Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 08:27:06 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 12:59:42 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
On 28/08/2026 08:54, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
First cut at what, though? People keep saying macOS is rCLUnixrCY. >>>>>> But itrCOs clear that most of the rCLUnixrCY software is not available >>>>>> on macOS, hence the need to offer Linux running on their
platform.
If it's so clear, why can't you name the software that's not
available via macports/homebrew/nix?
I already showed you where to find one bunch of them.
Here <https://packages.debian.org/stable/> is another.
That's not an answer.
Want something more specific?
<https://gitlab.com/ldo/inotipy_examples>
<https://gitlab.com/ldo/inotipy_examples/-/blob/master/doc_server?ref_type=heads>
Lol. Pointing to your own python code which is dependent on linux functionality is not the gotcha you think it is.
Am guessing your scripts aren't available in the debian repos either.
On 8/30/2026 2:41 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
I would add Stallman is a creepy guy... him being so closely tied to Linux >> does it no favor (even though he has contributed excellent things).
He's weird, but frankly, Microsoft is a megacorp and I use Winblows,
Apple is Satanic with their prices on hardware, you can't win,
basically.
I just say use what's best for you.
Even if it's Apple, OK,
I can accept that from someone intelligent, I just don't like the lamers
who claim Apple is so great, when they don't even know what they're
doing with it in truth.
On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 08:20:30 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 07:20:35 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
ApplerCOs OS canrCOt do containers.
You've just demonstrated it can. Are you *that* dense?
Maybe you need to go back and reread the docs for what Apple has done.
It is quite clear from what you've shared that macOS can and does
run containers.
It runs *Linux* containers. There are no rCLmacOSrCY containers. macOS userland canrCOt be rCLcontainedrCY; Linux userland can.
Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
It runs *Linux* containers. There are no rCLmacOSrCY containers. macOS
userland canrCOt be rCLcontainedrCY; Linux userland can.
You're just arguing semantics.
On Aug 29, 2026 at 3:13:57rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote <116vlj5$3jcff$4@dont-email.me>:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 08:20:30 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
It is quite clear from what you've shared that macOS can and does
run containers.
It runs *Linux* containers. There are no rCLmacOSrCY containers. macOS
userland canrCOt be rCLcontainedrCY; Linux userland can.
They are Linux containers on macOS. Which is the point. You have
gone on and on and on but have yet to make any real point.
On Aug 26, 2026 at 7:28:34rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote <116o7ch$14ar5$3@dont-email.me>:
ApplerCOs OS canrCOt do containers.
Yet you have been bitching about how they DO so ...
... with Linux ...
On Aug 27, 2026 at 11:50:34rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote <116rb3p$23cfl$3@dont-email.me>:
On 26 Aug 2026 14:07:47 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 25, 2026 at 11:57:39rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<116m2p2$cm6v$5@dont-email.me>:
On 23 Aug 2026 03:11:09 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
I still have no clue why you are bothered by people using open
source solutions.
Apple has run out of ideas.
What "ideas" do you think the Linux world has offered recently?
A modular GUI layer, for one.
You think that is recent?
Actually, thatrCOs an old tradition in the Unix world, which Apple
has abandoned. Another reason why its platform doesnrCOt deserve the
name rCLUnixrCY, trademark or no trademark.
You are complaining a system uses open source. Hint: you might want
to look into how much open source Linux uses. LOL!
Compete at changing their wallpaper and icons? Who cares?
On 30/08/2026 00:36, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 12:13:55 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
Exactly which ones are not available as a direct port (like
Thunderbird, Firefox, Gimp, etc.) a mac ports / homebrew / nix?
How about this one: <https://packages.debian.org/forky/comm/asterisk>
With a little effort: <https://github.com/nedimzecic/asterisk-macos>
or this one: <https://packages.debian.org/forky/net/kamailio>.
<https://kb.shells.com/tutorials/macOS/Kamailio/>
Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 08:27:06 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 12:59:42 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
If it's so clear, why can't you name the software that's not
available via macports/homebrew/nix?
I already showed you where to find one bunch of them.
Here <https://packages.debian.org/stable/> is another.
That's not an answer.
Want something more specific?
<https://gitlab.com/ldo/inotipy_examples>
<https://gitlab.com/ldo/inotipy_examples/-/blob/master/doc_server?ref_type=heads>
Lol. Pointing to your own python code which is dependent on linux functionality is not the gotcha you think it is.
Am guessing your scripts aren't available in the debian repos either.
but he picks that Apple and macOS allows for easy use of open source solutions. How is that bad?
On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 06:11:49 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
It runs *Linux* containers. There are no rCLmacOSrCY containers. macOS
userland canrCOt be rCLcontainedrCY; Linux userland can.
You're just arguing semantics.
What does rCLsemanticsrCY mean, again?
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/semantics>
On 30 Aug 2026 02:33:23 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 29, 2026 at 3:13:57rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<116vlj5$3jcff$4@dont-email.me>:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 08:20:30 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
It is quite clear from what you've shared that macOS can and does
run containers.
It runs *Linux* containers. There are no rCLmacOSrCY containers. macOS
userland canrCOt be rCLcontainedrCY; Linux userland can.
They are Linux containers on macOS. Which is the point. You have
gone on and on and on but have yet to make any real point.
Funny how you concede the point, while still denying it.
On 27 Aug 2026 15:35:16 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 26, 2026 at 7:28:34rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<116o7ch$14ar5$3@dont-email.me>:
ApplerCOs OS canrCOt do containers.
Yet you have been bitching about how they DO so ...
No.
... with Linux ...
Got the point yet?
On 28 Aug 2026 13:15:49 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 27, 2026 at 11:50:34rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<116rb3p$23cfl$3@dont-email.me>:
On 26 Aug 2026 14:07:47 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 25, 2026 at 11:57:39rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<116m2p2$cm6v$5@dont-email.me>:
On 23 Aug 2026 03:11:09 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
I still have no clue why you are bothered by people using open
source solutions.
Apple has run out of ideas.
What "ideas" do you think the Linux world has offered recently?
A modular GUI layer, for one.
You think that is recent?
You ignored this:
Actually, thatrCOs an old tradition in the Unix world, which Apple
has abandoned. Another reason why its platform doesnrCOt deserve the
name rCLUnixrCY, trademark or no trademark.
You are complaining a system uses open source. Hint: you might want
to look into how much open source Linux uses. LOL!
Linux contributed much of that. Apple didnrCOt.
Compete at changing their wallpaper and icons? Who cares?
But isnrCOt that the sort of thing Microsoft and Apple users make a big
deal out of, when new OS releases come out?
On Sun, 30 Aug 2026 14:03:22 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
On 30/08/2026 00:36, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 12:13:55 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
Exactly which ones are not available as a direct port (like
Thunderbird, Firefox, Gimp, etc.) a mac ports / homebrew / nix?
How about this one: <https://packages.debian.org/forky/comm/asterisk>
With a little effort: <https://github.com/nedimzecic/asterisk-macos>
What, no prebuilt package?
Got to apply about 250 lines of unsupported
patches just to build it from source?
or this one: <https://packages.debian.org/forky/net/kamailio>.
<https://kb.shells.com/tutorials/macOS/Kamailio/>
You know, itrCOs odd, I went to <https://brew.sh/>, tried searching for rCLkamailiorCY, but it couldnrCOt find any matches.
On Sun, 30 Aug 2026 18:54:01 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 08:27:06 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 12:59:42 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
If it's so clear, why can't you name the software that's not
available via macports/homebrew/nix?
I already showed you where to find one bunch of them.
Here <https://packages.debian.org/stable/> is another.
That's not an answer.
Want something more specific?
<https://gitlab.com/ldo/inotipy_examples>
<https://gitlab.com/ldo/inotipy_examples/-/blob/master/doc_server?ref_type=heads>
Lol. Pointing to your own python code which is dependent on linux
functionality is not the gotcha you think it is.
Am guessing your scripts aren't available in the debian repos either.
The question asked of me was rCLwhy can't you name the software that's
not available via macports/homebrew/nix?rCY I gave examples of that, did
I not? DonrCOt try to retrospectively add more conditions just because
you donrCOt like the answer.
On 28 Aug 2026 13:51:52 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
but he picks that Apple and macOS allows for easy use of open source
solutions. How is that bad?
If only that were true. But the examples havenrCOt been very convincing
so far.
On Sun, 30 Aug 2026 14:03:22 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
On 30/08/2026 00:36, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 12:13:55 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
Exactly which ones are not available as a direct port (like
Thunderbird, Firefox, Gimp, etc.) a mac ports / homebrew / nix?
How about this one: <https://packages.debian.org/forky/comm/asterisk>
With a little effort: <https://github.com/nedimzecic/asterisk-macos>
What, no prebuilt package? Got to apply about 250 lines of unsupported patches just to build it from source?
On 28 Aug 2026 13:15:49 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:[...]
Compete at changing their wallpaper and icons? Who cares?
But isn?t that the sort of thing Microsoft and Apple users make a big
deal out of, when new OS releases come out?
On 28 Aug 2026 13:15:49 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 27, 2026 at 11:50:34?PM MST, "Lawrence D|Oliveiro" wrote <116rb3p$23cfl$3@dont-email.me>:
On 26 Aug 2026 14:07:47 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 25, 2026 at 11:57:39?PM MST, "Lawrence D|Oliveiro" wrote
<116m2p2$cm6v$5@dont-email.me>:
On 23 Aug 2026 03:11:09 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
I still have no clue why you are bothered by people using open
source solutions.
Apple has run out of ideas.
What "ideas" do you think the Linux world has offered recently?
A modular GUI layer, for one.
You think that is recent?
You ignored this:
Actually, that?s an old tradition in the Unix world, which Apple
has abandoned. Another reason why its platform doesn?t deserve the
name ?Unix?, trademark or no trademark.
On Aug 31, 2026 at 9:21:21rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote <1175js0$1g77m$4@dont-email.me>:
But isnrCOt that the sort of thing Microsoft and Apple users make a big deal out of, when new OS releases come out?
No, Not at all. Heck, look at the info on macOS 27. The closest to that might be noting the rounded corners are now consistent and changes to Liquid Glass, but there is a LOT more to it than that:
On 01 Sep 2026 06:18:59 GMT
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 31, 2026 at 9:21:21rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote[UI]
<1175js0$1g77m$4@dont-email.me>:
I just LOVE rounded corners. But generally I'm happy to have my brown wallpaper and comic sans font; what else would I want a computer for </sarcasm>
But isnrCOt that the sort of thing Microsoft and Apple users make a big
deal out of, when new OS releases come out?
No, Not at all. Heck, look at the info on macOS 27. The closest to that might
be noting the rounded corners are now consistent and changes to Liquid Glass,
but there is a LOT more to it than that:
Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 28 Aug 2026 13:15:49 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 27, 2026 at 11:50:34?PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<116rb3p$23cfl$3@dont-email.me>:
On 26 Aug 2026 14:07:47 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 25, 2026 at 11:57:39?PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<116m2p2$cm6v$5@dont-email.me>:
On 23 Aug 2026 03:11:09 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
I still have no clue why you are bothered by people using open
source solutions.
Apple has run out of ideas.
What "ideas" do you think the Linux world has offered recently?
A modular GUI layer, for one.
You think that is recent?
