Apparently, 12% of Technology Workers Believe that MacOS is based on Linux
-
Except humans aren't apes. Humans are great apes.
Given the topic, this distinction is highly relevant.
Not me, I am a damn dirty ape.
-
I am getting annoyed on your behalf lol. Why do people feel the need to screech at others doing something harmless when they could just shut up and ignore it is beyond me. Not a fair comparison but it does feel like republicans shouting at trans people.
I feel like it somehow relates to Cunningham's Law but i can't figure out how to articulate it.
-
I wish it was then it may make sense. Every time I use the MacOS terminal. It's like an uncanny valley so similar but the more you look the more horrific it becomes. I can't even say it's Unix is the problem as freebsd makes complete sense.
Thanks for the response. I'm ignorant in this topic. How is MacOS horrific?
-
This post did not contain any content.
No it's not, it's based on BSD, or more specifically Darwin, which is derived from BSD, so Unix-like, but not Linux.
Although, oddly, macOS is a certified UNIX OS so it can rightfully sit at the table with the SysV distros, but it's completely removed in its nature from the SysV distros.
-
That license does nothing.
Your comments aren’t licensed because you put something in them. It’s stopping nothing. Licensing is an agreement, and requires parties to consent. You don’t just magically force licenses onto people.
If this was real I could license my comments where if you read them, you owe me 10k.
This is the digital equivalent of sovereign citizens.
I don’t think it’s equivalent to sovereign citizens. OP is the author of their comment and therefore has the copyrights. As the author one can license their work as all rights reserved or other permissive licenses.
OP chooses to license their work as Creative Commons.
They’re not forcing you to accept the license, it’s your local government that enforces copyright.
The reason why this might work on Lemmy but not on corporate Social media is that corporate social media often have terms of service that require you to give them ownership/rights/etc. Lemmy has no such ToC.
-
I saw this exact same comic a while back but it was for Fish Linux.
-
Thanks for the response. I'm ignorant in this topic. How is MacOS horrific?
For one, some of the coreutils are weird. They aren't BSD coreutils, but they're not GNU coreutils either. They're like an old version of BSD coreutils with some GNU features added.
-
Who on earth actually cares? Those 12% are probably not really wrong either, apparently.
Can you fiddle up a weird black screen with lots of $ and # symbols? Yes, its a Unix and its probably Linux.
MacOS is odd because I say so and because most users of it will insist on their screen being darkened and brightened at the same time. I don't like black being rammed into my eyes.
Can you fiddle up a weird black screen with lots of $ and # symbols? Yes, its a Unix and its probably Linux.
You heard it here first folks, windows is a Unix and probably Linux!
-
12% of people believed JFK was going to be resurrected a year ago or some dumb shit. The point is, more than 1/4 of the population are not smart.
Well it depends where you sit on the bell curve, 1/8 of the population thinks the other 1/8 are fucking stupid, whilst been completely oblivious to the fact that they are in fact also fucking stupid
-
That license does nothing.
Your comments aren’t licensed because you put something in them. It’s stopping nothing. Licensing is an agreement, and requires parties to consent. You don’t just magically force licenses onto people.
If this was real I could license my comments where if you read them, you owe me 10k.
This is the digital equivalent of sovereign citizens.
So, if I go to a library, pick a book and start reading it, I am then free to completely copy it because I didn’t agree to any licensing?
-
Thanks, appreciate the support!
It's amazing how bent out of shape some people get about this, both currently, as well as about tenish months ago when I last was on Lemmy (check out my comment history from that time period if you really want to get annoyed).
I got to imagine that its people who want to farm the comments for their LLMs training, that are trying to prevent the popular usage of people licensing their content.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
Honestly I don't believe it would help myself but who am I to tell you what to do. As someone else mentioned, it's probably people who simply have to correct others when they don't share the option. Doubt it would be anything like being in support of LLMs, probably the opposite.
-
Honestly I don't believe it would help myself but who am I to tell you what to do. As someone else mentioned, it's probably people who simply have to correct others when they don't share the option. Doubt it would be anything like being in support of LLMs, probably the opposite.
Honestly I don’t believe it would help myself
It would help if the companies that are training their LLMs honor content creators licenses. If they ignore the law in that, then it would in theory need to be policed.
In either case, its a quick copy/paste on my part, so /shrug.
As someone else mentioned, it’s probably people who simply have to correct others when they don’t share the option. Doubt it would be anything like being in support of LLMs, probably the opposite.
I don't know. It would behoove those who need our content to train their LLMs to intimidate/redirect people away from licensing their content. And I can't imagine regular people getting so caught up to spend so much time on this issue. If you look through my comment history, starting 9-10 months ago, and see how many replies I've gotten, and how posts talk about this issue (https://lemmy.ml/post/15152684), I can't imagine a single link would cause all of that. Theres got to be something more to it than that.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
-
This post did not contain any content.
Oh it's infamous racist Bryan Lunduke. Is there no rule against posting that guy?
-
This post did not contain any content.
It'd help if Lunduke were to explain the true origin of those things like Ada Lovelace and programming, and Grace Hopper and the moth. And what predated that.
-
No it's not, it's based on BSD, or more specifically Darwin, which is derived from BSD, so Unix-like, but not Linux.
Although, oddly, macOS is a certified UNIX OS so it can rightfully sit at the table with the SysV distros, but it's completely removed in its nature from the SysV distros.
Not just Unix-like but actually ancestrally Unix as well as being certified as Unix
-
It has been since 2019 but before that it was bash.
I just got around to switching last month
-
For one, some of the coreutils are weird. They aren't BSD coreutils, but they're not GNU coreutils either. They're like an old version of BSD coreutils with some GNU features added.
I didn't know that. When I was searching for a new computer last month, I considered a Macbook because I liked BSD utilities more. I ended up buying a Thinkpad T14 and booting Chimera Linux(actually uses BSD utilities) on it.
-
Oh it's infamous racist Bryan Lunduke. Is there no rule against posting that guy?
Oh? What did he do
-
It is now, but it was
bashbefore.But in any case once you start doing anything remotely advanced you’ll find the individual command line utilities are wildly different between macOS and Linux. They seem (are?) much closer to FreeBSD than GNU utilities.
Yeah, it's always fun to find out that a standard looking util on osx actually requires weird args and syntax.
-
That license does nothing.
It makes me feel good. That's something.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
Can't argue with that. I'm glad you've found something that you enjoy.
