On Sep 23, 2008, at 1:52 PM, ./aal wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Charles Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> >> On Sep 23, 2008, at 12:16 PM, ./aal wrote: >> >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Charles Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> > >>> >>> and to clarify "Linux" refers only to the kernel, the rest of the OS >>> is GNU. >> >> GNU only relates to the 'licensing' for profit of derivations. Not >> anything to do with how or why things work the way they do. > > > Nope, you are thinking of GPL which is the license GNU is released > under Right!! Sorry for the mixup. > > > >> >>> BSD uses a different kernel, but the rest is still GNU, >> >> You say that as if GNU was a 'thing' --- it's NOT it isn't any of the >> programming, ideas, or anything that makes things function. > > [see above] > > >> >>> Just >>> like OSX >> The 'Implication' being that you could swap the 'GNU' portions, and >> still have operable systems. [Don't work that way.] > > Your implication being that tool=use [not quite] > You can take a car from UK and "swap" it onto a US road. That does not > mean you also carry over the laws from the UK with it. > > BSD or GNU tools will work in Linux or BSD or OSX. A nail gun or a > screw gun will hang a picture, but dont put a nail in a screw gun. With a little work to take care of minor implementation variations. > >>> >>> Again, I am not proselytizing. I am simply trying to balance the >>> info. >>> Please do more research b4 forming your humble opinion >>> >>> >>> Use the tool that is right for the job, not the tool that has the >>> right ad campaign. >> >> Right on!!! ---- Linux being the one with the 'Vast Horde of Faithful >> Users'. > > I meant that one should choose for one's own reasons > > >> >>> Nothing is an ideal swiss army knife >> Agree! >> >> I was trying to make visible the fact that to run LINUX on a system >> that was already running OSX, was in many ways ludicrous. >> > > I agree, there is no reason to fix unbroken things. > > >> Because most people seem to have forgotten just WHAT LINUX was >> created for. [A UNIX like OS to run on the IBM PC & clones.] >> And what OSX really is. [A UNIX like OS (originally for the PPC >> chips, but recently also ported to the x86 family of INTEL chips.] >> >> Chuck D. > > So that logic says one should run OSX on PPC Macs and Linux on > Intel Macs? A few of years ago, that would have been the only logical conclusion. But OSX is now Intel x86 aware (a step backwards in my opinion, but they didn't ask me.) OSX is now a valid choice for x86 based systems. My only concern with LINUX, is that design considerations that favor the x86 architecture are inherent in it's design and execution. Those (best for x86 arch.) choices are sometimes quite lousy for PPC arch. IF those differences in approach have been looked for and addressed (which I doubt, which is why I'm voicing these concerns.) then it won't make any difference. Chuck D. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to Low End Mac's iMac List, a group for those using G3, G4, G5, and Intel Core iMacs as well as Apple eMacs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/imac/list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/imaclist?hl=en Low End Mac RSS feed at feed://lowendmac.com/feed.xml -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
