, then the post is more often+1
than not a trolling post.
It is generally best to add the "Lawrence D’Oliveiro" nick to your
killfile and simply ignore its rants from underneath its bridge.
This article says “Apple approves driver that lets Nvidia eGPUs work
with Arm Macs” <https://www.theverge.com/tech/907003/apple-approves-driver-that-lets-nvidia-egpus-work-with-arm-macs>.
Note that you need to run Docker in order to actually build it for
your system.
But isn’t Docker a Linux-only technology?
That’s right: you will need a Linux-based container system installed
on your Mac in order to use this driver.
It's an incredibly Byzantine line of reasoning in service of a point that...well, to be perfectly honest, I have no *idea* what his point is supposed to be o_OBut isn’t Docker a Linux-only technology?
That’s right: you will need a Linux-based container system installed
on your Mac in order to use this driver.
The only thing Apple have done here, AFAICT, is approve a third-party
driver. They have no involvement in how it gets built. The fact that tinycorp’s build chain uses Docker tells you nothing about whether it
could be built without it.
On Mon, 06 Apr 2026 20:10:18 +0100
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
But isn’t Docker a Linux-only technology?
That’s right: you will need a Linux-based container system installed
on your Mac in order to use this driver.
The only thing Apple have done here, AFAICT, is approve a third-party
driver. They have no involvement in how it gets built. The fact that
tinycorp’s build chain uses Docker tells you nothing about whether it
could be built without it.
It's an incredibly Byzantine line of reasoning in service of a point that...well, to be perfectly honest, I have no *idea* what his point is supposed to be o_O
On Apr 6, 2026 at 12:08:20 AM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote <10qvm54$1uf62$4@dont-email.me>:
On 06 Apr 2026 04:46:31 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
MacOS is almost as filled with open source as you are with an
agenda.
They abandoned Bash, because of some unexplainable allergy to GPLv3.
They have no obligation to use bash.
They abandoned GCC (which meant getting rid of Objective C), for
the same reason.
And?
What version of Python do you get with your macOS installation?
Don't know / don't care -- which you will twist to be bad.
On 06 Apr 2026 09:06:12 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 6, 2026 at 12:08:20 AM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote
<10qvm54$1uf62$4@dont-email.me>:
On 06 Apr 2026 04:46:31 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
MacOS is almost as filled with open source as you are with an
agenda.
They abandoned Bash, because of some unexplainable allergy to GPLv3.
They have no obligation to use bash.
Only the most popular *nix shell in the world? But then, macOS isn’t
really a *nix system, is it?
So, what shell do they offer instead? Why is it preferable to Bash?
They abandoned GCC (which meant getting rid of Objective C), for
the same reason.
And?
And tried to push their developers to use an entirely new, proprietary language.
What version of Python do you get with your macOS installation?
Don't know / don't care -- which you will twist to be bad.
Not only preinstalling an out-of-date version of Python, but risking incompatibilies if the user tried to install a more up-to-date version
from a third-party source.
You described macOS as “filled with open source”. “Filled with out-of-date, less popular open source that users didn’t ask for” might
be a better description.
On Apr 6, 2026 at 12:10:40 AM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote <10qvm9g$1uf62$5@dont-email.me>:
The sad thing is that you have been taken in by Apple’s marketing
spin on their increasing dependence on Linux.
You have yet to show where using open source is bad.
On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 11:08:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And my memory of secret magic spells buried deep in The Registry is
still vivid..
At one time I had a book that described the registry in detail. There were many keys that could be set if you knew they existed. For example the cmd terminal emulator didn't have tab completion in Windows 2000 but you could create the super secret key and set it to 1. It escapes me why that wasn't the default.
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
This article says “Apple approves driver that lets Nvidia eGPUs work
with Arm Macs”
<https://www.theverge.com/tech/907003/apple-approves-driver-that-lets-nvidia-egpus-work-with-arm-macs>.
Note that you need to run Docker in order to actually build it for
your system.
But isn’t Docker a Linux-only technology?
That’s right: you will need a Linux-based container system installed
on your Mac in order to use this driver.
The only thing Apple have done here, AFAICT, is approve a third-party
driver. They have no involvement in how it gets built. The fact that tinycorp’s build chain uses Docker tells you nothing about whether it
could be built without it.
On Mon, 06 Apr 2026 20:10:18 +0100
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
But isn’t Docker a Linux-only technology?
That’s right: you will need a Linux-based container system installed
on your Mac in order to use this driver.
The only thing Apple have done here, AFAICT, is approve a third-party
driver. They have no involvement in how it gets built. The fact that
tinycorp’s build chain uses Docker tells you nothing about whether it
could be built without it.
It's an incredibly Byzantine line of reasoning in service of a point that...well, to be perfectly honest, I have no *idea* what his point is supposed to be o_O
Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> wrote:
Again, you make my point. Linux is an exercise on fiddling around with >>drivers to get stuff working. Ever hear of just Plug and Play?
I have wasted WAY more time of my life to get things working on
Windows. Maybe the reason is that I base my hardware choice on whether
it is well supported on Linux. I have therefore just owned one nVidia graphics card, and that one was a pain in the ass.
What happened to Apple’s homegrown technological innovation? They are reduced to the point where, like Microsoft, they have to try and
squeeze more revenue out of a declining platform, by any means
necessary.
On 2026-04-06 12:15, John Ames wrote:
On Mon, 06 Apr 2026 20:10:18 +0100
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
But isn’t Docker a Linux-only technology?
That’s right: you will need a Linux-based container system installed >>>> on your Mac in order to use this driver.
The only thing Apple have done here, AFAICT, is approve a third-party
driver. They have no involvement in how it gets built. The fact that
tinycorp’s build chain uses Docker tells you nothing about whether it
could be built without it.
It's an incredibly Byzantine line of reasoning in service of a point
that...well, to be perfectly honest, I have no *idea* what his point is
supposed to be o_O
"It's Apple and therefore automatically bad!"
:-)
On 06 Apr 2026 09:01:31 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 6, 2026 at 12:10:40 AM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote
<10qvm9g$1uf62$5@dont-email.me>:
The sad thing is that you have been taken in by Apple’s marketing
spin on their increasing dependence on Linux.
You have yet to show where using open source is bad.
Strawman, much?
Embracing open source is one thing
(though it would be nice if Apple
could contribute back more rather than just taking).
But when you have
to adopt an entire extra OS, when you are supposed to already have
your own --
that’s an admission that your own OS is simply not up to
scratch any more.
On 2026-04-06, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
What happened to Apple’s homegrown technological innovation? They are
reduced to the point where, like Microsoft, they have to try and
squeeze more revenue out of a declining platform, by any means
necessary.
Maybe that's not a bad thing, given the bad impact Apple has had in the smartphone usability field, "buttons are bad" and promoting UI
inconsistency.
Microsoft, however, gets to offer a higher priced windows for the
extremely difficult effort of "toggling on a flag using a secret
registry key".
We had the Amiga system manuals in the Public Library.appliance
Still the people with disposable income went to MacOS on the
styled MacIntoshes and stayed there. I did not have much disposable
income but when Pacific Stereo of blessed memory had a sale on C=64s I
got one and a 1541 5.25"
floppy disk drive.
Only the most popular *nix shell in the world? But then, macOS isn’t
really a *nix system, is it?
On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 20:35:08 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
Only the most popular *nix shell in the world? But then, macOS isn’t
really a *nix system, is it?
You might want to leave out the *. I used tcsh, or ksh, before it became apparent the Linux world was defaulting to bash. Bash is a GNU project creation.
On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 14:59:00 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
We had the Amiga system manuals in the Public Library.appliance
Still the people with disposable income went to MacOS on the
styled MacIntoshes and stayed there. I did not have much disposable
income but when Pacific Stereo of blessed memory had a sale on C=64s I
got one and a 1541 5.25"
floppy disk drive.
I never did anything with the C64, just the PET. The PETs claim to fame
was its HPIB (IEEE-488) buss, If you wanted to gather process information from HP instrumentation you could buy a $3000 HP computer* -- or a PET. Sprague Electric chose PETs. Besides the techs could play games on a PET
and I doubt the HPs were very good for that.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Series_80
Seems there was a game pack available. Must have been thrilling on the
85B.
Windows-world also has that adorable trend of shipping drivers enclosed
in some installation software that then proceeds with broken version
checks, such as complaining it's for Windows 7 (NT 6.1) while running on >2008R2 (NT 6.1). Or even a newer trend of requiring .NET frameworks to
run the installer.
On 06 Apr 2026 04:46:31 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
"Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote <10quv61$1pi2v$4@dont-email.me>:
On 06 Apr 2026 00:27:33 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
His point is to try to make Apple look bad by noting where Apple
does things that make sense and help their customers.
Not something they can do on their own any more, without help, it
appears ...
MacOS is almost as filled with open source as you are with an
agenda.
They abandoned Bash, because of some unexplainable allergy to GPLv3.
They abandoned GCC (which meant getting rid of Objective C), for the
same reason.
"It's Apple and therefore automatically bad!"
🙂
I also played Mahjong solitaire on the Amiga and still play it via both
KCE and Gnome versions.
Bash, Good! I used it a bit earlier today. Windows, Stinky!
On Apr 6, 2026 at 5:04:18 PM MST, "Nuno Silva" wrote <10r1hm3$2eugg$6@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-04-06, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
What happened to Apple’s homegrown technological innovation? They are
reduced to the point where, like Microsoft, they have to try and
squeeze more revenue out of a declining platform, by any means
necessary.
Maybe that's not a bad thing, given the bad impact Apple has had in the
smartphone usability field, "buttons are bad" and promoting UI
inconsistency.
What inconsistencies are you thinking of?
And what more buttons should they--
have? My phone has:
Right side
* Side button (power)
Turn screen on/off
Hold for Siri or power menu
* Camera Control button
Opens camera instantly
Light press = focus / controls
Hard press = photos search mode
Press with camera open = take photo
Swipe = zoom, adjust settings 
Left side
* Action Button (customizable)
* Volume Up
* Volume Down
Bottom
* No buttons but does have the USB-C port and speakers
Top
* No buttons
How many more do you think I need? LOL!
On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 20:30:43 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
I also played Mahjong solitaire on the Amiga and still play it via both
KCE and Gnome versions.
That and Klondike are the extent of my gaming. Years back I bought an XBox 360. A few games were okay, others I couldn't get into. Back in the dark
ages of Centipede I could be bested by the average 10 year old.
Besides the techs could play games on a PET and I doubt the HPs were
very good for that.
On the Amigas i had, I played Angband and CathAnband but the modern processors are too fast for the cheats I used to get to the ultmate
dungeon. 100 random levels down and just as horrid as the levels full
of zombies, ghouls, vampires and more horrific creatures who could
detect you as soon as you hit the level.
On 06 Apr 2026 09:06:12 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 6, 2026 at 12:08:20 AM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote
<10qvm54$1uf62$4@dont-email.me>:
On 06 Apr 2026 04:46:31 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
MacOS is almost as filled with open source as you are with an
agenda.
They abandoned Bash, because of some unexplainable allergy to GPLv3.
They have no obligation to use bash.
Only the most popular *nix shell in the world? But then, macOS isn’t
really a *nix system, is it?
So, what shell do they offer instead? Why is it preferable to Bash?
They abandoned GCC (which meant getting rid of Objective C), for
the same reason.
And?
And tried to push their developers to use an entirely new, proprietary language.
What version of Python do you get with your macOS installation?
Don't know / don't care -- which you will twist to be bad.
Not only preinstalling an out-of-date version of Python, but risking incompatibilies if the user tried to install a more up-to-date version
from a third-party source.
You described macOS as “filled with open source”. “Filled with out-of-date, less popular open source that users didn’t ask for” might
be a better description.
On 06 Apr 2026 09:01:31 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 6, 2026 at 12:10:40 AM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote
<10qvm9g$1uf62$5@dont-email.me>:
The sad thing is that you have been taken in by Apple’s marketing
spin on their increasing dependence on Linux.
You have yet to show where using open source is bad.
Strawman, much?