You ignored this:
Actually, that?s an old tradition in the Unix world, which Apple
has abandoned. Another reason why its platform doesn?t deserve the
name ?Unix?, trademark or no trademark.
In what way has Apple 'abandoned' "A modular GUI layer"? That they
don't *offer* different GUIs, doesn't mean they can't be *added*, does
it? (Any comments from the Apple folks? I'm just a (non-Apple) Unix/UNIX guy.)
[...]
Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 28 Aug 2026 13:15:49 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:[...]
Compete at changing their wallpaper and icons? Who cares?
But isn?t that the sort of thing Microsoft and Apple users make a big
deal out of, when new OS releases come out?
No, it isn't. The *users* - at least the Windows ones - don't make a
big deal out of changes like that, quite the contrary. They *dislike*
change for the sake of change.
On Sep 1, 2026 at 8:31:48rC>AM MST, "Frank Slootweg" wrote <117725o.17i8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>:
Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 28 Aug 2026 13:15:49 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 27, 2026 at 11:50:34?PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<116rb3p$23cfl$3@dont-email.me>:
On 26 Aug 2026 14:07:47 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 25, 2026 at 11:57:39?PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<116m2p2$cm6v$5@dont-email.me>:
On 23 Aug 2026 03:11:09 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
I still have no clue why you are bothered by people using open >>>>>>>> source solutions.
Apple has run out of ideas.
What "ideas" do you think the Linux world has offered recently?
A modular GUI layer, for one.
You think that is recent?
You ignored this:
Actually, that?s an old tradition in the Unix world, which Apple
has abandoned. Another reason why its platform doesn?t deserve the
name ?Unix?, trademark or no trademark.
In what way has Apple 'abandoned' "A modular GUI layer"? That they
don't *offer* different GUIs, doesn't mean they can't be *added*, does
it? (Any comments from the Apple folks? I'm just a (non-Apple) Unix/UNIX
guy.)
[...]
I know you can get Dock / Finder replacements, which gets you partly there, but you still have a lot of the underpinnings. This, of course, has advantages
that Lawrence will never speak of or acknowledge.
On 01/09/2026 20:13, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Sep 1, 2026 at 8:31:48rC>AM MST, "Frank Slootweg" wrote
<117725o.17i8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>:
Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 28 Aug 2026 13:15:49 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 27, 2026 at 11:50:34?PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<116rb3p$23cfl$3@dont-email.me>:
On 26 Aug 2026 14:07:47 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 25, 2026 at 11:57:39?PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote >>>>>>> <116m2p2$cm6v$5@dont-email.me>:
On 23 Aug 2026 03:11:09 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
I still have no clue why you are bothered by people using open >>>>>>>>> source solutions.
Apple has run out of ideas.
What "ideas" do you think the Linux world has offered recently?
A modular GUI layer, for one.
You think that is recent?
You ignored this:
Actually, that?s an old tradition in the Unix world, which Apple
has abandoned. Another reason why its platform doesn?t deserve the >>>>>> name ?Unix?, trademark or no trademark.
In what way has Apple 'abandoned' "A modular GUI layer"? That they
don't *offer* different GUIs, doesn't mean they can't be *added*, does
it? (Any comments from the Apple folks? I'm just a (non-Apple) Unix/UNIX >>> guy.)
[...]
I know you can get Dock / Finder replacements, which gets you partly there, >> but you still have a lot of the underpinnings. This, of course, has advantages
that Lawrence will never speak of or acknowledge.
One can also replace the application icons quite easily. I did so for Alacritty because I didn't like the one that came with it.
I guess Lawrence means stuff like <https://www.enlightenment.org/>. I
never saw any advantage of pimping the desktop my own way, but that's
just me. I like macOS for its looks and stability. I work most of the
time in the cli (Alacritty right now) and vim/emacs (Aquamacs).
On Sun, 30 Aug 2026 18:54:01 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 08:27:06 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 12:59:42 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
If it's so clear, why can't you name the software that's not
available via macports/homebrew/nix?
I already showed you where to find one bunch of them.
Here <https://packages.debian.org/stable/> is another.
That's not an answer.
Want something more specific?
<https://gitlab.com/ldo/inotipy_examples>
<https://gitlab.com/ldo/inotipy_examples/-/blob/master/doc_server?ref_type=heads>
Lol. Pointing to your own python code which is dependent on linux
functionality is not the gotcha you think it is.
Am guessing your scripts aren't available in the debian repos either.
The question asked of me was rCLwhy can't you name the software that's
not available via macports/homebrew/nix?rCY I gave examples of that, did
I not?
DonrCOt try to retrospectively add more conditions just because
you donrCOt like the answer.
On Aug 31, 2026 at 9:29:17rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote <1175kat$1g77m$6@dont-email.me>:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2026 18:54:01 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 08:27:06 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 12:59:42 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
If it's so clear, why can't you name the software that's not
available via macports/homebrew/nix?
I already showed you where to find one bunch of them.
Here <https://packages.debian.org/stable/> is another.
That's not an answer.
Want something more specific?
<https://gitlab.com/ldo/inotipy_examples>
<https://gitlab.com/ldo/inotipy_examples/-/blob/master/doc_server?ref_type=heads>
Lol. Pointing to your own python code which is dependent on linux
functionality is not the gotcha you think it is.
Am guessing your scripts aren't available in the debian repos either.
The question asked of me was rCLwhy can't you name the software that's
not available via macports/homebrew/nix?rCY I gave examples of that, did
I not? DonrCOt try to retrospectively add more conditions just because
you donrCOt like the answer.
OK, that is fair. I blamed you of moving goal posts but you did not, My apologies and I appreciate the correction.
If these packages are in demand, why are they not on homebrew? What stops them
from being complied on macOS?
Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2026 18:54:01 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 08:27:06 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 12:59:42 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
If it's so clear, why can't you name the software that's not
available via macports/homebrew/nix?
I already showed you where to find one bunch of them.
Here <https://packages.debian.org/stable/> is another.
That's not an answer.
Want something more specific?
<https://gitlab.com/ldo/inotipy_examples>
<https://gitlab.com/ldo/inotipy_examples/-/blob/master/doc_server?ref_type=heads>
Lol. Pointing to your own python code which is dependent on linux
functionality is not the gotcha you think it is.
Am guessing your scripts aren't available in the debian repos either.
The question asked of me was rCLwhy can't you name the software that's
not available via macports/homebrew/nix?rCY I gave examples of that, did
I not?
You claimed many times that the majority of linux software won't run on
macOS and consistently refused to provide examples. When you did, you only pointed to the totality of the debian repository. Your final attempt to support your assertion was your own github repo. Desperate.
I mean if that's the bar, then I can share my repo where all the software will run on macOS.
DonrCOt try to retrospectively add more conditions just because
you donrCOt like the answer.
I don't like the answer because it doesn't match your original assertion. Simple as that.
Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 28 Aug 2026 13:15:49 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 27, 2026 at 11:50:34?PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<116rb3p$23cfl$3@dont-email.me>:
On 26 Aug 2026 14:07:47 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 25, 2026 at 11:57:39?PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<116m2p2$cm6v$5@dont-email.me>:
On 23 Aug 2026 03:11:09 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
I still have no clue why you are bothered by people using open
source solutions.
Apple has run out of ideas.
What "ideas" do you think the Linux world has offered recently?
A modular GUI layer, for one.
You think that is recent?
You ignored this:
Actually, that?s an old tradition in the Unix world, which Apple
has abandoned. Another reason why its platform doesn?t deserve the
name ?Unix?, trademark or no trademark.
In what way has Apple 'abandoned' "A modular GUI layer"? That they
don't *offer* different GUIs, doesn't mean they can't be *added*, does
it? (Any comments from the Apple folks? I'm just a (non-Apple) Unix/UNIX guy.)
On Sep 1, 2026 at 11:34:35rC>AM MST, "John Bokma" wrote <11775rt$230vk$1@dont-email.me>:
On 01/09/2026 20:13, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Sep 1, 2026 at 8:31:48rC>AM MST, "Frank Slootweg" wrote
<117725o.17i8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>:
Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 28 Aug 2026 13:15:49 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 27, 2026 at 11:50:34?PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<116rb3p$23cfl$3@dont-email.me>:
On 26 Aug 2026 14:07:47 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 25, 2026 at 11:57:39?PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote >>>>>>>> <116m2p2$cm6v$5@dont-email.me>:A modular GUI layer, for one.
On 23 Aug 2026 03:11:09 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
I still have no clue why you are bothered by people using open >>>>>>>>>> source solutions.
Apple has run out of ideas.
What "ideas" do you think the Linux world has offered recently? >>>>>>>
You think that is recent?
You ignored this:
Actually, that?s an old tradition in the Unix world, which Apple >>>>>>> has abandoned. Another reason why its platform doesn?t deserve the >>>>>>> name ?Unix?, trademark or no trademark.
In what way has Apple 'abandoned' "A modular GUI layer"? That they
don't *offer* different GUIs, doesn't mean they can't be *added*, does >>>> it? (Any comments from the Apple folks? I'm just a (non-Apple) Unix/UNIX >>>> guy.)
[...]
I know you can get Dock / Finder replacements, which gets you partly there, >>> but you still have a lot of the underpinnings. This, of course, has advantages
that Lawrence will never speak of or acknowledge.
One can also replace the application icons quite easily. I did so for
Alacritty because I didn't like the one that came with it.
True... though it will revert when the app is updated.
I guess Lawrence means stuff like <https://www.enlightenment.org/>. I
never saw any advantage of pimping the desktop my own way, but that's
just me. I like macOS for its looks and stability. I work most of the
time in the cli (Alacritty right now) and vim/emacs (Aquamacs).
I think he means with desktop Linux you can swap out your DE and file browser.
Cool. Some are lighter on resources, set menus to be where you want (window or
top), taskbar type, and much more. But can you get tabbed windows in your word
processor and spread sheet and file browser that all work in similar ways? Can
you get similar language so you are not splitting Exit and Quit or Settings and Preferences? Can you get PDF Services or full screen apps that integrate with the virtual desktops? On and on... for the most part, no (though KDE does
allow for tabs, even with mixed apps I think, it is clunky -- or was years ago
when I tested it and I bet it still is).
With Linux I often feel like I am using a system that is not coordinated with itself and many features exist to do little more than hit some checkbox.
Do not get me wrong -- there are also places where macOS is wonky and sometimes I see a feature elsewhere and wish it was built in to macOS (say better file copy dialogs). But it feels GENERALLY like a professionally built system where Linux often feels like someone's hobby (or a lot of someone's). Nobody is really accountable for making the whole system be unified.
On Sep 1, 2026 at 3:04:54rC>PM EDT, "Brock McNuggets" <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 1, 2026 at 11:34:35rC>AM MST, "John Bokma" wrote
<11775rt$230vk$1@dont-email.me>:
On 01/09/2026 20:13, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Sep 1, 2026 at 8:31:48rC>AM MST, "Frank Slootweg" wrote
<117725o.17i8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>:
Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 28 Aug 2026 13:15:49 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 27, 2026 at 11:50:34?PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote >>>>>>> <116rb3p$23cfl$3@dont-email.me>:
On 26 Aug 2026 14:07:47 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 25, 2026 at 11:57:39?PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote >>>>>>>>> <116m2p2$cm6v$5@dont-email.me>:A modular GUI layer, for one.
On 23 Aug 2026 03:11:09 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
I still have no clue why you are bothered by people using open >>>>>>>>>>> source solutions.
