From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

I am woefully behind in the Linux world -- having done little with it for the last five years.

ChatGPT is hardly the best source but it is a quick source and consolidates things... asked it this:

Q: What changes have there been do desktop Linux in the last 5 years?

It went into quite some detail, with a summary of:
-----
* Wayland is now mainstream rCo most major desktops (GNOME, KDE, etc.) use it by
default, giving smoother graphics, better security, and modern display handling.

* Desktops are more polished rCo KDE Plasma 6, GNOME 45+, and new options like System76rCOs Rust-based COSMIC show big UI and UX progress.

* Hardware support is much better rCo AMD and Intel drivers, high-DPI scaling, multi-monitor setups, and power management have all improved.

* App distribution is easier rCo Flatpak, Snap, and AppImage have become standard, reducing distro-specific software problems.

* Gaming has surged rCo Proton, Wine, and Steam Deck advances mean most Windows games now run smoothly on Linux.

* General usability and adoption rCo installation, updates, and defaults are far
more user-friendly; Linux desktop share has grown modestly.
-----

And for those who remember my focus on advocacy was often on GUI usability, I asked about that:

* How about general GUI usability and consistency within common distros?

Good info there, too.

https://chatgpt.com/share/68e33fd2-7c50-8012-b7b6-57529774c019

Lots more at the link.

Anything it is missing? Anything others can elaborate on?

I need to dip my toe into the Linux waters again... seems like a lot of what I advocated for has been happening (along with other good stuff).
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 06 Oct 2025 04:04:54 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

* How about general GUI usability and consistency within common distros?

By rCLconsistencyrCY, do you mean rCLnot having a choicerCY?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On 06 Oct 2025 04:04:54 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

* How about general GUI usability and consistency within common distros?

By rCLconsistencyrCY, do you mean rCLnot having a choicerCY?

Not at all! I mean more and better choices.

And itrCOs been a goal of KDE and Gnome and others since their inception. I donrCOt think theyrCOre against choice. Do you?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 06 Oct 2025 05:47:10 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On 06 Oct 2025 04:04:54 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

* How about general GUI usability and consistency within common
distros?

By rCLconsistencyrCY, do you mean rCLnot having a choicerCY?

Not at all! I mean more and better choices.

Good, because there are those who complain that the Linux world has
*too much* choice. YourCOre not one of those, are you?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On 06 Oct 2025 05:47:10 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On 06 Oct 2025 04:04:54 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

* How about general GUI usability and consistency within common
distros?

By rCLconsistencyrCY, do you mean rCLnot having a choicerCY?

Not at all! I mean more and better choices.

Good, because there are those who complain that the Linux world has
*too much* choice. YourCOre not one of those, are you?

IrCOm grossly outdated and not familiar with the modern choices (even in my focused area of rCLcommon user desktopsrCY) but in general principle: no!

Not even sure what that would mean for the Linux ecosystem.

What I want are distros that focus on usability rCo of which consistency
within the system is a factor.

ThatrCOs not to say it should not be user configurable and modifiable (it should be), or consistent with other distros. Or that all distros need this
as a focus.

I want more and better choices than in the past rCo choices the KDE and Gnome and Mint teams and others also promoted (with some variation). From my
brief Googling seems the progress I saw in the past has continued. Not surprisingly. I donrCOt expect perfection but look forward to seeing how itrCOs grown.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 05:45:35 +0000, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

By rCLconsistencyrCY, do you mean rCLnot having a choicerCY?

Making GNU/Linux more "consistent," i.e. eliminating the differences between distros, is the essential tenet in Poettering's systemd manifesto.

Poettering spells that out in no uncertain terms yet (almost) everyone has bowed to his authority.
--
Hail Linux! Hail FOSS! Hail Stallman!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Brock McNuggets wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On 06 Oct 2025 04:04:54 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

* How about general GUI usability and consistency within common distros?

By rCLconsistencyrCY, do you mean rCLnot having a choicerCY?

Not at all! I mean more and better choices.

And itrCOs been a goal of KDE and Gnome and others since their inception. I donrCOt think theyrCOre against choice. Do you?

With Linux, you can make your own consistency. On my boxes, that
consists of Fluxbox, various apps and programs that I commonly
use, and configuration files that I can transport between machines
for easy setup.

That's my choice. To each his own.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vfp-Tw3G0s>

The Platters "To Each His Own"
--
I was about to say, "Avoid fame like the plague," but you know, they can
cure the plague with penicillin these days.
-- Larry Wall in <199709242015.NAA10312@wall.org>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> wrote:

On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 05:45:35 +0000, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

By rCLconsistencyrCY, do you mean rCLnot having a choicerCY?

Making GNU/Linux more "consistent," i.e. eliminating the differences between distros, is the essential tenet in Poettering's systemd manifesto.

Poettering spells that out in no uncertain terms yet (almost) everyone has bowed to his authority.

