On Monday, August 13, 2001, at 12:58 AM, John Hinsley wrote:

> Do I make any? Do I offer that they are anything but speculations? I
> think not. Do I attempt to mislead the gullible? I think not. I admit to
> my ignorance *in the thread*! Just about everything I say is prefaced by
> "looks to be" "I guess", "it seems to me".....

It seems to me you did not.  It looks to be the case that even such 
qualified remarks were not only speculation, but were woefully 
uninformed by any relevant facts at all.  As noted, ignorance is bliss 
and if you'd like to make all your "speculations" nonfalsifiable with 
such qualifications,  at least we can take the comments as such.


> .My own guess is that Apple will, sooner or later, have to drop Mac OS 
> in
>>> favour of OSX. That is, if it remains in the software business at all.
>
> It's a "guess" -- a speculation I own to.

To the extent I understand what you are writing about here, this one is 
a good guess.  As has been repeatedly pointed out, MacOS X *IS* MacOS.  
Further, whether or not Apple will remain in the software business, 
MacOS X, with more than 300,000 of the 10.0.4 upgrade distributed this 
Summer, is now the best-selling version of BSD on the marketplace.  Not 
too shabby for a company going out of business.

> Others have asserted that Mac
> have dropped Mac OS and that OSX "really is" Mac OS.

Put perspicaciously, Mac OS X is numbered version 10.X of Mac OS.  Any 
questions?

>>> You could argue that the combination is
>>> exquisite and that a microkernel is a must have, but to me it seems 
>>> like
>>> an idea 5 years too late (and, what, 10 years after Jobs originally
>>> started pushing it?)
>
> You seem to be arguing that the combination is exquisite. There, I make
> your argument for you!
>
> (But I still think it's 5 years too late.)

For what?

> Sheeesh.....I set *myself* up as a strawman and get kicked in the
> goolies to boot! One might ask who is stereotyping who here!

I have no problem with you at all -- we are all Squeakers here.  As 
noted, my concern is that your arguments in this case were both weak and 
uninformed, and not even educated guesses.  To the extent you consider 
that to be stereotyping, so be it.