On Nov 19, 2024 at 5:58:27 PM MST, "-hh" wrote <vhjc7k$23olb$2@dont-email.me>:

On 11/19/24 5:01 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 10:02:02 -0500, -hh wrote:

In any event, there's still the decade old question as to why no Linux
variant has felt the need for going for a formal Unix recognition.

Some have done it, in the past. I think it costs money, not just to get
it, but to keep renewing it.

I know that Apple had been doing that with OS X; I'm not aware of any of Linux variants ever having done so, hence my comment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspur_K-UX

https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3617.htm



--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: Southern Nevada Institute of Technology (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

On 11/19/24 8:22 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:58:27 -0500, -hh wrote:

On 11/19/24 5:01 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 10:02:02 -0500, -hh wrote:

In any event, there's still the decade old question as to why no Linux >>>> variant has felt the need for going for a formal Unix recognition.

Some have done it, in the past. I think it costs money, not just to get
it, but to keep renewing it.

... I'm not aware of any of Linux variants ever having done so ...

You could have looked it up: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix> lists “EulerOS” and “Inspur K-UX” as Linux distros that did (at least in the
past) become Unix licensees.

Sure, but as I mentioned, this was from a very old COLA challenge, and
none of these fanboys did the legwork back then, nor since (until now).

Never heard of them? That’s part of the point, isn’t it, that nobody cares
about such things any more.

Not necessarily "not care", as both are from Chinese corporations, and
in this era, they were taking steps to prevent capture/lock-in from
Google in the Android market space.

From their perspective, the Unix certification process was just part of
that effort of in-house development and more IP on testing to exploit.
Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects (while not taking the same
position on Android - how odd! /s), that's what they should have raised.

-hh

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

-highhorse wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

-highhorse wrote:

In any event, there's still the decade old question as to why no Linux >>>> variant has felt the need for going for a formal Unix recognition.

Some have done it, in the past. I think it costs money, not just to get
it, but to keep renewing it.

... I'm not aware of any of Linux variants ever having done so ...

You could have looked it up: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix> lists >�EulerOS� and �Inspur K-UX� as Linux distros that did (at least in the
past) become Unix licensees.

Never heard of them? That�s part of the point, isn�t it, that nobody cares >about such things any more.

Considering that Linus's original intent in Linux's creation was
essentially to have a free Unix for himself, it would make sense for a
certification interest to have come along ..

Given that he wanted a �*nix� (something that had the right behaviour) >rather than a �Unix� (trademark licence), no, official certification would >not have made sense. What was important was adherence to de facto
standards that people (like him) actually cared about. For example, there >are some obscure parts of POSIX that they have never bothered with.

-highhorse likes to bicker-about and second-guess the results of a
healthy, competitive market. As stupid and ignorant as he is, he
often thinks that he knows better.


--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: fastusenet - www.fastusenet.org (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

-hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

On 11/19/24 8:22 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

You could have looked it up: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix> lists
“EulerOS” and “Inspur K-UX” as Linux distros that did (at least in the
past) become Unix licensees.

Sure, but as I mentioned, this was from a very old COLA challenge, and
none of these fanboys did the legwork back then, nor since (until now).

Never heard of them? That’s part of the point, isn’t it, that nobody cares
about such things any more.

Not necessarily "not care", as both are from Chinese corporations, and
in this era, they were taking steps to prevent capture/lock-in from
Google in the Android market space.

From their perspective, the Unix certification process was just part of that effort of in-house development and more IP on testing to exploit.
Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects (while not taking the same
position on Android - how odd! /s), that's what they should have raised.

Heh. My response, unless you can dig up something to the contrary, was
"Meh. Who cares?"

--
As to the Adjective: when in doubt, strike it out.
-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: None (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 22:01:29 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 10:02:02 -0500, -hh wrote:

In any event, there's still the decade old question as to why no Linux variant has felt the need for going for a formal Unix recognition.

Some have done it, in the past. I think it costs money, not just to get
it, but to keep renewing it.