Embracing open source is one thing (though it would be nice if Apple
could contribute back more rather than just taking). But when you have
to adopt an entire extra OS, when you are supposed to already have
your own -- that’s an admission that your own OS is simply not up to scratch any more.
On 2026-04-06, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
What happened to Apple’s homegrown technological innovation? They are
reduced to the point where, like Microsoft, they have to try and
squeeze more revenue out of a declining platform, by any means
necessary.
Maybe that's not a bad thing, given the bad impact Apple has had in the smartphone usability field, "buttons are bad" and promoting UI
inconsistency.
On 2026-04-07, Brock McNuggets wrote:Again, you cannot be serious.
On Apr 6, 2026 at 5:04:18 PM MST, "Nuno Silva" wrote
<10r1hm3$2eugg$6@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-04-06, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
What happened to Apple’s homegrown technological innovation? They are >>>> reduced to the point where, like Microsoft, they have to try and
squeeze more revenue out of a declining platform, by any means
necessary.
Maybe that's not a bad thing, given the bad impact Apple has had in the
smartphone usability field, "buttons are bad" and promoting UI
inconsistency.
What inconsistencies are you thinking of?
Doing away with the concept of consistency itself, which is of great
value in UI design and usability:
«We’re gonna start with a revolutionary user interface. Now why do
we need a revolutionary user interface? I mean, Here’s four
smartphones. And what’s wrong with their user interfaces? They all
have these keyboards that are there whether you need them or
not. And they all have these control buttons that are fixed in
plastic and are the same for every application. Well, every
application wants a slightly different user interface, a slightly
optimized set of buttons, just for it.»
As quoted in [1].; What's silly is that it's really what you'd want to
avoid, you'd want the buttons to be as uniform as possible, and to share
as much as possible between different applications. And having fixed
plastic (or some other material) buttons for such application
interaction is a plus, not a minus. It will remove what could be screen
area, but it sounds to me Jobs wasn't alluding at that specifically.
On 2026-04-06 17:04, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-04-06, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
What happened to Apple’s homegrown technological innovation? They are
reduced to the point where, like Microsoft, they have to try and
squeeze more revenue out of a declining platform, by any means
necessary.
Maybe that's not a bad thing, given the bad impact Apple has had in the
smartphone usability field, "buttons are bad" and promoting UI
inconsistency.
Are you serious?
Apple set the standard that pretty much every smartphone now uses for UI (i.e. an all touchscreen interface)
If it's so bad, why has no company not developed a better one?
On 4/7/26 08:46, Alan wrote:That doesn't answer the question.
On 2026-04-06 17:04, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-04-06, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
What happened to Apple’s homegrown technological innovation? They are >>>> reduced to the point where, like Microsoft, they have to try and
squeeze more revenue out of a declining platform, by any means
necessary.
Maybe that's not a bad thing, given the bad impact Apple has had in the
smartphone usability field, "buttons are bad" and promoting UI
inconsistency.
Are you serious?
Apple set the standard that pretty much every smartphone now uses for
UI (i.e. an all touchscreen interface)
If it's so bad, why has no company not developed a better one?
There are Linux cell phones and the good ones cost a lot plus Apple and
Android get the majority of the press. Same is true of tablets.
So popularity is what's important in deciding what is and is NOT Unix?
Klondike has a version with 3 cards turned at time which was used in
gambling halls where you paid for the shuffled deck and the man to watch
you not cheat. I played it an awful lot in my apartment before computers
came into my life and wore the pips off some of the cards. Now I play
it without the complications of three cards at a time. And know very
well what rotten odds you get for that $50 deck.
On 2026-04-06 17:04, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-04-06, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
What happened to Apple’s homegrown technological innovation? They are
reduced to the point where, like Microsoft, they have to try and
squeeze more revenue out of a declining platform, by any means
necessary.
Maybe that's not a bad thing, given the bad impact Apple has had in the
smartphone usability field, "buttons are bad" and promoting UI
inconsistency.
Are you serious?
Apple set the standard that pretty much every smartphone now uses for UI (i.e. an all touchscreen interface)
If it's so bad, why has no company not developed a better one?
On 2026-04-07, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 6, 2026 at 5:04:18 PM MST, "Nuno Silva" wrote
<10r1hm3$2eugg$6@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-04-06, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
What happened to Apple’s homegrown technological innovation? They are >>>> reduced to the point where, like Microsoft, they have to try and
squeeze more revenue out of a declining platform, by any means
necessary.
Maybe that's not a bad thing, given the bad impact Apple has had in the
smartphone usability field, "buttons are bad" and promoting UI
inconsistency.
What inconsistencies are you thinking of?
Doing away with the concept of consistency itself, which is of great
value in UI design and usability:
«We’re gonna start with a revolutionary user interface. Now why do
we need a revolutionary user interface? I mean, Here’s four
smartphones. And what’s wrong with their user interfaces? They all
have these keyboards that are there whether you need them or
not. And they all have these control buttons that are fixed in
plastic and are the same for every application. Well, every
application wants a slightly different user interface, a slightly
optimized set of buttons, just for it.»
As quoted in [1].; What's silly is that it's really what you'd want to
avoid, you'd want the buttons to be as uniform as possible, and to share
as much as possible between different applications.
And having fixed
plastic (or some other material) buttons for such application
interaction is a plus, not a minus. It will remove what could be screen
area, but it sounds to me Jobs wasn't alluding at that specifically.
[1] https://medium.com/@stuartgannes/why-do-we-need-a-revolutionary-user-interface-58aa0fb8184--
And what more buttons should they
have? My phone has:
Right side
* Side button (power)
Turn screen on/off
Hold for Siri or power menu
* Camera Control button
Opens camera instantly
Light press = focus / controls
Hard press = photos search mode
Press with camera open = take photo
Swipe = zoom, adjust settings 
Left side
* Action Button (customizable)
* Volume Up
* Volume Down
Bottom
* No buttons but does have the USB-C port and speakers
Top
* No buttons
How many more do you think I need? LOL!
On 2026-04-06 14:52, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On 06 Apr 2026 09:01:31 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 6, 2026 at 12:10:40 AM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote
<10qvm9g$1uf62$5@dont-email.me>:
The sad thing is that you have been taken in by Apple’s marketing
spin on their increasing dependence on Linux.
You have yet to show where using open source is bad.
Strawman, much?
Embracing open source is one thing (though it would be nice if Apple
could contribute back more rather than just taking). But when you have
to adopt an entire extra OS, when you are supposed to already have
your own -- that’s an admission that your own OS is simply not up to
scratch any more.
You mean other than:
WebKit (which was forked and became the basis for Chrome)
LLVM and Clang
The Swift programming language
CUPS (Common Unix Printing System)
mDNS/Zeroconf
Grand Central Dispatch
MLX
FoundationDB
And of course the entire core of macOS is Darwin...
...which is open source.
On 2026-04-06 13:35, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On 06 Apr 2026 09:06:12 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 6, 2026 at 12:08:20 AM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote
<10qvm54$1uf62$4@dont-email.me>:
On 06 Apr 2026 04:46:31 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
MacOS is almost as filled with open source as you are with an
agenda.
They abandoned Bash, because of some unexplainable allergy to GPLv3.
They have no obligation to use bash.
Only the most popular *nix shell in the world? But then, macOS isn’t
really a *nix system, is it?
So popularity is what's important in deciding what is and is NOT Unix?
So, what shell do they offer instead? Why is it preferable to Bash?
zsh is now the default shell for macOS.
And it's got basically everything bash has plus:
Programmable command-line completion that can help the user type both
options and arguments for most used commands, with out-of-the-box
support for several hundred commands
Sharing of command history among all running shells
Extended file globbing allows file specification without needing to run
an external program such as find
Improved variable/array handling (non-zero-based numbering)
Editing of multi-line commands in a single buffer
Spelling correction and autofill of command names (and optionally
arguments, presumably file names)
Various compatibility modes, e.g. Zsh can pretend to be a Bourne shell
when run as /bin/sh
Themeable prompts, including the ability to put prompt information on
the right side of the screen and have it auto-hide when typing a long
command
Loadable modules, providing among other things: full TCP and Unix domain socket controls, an FTP client, and extended math functions.
The built-in where command. Works like the which command but shows all locations of the target command in the directories specified in $PATH
rather than only the one that will be used.
Named directories. This allows the user to set up shortcuts such as
~mydir, which then behave the way ~ and ~user do.
Widgets. Both built and implemented by ordinary functions widgets can be bound to hotkeys.
Function autoloading. A performance optimization for function that might
be pre-loaded and run on demand. The intent of loading functions as
separate file is also to support function features across different zsh versions.
That was all from Wikipedia, but this:
"Zsh, in my opinion, appears to be more efficient because it is a newer
shell designed to be an extended version of Bash. Zsh adds some features
that are well-executed and well-liked by the majority of users. As a
result, it was bound to gain the popularity that it now enjoys. Zsh has
more features than Bash, such as advanced globbing, different startup
file configurations, and so on."
<https://linuxsimply.com/bash-scripting-tutorial/introduction/bash-vs-zsh/>
Note the source.
They abandoned GCC (which meant getting rid of Objective C), for
the same reason.
And?
And tried to push their developers to use an entirely new, proprietary
language.
And?
What version of Python do you get with your macOS installation?
Don't know / don't care -- which you will twist to be bad.
Not only preinstalling an out-of-date version of Python, but risking
incompatibilies if the user tried to install a more up-to-date version
from a third-party source.
You described macOS as “filled with open source”. “Filled with
out-of-date, less popular open source that users didn’t ask for” might >> be a better description.
It's funny how you complain (in the same post no less) that:
Apple doesn't give you enough choice ("push[ing] their developers to an
new language")
and that the don't make choices for you.
On 2026-04-07 09:43, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
That doesn't answer the question.
On 4/7/26 08:46, Alan wrote:
On 2026-04-06 17:04, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-04-06, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
What happened to Apple’s homegrown technological innovation? They are >>>>> reduced to the point where, like Microsoft, they have to try and
squeeze more revenue out of a declining platform, by any means
necessary.
Maybe that's not a bad thing, given the bad impact Apple has had in the >>>> smartphone usability field, "buttons are bad" and promoting UI
inconsistency.
Are you serious?
Apple set the standard that pretty much every smartphone now uses for
UI (i.e. an all touchscreen interface)
If it's so bad, why has no company not developed a better one?
There are Linux cell phones and the good ones cost a lot plus
Apple and
Android get the majority of the press. Same is true of tablets.
The previous poster suggested that Apple has negatively affect
"smartphone usability".
Do any of those Linux cell phones have a markedly different approach to their UIs? I'm doubting it.
On 07/04/2026 16:46, Alan wrote:
On 2026-04-06 17:04, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-04-06, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
What happened to Apple’s homegrown technological innovation? They are >>>> reduced to the point where, like Microsoft, they have to try and
squeeze more revenue out of a declining platform, by any means
necessary.
Maybe that's not a bad thing, given the bad impact Apple has had in the
smartphone usability field, "buttons are bad" and promoting UI
inconsistency.
Are you serious?
Apple set the standard that pretty much every smartphone now uses for
UI (i.e. an all touchscreen interface)
If it's so bad, why has no company not developed a better one?
It is not in any company's interest to make things better for anyone
except their management and shareholders
This article says “Apple approves driver that lets Nvidia eGPUs work
with Arm Macs” <https://www.theverge.com/tech/907003/apple-approves-driver-that-lets-nvidia-egpus-work-with-arm-macs>.
Note that you need to run Docker in order to actually build it for
your system.
But isn’t Docker a Linux-only technology?
That’s right: you will need a Linux-based container system installed
on your Mac in order to use this driver.
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
This article says “Apple approves driver that lets Nvidia eGPUs work
with Arm Macs”
<https://www.theverge.com/tech/907003/apple-approves-driver-that-lets-nvidia-egpus-work-with-arm-macs>.
Note that you need to run Docker in order to actually build it for
your system.
But isn’t Docker a Linux-only technology?
That’s right: you will need a Linux-based container system installed
on your Mac in order to use this driver.
This entire thread is bonecrushingly stupid.
Apple uses the same CAE, CFD, Electromagnetic, and EDA etc. solvers as everyone else in the consumer electronics and manufacturing industries
to design these products.
