Re: The Myth of the secure Mac

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:09:51 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "theletterk" <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
> pan.2005.11.02.02.32.57.154379@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 11/1/05 7:32 PM:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 16:34:19 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "TheLetterK" <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
>>> BBP9f.31335$_31.29608@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 11/1/05 12:47 PM:
>>>
>>>>> We seem to agree that *you* do not know how to launch CyberDuck from the
>>>>> command line.
>>>>>
>>>>> That does not imply it cannot be done. For the record, it is not a hard
>>>>> thing to do. I am not a command line junky and it worked on my first try:
>>>>>
>>>>> open /Applications/Cyberduck.app/
>>>>>
>>>>> Which I invoked with:
>>>>>
>>>>> open /App<tab>/Cyber<tab><enter>
>>
>>> You inkoved the open command, which will start the application for
>>> you.
>>
>> Good to see that you can interpret the command I wrote. Thanks.
>>
>>> You did *not* invoke Cyberduck from the command line.
>>
>> Sure I did... as shown above. Using the command line I invoked
>> Cyberduck.
> No, you invoked *open*, You did *not* invoke Cyberduck. You launched
> Cyberduck. There is a difference. You really don't understand *nix
> terminology do you?
>
>
>>> Do you understand what 'invoke' means in context of a *nix command
>>> line?
>>
>> I am not at all interested in word games you wish to play... using
>> nothing but the command line I was able to invoke Cyberduck.
> You didn't invoke it, you launched it. There's a very big difference
> there.
>
>> You can try to weasel
>> out of this if you like, but that will not change the fact.
> The fact that you launched it, not invoked it? Yes, I agree whole
> heartedly that the facts of the matter cannot be changed.
>
>
>>>> if this is something you are likely to do on a regular basis, of
>>>> course, you could easily add /Applications (and ~/Applications) to
>>>> your path.
>>
>>> Wouldn't help, since OS X treats application packages as directories.
>>
>> I stand corrected.
>>
>>> They're simply structured a certain way so Finder can interpret them
>>> like normal files.
>>>
>>> I would have to add *each application package* to PATH.
>>
>> or create an alias that opened from the App folder... maybe call it
>> openap or something.
>Still wouldn't help at all.
Dishonest snipping fixed.

>
>>> Not a big deal - esp. considering there is little
>>> reason to open a GUI app from the CL.
>> Unless your trying to troubleshoot the app, or need to pass strange
>> options at start, or any of a number of alternate situations.
>
> What options do you pass to Cyberduck?
It doesn't allow you to pass options, that's my point.

> I never pass any... maybe you can
> tell me some that would be useful.
It doesn't allow you to, that's my point.

>
> <SNIP />
>
>
>>>>>> System administration tasks. Try sorting through a directory of 500
>>>>>> various files for files ending in '*.c' and '*.h', and moving them
>>>>>> into the 'src' derectory using a GUI.
>>>>>
>>>>> With Spotlight that is a trivial task.
>>>
>>>> Spotlight can find them, but it can't manipulate them.
>>>
>>> Sigh... ok: with Spotlight and the Finder the task is trivial.
>> It just takes 10 times as long, with a half-dozen extra steps along the
>> way.
>
> List those steps and explain why they take 10 times as long as opening the
> terminal and issuing whatever commands you find more efficient.
>
>> You made the claim that OS X is based on FreeBSD--
>
> OS X is based *in part* on FreeBSD. Do you see the difference?
What you claim is not possible. You cannot partially base a software
project from another. You can be inspired/influenced by anothe rsoftware
project, you can merge with another software project, or you can fork off
another software project.

>
>> which means it is a fork of FreeBSD.
>
> You are incorrect: OS X is not a fork of FreeBSD no matter how many times
> you push that idea or who you attribute it to.
I'm saying that OS X is not a fork of FreeBSD. You initially claimed that
it was by saying "Os X is based on FreeBSD". That means that you believe
that OS X forked off FreeBSD, idiot.

>
>>>>> http://snipurl.com/jc9b
>>>>>
>>>>> I never stated what you attributed to me. In fact, other than you in
>>>>> your claim above, *nobody* has stated what you say I did. That is
>>>>> grossly dishonest of you - you could not have even accidentally just
>>>>> thought I had said what someone else had.
>>>
>>>> You keep making the claim that OS X is based on FreeBSD--which inplies
>>>> it forked from FreeBSD. *That* is incorrect.
>>>
>>> Your implication is not mine; please do not attribute it to me.
>
>> Then maybe you should learn a little bit about what your talking about
>> before putting out your two cents? Just because *you* don't understand
>> what you actually said doesn't mean you said something different.
>
> Again: when you attribute your ideas to me,
I attribute *your words* to you.

> my own ideas reflect poorly on me.
<Treating you with the same honesty you show with me>

>>>
>>> Comes down to my saying that OS X is, in part, based on FreeBSD.
>
>> You can't 'partially base' a software project on another.
>
> Sure you can... OS X is partially based on FreeBSD, but it is also based on
> other projects and has many things of its own.
No, it's not partially based on FreeBSD--that's not technically *possible*
to do.

>
>>> You, wanting to disagree but having no basis to do so have said you want me
>>> to support *your* unrelated notion of OS X being a fork of FreeBSD. I have
>>> no desire to support your straw man.
>
>> You should support *your straw man*. You made the claim that *you are
>> falsely attributing to me*. All I did was say that you were wrong in your
>> claim that OS X is a fork of FreeBSD (Despite the fact that you used a
>> euphemism for 'fork of').
>
> I claimed OS X was a fork of FreeBSD.

<SNIP>

>
>>> So show where I ever stated, in any words, that OS X makes the CLI
>>> irrelevant?
>
>> That was the implication, through your comment that 'OS_X_removes_the
>> requirement_for_a_CLI'. Not only is your claim completely wrong, it makes
>> the implication that Os X somehow transcends the need for a mere CLI.
>
> Now I stated "OS_X_removes_the_requirement_for_a_CLI".

<SNIP>

>
> Once again you are attributing your own comments to me. This is grossly
> dishonest of you.
I am attributing your own intent to you.

>>
>>> Show me where I ever stated, in any words, that OS X's CLI
>>> is cumbersome.
>
>> When you shifted goal posts away from a discussion about the CLI, and made
>> the claim that OS X's GUI makes the CLI irrelevant.
>
> I stated that.

<SNIP>

>>
>>> Show me where I ever stated, in any words, that if OS X
>>> had a cumbersome CLI it would not matter.
>>>
>>> You cannot...
>
>> I just did.
>
> correct - more quotes to me.

<SNIP>

>>
>>> you are dishonestly attributing your own ideas to me.
>
>> You are dishonestly attributing *your own words* to me.
>
> this happened...

<SNIP>

So, ***, glad we came to agreement.
.