Good bye

[Scott Harvanek]

Why are you guys arguing Unix vs. Mac on a Fedora users list?

Scott H.

Les Mikesell wrote:
> Kelly Miller wrote:
>>
>>> Firewire is the right answer for audio, especially if you plan to 
>>> move it around.  I'm too cheap for that so the only thing I've added 
>>> is a USB sound adapter to have a software-selectable alternate 
>>> output over copper SPDF to feed a receiver.  It doesn't specifically 
>>> have a Mac driver but works as a standard USB audio device anyway.
>
>> Um... Has someone missed something here?  I keep an eye out on 
>> various plug and wire types, because I like that sort of electronic 
>> stuff, and last time I checked Apple has continued to change the USB 
>> and Firewire HARDWARE PORTS with every few versions of their stuff.
>
> There have always been a bazillion variations of USB connectors.  I 
> haven't noticed any vendor-specific trends with them other than 
> putting smaller connectors on small equipment.  With firewire, the 
> Mac's I've seen have added firewire 800 ports while retaining a 400 
> for compatibility and since firewire is a bus you really only need one 
> (and they are backwards compatible with a cable adapter anyway).
>
>> In fact, I found multiple rants from people who want to know why 
>> Apple is trying to give themselves a leg up by using Microsoft's 
>> embrace & extend on the hardware side instead of the software side.
>
> If they deviate from the IEEE standards they deserve a rant - and 
> probably a lawsuit.
>
>> And you complain because the drivers don't work for a specific kernel 
>> version of Linux?  At least the Linux guys aren't attempting to 
>> change the physical interface to give their audio devices an 
>> advantage on the market...
>
> The hardware isn't going to change for the life of the machine.  With 
> fedora, you are forced to change to have continuing security updates.
>
>> Apple is a horrible example of a user-friendly company, because as of 
>> late they've been learning the Microsoft technique of wresting extra 
>> cash from users and giving themselves an advantage on system 
>> development. 
>
> Yes, saving money isn't their strong suit, but sometimes having 
> something that works is more important.
>
>
>> Every time I hear someone say Mac OSX is a "true UNIX" I snicker, 
>> because generally running "real UNIX" programs in OSX requires 
>> installing the compatibility layer, because by default OSX does not 
>> support standard UNIX stuff; instead, they support specially rigged 
>> programs designed to interface with Cocoa...
>
> Do you mean X? That's not a compatibility layer, it's the same thing 
> everyone else runs for X programs - and you don't need it for command 
> line/character mode.  Cocoa is nicer but you aren't restricted to it 
> and most open source applications are available through fink or 
> macports. Some Mac users are fanatic enough that many programs that 
> could run under X in their generic versions have Cocoa versions 
> (thunderbird, mozilla, vlc, openoffice, etc.), but it doesn't matter 
> to me.  I tend to spend so much time with NX/freenx, remote desktop, 
> and vnc connections to remote/different systems that the more similar 
> they are the better.
>