Apple has run out of ideas.
What "ideas" do you think the Linux world has offered recently? >>>>>>>>
You think that is recent?
You ignored this:
Actually, that?s an old tradition in the Unix world, which Apple >>>>>>>> has abandoned. Another reason why its platform doesn?t deserve the >>>>>>>> name ?Unix?, trademark or no trademark.
In what way has Apple 'abandoned' "A modular GUI layer"? That they >>>>> don't *offer* different GUIs, doesn't mean they can't be *added*, does >>>>> it? (Any comments from the Apple folks? I'm just a (non-Apple) Unix/UNIX >>>>> guy.)
[...]
I know you can get Dock / Finder replacements, which gets you partly there,
but you still have a lot of the underpinnings. This, of course, has advantages
that Lawrence will never speak of or acknowledge.
One can also replace the application icons quite easily. I did so for
Alacritty because I didn't like the one that came with it.
True... though it will revert when the app is updated.
I guess Lawrence means stuff like <https://www.enlightenment.org/>. I
never saw any advantage of pimping the desktop my own way, but that's
just me. I like macOS for its looks and stability. I work most of the
time in the cli (Alacritty right now) and vim/emacs (Aquamacs).
I think he means with desktop Linux you can swap out your DE and file browser.
Cool. Some are lighter on resources, set menus to be where you want (window or
top), taskbar type, and much more. But can you get tabbed windows in your word
processor and spread sheet and file browser that all work in similar ways? Can
you get similar language so you are not splitting Exit and Quit or Settings >> and Preferences? Can you get PDF Services or full screen apps that integrate >> with the virtual desktops? On and on... for the most part, no (though KDE does
allow for tabs, even with mixed apps I think, it is clunky -- or was years ago
when I tested it and I bet it still is).
With Linux I often feel like I am using a system that is not coordinated with
itself and many features exist to do little more than hit some checkbox.
Do not get me wrong -- there are also places where macOS is wonky and
sometimes I see a feature elsewhere and wish it was built in to macOS (say >> better file copy dialogs). But it feels GENERALLY like a professionally built
system where Linux often feels like someone's hobby (or a lot of someone's). >> Nobody is really accountable for making the whole system be unified.
That's because Linux IS someone's hobby (or a lot of someone's). Nothing wrong
with that. If you want to learn all there is to know about software and OSes and compilers and tinkering with settings and compiler flags and EVERYTHING, then Linux is for you. You are an actual computer hobbyist. Have fun!
OTOH if you just want an appliance that you turn on and use without having to think about how it all works, then Linux probably is not for you. Nothing wrong with THAT either.
That's where Apple comes in. A whole range of products and services that all work together. Automatically. No setup involved. All deliberately running the same UNIX OS and apps on the same hardware.
Or you can go the Windows/Dell/HP/Android/Samsung/Google/etc route and try to cobble things together on your own. Sort of a Linux Lite thing, with different OSes and apps and hardware and vendors. For people who still want a
challenge and do a LITTLE tinkering. I tried that for a few years and gave up.
Its all about choices folks. You get to make YOUR choices and I get to make MY choices. This whole "Us vs Them" mentality is stupid, pointless and childish.
We might as well argue about pizza toppings. I like pepperoni and you like canadian bacon. Who cares?
On Aug 29, 2026 at 3:16:06rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote <116vln5$3jcff$5@dont-email.me>:
Hint: the README itself starts off
container is a tool that you can use to create and run Linux
containers as lightweight virtual machines on your Mac.
So Apple *DOES* support containers.
ApplerCOs own words, not mine. Clear enough for you? Want to continue
to try to dodge and prevaricate about the issue some more?
You are flip flopping back and forth saying they do and do not back
them. Make up your mind.
On 27/08/2026 04:31, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On 26 Aug 2026 16:10:57 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Right. I have never needed a container. The vast majority of macOS
users do not.
That could very well be true. Apple could indeed be completely
wasting its time; its efforts to try to capture some of the Linux
market onto the Mac could be entirely in vain.
There is already Docker desktop, Orbstack, Rancher Desktop, etc. for
years. So the capturing was already there. I have been running
containers on macOS for nearly a decade (!).
The difference is (as far as I know) that Apple Container spins up a
light weight micro virtual machine per container.
Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 26 Aug 2026 16:10:57 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Right. I have never needed a container. The vast majority of macOS
users do not.
That could very well be true. Apple could indeed be completely wasting
its time; its efforts to try to capture some of the Linux market onto
the Mac could be entirely in vain.
Huh?
You donrCOt get how big and diverse the computing world is.
In fact, Apple offers several UIs for their UNIX OS. Macs, iPhones,
iPads and Watches all run the same underlying UNIX OS. All run the
exact same kernel. The difference IS the UIs are different.
Yes, it IS UNIX. Lawrence will stomp his feet and deny it.
Of course, your typical Apple customer does not buy a watch or an
iPad to "be running UNIX". They would have no idea what UNIX is or
even what an OS is.
But in fact, they ARE running UNIX.
On 01/09/2026 06:27, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2026 14:03:22 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
On 30/08/2026 00:36, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 12:13:55 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
Exactly which ones are not available as a direct port (like
Thunderbird, Firefox, Gimp, etc.) a mac ports / homebrew / nix?
How about this one: <https://packages.debian.org/forky/comm/asterisk>
With a little effort: <https://github.com/nedimzecic/asterisk-macos>
What, no prebuilt package? Got to apply about 250 lines of
unsupported patches just to build it from source?
As wild as installing docker the official way, no? <https://docs.docker.com/engine/install/ubuntu/>.
On Tue, 01 Sep 2026 20:59:41 +0000, Nick Charles wrote:
In fact, Apple offers several UIs for their UNIX OS. Macs, iPhones,
iPads and Watches all run the same underlying UNIX OS. All run the
exact same kernel. The difference IS the UIs are different.
If that were true, and they were all running rCLthe exact same kernelrCY, then you could take a GUI from one product and run it on another. But
you canrCOt. Because not only are they NOT rCLthe exact same kernelrCY, but the GUI is itself part of those major differences between the kernels!
Yes, it IS UNIX. Lawrence will stomp his feet and deny it.
All I have to do is point out all the Unix stuff that Apple doesnrCOt support. Like the UI modularity.
Of course, your typical Apple customer does not buy a watch or an
iPad to "be running UNIX". They would have no idea what UNIX is or
even what an OS is.
I wonder why Apple bothered to license the trademark, then ... clearly
even the customers agree that it is meaningless.
But in fact, they ARE running UNIX.
They are running systems that license the trademark. Which I think
only applies to the Mac platform, not the phones or tablets.
On Aug 30, 2026 at 12:02:34rC>AM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote <1170kia$3rm3i$3@dont-email.me>:
On 30 Aug 2026 02:36:55 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 29, 2026 at 3:36:04rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<116vmsk$3jcff$11@dont-email.me>:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 12:13:55 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
Exactly which ones are not available as a direct port (like
Thunderbird, Firefox, Gimp, etc.) a mac ports / homebrew / nix?
How about this one: <https://packages.debian.org/forky/comm/asterisk>
What makes you think Asterisk does not run on macOS?
The fact that it doesnrCOt.
What do you think prevents it...
.. kamailio?
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
OK, that is fair. I blamed you of moving goal posts but you did
not, My apologies and I appreciate the correction.
It is not fair. Claiming that a home-grown script is representative
of the linux software ecosystem is a real reach.
If these packages are in demand, why are they not on homebrew? What
stops them from being complied on macOS?
They are calling low-level linux filesystem functions. The principle
would absolutely apply to macOS, but the calls would be different
given macOS uses a different filesystem and uses Unix system calls.
On 30 Aug 2026 14:19:28 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 30, 2026 at 12:02:34rC>AM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<1170kia$3rm3i$3@dont-email.me>:
On 30 Aug 2026 02:36:55 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 29, 2026 at 3:36:04rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<116vmsk$3jcff$11@dont-email.me>:
What makes you think Asterisk does not run on macOS?
The fact that it doesnrCOt.
What do you think prevents it...
The fact that macOS isnrCOt rCLUnixrCY enough.
.. kamailio?
Same answer.
On Tue, 1 Sep 2026 20:40:02 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
OK, that is fair. I blamed you of moving goal posts but you did
not, My apologies and I appreciate the correction.
It is not fair. Claiming that a home-grown script is representative
of the linux software ecosystem is a real reach.
Gee, thatrCOs too bad. DonrCOt you have rCLhome-grown scriptsrCY in your macOS
rCLsoftware ecosystemrCY, too?
WerCOre not all passive users of Open Source over here in the Linux
world; some of us contribute back too, you know. (And where do you
think all that code comes from, anyway?)
If these packages are in demand, why are they not on homebrew? What
stops them from being complied on macOS?
They are calling low-level linux filesystem functions. The principle
would absolutely apply to macOS, but the calls would be different
given macOS uses a different filesystem and uses Unix system calls.
Could you find similar enterprise-strength packages that rely
crucially on non-Unix, macOS-specific system calls?
Somehow I donrCOt think you can. Linux has evolved in order to satisfy
the needs of the community that uses it (and contributes back to it);
in the process it has developed entirely new capabilities not
available on other Unix-type systems -- containers being one major
example that has come up in this discussion.
Meanwhile, Apple it seems has not been trying to contribute anything
to the rCLUnixrCY idea at all
-- instead, it has been burying what is left
of that rCLUnixrCY core deeper and deeper under an ever-thickening layer
of glitz and glam, concentrating ever more on form at the cost of
function.
And so the mantle of rCLa Unix fit for the 21st centuryrCY falls, I would say, very firmly on Linux.
On 30 Aug 2026 14:19:28 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 30, 2026 at 12:02:34rC>AM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<1170kia$3rm3i$3@dont-email.me>:
On 30 Aug 2026 02:36:55 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 29, 2026 at 3:36:04rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<116vmsk$3jcff$11@dont-email.me>:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 12:13:55 +0200, John Bokma wrote:What makes you think Asterisk does not run on macOS?
Exactly which ones are not available as a direct port (like
Thunderbird, Firefox, Gimp, etc.) a mac ports / homebrew / nix?
How about this one: <https://packages.debian.org/forky/comm/asterisk> >>>>
The fact that it doesnrCOt.
What do you think prevents it...
The fact that macOS isnrCOt rCLUnixrCY enough.
.. kamailio?
Same answer.
On 9/1/2026 5:41 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2026 20:59:41 +0000, Nick Charles wrote:
In fact, Apple offers several UIs for their UNIX OS. Macs, iPhones,
iPads and Watches all run the same underlying UNIX OS. All run the
exact same kernel. The difference IS the UIs are different.
If that were true, and they were all running rCLthe exact same kernelrCY,
then you could take a GUI from one product and run it on another. But
you canrCOt. Because not only are they NOT rCLthe exact same kernelrCY, but >> the GUI is itself part of those major differences between the kernels!
Yes, it IS UNIX. Lawrence will stomp his feet and deny it.
All I have to do is point out all the Unix stuff that Apple doesnrCOt
support. Like the UI modularity.
Of course, your typical Apple customer does not buy a watch or an
iPad to "be running UNIX". They would have no idea what UNIX is or
even what an OS is.
I wonder why Apple bothered to license the trademark, then ... clearly
even the customers agree that it is meaningless.
But in fact, they ARE running UNIX.