I’d say, nobody bothers with it any more because it doesn’t matter any more. “Linux” is the standard that everybody (including the BSDs and Microsoft) needs to be compatible with, “Unix” is not.

A lot of it seems to hang on supporting 'pax'; which linux can't be
bothered with; BIMWBW.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: Dis (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 07:40:48 -0500, -hh wrote:

Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects ...

You just made that up, didn’t you?

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 17:31:34 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 22:01:29 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

I’d say, nobody bothers with it any more because it doesn’t matter any >> more. “Linux” is the standard that everybody (including the BSDs and
Microsoft) needs to be compatible with, “Unix” is not.

A lot of it seems to hang on supporting 'pax'; which linux can't be
bothered with ...

<https://packages.debian.org/bookworm/pax>?

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

On 11/20/24 6:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 07:40:48 -0500, -hh wrote:

Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being
sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects ...

You just made that up, didn’t you?

Unfortunately, no. COLA has had a history of purist & elite attitudes,
which has included various crude insults directed at anyone who didn't exclusively use Linux for their OS.

IIRC, these insults ended when it was thrown back in their face by
noting that they were insulting their own non-Linux family members.


-hh

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 19:13:47 -0500, -hh wrote:

On 11/20/24 6:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 07:40:48 -0500, -hh wrote:

Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being
sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects ...

You just made that up, didn’t you?

Unfortunately, no. COLA has had a history ...

So you should be able to back up your claim, that “hardcore Linux
advocates rejected” those distros.

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 22:19:52 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes:

In any case, if you don't uppercase it ('UNIX'), you won't be
infringing on the trademark.

I wouldn't be so sure. Huawei lost against 3M for using the term 3N.
Courts decided it was similar enough.

So use 'Unix', or 'unix' if you must, but '*nix' is unneeded,
meaningless and a bit silly.

Totally silly.

Strange, isn’t it: above you point out how dangerous trademark infringement can be, and here you are saying that trying to avoid it is “totally silly”.

There's no contradiction there. That the world is a dangerous place,
that's pretty clear. One tries to use ``3N'' and get sued by 3M. But
that's very silly. It's silliness that comes from legislation. I can
think of that as silly and still describe the consequences of all this silliness in the world. Is that still strange? :) Knock yourself out.

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 21:57:30 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 22:19:52 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes:

In any case, if you don't uppercase it ('UNIX'), you won't be
infringing on the trademark.

I wouldn't be so sure. Huawei lost against 3M for using the term 3N.
Courts decided it was similar enough.

So use 'Unix', or 'unix' if you must, but '*nix' is unneeded,
meaningless and a bit silly.

Totally silly.

Strange, isn’t it: above you point out how dangerous trademark
infringement can be, and here you are saying that trying to avoid it
is “totally silly”.

One tries to use ``3N'' and get sued by 3M. But
that's very silly. It's silliness that comes from legislation.

But above you were describing as “silly” not the legislation, but measures to avoid being caught by it. Surely self-preservation is an entirely
rational response.

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

On 11/20/24 7:50 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 19:13:47 -0500, -hh wrote:

On 11/20/24 6:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 07:40:48 -0500, -hh wrote:

Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being
sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects ...

You just made that up, didn’t you?

Unfortunately, no. COLA has had a history ...

So you should be able to back up your claim, that “hardcore Linux
advocates rejected” those distros.

I did say "perhaps", as I've not read every last COLA thread and have
perfect retention on all of them. But checking just the COLA archives
on Google where one of these certified Unix versions were mentioned by
name, I did find the following:

"...Linux has features that are better than the official Unix."

YMMV on the degree to which this is arrogant/elitist, while it misses
the point of having an independent certification.


Plus there's evidence of loathing anything commercial, such as this 2015 thread by the late Lloyd Parsons who called out chrisv & others:

<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.linux.advocacy/c/g22CaJS0e2s/m/3nt8Vc40DgAJ>

Including therein:

[quote]

It's very puzzling, very cult-like, that assholes like "Lloyd" take
pleasure in the "failure" of such a small business, an alternative
product with little apparent significance.

