How do I delete photographs from an iPad?

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 21:17:55 -0600, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Based on os x I would accept but that's not the same as your claim
that is os x. As I point out in another article, both the kernel and
shell have to be different.

the kernel is the same (darwin) and there is no shell on ios (although
you can get to a shell if you jailbreak).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_%28computing%29
"A shell is software that provides an interface for users of an
operating system which provides access to the services of a
kernel."

usually when one refers to a shell, they mean a command line shell,
such as tcsh, bash, zsh, etc., not a gui.

A gui is another form of shell. See the Wikipedia I have referred you
to above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_%28computing%29
"Operating system shells generally fall into one of two categories:
command-line and graphical."

there is no command line shell on an ios device, unless you jailbreak
it.

the point you are missing is that *mac* os x is not os x. the core is
the same, many of the frameworks are the same, it's the user interface
where they diverge.

" *mac* os x is not os x." Hoo-boy!

You don't have to dig very far before you discover that Macs use Intel
processors while the iPhone/Pad have used 'A' series processors the
design of which is licensed from Arm PLC. The A6 design is based on
that of an Arm processor but is not licensed. Each step up the
processor chain has introduced a new instruction set (no doubt
incorporating much of the old).

so what? just because they have different processors doesn't mean
anything.

mac os x runs on intel and powerpc chips.

os x is processor agnostic. the kernel is open source. compile it for
whatever processor you want.

It's not a functioning kernel until you compile. Before that it's
merely a symbolic representation.

You are trying to tell me that all these various processors run the
same kernel. I'll accept that their architecture is much the same but
they are the same at the code level - no way.

it's the same kernel and core os, compiled for a different processor.
nothing unusual about that.

Nothing unusual about you shifting the definition so as to seem to
have been right all along.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 21:18:05 -0600, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

When you link
this with the fact that present totally different user interfaces via
totally different shells it seems to me to be very hard to justify the
claim that they are the same operating system.

the point you are missing is that *mac* os x is not os x.

os x is the core. mac os x and ios are built on top of os x.

here's another example: android devices run linux. an android device
looks very different than ubuntu, but under the android ui is linux,
just like under the hood of ios is os x.

And they look different because they run different shells. I wasn't
born yesterday.

looking different only means the user interface is different. the rest
of it is basically the same.

The inner interface of the shell is determined by the system which it
is controlling. It is the user (outer) interface which is different
and hence looks different. If the outer interface is different then
the shell is different.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

I don't want to have to buy Lightroom just to enable me to do a
block-delete of (unsynchronised) images in an iPhone.

And, as has been explained, you don't have to.

As I explained even earlier, I already knew that.

I know - this may just be the most useless thread ever posted here

No it isn't.

I disagree.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 2012-11-05 22:32:19 -0800, Sandman said:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

I don't want to have to buy Lightroom just to enable me to do a
block-delete of (unsynchronised) images in an iPhone.

And, as has been explained, you don't have to.

As I explained even earlier, I already knew that.

I know - this may just be the most useless thread ever posted here

No it isn't.

I disagree.

Enter John Cleese.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-11-06 00:28:17 -0800, Sandman said:

In article ,
tony cooper wrote:

On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 23:02:19 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-11-05 22:32:19 -0800, Sandman said:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

I don't want to have to buy Lightroom just to enable me to do a
block-delete of (unsynchronised) images in an iPhone.

And, as has been explained, you don't have to.

As I explained even earlier, I already knew that.

I know - this may just be the most useless thread ever posted here

No it isn't.

I disagree.

Enter John Cleese.

But we haven't paid for a full argument.

Yes you did.

....and here I was thinking this was going to be the five minute spat.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Based on os x I would accept but that's not the same as your claim
that is os x. As I point out in another article, both the kernel and
shell have to be different.

the kernel is the same (darwin) and there is no shell on ios (although
you can get to a shell if you jailbreak).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_%28computing%29
"A shell is software that provides an interface for users of an
operating system which provides access to the services of a
kernel."

usually when one refers to a shell, they mean a command line shell,
such as tcsh, bash, zsh, etc., not a gui.

A gui is another form of shell. See the Wikipedia I have referred you
to above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_%28computing%29
"Operating system shells generally fall into one of two categories:
command-line and graphical."

as i said, the term shell normally refers to command line shell. it's
very rare that it refers to a gui, but regardless, that doesn't matter
whatsoever.

call it shell if you like. call it whatever you want. it's what's
*under* what you are calling a shell that's the same on macs and
idevices, and that's called os x. what's above it is either mac os x or
ios.

the point you are missing is that *mac* os x is not os x. the core is
the same, many of the frameworks are the same, it's the user interface
where they diverge.

" *mac* os x is not os x." Hoo-boy!

You don't have to dig very far before you discover that Macs use Intel
processors while the iPhone/Pad have used 'A' series processors the
design of which is licensed from Arm PLC. The A6 design is based on
that of an Arm processor but is not licensed. Each step up the
processor chain has introduced a new instruction set (no doubt
incorporating much of the old).

so what? just because they have different processors doesn't mean
anything.

mac os x runs on intel and powerpc chips.

os x is processor agnostic. the kernel is open source. compile it for
whatever processor you want.

It's not a functioning kernel until you compile. Before that it's
merely a symbolic representation.

so what? it's the same for both platforms. compiling it doesn't change
anything or make one bit of a difference at all.

You are trying to tell me that all these various processors run the
same kernel. I'll accept that their architecture is much the same but
they are the same at the code level - no way.

it's the same kernel and core os, compiled for a different processor.
nothing unusual about that.