How does having a distro with better consistency within itself rCo and other user benefits rCo eliminate differences between distros?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Oct 6, 2025 at 4:53:15rC>AM MST, "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote <10c0ajb$8o9k$4@dont-email.me>:

Brock McNuggets wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On 06 Oct 2025 04:04:54 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

* How about general GUI usability and consistency within common distros? >>>

By rCLconsistencyrCY, do you mean rCLnot having a choicerCY?

Not at all! I mean more and better choices.

And itrCOs been a goal of KDE and Gnome and others since their inception. I >> donrCOt think theyrCOre against choice. Do you?

With Linux, you can make your own consistency. On my boxes, that
consists of Fluxbox, various apps and programs that I commonly
use, and configuration files that I can transport between machines
for easy setup.

That's my choice. To each his own.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vfp-Tw3G0s>

The Platters "To Each His Own"

I know that consistency and other UI benefits has been a goal for a long time in the Linux world... hopefully it is now closer, as you suggest. Just with
the idea of consistency, GNOME's own Human Interface Guidelines make this clear: "The primary role of the HIG is to enable people to design
high-quality, integrated and consistent applications for the GNOME platform." https://wiki.gnome.org/Design%282f%29HIG.html

Their design language is built around this too: "Adwaita's design principles are rooted in simplicity, consistency, and accessibility." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adwaita_(design_language)

Even their branding site emphasizes that "A consistent visual style helps to make GNOME more easily recognisable."
https://brand.gnome.org/

KDE states the same goal. Its Human Interface Guidelines exist so
"applications feel at home when run in KDE Plasma, and work well outside of it."
https://develop.kde.org/hig/

They even have an official project goal called "Consistency," intended to document agreed-upon behaviors across the desktop. https://community.kde.org/Goals/Consistency

Elementary OS is explicit too: "Create a beautifully consistent experience on the elementary OS desktop."
https://docs.elementary.io/hig

This priority extends to distros. Fedora's design team is tasked with ensuring "a consistent look and feel" across the product. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_experience_designers

Ubuntu's design system says: "A component-based design system breeds visual
and functional consistency." https://ubuntu.com/blog/the-lifecycle-of-components-in-your-design-system

Historically, Red Hat's Bluecurve theme aimed "to create a consistent look throughout the Linux environment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluecurve
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Oct 6, 2025 at 3:23:40rC>AM MST, "Farley Flud" wrote <186bdfdd32cbeea8$41265$2686028$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com>:

On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 05:45:35 +0000, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

By rCLconsistencyrCY, do you mean rCLnot having a choicerCY?

Making GNU/Linux more "consistent," i.e. eliminating the differences between distros, is the essential tenet in Poettering's systemd manifesto.

Poettering spells that out in no uncertain terms yet (almost) everyone has bowed to his authority.

I do not think anyone here has suggested "eliminating the differences between distros".

Is that what you think the KDE and Gnome and Fedora and other teams are trying to do?

Gnome: "The primary role of the HIG is to enable people to design
high-quality, integrated and consistent applications for the GNOME platform." https://wiki.gnome.org/Design%282f%29HIG.html

Their design language is built around this too: "Adwaita's design principles are rooted in simplicity, consistency, and accessibility." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adwaita_(design_language)

Even their branding site emphasizes that "A consistent visual style helps to make GNOME more easily recognisable."
https://brand.gnome.org/

KDE states the same goal. Its Human Interface Guidelines exist so
"applications feel at home when run in KDE Plasma, and work well outside of it."
https://develop.kde.org/hig/

They even have an official project goal called "Consistency," intended to document agreed-upon behaviors across the desktop. https://community.kde.org/Goals/Consistency

Elementary OS is explicit too: "Create a beautifully consistent experience on the elementary OS desktop."
https://docs.elementary.io/hig

This priority extends to distros. Fedora's design team is tasked with ensuring "a consistent look and feel" across the product. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_experience_designers

Ubuntu's design system says: "A component-based design system breeds visual
and functional consistency." https://ubuntu.com/blog/the-lifecycle-of-components-in-your-design-system

Historically, Red Hat's Bluecurve theme aimed "to create a consistent look throughout the Linux environment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluecurve
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Brock McNuggets wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

On Oct 6, 2025 at 4:53:15rC>AM MST, "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote <10c0ajb$8o9k$4@dont-email.me>:

<snip>

With Linux, you can make your own consistency. On my boxes, that
consists of Fluxbox, various apps and programs that I commonly
use, and configuration files that I can transport between machines
for easy setup.

That's my choice. To each his own.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vfp-Tw3G0s>

The Platters "To Each His Own"

I know that consistency and other UI benefits has been a goal for a long time in the Linux world... hopefully it is now closer, as you suggest.

You did not grok what I said. I don't need or want somebody else's "consistency" for my desktop. I made my own.

