Posted on 05/27/2008 10:31:41 PM PDT by HAL9000
Excerpt -
Switching gears. Walt asks about Vista and the lousy reception it’s been given. Is Vista a failure?Ballmer: Vista is not a failure. Is it something we’d like to improve? Of course. Is it something that with 20/20 hindsight we’d do differently? Sure, he confesses. But Vista has sold a lot of copies, he adds.
Walt jumps in and asks about the percentage of Vista sales that result in downgrades to XP. Ballmer dodges. Gates looking a little depressed.
Walt asks if Vista has damaged with Windows brand.
Gates says Microsoft’s philosophy is to “do things better.” And Vista has given us lots of opportunity to do that, he notes. (Audience laughter.) There are plenty of lessons out of Vista–compatibility and other issues vendors are concerned about.
Ballmer says that according to consumer research, the No. 1 complaint about Vista was the change to the Windows user interface.
The conversation turns to Windows 7, which Microsoft hasn’t said too much about. Clearly, the company has learned from the media beating it took over the defeatured and perennially delayed Windows Vista. Indeed, in a post to the Windows Vista blog today, Microsoft’s Chris Flore noted that Microsoft is being very careful about releasing details about Windows 7. “What is a little different today is when and how we are talking about the next version of Windows,” Flore wrote. “So, why the change in approach? We know that when we talk about our plans for the next release of Windows, people take action. As a result, we can significantly impact our partners and our customers if we broadly share information that later changes. With Windows 7, we’re trying to more carefully plan how we share information with our customers and partners. This means sharing the right level of information at the right time depending on the needs of the audience.”
Well, apparently this is the right time and the right audience, because we’re about to get a Windows 7 demo (Oh, one more thing …. Here’s hoping Microsoft shares only those aspects of the new OS that it doesn’t end up de-featuring at a later date.)
Ballmer says what we’re about to see is “just a snippet” of Windows 7.
~ snip ~
(Excerpt) Read more at allthingsd.com ...
This is from the GNU website, who along with the kernel.org group provide the core O/S software for Linux. Right on their front page, just like kernel.org, they state quote:
The name “GNU” is a recursive acronym for “GNU’s Not Unix”; it is pronounced g-noo, as one syllable with no vowel sound between the g and the n.
You can quote it but you don't truly understand it. There are two standards, and being certified in the latter makes it UNIX™. The fact that is a clone (as is Minix, BSD, etc.) is irrelevant. All Torvalds has to do to make the kernel compliant is make some changes and control future kernel changes to keep it that way. As for the whole OS Red Hat or Novell could make sure the rest of their distros are compliant, then they can advertise Linux as UNIX™. I'd love to see the look on your face if that happened.
So now you take the word of Stallman the crazy communist as authoritative when it suits you. Debate tip: do not completely trash the credibility of someone and then bring him up in an appeal to authority.
No. In post #73 you claimed the definition was lineage. The formal trademark that you are currently supporting requires absolutely zero lineage. You switched your position on the definition of UNIX.
You can whine all you want about it, swear it's going to happen one day
I doubt Linux will ever be certified UNIX™. Torvalds has no desire to do it, and I don't care if he ever does.
but under the true definition your claim "Linux is a UNIX" is again bogus.
You have so far flipped between two definitions of UNIX. Linux qualifies under the third. All you have to do is change your position one more time to be in agreement.
In a historical context it does, when you are describing "Unix"
Now you're back to the lineage definition. Pick one and stick with it.
I’m simply proving your claim “Linux is a UNIX” is bogus, since that was your supposed point that took you twenty posts to finally admit, you said you’d even put it on first grade level but you are clearly wrong. LOL even under your own definition, my claim ATT decendants are UNIX is more correct, meeting two of the three prerequisites. You can keep flopping about and twisting like a pretzel, but even under your own definition, you lose on all counts. Linux is NOT a UNIX, no one who owns the copyrights and trademarks thinks it is, while BSD meets more conditions of UNIX using your own definition.
You might as well give up since it absolutely fits the general functionality definition, making it a UNIX in general, or, more specifically UNIX-like.
LOL even under your own definition, my claim ATT decendants are UNIX is more correct, meeting two of the three prerequisites.
Back to first grade again: there are no number of prerequisites. It can fit any one of the definitions to be called a UNIX.
Now remind me again, which definition do you currently use, the lineage one or the certification one? You've used both. Do you admit to inconsistency and flip-flopping (ahh, remembering Kerry), or do you admit that there are multiple definitions of UNIX? Nice corner you've painted yourself into: admit to being inconsistent or admit I'm right.
while BSD meets more conditions of UNIX using your own definition.
