Apparently, 12% of Technology Workers Believe that MacOS is based on Linux
-
I see no racism in the video posted?
Ahhh give him a break he probably just forgot. If it helps, I'm sure he was thinking something horrible about somebody reasonably nice. /s
-
Seriously, Microsoft's absurd level of commitment to backwards compatibility is the entire reason Windows has such staying power. I had to fuck around with things to get a Linux port of a ten year old game running without issues, and it was even the Steam version, but Windows will install and run most twenty year old games right off of the original CD without the user having to do anything at all.
That compatability has been dropping recently, especially for games. Most of my CD games need extra libraries to run now, if they work at all.
-
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.
Huh. That’s interesting. Are the MacOS coreutils incapable or not user-friendly in some way? Or is it more that they’re too different for people who know GNU and BSD coreutils?
I also wonder if their coreutils are open source. I quickly tried searching here but couldn’t find an answer https://opensource.apple.com/releases/
-
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.
Just remember that they didn't certify macOS for any practical reason, Apple was just weaseling out of a lawsuit and figured that paying the certification was cheaper than damages. I think they lost the certification some time later. Newer macOS is not Unix certified.
-
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.
While I was doing OS-X stuff, I remember Darwin just being a really painfully bad implementation of the apt functionality in Debian based Linuxes... Potaytoe, Potahtoe, Darwin is like burnt house fries, IMO.
-
In either case, its a quick copy/paste on my part, so /shrug.
I was thinking "okay this somewhat unconventional but whatever" until I read this. Use greasemonkey or something for the love of Christ!
I comment on both my phone and PC. As a sofware developer, its not a big deal for me to copy/paste, I do it all the time (even read the O'Reilly book on the subject
).~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
-
I was around when that was an active topic back then so I am aware. It's just I don't trust any or most companies to respect it anyway. Also as someone else suggested, look into automation lol, I thought you had something like an email signature that gets added automatically.
Also as someone else suggested, look into automation lol
Just so I don't repeat myself...
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
-
Except for the part where decades' worth of software no longer runs on Windows.
So their only real development effort becomes contributing to the kernel and wine. Ez pz.
-
I don’t think the ToS approach would be invalidated here via your Safe Harbor fork theory.
The ToS could state something like “you give us a worldwide perpetual right to use your content in any way we want including granting this right to whom we designate”
You still own your content but by having an account you agree to the ToS that lets them do what they want.
They just host it and are safe.
TOS can't change Law, can't strip away rights that you have.
Law always trumps TOS.
In fact, if a company tries to via their TOS they are opening themselves up for big risks/lawsuits, as they are trying to gain ownership of your content, voiding their Safe Harbor law protections.
They can't have it both ways, thats not how the Law works. Either they have the protection, or they own the content.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
-
This post did not contain any content.
They share some inspiration. Same with Linux/Unix confusion.
About 15 minutes in a terminal trying to do Linux'y things are you get completely disillusioned.
-
Well, scrapers probably would ignore it.
Well, scrapers probably would ignore it.
Maybe, I wouldn't doubt it, if true. We live in the age of "ask for forgiveness and not permission". But the law is the law, and forgiveness may cost them some $$$ down the road. At the very least it leaves them exposed vis-a-vis 'Safe Harbor' laws-wise, when some other powerful entity wants to go to war with them.
In either case, I'm not going to give up my rights just because currently laws are not enforced. Like most things with humans, things move back-and-forth throughout time, and what may be overlooked today may be scrutinized thoroughly tomorrow.
(And for the record, you're the bazillionish person to tell me that. The repetition is real.)
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
-
Lmfao. My fucking lead was arguing with me the other day how Linux is Unix. I just said ok after I saw that it was going nowhere.
One or two Linux distros were (are?) UNIX certified, though.
-
Just remember that they didn't certify macOS for any practical reason, Apple was just weaseling out of a lawsuit and figured that paying the certification was cheaper than damages. I think they lost the certification some time later. Newer macOS is not Unix certified.
Newer macOS is not Unix certified.
It's UNIX 03 compliant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification
-
isn't Linux Unix-like?
Linux Is Not Unix, Xavier!
-
Whatever else it may be, macos most certainly Is Unix unfortunately
Anything can be Unix if you're willing to pay for the certification.
-
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.
That license does nothing.
Especially since the comment itself in question is so short that it would be public domain in practically every jurisdiction.
-
One or two Linux distros were (are?) UNIX certified, though.
But not the Linux kernel itself.
-
But not the Linux kernel itself.
What would you say determines whether a kernel is a Unix kernel? I believe Linux is as much a Unix kernel as the BSD kernel is, the FreeBSD kernel, the AIX kernel, the System V kernel, etc.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Lunduke sucks. Let's have some Judeposting instead
-
This post did not contain any content.
who even cares
