dude,
time for you to step away from the computer, and take a walk. Get outside
this... month. I just wanted to know what people are using OSX and Perl
for, sheesh. When people think Mac, they think, desktop publishing, not
Perl. Since I do graphic design and programming, I wanted to hear what
people are using my once only really good for graphics box which now, can be
used for much much more. I'm not a nerd, but I understand what OSX is,
usually its more interesting to talk about what the tool can do than to talk
about the tool itself. Dunno bout you, but i'd rather go hiking than to play
'geeker than thou' so i think i shall. you win.
have fun at the >#
--
justin simoni
personal musings ~ http://skazat.com
_____________________________________
force a change
On 5/27/01 7:51 PM, "Daniel Lord" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You said:
>> It seems that people who are serious about
>> coding would opt for a linux or FreeBsd alternative,
> since this is most
>> likely what these program will be run under when
> they're released.
> My first reaction was uncharitable: "Duh, what does
> anybody using Unix use Perl for"? But I excuse your
> not understanding OSX, so I'll be more patient and
> more civil (I hope ;-).
>
> Two revelations in your statement:
>
> One, ignorance and two, an ignoring, not the same as
> ignorance but with even worse consequences for open
> source.
>
> So...just what do you base your statement on? Now that
> OSX is shipping standard on Macs, OSx is *the* number
> one Unix desk-top on the planet--outnumbering Linux,
> BSD, and the rest. Besides, why hack a mediocre GUI on
> one of those when you can have the only GUI available
> for Unix that is *better* than Windows: OSX Aqua?
>
> Your statement is born of ignorance of that fact as
> well as ignoring yet another: OSX *is* Unix, my
> uninformed friend, and a cleaner Unix than Linux at
> that. If Linux and the other ports were as "Open" as
> you imply--then what difference should it make which
> one it is developed on? Yet you think it is a problem.
> Why? We all know why--the Linux community's little
> secret: Linux is proprietary when you do more that a
> text interface--*ALL* OSs are! Java notwithstanding
> and OSX support Java 2 (1.3). Alas, Linux is *not*
> Unix and software written on it *is not* portable as
> you yourself admit for any thing but the command line.
> But if we restrict ourselves to the command line, then
> any Unix Perl 5 is as good as any other Unix Perl 5.
> So why are you so biased against OSX--an OS you
> apparently no little about?
>
> You then propose Linux. Linux is a proprietary,
> fragmented OS--as all OSs are when they go beyond the
> text interface.
>
> So then, if we choose not Windows and yet must tie
> ourselves to a platform in order to move beyond curses
> text, why not the best GUI on Unix to date: Mac OSX
> Aqua? Hasn't Eazel's failure caused you to re-think
> your course? Linux is not rich enough to be a
> desktop--it was made to be an outstanding *server*.
> And it is. But its desk-tops fail for lack of a
> serious user interface foundation--X is an antiquated
> windowing system and a weakness in Linux Bill Gates
> will continue to exploit. Leave the desktop to a
> system designed to be one: OSX/ Darwin. Open, Unix,
> and growing...I will not use Windows nor Linux on my
> desktop...ever. I deserve a better GUI
>
> ...and so do we all.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>