They are running systems that license the trademark. Which I think
only applies to the Mac platform, not the phones or tablets.
Who are you kidding, dude? macOS is indeed a full edition of Unix.
It's just not one I'm going to pay $1500 or whatever to have, when I
already have an inexpensive mini PC with Debian collecting dust, because
I replaced it with one to run Win11.
On Tue, 01 Sep 2026 20:59:41 +0000, Nick Charles wrote:
In fact, Apple offers several UIs for their UNIX OS. Macs, iPhones,
iPads and Watches all run the same underlying UNIX OS. All run the
exact same kernel. The difference IS the UIs are different.
If that were true, and they were all running rCLthe exact same kernelrCY,
then you could take a GUI from one product and run it on another.
But
you canrCOt. Because not only are they NOT rCLthe exact same kernelrCY, but the GUI is itself part of those major differences between the kernels!
Yes, it IS UNIX. Lawrence will stomp his feet and deny it.
All I have to do is point out all the Unix stuff that Apple doesnrCOt support. Like the UI modularity.
Of course, your typical Apple customer does not buy a watch or an
iPad to "be running UNIX". They would have no idea what UNIX is or
even what an OS is.
I wonder why Apple bothered to license the trademark, then ... clearly
even the customers agree that it is meaningless.
But in fact, they ARE running UNIX.
They are running systems that license the trademark. Which I think
only applies to the Mac platform, not the phones or tablets.
On 27 Aug 2026 13:39:59 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 26 Aug 2026 16:10:57 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Right. I have never needed a container. The vast majority of macOS
users do not.
That could very well be true. Apple could indeed be completely wasting
its time; its efforts to try to capture some of the Linux market onto
the Mac could be entirely in vain.
Huh?
You donrCOt get how big and diverse the computing world is.
Maybe Apple understands it better than you do.
On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 12:48:18 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
On 27/08/2026 04:31, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On 26 Aug 2026 16:10:57 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Right. I have never needed a container. The vast majority of macOS
users do not.
That could very well be true. Apple could indeed be completely
wasting its time; its efforts to try to capture some of the Linux
market onto the Mac could be entirely in vain.
There is already Docker desktop, Orbstack, Rancher Desktop, etc. for
years. So the capturing was already there. I have been running
containers on macOS for nearly a decade (!).
Wonder why Apple feels the need to bring out their own product, then,
if Docker is already catering for the existing Mac market adequately.
The difference is (as far as I know) that Apple Container spins up a
light weight micro virtual machine per container.
What exactly is a rCLlight weight micro virtual machinerCY?
Is it somehow
a subset of the Linux kernel, not capable of running full-function
Linux apps?
Seems like you are regurgitating ApplerCOs PR-speak without
understanding what it means (if anything).
On 30 Aug 2026 02:32:39 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 29, 2026 at 3:16:06rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<116vln5$3jcff$5@dont-email.me>:
Hint: the README itself starts off
container is a tool that you can use to create and run Linux
containers as lightweight virtual machines on your Mac.
So Apple *DOES* support containers.
You omitted the rCLLinuxrCY part. Also note the rCLvirtual machinesrCY part. Linux can do Linux containers without bringing virtual machines into it. Apple cannot.
ApplerCOs own words, not mine. Clear enough for you? Want to continue
to try to dodge and prevaricate about the issue some more?
You are flip flopping back and forth saying they do and do not back
them. Make up your mind.
Just read the words again.
Remember, they are ApplerCOs own words, not mine. YourCOre not saying
Apple is rCLflip flopping back and forthrCY and not being able to make up their mind, are you?
On Sep 1, 2026 at 3:04:54rC>PM EDT, "Brock McNuggets" <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 1, 2026 at 11:34:35rC>AM MST, "John Bokma" wrote
<11775rt$230vk$1@dont-email.me>:
On 01/09/2026 20:13, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Sep 1, 2026 at 8:31:48rC>AM MST, "Frank Slootweg" wrote
<117725o.17i8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>:
Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 28 Aug 2026 13:15:49 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 27, 2026 at 11:50:34?PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote >>>>>>> <116rb3p$23cfl$3@dont-email.me>:
On 26 Aug 2026 14:07:47 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 25, 2026 at 11:57:39?PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote >>>>>>>>> <116m2p2$cm6v$5@dont-email.me>:A modular GUI layer, for one.
On 23 Aug 2026 03:11:09 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
I still have no clue why you are bothered by people using open >>>>>>>>>>> source solutions.
Apple has run out of ideas.
What "ideas" do you think the Linux world has offered recently? >>>>>>>>
You think that is recent?
You ignored this:
Actually, that?s an old tradition in the Unix world, which Apple >>>>>>>> has abandoned. Another reason why its platform doesn?t deserve the >>>>>>>> name ?Unix?, trademark or no trademark.
In what way has Apple 'abandoned' "A modular GUI layer"? That they >>>>> don't *offer* different GUIs, doesn't mean they can't be *added*, does >>>>> it? (Any comments from the Apple folks? I'm just a (non-Apple) Unix/UNIX >>>>> guy.)
[...]
I know you can get Dock / Finder replacements, which gets you partly there,
but you still have a lot of the underpinnings. This, of course, has advantages
that Lawrence will never speak of or acknowledge.
One can also replace the application icons quite easily. I did so for
Alacritty because I didn't like the one that came with it.
True... though it will revert when the app is updated.
I guess Lawrence means stuff like <https://www.enlightenment.org/>. I
never saw any advantage of pimping the desktop my own way, but that's
just me. I like macOS for its looks and stability. I work most of the
time in the cli (Alacritty right now) and vim/emacs (Aquamacs).
I think he means with desktop Linux you can swap out your DE and file browser.
Cool. Some are lighter on resources, set menus to be where you want (window or
top), taskbar type, and much more. But can you get tabbed windows in your word
processor and spread sheet and file browser that all work in similar ways? Can
you get similar language so you are not splitting Exit and Quit or Settings >> and Preferences? Can you get PDF Services or full screen apps that integrate >> with the virtual desktops? On and on... for the most part, no (though KDE does
allow for tabs, even with mixed apps I think, it is clunky -- or was years ago
when I tested it and I bet it still is).
With Linux I often feel like I am using a system that is not coordinated with
itself and many features exist to do little more than hit some checkbox.
Do not get me wrong -- there are also places where macOS is wonky and
sometimes I see a feature elsewhere and wish it was built in to macOS (say >> better file copy dialogs). But it feels GENERALLY like a professionally built
system where Linux often feels like someone's hobby (or a lot of someone's). >> Nobody is really accountable for making the whole system be unified.
That's because Linux IS someone's hobby (or a lot of someone's). Nothing wrong
with that. If you want to learn all there is to know about software and OSes and compilers and tinkering with settings and compiler flags and EVERYTHING, then Linux is for you. You are an actual computer hobbyist. Have fun!
OTOH if you just want an appliance that you turn on and use without having to think about how it all works, then Linux probably is not for you. Nothing wrong with THAT either.
That's where Apple comes in. A whole range of products and services that all work together. Automatically. No setup involved. All deliberately running the same UNIX OS and apps on the same hardware.
Or you can go the Windows/Dell/HP/Android/Samsung/Google/etc route and try to cobble things together on your own. Sort of a Linux Lite thing, with different OSes and apps and hardware and vendors. For people who still want a
challenge and do a LITTLE tinkering. I tried that for a few years and gave up.
Its all about choices folks. You get to make YOUR choices and I get to make MY choices. This whole "Us vs Them" mentality is stupid, pointless and childish.
We might as well argue about pizza toppings. I like pepperoni and you like canadian bacon. Who cares?
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 31, 2026 at 9:29:17rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<1175kat$1g77m$6@dont-email.me>:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2026 18:54:01 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 08:27:06 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 12:59:42 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
If it's so clear, why can't you name the software that's not
available via macports/homebrew/nix?
I already showed you where to find one bunch of them.
Here <https://packages.debian.org/stable/> is another.
That's not an answer.
Want something more specific?
<https://gitlab.com/ldo/inotipy_examples>
<https://gitlab.com/ldo/inotipy_examples/-/blob/master/doc_server?ref_type=heads>
Lol. Pointing to your own python code which is dependent on linux
functionality is not the gotcha you think it is.
Am guessing your scripts aren't available in the debian repos either.
The question asked of me was rCLwhy can't you name the software that's
not available via macports/homebrew/nix?rCY I gave examples of that, did >>> I not? DonrCOt try to retrospectively add more conditions just because
you donrCOt like the answer.
OK, that is fair. I blamed you of moving goal posts but you did not, My
apologies and I appreciate the correction.
It is not fair. Claiming that a home-grown script is representative of the linux software ecosystem is a real reach.
If these packages are in demand, why are they not on homebrew? What stops them
from being complied on macOS?
They are calling low-level linux filesystem functions. The principle would absolutely apply to macOS, but the calls would be different given macOS
uses a different filesystem and uses Unix system calls.
Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2026 18:54:01 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2026 08:27:06 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2026 12:59:42 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
If it's so clear, why can't you name the software that's not
available via macports/homebrew/nix?
I already showed you where to find one bunch of them.
Here <https://packages.debian.org/stable/> is another.
That's not an answer.
Want something more specific?
<https://gitlab.com/ldo/inotipy_examples>
<https://gitlab.com/ldo/inotipy_examples/-/blob/master/doc_server?ref_type=heads>
Lol. Pointing to your own python code which is dependent on linux
functionality is not the gotcha you think it is.
Am guessing your scripts aren't available in the debian repos either.
The question asked of me was rCLwhy can't you name the software that's
not available via macports/homebrew/nix?rCY I gave examples of that, did
I not?
You claimed many times that the majority of linux software won't run on
macOS and consistently refused to provide examples. When you did, you only pointed to the totality of the debian repository. Your final attempt to support your assertion was your own github repo. Desperate.
I mean if that's the bar, then I can share my repo where all the software will run on macOS.
DonrCOt try to retrospectively add more conditions just because
you donrCOt like the answer.
I don't like the answer because it doesn't match your original assertion. Simple as that.
macOS can run a large percentage of Linux software. Linux cannot run most macOS software. That means more choice on macOS.
On Sep 1, 2026 at 2:36:46rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote <1177ghe$26ea4$8@dont-email.me>:
On 27 Aug 2026 13:39:59 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 26 Aug 2026 16:10:57 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Right. I have never needed a container. The vast majority of
macOS users do not.
That could very well be true. Apple could indeed be completely
wasting its time; its efforts to try to capture some of the Linux
market onto the Mac could be entirely in vain.
Huh?
You donrCOt get how big and diverse the computing world is.
Maybe Apple understands it better than you do.
Maybe, but not relevant. YOU do not get it.
On 9/1/2026 8:09 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
macOS can run a large percentage of Linux software. Linux cannot run most
macOS software. That means more choice on macOS.
Certainly, the best reason to $pend on a Mac is its native software.
It's nice that it can *also* utilize Unix software, though.
On 01 Sep 2026 23:45:21 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Sep 1, 2026 at 2:36:46rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<1177ghe$26ea4$8@dont-email.me>:
On 27 Aug 2026 13:39:59 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 26 Aug 2026 16:10:57 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Right. I have never needed a container. The vast majority of
macOS users do not.
That could very well be true. Apple could indeed be completely
wasting its time; its efforts to try to capture some of the Linux
market onto the Mac could be entirely in vain.