No pleasure taken, just noting that the failures exist and that
you linux loonies are a big part of that problem. How many of
you bought software in their software center? Hell, how many of
you bought and/or donated to Canonical to help ensure the success
of a small business that is trying to get Linux on the desktop to
be a viable and profitable product?

I know the answer, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF YOU!

[/quote]

[quote]

No market for their crap. What were they selling again? Unity?
Support?
Peace on Earth and goodwill toward man?

Application software, which you probably already knew. But the
tone of your comments speaks to the larger issue. And that is
the extremely piss poor attitude of the linux community as a group.
"I don't like it so it must suck" is not a valid complaint, it is
just bitching. A possible future linux desktop user would be
totally put off by comments like that.

Add it to the long list of why linux desktop is such an abject
failure despite being a pretty good OS overall.

[/quote]

[quote]

That's pretty bold, coming from a Mactard.

You mean a 'mactard' that uses OSX, Linux, Windows 8/10,
iOS, Android and Windows Phone? I'd say that makes me much
more knowledgeable about the comparisons of the various OS's.

[/quote]

[quote]

I don't think so. But they would definitely cut into the Windows'
monopoly. Unfortunately for iCultists it's never going to
happen because Apple likes to gouge their suckers ... err ...
customers for huge their profit margins.

Those grapes are really sour huh, wRonG?

[/quote]

[quote]

It doesn't make sense, until one considers that they are just that
scared of the competitive threat that Free software poses, after
seeing Android come from nothing to roar to market leadership in
just a few short years.

It is quite interesting to hear chrisv first promote 'healthy'
competition and then to try use Android as a notional example, when
we all know that the reality is that Android wouldn't have existed
had it not been by huge bankrolling by Google. As to just how
huge, the number is at least in the tens of billions. Case in
point:

"Google: We're Spending $12.5 Billion on Motorola to 'Protect'
Android"

<http://allthingsd.com/20110815/gulp-google-buying-motorola-mobility-for-12-5-billion/>
[/quote]

Plus there's also what DFS just posted here yesterday on duplicity from
his own keyword searchable database:

[quote]
On 11/20/24 7:15 PM, DFS wrote:

On 11/18/2024 6:59 PM, shitv wrote:

a group of mostly decent, reasonable advocates of software Freedom.

The decency and reasonableness of cola Linux advocates is off the charts:

------------------------------------------------------------------------- Feeb on ONE DAY!: "technical loser, incompetent technical idiot, retard, pathetic, brain-dead loser, damn bitch, Microshit assholes, inferior
piece of genetic trash, extermination camps should be brought back, Fuck you, fuck your degenerate family, abysmal, know-nothing moron, lame ass steaming pile of festering garbage known as Microshit Winblows, fucking loser, fucking plagiarist, Fucking loser, incompetent loser,
mutherfucking imbecilic asshole, Fuck you, Incompetent ass-sucking
ignoramus idiot asshole mutherfucker, fucking clueless plagiarist, mutherfucking, cocksucking, plagiarizing asshole, Fucking loser,
Fucking plagiarizing loser, I'd throw you out a third-story window, mutherfucking imbecilic asshole, pathetic, sad-sack sexual loser, Black girls would spit in your sorry face"

Ruben Safir: "go stick your head in an oven and turn on the gas."

Tattoo Deadbeat: "Please make a New Years' resolution to commit suicide. Better yet, murder/suicide and take your fellow trolls with you."

Doug Menthol: "Fuck off, get cancer and die a long and painfull death."

Tattoo Deadbeat: "Somebody needs to shoot DFS in the head."