So I snipped all your references here.
--
Well, don't worry about it... It's nothing.
-- Lieutenant Kermit Tyler (Duty Officer of Shafter Information
Center, Hawaii), upon being informed that Private Joseph
Lockard had picked up a radar signal of what appeared to be
at least 50 planes soaring toward Oahu at almost 180 miles
per hour, December 7, 1941.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 10/6/2025 2:42 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

Brock McNuggets wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

On Oct 6, 2025 at 4:53:15rC>AM MST, "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote
<10c0ajb$8o9k$4@dont-email.me>:

With Linux, you can make your own consistency. On my boxes, that
consists of Fluxbox, various apps and programs that I commonly
use, and configuration files that I can transport between machines
for easy setup.

That's my choice. To each his own.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vfp-Tw3G0s>

The Platters "To Each His Own"

I know that consistency and other UI benefits has been a goal for a long time
in the Linux world... hopefully it is now closer, as you suggest.

You did not grok what I said. I don't need or want somebody else's "consistency" for my desktop. I made my own.

So I snipped all your references here.

I see it your way, Chris, Brock/Snit is a friend, but Linux isn't meant
to be macOS or Windows, it is each user's own custom OS, usually
beginning with a distro, but hardly ending there. We tweak, we
configure, we get software from different sources, and it becomes our own.
--
Joel W. Crump
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Oct 6, 2025 at 1:43:43rC>PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote <3SVEQ.293467$2R62.265116@fx13.iad>:

On 10/6/2025 2:42 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

Brock McNuggets wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

On Oct 6, 2025 at 4:53:15rC>AM MST, "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote
<10c0ajb$8o9k$4@dont-email.me>:

With Linux, you can make your own consistency. On my boxes, that
consists of Fluxbox, various apps and programs that I commonly
use, and configuration files that I can transport between machines
for easy setup.

That's my choice. To each his own.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vfp-Tw3G0s>

The Platters "To Each His Own"

I know that consistency and other UI benefits has been a goal for a long time
in the Linux world... hopefully it is now closer, as you suggest.

You did not grok what I said. I don't need or want somebody else's
"consistency" for my desktop. I made my own.

So I snipped all your references here.

I see it your way, Chris, Brock/Snit is a friend, but Linux isn't meant
to be macOS or Windows, it is each user's own custom OS, usually
beginning with a distro, but hardly ending there. We tweak, we
configure, we get software from different sources, and it becomes our own.

I most certainly would not want Linux to be macOS. I want it to have its own pros and cons. And it does.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Oct 6, 2025 at 11:42:08rC>AM MST, "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote <10c12i0$flfv$3@dont-email.me>:

Brock McNuggets wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

On Oct 6, 2025 at 4:53:15rC>AM MST, "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote
<10c0ajb$8o9k$4@dont-email.me>:

<snip>

With Linux, you can make your own consistency. On my boxes, that
consists of Fluxbox, various apps and programs that I commonly
use, and configuration files that I can transport between machines
for easy setup.

That's my choice. To each his own.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vfp-Tw3G0s>

The Platters "To Each His Own"

I know that consistency and other UI benefits has been a goal for a long time
in the Linux world... hopefully it is now closer, as you suggest.

You did not grok what I said. I don't need or want somebody else's "consistency" for my desktop. I made my own.

You made your own system from scratch? Not based on Linux? Not using pre-existing tools. Wow. Would love to see it.

So I snipped all your references here.

--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 06 Oct 2025 21:19:35 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

I most certainly would not want Linux to be macOS.

Even Apple has decided that macOS is no longer good enough, and is trying
to add Linux to it.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Oct 6, 2025 at 3:06:30rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote <10c1eh5$ivvt$6@dont-email.me>:

On 06 Oct 2025 21:19:35 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

I most certainly would not want Linux to be macOS.

Even Apple has decided that macOS is no longer good enough, and is trying
to add Linux to it.

The two (or UNIX before Linux) have been borrowing things from each other for years. Looking at my comments from 1995 I am happy to see what I wanted has largely happened (and TONS of other growth, of course):

<http://goo.gl/0wHM> Jul 18 1995 <3uh4b8$be3@news.nevada.edu>
-----
if DOS were a combo of UNIX and Mac it would be cool. I
just wish we had something that combined the two. In theory
that is the way both UNIX and Mac are growing
-----

<http://goo.gl/EDip> Jul 19 1995 <3ujt0s$535@news.nevada.edu>
-----
But UNIX does have some advantages over the Mac... a CLI
would be a great addition to the Mac. I would say that
between Mac and UNIX you have the best operating systems
around.
-----

<http://goo.gl/vrLf> Aug 10 1995 <40d96e$7ke@news.nevada.edu>
-----
The Mac is not the end all in computer technology. Where it
fails, UNIX excels. Between the two, there is almost no task
that computers would be used for that can not be done. And
one or the other will beat the competition in almost every
area.
-----

I wanted to see UNIX get a good GUI, and the Mac get a good UNIX-like CLI.

I would still say Linux has the better CLI and, when I was playing 5 years
ago, I would argue the macOS GUI had some advantages in terms of usability for general users. Looking forward to seeing how that has grown. And in that time macOS has grown to be more flexible (though NOWHERE near what desktop Linux provides).

