Yes but no. Why would I have to pay what essentially amounts to a tax just to
run one piece of hardware? And this frantic upgrade pace leaves other programs
in the dust unless a user shells yet more dollar, as Michael points out.
> El 12/10/2014, a las 1:54, David Nicholls
> escribió:
>
> On
>I see they still haven't produced an EOL statement (is 10.6 Server still for
>sale??), we just have to deduce the fact for ourselves.
> That said, we cannot really complain that 10.6 was EOLed as soon as 10.7 came
> out.
>
> ...
>
> It wouldn't cost Apple anything either to change the 10.6 EULA
On 12 Oct 2014, at 6:13 am, C.T.
mailto:semaphor...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
Apple never provided a suitable replacement for my scanner driver that would
render Rosetta unnecessary.
I have an old Canon N670U. It never had Mac drivers, as far as I know.
However I can run it perfectly well on Maveri
> On 12 Oct 2014, at 1:20 am, C.T. wrote:
>
> Apple didn't make the scanner, but when they cut something the software
> relies upon to work, that's Apple's responsibility.
Apple did not just cut it with no warning, vendors where given plenty of
warning via, for instance, the developer prev
Apple didn't make the scanner, but when they cut something the software relies
upon to work, that's Apple's responsibility. Of course it would much easier if
there were no patent on Rosetta's technology, where it could have been released
as open source.
> El 11/10/2014, a las 17:25, Dominik Rei
> On 11.10.2014, at 21:22, Chris Jones wrote:
>
>> But now 10.6 has less of the automation and integration we love from OS X.
>> Using its Safari is now strongly discouraged because of security flaws. I
>> absolutely need two independent browsers, and I won't install a Google
>> product on my
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Chris Jones
wrote:
> Did Apple make that scanner ? I presume not, in which case its not Apples
> responsibility to provide drivers for all possible third party devices, but
> the vender of those devices. If they choose not to provide an Intel driver
> supporting 1
> On 11 Oct 2014, at 8:13 pm, C.T. wrote:
>
>
>> El 11/10/2014, a las 6:25, Chris Jones escribió:
>>
>> A lot. Rosetta was not just an application you could install, but an
>> extension of the underlying OS to provide the translation layer for PowerPC
>> applications. It would need to be k
> El 11/10/2014, a las 6:25, Chris Jones escribió:
>
> A lot. Rosetta was not just an application you could install, but an
> extension of the underlying OS to provide the translation layer for PowerPC
> applications. It would need to be kept in sync with any updates to the OS,
> and clearly
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:37 AM, René J.V. wrote:
> >...which they picked up from Ubuntu and is why Ubuntu upgrades are
> risky
>
> I'm not so sure about that ...
>
I am. Ubuntu takes a lot of things from testing and does its own release
engineering, but misses a lot of stuff Debian does as
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:10 AM, René J.V. wrote:
> Linux Mint is right to do so because they have a habit of modifying things
> to their own tastes and against established "rules"
...which they picked up from Ubuntu and is why Ubuntu upgrades are risky
--
brandon s allbery kf8nh
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:31 AM, René J.V. wrote:
> Actually, you can. Either update the addresses in your
> /etc/apt/sources.list and sources.list.d/*
Ubuntu is moderately infamous for even stepping up one version not working;
multiple versions in a single go usually fails in my experience. (T
On Oct 11, 2014, at 4:31 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>> No. Snow Leopard no longer receives updates of any sort, and Lion will
>> likely follow as soon as Yosemite drops.
>> http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1222
>
> I see they still haven't produced an EOL statement (is 10.6 Server still for
> sale
>
> In fact, certain changes in 10.9 (like with Mail.app) have gotten me to
> investigate KDE for alternatives ... And 10.6 still has Rosetta (and frankly,
> how much would it have cost to provide that tech as an optional install?)
A lot. Rosetta was not just an application you could install,
I installed Mavericks just a few days ago because Xcode 6.0.1 requires
it. I installed Xcode 6.0.1 because I need to know how to work with
it, as well as to develop for iOS, just to get a job as an iOS App
developer.
I don't have a problem with learning to use the latest tools. What I
don't unde
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014, C.T. wrote:
> I quite agree with you Mike on this one. My main machine is still Snow
> Leopard, and while I am not a developper, I just couldn’t replicate the
> perfect balance it struck between user-friendliness and underlying power
> and compatibility.
I went to Maverick
I quite agree with you Mike on this one. My main machine is still Snow Leopard,
and while I am not a developper, I just couldn’t replicate the perfect balance
it struck between user-friendliness and underlying power and compatibility.
> El 10/10/2014, a las 22:18, Michael Crawford escribió:
>
On Oct 11, 2014, at 12:57 AM, Michael Crawford wrote:
> My plan is to upgrade her to 10.5.x - is that Leopard?
Yes.
> Does 10.6 run on a G4 iMac?
No. Snow Leopard requires Intel hardware.
http://support.apple.com/kb/SP575
vq
___
macports-users mail
I found quite a serious security problem on Mom's Tiger G4 iMac,
something I cannot fix myself because I can't get the source and Apple
hasn't updated Tiger in years.
My memory is hazy but I think it was a problem in Safari. I will look
it up I posted it online somewhere.
My plan is to upgrade h
On Oct 10, 2014, at 10:59 PM, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> Which brings me to security in general (and I'm a security freak). Are
> the fixes for Mavericks also available for Snow Leopard?
No. Snow Leopard no longer receives updates of any sort, and Lion will likely
follow as soon as Yosemite drops
Hi Michael,
On 11/10/2014, at 1:18 PM, Michael Crawford wrote:
> (On the thread about the bash function problem, someone asked why the
> fellow runs such an old version of OS X.)
>
> I myself generally delay upgrading the system software on any platform
> I am developing for, so as to ensure that
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014, Michael Crawford wrote:
> (On the thread about the bash function problem, someone asked why the
> fellow runs such an old version of OS X.)
Ah, that someone would be me :-)
> I myself generally delay upgrading the system software on any platform I
> am developing for, so a
(On the thread about the bash function problem, someone asked why the
fellow runs such an old version of OS X.)
I myself generally delay upgrading the system software on any platform
I am developing for, so as to ensure that the code I write runs well
on old systems.
This so I won't be requiring
23 matches
Mail list logo