[H]ypocrite [H]omer: "Shut your fat mouth you stupid fucking American
inbred Redneck"

[H]ypocrite [H]omer: "Burn in Hell"

Creepy Christopher John Ahlstrom: "dumb fucker", "Lying Hadron Cunt", "fucking dumb", "shitty little assholes", "go to Hell", "true pieces of shit", "fuckhead"

Telnet Porter: "And they do have a lot to fear, between me shoving
their teeth down their throats..."

(p)Rick: "Fuck you, you lying bitch."

Nobody: "Shouldn't you be on a ledge somewhere?"
Dumb Willie followup: "With a crowd shouting "Jump!"

Scott 'vallor' Doty: "incompetent", "psychopaths", "sociopaths",
"asshole", "jerk", "half-wit"

yttrx: "fucking moron."

Greg Shearman: "fuckwit lying cunt"

Tattoo Deadbeat: "Get the fuck out, then, bitch."

Kier: "go fuck yourself"

Philip Callan: "You ignorant fuck ..."

Fraud 7: "No good flat fsck. You are an in-bread American commie
troll... You produce nothing of value to America..."

JED: "stupid", "idiot", "moron", "loser"

And the previous King Of Nasty Little Fucks: yourself:

(in one post): "Fsck you...snotty POS....asshole...worthless waste of skin...you suck shit...God-damned...fsckwit...Wintroll fsckwits."

(in 17 days during June 2012):
"idiot, stupid, morons and assholes, fucking moron, true stupidity,
puerile assholery, worthless POS, evil bastards, trolling assholes,
jackass, dumb bastard, Wintroll circle-jerk, trolls are filthy, lying
piece of shit, piece of shit, POS, POS, what an *asshole*, fucking *assholes*, shitty and dishonest Linux-haters, prick shit-canned, filthy lying *asshole*, shit-brained arsehole, *stupidity* of epic proportions, stupid* pile of shit, *jackass*, too God-damned *stupid*, trolling
shitwits, *stupid*, assholery, brain-damaged fucktard, piece of shit, drooling retard/liar, drooling retard/liar, stupid piece of shit wannabe dictators, jackass, clueless and lying idiot, ignorant ass, Stupid
fuckwit!, You stepped in your own shit, fuckwitted asshole, extremely shitty, lying asshole, trolling fuckwit, you *stupid* asshole, POS,
asshole, shitty dishonesty, piece of shit, asshole, fuckwit, fuckwit,
lying fuckwit, you POS, you stupid piece of shit, couple of dishonest
little shits, a disease infesting the planet, POS and liar, fucktard
trolls, Windows-loving asshole, shitty, filthy Wintroll, bald-faced
liar, you piece of shit liar, shitty, useless Linux-haters, you stupid
piece of shit, piece of shit, Utterly worthless liar, filthy Win troll, lying pieces of shit, fricken jackass, worthless lying POS jackass, shamelessly lying POS, worthless, shit-brained asshole, POS liar, the
filthy liar, evil selfish bastards, fucking idiot, fucking *stupid*, ignorant, spews garbage, jackass, idiot asshole, piece of shit, stupid
POS, trolling fuckwit, POS, lies his ass off, vile thing, shitty, liar, ignorant lying piece of shit, vile bastard asshole liar, fucking *liar*, worthless, shameless jackass, shitty, piece of shit liar, shameless
jackass, filthy lying assholes, jackass, cram it up your ass, asshole,
POS, filthy, immoral, dogshit brains, shitty little freedom-hating
dictator wannabee, fucking idiot, piece of shit, stupid, ignorant,
shameless asshole. Linux-hating pieces of shit, fucking, shit, shitty, shitty, shitty, selfish assholes, shamelessly dishonest POS, vile lying bastards, filthy liar, filthy fucks, fucking *assholes*, disgusting
scumbag, vile filthy mean, fuckwit, filthy fucking, liar, trolling
fuckwit, POS, filthy fuckwit, vile pukes, you shit, vile bastards,
filthy fuck, mentally-defective bigots disgusting freaks, piece of shit, filthy lying bigot, shitty, filthy bigots, trolling fuckwit and shit,
vile bigot, fuckwit piece of shit disgusting freak" -------------------------------------------------------------------------

-hh




--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 06:56:47 -0500, -hh wrote:

On 11/20/24 7:50 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 19:13:47 -0500, -hh wrote:

On 11/20/24 6:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 07:40:48 -0500, -hh wrote:

Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being >>>>> sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects ...