Everyone in the industry uses these solvers to design their products,
and they all run best on mainstream Linux distributions, so that's
where they run them.
This matters exactly as much as the fact that their products are shipped around the world in ISO shipping containers.
That anyone thinks this is some sort of "gotcha" proves that *.advocacy newsgroups are as pointless as they were in the 1990s (the last time
I bothered poking my head in here.)
On 2026-04-07 12:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It is not in any company's interest to make things better for anyone
except their management and shareholders
That is complete nonsense.
It is in a company's interest to make their products better than their competitors' products...and vice versa.
On 2026-04-07, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-04-07 12:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It is not in any company's interest to make things better for anyone
except their management and shareholders
+1
That is complete nonsense.
It is in a company's interest to make their products better than their
competitors' products...and vice versa.
FSVO "better". Their product is better if it makes them more money.
It doesn't matter what the customers think, as long as they buy it.
I've heard this referred to as "trout management" - dangle somethingAh!
shiny with a hook in it in front of them, and they'll bite every time.
On Apr 7, 2026 at 8:39:03 AM MST, "Alan" wrote <10r38en$2t5kl$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-04-06 13:35, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On 06 Apr 2026 09:06:12 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 6, 2026 at 12:08:20 AM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote
<10qvm54$1uf62$4@dont-email.me>:
On 06 Apr 2026 04:46:31 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
MacOS is almost as filled with open source as you are with an
agenda.
They abandoned Bash, because of some unexplainable allergy to GPLv3.
They have no obligation to use bash.
Only the most popular *nix shell in the world? But then, macOS isn’t
really a *nix system, is it?
So popularity is what's important in deciding what is and is NOT Unix?
And macOS is the most popular CONSUMER Unix.
So, what shell do they offer instead? Why is it preferable to Bash?
zsh is now the default shell for macOS.
And it's got basically everything bash has plus:
Programmable command-line completion that can help the user type both
options and arguments for most used commands, with out-of-the-box
support for several hundred commands
Sharing of command history among all running shells
Extended file globbing allows file specification without needing to run
an external program such as find
Improved variable/array handling (non-zero-based numbering)
Editing of multi-line commands in a single buffer
Spelling correction and autofill of command names (and optionally
arguments, presumably file names)
Various compatibility modes, e.g. Zsh can pretend to be a Bourne shell
when run as /bin/sh
Themeable prompts, including the ability to put prompt information on
the right side of the screen and have it auto-hide when typing a long
command
Loadable modules, providing among other things: full TCP and Unix domain
socket controls, an FTP client, and extended math functions.
The built-in where command. Works like the which command but shows all
locations of the target command in the directories specified in $PATH
rather than only the one that will be used.
Named directories. This allows the user to set up shortcuts such as
~mydir, which then behave the way ~ and ~user do.
Widgets. Both built and implemented by ordinary functions widgets can be
bound to hotkeys.
Function autoloading. A performance optimization for function that might
be pre-loaded and run on demand. The intent of loading functions as
separate file is also to support function features across different zsh
versions.
That was all from Wikipedia, but this:
"Zsh, in my opinion, appears to be more efficient because it is a newer
shell designed to be an extended version of Bash. Zsh adds some features
that are well-executed and well-liked by the majority of users. As a
result, it was bound to gain the popularity that it now enjoys. Zsh has
more features than Bash, such as advanced globbing, different startup
file configurations, and so on."
<https://linuxsimply.com/bash-scripting-tutorial/introduction/bash-vs-zsh/> >>
Note the source.
Good to know. Thanks.
They abandoned GCC (which meant getting rid of Objective C), for
the same reason.
And?
And tried to push their developers to use an entirely new, proprietary
language.
And?
I am not a developer but have not heard any complain about this.
What version of Python do you get with your macOS installation?
Don't know / don't care -- which you will twist to be bad.
Not only preinstalling an out-of-date version of Python, but risking
incompatibilies if the user tried to install a more up-to-date version
from a third-party source.
You described macOS as “filled with open source”. “Filled with
out-of-date, less popular open source that users didn’t ask for” might >>> be a better description.
It's funny how you complain (in the same post no less) that:
Apple doesn't give you enough choice ("push[ing] their developers to an
new language")
and that the don't make choices for you.
He has no real point.
On 2026-04-07, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
It is in a company's interest to make their products better than
their competitors' products...and vice versa.
FSVO "better". Their product is better if it makes them more money.
It doesn't matter what the customers think, as long as they buy it.
I've heard this referred to as "trout management" - dangle something
shiny with a hook in it in front of them, and they'll bite every
time.
Apple uses the same CAE, CFD, Electromagnetic, and EDA etc. solvers
as everyone else in the consumer electronics and manufacturing
industries to design these products.
Everyone in the industry uses these solvers to design their
products, and they all run best on mainstream Linux distributions,
so that's where they run them.
This entire thread is bonecrushingly stupid.
You see, when Apple uses and supports open source it is bad. When they do not it is bad. Lawrence has no actual point.
I have no idea as I cannot afford a cell phone in my present
circumstances. Maybe in 2027 or 2028 I will have enough spare change
if I live so long and someone takes the wind out of Trump's
inflations.
It is not in any company's interest to make things better for anyone
except their management and shareholders
That is complete nonsense.
It is in a company's interest to make their products better than their competitors' products...and vice versa.
FSVO "better". Their product is better if it makes them more money.
It doesn't matter what the customers think, as long as they buy it.
I've heard this referred to as "trout management" - dangle something
shiny with a hook in it in front of them, and they'll bite every time.
bliss - we only have a short time to live why waste it responding to a Troll.
So how many Mac users hang out in the shell?
Very few compared to Linux and Windows.
On 08/04/2026 03:52, Denny wrote:
So how many Mac users hang out in the shell?
Very few compared to Linux and Windows.
And your source is?
On 08/04/2026 11:51, John Bokma wrote:
On 08/04/2026 03:52, Denny wrote:In my case, experience.
So how many Mac users hang out in the shell?
Very few compared to Linux and Windows.
And your source is?
All the Mac uses I know are people who would *describe* themselves as intelligent, but not technical at all.
And Apple is actually tailored to that exact market
- Visually attractive and superficially sophisticated
- Reassuringly expensive
- Simple to use and disallows you from doing anything that might 'wreck it'
- Used by your liberal ArtStudent™ peers as it confirms the
intelligence of their choice.
It is the Volvo of the computer world.
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 18:30:16 -0400, trapper wrote:
Apple uses the same CAE, CFD, Electromagnetic, and EDA etc. solvers
as everyone else in the consumer electronics and manufacturing
industries to design these products.
Everyone in the industry uses these solvers to design their
products, and they all run best on mainstream Linux distributions,
so that's where they run them.
Really?? Didn’t they run on Windows, once a upon a time? Some even on
Mac? Are those days gone?
This entire thread is bonecrushingly stupid.
This sounds very much like a “sour grapes” response: products that don’t run on your platform are somehow less valuable
And so, having to tack on an entire competing platform
extra bag on the side of your own platform, just as a clumsy way to
get access to these products that are not available any other way, is
somehow not a big admission of defeat at all, but somehow a clever
thing to do, even though other platforms had figured it out long ago.
On 08/04/2026 11:51, John Bokma wrote:
On 08/04/2026 03:52, Denny wrote:In my case, experience.
So how many Mac users hang out in the shell?
Very few compared to Linux and Windows.
And your source is?
All the Mac uses I know are people who would *describe* themselves as intelligent, but not technical at all.
And Apple is actually tailored to that exact market
- Visually attractive and superficially sophisticated
- Reassuringly expensive
- Simple to use and disallows you from doing anything that might 'wreck it'
- Used by your liberal ArtStudent™ peers as it confirms the
intelligence of their choice.
It is the Volvo of the computer world.
On 07/04/2026 20:37, Brock McNuggets wrote:
You see, when Apple uses and supports open source it is bad. When they do not
it is bad. Lawrence has no actual point.
Oh I think he as a point.
Apple bad, everything else good.
As I said, its a fair starting point....
"Clever science man say new shiny thing make everything good" (The Daily Mash)
On 07 Apr 2026 19:38:24 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 7, 2026 at 8:39:03 AM MST, "Alan" wrote
<10r38en$2t5kl$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-04-06 13:35, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On 06 Apr 2026 09:06:12 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 6, 2026 at 12:08:20 AM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote
<10qvm54$1uf62$4@dont-email.me>:
On 06 Apr 2026 04:46:31 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:They have no obligation to use bash.
MacOS is almost as filled with open source as you are with an
agenda.
They abandoned Bash, because of some unexplainable allergy to GPLv3. >>>>>
Only the most popular *nix shell in the world? But then, macOS isn’t >>>> really a *nix system, is it?
So popularity is what's important in deciding what is and is NOT Unix?
And macOS is the most popular CONSUMER Unix.
If you stumbled into say Starbucks which seems to attract Mac users
for some reason and at random asked 10 of them if they know what OS
Macos or OSX is based upon I'd be surprised if you found a single
person who would know.
And rightfully so. Apple's market is targeted at USERS not bit
twiddlers. Sure there are exceptions but they are few.
So, what shell do they offer instead? Why is it preferable to Bash?
zsh is now the default shell for macOS.
And it's got basically everything bash has plus:
Programmable command-line completion that can help the user type both
options and arguments for most used commands, with out-of-the-box
support for several hundred commands
Sharing of command history among all running shells
Extended file globbing allows file specification without needing to run
an external program such as find
Improved variable/array handling (non-zero-based numbering)
Editing of multi-line commands in a single buffer
Spelling correction and autofill of command names (and optionally
arguments, presumably file names)
Various compatibility modes, e.g. Zsh can pretend to be a Bourne shell
when run as /bin/sh
Themeable prompts, including the ability to put prompt information on
the right side of the screen and have it auto-hide when typing a long
command
Loadable modules, providing among other things: full TCP and Unix domain >>> socket controls, an FTP client, and extended math functions.
The built-in where command. Works like the which command but shows all
locations of the target command in the directories specified in $PATH
rather than only the one that will be used.
Named directories. This allows the user to set up shortcuts such as
~mydir, which then behave the way ~ and ~user do.
Widgets. Both built and implemented by ordinary functions widgets can be >>> bound to hotkeys.
Function autoloading. A performance optimization for function that might >>> be pre-loaded and run on demand. The intent of loading functions as
separate file is also to support function features across different zsh
versions.
That was all from Wikipedia, but this:
"Zsh, in my opinion, appears to be more efficient because it is a newer
shell designed to be an extended version of Bash. Zsh adds some features >>> that are well-executed and well-liked by the majority of users. As a
result, it was bound to gain the popularity that it now enjoys. Zsh has
more features than Bash, such as advanced globbing, different startup
file configurations, and so on."
<https://linuxsimply.com/bash-scripting-tutorial/introduction/bash-vs-zsh/> >>>
Note the source.
Good to know. Thanks.
So how many Mac users hang out in the shell?
Very few compared to Linux and Windows.
Linux because it attracts technical type users and Windows because it
often requires dropping to command prompt to repair the system.
They abandoned GCC (which meant getting rid of Objective C), for
the same reason.
And?
And tried to push their developers to use an entirely new, proprietary >>>> language.
And?
I am not a developer but have not heard any complain about this.
It seems odd to me but software and hardware as well evolves.
What version of Python do you get with your macOS installation?
Don't know / don't care -- which you will twist to be bad.
Not only preinstalling an out-of-date version of Python, but risking
incompatibilies if the user tried to install a more up-to-date version >>>> from a third-party source.
You described macOS as “filled with open source”. “Filled with
out-of-date, less popular open source that users didn’t ask for” might >>>> be a better description.
It's funny how you complain (in the same post no less) that:
Apple doesn't give you enough choice ("push[ing] their developers to an
new language")
and that the don't make choices for you.
He has no real point.
Well he is correct regarding Apple making choices for you.
Many people really don't care as long as these system as a whole does
what they need.
And Apple is extremely good at delivering that level of performance.
Of course the user needs to determine their own needs and pick a
system that checks all the boxes.
People don't purchase Macs to play games for example.
At least the smart ones.
Windows or Linux are better at gaming. Better yet, buy a console.
