4 ms·

> That's not a macOS feature though, that's an Apple PC firmware feature. That you see a distinction here is telling. The end user doesn't see the distinction.

> That's not a macOS feature though, that's an Apple PC firmware feature. That you see a distinction here is telling. The end user doesn't see the distinction. As for all of your complaints about the OpenGL drivers, that's an issue for developers, not end users. Yes, maybe there might be more 3D apps and faster 3D apps if the video driver situation was better, but also maybe not? Either way, this is all irrelevant because the fundamental argument here is the impetus for end users to remain on a platform. Just because you can possibly eek out an extra 20% performance in your Linux app on the same hardware isn't going to shift people. ------------------- On a side note, could the people who are down-voting microcolonel please stop? This is a discussion of ideas, and his/her ideas are being expressed with valid form and structure.

michaelmrose 8y ago
Basically the point is that either distro or hardware providers can already offer easy to use backup functionality. For example Linux mint comes with time shift. I honestly haven't paid much attention to what people do provide as I've mostly historically used rsync or more recently zfs send/syncoid.
microcolonel 8y ago
> As for all of your complaints about the OpenGL drivers, that's an issue for developers, not end users. I shipped an application with WebGL under the impression that it would not need to be custom tested on a decade's worth of MacBooks Pro, but received a report later that a user had lost data because the graphics driver restarted the windowing system when he opened my webpage. If an honest, non-malicious webpage can cause your windowing system to restart, that is an end-user problem. Even Apple themselves don't bother to test their official websites on more than one generation of Mac, why should everyone who uses this now half-decade-old web API have to buy $10,000+ worth of equipment, some of it with old versions of the OS, because they can't trust the vendor of the hardware to maintain the drivers? And this is on top of the fact that, generally speaking, on a given piece of hardware, the application will run dramatically more slowly on macOS than on Windows or Linux. > That you see a distinction here is telling. The end user doesn't see the distinction. I tend to agree, but in this case there's an important distinction for us to make, even if the end users are generally unaware. In the case of recovering intentional backups on a fully-functioning computer, Apple has done a good job of making that straightforward on their laptops, if you attribute that to "macOS", then you miss the point that a) any vendor could offer the same thing, even if they don't, and it has nothing to do with macOS and b) improving "Linux" won't make a recovery partition suddenly appear on your computer. Furthermore, Apple's advantage here only applies to functioning computers. Apple makes it extremely difficult to recover data from damaged devices, and in the case of the iPhone, they literally censor any mention of it being possible from the forums, and lie straight to the faces of their customers. When something gets a little bit wet, Apple will tell you that you should have bought iCloud, and that your data are gone forever.
- sjwright 8y ago
  Woah there buddy. — Apple makes it extremely easy for anyone to start backing up their computer in a way that covers an array of scenarios from accidental or malicious deletions to full-on disaster recovery. — It has everything to do with MacOS because the creation of backups happens within a MacOS environment and the restoring of backups happens within a MacOS environment. The only "firmware" aspect is the (relatively) simple boot-time keyboard triggers. — Apple's solution to damaged devices is having a comprehensive backup strategy. If your plan is to recover data from a damaged device, you've failed before you begin. Apple doesn't offer first-party data recovery services, but there are plenty of third party services to handle disaster recovery situations. To the extent that they make it difficult for you to recover data from a damaged device, it's because they do robust on-disk encryption. — Yes, any vendor "could" offer the same thing. That's exactly the point. They could. Most don't. That's the point.
  - microcolonel 8y ago
    > If your plan is to recover data from a damaged device, you've failed before you begin. Apple says this is the case, but it's not actually the case. Repairing a device is how you recover data from it. I know it's preferable that people make an effort to protect their data, but in the real world, approximately zero people back up anything.
    - sjwright 8y ago
      What I mean is that you've failed in principle. You shouldn't ever risk being in a position where access to your data may become contingent upon the skills of a repairer wielding a soldering iron. If maintaining comprehensive backups isn't boneheadedly simple and robust, your vendor is selling junk. But as a practical matter I don't disagree. If you failed to maintain comprehensive backups (or you have suffered a rare double-disaster) then it's great that these hardware repair experts exist.

michaelmrose 8y ago

Basically the point is that either distro or hardware providers can already offer easy to use backup functionality. For example Linux mint comes with time shift. I honestly haven't paid much attention to what people do provide as I've mostly historically used rsync or more recently zfs send/syncoid.

microcolonel 8y ago

> As for all of your complaints about the OpenGL drivers, that's an issue for developers, not end users. I shipped an application with WebGL under the impression that it would not need to be custom tested on a decade's worth of MacBooks Pro, but received a report later that a user had lost data because the graphics driver restarted the windowing system when he opened my webpage. If an honest, non-malicious webpage can cause your windowing system to restart, that is an end-user problem. Even Apple themselves don't bother to test their official websites on more than one generation of Mac, why should everyone who uses this now half-decade-old web API have to buy $10,000+ worth of equipment, some of it with old versions of the OS, because they can't trust the vendor of the hardware to maintain the drivers? And this is on top of the fact that, generally speaking, on a given piece of hardware, the application will run dramatically more slowly on macOS than on Windows or Linux. > That you see a distinction here is telling. The end user doesn't see the distinction. I tend to agree, but in this case there's an important distinction for us to make, even if the end users are generally unaware. In the case of recovering intentional backups on a fully-functioning computer, Apple has done a good job of making that straightforward on their laptops, if you attribute that to "macOS", then you miss the point that a) any vendor could offer the same thing, even if they don't, and it has nothing to do with macOS and b) improving "Linux" won't make a recovery partition suddenly appear on your computer. Furthermore, Apple's advantage here only applies to functioning computers. Apple makes it extremely difficult to recover data from damaged devices, and in the case of the iPhone, they literally censor any mention of it being possible from the forums, and lie straight to the faces of their customers. When something gets a little bit wet, Apple will tell you that you should have bought iCloud, and that your data are gone forever.

sjwright 8y ago
Woah there buddy. — Apple makes it extremely easy for anyone to start backing up their computer in a way that covers an array of scenarios from accidental or malicious deletions to full-on disaster recovery. — It has everything to do with MacOS because the creation of backups happens within a MacOS environment and the restoring of backups happens within a MacOS environment. The only "firmware" aspect is the (relatively) simple boot-time keyboard triggers. — Apple's solution to damaged devices is having a comprehensive backup strategy. If your plan is to recover data from a damaged device, you've failed before you begin. Apple doesn't offer first-party data recovery services, but there are plenty of third party services to handle disaster recovery situations. To the extent that they make it difficult for you to recover data from a damaged device, it's because they do robust on-disk encryption. — Yes, any vendor "could" offer the same thing. That's exactly the point. They could. Most don't. That's the point.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  > If your plan is to recover data from a damaged device, you've failed before you begin. Apple says this is the case, but it's not actually the case. Repairing a device is how you recover data from it. I know it's preferable that people make an effort to protect their data, but in the real world, approximately zero people back up anything.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    What I mean is that you've failed in principle. You shouldn't ever risk being in a position where access to your data may become contingent upon the skills of a repairer wielding a soldering iron. If maintaining comprehensive backups isn't boneheadedly simple and robust, your vendor is selling junk. But as a practical matter I don't disagree. If you failed to maintain comprehensive backups (or you have suffered a rare double-disaster) then it's great that these hardware repair experts exist.