Re: What do you dislike about OSX?

Snit wrote: 
"TheLetterK" <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
1DJnf.5150$w7.2459@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 12/13/05 5:27 PM:



I'm attributing your own words to you, ***. 

Your need to alter my name speaks poorly of you.  I do hope you find more
mature and appropriate ways to handle your disagreements in the future.

When logic fails, might as well have fun. 

Once understood, and when used for the right jobs, logic rarely fails.  I
believe you have the capacity to gain a basic understanding of logic.



How strange, that *you*, of all people, have the gall to judge the
'logical capability' of others. It's not as if you have any yourself.



Sinking to such insults does not further your argument.  Keep in mind it was
you who has admitted that logic fails you.

That is correct--you do not respond to logic. Glad you admitted it.

 You used that as an excuse to
alter people's names in immature ways, a habit you referred to as "fun".

It is fun since it bothers you so much, ***.


You likely will not being that you see your despicable actions as "fun".
What do you find "fun" about lowering yourself to making such grade school
put downs?


You left yourself open, ***. 


Everyone is open to grade school put downs.  The fact that you use that as
an excuse for your poor behavior does not speak well of you.

And your rampant dishonesty does not speak well of you, ***.


It's not like you actually listen to reason. 

You and I disagreed.  I maintain that OS X is based in part of FreeBSD.  You
disagree but offered no support.



I gave the only support required--a definition of the word 'based',
which indicated that it is an absolute term in this context. Therefore,
you can't 'partially base' something on another product. It's either
based on FreeBSD (in which case it would be a fork of FreeBSD, which
you, yourself, deny), or it's not based on FreeBSD (in which case your
not only being inaccurate, but your also lying through your teeth).



I understand that is your opinion.  I do not agree with it.  Do you have
anything else other than your opinion?
Definitions--the fact that OS X does not share core components with FreeBSD, the fact that OS X does not follow FreeBSD conventions... Need more?

How about this?
http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/194/41/
"Some of the FreeBSD userland programs are used in Darwin, which is the operating system that forms the basis for Apple's OS X. However, the OS X kernel is based on Mach, not FreeBSD, so OS X is not "based on" or "developed from" FreeBSD in the traditional sense (such as the way OpenBSD was forked from NetBSD in 1995)."


You gave an opinion... not a reason. 


Your limitations are obviously not limited to logic--you can't read very
well, either.


Your baseless insults here do not speak well of you. 
Baseless? You constantly misinterpret what people write.


I, to the contrary, offered several sources where FreeBSD was referred to as
one of the things OS X was based on.


Multiple people using an incorrect term does not make the term correct. 


Of course not - but you have not established that this has happened.  You
are trying to argue that the way a word is commonly used is incorrect - and
you have failed to offer anything but your opinion as support.

Alright, just provided some evidence.


You never were able to find a reason to discount those sites...


I cited a dictionary, that was all that was needed. 


Incorrect.  You not only would need to cite a dictionary, you would need to
show how it applied.  Your support was based, in part, on several
definitions, but it also need to have a basis in reason.
No, my support was fully based on several definitions. Because it's not possible to partially base something on something else. Something is either based on something else, or not based on something else. There is no 'degree to which something is based on another', because the term is absolute.

 You have not yet
given an explanation as to why any of the definitions you have used to base
your claim on would support it.
My claim is that your term 'partially based on' is *not proper English*, because 'based on' is an absolute term. Somethings is either based on something else, or it is not based on something else. There are no middle points between the two extremes.

 To make matters worse for you, you based
your claim on multiple definitions, showing that something *can* be based on
multiple things.
Actually, I based it on a single definition of the word--as dictionaries are supposed to be used. Though I did point out that none of the others that could even be potentially used in this context allowed for a non-absolute use of the term.

Want to know the definition? "being founded on".

Your silly semantic game fell apart as soon as you did
that.
No, your straw man just fell apart. You made the assumption that I was basing my argument on multiple definitions, when really I was basing it on but one definition--I was merely pointing out that none of the other definitions that could be applied in the situation allowed for non-absolute usage either.


you merely repeated your contrary opinion.  Here
are sites that support my view:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD
"A broad range of open source and commercial products are directly or
indirectly based on FreeBSD, including Juniper routers, Apple's Mac OS X..."
"Darwin, the core of Apple's Mac OS X, borrows heavily from FreeBSD,
including its virtual file system and network stack kernel code, as well as
large portions of its "BSD" userspace component. Apple continues to
integrate new code from FreeBSD regularly, as well as contribute back
changes."
What would be the aforementioned 'indirectly based on FreeBSD'. Of course, that's not proper either. I've consistently maintained that OS X uses the FreeBSD userspace and some parts of the BSD kernel in XNU. However, I've also been claiming that that level of association does not merit a term as strong as 'based on'. Something *you* have not been able to understand.


http://www.serverwatch.com/tutorials/article.phpr/10825_3393051_3#macosx
"Darwin, the kernel on which Mac OS X is based, is itself based on the
FreeBSD code with a custom Mac kernel in place of the standard BSD kernel."
That's just flat out wrong. OS X is based on Nextstep (as demonstrated by Apple's accreditation, design similarities, use of the Nextstep APIs, employment of Nextstep technologies, etc), which was based on Mach, which has traditionally used a BSD userspace (but is still not a BSD, and not derivative of any BSD distribution). Apple *updated* the userspace in OS X, so that in now uses a userspace similar to that found in FreeBSD 5.x. That's where this supposed relationship comes from, and it does *not* warrant a term anywhere near the strength of a 'based on'.

http://www.serverwatch.com/tutorials/article.php/3393051
"Technically, Mac OS X is based on the FreeBSD core, with OS X 10.3 based on
FreeBSD 5.x. It is, however, extremely customized beyond the base BSD code."
This is again flat out wrong. OS X bears little resemblance to FreeBSD below the userspace--and even that isn't particularly FreeBSD like, even if most of the tools are the same (Apple uses their own conventions and throws in some of their own tools). Besides, what would you know of it? You don't even demonstrate a basic working understanding of the userspace in question.


http://www.bsdatwork.com/2004/06/11/freebsd_stealth_growth_project/
"There are currently three mainstream open source BSD variants, NetBSD,
OpenBSD and FreeBSD. Apple's OS X (Darwin) is also based on FreeBSD."
And I would ask them; "Did Apple take FreeBSD and modify it?". It's fairly obvious that they didn't, given the massive differences between the core aspects of both systems. OS X *doesn't even use a BSD kernel*, let alone any other aspects that such a derivative product would share with FreeBSD.


http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/os-freebsd/
"FreeBSD used to be the desktop user's UNIX version of choice until the
FreeBSD-based OS X came along."
Marketing drivel, not acceptable for use in such an argument. They're probably just parroting what Apple claims.


Etc. You never have explained why all these sites agree with me. 
There we go.

Regardless, the question is really not about OS X or FreeBSD, it is about
your poor behavior in relation to our disagreement.  I describe that
disagreement more, below... and show the source of your own quote you
dishonestly attribute to others.



Which simply indicates that there are a great many idiots wandering the
net proclaiming that OS X is partially based on FreeBSD (something that
isn't even possible, let alone accurate).



You have made your opinion very clear.  You have also made it clear that you
have no support you are willing and able to share.

Care to rephrase that? I just provided support.

It is sad you lower
yourself to the point where you feel you need to call those that disagree
with you "idiots". 
Lower myself? Think what you will of it, doesn't really bother me.


If it bothers you that much, you could simply admit that you were wrong. 

It hurts your credibility when you tell such easy to disprove lies.  Here
is the first relevant use of that phase that I can find (it is, of course,
from you):

Post: <pan.2005.11.02.17.37.20.776318@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Link: <http://tinyurl.com/7eoyv>

Your best defense of your dishonesty, at least that I have seen so far, has
been to point to my comment: "There is nothing I can think of to help
you gain the ability to understand this simple concept [that OS X is based
in part on FreeBSD]." and you dishonestly pretend you are quoting my phase.

You pushed this dishonesty because you disagreed with me that OS X is based
in part on FreeBSD.  You went so far as to set up a silly straw man where
you insisted that someone was telling you OS X was a fork of FreeBSD.  To
make matters worse you are now telling me that you will continue to
dishonestly attribute your own words to others unless I dishonestly pretend
to agree with your opinion.  What a miserable behavior for you to engage
in!

Feel free to disagree with me about OS X being based in part of FreeBSD; I
have no problem with that, but your dishonest reaction to a disagreement
speaks very poorly of you. It is the type of reaction I would expect from
Steve Carroll, Wally, or Tim Adams - not of you.


No comment.  What a shame.  I do hope you are taking a look at your actions
and considering what they say about you.



Quite proud of them. I've worked you into something of a hole--though
that would likely be forgotten were it not for you continuously bringing
the subject up.


How is my pointing out you bad behavior a "hole" for me? 
No need to try to divert the focus of the argument, ***.

 How is my pointing
out your argument, based only on several definitions

Based on one definition, oh "he who cannot understand English".

that do not directly
support your claim (and refute it in multiple ways) a "hole" for me?
A) It does support my claim, since it's an absolute term--exactly what I said in the first place.
B) The 'hole' I speak of is your inability to change direction. You have no more maneuvering room, ***. No matter what other arguments you present, you'll be demonstrating just how much of an illiterate lier you really are.


Your use of logic is weak...
So say you, who would probably have to grab a dictionary just to define logic.

and your tendency to sink to juvenile insults
to hide your frustration with this does not speak well of you.
What frustration? You're not capable of sustaining a decent argument, so it's best to just have fun at your expense, ***.


--
"There is nothing I understand." - ***
.