2 ms·

Nope, it's completely true. I left MacOS when they ditched support for 32-bit software, and was delighted to find that 95% of my software "just worked" on Linux

Nope, it's completely true. I left MacOS when they ditched support for 32-bit software, and was delighted to find that 95% of my software "just worked" on Linux. If you're looking for a true Unix box, you're shooting yourself in the foot by buying a Mac, especially today. "the hacker" wants a suite of coreutils that are updated constantly. They want a package manager and an extensible system. They don't want their computer to second-guess them, and they don't want a large corporation to decide what's right for them.

zepto 5y ago
> when they ditched support for 32-bit software This has nothing to do with the false claim about restrictive APIs. > If you're looking for a true Unix box, you're shooting yourself in the foot by buying a Mac, especially today. This has nothing to do with the false claim about restrictive APIs. > "the hacker" wants a suite of coreutils that are updated constantly. They want a package manager and an extensible system. They don't want their computer to second-guess them, and they don't want a large corporation to decide what's right for them. This is an ideological statement that has nothing to do with the false claim about restrictive APIs. All of what you said may be true, but it doesn’t make the claim about restrictive apis any less false.
- aenis 5y ago
  I agree. I used to do low level windows kernel-level hacks such as rootkits, custom memory and network sniffers, and this stuff does not travel because macos is much better designed. But for pretty much any other type of hacking, the good or the nasty stuff, one can make do with just about any platform. People make the mistake by assuming that if the OS is restrictive then they cant hack. Literally the opposite is true. If you want to truly hack, get an OS that tries to resist it :-) and for anything more common, like network-based hacking, using custom peripherials and the like - macos is just fine. Nope. Choosing a platform for hacking is mainly a matter of personal preferences.
jlokier 5y ago
Just a note that 32-bit support was also ditched in popular Linux distributions (Ubuntu, Fedora, Red Hat) in the same year as MacOS.

zepto 5y ago

> when they ditched support for 32-bit software This has nothing to do with the false claim about restrictive APIs. > If you're looking for a true Unix box, you're shooting yourself in the foot by buying a Mac, especially today. This has nothing to do with the false claim about restrictive APIs. > "the hacker" wants a suite of coreutils that are updated constantly. They want a package manager and an extensible system. They don't want their computer to second-guess them, and they don't want a large corporation to decide what's right for them. This is an ideological statement that has nothing to do with the false claim about restrictive APIs. All of what you said may be true, but it doesn’t make the claim about restrictive apis any less false.

aenis 5y ago
I agree. I used to do low level windows kernel-level hacks such as rootkits, custom memory and network sniffers, and this stuff does not travel because macos is much better designed. But for pretty much any other type of hacking, the good or the nasty stuff, one can make do with just about any platform. People make the mistake by assuming that if the OS is restrictive then they cant hack. Literally the opposite is true. If you want to truly hack, get an OS that tries to resist it :-) and for anything more common, like network-based hacking, using custom peripherials and the like - macos is just fine. Nope. Choosing a platform for hacking is mainly a matter of personal preferences.

jlokier 5y ago

Just a note that 32-bit support was also ditched in popular Linux distributions (Ubuntu, Fedora, Red Hat) in the same year as MacOS.