First, these are not my definitions. Second, as above there's no such thing as "I meet more definitions so I'm more UNIX." Third, BSD only meets the general functionality definition. Some people might also put it with the lineage definition out of nostalgia, but it has no or almost no Bell/AT&T code, so it really only fits the functionality definition. Fourth, OS X is the only BSD variant (although it's not completely BSD) to be UNIX™.
LOL backtracking and double speak again. General functionality is POSIX not UNIX, and you're talking in circles again since your finally admitted supposed point was quote "Linux is a UNIX" which is bogus. "Unix-like" is what I have said it is, as it's clearly a different operating system, most of which is specifically named "Not Unix" by the GNU copyright holder. Quite obviously this has become just another perfect example of your double talk, trying to claim you're right when you say Linux is Unix, even though it only meets 1/3 of your own definition, but I'm somehow wrong to call BSD Unix when it meets 2/3 of the very definition you provided. But now that you're trapped all you can do is keep talking in circles, changing your postion, now trying to say it's Unix-like which is actually my position. Not going to work, you already finally admitted your supposed point was quote "Linux is a UNIX" which is still bogus. It's Unix-like, but not UNIX, whether you keep talking in circles or not.
Nice try, thanks for playing, please don't come back soon. You yourself posted the comment where Linux aims for both POSIX and UNIX compliance, two separate things. POSIX doesn't mean UNIX. Even NT-based Windows with Microsoft Services for UNIX are more POSIX compliant than Linux, and we wouldn't call NT a UNIX.
Your ignorance has exposed you again. You really need to gain knowledge before you start playing with the big boys.
"Unix-like" is what I have said it is
You only used that term in this thread after I had used it several times to you. It appears you may finally be learning from someone more knowledgeable than yourself.
as it's clearly a different operating system, most of which is specifically named "Not Unix" by the GNU copyright holder.
I will remember you appealing to Stallman's authority. Thus when you later trash him again I can remind you that you consider him authoritative on this subject.
even though it only meets 1/3 of your own definition,
I've tried first grade, let's try kindergarten. You can be an apple and be a fruit. You can be an orange and be a fruit. You can be a kiwi and be a fruit. Being any one means you are a fruit.
but I'm somehow wrong to call BSD Unix when it meets 2/3 of the very definition you provided
You do realize that in working with UNIX since the 80s you are the only one I've ever heard using this concept of meeting multiple definitions making something more UNIX. It really is laughable. You are making yourself sound stupid. Digging in the hole does not eventually get you out of it.
changing your postion, now trying to say it's Unix-like which is actually my position.
Look back and see that I referred to it as UNIX-like to you many times well before you learned that term from me and started using it. It's kind of hard to claim victory when you start using my terms.
Unlike you I understand that "UNIX" means different things to different people. I have my preferences, but that's it, my preferences. You are trying to take a hard-line stance but it's destroying you as you keep having to flip-flop definitions like a Kerry in order for your arguments to survive.
So which one is it? Genetics or certification?
Because you constantly talk in circles, and have been trying to claim because it's Unix-like means it is also actual UNIX, which is bogus. And when repeatedly pressed to finally admit what your supposed point is since you constantly talk in circles, you said you wanted to put it in first grade language so there could be no mistake what you mean, but then claimed quote "Linux is a UNIX" which is of course wrong. Linux is not a UNIX, it's a Unix-like clone which is not the same, and more whining or double talk from you claiming they are the same isn't going to change it.
Sometimes straightforward facts and definitions can seem like that to those who have absolutely no knowledge of the subject. Now, care to explain mixing up POSIX and UNIX standards compliance if you had supposedly known what you were talking about? It shows very well that you don't. I also notice a progression of yours during the conversation, from thinking UNIX meant only the original code, then when told the owners of the name don't require original code, switching to that definition.
Your ignorance is strewn throughout this thread, picking up knowledge from me along the way to try to look like you know the subject. But I refuse to continue educating such an obstinate student anymore.
I’ve been very consistent in this thread depite your typical strawmen diversions, attempted subject changes, and circle talk. And when I pressed you to finally admit what your specific point supposedly was, you said quote “Linux is a UNIX”. Which is of course bogus, and you’ve provided no evidence it is correct other than another bogus claim you keep repeating that “Unix-like” and “UNIX” are synonymous. Funniest of all are your delusions of granduer, since you can’t even tell the differences between UNIX and Unix-like, or between UNIX and Linux.