Huh?
You donrCOt get how big and diverse the computing world is.
Maybe Apple understands it better than you do.
Maybe, but not relevant. YOU do not get it.
You may be right about Apple not being relevant.
I had a slightly
deeper look into ApplerCOs rCLcontainerrCY stuff on GitHub, and unlike regular virtualization, it involves the building of a custom Linux
kernel. But get this: this Makefile <https://github.com/apple/containerization/blob/main/kernel/Makefile>
only mentions kernel version 6.18.5, and the Docker recipe <https://github.com/apple/containerization/blob/main/kernel/image/Dockerfile>,
<https://github.com/apple/containerization/blob/main/kernel/image/sources.list>
only seems to support Ubuntu Focal Fossa for its userland. But that
version is from 6 years ago!
On Sep 1, 2026 at 2:49:02rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote <1177h8e$26ea4$11@dont-email.me>:
On 30 Aug 2026 14:19:28 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
What do you think prevents it...
The fact that macOS isnrCOt rCLUnixrCY enough.
So no actual answer. OK.
.. kamailio?
Same answer.
A non-answer. Right. You have nothing.
But say macOS lost its UNIX label. As long as it works why would I
care?
Do you sit there crying that Linux does is not certified UNIX?
On 01 Sep 2026 23:36:03 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Sep 1, 2026 at 2:49:02rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<1177h8e$26ea4$11@dont-email.me>:
On 30 Aug 2026 14:19:28 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
What do you think prevents it...
The fact that macOS isnrCOt rCLUnixrCY enough.
So no actual answer. OK.
.. kamailio?
Same answer.
A non-answer. Right. You have nothing.
ItrCOs one of many pieces of rCLUnixrCY software that doesnrCOt work on macOS.
It doesnrCOt matter whether or not you pay any attention what I say, it wonrCOt change that fact.
But say macOS lost its UNIX label. As long as it works why would I
care?
Because it doesnrCOt work, as I already pointed out.
Do you sit there crying that Linux does is not certified UNIX?
Companies like Apple have cheapened the rCLUNIXrCY trademark to the point
of irrelevance. ItrCOs no longer a meaningful selling point. ThatrCOs all there is to it.
On 01 Sep 2026 23:36:03 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Sep 1, 2026 at 2:49:02rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<1177h8e$26ea4$11@dont-email.me>:
On 30 Aug 2026 14:19:28 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
What do you think prevents it...
The fact that macOS isnrCOt rCLUnixrCY enough.
So no actual answer. OK.
.. kamailio?
Same answer.
A non-answer. Right. You have nothing.
ItrCOs one of many pieces of rCLUnixrCY software that doesnrCOt work on macOS.
It doesnrCOt matter whether or not you pay any attention what I say, it wonrCOt change that fact.
But say macOS lost its UNIX label. As long as it works why would I
care?
Because it doesnrCOt work, as I already pointed out.
Do you sit there crying that Linux does is not certified UNIX?
Companies like Apple have cheapened the rCLUNIXrCY trademark to the point
of irrelevance. ItrCOs no longer a meaningful selling point. ThatrCOs all there is to it.
On Sep 1, 2026 at 7:54:01rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote <1178348$2bobr$5@dont-email.me>:
ItrCOs one of many pieces of rCLUnixrCY software that doesnrCOt work on macOS.
It doesnrCOt matter whether or not you pay any attention what I say, it
wonrCOt change that fact.
Many? You have shown TWO and both were written by YOU.
I am not even a coder and I have written software that works on macOS but not Linux.
You have no point to make.
On 9/1/2026 10:54 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On 01 Sep 2026 23:36:03 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Sep 1, 2026 at 2:49:02rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<1177h8e$26ea4$11@dont-email.me>:
On 30 Aug 2026 14:19:28 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
What do you think prevents it...
The fact that macOS isnrCOt rCLUnixrCY enough.
So no actual answer. OK.
.. kamailio?
Same answer.
A non-answer. Right. You have nothing.
ItrCOs one of many pieces of rCLUnixrCY software that doesnrCOt work on macOS.
It doesnrCOt matter whether or not you pay any attention what I say, it
wonrCOt change that fact.
But say macOS lost its UNIX label. As long as it works why would I
care?
Because it doesnrCOt work, as I already pointed out.
Do you sit there crying that Linux does is not certified UNIX?
Companies like Apple have cheapened the rCLUNIXrCY trademark to the point
of irrelevance. ItrCOs no longer a meaningful selling point. ThatrCOs all
there is to it.
Do you think it would be non-trivial to make your obscure software work
under macOS? Heh.
On 9/1/2026 11:42 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Sep 1, 2026 at 7:54:01rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<1178348$2bobr$5@dont-email.me>:
ItrCOs one of many pieces of rCLUnixrCY software that doesnrCOt work on macOS.
It doesnrCOt matter whether or not you pay any attention what I say, it
wonrCOt change that fact.
Many? You have shown TWO and both were written by YOU.
I am not even a coder and I have written software that works on macOS but not
Linux.
You have no point to make.
If he thought for a couple seconds, he might grok that Linux apps
compiled for one distro don't necessarily run properly on another
distro. It's the same phenomenon with his ridiculous point, if he
*ported* his code to macOS, magically it would work, it wouldn't be that hard, but it doesn't happen by snapping one's fingers.
I am not even a coder and I have written software that does not work
on Linux.
You claimed many times that the majority of linux software won't run
on macOS and consistently refused to provide examples.
On Tue, 1 Sep 2026 20:36:14 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
You claimed many times that the majority of linux software won't run
on macOS and consistently refused to provide examples.
To be precise, I claimed that the majority of rCLUnixrCY software these
days would run on Linux but not macOS.
I was looking into the details of ApplerCOs rCLUnixrCY certification, and came across this rather interesting report <https://www.osnews.com/story/141633/apples-macos-unix-certification-is-a-lie/>.
First of all, yourCOd think that the certification that Apple has got
would be against the most recent version of the official rCLUnixrCY spec.
But itrCOs not. Besides which, the applicant is allowed to handwave away specific failures by providing suitable excuses -- a loophole which
Apple has used quite liberally.
On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 12:48:18 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
On 27/08/2026 04:31, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On 26 Aug 2026 16:10:57 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
Right. I have never needed a container. The vast majority of macOS
users do not.
That could very well be true. Apple could indeed be completely
wasting its time; its efforts to try to capture some of the Linux
market onto the Mac could be entirely in vain.
There is already Docker desktop, Orbstack, Rancher Desktop, etc. for
years. So the capturing was already there. I have been running
containers on macOS for nearly a decade (!).
Wonder why Apple feels the need to bring out their own product, then,
if Docker is already catering for the existing Mac market adequately.
The difference is (as far as I know) that Apple Container spins up a
light weight micro virtual machine per container.
What exactly is a rCLlight weight micro virtual machinerCY? Is it somehow
a subset of the Linux kernel, not capable of running full-function
Linux apps?
On Tue, 1 Sep 2026 09:14:46 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
On 01/09/2026 06:27, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2026 14:03:22 +0200, John Bokma wrote:
As wild as installing docker the official way, no?
<https://docs.docker.com/engine/install/ubuntu/>.
Notice that none of those steps involves building anything from source
or applying any patches: they just require replacing distro-specific
packages with ones supplied from upstream.
You asked above about packages rCLavailable as a direct portrCY --
obviously Docker fits this description on Linux (no big surprise).
But to get back to Asterisk -- where is the rCLdirect port ... mac ports
/ homebrew / nixrCY for that package on macOS?
On Tue, 1 Sep 2026 20:36:14 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
You claimed many times that the majority of linux software won't run
on macOS and consistently refused to provide examples.
To be precise, I claimed that the majority of rCLUnixrCY software these
days would run on Linux but not macOS.
I was looking into the details of ApplerCOs rCLUnixrCY certification, and came across this rather interesting report <https://www.osnews.com/story/141633/apples-macos-unix-certification-is-a-lie/>.
First of all, yourCOd think that the certification that Apple has got
would be against the most recent version of the official rCLUnixrCY spec.
But itrCOs not. Besides which, the applicant is allowed to handwave away specific failures by providing suitable excuses -- a loophole which
Apple has used quite liberally.
On 02 Sep 2026 04:00:05 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
I am not even a coder and I have written software that does not work
on Linux.
Could you call it rCLUnixrCY software? I doubt it, somehow. It would be
all full of proprietary Apple APIs based on Swift or Objective C or AppleScript or proprietary stuff like that.
On 9/1/2026 11:42 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Sep 1, 2026 at 7:54:01rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<1178348$2bobr$5@dont-email.me>:
ItrCOs one of many pieces of rCLUnixrCY software that doesnrCOt work on macOS.
It doesnrCOt matter whether or not you pay any attention what I say, it
wonrCOt change that fact.
Many? You have shown TWO and both were written by YOU.
I am not even a coder and I have written software that works on macOS but not
Linux.
You have no point to make.
If he thought for a couple seconds, he might grok that Linux apps
compiled for one distro don't necessarily run properly on another
distro.
It's the same phenomenon with his ridiculous point, if he
*ported* his code to macOS, magically it would work, it wouldn't be that hard, but it doesn't happen by snapping one's fingers.
On Sep 1, 2026 at 8:50:21rC>PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote <11786dv$2cvv2$1@dont-email.me>:
On 9/1/2026 11:42 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Sep 1, 2026 at 7:54:01rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<1178348$2bobr$5@dont-email.me>:
ItrCOs one of many pieces of rCLUnixrCY software that doesnrCOt work on macOS.
It doesnrCOt matter whether or not you pay any attention what I say, it >>>> wonrCOt change that fact.
Many? You have shown TWO and both were written by YOU.
I am not even a coder and I have written software that works on macOS but not
Linux.
You have no point to make.
If he thought for a couple seconds, he might grok that Linux apps
compiled for one distro don't necessarily run properly on another
distro.
I looked into this. Maybe someone wiser than me can fact check this:
On 9/2/2026 9:45 AM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Sep 1, 2026 at 8:50:21rC>PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote
<11786dv$2cvv2$1@dont-email.me>:
On 9/1/2026 11:42 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Sep 1, 2026 at 7:54:01rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<1178348$2bobr$5@dont-email.me>:
ItrCOs one of many pieces of rCLUnixrCY software that doesnrCOt work on macOS.
It doesnrCOt matter whether or not you pay any attention what I say, it >>>>> wonrCOt change that fact.
Many? You have shown TWO and both were written by YOU.
I am not even a coder and I have written software that works on macOS but not
Linux.
You have no point to make.
If he thought for a couple seconds, he might grok that Linux apps
compiled for one distro don't necessarily run properly on another
distro.
I looked into this. Maybe someone wiser than me can fact check this:
I expressed that loosely, but it's clear, to make software work properly within a distro takes a bit of customization. It's not that different
with macOS's Unix side.
On Sep 2, 2026 at 12:11:29rC>AM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote <1178i71$2gvnl$5@dont-email.me>:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2026 20:36:14 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
You claimed many times that the majority of linux software won't
run on macOS and consistently refused to provide examples.
To be precise, I claimed that the majority of rCLUnixrCY software these
days would run on Linux but not macOS.
I was looking into the details of ApplerCOs rCLUnixrCY certification, and
came across this rather interesting report
<https://www.osnews.com/story/141633/apples-macos-unix-certification-is-a-lie/>.
First of all, yourCOd think that the certification that Apple has got
would be against the most recent version of the official rCLUnixrCY
spec. But itrCOs not. Besides which, the applicant is allowed to
handwave away specific failures by providing suitable excuses -- a
loophole which Apple has used quite liberally.
Yesterday you said you do not care what is "UNIX" ...
... because the term has no meaning any more.
On 02 Sep 2026 13:39:40 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Sep 2, 2026 at 12:11:29rC>AM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<1178i71$2gvnl$5@dont-email.me>:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2026 20:36:14 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
You claimed many times that the majority of linux software won't
run on macOS and consistently refused to provide examples.
To be precise, I claimed that the majority of rCLUnixrCY software these
days would run on Linux but not macOS.
I was looking into the details of ApplerCOs rCLUnixrCY certification, and >>> came across this rather interesting report
<https://www.osnews.com/story/141633/apples-macos-unix-certification-is-a-lie/>.
First of all, yourCOd think that the certification that Apple has got
would be against the most recent version of the official rCLUnixrCY
spec. But itrCOs not. Besides which, the applicant is allowed to
handwave away specific failures by providing suitable excuses -- a
loophole which Apple has used quite liberally.
Yesterday you said you do not care what is "UNIX" ...
Feel free to reference where I said that, because I donrCOt recall
saying I rCLdo not carerCY.
... because the term has no meaning any more.
That much is true. And the above is documentary evidence to that
effect.
On Tue, 1 Sep 2026 20:40:02 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
OK, that is fair. I blamed you of moving goal posts but you did
not, My apologies and I appreciate the correction.
It is not fair. Claiming that a home-grown script is representative
of the linux software ecosystem is a real reach.
Gee, thatrCOs too bad. DonrCOt you have rCLhome-grown scriptsrCY in your macOS
rCLsoftware ecosystemrCY, too?
WerCOre not all passive users of Open Source over here in the Linux
world; some of us contribute back too, you know.
(And where do you
think all that code comes from, anyway?)
If these packages are in demand, why are they not on homebrew? What
stops them from being complied on macOS?
They are calling low-level linux filesystem functions. The principle
would absolutely apply to macOS, but the calls would be different
given macOS uses a different filesystem and uses Unix system calls.
Could you find similar enterprise-strength packages that rely
crucially on non-Unix, macOS-specific system calls?
Somehow I donrCOt think you can. Linux has evolved in order to satisfy
the needs of the community that uses it (and contributes back to it);
in the process it has developed entirely new capabilities not
available on other Unix-type systems -- containers being one major
example that has come up in this discussion.
Meanwhile, Apple it seems has not been trying to contribute anything
to the rCLUnixrCY idea at all -- instead, it has been burying what is left
of that rCLUnixrCY core deeper and deeper under an ever-thickening layer
of glitz and glam, concentrating ever more on form at the cost of
function.
And so the mantle of rCLa Unix fit for the 21st centuryrCY falls, I would say, very firmly on Linux.
p Lawrence D-|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2026 20:40:02 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
OK, that is fair. I blamed you of moving goal posts but you did
not, My apologies and I appreciate the correction.
It is not fair. Claiming that a home-grown script is representative
of the linux software ecosystem is a real reach.
Gee, thatrCOs too bad. DonrCOt you have rCLhome-grown scriptsrCY in your macOS
rCLsoftware ecosystemrCY, too?
Sure. I don't claim that it is an example of all macOS software not working on linux, however.
WerCOre not all passive users of Open Source over here in the Linux
world; some of us contribute back too, you know.
Contributing to open source community is not unique to linux users, you
know. I run teams who develop OSS and most of them run macOS.
(And where do you
think all that code comes from, anyway?)
Industry. Including Apple at No. 22.
https://opensourceindex.io/
If these packages are in demand, why are they not on homebrew? What
stops them from being complied on macOS?
They are calling low-level linux filesystem functions. The principle
would absolutely apply to macOS, but the calls would be different
given macOS uses a different filesystem and uses Unix system calls.
Could you find similar enterprise-strength packages that rely
crucially on non-Unix, macOS-specific system calls?
Not possible. It can't be both non-Unix and macOS specific given that macOS is a Unix.
The reason your scripts don't run on macOS is because they (and linux) are not Unix compliant.
Somehow I donrCOt think you can. Linux has evolved in order to satisfy
the needs of the community that uses it (and contributes back to it);
in the process it has developed entirely new capabilities not
available on other Unix-type systems -- containers being one major
example that has come up in this discussion.
And yet containers *are* available on macOS.
Meanwhile, Apple it seems has not been trying to contribute anything
to the rCLUnixrCY idea at all -- instead, it has been burying what is left >> of that rCLUnixrCY core deeper and deeper under an ever-thickening layer
of glitz and glam, concentrating ever more on form at the cost of
function.
You clearly have no clue regarding what can and can't be done in macOS.
And so the mantle of rCLa Unix fit for the 21st centuryrCY falls, I would
say, very firmly on Linux.
Linux is not a Unix.
On 28 Aug 2026 13:15:49 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 27, 2026 at 11:50:34rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<116rb3p$23cfl$3@dont-email.me>:
On 26 Aug 2026 14:07:47 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 25, 2026 at 11:57:39rC>PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote
<116m2p2$cm6v$5@dont-email.me>:
On 23 Aug 2026 03:11:09 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
I still have no clue why you are bothered by people using open
source solutions.
Apple has run out of ideas.
What "ideas" do you think the Linux world has offered recently?
A modular GUI layer, for one.
You think that is recent?
You ignored this:
Actually, thatrCOs an old tradition in the Unix world, which Apple
has abandoned. Another reason why its platform doesnrCOt deserve the
name rCLUnixrCY, trademark or no trademark.
You are complaining a system uses open source. Hint: you might want
to look into how much open source Linux uses. LOL!
Linux contributed much of that. Apple didnrCOt.
Compete at changing their wallpaper and icons? Who cares?
But isnrCOt that the sort of thing Microsoft and Apple users make a big
deal out of, when new OS releases come out?
On Sep 1, 2026 at 3:04:54rC>PM EDT, "Brock McNuggets" <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 1, 2026 at 11:34:35rC>AM MST, "John Bokma" wrote
<11775rt$230vk$1@dont-email.me>:
On 01/09/2026 20:13, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Sep 1, 2026 at 8:31:48rC>AM MST, "Frank Slootweg" wrote
<117725o.17i8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>:
Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 28 Aug 2026 13:15:49 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 27, 2026 at 11:50:34?PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote >>>>>>> <116rb3p$23cfl$3@dont-email.me>:
On 26 Aug 2026 14:07:47 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 25, 2026 at 11:57:39?PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote >>>>>>>>> <116m2p2$cm6v$5@dont-email.me>:A modular GUI layer, for one.
On 23 Aug 2026 03:11:09 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
I still have no clue why you are bothered by people using open >>>>>>>>>>> source solutions.
Apple has run out of ideas.
What "ideas" do you think the Linux world has offered recently? >>>>>>>>
You think that is recent?
You ignored this:
Actually, that?s an old tradition in the Unix world, which Apple >>>>>>>> has abandoned. Another reason why its platform doesn?t deserve the >>>>>>>> name ?Unix?, trademark or no trademark.
In what way has Apple 'abandoned' "A modular GUI layer"? That they >>>>> don't *offer* different GUIs, doesn't mean they can't be *added*, does >>>>> it? (Any comments from the Apple folks? I'm just a (non-Apple) Unix/UNIX >>>>> guy.)
[...]
I know you can get Dock / Finder replacements, which gets you partly there,
but you still have a lot of the underpinnings. This, of course, has advantages
that Lawrence will never speak of or acknowledge.
One can also replace the application icons quite easily. I did so for
Alacritty because I didn't like the one that came with it.
True... though it will revert when the app is updated.
I guess Lawrence means stuff like <https://www.enlightenment.org/>. I
never saw any advantage of pimping the desktop my own way, but that's
just me. I like macOS for its looks and stability. I work most of the
time in the cli (Alacritty right now) and vim/emacs (Aquamacs).
I think he means with desktop Linux you can swap out your DE and file browser.
Cool. Some are lighter on resources, set menus to be where you want (window or
top), taskbar type, and much more. But can you get tabbed windows in your word
processor and spread sheet and file browser that all work in similar ways? Can
you get similar language so you are not splitting Exit and Quit or Settings >> and Preferences? Can you get PDF Services or full screen apps that integrate >> with the virtual desktops? On and on... for the most part, no (though KDE does
allow for tabs, even with mixed apps I think, it is clunky -- or was years ago
when I tested it and I bet it still is).
With Linux I often feel like I am using a system that is not coordinated with
itself and many features exist to do little more than hit some checkbox.
Do not get me wrong -- there are also places where macOS is wonky and
sometimes I see a feature elsewhere and wish it was built in to macOS (say >> better file copy dialogs). But it feels GENERALLY like a professionally built
system where Linux often feels like someone's hobby (or a lot of someone's). >> Nobody is really accountable for making the whole system be unified.
That's because Linux IS someone's hobby (or a lot of someone's). Nothing wrong
with that. If you want to learn all there is to know about software and OSes and compilers and tinkering with settings and compiler flags and EVERYTHING, then Linux is for you. You are an actual computer hobbyist. Have fun!
OTOH if you just want an appliance that you turn on and use without having to think about how it all works, then Linux probably is not for you. Nothing wrong with THAT either.
That's where Apple comes in. A whole range of products and services that all work together. Automatically. No setup involved. All deliberately running the same UNIX OS and apps on the same hardware.
Or you can go the Windows/Dell/HP/Android/Samsung/Google/etc route and try to cobble things together on your own. Sort of a Linux Lite thing, with different OSes and apps and hardware and vendors. For people who still want a
challenge and do a LITTLE tinkering. I tried that for a few years and gave up.
Its all about choices folks. You get to make YOUR choices and I get to make MY choices. This whole "Us vs Them" mentality is stupid, pointless and childish.
We might as well argue about pizza toppings. I like pepperoni and you like canadian bacon. Who cares?
On 9/1/2026 5:22 PM, Nick Charles wrote:
On Sep 1, 2026 at 3:04:54rC>PM EDT, "Brock McNuggets"
<brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 1, 2026 at 11:34:35rC>AM MST, "John Bokma" wrote
<11775rt$230vk$1@dont-email.me>:
On 01/09/2026 20:13, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Sep 1, 2026 at 8:31:48rC>AM MST, "Frank Slootweg" wrote
<117725o.17i8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>:
Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 28 Aug 2026 13:15:49 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 27, 2026 at 11:50:34?PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote >>>>>>>> <116rb3p$23cfl$3@dont-email.me>:
On 26 Aug 2026 14:07:47 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Aug 25, 2026 at 11:57:39?PM MST, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" wrote >>>>>>>>>> <116m2p2$cm6v$5@dont-email.me>:A modular GUI layer, for one.
On 23 Aug 2026 03:11:09 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
I still have no clue why you are bothered by people using open >>>>>>>>>>>> source solutions.
Apple has run out of ideas.
What "ideas" do you think the Linux world has offered recently? >>>>>>>>>
You think that is recent?
You ignored this:
Actually, that?s an old tradition in the Unix world, which Apple >>>>>>>>> has abandoned. Another reason why its platform doesn?t deserve the >>>>>>>>> name ?Unix?, trademark or no trademark.