And suggestions on a good distro to look at when I dip my toes back in. Still debating if I want to set up an old PC or get Parallels for my Mac. No rush
for me... just curious to see how it has improved. From the little I have read it sounds like the progress has, unsurprisingly, continued.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 06 Oct 2025 22:35:28 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

On Oct 6, 2025 at 3:06:30rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote <10c1eh5$ivvt$6@dont-email.me>:

On 06 Oct 2025 21:19:35 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

I most certainly would not want Linux to be macOS.

Even Apple has decided that macOS is no longer good enough, and is
trying to add Linux to it.

The two (or UNIX before Linux) have been borrowing things from each
other for years.

I donrCOt mean borrowing ideas, I mean putting an actual Linux kernel on
macOS -- effectively, ApplerCOs answer to WSL.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Oct 6, 2025 at 3:59:17rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote <10c1hk5$k37b$1@dont-email.me>:

On 06 Oct 2025 22:35:28 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

On Oct 6, 2025 at 3:06:30rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<10c1eh5$ivvt$6@dont-email.me>:

On 06 Oct 2025 21:19:35 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

I most certainly would not want Linux to be macOS.

Even Apple has decided that macOS is no longer good enough, and is
trying to add Linux to it.

The two (or UNIX before Linux) have been borrowing things from each
other for years.

I donrCOt mean borrowing ideas, I mean putting an actual Linux kernel on macOS -- effectively, ApplerCOs answer to WSL.

Wait... this is news to me. Do you have any info on it. Doing a quick search I do not find anything.

Apple does of course have their own CLI and included tools -- often behind
what Linux has.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 07 Oct 2025 00:15:33 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

On Oct 6, 2025 at 3:59:17rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote <10c1hk5$k37b$1@dont-email.me>:

I donrCOt mean borrowing ideas, I mean putting an actual Linux kernel on
macOS -- effectively, ApplerCOs answer to WSL.

Wait... this is news to me. Do you have any info on it. Doing a quick search I
do not find anything.

<https://www.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/1l7ozmb/apple_now_supports_linux_containers_on_macos_26/>
<https://www.infoq.com/news/2025/06/apple-container-linux/> <https://thenewstack.io/apple-containers-on-macos-a-technical-comparison-with-docker/>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Oct 6, 2025 at 6:21:24rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote <10c1puj$lleg$3@dont-email.me>:

On 07 Oct 2025 00:15:33 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

On Oct 6, 2025 at 3:59:17rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<10c1hk5$k37b$1@dont-email.me>:

I donrCOt mean borrowing ideas, I mean putting an actual Linux kernel on >>> macOS -- effectively, ApplerCOs answer to WSL.

Wait... this is news to me. Do you have any info on it. Doing a quick search I
do not find anything.

<https://www.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/1l7ozmb/apple_now_supports_linux_containers_on_macos_26/>
<https://www.infoq.com/news/2025/06/apple-container-linux/> <https://thenewstack.io/apple-containers-on-macos-a-technical-comparison-with-docker/>

Wow. Interesting. Really appreciate it.

I know Parallels is doing things differently with 26 (or maybe 26.1). Maybe it is tied to this?
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 07 Oct 2025 01:24:40 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

I know Parallels is doing things differently with 26 (or maybe 26.1).
Maybe it is tied to this?

Whichever way you look at it, itrCOs an admission of defeat. Just like with Microsoft, Apple finds itself unable to add important new capabilities to
its flagship OS that the market demands, so it has to resort to rCLborrowingrCY Linux itself, lock, stock and barrel, to get them.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 10/7/2025 1:32 AM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On 07 Oct 2025 01:24:40 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

I know Parallels is doing things differently with 26 (or maybe 26.1).
Maybe it is tied to this?

Whichever way you look at it, itrCOs an admission of defeat. Just like with Microsoft, Apple finds itself unable to add important new capabilities to
its flagship OS that the market demands, so it has to resort to rCLborrowingrCY Linux itself, lock, stock and barrel, to get them.

To the extent that it illustrates Linux's superiority in the Unix world,
yes - macOS is harder to use as a distro, because it's oriented toward
the proprietary Apple software, leaving Darwin to be an afterthought,
whereas doing something like Microsoft's WSL 2 gives one a real method
to utilize Unix within the Mac platform.
--
Joel W. Crump
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Oct 6, 2025 at 10:32:06rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote <10c28km$og2t$1@dont-email.me>:

On 07 Oct 2025 01:24:40 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

I know Parallels is doing things differently with 26 (or maybe 26.1).
Maybe it is tied to this?

Whichever way you look at it, itrCOs an admission of defeat.

I do not see it as such, but happy macOS is making virtualization easier.

Just like with
Microsoft, Apple finds itself unable to add important new capabilities to
its flagship OS that the market demands, so it has to resort to rCLborrowingrCY Linux itself, lock, stock and barrel, to get them.

There is nothing wrong with using available tools. Much of macOS is based on other open source products -- even their browser. And their kernel. And much more.

