Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    • CommentAuthortinker
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2015
     
    I use Chrome and Adblocker - somehow seems less annoying than Firefox. Apart from the fact that Google knows both my secrets, it seems alright to me.
  1.  
    You might as well share them then
    •  
      CommentAuthormagic moment
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2015 edited
     
    Canonical. Got it. :)
    •  
      CommentAuthormaryyugo
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2015
     
    I couldn't find WINE. I was spelling it with an "H".
  2.  
    Posted By: maryyugoI couldn't find WINE. I was spelling it with an "H".


    Figures.

    It stands for "WINE Is Not an Emulator".

    http://wiki.winehq.org/Debunking_Wine_Myths
    • CommentAuthorAsterix
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2015
     
    I tried Safari (it's easily installed via the winetricks package.

    Meh. I wasn't impressed. I note that Apple no longer maintains it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2015
     
    That's not quite true. It has been included in the latest release of the OS (El Capitan).

    I don't know about impressed. I have never found anything any other browser would do that Safari wouldn't. (Except crash, that is.) But I have to admit it doesn't do anything remarkably wonderful either.
    •  
      CommentAuthormagic moment
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2015 edited
     
    Posted By: alsetalokin
    Posted By: maryyugoI couldn't find WINE. I was spelling it with an "H".


    Figures.

    It stands for "WINE Is Not an Emulator".

    http://wiki.winehq.org/Debunking_Wine_Myths


    Or my fav: GNU, GNU's not Unix.
    • CommentAuthorAsterix
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2015
     
    Posted By: AngusThat's not quite true. It has been included in the latest release of the OS (El Capitan).


    Okay, my information says that nothing's been done lately for the Win/Linux version by Apple, nor is there hope for further activity.

    So pretty much the same thing.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2015
     
    Only if you are condemned forever to the dark side.
    • CommentAuthorAsterix
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2015 edited
     
    Posted By: AngusOnly if you are condemned forever to the dark side.


    Linux is the "dark side"? If so, Apple must be functioning in very low light.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2015
     
    The "dark side" is a matter of doctrine and unthinking brand loyalty. It is defined as "the other guys who have a different OS that I don't use".
    • CommentAuthorAsterix
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2015
     
    Aren't they all, at least in theory, POSIX-compliant?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2015 edited
     
    POSIX is a group of standards that determine a portable API for Unix-like operating systems. Mac OSX is Unix-based (and has been certified as such), and in accordance with this is POSIX compliant. POSIX guarantees that certain system calls will be available.Essentially, Mac satisfies the API required to be POSIX compliant, which makes it a POSIX OS.

    All versions of Linux are not POSIX-compliant.
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeOct 9th 2015 edited
     
    Who conforms to POSIX?

    Many systems follow POSIX closely, but few are actually certified by the Open Group which maintains the standard. Notable certified ones include:

    AIX (IBM)
    HP-UX (HP)
    Solaris (Oracle)
    OSX (Apple)

    Most Linux distros are very compliant, but not certified because they don't want to pay the compliance check.

    See the wiki page.

    Windows implemented POSIX on some of its professional distributions. Since it was an optional feature, programmers could not rely on it for most end user applications. Support was deprecated in Windows 8.
    • CommentAuthorAsterix
    • CommentTimeOct 9th 2015 edited
     
    So there you go. Basically, any modern OS has the same hooks. Whether or not it's important is mostly a matter of opinion.

    And quite frankly, I've often wondered if POSIX-compliance holds back progress.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeOct 9th 2015
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinMost Linux distros are very compliant, but not certified because they don't want to pay the compliance check.


    Posted By: AngusAll versions of Linux are not POSIX-compliant.


    The quotes belong to the people we quoted, of course. I think the problem is language. Once again. I have the feeling that the guy I quoted was trying to say "Not all versions of Linux are POSIX-compliant." Of course I can't prove that. It underlies once again the importance of saying what you think you mean.
    • CommentAuthorAsterix
    • CommentTimeOct 9th 2015
     
    Posted By: AngusNot all versions of Linux are POSIX-compliant." Of course I can't prove that. It underlies once again the importance of saying what you think you mean.


    Considering that most versions of Linux today use the Debian kernel, I find that hard to believe.

    How about the BSD-based systems, such as OS X and FreeBSD/OpenBSD/PCBSD/NetBSD?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeOct 9th 2015
     
    I'm not sure what is hard to believe. I am simply interpreting the statement given to mean that some versions of Linux may be noncompliant. The way it is written it says that ALL versions of Linux are noncompliant.
    • CommentAuthorAsterix
    • CommentTimeOct 9th 2015
     
    Well, essentially no or few Linux development groups wanted to pay the certification fee. Ostensibly, every time a system underwent a major update, the fee would be paid for testing the system and re-certifying aga