-a-a-a In what way has Apple 'abandoned' "A modular GUI layer"? That >>>>>> they
don't *offer* different GUIs, doesn't mean they can't be *added*, >>>>>> does
it? (Any comments from the Apple folks? I'm just a (non-Apple)
Unix/UNIX
guy.)
[...]
I know you can get Dock / Finder replacements, which gets you
partly there,
but you still have a lot of the underpinnings. This, of course, has >>>>> advantages
that Lawrence will never speak of or acknowledge.
One can also replace the application icons quite easily. I did so for
Alacritty because I didn't like the one that came with it.
True... though it will revert when the app is updated.
I guess Lawrence means stuff like <https://www.enlightenment.org/>. I
never saw any advantage of pimping the desktop my own way, but that's
just me. I like macOS for its looks and stability. I work most of the
time in the cli (Alacritty right now) and vim/emacs (Aquamacs).
I think he means with desktop Linux you can swap out your DE and file
browser.
Cool. Some are lighter on resources, set menus to be where you want
(window or
top), taskbar type, and much more. But can you get tabbed windows in
your word
processor and spread sheet and file browser that all work in similar
ways? Can
you get similar language so you are not splitting Exit and Quit or
Settings
and Preferences? Can you get PDF Services or full screen apps that
integrate
with the virtual desktops? On and on... for the most part, no (though
KDE does
allow for tabs, even with mixed apps I think, it is clunky -- or was
years ago
when I tested it and I bet it still is).
With Linux I often feel like I am using a system that is not
coordinated with
itself and many features exist to do little more than hit some checkbox. >>>
Do not get me wrong -- there are also places where macOS is wonky and
sometimes I see a feature elsewhere and wish it was built in to macOS
(say
better file copy dialogs). But it feels GENERALLY like a
professionally built
system where Linux often feels like someone's hobby (or a lot of
someone's).
Nobody is really accountable for making the whole system be unified.
That's because Linux IS someone's hobby (or a lot of someone's).
Nothing wrong
with that.-a If you want to learn all there is to know about software
and OSes
and compilers and tinkering with settings and compiler flags and
EVERYTHING,
then Linux is for you. You are an actual computer hobbyist.-a Have fun!
OTOH if you just want an appliance that you turn on and use without
having to
think about how it all works, then Linux probably is not for you. Nothing
wrong with THAT either.
That's where Apple comes in.-a A whole range of products and services
that all
work together. Automatically.-a No setup involved.-a All deliberately
running
the same UNIX OS and apps on the same hardware.
Or you can go the Windows/Dell/HP/Android/Samsung/Google/etc route and
try to
cobble things together on your own.-a Sort of a Linux Lite thing, with
different OSes and apps and hardware and vendors.-a For people who
still want a
challenge and do a LITTLE tinkering. I tried that for a few years and
gave up.
Its all about choices folks.-a You get to make YOUR choices and I get
to make
MY choices. This whole "Us vs Them" mentality is stupid, pointless and
childish.
We might as well argue about pizza toppings. I like pepperoni and you
like
canadian bacon.-a Who cares?
I like the perspective, with what you're saying - but how much did you
spend on Apple's products?-a How does it compare to a comparable system
with Windows or Linux?
On 9/1/2026 8:09 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
macOS can run a large percentage of Linux software. Linux cannot run most
macOS software. That means more choice on macOS.
Certainly, the best reason to $pend on a Mac is its native software.
It's nice that it can *also* utilize Unix software, though.
On 2026-09-01 5:22 p.m., Nick Charles wrote:
That's where Apple comes in.-a A whole range of products and services
that all
work together. Automatically.-a No setup involved.-a All deliberately
running
the same UNIX OS and apps on the same hardware.
It's part of the charm. In fact, it is so charming that many of us are willing to accept compromises to stick exclusively to Apple's hardware.
On 2026-09-01 5:31 p.m., Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/1/2026 5:22 PM, Nick Charles wrote:
That's where Apple comes in.-a A whole range of products and services
that all
work together. Automatically.-a No setup involved.-a All deliberately
running
the same UNIX OS and apps on the same hardware.
Or you can go the Windows/Dell/HP/Android/Samsung/Google/etc route
and try to
cobble things together on your own.-a Sort of a Linux Lite thing, with
different OSes and apps and hardware and vendors.-a For people who
still want a
challenge and do a LITTLE tinkering. I tried that for a few years and
gave up.
Its all about choices folks.-a You get to make YOUR choices and I get
to make
MY choices. This whole "Us vs Them" mentality is stupid, pointless and
childish.
We might as well argue about pizza toppings. I like pepperoni and you
like
canadian bacon.-a Who cares?
I like the perspective, with what you're saying - but how much did you
spend on Apple's products?-a How does it compare to a comparable system
with Windows or Linux?
Apple costs more, but the components are also of better quality in most cases. For example, every PC gaming laptop will give you a wifi chip
capable of Wifi 6E or 7 at this point. However, many of them will be MediaTek chips which provide inconsistent speeds or never reach the top speed the router is able to produce. Similarly, many of them have
batteries which wear out rapidly or inflate, something you don't usually
see in Macs. They also have larger capacities on their NVMes, but they
don't perform as well most of the time. It _is_ possible to be on-par
with a Mac through the purchase of a PC, but it will usually end up
costing the same or more.
On 2026-09-01 8:18 p.m., Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/1/2026 8:09 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
macOS can run a large percentage of Linux software. Linux cannot run
most
macOS software. That means more choice on macOS.
Certainly, the best reason to $pend on a Mac is its native software.
It's nice that it can *also* utilize Unix software, though.
To be fair, the native software of a Mac is not as great as what's
available for Windows. As a result, it's probably not the best reason to
get one. The best reason, in my opinion, is the knowledge that the
computer will always do what you expect it to without breaking because
an update wasn't tested, because you got malware or because the
developer didn't take your hardware into consideration when they
released the software.
On 9/9/2026 11:20 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-09-01 5:22 p.m., Nick Charles wrote:
That's where Apple comes in.-a A whole range of products and services
that all
work together. Automatically.-a No setup involved.-a All deliberately
running
the same UNIX OS and apps on the same hardware.
It's part of the charm. In fact, it is so charming that many of us are
willing to accept compromises to stick exclusively to Apple's hardware.
They should give you a $500 coupon for saying that like a slave, heh.
On 9/9/2026 11:26 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-09-01 5:31 p.m., Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/1/2026 5:22 PM, Nick Charles wrote:
That's where Apple comes in.-a A whole range of products and services >>>> that all
work together. Automatically.-a No setup involved.-a All deliberately >>>> running
the same UNIX OS and apps on the same hardware.
Or you can go the Windows/Dell/HP/Android/Samsung/Google/etc route
and try to
cobble things together on your own.-a Sort of a Linux Lite thing, with >>>> different OSes and apps and hardware and vendors.-a For people who
still want a
challenge and do a LITTLE tinkering. I tried that for a few years
and gave up.
Its all about choices folks.-a You get to make YOUR choices and I get >>>> to make
MY choices. This whole "Us vs Them" mentality is stupid, pointless and >>>> childish.
We might as well argue about pizza toppings. I like pepperoni and
you like
canadian bacon.-a Who cares?
I like the perspective, with what you're saying - but how much did
you spend on Apple's products?-a How does it compare to a comparable
system with Windows or Linux?
Apple costs more, but the components are also of better quality in
most cases. For example, every PC gaming laptop will give you a wifi
chip capable of Wifi 6E or 7 at this point. However, many of them will
be MediaTek chips which provide inconsistent speeds or never reach the
top speed the router is able to produce. Similarly, many of them have
batteries which wear out rapidly or inflate, something you don't
usually see in Macs. They also have larger capacities on their NVMes,
but they don't perform as well most of the time. It _is_ possible to
be on-par with a Mac through the purchase of a PC, but it will usually
end up costing the same or more.
To match Apple's quality, merely buy a computer as bare parts, and
assemble it.-a It's annoying work, to be sure, which is why I'd rather
just use a mini PC from China, but it does give you comparable quality
to Apple without the price tag.
On 2026-09-09 11:42 a.m., Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/9/2026 11:20 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-09-01 5:22 p.m., Nick Charles wrote:
That's where Apple comes in.-a A whole range of products and services >>>> that all
work together. Automatically.-a No setup involved.-a All deliberately >>>> running
the same UNIX OS and apps on the same hardware.
It's part of the charm. In fact, it is so charming that many of us
are willing to accept compromises to stick exclusively to Apple's
hardware.
They should give you a $500 coupon for saying that like a slave, heh.
Which of my liberties has been compromised?
On 2026-09-09 11:46 a.m., Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/9/2026 11:26 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-09-01 5:31 p.m., Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/1/2026 5:22 PM, Nick Charles wrote:
That's where Apple comes in.-a A whole range of products and
services that all
work together. Automatically.-a No setup involved.-a All deliberately >>>>> running
the same UNIX OS and apps on the same hardware.
Or you can go the Windows/Dell/HP/Android/Samsung/Google/etc route
and try to
cobble things together on your own.-a Sort of a Linux Lite thing, with >>>>> different OSes and apps and hardware and vendors.-a For people who
still want a
challenge and do a LITTLE tinkering. I tried that for a few years
and gave up.
Its all about choices folks.-a You get to make YOUR choices and I
get to make
MY choices. This whole "Us vs Them" mentality is stupid, pointless and >>>>> childish.
We might as well argue about pizza toppings. I like pepperoni and
you like
canadian bacon.-a Who cares?
I like the perspective, with what you're saying - but how much did
you spend on Apple's products?-a How does it compare to a comparable
system with Windows or Linux?
Apple costs more, but the components are also of better quality in
most cases. For example, every PC gaming laptop will give you a wifi
chip capable of Wifi 6E or 7 at this point. However, many of them
will be MediaTek chips which provide inconsistent speeds or never
reach the top speed the router is able to produce. Similarly, many of
them have batteries which wear out rapidly or inflate, something you
don't usually see in Macs. They also have larger capacities on their
NVMes, but they don't perform as well most of the time. It _is_
possible to be on-par with a Mac through the purchase of a PC, but it
will usually end up costing the same or more.
To match Apple's quality, merely buy a computer as bare parts, and
assemble it.-a It's annoying work, to be sure, which is why I'd rather
just use a mini PC from China, but it does give you comparable quality
to Apple without the price tag.
It doesn't. A simple speed test of wifi hardware or storage would
confirm that the parts you would put in the Chinese PC, even if they are considered premium, wouldn't compete favourably with Apple's.
To match Apple's quality, merely buy a computer as bare parts, and
assemble it.-a It's annoying work, to be sure, which is why I'd rather
just use a mini PC from China, but it does give you comparable quality
to Apple without the price tag.
To match Apple's quality, merely buy a computer as bare parts, and
assemble it.-a It's annoying work, to be sure, which is why I'd rather
just use a mini PC from China, but it does give you comparable quality
to Apple without the price tag.
Good luck assembling a mac Mini equivalent :-). The NUC M6 I have comes
with a huge power brick.
On 9/9/2026 1:26 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-09-09 11:42 a.m., Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/9/2026 11:20 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-09-01 5:22 p.m., Nick Charles wrote:
That's where Apple comes in.-a A whole range of products and
services that all
work together. Automatically.-a No setup involved.-a All deliberately >>>>> running
the same UNIX OS and apps on the same hardware.