I mostly use macOS these days, but used to use Linux and Windows quite a bit.
I am happy they all exist and all push each other. And glad they are
different.

I do want to see desktop Linux grow to offer better usability, but I also want to see macOS grow to offer better back end tools. And through the decades I have seen both grow in those ways. Happy to see it. This is similar to Android and iOS... while Android did a wee bit too much copying in the early days (especially on Samsung), since then they "borrow" and learn from each other. Cool. Makes both products better.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 07 Oct 2025 07:11:57 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

On Oct 6, 2025 at 10:32:06rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote <10c28km$og2t$1@dont-email.me>:

Whichever way you look at it, itrCOs an admission of defeat.

I do not see it as such, but happy macOS is making virtualization easier.

macOS on its own is not able to do it. Remember the regular boast by
macOS aficionados that macOS is rCLUnix-<rCY? It has become more clear that being rCLUnix-<rCY on its own is no longer enough; itrCOs just a meaningless trademark, that is no guarantee of offering the important
functionality that Linux has.

Just like with Microsoft, Apple finds itself unable to add
important new capabilities to its flagship OS that the market
demands, so it has to resort to rCLborrowingrCY Linux itself, lock,
stock and barrel, to get them.

There is nothing wrong with using available tools.

But when you are reduced to embracing *competing* tools, thatrCOs an
admission that you cannot actually compete with them any more.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Oct 7, 2025 at 4:31:34rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote <10c47sm$192li$2@dont-email.me>:

On 07 Oct 2025 07:11:57 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

On Oct 6, 2025 at 10:32:06rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<10c28km$og2t$1@dont-email.me>:

Whichever way you look at it, itrCOs an admission of defeat.

I do not see it as such, but happy macOS is making virtualization easier.

macOS on its own is not able to do it. Remember the regular boast by
macOS aficionados that macOS is rCLUnix-<rCY? It has become more clear that being rCLUnix-<rCY on its own is no longer enough; itrCOs just a meaningless trademark, that is no guarantee of offering the important
functionality that Linux has.

I have seen Linux users happy to be able to run Windows and macOS apps.
Nothing wrong with that. In any direction. I do not see it as any of them admitting defeat. It is, of course, better when you can accomplish tasks and run software natively.

Just like with Microsoft, Apple finds itself unable to add
important new capabilities to its flagship OS that the market
demands, so it has to resort to rCLborrowingrCY Linux itself, lock,
stock and barrel, to get them.

There is nothing wrong with using available tools.

But when you are reduced to embracing *competing* tools, thatrCOs an admission that you cannot actually compete with them any more.

I do not see these as anyone "admitting" Linux is a failure:

https://github.com/kholia/OSX-KVM
https://www.winehq.org

For that matter, I have used Parallels to run Linux and Windows on a Mac. I do not see that as a failure of the Mac in any way.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 08 Oct 2025 00:01:42 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

On Oct 7, 2025 at 4:31:34rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote <10c47sm$192li$2@dont-email.me>:

macOS on its own is not able to do it. Remember the regular boast by
macOS aficionados that macOS is rCLUnix-<rCY? It has become more clear that >> being rCLUnix-<rCY on its own is no longer enough; itrCOs just a meaningless >> trademark, that is no guarantee of offering the important
functionality that Linux has.

I have seen Linux users happy to be able to run Windows and macOS apps.

macOS no, Windows yes.

Note that Linux runs Windows apps with the help of WINE, which has no Microsoft code in it at all.

Microsoft and Apple cannot run Linux apps without actual Linux.

But when you are reduced to embracing *competing* tools, thatrCOs an
admission that you cannot actually compete with them any more.

I do not see these as anyone "admitting" Linux is a failure:

Linux grew up in the shadow of Microsoft, and always had to be compatible
with Microsoft. But now it is Microsoft (and Apple) that need Linux, and
need to be compatible with Linux.

The market leader has no need to pay much attention to the competition, it
is the competition that has to keep up with the market leader.

Microsoft is no longer the market leader.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 10/8/25 01:55, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On 08 Oct 2025 00:01:42 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

On Oct 7, 2025 at 4:31:34rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<10c47sm$192li$2@dont-email.me>:

macOS on its own is not able to do it. Remember the regular boast by
macOS aficionados that macOS is rCLUnix-<rCY? It has become more clear that >>> being rCLUnix-<rCY on its own is no longer enough; itrCOs just a meaningless
trademark, that is no guarantee of offering the important
functionality that Linux has.

I have seen Linux users happy to be able to run Windows and macOS apps.

macOS no, Windows yes.

Note that Linux runs Windows apps with the help of WINE, which has no Microsoft code in it at all.

Microsoft and Apple cannot run Linux apps without actual Linux.

"cannot"?

Or is it that its a "no point not to", since Linux is FOSS?

Point is that there's no point to make the effort to reverse-engineer
Linux, because it can be used as-is without risk of incurring legal
violations of IP, Licensing, etc.