Nothing unusual about you shifting the definition so as to seem to
have been right all along.

i'm not shifting a thing.

the fact remains that both macs and idevices run os x. take it up with
apple if you think otherwise.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

When you link
this with the fact that present totally different user interfaces via
totally different shells it seems to me to be very hard to justify the
claim that they are the same operating system.

the point you are missing is that *mac* os x is not os x.

os x is the core. mac os x and ios are built on top of os x.

here's another example: android devices run linux. an android device
looks very different than ubuntu, but under the android ui is linux,
just like under the hood of ios is os x.

And they look different because they run different shells. I wasn't
born yesterday.

looking different only means the user interface is different. the rest
of it is basically the same.

The inner interface of the shell is determined by the system which it
is controlling. It is the user (outer) interface which is different
and hence looks different. If the outer interface is different then
the shell is different.

nobody disputes what you are calling a shell is different.

it's the *rest* that's the same.

On 11/5/2012 7:34 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

the ipad runs os x so it can have hard links, but it hides the file
system so there's no way for the user to do it at all, nor is it
needed.

The iPad runs OSX???

sure does.

Strange, mine runs iOS, a somewhat different animal to OSX.

they're both os x.

one is mac os x, the other is ios. the main difference is the user
interface.

Say that again quickly and you might even end up believing it.

no need, since it's true.

perhaps you need to say it again, but slowly.

again, both mac os x and ios are based on os x.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VLb5XdxRm8&t=3m50s




Does the fact that you were evolved from apes make you an ape?
Does the fact that a hart valve from a pig could be successfully
transplanted in your heart, make you a pig?

Peter

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 06:00:51 -0600, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Based on os x I would accept but that's not the same as your claim
that is os x. As I point out in another article, both the kernel and
shell have to be different.

the kernel is the same (darwin) and there is no shell on ios (although
you can get to a shell if you jailbreak).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_%28computing%29
"A shell is software that provides an interface for users of an
operating system which provides access to the services of a
kernel."

usually when one refers to a shell, they mean a command line shell,
such as tcsh, bash, zsh, etc., not a gui.

A gui is another form of shell. See the Wikipedia I have referred you
to above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_%28computing%29
"Operating system shells generally fall into one of two categories:
command-line and graphical."

as i said, the term shell normally refers to command line shell. it's
very rare that it refers to a gui, but regardless, that doesn't matter
whatsoever.

It does to your argument that the operating systems are the same.

call it shell if you like. call it whatever you want. it's what's
*under* what you are calling a shell that's the same on macs and
idevices, and that's called os x. what's above it is either mac os x or
ios.

"same on macs and idevices". So you can take the code from an Intel
powered mac and run it unchanged on an idevice? That applies to all
idevices no matter what version of the 'A' processor they are using?
No I don't think so, and neither do you.

In fact you have already claimed the same OS will run "on intel and
power pc chips". You know that's utter nonsense. The introduction of
Intel chips required a complete rewrite of the operating system
culminating in OS X v10.6 "Snow Leopard" which would not run on the
PowerPC based machines.

the point you are missing is that *mac* os x is not os x. the core is
the same, many of the frameworks are the same, it's the user interface
where they diverge.

" *mac* os x is not os x." Hoo-boy!

You don't have to dig very far before you discover that Macs use Intel
processors while the iPhone/Pad have used 'A' series processors the
design of which is licensed from Arm PLC. The A6 design is based on
that of an Arm processor but is not licensed. Each step up the
processor chain has introduced a new instruction set (no doubt
incorporating much of the old).

so what? just because they have different processors doesn't mean
anything.

mac os x runs on intel and powerpc chips.

os x is processor agnostic. the kernel is open source. compile it for
whatever processor you want.

It's not a functioning kernel until you compile. Before that it's
merely a symbolic representation.

so what? it's the same for both platforms. compiling it doesn't change
anything or make one bit of a difference at all.

Then why bother compiling?

The fact of the matter is that until you have finished compiling (and
linking etc) you haven't got an operating system. All you have is a
statement of intent.

In any case, I suppose you have heard of conditional compilers and
conditional installers?

You are trying to tell me that all these various processors run the
same kernel. I'll accept that their architecture is much the same but
they are the same at the code level - no way.

it's the same kernel and core os, compiled for a different processor.
nothing unusual about that.

Nothing unusual about you shifting the definition so as to seem to
have been right all along.

i'm not shifting a thing.

the fact remains that both macs and idevices run os x. take it up with
apple if you think otherwise.

No matter how often you make the claim, you need more than the label
OS X to run a machine. You need run-time code and the nature of this
will depend on the machine at which it is targeted.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 06:01:02 -0600, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

When you link
this with the fact that present totally different user interfaces via
totally different shells it seems to me to be very hard to justify the
claim that they are the same operating system.

the point you are missing is that *mac* os x is not os x.

os x is the core. mac os x and ios are built on top of os x.

here's another example: android devices run linux. an android device
looks very different than ubuntu, but under the android ui is linux,
just like under the hood of ios is os x.

And they look different because they run different shells. I wasn't
born yesterday.

looking different only means the user interface is different. the rest
of it is basically the same.

The inner interface of the shell is determined by the system which it
is controlling. It is the user (outer) interface which is different
and hence looks different. If the outer interface is different then
the shell is different.

nobody disputes what you are calling a shell is different.

it's the *rest* that's the same.

Yeah, yeah ... and it runs on everything.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens