Re: So the Wintrolls don't believe Mac share is increasing...


"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-7B9F92.13112706082008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <e7618$4899b80e$19230@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Edwin" <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-AF73F7.17570605082008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <d881d$4898d05c$8061@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Edwin" <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-D297C4.13220805082008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <8a6b6$4898b4ee$14642@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Edwin" <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-F58330.12345405082008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <ea7de$4898a942$4903@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Edwin" <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-DB863C.11201305082008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <FfCdnfpNlIvPCgXVnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Steve de Mena <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Edwin wrote:
If you want to go down that path, "Can OS X read and
write
NTFS
formatted discs?"
Yes.

Can OS X format discs in NTFS?"
Yes.
In what version of OS X?
Leopard.

So this is a recent development.

In Fantasyland maybe. Not in the real world.

OS X Leopard can not format disks to NTFS, nor write to NTFS
volumes
formatted elsewhere.

Steve

Having done some review, I find I'm wrong about formatting,
but
you're
still wrong about read/write.

No, he's not wrong, you are, as usual:

"Mac OS X can read and write FAT volumes, but only read NTFS
volumes."

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1656

IOW, you posted without checking your facts first, as usual.

The bottom line is...

... you are wrong...

... AGAIN! <G>

Oh, Edwin...

...you're the one who has declared Mac OS X to be BSD,

Actually it's Apple itself that made that declaration, you've just
never
bothered to check your facts:

"Since its launch in March 2001, the appeal of Mac OS X has led to
more
than
100 percent growth in Apple's developer community. In fact, more
than
46
percent of Apple Developer Connection members are UNIX or Java
programmers.
Over three million Macs® with Mac OS X have shipped to date, making
Apple
the number one supplier of UNIX-based systems in the world."

"A unique platform for developers, Mac OS X delivers the power of
an
open,
UNIX-based architecture with support for industry standards such as
Apache,
OpenGL, Java, WebDAV and PDF. "Jaguar" provides increased UNIX
support
with
such features as the new GCC 3.0 compiler, the OpenGL Profiler, the
latest
BSD components to sync Mac OS X with FreeBSD 4.4, security
enhancements
with
IPv6, AES 128, CDSA and PAM security module and an improved
terminal
application with Unicode support."

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/may/06osxapps.html

"If you like open source development, you'll love Mac OS X. This
fully-conformant UNIX operating system-built on Mach 3.0 and
FreeBSD
5-bundles over a hundred of the most popular Open Source products."

http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html

None of that says that Mac OS X *is* BSD, Edwin.

All of that says Mac OS X is BSD Unix, Alan.

No. It says that Mac OS X is *based* on BSD, but more has been added.

Layers have been added on top of the BSD Unix operating system. It
still
remains a BSD Unix operating system.


It says it's "built on
FreeBSD". When you build on to something, you expand it and make it
greater than the foundation.

The foundation is the OS. Apple slapped its GUI and APIs on top.

Too bad you've never actually been able to support this argument.

Too bad you're too stupid to comprehend the support I've given my
arguments
in the quotes here you lack the intelligence to understand, let alone all
the years worth of quotes I've given you.


" To many, Darwin/Mac OS X is the "fifth BSD", and should therefore be
included in any discussion concerning BSD. Further, with the Dawin FAQ
Apple
states "that apart from a few architectural difference (such as our
use
of
the Mach kernel), we try to keep Darwin as compatible as possible with
FreeBSD (our BSD reference platform).""

http://networking.ringofsaturn.com/Unix/bsd.php

Look up "superset".

Look up "stupid." You'll find your picture next to the definition.


"Darwin is built around a NeXT-like Mach microkernel that is said to
be
somewhat less microkernel-like than NeXT. It borrows machine-specific
code
from NetBSD, the version of BSD that focuses on portability and now
runs
on
more than 30 platforms. Going forward, it will track a stable version
of
FreeBSD, which is the more popular and traditionally x86-only version
that
claims about a million users worldwide, according to Coleman."

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-96290.html

Darwin is not Mac OS X.

Apple says it is in the material quoted below. Does your stupidity know
no
bounds?


"The bottom layer consists of the core environment layer, of which
Darwin
is
the most significant component. Darwin is the name given to the
FreeBSD
environment that comprises the heart of Mac OS X. FreeBSD is a variant
of
the Berkeley Software Distribution UNIX environment, which provides a
secure
and stable foundation for building software. Included in this layer
are
the
kernel environment, device drivers, security support, interprocess
communication support, and low-level commands and services used by all
programs on the system. Besides Darwin, this layer contains several
core
services and technologies, many of which are simply higher-level
wrappers
for the data types and functions in the Darwin layer. Among the
available
core services are those for doing collection management, data
formatting,
memory management, string manipulation, process management, XML
parsing,
stream-based I/O, and low-level network communication. For details
about
the
technologies in this layer, see "Darwin and Core Technologies.""

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/OSX_Technology_O
ver
view/MacOSXOverview/chapter_2_section_2.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40001067
-CH
205-DontLinkElementID_38


And the fact that the say that "Darwin is the most significant
component." means that Darwin -- that is, BSD --is not the only
component of the bottom layer.

EVERYTHING in Mac OS X depends on that "bottom layer." EVERYTHING that
makes Mac OS X an operating system is in that "bottom layer."

And some of that bottom layer isn't BSD, Edwin.


You're just proving what a waste of time it is to bother to document
anything for you. You're just too flat out stupid to understand what
you
read.

I notice you've replied to neither of my posts documenting the things at
the bottom layer that aren't BSD.

Consider each answered with a "LOL."



therefore what
BSD can do, Mac OS X must be able to do, right?

The file system is not the OS. You still haven't gotten that
through
your
thick skull.

No, Edwin. The file system is not the OS, but the code that lets a
user
save information onto a disk *is*.

No it's not. The file system saves the information to disk.

No. Code in the operating system saves the information to disk.

You're a fscking idiot.

LOL

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: So the Wintrolls dont believe Mac share is increasing...
    ... "Mac OS X can read and write FAT volumes, ... BSD components to sync Mac OS X with FreeBSD 4.4, ... Layers have been added on top of the BSD Unix operating system. ... "The bottom layer consists of the core environment layer, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: So the Wintrolls dont believe Mac share is increasing...
    ... "Mac OS X can read and write FAT volumes, ... BSD components to sync Mac OS X with FreeBSD 4.4, ... Layers have been added on top of the BSD Unix operating system. ... "The bottom layer consists of the core environment layer, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: How 2 secure PC-PC data transfer
    ... Mac OS X is not based on BSD code at all; ... operating system, created by Rick Rashid, who is currently VP for Research at Microsoft. ... layer that emulated the Unix kernel interface was added to allow Unix apps to run. ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)
  • Re: Edwins prediction from one year ago.
    ... and Mac OS X is only six years old. ... Apple because it was in the "BSD Users Documentation" on Apple's ... AT&T is not Sun Microsystems. ... Bill Joy is responsible for both BSD andSolaris. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Mac Creed
    ... Clever Monkey wrote: ... Mac, and in Mac OS, His only Son, our Operating System: ... He may also be unaware that the Church of England, a quite important fragment of the Anglican Communion, is neither Catholic nor Protestant. ... Also, note that he is talking about DOS, with a little early Windows before it became a Real Operating System, and Mac OS, which was also not a Real Operating System. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)