3 ms·
>It almost seems the authors write them to convince themselves of something, unsure what exactly. That they can drop OS X because of a few minor bugs and inste
by eznzt 6y ago
>It almost seems the authors write them to convince themselves of something, unsure what exactly.
That they can drop OS X because of a few minor bugs and instead use a half-assed desktop and be as productive. It's like breaking the chains, right? Right?
- bayindirh 6y ago> That they can drop OS X because of a few minor bugs and instead use a half-assed desktop and be as productive. I've used Linux (KDE, XFCE, GNOME, Unity), macOS and Windows in the past 15+ years and I can tell that KDE and macOS are very even productivity wise. Some people can work on simpler desktops like XFCE and GNOME faster. I just had to reboot my Linux workstation because building's UPS batteries had to be exchanged. Otherwise it runs for years unless I reboot. That half-baked desktop operating system is way more flexible and faster in some tasks when compared to macOS. Vice versa is also equally valid. Currently I use Linux and macOS daily. I'd never buy an apple Desktop while I'd never buy a non-apple laptop (because of hardware, mainly). Moreover, if Debian can achieve 7+ hours of battery life on an old EliteBook 850G2 with onboard graphics, it's possible to use apple hardware as power efficient with Linux.