On Apr 7, 2026 at 6:52:43 PM MST, "Denny" wrote
So how many Mac users hang out in the shell?
Few.
On 08/04/2026 17:41, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 7, 2026 at 6:52:43 PM MST, "Denny" wrote
[...]
So how many Mac users hang out in the shell?
Few.
Enough to keep projects like HomeBrew and Mac ports up and running. And
there is NixOS, also for macOS. Also, let's not forget that Apple made
its own container solution available as well. In short, few but still
enough ;-)
On Apr 8, 2026 at 9:35:46 AM MST, "John Bokma" wrote <10r6059$3nqvq$1@dont-email.me>:
On 08/04/2026 17:41, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 7, 2026 at 6:52:43 PM MST, "Denny" wrote
[...]
So how many Mac users hang out in the shell?
Few.
Enough to keep projects like HomeBrew and Mac ports up and running. And
there is NixOS, also for macOS. Also, let's not forget that Apple made
its own container solution available as well. In short, few but still
enough ;-)
Sure. Not saying none, or that it is not important. It is. Just something that
most will never use.
On Tue, 07 Apr 2026 23:28:10 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2026-04-07, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
It is in a company's interest to make their products better than
their competitors' products...and vice versa.
FSVO "better". Their product is better if it makes them more money.
It doesn't matter what the customers think, as long as they buy it.
I've heard this referred to as "trout management" - dangle something
shiny with a hook in it in front of them, and they'll bite every
time.
They feel they have no choice because alternatives don’t officially
exist without an accompanying multi-million-dollar publicity budget to
tell everyone how wonderful they are.
And so Apple gets to follow Microsoft down the enshittification path,
and its users may complain a lot but feel powerless to act.
On 08/04/2026 18:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 8, 2026 at 9:35:46 AM MST, "John Bokma" wrote
<10r6059$3nqvq$1@dont-email.me>:
On 08/04/2026 17:41, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 7, 2026 at 6:52:43 PM MST, "Denny" wrote
[...]
So how many Mac users hang out in the shell?
Few.
Enough to keep projects like HomeBrew and Mac ports up and running. And
there is NixOS, also for macOS. Also, let's not forget that Apple made
its own container solution available as well. In short, few but still
enough ;-)
Sure. Not saying none, or that it is not important. It is. Just something that
most will never use.
I think it's more than few. But like everybody else here, I have no idea
of how many and am guessing ;-). Moreover, few of 100 million [1] is
still a lot, no?
[1] https://www.spyhunter.com/shm/macos-stats/
On 07/04/2026 21:04, Alan wrote:Hmmmmmm...
It is not in any company's interest to make things better for anyone
except their management and shareholders
That is complete nonsense.
It is in a company's interest to make their products better than their
competitors' products...and vice versa.
Not really,.
It is far easier to
- buy your competitor
- take your competitor to court
- drive him out of business by loss leading in a way he cannot match
- spend more on marketing utter crap than developing a better product
Anyone who has been around consumer companies knows this as fact.
On 07/04/2026 20:37, Brock McNuggets wrote:
You see, when Apple uses and supports open source it is bad. When they
do not
it is bad. Lawrence has no actual point.
Oh I think he as a point.
Apple bad, everything else good.
As I said, its a fair starting point....
"Clever science man say new shiny thing make everything good" (The Daily Mash)
On 07 Apr 2026 19:38:24 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Well he is correct regarding Apple making choices for you.
Many people really don't care as long as these system as a whole does
what they need.
And Apple is extremely good at delivering that level of performance.
In comp.os.linux.misc Denny <dennyssuperslam11409@mail.com> wrote:
On 07 Apr 2026 19:38:24 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Well he is correct regarding Apple making choices for you.
Many people really don't care as long as these system as a whole does
what they need.
The /typical/ Mac user [1] who is the person Apple targets in their
marketing is someone who views "a computer" as simply a tool to
accomplish some other task(s), in the same way that most automobile owners view their car as a "means for personal transportation from point A to
point B". They neither know, nor want to know, what goes on under "the
hood" and are more than happy to let someone else take care of the maintenance duties (Apple in the case of their computer, their chosen automobile mechanic in the case of their car).
And Apple is extremely good at delivering that level of performance.
Yes exactly this, I have known many Mac owners who have said to me that
the reason they bought a Mac was that "it just works" (meaning they
don't have to fiddle with anything, they turn it on, and it "just
works"). They view a computer an an appliance, they should just be
able to push the power button, and get on with whatever other task they
have to accomplish.
[1] Note, no one posting here falls into that /typical/ category.Bingo.
Simply by virtue of the fact that you even know Usenet exists, and
further are capable of reading it, means you are *much more computer technically oriented* than Apple's target market demographic.
[1] Note, no one posting here falls into that /typical/ category.
Simply by virtue of the fact that you even know Usenet exists, and
further are capable of reading it, means you are *much more computer technically oriented* than Apple's target market demographic.
If the UI that Apple first offered...
And that EVERYONE has now copied!
On 2026-04-08 00:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/04/2026 21:04, Alan wrote:Hmmmmmm...
It is not in any company's interest to make things better for
anyone except their management and shareholders
That is complete nonsense.
It is in a company's interest to make their products better than
their competitors' products...and vice versa.
Not really,.
It is far easier to
- buy your competitor
- take your competitor to court
- drive him out of business by loss leading in a way he cannot match
- spend more on marketing utter crap than developing a better product
Anyone who has been around consumer companies knows this as fact.
Answer me this:
How many major manufacturers of smartphones are there?
Apple (Market cap: $3.6-$3.8 trillion)
Samsung ($420-$450 billion)
Xiaomi ($65-$75 billion)
vivo ($40-$50 billion)
OPPO ($35-$45 billion)
And that's just the top five.
Has Apple tried to buy any of them? They could easily afford to buy
any one of them with the except of Samsung.
Has Apple taken any of them to court?
On 2026-04-08, Alan wrote:
If the UI that Apple first offered...
And that EVERYONE has now copied!
I think it has been established in court that Apple really didn't do
this as a first, at the very least there's prior art from [checks notes] Stanley Kubrick?
On 2026-04-08 11:25, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-04-08, Alan wrote:
If the UI that Apple first offered...
And that EVERYONE has now copied!
I think it has been established in court that Apple really didn't do
this as a first, at the very least there's prior art from [checks notes]
Stanley Kubrick?
Please...
Apple brought it to a consumer product: the iPhone.
Every other maker of smartphones immediately pivoted to what Apple was
doing.
And there's a HUGE difference between a device in a work of fiction
(that doesn't have to... ...you know... ...actually FUNCTION)...
...and doing it in reality.
On 2026-04-08, Alan wrote:
On 2026-04-08 00:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/04/2026 21:04, Alan wrote:Hmmmmmm...
It is not in any company's interest to make things better for
anyone except their management and shareholders
That is complete nonsense.
It is in a company's interest to make their products better than
their competitors' products...and vice versa.
Not really,.
It is far easier to
- buy your competitor
- take your competitor to court
- drive him out of business by loss leading in a way he cannot match
- spend more on marketing utter crap than developing a better product
Anyone who has been around consumer companies knows this as fact.
Answer me this:
How many major manufacturers of smartphones are there?
Apple (Market cap: $3.6-$3.8 trillion)
Samsung ($420-$450 billion)
Xiaomi ($65-$75 billion)
vivo ($40-$50 billion)
OPPO ($35-$45 billion)
And that's just the top five.
Has Apple tried to buy any of them? They could easily afford to buy
any one of them with the except of Samsung.
Has Apple taken any of them to court?
Ah yes, I should have included this question too in my previous
reply. Several times, apparently:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Samsung
On 2026-04-08, Alan wrote:
On 2026-04-08 11:25, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-04-08, Alan wrote:
If the UI that Apple first offered...
And that EVERYONE has now copied!
I think it has been established in court that Apple really didn't do
this as a first, at the very least there's prior art from [checks notes] >>> Stanley Kubrick?
Please...
Apple brought it to a consumer product: the iPhone.
Every other maker of smartphones immediately pivoted to what Apple was
doing.
And there's a HUGE difference between a device in a work of fiction
(that doesn't have to... ...you know... ...actually FUNCTION)...
...and doing it in reality.
When you are claiming the credit of invention, it does matter if it
wasn't your idea. You can surely push for credit on things Apple
*did*. Now pretending Apple somehow single-handedly came up with the smartphone-tablet kind of interface is just high fantasy.
Even if the idea could not have been patented back then, it would stillApple didn't "invent" Webkit, sure. They didn't "invent" CUPS.
be a problem, because what's at stake here isn't whether it had been
fully invented before, whether there was a working implementation. But
the claim that Apple was the one coming up with it.
It's like, say, if you pretended that Apple had created Webkit or CUPS,instead of forking the former from KDE or buying the latter. If Apple significantly contributed to these with code, design or maintainership,
it surely deserves that credit, but not that of having "invented" it.
On Apr 8, 2026 at 9:35:46 AM MST, "John Bokma" wrote <10r6059$3nqvq$1@dont-email.me>:
On 08/04/2026 17:41, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 7, 2026 at 6:52:43 PM MST, "Denny" wrote
[...]
So how many Mac users hang out in the shell?
Few.
Enough to keep projects like HomeBrew and Mac ports up and running. And
there is NixOS, also for macOS. Also, let's not forget that Apple made
its own container solution available as well. In short, few but still
enough ;-)
Sure. Not saying none, or that it is not important. It is. Just something that
most will never use.
On 2026-04-08 00:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/04/2026 20:37, Brock McNuggets wrote:
You see, when Apple uses and supports open source it is bad. When
they do not
it is bad. Lawrence has no actual point.
Oh I think he as a point.
Apple bad, everything else good.
As I said, its a fair starting point....
"Clever science man say new shiny thing make everything good" (The
Daily Mash)
All you expose is your own fanaticism...
On 08/04/2026 18:40, Alan wrote:
On 2026-04-08 00:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/04/2026 20:37, Brock McNuggets wrote:
You see, when Apple uses and supports open source it is bad. When
they do not
it is bad. Lawrence has no actual point.
Oh I think he as a point.
Apple bad, everything else good.
As I said, its a fair starting point....
"Clever science man say new shiny thing make everything good" (The
Daily Mash)
All you expose is your own fanaticism...
What fanaticism?
I've worked on all bits of kit, mainly outside the consumer market,
because outside of that, technical excellence *counts*.
Inside that market its all about pure marketing BULLSHIT.
As far as desktops go, windows is cheap shit (and so is android on
phones) Apple is expensive shit and linux is actually free and pretty good.
Anyone who thinks Apple is fucking marvellous probably doesnt belong here.Interesting false dichotomy you just set up, there.
Countless developers around the world use it's cli. There are
several terminal emulators available besides the one that comes with
it, and there is home brew and Mac ports.
Also, let's not forget that Apple made its own container solution
available as well.
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 18:30:16 -0400, trapper wrote:
This entire thread is bonecrushingly stupid.
This sounds very much like a “sour grapes” response: products that
don’t run on your platform are somehow less valuable
That's not what I said. At all.
extra bag on the side of your own platform, just as a clumsy way to
get access to these products that are not available any other way,
is somehow not a big admission of defeat at all, but somehow a
clever thing to do, even though other platforms had figured it out
long ago.
And somehow re-inventing the wheel out of some quest for purity is a
thing that actual successful companies do, OK.
On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 15:22:33 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
Countless developers around the world use it's cli. There are
several terminal emulators available besides the one that comes with
it, and there is home brew and Mac ports.
But those are just pale imitations of the package manager concept as implemented on Linux, aren’t they.
On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 18:35:46 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
Also, let's not forget that Apple made its own container solution
available as well.
Actually, it didn’t. It relies on Linux to provide the containers.
There was zero actual intellectual input from Apple.
On 2026-04-08 19:48, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
But those are just pale imitations of the package manager concept as
implemented on Linux, aren’t they.
Are they?
You're the one making the claim...
...so why don't you explain it?
On Apr 8, 2026 at 9:35:46 AM MST, "John Bokma" wrote <10r6059$3nqvq$1@dont-email.me>:
On 08/04/2026 17:41, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 7, 2026 at 6:52:43 PM MST, "Denny" wrote
[...]