You just made that up, didn’t you?

Unfortunately, no. COLA has had a history ...

So you should be able to back up your claim, that “hardcore Linux
advocates rejected” those distros.

I did say "perhaps" ...

Ah, like the way a certain political leader says “some people say” when spouting his rubbish without being more specific about where the claim is actually coming from. Pure insinuation on your part, in other words. Understood.

"...Linux has features that are better than the official Unix."

YMMV on the degree to which this is arrogant/elitist, while it misses
the point of having an independent certification.

It’s simple fact, as borne out by the popularity of Linux itself. It’s what the users need in today’s computing milieu. Which is why that old “independent certification”, originating from the environment that was in place back in the 1980s, no longer matters.

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 06:56:47 -0500, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
wrote in <vhn75v$aeqt$2@dont-email.me>:

"incompetent", "psychopaths", "sociopaths",

"asshole", "jerk", "half-wit"

Describing DFS himself, of course.

Guess that hit pretty close to home...

--
-v

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

-highhorse wrote:

I did say "perhaps" ...

Ah, like the way a certain political leader says �some people say� when >spouting his rubbish without being more specific about where the claim is >actually coming from. Pure insinuation on your part, in other words.

Pure trolling, on his part. -highhorse can take the most reasonable
behavior, and attack it as something "bad".

--
"Even RedHat only stands behind their product while you're actively
paying for support." - lying asshole "-hh", whining that Free
software doesn't come with free support.

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: fastusenet - www.fastusenet.org (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

On 11/21/24 5:02 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 06:56:47 -0500, -hh wrote:

On 11/20/24 7:50 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 19:13:47 -0500, -hh wrote:

On 11/20/24 6:45 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 07:40:48 -0500, -hh wrote:

Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being >>>>>> sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects ...

You just made that up, didn’t you?

Unfortunately, no. COLA has had a history ...

So you should be able to back up your claim, that “hardcore Linux
advocates rejected” those distros.

I did say "perhaps" ...

Ah, like the way a certain political leader says “some people say” when spouting his rubbish without being more specific about where the claim is actually coming from.

Except for how you snipped the substantiating specifics.

"...Linux has features that are better than the official Unix."

YMMV on the degree to which this is arrogant/elitist, while it misses
the point of having an independent certification.

It’s simple fact, as borne out by the popularity of Linux itself.

That quote was from Feeb. Plus a claim of more features is based on
what COLA has derided Microsoft for, namely "bloatware".

-hh

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

On 11/21/24 7:52 PM, chrisv wrote:

-hh wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

-hh wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

-hh wrote:

Now perhaps the hardcore Linux advocates rejected these as not being >>>>>> sufficiently "pure" Open Source projects ...

You just made that up, didn’t you?

Unfortunately, no. COLA has had a history ...

So you should be able to back up your claim, that “hardcore Linux
advocates rejected” those distros.

I did say "perhaps", as I've not read every last COLA thread and have
perfect retention on all of them. But checking just the COLA archives
on Google where one of these certified Unix versions were mentioned by
name, I did find the following:

"...Linux has features that are better than the official Unix."

(further idiocy and evasions snipped)

Read it, folks. There's not one shred of support for -highhorse's
claim of "hardcore Linux advocates" "rejecting" "insufficiently pure"
Open Source projects.

Yes, they should read everything that you snipped.

Especially the part of how posters have said crude things about Windows
users ... which includes their own Windows-using daughter.


-hh




--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 21:57:30 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 22:19:52 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes:

In any case, if you don't uppercase it ('UNIX'), you won't be
infringing on the trademark.

I wouldn't be so sure. Huawei lost against 3M for using the term 3N.
Courts decided it was similar enough.

