Re: Jooty baby's ego knows no bounds Re: Ground Busses

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:36:03 -0600, Joe <joe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 03:43:39 -0600, flipper wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 07:06:06 -0600, Joe <joe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 
>>>On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 05:02:33 -0600, flipper wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 03:11:24 -0600, Joe <joe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:55:47 -0600, flipper wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:46:03 -0600, Joe <joe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:41:25 +1100, keithr wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I don't know the figures, but windows would have many times the
>>>>>>>> amount of "Useful" software than either the Mac or Linux.  Unix
is
>>>>>>>> in it's death throes (a couple of years ago my employer had a
>>>>>>>> hundred or so developers beavering away SUN workstations using
>>>>>>>> Unix, now they all use Linux on PCs)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Linux *is* "Unix" - dickhead.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Linux is 'Unix like' but is not Unix
>>>>>
>>>>>Only to a copyright lawyer.
>>>> 
>>>> No, to anyone who cares about SUS and POSIX compliance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Fair point. But my experience as a developer was that typically any
>>>differences (in writing code) between a POSIX compliant Unix and a
>>>non-compliant one was trivial. YMMV.
>> 
>> Windows with SFU is POSIX complaint too but I'd hardly say it "is"
Unix.
>> 
>> 
>>>>> Anyone with real experience who has written
>>>>>software (for Unix), knows that Sun SunOS/Solaris, IBM AIX, HPUX,
>>>>>Linux, *BSD* and many others, all belong to the same family. They are
>>>>>all "Unix"
>>>> 
>>>> That's like saying a Collie is a German Sheppard because they both
>>>> belong to the 'dog family'.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>No it isn't.
>> 
>> Yes it is.
>> 
>>> The word family was used as an illustration, not as a
>>>definition.
>> 
>> I didn't say it was a 'definition'. But you used a word one might agree
>> with, Linux being in 'the family', to do a switchero jump, all off a
>> sudden, to 'same thing'.
>> 
>> And my example can be worded exactly the same way. Collies, German
>> Shepherds, Daschunds, and many others, all belong to the same family
>> (dog). They are all German Shepherds.
>> 
>> 
>>>> 'Linux', btw, is a kernel, not an OS.
>>>
>>>Not necessarily.
>> 
>> Yes, necessarily.
>> 
>>> Some people prefer to refer to Linux as the OS and
>>>the Linux kernel as the kernel.
>> 
>> Which is incorrect, despite the 'widespread usage'.
>> 
>
> Utter nonsense - there is no authority which has decided
>that "Linux" refers solely to the kernel.

How about because it's what the author wrote: a kernel?

> That is your
>(and others) preference based on your "religious"
>viewpoint.

And what 'religion' have you dreamed up?


>>> Others prefer to use GNU/Linux as
>>>the OS and Linux as the kernel.
>> 
>> That's because 'Linux" is the kernel and to get an OS out of it you
hang
>> a pile of GNU, and whatever strikes the distributor's fancy, on it. Or,
>> rather, GNU didn't have a kernel and picked 'Linux'. Or Linux didn't
>> have an OS and picked GNU. Take your pick but, in any case, 'Linux',
all
>> by its lonesome, isn't an 'OS'.
>>
>
> "Clutching at straws" springs to mind here - you really don't know
>much about Linux at all, except what you've read.

Speaking of "clutching at straws."

> I've used Linux
>since the early 1990's

So have I. As well as Unix/Unix-like OSs on the PC long before Linux
was a twinkle in Linus' foobar.

> (kernel 0.9x) and am fully aware of the
>history of it. "Linux" was used to describe the complete OS then
>(including the GNU stuff and window managers like FVWM) - the
>kernel was referred to as (surprise, surprise) "the Linux kernel".
>The use of Linux to describe the kernel only came much later -
>possibly because people like Richard Stallman were unhappy about
>the lack of recognition given to GNU in the make-up of a Linux
>system. 

Gee, I can't imagine why someone would mind having their decade long
effort ad-hoc appropriated.

You have an interesting view of 'rights'. What makes you think Linus
has an 'inherent right' to name the result but Stallman does not?
Shall we measure lines of code?

>> Btw, GNU is a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not Unix."
>>
>
>  Well, I never, that's a complete surprise to me (not).
>Sticking in gratuitous pieces of "knowledge" you've probably
>gleaned from Wikipedia impresses me not one jot.

I  'knew' what 'GNU' meant long before Wikipedia was a twinkle too and
there's nothing 'gratuitous' about it. GNU is the meaning of GNU, the
name of the project and the product: The GNU Operating System.

And damn good thing it was there for Linus to stick his kernel into or
else we wouldn't be having a discussion about whether 'Linux' is
'Unix'.

>> And then you hang GNOME, or KDE, or some other windowing system on it
>> that isn't GNU and certainly not UNIX either.
>> 
>>> It is usually clear from the context
>>>whether "Linux" is referring to the kernel or the OS, and the quote
that
>>>started this thread was referring to Linux as the OS.
>> 
>> People use all sorts of slang and words incorrectly. Often it's of
>> little consequence because, as you say, it can be 'decoded' from the
>> context but you're the one who got all huffy about what you apparently
>> considered an 'erroneous' usage so it's a bit odd you want to now hang
>> your hat on fuzzy wording.
>
>  The only "huffy" one is yourself in pedantically sticking your oar
>in by claiming that Linux is "Unix-like" rather than "Unix".

Making a case is not 'huffy'. "Linux *is* "Unix" - dickhead" is.

>If you wish to believe that the only Unix systems are those
>that are allowed to use the UNIX trademark or that are POSIX
>compliant Unix systems,

'Unix' systems are those that meet the standards which define it. 

> you are perfectly free to do so. Many other
>people (myself included), have a rather more practical approach -
>somewhat along the lines of "if it walks like a Unix and quacks like
>a Unix, the it is a Unix".

That's what the dead duck that landed beside the decoy planted by the
hunter blowing in his quacker thought too.