So how many Mac users hang out in the shell?
Few.
Enough to keep projects like HomeBrew and Mac ports up and running. And
there is NixOS, also for macOS. Also, let's not forget that Apple made
its own container solution available as well. In short, few but still
enough ;-)
Sure. Not saying none, or that it is not important. It is. Just something that
most will never use.
On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 15:22:33 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
Countless developers around the world use it's cli. There are
several terminal emulators available besides the one that comes with
it, and there is home brew and Mac ports.
But those are just pale imitations of the package manager concept as implemented on Linux, aren’t they.
On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 18:35:46 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
Also, let's not forget that Apple made its own container solution
available as well.
Actually, it didn’t. It relies on Linux to provide the containers.
There was zero actual intellectual input from Apple.
On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 10:21:00 -0400, d.w. wrote:
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 18:30:16 -0400, trapper wrote:
This entire thread is bonecrushingly stupid.
This sounds very much like a “sour grapes” response: products that
don’t run on your platform are somehow less valuable
That's not what I said. At all.
That *is* what you said. I am quoting your exact words.
And somehow re-inventing the wheel out of some quest for purity is a
thing that actual successful companies do, OK.
So Apple has adopted commodity software, just like everybody else.
Where is the value-add? What extra capabilities does Apple bring to
the table? Nothing, really. It seems incapable of adding any “special sauce” on top of standard Linux functionality.
On 2026-04-08, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 8, 2026 at 9:35:46 AM MST, "John Bokma" wrote
<10r6059$3nqvq$1@dont-email.me>:
On 08/04/2026 17:41, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 7, 2026 at 6:52:43 PM MST, "Denny" wrote
[...]
So how many Mac users hang out in the shell?
Few.
Enough to keep projects like HomeBrew and Mac ports up and running. And
there is NixOS, also for macOS. Also, let's not forget that Apple made
its own container solution available as well. In short, few but still
enough ;-)
Sure. Not saying none, or that it is not important. It is. Just something that
most will never use.
Any chance it turns out to be like Linux-land, where a bunch of people
do use it for its UNIX-likeness and for the shell interface and
utilities, at the same time another bunch of people uses it only
graphically?
"The year of Linux on the desktop" comes to mind as something that often seems to be tied to a specific view of computer usage only some want to
go with.
(I've been using "Linux on the desktop" for decades now, but that
doesn't mean I'm using dbus or systemd or a desktop environment (a
window manager at most, if I'm sitting in front of X11 and not e.g. a
text DTE). In the past decade I've probably spent more time reading IEEE 1003.1 than using a desktop environment :-P)
Oh hey, goalposts! When did you get here?Countless developers around the world use it's cli. There are
several terminal emulators available besides the one that comes with
it, and there is home brew and Mac ports.
But those are just pale imitations of the package manager concept as implemented on Linux, aren’t they.
On 09/04/2026 04:48, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
But those are just pale imitations of the package manager concept
as implemented on Linux, aren’t they.
sudo port install python3
and one has the latest version of python3.
On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 02:48:16 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Countless developers around the world use it's cli. There are
several terminal emulators available besides the one that comes
with it, and there is home brew and Mac ports.
But those are just pale imitations of the package manager concept
as implemented on Linux, aren’t they.
Oh hey, goalposts! When did you get here?
On 09/04/2026 04:49, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 18:35:46 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
Also, let's not forget that Apple made its own container solution
available as well.
Actually, it didn’t. It relies on Linux to provide the containers.
There was zero actual intellectual input from Apple.
Now you're dishonest. See: https://github.com/apple/container
Where did I ever say "products that don't run on MacOS" are less
valuable?
Apple adopted commodity software when they used BSD code in NeXTSTEP
1.0 and evolved it into MacOS. This is a gotcha?
On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 08:53:41 -0400, d.w. wrote:
Where did I ever say "products that don't run on MacOS" are less
valuable?
What other reason did you have for saying “this entire thread is bonecrushingly stupid”?
Apple adopted commodity software when they used BSD code in NeXTSTEP
1.0 and evolved it into MacOS. This is a gotcha?
It is because of the subject line: that BSD-based code is no longer
good enough, they now need an entire separate Linux kernel tacked on
the side as well.
OCI is a spec for Linux containers, not macOS containers.
On 2026-04-07 12:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/04/2026 16:46, Alan wrote:
On 2026-04-06 17:04, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-04-06, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
What happened to Apple’s homegrown technological innovation? They are >>>>> reduced to the point where, like Microsoft, they have to try and
squeeze more revenue out of a declining platform, by any means
necessary.
Maybe that's not a bad thing, given the bad impact Apple has had in the >>>> smartphone usability field, "buttons are bad" and promoting UI
inconsistency.
Are you serious?
Apple set the standard that pretty much every smartphone now uses
for UI (i.e. an all touchscreen interface)
If it's so bad, why has no company not developed a better one?
It is not in any company's interest to make things better for anyone
except their management and shareholders
That is complete nonsense.
It is in a company's interest to make their products better than their competitors' products...and vice versa.
On 2026-04-08 11:42, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-04-08, Alan wrote:
On 2026-04-08 11:25, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-04-08, Alan wrote:
If the UI that Apple first offered...
And that EVERYONE has now copied!
I think it has been established in court that Apple really didn't do
this as a first, at the very least there's prior art from [checks notes] >>>> Stanley Kubrick?
Please...
Apple brought it to a consumer product: the iPhone.
Every other maker of smartphones immediately pivoted to what Apple was
doing.
And there's a HUGE difference between a device in a work of fiction
(that doesn't have to... ...you know... ...actually FUNCTION)...
...and doing it in reality.
When you are claiming the credit of invention, it does matter if it
wasn't your idea. You can surely push for credit on things Apple
*did*. Now pretending Apple somehow single-handedly came up with the
smartphone-tablet kind of interface is just high fantasy.
Apple DID produce a smartphone with an (almost--there was still the
home button) all-screen touch interface.
I never claimed anything about "single-handedness".
This sub-thread started with you saying:
'Maybe that's not a bad thing, given the bad impact Apple has had in the smartphone usability field, "buttons are bad" and promoting UI inconsistency.'
And what I'm saying is:
'If it's so "bad"... ...why did everyone copy it?"
Even if the idea could not have been patented back then, it would stillApple didn't "invent" Webkit, sure. They didn't "invent" CUPS.
be a problem, because what's at stake here isn't whether it had been
fully invented before, whether there was a working implementation. But
the claim that Apple was the one coming up with it.
It's like, say, if you pretended that Apple had created Webkit or CUPS,instead of forking the former from KDE or buying the latter. If Apple
significantly contributed to these with code, design or maintainership,
it surely deserves that credit, but not that of having "invented" it.
But your analogy is flawed, because this is about you claiming Apple
has had a:
'..bad impact [] in the
smartphone usability field'
On 2026-04-07 03:49, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-04-07, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 6, 2026 at 5:04:18 PM MST, "Nuno Silva" wrote
<10r1hm3$2eugg$6@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-04-06, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
What happened to Apple’s homegrown technological innovation? They are >>>>> reduced to the point where, like Microsoft, they have to try and
squeeze more revenue out of a declining platform, by any means
necessary.
Maybe that's not a bad thing, given the bad impact Apple has had in the >>>> smartphone usability field, "buttons are bad" and promoting UI
inconsistency.
What inconsistencies are you thinking of?
Doing away with the concept of consistency itself, which is of great
value in UI design and usability:
«We’re gonna start with a revolutionary user interface. Now why do >> we need a revolutionary user interface? I mean, Here’s four
smartphones. And what’s wrong with their user interfaces? They all
have these keyboards that are there whether you need them or
not. And they all have these control buttons that are fixed in
plastic and are the same for every application. Well, every
application wants a slightly different user interface, a slightly
optimized set of buttons, just for it.»
As quoted in [1].; What's silly is that it's really what you'd want to
avoid, you'd want the buttons to be as uniform as possible, and to share
as much as possible between different applications. And having fixed
plastic (or some other material) buttons for such application
interaction is a plus, not a minus. It will remove what could be screen
area, but it sounds to me Jobs wasn't alluding at that specifically.
Again, you cannot be serious.
"They all have these keyboards that are there whether you need them or not."
That is specifically alluding to the fact that they remove screen area.
On 2026-04-08 11:29, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-04-08, Alan wrote:
On 2026-04-08 00:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/04/2026 21:04, Alan wrote:Hmmmmmm...
It is not in any company's interest to make things better for
anyone except their management and shareholders
That is complete nonsense.
It is in a company's interest to make their products better than
their competitors' products...and vice versa.
Not really,.
It is far easier to
- buy your competitor
- take your competitor to court
- drive him out of business by loss leading in a way he cannot match
- spend more on marketing utter crap than developing a better product
Anyone who has been around consumer companies knows this as fact.
Answer me this:
How many major manufacturers of smartphones are there?
Apple (Market cap: $3.6-$3.8 trillion)
Samsung ($420-$450 billion)
Xiaomi ($65-$75 billion)
vivo ($40-$50 billion)
OPPO ($35-$45 billion)
And that's just the top five.
Has Apple tried to buy any of them? They could easily afford to buy
any one of them with the except of Samsung.
Has Apple taken any of them to court?
Ah yes, I should have included this question too in my previous
reply. Several times, apparently:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Samsung
A suit which:
Was decided in Apple's favour by the jury.
And which was eventually settled in 2018.
And quite obviously on a factual basis, Samsung DID copy Apple.
Their own internal documents and emails made that clear.
On Apr 7, 2026 at 3:49:40 AM MST, "Nuno Silva" wrote <10r2ng7$2ndnr$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-04-07, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 6, 2026 at 5:04:18 PM MST, "Nuno Silva" wrote
<10r1hm3$2eugg$6@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-04-06, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
What happened to Apple’s homegrown technological innovation? They are >>>>> reduced to the point where, like Microsoft, they have to try and
squeeze more revenue out of a declining platform, by any means
necessary.
Maybe that's not a bad thing, given the bad impact Apple has had in the >>>> smartphone usability field, "buttons are bad" and promoting UI
inconsistency.
What inconsistencies are you thinking of?
Doing away with the concept of consistency itself, which is of great
value in UI design and usability:
«We’re gonna start with a revolutionary user interface. Now why do
we need a revolutionary user interface? I mean, Here’s four
smartphones. And what’s wrong with their user interfaces? They all
have these keyboards that are there whether you need them or
not. And they all have these control buttons that are fixed in
plastic and are the same for every application. Well, every
application wants a slightly different user interface, a slightly
optimized set of buttons, just for it.»
So you are not talking about consistency inside the system but with other systems?
As quoted in [1].; What's silly is that it's really what you'd want to
avoid, you'd want the buttons to be as uniform as possible, and to share
as much as possible between different applications.
Every single button I list below works the same in every app. I guess the volume might take a pic in camera? But what are you really talking about?
And having fixed plastic (or some other material) buttons for such
application interaction is a plus, not a minus. It will remove what
could be screen area, but it sounds to me Jobs wasn't alluding at
that specifically.
You want to go back to the days of a physical keyboard?
--
[1]
https://medium.com/@stuartgannes/why-do-we-need-a-revolutionary-user-interface-58aa0fb8184
On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 12:13:39 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
On 09/04/2026 04:48, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
But those are just pale imitations of the package manager concept
as implemented on Linux, aren’t they.
sudo port install python3
and one has the latest version of python3.
So which version will, say, an Apple-provided script use? Is there
some mechanism where Apple’s own scripts continue to use its Python version, while third-party scripts use the one you installed?
On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 12:17:03 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
On 09/04/2026 04:49, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 18:35:46 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
Also, let's not forget that Apple made its own container solution
available as well.
Actually, it didn’t. It relies on Linux to provide the containers.
There was zero actual intellectual input from Apple.
Now you're dishonest. See: https://github.com/apple/container
Did you look at the README, even?
Look, I realize that the point of *.advocacy groups is to raise
the most pointless issues in mind-numbingly tedious fashion.
It's what on the tin, as it were.