So use 'Unix', or 'unix' if you must, but '*nix' is unneeded,
meaningless and a bit silly.

Totally silly.

Strange, isn’t it: above you point out how dangerous trademark
infringement can be, and here you are saying that trying to avoid it
is “totally silly”.

One tries to use ``3N'' and get sued by 3M. But
that's very silly. It's silliness that comes from legislation.

But above you were describing as “silly” not the legislation, but measures
to avoid being caught by it. Surely self-preservation is an entirely rational response.

The legislation is indeed silly. Preserving oneself is not silly, but
it's silly to preserve oneself when there's no danger. Nobody is going
to sue us because we're writing UNIX over here, for example. That's not
really how it works. So in such circumstances, it's silly to worry
about that.

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 17:17:08 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

But above you were describing as “silly” not the legislation, but measures
to avoid being caught by it. Surely self-preservation is an entirely
rational response.

The legislation is indeed silly. Preserving oneself is not silly, but
it's silly to preserve oneself when there's no danger.

You hope.

Nobody is going to sue us because we're writing UNIX over here, for
example.

That might be considered “legal advice” ...

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 17:17:08 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

But above you were describing as “silly” not the legislation, but

measures

to avoid being caught by it. Surely self-preservation is an entirely
rational response.

The legislation is indeed silly. Preserving oneself is not silly, but
it's silly to preserve oneself when there's no danger.

You hope.

Nobody is going to sue us because we're writing UNIX over here, for
example.

That might be considered “legal advice” ...

Another totally silly thing---to have to state things such as IANAL and
other silly things. The typical USENET article is just someone's
opinion, which makes up the rule rather than the exception.

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

Wolfgang Agnes <wagnes@example.com> wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 21:57:30 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 22:19:52 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes:

In any case, if you don't uppercase it ('UNIX'), you won't be
infringing on the trademark.

I wouldn't be so sure. Huawei lost against 3M for using the term 3N. >>>> Courts decided it was similar enough.

So use 'Unix', or 'unix' if you must, but '*nix' is unneeded,
meaningless and a bit silly.

Totally silly.

Strange, isn?t it: above you point out how dangerous trademark
infringement can be, and here you are saying that trying to avoid it
is ?totally silly?.

One tries to use ``3N'' and get sued by 3M. But
that's very silly. It's silliness that comes from legislation.

But above you were describing as ?silly? not the legislation, but measures to avoid being caught by it. Surely self-preservation is an entirely rational response.

The legislation is indeed silly. Preserving oneself is not silly, but
it's silly to preserve oneself when there's no danger. Nobody is going
to sue us because we're writing UNIX over here, for example. That's not really how it works. So in such circumstances, it's silly to worry
about that.

But the issue isn't even about writing 'UNIX', but about Lawrence
using the unneeded, meaningless and somewhat silly '*nix', instead of
the recommended common usage 'Unix' or even 'unix' if he must.

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: NOYB (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 08:54:52 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 17:17:08 -0300, Wolfgang Agnes wrote:

Nobody is going to sue us because we're writing UNIX over here, for
example.

That might be considered “legal advice” ...

Another totally silly thing---to have to state things such as IANAL and
other silly things.

Again, it’s just “cover your arse” --- it’s common sense.

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

On 23 Nov 2024 14:02:36 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

But the issue isn't even about writing 'UNIX', but about Lawrence
using the unneeded, meaningless and somewhat silly '*nix', instead of
the recommended common usage 'Unix' or even 'unix' if he must.

“*nix” is the recommended usage. Also it avoids confusion with systems like Apple, which are official “Unix” trademark licensees, but don’t really work the way we expect.

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

-hh wrote:

chrisv wrote:

Read it, folks. There's not one shred of support for -highhorse's
claim of "hardcore Linux advocates" "rejecting" "insufficiently pure"
Open Source projects.