It's part of the charm. In fact, it is so charming that many of us
are willing to accept compromises to stick exclusively to Apple's
hardware.
They should give you a $500 coupon for saying that like a slave, heh.
Which of my liberties has been compromised?
What would you have spent the difference in price on?
On 09/09/2026 17:46, Joel W. Crump wrote:
To match Apple's quality, merely buy a computer as bare parts, and assemble it.a It's annoying work, to be sure, which is why I'd rather
just use a mini PC from China, but it does give you comparable quality
to Apple without the price tag.
Good luck assembling a mac Mini equivalent :-). The NUC M6 I have comes
with a huge power brick.
On 2026-09-09 1:52 p.m., Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/9/2026 1:26 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-09-09 11:42 a.m., Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/9/2026 11:20 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-09-01 5:22 p.m., Nick Charles wrote:
That's where Apple comes in.-a A whole range of products and
services that all
work together. Automatically.-a No setup involved.-a All
deliberately running
the same UNIX OS and apps on the same hardware.
It's part of the charm. In fact, it is so charming that many of us
are willing to accept compromises to stick exclusively to Apple's
hardware.
They should give you a $500 coupon for saying that like a slave, heh.
Which of my liberties has been compromised?
What would you have spent the difference in price on?
Here's a question which might simultaneously answer yours: why would I
spend extra for an Infiniti QX60 when I could buy a Ford Explorer?
On 9/9/2026 3:33 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-09-09 1:52 p.m., Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/9/2026 1:26 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-09-09 11:42 a.m., Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/9/2026 11:20 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:Which of my liberties has been compromised?
On 2026-09-01 5:22 p.m., Nick Charles wrote:
That's where Apple comes in.-a A whole range of products and
services that all
work together. Automatically.-a No setup involved.-a All
deliberately running
the same UNIX OS and apps on the same hardware.
It's part of the charm. In fact, it is so charming that many of us >>>>>> are willing to accept compromises to stick exclusively to Apple's >>>>>> hardware.
They should give you a $500 coupon for saying that like a slave, heh. >>>>
What would you have spent the difference in price on?
Here's a question which might simultaneously answer yours: why would I
spend extra for an Infiniti QX60 when I could buy a Ford Explorer?
Right!-a Commodity vehicles are sensible to buy, to drive on public
roads.-a Idiots think they're gonna have big fun in luxury/fast cars,
maybe get their license suspended, heh.
Here's a question which might simultaneously answer yours: why would
I spend extra for an Infiniti QX60 when I could buy a Ford Explorer?
Right!-a Commodity vehicles are sensible to buy, to drive on public
roads.-a Idiots think they're gonna have big fun in luxury/fast cars,
maybe get their license suspended, heh.
The Infiniti is not faster, as far as I know. The difference is that its design is prettier, it feels a lot sturdier and usually has a greater
amount of functionality. The Explorer would get me to my destination and back for a while, but it would inevitably break a lot sooner than the Infiniti will, not only because it is poorly designed but because it is built by people who just don't care. When I look at a Mac, there is
nothing about it which suggests that its design is poor or unreliable.
Nevertheless, there are flaws like the premature death of a MacBook once
the TBW limit is reached. I've pointed such flaws out and the advantage
PCs would have in at least allowing you to replace the faulty part
rather than requiring you to change the whole laptop.
On 9/9/2026 3:56 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
Here's a question which might simultaneously answer yours: why would
I spend extra for an Infiniti QX60 when I could buy a Ford Explorer?
Right!-a Commodity vehicles are sensible to buy, to drive on public
roads.-a Idiots think they're gonna have big fun in luxury/fast cars,
maybe get their license suspended, heh.
The Infiniti is not faster, as far as I know. The difference is that
its design is prettier, it feels a lot sturdier and usually has a
greater amount of functionality. The Explorer would get me to my
destination and back for a while, but it would inevitably break a lot
sooner than the Infiniti will, not only because it is poorly designed
but because it is built by people who just don't care. When I look at
a Mac, there is nothing about it which suggests that its design is
poor or unreliable.
Nevertheless, there are flaws like the premature death of a MacBook
once the TBW limit is reached. I've pointed such flaws out and the
advantage PCs would have in at least allowing you to replace the
faulty part rather than requiring you to change the whole laptop.
You're reading quality into Apple's products that isn't really there,
dude.
It's a gimmick.-a They aren't *bad* devices, but they aren't
better than the competition, at the end of the day.-a There are
absolutely other hardware vendors who supply quality parts.-a Apple is a cult, with their damn lease plan now, holy jeez.
Here's a question which might simultaneously answer yours: why
would I spend extra for an Infiniti QX60 when I could buy a Ford
Explorer?
Right!-a Commodity vehicles are sensible to buy, to drive on public
roads.-a Idiots think they're gonna have big fun in luxury/fast cars, >>>> maybe get their license suspended, heh.
The Infiniti is not faster, as far as I know. The difference is that
its design is prettier, it feels a lot sturdier and usually has a
greater amount of functionality. The Explorer would get me to my
destination and back for a while, but it would inevitably break a lot
sooner than the Infiniti will, not only because it is poorly designed
but because it is built by people who just don't care. When I look at
a Mac, there is nothing about it which suggests that its design is
poor or unreliable.
Nevertheless, there are flaws like the premature death of a MacBook
once the TBW limit is reached. I've pointed such flaws out and the
advantage PCs would have in at least allowing you to replace the
faulty part rather than requiring you to change the whole laptop.
You're reading quality into Apple's products that isn't really there,
dude.
- Unlike the Zephyrus G14 I killed, the fingerprint reader on the Mac _always_ recognizes my fingerprint and turns on the computer.
- Unlike the G14, I didn't need to replace the wifi chip because the
bundled one gets speeds near the maximum of what the repeater can
manage, even at great distances.
- Even though the model is a base unit, the screen feels premium.
- The keyboard is incredibly responsive, and my typing speed has
improved because it doesn't miss any finger presses.
- The battery life is consistently close to what Apple claims, not theoretical.
- The operating system is always smooth, even when I use almost all the
RAM this machine has available. It never feels clunky like Windows or
Linux does.
It's a gimmick.-a They aren't *bad* devices, but they aren't better
than the competition, at the end of the day.-a There are absolutely
other hardware vendors who supply quality parts.-a Apple is a cult,
with their damn lease plan now, holy jeez.
No one is asking you to buy a Mac. If you're comfortable with Windows
and think it's superior, enjoy it. I've used Windows since 1991 and
while a few versions were quite good, none ever provided as stellar an experience as the basic Mac setup provides.
On 9/9/2026 2:25 PM, John Bokma wrote:
To match Apple's quality, merely buy a computer as bare parts, and
assemble it.-a It's annoying work, to be sure, which is why I'd rather
just use a mini PC from China, but it does give you comparable
quality to Apple without the price tag.
Good luck assembling a mac Mini equivalent :-). The NUC M6 I have
comes with a huge power brick.
You're a first-world, first-in-line, early adopter, aren't you?-a It
makes you feel good?-a Giving these pigs your money?
John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> wrote:
On 09/09/2026 17:46, Joel W. Crump wrote:
To match Apple's quality, merely buy a computer as bare parts, and
assemble it.-a It's annoying work, to be sure, which is why I'd rather
just use a mini PC from China, but it does give you comparable quality
to Apple without the price tag.
Good luck assembling a mac Mini equivalent :-). The NUC M6 I have comes
with a huge power brick.
Well, I won't imply that my Beelink EQR5 [1] is a mac Mini equivalent,
but it has an *internal* power supply. That's one of the (major) reasons
I chose this product line.
To match Apple's quality, merely buy a computer as bare parts, and
assemble it.-a It's annoying work, to be sure, which is why I'd
rather just use a mini PC from China, but it does give you
comparable quality to Apple without the price tag.
Good luck assembling a mac Mini equivalent :-). The NUC M6 I have
comes with a huge power brick.
You're a first-world, first-in-line, early adopter, aren't you?-a It
makes you feel good?-a Giving these pigs your money?
I am typing this on a Mac mini late 2014 :-D.
On 9/10/2026 5:05 AM, John Bokma wrote:
To match Apple's quality, merely buy a computer as bare parts, and
assemble it.-a It's annoying work, to be sure, which is why I'd
rather just use a mini PC from China, but it does give you
comparable quality to Apple without the price tag.
Good luck assembling a mac Mini equivalent :-). The NUC M6 I have
comes with a huge power brick.
You're a first-world, first-in-line, early adopter, aren't you?-a It
makes you feel good?-a Giving these pigs your money?
I am typing this on a Mac mini late 2014 :-D.
Aside from price, the Mac mini is nice.
On 2026-09-10 12:47 p.m., Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/10/2026 5:05 AM, John Bokma wrote:
To match Apple's quality, merely buy a computer as bare parts, and >>>>>> assemble it.-a It's annoying work, to be sure, which is why I'd
rather just use a mini PC from China, but it does give you
comparable quality to Apple without the price tag.
Good luck assembling a mac Mini equivalent :-). The NUC M6 I have
comes with a huge power brick.
You're a first-world, first-in-line, early adopter, aren't you?-a It
makes you feel good?-a Giving these pigs your money?
I am typing this on a Mac mini late 2014 :-D.
Aside from price, the Mac mini is nice.
It won't play any games, but it also won't hurt your electrical bill.
On 09/09/2026 17:46, Joel W. Crump wrote:
To match Apple's quality, merely buy a computer as bare parts, and assemble it.-a
It's annoying work, to be sure, which is why I'd rather just use a mini PC from China,
but it does give you comparable quality to Apple without the price tag.
Good luck assembling a mac Mini equivalent :-). The NUC M6 I have comes with a huge power brick.
On Wed, 9/9/2026 2:25 PM, John Bokma wrote:
On 09/09/2026 17:46, Joel W. Crump wrote:
To match Apple's quality, merely buy a computer as bare parts, and assemble it.
It's annoying work, to be sure, which is why I'd rather just use a mini PC from China,
but it does give you comparable quality to Apple without the price tag.
Good luck assembling a mac Mini equivalent :-). The NUC M6 I have comes with a huge power brick.
Asus inherited NUC from Intel, and they would be
the source for a thing like that today.
The only problem with assembling stuff, is selecting the other components
to finish the job, at decent prices. Which is not really practical at the moment.
On 10/09/2026 19:00, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-09-10 12:47 p.m., Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/10/2026 5:05 AM, John Bokma wrote:
To match Apple's quality, merely buy a computer as bare parts,
and assemble it.-a It's annoying work, to be sure, which is why >>>>>>> I'd rather just use a mini PC from China, but it does give you
comparable quality to Apple without the price tag.
Good luck assembling a mac Mini equivalent :-). The NUC M6 I have >>>>>> comes with a huge power brick.
You're a first-world, first-in-line, early adopter, aren't you?-a It >>>>> makes you feel good?-a Giving these pigs your money?
I am typing this on a Mac mini late 2014 :-D.
Aside from price, the Mac mini is nice.
It won't play any games, but it also won't hurt your electrical bill.
Of course it will play games. I have been playing Quake on it in the
past. The new Mac mini is more than capable to run quite some games.
A new mini is on my wish list :-p. Have to figure out whether it's going
to be M6 or M5 Pro.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 03:36:05 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,353 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (1,590K bytes) |
| Messages: | 291,364 |