On 2026-04-07, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 7, 2026 at 3:49:40 AM MST, "Nuno Silva" wrote
<10r2ng7$2ndnr$1@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-04-07, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 6, 2026 at 5:04:18 PM MST, "Nuno Silva" wrote
<10r1hm3$2eugg$6@dont-email.me>:
On 2026-04-06, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
What happened to Apple’s homegrown technological innovation? They are >>>>>> reduced to the point where, like Microsoft, they have to try and
squeeze more revenue out of a declining platform, by any means
necessary.
Maybe that's not a bad thing, given the bad impact Apple has had in the >>>>> smartphone usability field, "buttons are bad" and promoting UI
inconsistency.
What inconsistencies are you thinking of?
Doing away with the concept of consistency itself, which is of great
value in UI design and usability:
«We’re gonna start with a revolutionary user interface. Now why do >>> we need a revolutionary user interface? I mean, Here’s four
smartphones. And what’s wrong with their user interfaces? They all >>> have these keyboards that are there whether you need them or
not. And they all have these control buttons that are fixed in
plastic and are the same for every application. Well, every
application wants a slightly different user interface, a slightly
optimized set of buttons, just for it.»
So you are not talking about consistency inside the system but with other
systems?
Consistency between application interfaces in the same system.
As quoted in [1].; What's silly is that it's really what you'd want to
avoid, you'd want the buttons to be as uniform as possible, and to share >>> as much as possible between different applications.
Every single button I list below works the same in every app. I guess the
volume might take a pic in camera? But what are you really talking about?
Buttons having the same physical location at the very least is already a
win consistency-wise, even if some of them have different purposes
between applications.
And having fixed plastic (or some other material) buttons for such
application interaction is a plus, not a minus. It will remove what
could be screen area, but it sounds to me Jobs wasn't alluding at
that specifically.
You want to go back to the days of a physical keyboard?
Personally, I'd go with it, yeah, but overall at least more buttons even
if it's mostly a touchscreen.
--
[1]
https://medium.com/@stuartgannes/why-do-we-need-a-revolutionary-user-interface-58aa0fb8184
On 10/04/2026 01:25, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 12:17:03 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
On 09/04/2026 04:49, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 18:35:46 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
Also, let's not forget that Apple made its own container
solution available as well.
Actually, it didn’t. It relies on Linux to provide the
containers. There was zero actual intellectual input from Apple.
Now you're dishonest. See: https://github.com/apple/container
Particularly when it *doesn’t* support things that Linux containers
are quite capable of doing:
<https://github.com/apple/container/issues/1320>
<https://github.com/apple/container/issues/1283>
<https://github.com/apple/container/issues/1228>
Did you look at the code? Intellectual input from Apple ;-)
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
It is because of the subject line: that BSD-based code is no longer
good enough, they now need an entire separate Linux kernel tacked
on the side as well.
OS vendor tackles a corner case by bundling an external software
solution.
On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 23:29:22 -0400, d.w. wrote:
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
It is because of the subject line: that BSD-based code is no longer
good enough, they now need an entire separate Linux kernel tacked on
the side as well.
OS vendor tackles a corner case by bundling an external software
solution.
Yeah, I guess the whole container concept is more of an enterprise-y
thing, isn’t it: not part of a market that Apple has any real presence
in.
On Apr 5, 2026 at 1:51:15 PM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote <10qui03$1m4ih$1@dont-email.me>:
This article says “Apple approves driver that lets Nvidia eGPUs
work with Arm Macs” <https://www.theverge.com/tech/907003/apple-approves-driver-that-lets-nvidia-egpus-work-with-arm-macs>.
Note that you need to run Docker in order to actually build it for
your system.
But isn’t Docker a Linux-only technology?
That’s right: you will need a Linux-based container system installed
on your Mac in order to use this driver.
The use of Docker to build Mac drivers highlights a healthy
partnership rather than a flaw. Since Docker is a Linux-native
technology, macOS runs it via a lightweight virtual machine to ensure
a consistent, error-free build environment. This isn't a sign of
Apple "failing," but rather a pragmatic choice to use a mature tool
for a specific complex area of software development.
Neither side is in the wrong here. Linux is fulfilling its
fundamental purpose as a universal, open-source resource designed for everyone, and Apple is leveraging that flexibility to expand what its hardware can do. This interoperability is a major win for Apple
users, who benefit from increased hardware compatibility and more
choices. It is a perfect example of different ecosystems
collaborating to deliver a better experience for the end user.
On 2026-04-08 12:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/04/2026 18:40, Alan wrote:
On 2026-04-08 00:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/04/2026 20:37, Brock McNuggets wrote:
You see, when Apple uses and supports open source it is bad. When
they do not
it is bad. Lawrence has no actual point.
Oh I think he as a point.
Apple bad, everything else good.
As I said, its a fair starting point....
"Clever science man say new shiny thing make everything good" (The
Daily Mash)
All you expose is your own fanaticism...
What fanaticism?
Really?
"Apple bad, everything else good.
As I said, its a fair starting point....
I've worked on all bits of kit, mainly outside the consumer market, because outside of that, technical excellence *counts*.
OK. So?
Inside that market its all about pure marketing BULLSHIT.
Ummmmmm...no. That STATEMENT is pure bullshit.
It assumes that everyone is just a dupe.
As far as desktops go, windows is cheap shit (and so is android on
phones) Apple is expensive shit and linux is actually free and
pretty good.
Apple is more expensive... ...no doubt.
That doesn't make the equipment OR the company "bad".
Anyone who thinks Apple is fucking marvellous probably doesnt
belong here.
Interesting false dichotomy you just set up, there.
Are you technically "excellent" enough to understand what you just
tried to do?
On 2026-04-07, Alan wrote:
On 2026-04-07 12:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/04/2026 16:46, Alan wrote:
On 2026-04-06 17:04, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-04-06, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
What happened to Apple’s homegrown technological innovation? They are >>>>> reduced to the point where, like Microsoft, they have to try and
squeeze more revenue out of a declining platform, by any means
necessary.
Maybe that's not a bad thing, given the bad impact Apple has had in the >>>> smartphone usability field, "buttons are bad" and promoting UI
inconsistency.
Are you serious?
Apple set the standard that pretty much every smartphone now uses
for UI (i.e. an all touchscreen interface)
If it's so bad, why has no company not developed a better one?
It is not in any company's interest to make things better for anyone
except their management and shareholders
That is complete nonsense.
It is in a company's interest to make their products better than their competitors' products...and vice versa.
This is fantasious, I'd argue. Even those companies which are not incorporated in Delaware may visibly act otherwise. That they are not required to prioritize profit for their shareholders doesn't mean they
don't act like they are.
All in all, such a thing like expecting a company to care about making products better or user experience is a bit too much faith. Some
companies might do or have done in the past. But, as a rule? That mostly suggests you're assuming a corporate behavior that's not in line with reality. Sure, it *ought* to be like that...
On 2026-04-08, Alan wrote:
On 2026-04-08 11:42, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-04-08, Alan wrote:
On 2026-04-08 11:25, Nuno Silva wrote:
On 2026-04-08, Alan wrote:
If the UI that Apple first offered...
And that EVERYONE has now copied!
I think it has been established in court that Apple really didn't do >>>> this as a first, at the very least there's prior art from [checks notes] >>>> Stanley Kubrick?
Please...
Apple brought it to a consumer product: the iPhone.
Every other maker of smartphones immediately pivoted to what Apple was >>> doing.
And there's a HUGE difference between a device in a work of fiction
(that doesn't have to... ...you know... ...actually FUNCTION)...
...and doing it in reality.
When you are claiming the credit of invention, it does matter if it
wasn't your idea. You can surely push for credit on things Apple
*did*. Now pretending Apple somehow single-handedly came up with the
smartphone-tablet kind of interface is just high fantasy.
Apple DID produce a smartphone with an (almost--there was still the
home button) all-screen touch interface.
I never claimed anything about "single-handedness".
You keep repeating that Apple was the one bringing it as a consumer
product as if that is all which matters (if that was even the case,
while I know of one bit of prior art, doesn't mean others don't
exist). How is that not "single-handedness"?
This sub-thread started with you saying:
'Maybe that's not a bad thing, given the bad impact Apple has had in the smartphone usability field, "buttons are bad" and promoting UI inconsistency.'
And what I'm saying is:
'If it's so "bad"... ...why did everyone copy it?"
Even if the idea could not have been patented back then, it would stillApple didn't "invent" Webkit, sure. They didn't "invent" CUPS.
be a problem, because what's at stake here isn't whether it had been
fully invented before, whether there was a working implementation. But
the claim that Apple was the one coming up with it.
It's like, say, if you pretended that Apple had created Webkit or CUPS, >> instead of forking the former from KDE or buying the latter. If Applesignificantly contributed to these with code, design or maintainership,
it surely deserves that credit, but not that of having "invented" it.
But your analogy is flawed, because this is about you claiming Apple
has had a:
'..bad impact [] in the
smartphone usability field'
The way you're wording things here suggests to me you are arguing
against the design being bad not because you see a context where it is
good, not even because you personally prefer that design, but because
Apple as a company cannot make bad decisions. (Not even because it's
Apple, but because it's a company?)
And if that's the argument, then there's no point in even discussing it because it's really built on dreams about corporations and industry in current economies.
On 4/6/26 12:10, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
This article says “Apple approves driver that lets Nvidia eGPUs work
with Arm Macs”
<https://www.theverge.com/tech/907003/apple-approves-driver-that-lets-nvidia-egpus-work-with-arm-macs>.
Note that you need to run Docker in order to actually build it for
your system.
But isn’t Docker a Linux-only technology?
That’s right: you will need a Linux-based container system installed
on your Mac in order to use this driver.
The only thing Apple have done here, AFAICT, is approve a third-party driver. They have no involvement in how it gets built. The fact that tinycorp’s build chain uses Docker tells you nothing about whether it could be built without it.
I think that one of the free Unix distros is working on a container tech for their systems. MacOS is a variation on Unix so they will probably adopt the code for their system when it comes out.
bliss
On 4/7/26 15:30, trapper@freeke.org wrote:
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
This article says “Apple approves driver that lets Nvidia eGPUs
work with Arm Macs”
<https://www.theverge.com/tech/907003/apple-approves-driver-that-lets-nvidia-egpus-work-with-arm-macs>.
Note that you need to run Docker in order to actually build it for
your system.
But isn’t Docker a Linux-only technology?
That’s right: you will need a Linux-based container system
installed on your Mac in order to use this driver.
This entire thread is bonecrushingly stupid.
Apple uses the same CAE, CFD, Electromagnetic, and EDA etc. solvers
as everyone else in the consumer electronics and manufacturing
industries to design these products.
Everyone in the industry uses these solvers to design their
products, and they all run best on mainstream Linux distributions,
so that's where they run them.
This matters exactly as much as the fact that their products are
shipped around the world in ISO shipping containers.
That anyone thinks this is some sort of "gotcha" proves that
*.advocacy newsgroups are as pointless as they were in the 1990s
(the last time I bothered poking my head in here.)
Well someone should filter him from Mac advocacy as he does
their cause
no good. I have filtered him from whatever he shows up in.
bliss - we only have a short time to live why waste it
responding to a
Troll.
(Okay, they're not "enemies", just people we disagree with -- but
there is a certain satisfaction in pointing out all the mistakes
they are making.)
On 11/04/2026 09:42, vallor wrote:
(Okay, they're not "enemies", just people we disagree with -- but
there is a certain satisfaction in pointing out all the mistakes
they are making.)
Trolls come in two flavours., One is there to wind you up by making outrageous statements in order to keep you responding in a vain attempt
to teach them the truth, They don't care about the truth., They just
want your engagement. I think it is a form of validation for them, You
have proved that they actually exist.
The other sort is the genuinely ignorant in full Dunning Kruger mode who--
are so far behind you they think they are in fact ahead.
Schopenhauer had a theory about such people. He concluded that ignorance
and stupidity are useful traits for survival and no one likes a
smartass, so mostly geniuses are nether wanted, needed nor understood.
His solution? Smile and nod and don't engage.