(snipped, unread)

Of course, there is nothing wrong with an individual choosing, or
rejecting, or advocating-for, a product for any reason that they think important. Including "purity".

But snits, like -highhorse, will twist such opinions into something
"bad", something "anti choice".

I'll use this analogy again: There is nothing wrong with saying that
you should not vote for Donald Trump. It only beomes bad when you say
that people should not be allowed to vote for Donald Trump.

No real FOSS advocate seeks to deny anyone the choice of "less pure" open-source products.


--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: fastusenet - www.fastusenet.org (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

chrisv wrote:

-hh wrote:

chrisv wrote:

Read it, folks. There's not one shred of support for -highhorse's
claim of "hardcore Linux advocates" "rejecting" "insufficiently pure" >>>Open Source projects.

(snipped, unread)

Of course, there is nothing wrong with an individual choosing, or
rejecting, or advocating-for, a product for any reason that they think >important. Including "purity".

But snits, like -highhorse, will twist such opinions into something
"bad", something "anti choice".

I'll use this analogy again: There is nothing wrong with saying that
you should not vote for Donald Trump. It only beomes bad when you say
that people should not be allowed to vote for Donald Trump.

No real FOSS advocate seeks to deny anyone the choice of "less pure" >open-source products.

I should have mentioned that, without even reading it, I know (yes, I
am that good) that -highhorse posted some crap showing cola advocates personally "rejecting" "insufficiently pure" open-source projects.

What I took exception to is -highhorse's snotty, dishonest attacking.
He asserts that there's something hypocritical, something "odd", that
"hardcore Linux advocates" don't also reject Android phones.

How many viable choices in phone OS's do we have? Is -highhorse's
attack fair, or is he a fscking *asshole*?


--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: fastusenet - www.fastusenet.org (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

On 11/23/24 8:13 PM, chrisv wrote:

chrisv wrote:

{doublepost whining ... snipped!}

<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/a_hit_dog_will_holler>

-hh

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On 23 Nov 2024 14:02:36 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

But the issue isn't even about writing 'UNIX', but about Lawrence
using the unneeded, meaningless and somewhat silly '*nix', instead of
the recommended common usage 'Unix' or even 'unix' if he must.

?*nix? is the recommended usage. Also it avoids confusion with systems
like Apple, which are official ?Unix? trademark licensees, but don?t
really work the way we expect.

Apparently '*nix' is "the recommended usage" in your world, but not in
the real world. And there's no such thing as an "official 'Unix'
trademark licensee". The wording should be "official UNIX licensee", i.e.
all uppercase and without quotes.

But all that has already been explained, including the Wikipedia
reference. If you think you know better than the Wikipedia page, then
try to get it 'corrected'. And good luck with convincing The Open Group
that they've got it all wrong.

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: NOYB (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

On 24 Nov 2024 10:57:11 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

... there's no such thing as an "official 'Unix'
trademark licensee". The wording should be "official UNIX licensee", i.e.
all uppercase and without quotes.

What are they licensing then, if not the trademark?

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On 24 Nov 2024 10:57:11 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

... there's no such thing as an "official 'Unix'
trademark licensee". The wording should be "official UNIX licensee", i.e. all uppercase and without quotes.

What are they licensing then, if not the trademark?

['Convenient' snipping noted.]

Sigh! Of course they are licensing the trademark, but the trademark is 'UNIX', not 'Unix'. and when used in a sentence, the name 'UNIX'
obviously should have no quotes around it. So "official UNIX licensee".

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: NOYB (3:633/280.2@fidonet)

On 29 Nov 2024 11:21:42 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On 24 Nov 2024 10:57:11 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

... there's no such thing as an "official 'Unix'
trademark licensee". The wording should be "official UNIX licensee"
...

What are they licensing then, if not the trademark?

Sigh! Of course they are licensing the trademark, but the trademark is 'UNIX', not 'Unix'.

Doesn’t matter which it is, the other one would still be considered close enough to cause confusion.

Otherwise, we would not be having this discussion, would we?

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8.4 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)