4 ms·

You can't beat MacOS at it's own game. As a developer, switching to Linux can give you a very nice custom enviroment with CLI applications like mutt or zathura

by nextos 10y ago

You can't beat MacOS at it's own game. As a developer, switching to Linux can give you a very nice custom enviroment with CLI applications like mutt or zathura and a DE like xmonad or i3. But you can't have a GUI as polished as MacOS, although things are getting closer. One of the big innovations of Linux was package management. So using homebrew is indeed a bit absurd. Actually, I would argue next-generation package managers like nix or guix are extremely interesting and have tons of advantages. Maximizing benefits of a MacOS to Linux switch maybe makes it advisable to use one of those.

lisper 10y ago
> You can't beat MacOS at it's own game. Why not? > you can't have a GUI as polished as MacOS Why not? All it would take would be for a company to publish a Linux UI library and a standards doc, and to curate an app store. I don't see any reason that a Linux machine could not be made to look and feel like a Mac. There's no magic in OS X, just a lot of hard work. I'm not saying this would be easy, only that I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be possible. And given how badly Apple is dropping the ball, I also don't see any reason why it couldn't be lucrative. When Google started, everyone thought that the search market was mature and that Yahoo and Microsoft would lead the computer industry forever. I don't see any reason Apple could not be unseated just as they were.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  I think the barrier here is going to be driver support in Linux. You lose 90% of the value of having UX that 'just works' if the driver support is buggy or isn't there. Developing and testing drivers is expensive. Apple solves this problem by designing and selling the hardware as well, and controlling the whole stack. They then charge extra margins for the privilege of using a Mac. MS solves this problem by shoving the driver work onto each hardware vendor. So while you can make and publish a very polished Linux distro / library, what's the business plan for getting paid for it, when the UX only gets you a fraction of the way towards having a seamless 'out of the box' experience for users?
  - timthelion 10y ago
    If you use all Intel hardware, Intel video, audio, wireless then you're fine. Everything works out of the box, and I mean EVERYTHING! Linux supports all wacom devices, and touch screens, mice, and keyboards. And so the only things that historically break are wireless, audio, and video. And with Intel devices you get FLOSS drivers that work perfectly.
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      It just won't be providing any memorable 3D experience.
      - hvis 10y ago
        That depends on your needs. Maybe not modern AAA games. But as a counter-example, Intel® HD Graphics 530 can easily handle Half-Life 2, with power to spare.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Why not? Because for the last 20+ years, FOSS haven't managed to be consistent, employ professional level designers, not rewrite everything from scratch every 5-6 years, and maintain parity with commercial OS offerings at the Desktop GUI level. Why? Because of lack of resources, programmers hoping to what's interesting and not to grunt work that must be done, people dropping out of projects and no formal structure to force a continuous experience so new members get to change whole direction, etc. And plain lack of resources. GTK+, the core basis of Gnome and tons of apps, one of the more important libs, only had one person fully maintaining it (at least a few years ago -- the person complained publicly in blog posts). Contrast with the Windows or Cocoa gui libs that have teams of tens of programmers. >I'm not saying this would be easy, only that I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be possible. Anything is possible, it's all 1s and 0s. Whatever it's there or at least probable is more important.
  - jkmcf 10y ago
    Piggy backing on your comment. The problems with FOSS are personalities and alignment. OS X happened because Jobs made it happen. I was hoping Ubuntu and Shuttleworth would achieve something similar, but working the established community and w/ X and the two major UI libraries might be too limiting.
- nextos 10y ago
  I was just referring to the current state of affairs. Of course, one can beat MacOS at its polished GUI game. But it requires coordination. A single distro can do it. I expected Ubuntu to follow this path. With so much fragmentation it's not easy though. X11 vs Wayland, GNOME vs KDE, a myriad of desktop systems, etc. However, fragmentation comes from the bazaar model that makes Linux so resilient. I would never trade this for a bit of polish. Also, as a programmer, I prefer simple CLI applications that compose well than GUI silos. That's why the current situation does not bother me much.
- renaudg 10y ago
  Because great design almost always requires a benevolent and opinionated dictator, making most decisions on behalf of the user so they don't have to. That has historically been antithetic to free software culture and its bazaar style of development.
realusername 10y ago
GUIs are subjective, personally I never found the OSX one very intuitive so when I use a Mac on another colleague's computer, the negative part is for me the GUI.
- herbst 10y ago
  I had the same experience. I also dont think it is particual beautiful. In fact i think all the gradients make it kind of ugly and oldschool.
wtetzner 10y ago
> But you can't have a GUI as polished as MacOS, although things are getting closer. I'm not sure I agree with that. Frankly, I don't find macOS's GUI to be particularly polished, or even pleasant. Of course, people that like macOS usually do, but, well, that's somewhat self-selecting. I honestly think thinks like Cinnamon or KDE are nicer that the macOS GUI.
- nextos 10y ago
  I prefer Linux too, but I recognize MacOS is really polished and consistent. The overwhelming majority of applications use the same Cocoa libraries, so look & feel is enforced all over. On Linux we have a myriad of alternatives.