At 06 Apr 2026 00:07:24 GMT, Brock McNuggets
<brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 5, 2026 at 1:51:15 PM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote
<10qui03$1m4ih$1@dont-email.me>:
This article says “Apple approves driver that lets Nvidia eGPUs
work with Arm Macs”
<https://www.theverge.com/tech/907003/apple-approves-driver-that-lets-nvidia-egpus-work-with-arm-macs>.
Note that you need to run Docker in order to actually build it for
your system.
But isn’t Docker a Linux-only technology?
That’s right: you will need a Linux-based container system installed
on your Mac in order to use this driver.
The use of Docker to build Mac drivers highlights a healthy
partnership rather than a flaw. Since Docker is a Linux-native
technology, macOS runs it via a lightweight virtual machine to ensure
a consistent, error-free build environment. This isn't a sign of
Apple "failing," but rather a pragmatic choice to use a mature tool
for a specific complex area of software development.
Neither side is in the wrong here. Linux is fulfilling its
fundamental purpose as a universal, open-source resource designed for
everyone, and Apple is leveraging that flexibility to expand what its
hardware can do. This interoperability is a major win for Apple
users, who benefit from increased hardware compatibility and more
choices. It is a perfect example of different ecosystems
collaborating to deliver a better experience for the end user.
...and you were unable to articulate that in your own words?
Using an LLM for such a thing is, at best, lazy, and at worse, fibbing.
I speak as someone who uses LLM's...and doesn't fib about them.
At Tue, 7 Apr 2026 16:23:12 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 4/7/26 15:30, trapper@freeke.org wrote:
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
This article says “Apple approves driver that lets Nvidia eGPUs
work with Arm Macs”
<https://www.theverge.com/tech/907003/apple-approves-driver-that-lets-nvidia-egpus-work-with-arm-macs>.
Note that you need to run Docker in order to actually build it for
your system.
But isn’t Docker a Linux-only technology?
That’s right: you will need a Linux-based container system
installed on your Mac in order to use this driver.
This entire thread is bonecrushingly stupid.
Apple uses the same CAE, CFD, Electromagnetic, and EDA etc. solvers
as everyone else in the consumer electronics and manufacturing
industries to design these products.
Everyone in the industry uses these solvers to design their
products, and they all run best on mainstream Linux distributions,
so that's where they run them.
This matters exactly as much as the fact that their products are
shipped around the world in ISO shipping containers.
That anyone thinks this is some sort of "gotcha" proves that
*.advocacy newsgroups are as pointless as they were in the 1990s
(the last time I bothered poking my head in here.)
Well someone should filter him from Mac advocacy as he does
their cause no good. I have filtered him from whatever he
shows up in.
bliss - we only have a short time to live why waste it
responding to a Troll.
Countertroll operations can be rewarding.
Some folks fire up their countertroll radar, and fire on
the source of "enemy" fire...
(Okay, they're not "enemies", just people we disagree with -- but
there is a certain satisfaction in pointing out all the mistakes
they are making.)
On 11/04/2026 09:42, vallor wrote:
(Okay, they're not "enemies", just people we disagree with -- but
there is a certain satisfaction in pointing out all the mistakes
they are making.)
Trolls come in two flavours., One is there to wind you up by making outrageous statements in order to keep you responding in a vain attempt
to teach them the truth, They don't care about the truth., They just
want your engagement. I think it is a form of validation for them, You
have proved that they actually exist.
The other sort is the genuinely ignorant in full Dunning Kruger mode who
are so far behind you they think they are in fact ahead.
Schopenhauer had a theory about such people. He concluded that ignorance
and stupidity are useful traits for survival and no one likes a
smartass, so mostly geniuses are nether wanted, needed nor understood.
His solution? Smile and nod and don't engage.
On Apr 11, 2026 at 5:20:21 AM MST, "The Natural Philosopher" wrote <10rdea5$1pm5d$4@dont-email.me>:
On 11/04/2026 09:42, vallor wrote:
(Okay, they're not "enemies", just people we disagree with -- but
there is a certain satisfaction in pointing out all the mistakes
they are making.)
Trolls come in two flavours., One is there to wind you up by making
outrageous statements in order to keep you responding in a vain
attempt to teach them the truth, They don't care about the truth.,
They just want your engagement. I think it is a form of validation
for them, You have proved that they actually exist.
I openly admit I fall for this type trolling over and over and over.
I want to believe people are having discussions in good faith even
when the evidence shows they are not. That is on me.
In comp.os.linux.misc Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 5:20:21 AM MST, "The Natural Philosopher" wrote
<10rdea5$1pm5d$4@dont-email.me>:
On 11/04/2026 09:42, vallor wrote:
(Okay, they're not "enemies", just people we disagree with -- but
there is a certain satisfaction in pointing out all the mistakes
they are making.)
Trolls come in two flavours., One is there to wind you up by making
outrageous statements in order to keep you responding in a vain
attempt to teach them the truth, They don't care about the truth.,
They just want your engagement. I think it is a form of validation
for them, You have proved that they actually exist.
I openly admit I fall for this type trolling over and over and over.
I want to believe people are having discussions in good faith even
when the evidence shows they are not. That is on me.
And this is one tactic the "type one" trolls use to their advantage.
They abuse the fact that others want to believe a discussion is in good
faith to further their trolling agenda. It usually works out very well
for them, they get fed a lot of return for abusing others belief of
good faith.
In comp.os.linux.misc Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 5:20:21 AM MST, "The Natural Philosopher" wrote
<10rdea5$1pm5d$4@dont-email.me>:
On 11/04/2026 09:42, vallor wrote:
(Okay, they're not "enemies", just people we disagree with -- but
there is a certain satisfaction in pointing out all the mistakes
they are making.)
Trolls come in two flavours., One is there to wind you up by making
outrageous statements in order to keep you responding in a vain
attempt to teach them the truth, They don't care about the truth.,
They just want your engagement. I think it is a form of validation
for them, You have proved that they actually exist.
I openly admit I fall for this type trolling over and over and over.
I want to believe people are having discussions in good faith even
when the evidence shows they are not. That is on me.
And this is one tactic the "type one" trolls use to their advantage.
They abuse the fact that others want to believe a discussion is in good faith to further their trolling agenda. It usually works out very well
for them, they get fed a lot of return for abusing others belief of
good faith.
At Tue, 7 Apr 2026 16:23:12 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 4/7/26 15:30, trapper@freeke.org wrote:
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
This article says “Apple approves driver that lets Nvidia eGPUs
work with Arm Macs”
<https://www.theverge.com/tech/907003/apple-approves-driver-that-lets-nvidia-egpus-work-with-arm-macs>.
Note that you need to run Docker in order to actually build it for
your system.
But isn’t Docker a Linux-only technology?
That’s right: you will need a Linux-based container system
installed on your Mac in order to use this driver.
This entire thread is bonecrushingly stupid.
Apple uses the same CAE, CFD, Electromagnetic, and EDA etc. solvers
as everyone else in the consumer electronics and manufacturing
industries to design these products.
Everyone in the industry uses these solvers to design their
products, and they all run best on mainstream Linux distributions,
so that's where they run them.
This matters exactly as much as the fact that their products are
shipped around the world in ISO shipping containers.
That anyone thinks this is some sort of "gotcha" proves that
*.advocacy newsgroups are as pointless as they were in the 1990s
(the last time I bothered poking my head in here.)
Well someone should filter him from Mac advocacy as he does
their cause
no good. I have filtered him from whatever he shows up in.
bliss - we only have a short time to live why waste it
responding to a
Troll.
Countertroll operations can be rewarding.
Some folks fire up their countertroll radar, and fire on
the source of "enemy" fire...
(Okay, they're not "enemies", just people we disagree with -- but
there is a certain satisfaction in pointing out all the mistakes
they are making.)
Potentially. Remember that Apple's MacOS "Darwin" kernel is somehow
bleshed with the Mach microkernel. Not sure how difficult it would be
to port a driver from (say) FreeBSD to Darwin proper...
On Apr 11, 2026 at 5:20:21 AM MST, "The Natural Philosopher" wrote <10rdea5$1pm5d$4@dont-email.me>:
On 11/04/2026 09:42, vallor wrote:
(Okay, they're not "enemies", just people we disagree with -- but
there is a certain satisfaction in pointing out all the mistakes they
are making.)
Trolls come in two flavours., One is there to wind you up by making
outrageous statements in order to keep you responding in a vain attempt
to teach them the truth, They don't care about the truth., They just
want your engagement. I think it is a form of validation for them, You
have proved that they actually exist.
I openly admit I fall for this type trolling over and over and over. I
want to believe people are having discussions in good faith even when
the evidence shows they are not. That is on me.
On 11 Apr 2026 14:04:27 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 5:20:21 AM MST, "The Natural Philosopher" wrote
<10rdea5$1pm5d$4@dont-email.me>:
On 11/04/2026 09:42, vallor wrote:
(Okay, they're not "enemies", just people we disagree with -- but
there is a certain satisfaction in pointing out all the mistakes they
are making.)
Trolls come in two flavours., One is there to wind you up by making
outrageous statements in order to keep you responding in a vain attempt
to teach them the truth, They don't care about the truth., They just
want your engagement. I think it is a form of validation for them, You
have proved that they actually exist.
I openly admit I fall for this type trolling over and over and over. I
want to believe people are having discussions in good faith even when
the evidence shows they are not. That is on me.
Yeah, I should put CtrlAltDel in the bozo bin to prevent rising to the
bait. He's good though and can mimic the not-to-bright Linux Mint users. Nothing against Mint but when a distro becomes known as a newbie distro
you get a mix of people who genuinely want to learn and the ineducable.
On Apr 11, 2026 at 12:03:59 PM MST, "rbowman" wrote <n3vk8vF3vesU2@mid.individual.net>:
On 11 Apr 2026 14:04:27 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 5:20:21 AM MST, "The Natural Philosopher" wrote
<10rdea5$1pm5d$4@dont-email.me>:
On 11/04/2026 09:42, vallor wrote:
(Okay, they're not "enemies", just people we disagree with -- but
there is a certain satisfaction in pointing out all the mistakes they >>>>> are making.)
Trolls come in two flavours., One is there to wind you up by making
outrageous statements in order to keep you responding in a vain attempt >>>> to teach them the truth, They don't care about the truth., They just
want your engagement. I think it is a form of validation for them, You >>>> have proved that they actually exist.
I openly admit I fall for this type trolling over and over and over. I
want to believe people are having discussions in good faith even when
the evidence shows they are not. That is on me.
Yeah, I should put CtrlAltDel in the bozo bin to prevent rising to the
bait. He's good though and can mimic the not-to-bright Linux Mint users.
Nothing against Mint but when a distro becomes known as a newbie distro
you get a mix of people who genuinely want to learn and the ineducable.
I spent FAR too long giving a stalker of mine any attention... still do through others. He and his "Usenet Riders" or whatever they call themselves take joy in causing harm and I am now their prime target.
On Apr 11, 2026 at 12:03:59 PM MST, "rbowman" wrote <n3vk8vF3vesU2@mid.individual.net>:Why don't you just ignore them? Cut off their oxygen supply and they
On 11 Apr 2026 14:04:27 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 5:20:21 AM MST, "The Natural Philosopher" wrote
<10rdea5$1pm5d$4@dont-email.me>:
On 11/04/2026 09:42, vallor wrote:
(Okay, they're not "enemies", just people we disagree with -- but
there is a certain satisfaction in pointing out all the mistakes
they are making.)
Trolls come in two flavours., One is there to wind you up by
making outrageous statements in order to keep you responding in a
vain attempt to teach them the truth, They don't care about the
truth., They just want your engagement. I think it is a form of
validation for them, You have proved that they actually exist.
I openly admit I fall for this type trolling over and over and
over. I want to believe people are having discussions in good
faith even when the evidence shows they are not. That is on me.
Yeah, I should put CtrlAltDel in the bozo bin to prevent rising to
the bait. He's good though and can mimic the not-to-bright Linux
Mint users. Nothing against Mint but when a distro becomes known as
a newbie distro you get a mix of people who genuinely want to learn
and the ineducable.
I spent FAR too long giving a stalker of mine any attention... still
do through others. He and his "Usenet Riders" or whatever they call themselves take joy in causing harm and I am now their prime target.