-hh
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Oct 7, 2025 at 10:55:51rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote <10c4ud7$1dd7l$1@dont-email.me>:

On 08 Oct 2025 00:01:42 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

On Oct 7, 2025 at 4:31:34rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<10c47sm$192li$2@dont-email.me>:

macOS on its own is not able to do it. Remember the regular boast by
macOS aficionados that macOS is rCLUnix-<rCY? It has become more clear that >>> being rCLUnix-<rCY on its own is no longer enough; itrCOs just a meaningless
trademark, that is no guarantee of offering the important
functionality that Linux has.

I have seen Linux users happy to be able to run Windows and macOS apps.

macOS no, Windows yes.

https://github.com/kholia/OSX-KVM

Note that Linux runs Windows apps with the help of WINE, which has no Microsoft code in it at all.

Microsoft and Apple cannot run Linux apps without actual Linux.

Linux is open source. Windows is not. But when people run, say, MS Office they are running MS code.

None of this is saying anyone has "won".

But when you are reduced to embracing *competing* tools, thatrCOs an
admission that you cannot actually compete with them any more.

I do not see these as anyone "admitting" Linux is a failure:

Linux grew up in the shadow of Microsoft, and always had to be compatible with Microsoft.

It is not. To run MS software you need WINE or something like it.

But now it is Microsoft (and Apple) that need Linux, and
need to be compatible with Linux.

They each can work with each other. Not anyone winning or losing.

The market leader has no need to pay much attention to the competition, it
is the competition that has to keep up with the market leader.

Microsoft is no longer the market leader.

It depends on the market. <shrug>
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 06:40:51 -0400, -hh wrote:

On 10/8/25 01:55, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

Microsoft and Apple cannot run Linux apps without actual Linux.

"cannot"?

Or is it that its a "no point not to", since Linux is FOSS?

There is obviously a point to it, an actual business case, otherwise they wouldnrCOt bother with it at all.

Point is that there's no point to make the effort to reverse-engineer
Linux ...

Nevertheless, Microsoft did try, with WSL1. And then gave up because they couldnrCOt make it work. So they brought in an actual Linux kernel in WSL2.

Apple hasnrCOt even bothered to try emulating Linux. This even though macOS
is supposedly rCLUNIX-<rCY. That trademark simply doesnrCOt matter any more: what
matters is actual Linux functionality.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Oct 8, 2025 at 2:04:40rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote <10c6jl8$1sia8$2@dont-email.me>:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 06:40:51 -0400, -hh wrote:

On 10/8/25 01:55, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

Microsoft and Apple cannot run Linux apps without actual Linux.

"cannot"?

Or is it that its a "no point not to", since Linux is FOSS?

There is obviously a point to it, an actual business case, otherwise they wouldnrCOt bother with it at all.

But why start from scratch when Linux is open source? What would the business benefit be?

Point is that there's no point to make the effort to reverse-engineer
Linux ...

Nevertheless, Microsoft did try, with WSL1. And then gave up because they couldnrCOt make it work. So they brought in an actual Linux kernel in WSL2.

Apple hasnrCOt even bothered to try emulating Linux.

No real need -- they have a BSD underpinning. It is UNIX, what Linux was made to be like.

This even though macOS
is supposedly rCLUNIX-<rCY. That trademark simply doesnrCOt matter any more: what
matters is actual Linux functionality.

Much of what matters for Linux is UNIX-functionality.

I do not see it as one winning and another losing. The competition benefits all.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 08 Oct 2025 14:20:42 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

On Oct 7, 2025 at 10:55:51rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote <10c4ud7$1dd7l$1@dont-email.me>:

On 08 Oct 2025 00:01:42 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

I have seen Linux users happy to be able to run Windows and macOS
apps.

macOS no, Windows yes.

https://github.com/kholia/OSX-KVM

No mention of Tahoe support, so it doesnrCOt seem to be getting much love lately ...

Note that Linux runs Windows apps with the help of WINE, which has no
Microsoft code in it at all.

Microsoft and Apple cannot run Linux apps without actual Linux.

Linux is open source. Windows is not. But when people run, say, MS
Office they are running MS code.

None of this is saying anyone has "won".

The fact that they cannot compete with the open-source product, they have
to adopt the product itself, makes it clear which product dominates the market.

Linux grew up in the shadow of Microsoft, and always had to be
compatible with Microsoft.

It is not. To run MS software you need WINE or something like it.

Sure. Which doesnrCOt have any Microsoft code in it. Whereas Microsoft (and Apple) cannot run Linux apps without actual Linux code.

But now it is Microsoft (and Apple) that need Linux, and
need to be compatible with Linux.

They each can work with each other. Not anyone winning or losing.

It is Microsoft and Apple that are moving closer to Linux, not so much the other way.

The market leader has no need to pay much attention to the competition,
it is the competition that has to keep up with the market leader.

Microsoft is no longer the market leader.