by nextos 10y ago

lisper 10y ago

> You can't beat MacOS at it's own game. Why not? > you can't have a GUI as polished as MacOS Why not? All it would take would be for a company to publish a Linux UI library and a standards doc, and to curate an app store. I don't see any reason that a Linux machine could not be made to look and feel like a Mac. There's no magic in OS X, just a lot of hard work. I'm not saying this would be easy, only that I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be possible. And given how badly Apple is dropping the ball, I also don't see any reason why it couldn't be lucrative. When Google started, everyone thought that the search market was mature and that Yahoo and Microsoft would lead the computer industry forever. I don't see any reason Apple could not be unseated just as they were.

smallnamespace 10y ago
I think the barrier here is going to be driver support in Linux. You lose 90% of the value of having UX that 'just works' if the driver support is buggy or isn't there. Developing and testing drivers is expensive. Apple solves this problem by designing and selling the hardware as well, and controlling the whole stack. They then charge extra margins for the privilege of using a Mac. MS solves this problem by shoving the driver work onto each hardware vendor. So while you can make and publish a very polished Linux distro / library, what's the business plan for getting paid for it, when the UX only gets you a fraction of the way towards having a seamless 'out of the box' experience for users?
- timthelion 10y ago
  If you use all Intel hardware, Intel video, audio, wireless then you're fine. Everything works out of the box, and I mean EVERYTHING! Linux supports all wacom devices, and touch screens, mice, and keyboards. And so the only things that historically break are wireless, audio, and video. And with Intel devices you get FLOSS drivers that work perfectly.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    It just won't be providing any memorable 3D experience.
    - hvis 10y ago
      That depends on your needs. Maybe not modern AAA games. But as a counter-example, Intel® HD Graphics 530 can easily handle Half-Life 2, with power to spare.
coldtea 10y ago
>Why not? Because for the last 20+ years, FOSS haven't managed to be consistent, employ professional level designers, not rewrite everything from scratch every 5-6 years, and maintain parity with commercial OS offerings at the Desktop GUI level. Why? Because of lack of resources, programmers hoping to what's interesting and not to grunt work that must be done, people dropping out of projects and no formal structure to force a continuous experience so new members get to change whole direction, etc. And plain lack of resources. GTK+, the core basis of Gnome and tons of apps, one of the more important libs, only had one person fully maintaining it (at least a few years ago -- the person complained publicly in blog posts). Contrast with the Windows or Cocoa gui libs that have teams of tens of programmers. >I'm not saying this would be easy, only that I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be possible. Anything is possible, it's all 1s and 0s. Whatever it's there or at least probable is more important.
- jkmcf 10y ago
  Piggy backing on your comment. The problems with FOSS are personalities and alignment. OS X happened because Jobs made it happen. I was hoping Ubuntu and Shuttleworth would achieve something similar, but working the established community and w/ X and the two major UI libraries might be too limiting.
nextos 10y ago
I was just referring to the current state of affairs. Of course, one can beat MacOS at its polished GUI game. But it requires coordination. A single distro can do it. I expected Ubuntu to follow this path. With so much fragmentation it's not easy though. X11 vs Wayland, GNOME vs KDE, a myriad of desktop systems, etc. However, fragmentation comes from the bazaar model that makes Linux so resilient. I would never trade this for a bit of polish. Also, as a programmer, I prefer simple CLI applications that compose well than GUI silos. That's why the current situation does not bother me much.
renaudg 10y ago
Because great design almost always requires a benevolent and opinionated dictator, making most decisions on behalf of the user so they don't have to. That has historically been antithetic to free software culture and its bazaar style of development.

realusername 10y ago

GUIs are subjective, personally I never found the OSX one very intuitive so when I use a Mac on another colleague's computer, the negative part is for me the GUI.

herbst 10y ago
I had the same experience. I also dont think it is particual beautiful. In fact i think all the gradients make it kind of ugly and oldschool.

wtetzner 10y ago

> But you can't have a GUI as polished as MacOS, although things are getting closer. I'm not sure I agree with that. Frankly, I don't find macOS's GUI to be particularly polished, or even pleasant. Of course, people that like macOS usually do, but, well, that's somewhat self-selecting. I honestly think thinks like Cinnamon or KDE are nicer that the macOS GUI.

nextos 10y ago
I prefer Linux too, but I recognize MacOS is really polished and consistent. The overwhelming majority of applications use the same Cocoa libraries, so look & feel is enforced all over. On Linux we have a myriad of alternatives.