Re: Retroconning closed-source proprietary software, and wiping the rest (was: Re: Early-2014 Macbook Air and Linux Mint Cinnamon)

On 2026-06-25 06:12:12 +0000, Nuno Silva said:
> On 2026-06-25, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 17:35:22 +1200, Your Name wrote:
>>> On 2026-06-24 01:24:17 +0000, Lawrence D´Oliveiro said:
>>>> 
>>>> Yeah, Linux is a proper Unix-type system, unlike that whatever it is 
>>>> that Apple runs on its machines.
>>> 
>>> Technically, you've got that almost-backwards.
>> 
>> While on Thu, 25 Jun 2026 09:35:05 +1200, Your Name also wrote:
>> 
>>> None of the standard software runs on it for a start - no Adobe, no 
>>> Microsoft, etc. ...
>> 
>> Interesting how you can claim, on the one hand, that Linux is not a 
>> proper Unix-type system, yet the only examples you can offer of 
>> software that won’t run on it is from companies that are not known for 
>> producing Unix-type software ...
> 
> This really sounded like coming from one of these people who believe 
> that Microsoft and friends are somehow the gate-keepers of computing 
> and that The Microsoft Way™ is the original way - which is quite funny, 
> given how that proprietary, closed source approach was something that 
> had to impose itself on an universe where the source wasn't that 
> hidden, from what I understand...
> 
> It's as if Microsoft succeeded in rewriting history to pretend that 
> their way is the way things have always been done, and pretending that 
> open-sourced software is something novel that people are trying to push 
> as some sort of extremist move to displace "standard software houses", 
> and implying that it will never be mature enough or the like, despite 
> many such projects being more mature than Microsoft software, besides 
> older.
> 
> And there indeed are people who believe this, people who will accuse 
> FLOSS projects of merely trying to be "cheap copies" of proprietary 
> software.

If you meant me, then I believe Microsoft is a crap company that has 
zero ability to write decent software, especially for the Mac. Always 
has been, always will be.

What I said was if you need full and reliable compatibility (or at 
least as close as you can get) with others using those products, then 
you have to use those products too, rather than supposed "compatible" 
alternatives which are never really *fully* compatible.