I’m sure you’d like to keep talking in circles and keep telling us how smart you think you are LOL, but I have better things to do than listen to someone so pathetically confused about such basic terminology. I suggest you contact kernel.org, or gnu.org, and argue with them that you think they are UNIX even though they know they’re not, and even have “NOT UNIX” in their name. They probably won’t let you bloviate as long as I have though, because they probably won’t find it near as funny LMAO.
UNIX is defined as lineage, changed to UNIX is defined as trademark (you "Mr. IP" had to change once I told you someone legally owned the name and didn't give it out based based on lineage). Not very consistent. Care to lie any more?
I'm still chuckling over you thinking meeting more definitions makes something more UNIX, and over you not knowing the difference between POSIX and UNIX. You're playing out of your league, which is why you have been reduced to screaming nonsense.
Go ahead, but that's not nearly as funny as watching someone try to claim the foreign clone Linux is just as much of the Unix family as BSD, and that UNIX and Unix-like are synomymous, and that quote "Linux is a UNIX" despite most of the O/S code being copyrighted by someone with "NOT UNIX" in their name LOL.
Like I said, take your bogus claims up with the copyright and trademark owners themselves, but don't expect much help as their websites already make it clear you couldn't be more wrong, with some even putting their name "Not Unix" on there to help those as clueless and confused as you.
I will.
with some even putting their name "Not Unix" on there
Here's another little fact to mess with your day: Linux is not GNU.
Doesn’t mess with my day at all, in fact it reminds me of the time you tried to claim GNU (the NU stands for NOT UNIX remember) wasn’t the largest holder of copyrights in Linux, but accidentally gave us a link that showed they had more copyrighted files than all the others you mentioned combined, including all the third party apps LOL. You of course started twisting like a pretzel when you finally realized that your own link had blown you out of the water, just like in this case where your own definition of Unix sank your supposed claims.. Nothing like watching some double talker blow his own arguments out of the water over and over again while claiming to be some sort of expert LMAO.
I like that you are saying "files" now. You started saying "owns more copyright on more Linux code than anyone" until I set you straight (it's mostly small utilities, not much code on average) and you started correctly saying more files have their copyright (of course after you heaped abuse on me for telling you the truth). You are again welcome for the education.
I see a pattern: You talk from ignorance. I educate you as to the truth. You abuse me so much you've been banned more than once. Then you quietly start using the truth I told you. It would be a lot easier if you just admitted I'm right, but that wouldn't feed your troll instincts.
Funny, in looking for that post I saw one with you whining that NeXT systems didn't support USB. You totally didn't know that they stopped making NeXT systems five years before USB hit the market! It is really funny listening to you sometimes.
You didn’t set me straight on anything, your own link sunk your bogus claim on that thread just like your own definition sunk you here. What are you still doing here anyway, you should be out trying to convince kernel.org and gnu.org they are Unix since that’s what you keep claiming. Don’t forget the open group either since they own the trademark and know you are wrong too. Yoiu better get with it as telling me Linux is Unix over and over isn’t working for you, their websites still say you’re wrong and they are the authorities on the subject, not you, no matter how smart you wish you were LOL.
You claimed more code, not more files. I showed you more files is true (which I never claimed was false, so you can't sink anything), not more code. You then started using "more files" from then on. And you never credit me with your education when you use it. Disappointing.
Don’t forget the open group either since they own the trademark and know you are wrong too.
See, you don't even credit me with telling you about the Open Group and the trademark and certification. And here you are using it, after having to abandon your lineage definition due to that information. You haven't even thanked me for informing you that POSIX and UNIX certifications are two completely different things. You have completely avoided mentioning that demonstration of your ignorance.
Sadly, you still haven't been able to comprehend the three common definitions of what a UNIX is, so you fail the course.
LOL you did nothing of the sort, you claimed several OTHER entities had more copyrights in Linux, but then your very own link showed GNU (which stands for NOT UNIX) had more than all those you mentioned combined. Yet here you are again of course, trying to use the same disproven claim that GNU isn’t relevant to Linux when they own more copyrights than anyone. No surprise, it’s how you operate, as more and more keep finding out.
Yes, by title, not by code as you said. GNU includes a LOT of small junk titles that are of little interest to anyone but a very few. These are generally not installed by default in Linux distros, usually not on the CD, mostly available through the online package management tools. So even if you count them, it's still by title (as I said) not by code (as you said initially).
You're so dense you can't even realize that you've learned something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.