Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

macs=scam

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-17 6:49

Windows has poor security compared to mac (The point all macfags will try to make) But if updated often enough, And with anti virus programs, You wont get virus's.
Macs are a candy coated idiot proof version of a PC. Those who know nothing of computers will think "Oh yay a mac, It's pretty, It cant get virus's, It's perfect for me, It's hip". Yet windows is just in general more powerful. There are a HANDFULL of things you cant do on macs that can be done on windows. And im not talking about these little stupid asthetic things like a pretty download box. Mac is for those who want to surf the web, Download music and edit pictures. Can you do too much more than that? nope. Windows has OPTIONS. Sure it might not be as safe as a mac, But you dont need safe if you're skilled.

tl;dr - Give a skilled hacker something running windows, the possibilitys are endless. Give them a mac and they cant do shit.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-18 4:18

>>38-39

Back to /g/, please

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-18 8:17

>>40
OS X is certified UNIX.  This means it is compliant with the Single UNIX Specification, specifically, version 3 (SUSv3 / UNIX03 / POSIX.1-2001)

>>38
The kernel is way ahead of other BSDs in that it supports modern hardware (e.g. Macs) with working audio and graphics.
And Windows NT can run some operating systems written for something kind of like POSIX, but neither SFU/SUA nor Cygwin are POSIX comliant.  (Cygwin has a lot of GNU nastiness)

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-18 8:19

Being UNIX means nothing any more.
It's all about money now.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-18 8:39

>>1
tl;dr - Give a skilled hacker something, the possibilitys are endless. Give them a shit and they cant do shit.

fixed it for you.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-18 11:53

>>42
I don't think you understand what is Cygwin.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-18 16:01

>>42
OS X is certified UNIX.  This means it is compliant with the Single UNIX Specification, specifically, version 3 (SUSv3 / UNIX03 / POSIX.1-2001)
http://opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/ex.html
http://opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/vi.html
http://vimdoc.sourceforge.net/htmldoc/vi_diff.html
it is not compliant. the only reason it's certified is because the open group is corrupt and can be bought off.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-18 16:13

>>46
make that: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/utilities/ex.html and http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/utilities/vi.html.
but the point still stands. OS X does not have a compliant implementation of ex and vi.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-18 17:08

>>1-1000
YHBT

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-18 18:28

>>46,47
Once again, you aren't fully reading the actual specification.  ex and vi are part of the optional User Portability Utilities1 section.

1http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/help/codes.html#UP

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-18 18:35

>>45
Of course I understand what is Cygwin.  Cygwin calls itself "Linux-like", uses GCC, and uses GNU newlib (which is missing some POSIX and implements some GNU extensions).  This is not POSIX compliant.

Nothing wrong with not being POSIX compliant, except it makes porting applications compatible if they are designed for using POSIX.

When developing for unixlike systems, I read manpages from BSD and SVR4 derived UNIX systems along with the SUS specifications, and then I compare to GNU.  Otherwise, it's easy to write software that only works on glibc/Linux.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-18 18:36

>>50 correction:
"except it makes porting applications compatiblemore difficult if they are designed for using POSIX."

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-18 20:15

>>50
Cygwin stands for Cygwin, your GNU for Windows. It is a port of GNU for Windows. It was completely GNU and is probably currently the same (I don't know as I don't use Windows or Cygwin). It is as POSIX compatible as GNU is POSIX compatible.

RMS has stated before that he doesn't particularly care about GNU's adherence to POSIX, only that he's interested in taking the good bits of POSIX and making non-standard extensions when necessary.

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-18 20:20

>>52
Cygwin is a Red Hat project, and uses newlib instead of glibc.  This makes Cygwin a bit different than a GNU system with GNU libc (glibc).  (newlib is not a GNU project and seems to be BSD licensed afaict)

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-18 20:46

>>53
There's always MinGW, which actually aims to be GNU for Windows (unlike Cygwin), bit it also uses newlib. Does anything actually provide glibc for Windows? - and if so, why?

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-18 21:19

>>46-47
Give it a rest, hotaru. No one else gives a shit.

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-03 8:40


Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List