Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Alan Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: Re: Racist Apple is targeting blacks only and abusing white women to do it. Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 16:20:20 -0800 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 98 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 01:20:21 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="50e8cbd539d98daf6758af8fdd487a78"; logging-data="1877226"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18VorI10A3y4693xRV7P5R8LGNNPaawFo4=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:AAUZ4CYsd53okO56Xa15EYLORSA= Content-Language: en-CA In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4538 On 2024-12-11 16:13, Joel wrote: > Alan wrote: > >>>>> It's about the degree of feature implementation, Apple is lightweight. >>>>> Without M$ Office and Adobe, and movie editing, Apple would be >>>>> nothing. >>>> Without application software ANY personal computer is nothing. >>> >>> Microsoft produces the OS and applications, and games. The open- >>> source world does much the same for itself. >> >> The "open source world" is not remotely the same thing as a private >> company. >> >> And if the only apps available for Windows were the apps that Microsoft >> offers and Apple had all the apps it currently has... >> >> ...Windows would instantly flop. > > > But M$ *does* have the diversity of production that Apple is a little > light on. And it's irrelevant to the quality of Apple's hardware or operating systems. > > >>>> And the fact that Microsoft also happens to be an application writer is >>>> neither here nor there to the issue of the quality of the Mac and its >>>> operating system. >>> >>> Macs are good at being Macs. Linux is superior software, though, and >>> so is M$. >> >> In what way is any Linux software superior. > > > You are astoundingly blind not to see it, you think free == not as > good. It's not really the truth. Commercial-OS apps have rarely > mattered to the extent Microsoft would love for you to believe. So you cannot articulate a single thing. Got it. > > >>>> And BTW: hands down, one of the very best movie editing packages in the >>>> world is Final Cut Pro... >>>> >>>> ...produced by Apple. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As one of the finest music production packages is Logic Pro... >>>> >>>> ...produced by Apple. >>> >>> No argument. But what about an Internet person like me, where the >>> choice of OS really makes no difference? It's obvious why I'd >>> therefore like Linux. >> >> No. Because every time you've been challenged to explain, you run away. > > > I could use macOS, Winblows or Linux, and it would make little > difference in my tasks. But it's certainly most straightforward to > attack that with Linux and its software, along with this Windows app > Forte Agent for Usenet. You think "Forte Agent" is something special do you? What do you do with it that I cannot do with Thunderbird? > > >>>> Answer his question: >>>> >>>> How is the Finder's GUI materially different (and implicitly lacking)? >>> >>> It's not feature-rich like M$. >> So you're comparing a file manager to a company now? >> >> In what way is the Finder not "feature-rich" when compared to "File >> Explorer". >> >> Give a specific example. > > > You ever hear of the second mouse button? Yup. But it isn't a feature of the file manager, and the Mac has supported a second mouse button since 1997. Try again, but get it right for a change. >