Oxford says Apple's OS X is a Linux distro 3173

snips

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:23:13 +0100, Sandman

You mean over an untrusted connection, *exactly* as I stated? Yes, indeed. What was your objection, the part you're saying "no" to here?

So? Most folks don't even own a computer. We're examining people who do, and who *do* need such things. I've needed such things on several occasions, at several different companies.

Sure, but so what? Again, we're back to the notion that ease of use only matters for routine stuff, anything else, for some reason, somehow doesn't matter. Got news for you, if you're the one trying to get a job done, it damn well *does* matter.

Not sure I've ever used a resource-forked file, nor even if you can create one using Linux file systems. That said, ISTR that when accessing NTFS-based forked files (something like "filename:0" and "filename:1" - been a while) you had the option of accessing the individual "forks", or just using the base, non-forked filename and getting the whole smegging works.

That said, that wouldn't really tend to be an issue in Linux, if only because, AFAIK, it simply doesn't use them, so there's no need to sort that sort of thing out... and if an Apple system is trying to store such a enough to figure out what to do with its own funky file types.

No idea what that's supposed to mean; it's the OSX twonks, not the Linux ones, harping GUI consistency as the end-all and be-all of user friendliness.

The point isn't how one does it, so much as whether one can do it, and with what degree of difficulty. Doesn't matter to me if it's ssh at the command line, or AppleTalk via a GUI. What matters is whether or not I can get the job done, and whether or not the OS and attendant tools make it more or less difficult to do the job.

Snot, for example, was given ample opportunity to show how to do the job *as easily*, never mind more so, using OSX and its GUI tools; he failed, abysmally. To me that says OSX and its tools simply aren't up to the task... or, at the very least, if they are (say by installing ssh and gpg and bash) they're no more than equivalently easy - neither of which amounts to a compelling argument for OSX.

That would be an issue for the sftp server (or client), on the Apple machine, to sort out. On the receiving end, it's expecting a file, or sets of files. How the Apple end wants to handle its special file formats is its problem.

Again, see above. If sftp won't handle those things, and the Apple end isn't bright enough to do appropriate conversions, then you need to change something at some stage of the process. Whether that's not using the oddball file formats which, apparently, the Apple end isn't bright enough to do the right thing with, or changing the server-client tools to something which will automate the splitting and storing (and subsequent re-buttembling) of the file forks, or simply splitting the forks and sending them separately, is your choice.

'Course, you are, without apparently realizing it, arguing once again for standard and open file formats; what you're discussing seems to be specific to Apple, rather than to the rest of the universe.

Nope. Every platform, presumably, does some clbutt of things better than the others. No big news there. OSX may do a lot of things better than Windows or Linux. This isn't exactly a grand revelation from on high.

The only issue I have, really, in the whole discussion is the absolutism of certain dunderheads who can't seem to grasp that there's a difference between "easy to use" and "easy to use, for some users, doing some tasks, at some skill levels".

By blanket butterting that OSX is easier than some alternative, it becomes trivial to demonstrate this is utter and complete balderdash, by coming up with a *single* counter-example. That doesn't mean OSX doesn't do anything well, or a lot of things well, or even, potentially, most things better; it simply means the blanket buttertion that OSX is easier is a load of crap.

Except that in such a group, you're dealing with individuals. If you weren't interested in such individual discussions, individual needs, you wouldn't be posting here, but instead you'd be writing a web page for general consumption, or maybe a magazine article.

By posting to an active forum and making a claim, you're making it not to the general case, but rather to the individuals who are on "the other side". Thus you are, in effect, making a very direct statement to each individual, despite not saying things such as "It's easier for Rex."

The medium is not the message, not in this case, at least, but it does affect how the message is treated. This is not a poster on a wall, impersonal and general; it is an active and interactive medium in which anything said is, of necessity, directed to the other members participating, hence, is, in fact, personal and specific, not simply "general".

Indeed, I have no idea what it means. Consistent print dialogs seems to be a pretty lame reason to choose an OS, but Snit's been harping on it a lot.

All we've got, so far, in terms of OSX advocacy here, is consistent dialogs and the supposed ability to do the same tasks, the same way, as we're already doing them using other systems - which doesn't really add up to much in terms of demonstrating any particular benefits of OSX.

Does OSX have benefits over other systems? Very likely. Enough to warrant switching OSen? Possibly, at least for some users. Have they been demonstrated here? Not enough to make any sort of case for OSX.

-- MS, because work should be measured by effort, rather than result.