It depends on the market. <shrug>

The market that Microsoft used to dominate.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Oct 8, 2025 at 5:25:12rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote <10c6vd8$1vjjj$4@dont-email.me>:

On 08 Oct 2025 14:20:42 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

On Oct 7, 2025 at 10:55:51rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<10c4ud7$1dd7l$1@dont-email.me>:

On 08 Oct 2025 00:01:42 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

I have seen Linux users happy to be able to run Windows and macOS
apps.

macOS no, Windows yes.

https://github.com/kholia/OSX-KVM

No mention of Tahoe support, so it doesnrCOt seem to be getting much love lately ...

Apple does not make it easy. Linux does. That is a good thing for Linux. But you take that as MS and Apple losing. I do not see how.

Note that Linux runs Windows apps with the help of WINE, which has no
Microsoft code in it at all.

Microsoft and Apple cannot run Linux apps without actual Linux.

Linux is open source. Windows is not. But when people run, say, MS
Office they are running MS code.

None of this is saying anyone has "won".

The fact that they cannot compete with the open-source product, they have
to adopt the product itself, makes it clear which product dominates the market.

You say it is a "fact that they cannot compete with the open-source product", but that is not true. Most desktop users use Windows. Many use macOS.

I do not get the pissing contests. They all are doing well and that is fine by me.

Seems by saying someone is "losing" to use open source you are not understanding the nature of open source. It is fine for others to use it... does not mean they are losing. It is a win for Linux though, and that is cool.

Linux grew up in the shadow of Microsoft, and always had to be
compatible with Microsoft.

It is not. To run MS software you need WINE or something like it.

Sure. Which doesnrCOt have any Microsoft code in it. Whereas Microsoft (and Apple) cannot run Linux apps without actual Linux code.

You keep saying they do not run MS code as if MS code was open source.

But now it is Microsoft (and Apple) that need Linux, and
need to be compatible with Linux.

They each can work with each other. Not anyone winning or losing.

It is Microsoft and Apple that are moving closer to Linux, not so much the other way.

They all learn from each other. Again I do not get the pissing contest.

The market leader has no need to pay much attention to the competition,
it is the competition that has to keep up with the market leader.

Microsoft is no longer the market leader.

It depends on the market. <shrug>

The market that Microsoft used to dominate.

They have dominated many. But on the server Linux is doing great. And I am happy for it. They do well elsewhere, too. Even where they have a smaller share, such as the desktop, they are growing and getting better and better.
All good to me.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 10/8/2025 8:25 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On 08 Oct 2025 14:20:42 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

On Oct 7, 2025 at 10:55:51rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<10c4ud7$1dd7l$1@dont-email.me>:

Linux grew up in the shadow of Microsoft, and always had to be
compatible with Microsoft.

It is not. To run MS software you need WINE or something like it.

Sure. Which doesnrCOt have any Microsoft code in it. Whereas Microsoft (and Apple) cannot run Linux apps without actual Linux code.

The performance of Wine is remarkable. And the support for NTFS works.
All freeware. No wonder Microsoft lets licenses get resold on the gray market, leading to $10 11 Pro purchases* for savvy users, they have to
compete with paying nothing at all.

* https://deals.bleepingcomputer.com/sales/microsoft-windows-11-pro-7
--
Joel W. Crump
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Joel W. Crump <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

No wonder Microsoft lets licenses get resold on the gray market,
leading to $10 11 Pro purchases* for savvy users, they have to
compete with paying nothing at all.

* <https://deals.bleepingcomputer.com/sales/microsoft-windows-11-pro-7>

Thanks for the tip, installing into UTM as I write.
--
^-^. Sn!pe, PTB, FIBS My pet rock Gordon just is.

My Summer holiday pics: <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 10/9/2025 8:43 AM, Sn!pe wrote:

No wonder Microsoft lets licenses get resold on the gray market,
leading to $10 11 Pro purchases* for savvy users, they have to
compete with paying nothing at all.

* <https://deals.bleepingcomputer.com/sales/microsoft-windows-11-pro-7>

Thanks for the tip, installing into UTM as I write.

Wicked. You turned me on to knowing about that method of VMing on a
Mac, too. The power of communication.
--
Joel W. Crump
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2025-10-09, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On 08 Oct 2025 14:20:42 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

On Oct 7, 2025 at 10:55:51rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<10c4ud7$1dd7l$1@dont-email.me>:

On 08 Oct 2025 00:01:42 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

I have seen Linux users happy to be able to run Windows and macOS
apps.

macOS no, Windows yes.

https://github.com/kholia/OSX-KVM

No mention of Tahoe support, so it doesnrCOt seem to be getting much love lately ...

Note that Linux runs Windows apps with the help of WINE, which has no
Microsoft code in it at all.

Microsoft and Apple cannot run Linux apps without actual Linux.

Linux is open source. Windows is not. But when people run, say, MS
Office they are running MS code.

None of this is saying anyone has "won".

The fact that they cannot compete with the open-source product, they have
to adopt the product itself, makes it clear which product dominates the market.