On 4/11/26 13:28, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 12:03:59PM MST, "rbowman" wrote <n3vk8vF3vesU2@mid.individual.net>:
On 11 Apr 2026 14:04:27 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 5:20:21AM MST, "The Natural Philosopher" wrote
<10rdea5$1pm5d$4@dont-email.me>:
On 11/04/2026 09:42, vallor wrote:
(Okay, they're not "enemies", just people we disagree with -- but
there is a certain satisfaction in pointing out all the mistakes they >>>>> are making.)
Trolls come in two flavours., One is there to wind you up by making
outrageous statements in order to keep you responding in a vain attempt >>>> to teach them the truth, They don't care about the truth., They just >>>> want your engagement. I think it is a form of validation for them, You >>>> have proved that they actually exist.
I openly admit I fall for this type trolling over and over and over. I >>> want to believe people are having discussions in good faith even when
the evidence shows they are not. That is on me.
Yeah, I should put CtrlAltDel in the bozo bin to prevent rising to the
bait. He's good though and can mimic the not-to-bright Linux Mint users. >> Nothing against Mint but when a distro becomes known as a newbie distro
you get a mix of people who genuinely want to learn and the ineducable.
I spent FAR too long giving a stalker of mine any attention... still do through others. He and his "Usenet Riders" or whatever they call themselves take joy in causing harm and I am now their prime target.
Post to single topic groups on topic. One Newsgroup, one on topic post.
Stay away from posts to any advocacy newsgroup and I learned that
about 30 years ago when I was running an Amiga and getting my Usenet
through a Amiga BBS with a Usenet provider and a Internet mail connection.
Amiga advocacy was a stinking swamp of hostility and never posted
there because of the nastiness expressed by real human as we had no
bots in those distant days.
Good luck and may the Trollish recover from their need for mess.
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 08:37:29 +0000, vallor wrote:
Potentially. Remember that Apple's MacOS "Darwin" kernel is somehow
bleshed with the Mach microkernel. Not sure how difficult it would be
to port a driver from (say) FreeBSD to Darwin proper...
Apple was not hindered by ideological purity and got the microkernel architecture to work. Hurd will be ready any day now.
In article <10rec6e$23f0q$1@dont-email.me>, bliss-
sf4ever@dslextreme.com says...
On 4/11/26 13:28, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 12:03:59 PM MST, "rbowman" wrote
<n3vk8vF3vesU2@mid.individual.net>:
On 11 Apr 2026 14:04:27 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:I spent FAR too long giving a stalker of mine any attention... still do
On Apr 11, 2026 at 5:20:21 AM MST, "The Natural Philosopher" wrote
<10rdea5$1pm5d$4@dont-email.me>:
On 11/04/2026 09:42, vallor wrote:
(Okay, they're not "enemies", just people we disagree with -- but >>>>>>> there is a certain satisfaction in pointing out all the mistakes they >>>>>>> are making.)
Trolls come in two flavours., One is there to wind you up by making >>>>>> outrageous statements in order to keep you responding in a vain attempt >>>>>> to teach them the truth, They don't care about the truth., They just >>>>>> want your engagement. I think it is a form of validation for them, You >>>>>> have proved that they actually exist.
I openly admit I fall for this type trolling over and over and over. I >>>>> want to believe people are having discussions in good faith even when >>>>> the evidence shows they are not. That is on me.
Yeah, I should put CtrlAltDel in the bozo bin to prevent rising to the >>>> bait. He's good though and can mimic the not-to-bright Linux Mint users. >>>> Nothing against Mint but when a distro becomes known as a newbie distro >>>> you get a mix of people who genuinely want to learn and the ineducable. >>>
through others. He and his "Usenet Riders" or whatever they call themselves >>> take joy in causing harm and I am now their prime target.
Post to single topic groups on topic. One Newsgroup, one on topic post.
The problem is snit is rarely on topic.
He is a professional victim and feeds upon attention. When
he doesn't get attention he resorts to posting from sock
accounts.
Stay away from posts to any advocacy newsgroup and I learned that
about 30 years ago when I was running an Amiga and getting my Usenet
through a Amiga BBS with a Usenet provider and a Internet mail connection.
Back then I always wanted an Amiga. Too expensive for my
college student budget though. I did prefer eating.
Amiga advocacy was a stinking swamp of hostility and never posted
there because of the nastiness expressed by real humans as we had no
bots in those distant days.
I don't frequent social media, like Reddit, but from what
I can bots have invaded most social media platforms.
That's a shame.
Good luck and may the Trollish recover from their need for mess.
You might want to research snit.
I will say no more as I do not wish to contribute to his
problems with reality.
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> writes:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 08:37:29 +0000, vallor wrote:
Potentially. Remember that Apple's MacOS "Darwin" kernel is somehow
bleshed with the Mach microkernel. Not sure how difficult it would be
to port a driver from (say) FreeBSD to Darwin proper...
Apple was not hindered by ideological purity and got the microkernel
architecture to work. Hurd will be ready any day now.
As I understand it[1], the Darwin/XNU kernel contains pretty much
everything you’d find in a traditional kernel, in a single shared kernel address space, much the same as Linux and most other Unixes back to the 1970s. So not really ‘microkernel architecture’ despite happening to contain the Mach codebase.
[1] I’d welcome a correction if I’ve got this wrong.
Hurd in contrast genuinely is split into a couple of dozen independent servers. For example, Hurd the server process implementing /dev/null
can be found at
https://github.com/joshumax/hurd/blob/master/trans/null.c - it has its
own main() and everything.
--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> writes:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2026 08:37:29 +0000, vallor wrote:
Potentially. Remember that Apple's MacOS "Darwin" kernel is somehow
bleshed with the Mach microkernel. Not sure how difficult it would be
to port a driver from (say) FreeBSD to Darwin proper...
Apple was not hindered by ideological purity and got the microkernel
architecture to work. Hurd will be ready any day now.
As I understand it[1], the Darwin/XNU kernel contains pretty much
everything you’d find in a traditional kernel, in a single shared kernel address space, much the same as Linux and most other Unixes back to the 1970s. So not really ‘microkernel architecture’ despite happening to contain the Mach codebase.
On 4/11/26 13:28, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 12:03:59 PM MST, "rbowman" wrote
<n3vk8vF3vesU2@mid.individual.net>:
On 11 Apr 2026 14:04:27 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 5:20:21 AM MST, "The Natural Philosopher" wrote
<10rdea5$1pm5d$4@dont-email.me>:
On 11/04/2026 09:42, vallor wrote:
(Okay, they're not "enemies", just people we disagree with -- but
there is a certain satisfaction in pointing out all the mistakes they >>>>>> are making.)
Trolls come in two flavours., One is there to wind you up by making
outrageous statements in order to keep you responding in a vain attempt >>>>> to teach them the truth, They don't care about the truth., They just >>>>> want your engagement. I think it is a form of validation for them, You >>>>> have proved that they actually exist.
I openly admit I fall for this type trolling over and over and over. I >>>> want to believe people are having discussions in good faith even when
the evidence shows they are not. That is on me.
Yeah, I should put CtrlAltDel in the bozo bin to prevent rising to the
bait. He's good though and can mimic the not-to-bright Linux Mint users. >>> Nothing against Mint but when a distro becomes known as a newbie distro
you get a mix of people who genuinely want to learn and the ineducable.
I spent FAR too long giving a stalker of mine any attention... still do
through others. He and his "Usenet Riders" or whatever they call themselves >> take joy in causing harm and I am now their prime target.
Post to single topic groups on topic. One Newsgroup, one on topic post.
Stay away from posts to any advocacy newsgroup and I learned that
about 30 years ago when I was running an Amiga and getting my Usenet
through a Amiga BBS with a Usenet provider and a Internet mail connection.
Amiga advocacy was a stinking swamp of hostility and never posted
there because of the nastiness expressed by real human as we had no
bots in those distant days.
Good luck and may the Trollish recover from their need for mess.
bliss- Dell Precision 7730- PCLOS 2026.04- Linux 6.12.80 pclos1- KDE--
Plasma 6.6.4
On 4/11/26 13:28, Brock McNuggets wrote:[...]
On Apr 11, 2026 at 12:03:59 PM MST, "rbowman" wrote
<n3vk8vF3vesU2@mid.individual.net>:
Yeah, I should put CtrlAltDel in the bozo bin to prevent rising to the
bait. He's good though and can mimic the not-to-bright Linux Mint users. >>> Nothing against Mint but when a distro becomes known as a newbie distro
you get a mix of people who genuinely want to learn and the ineducable.
I spent FAR too long giving a stalker of mine any attention... still do
through others. He and his "Usenet Riders" or whatever they call themselves >> take joy in causing harm and I am now their prime target.
Post to single topic groups on topic. One Newsgroup, one on topic post.
Stay away from posts to any advocacy newsgroup and I learned that
about 30 years ago when I was running an Amiga and getting my Usenet
through a Amiga BBS with a Usenet provider and a Internet mail connection.
Amiga advocacy was a stinking swamp of hostility and never posted
there because of the nastiness expressed by real human as we had no
bots in those distant days.
Good luck and may the Trollish recover from their need for mess.--
Absolutely... and I am very guilty of falling for it over and over and over.
On 11 Apr 2026 14:04:27 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Apr 11, 2026 at 5:20:21 AM MST, "The Natural Philosopher" wrote
<10rdea5$1pm5d$4@dont-email.me>:
On 11/04/2026 09:42, vallor wrote:
(Okay, they're not "enemies", just people we disagree with -- but
there is a certain satisfaction in pointing out all the mistakes they
are making.)
Trolls come in two flavours., One is there to wind you up by making
outrageous statements in order to keep you responding in a vain attempt
to teach them the truth, They don't care about the truth., They just
want your engagement. I think it is a form of validation for them, You
have proved that they actually exist.
I openly admit I fall for this type trolling over and over and over. I
want to believe people are having discussions in good faith even when
the evidence shows they are not. That is on me.
Yeah, I should put CtrlAltDel in the bozo bin to prevent rising to the
bait. He's good though and can mimic the not-to-bright Linux Mint users. Nothing against Mint but when a distro becomes known as a newbie distro
you get a mix of people who genuinely want to learn and the ineducable.
I spent FAR too long giving a stalker of mine any attention... still do through others. He and his "Usenet Riders" or whatever they call themselves take joy in causing harm and I am now their prime target.
In article <10rec6e$23f0q$1@dont-email.me>, bliss-
I don't frequent social media, like Reddit, but from whatIf it can be done it will be. Paying bots to post the party line is even cheaper than paying people.
I can bots have invaded most social media platforms.
That's a shame.
Good luck and may the Trollish recover from their need for mess.
You might want to research snit.
I will say no more as I do not wish to contribute to his
problems with reality.
On 4/11/26 14:26, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
As I understand it[1], the Darwin/XNU kernel contains pretty much
everything you’d find in a traditional kernel, in a single shared kernel >> address space, much the same as Linux and most other Unixes back to the
1970s. So not really ‘microkernel architecture’ despite happening to
contain the Mach codebase.
[1] I’d welcome a correction if I’ve got this wrong.
Hurd in contrast genuinely is split into a couple of dozen
independent
servers. For example, Hurd the server process implementing /dev/null
can be found at
https://github.com/joshumax/hurd/blob/master/trans/null.c - it has its
own main() and everything.
The Amiga ran well on a micro kernel but its hardware was fixed in its original format and ran well but withoug memory protection in a maximum
of 8 Megabytes for the 68000 machines.
On 11/04/2026 15:59, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Absolutely... and I am very guilty of falling for it over and over and over.
The problem is the intelligent are almost as unable to understand
stupidity, as stupid people are to understand intelligence.
On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 12:13:39 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
On 09/04/2026 04:48, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
But those are just pale imitations of the package manager concept
as implemented on Linux, aren’t they.
sudo port install python3
and one has the latest version of python3.
So which version will, say, an Apple-provided script use? Is there
some mechanism where Apple’s own scripts continue to use its Python version, while third-party scripts use the one you installed?
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,113 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 492335:43:43 |
| Calls: | 14,238 |
| Files: | 186,312 |
| D/L today: |
3,558 files (1,159M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,514,865 |