Linux grew up in the shadow of Microsoft, and always had to be
compatible with Microsoft.

It is not. To run MS software you need WINE or something like it.

Sure. Which doesnrCOt have any Microsoft code in it. Whereas Microsoft (and Apple) cannot run Linux apps without actual Linux code.

But now it is Microsoft (and Apple) that need Linux, and
need to be compatible with Linux.

They each can work with each other. Not anyone winning or losing.

It is Microsoft and Apple that are moving closer to Linux, not so much the other way.

The market leader has no need to pay much attention to the competition,
it is the competition that has to keep up with the market leader.

Microsoft is no longer the market leader.

It depends on the market. <shrug>

The market that Microsoft used to dominate.

Here's another good reason to run Linux:

"Windows 11 removes all bypass methods for Microsoft account setup, removing local accounts"

<https://alternativeto.net/news/2025/10/windows-11-now-blocks-all-microsoft-account-bypasses-during-setup/>

RUFUS might still work, but it's way beyond an average person's abilities IMHO.

My guess is that Microsoft is laying the groundwork for a subscription model. Just a thought.
--
pothead

"Our lives are fashioned by our choices. First we make our choices.
Then our choices make us."
-- Anne Frank
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 10/9/2025 9:35 AM, pothead wrote:

Here's another good reason to run Linux:

"Windows 11 removes all bypass methods for Microsoft account setup, removing local accounts"

<https://alternativeto.net/news/2025/10/windows-11-now-blocks-all-microsoft-account-bypasses-during-setup/>

RUFUS might still work, but it's way beyond an average person's abilities IMHO.

My guess is that Microsoft is laying the groundwork for a subscription model. Just a thought.

Back up your horses. Let me tell you something. In 2023, I switched to
Linux abruptly from Windows 11, where I was signed in with my Microsoft account. This year, when the disaster happened and I got a new computer
with Win11, logging into my account made it use my settings from a
couple years ago on an entirely different device. It was neato. You
lose out by obsessively, brain-damagedly circumventing the Microsoft
account feature. Just do it.
--
Joel W. Crump
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Joel W. Crump wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

On 10/9/2025 9:35 AM, pothead wrote:

Here's another good reason to run Linux:

"Windows 11 removes all bypass methods for Microsoft account setup, removing local accounts"

<https://alternativeto.net/news/2025/10/windows-11-now-blocks-all-microsoft-account-bypasses-during-setup/>

RUFUS might still work, but it's way beyond an average person's abilities IMHO.

My guess is that Microsoft is laying the groundwork for a subscription model.
Just a thought.

Back up your horses. Let me tell you something. In 2023, I switched to Linux abruptly from Windows 11, where I was signed in with my Microsoft account. This year, when the disaster happened and I got a new computer with Win11, logging into my account made it use my settings from a
couple years ago on an entirely different device. It was neato. You
lose out by obsessively, brain-damagedly circumventing the Microsoft
account feature. Just do it.

Nah. I use Win 11 rarely, and only for debugging/building code on
it.
--
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed
ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.
-- F. Scott Fitzgerald
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Le 06-10-2025, Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> a |-crit-a:

On Mon, 06 Oct 2025 05:45:35 +0000, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

By rCLconsistencyrCY, do you mean rCLnot having a choicerCY?

Making GNU/Linux more "consistent," i.e. eliminating the differences between distros, is the essential tenet in Poettering's systemd manifesto.

No.

Poettering spells that out in no uncertain terms yet (almost) everyone has bowed to his authority.

A brain dead moron can't understand the difference between agreeing and
bowing but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
--
Si vous avez du temps |a perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 11 Oct 2025 13:20:13 GMT, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:

Making GNU/Linux more "consistent," i.e. eliminating the differences between >> distros, is the essential tenet in Poettering's systemd manifesto.

No.

Fucking YES!!!

Read the manifesto yourself, you fucking idiot:

<https://www.unixdigest.com/includes/files/gnomeasia2014.pdf>

Although this was over 10 years ago, the goal of systemd has
not changed. Only the severe INCOMPETENCE of Poettering and
his cohorts has prevented this from coming to fruition.

Consider the the quotes from page 18 of the above document:

"Our objectives

Turning Linux from a bag of bits into a competitive General
Purpose Operating System

Unifying pointless diN4Cerences between distributions"

There it is. It's straight from the asshole Poettering's
arrogant mouth.

My advice to you:

Do not ever attempt to overrule my infallible statements
with you idiotic denial.

I am MASTER. You are beaten LACKEY.

Poettering spells that out in no uncertain terms yet (almost) everyone has >> bowed to his authority.

A brain dead moron can't understand the difference between agreeing and bowing but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

YOU are the brain-dead moron. The popular distros have BOWED to the self-imposed
"authority" of the incompetent asshole Poettering.

I don't use systemd and I never fucking will. It is TOTALLY unnecessary
except to a beaten lackey like you.

Don't ever forget:

I am MASTER. You are beaten LACKEY.
--
Gentoo: the only road to GNU/Linux perfection.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2