4 ms·

Because macOS has been the most consistent in the past 20 years and it works out of the box and has exceptional integration with exceptional hardware. Plus ente

Because macOS has been the most consistent in the past 20 years and it works out of the box and has exceptional integration with exceptional hardware. Plus enterprise support. (Being consistent doesn't make it good or bad on its own, just being consistent can be a bonus for some). A lot of developers are not technical-savy either to deal with linux's hardware issues, dependency issues, etc. Many IT doesn't want to deal with linux for the same reasons. It's also easier to fix if everyone has the same hardware and software. Many devs use brew/iterm2 for package mgmt and advanced terminal support. KDE may be the best DE out there but it doesn't matter as long it is not available on typical commercial devices and works out of the box with 100% hardware integration support. Business has an impact on what hardware their employees can use and it is often macOS/Windows because it has the lower overall investment cost and much better integration support with their device management tools. > It's more buggy than Windows, it has the same malware problem as Windows, it's spy- & adware as Windows, it's inflexible, it's completely dumbed down, and it's incompatible to anything (even it former self). And Linux has been the most unstable OS for me with broken nvidia drivers, bricked installs and so on all from updating Linux a few times in the past 3 years. We can blame Nvidia for this but it doesn't matter to everyone else, it is still Linux's responsibility to ensure it doesn't happen. I never had to reinstall MacOS on any of my devices in the past few decades. Windows, I did have to reinstall because of bad Windows updates. macOS is nowhere as bad as Windows with its spyware/adware, it's there a bit but it's not that big of an issue. > it's inflexible, it's completely dumbed down, and it's incompatible to anything (even it former self). That's the best part of macOS and why businesses want it. KDE itself was hard to use for casual users because it is too flexible and comes with defaults that are not tailored to them. (I said was, because last time I tried it was a year ago and it had some weird defaults). If KDE could optimize their initial defaults for the incoming new users (which are growing up with iOS/Android devices first), then they might have a better chance.

MayeulC 4y ago
> all from updating Linux Stopping breakage on updates is one of the big promises of ostree-based systems (fedora Silverblue and Kionite), and declarative systems (Guix and Nix). Easy rollbacks, updates are installed in the background with no impact on the running system, and atomically switched on reboot.
- mikhailt 4y ago
  > Stopping breakage on updates is one of the big promises of ostree-based systems (fedora Silverblue and Kionite), and declarative systems (Guix and Nix). Easy rollbacks, updates are installed in the background with no impact on the running system, and atomically switched on reboot. That will be wonderful and by then, maybe, Linux may be considered as long as it is all simple to use. Until then, macOS/Windows/ChomeOS will continue to be the most commonly used PC OSes. I was happy when my sister switched to using Linux (Mint) but they lasted 6 months before switching to Windows and they said they have no plans to try again because it ain't worth the hassles.
- still_grokking 4y ago
  I see breakage on updates only on macOS and Windows. There it is a constant. People usually fear updates on those systems by now. It's always: "Let's wait and hear what others say what breaks, and whether there are workarounds", or "Let's wait for the first few minor updates to the major update; you know…". OTOH my Debian Testing boxes almost never break even I update them every single day. (You get maybe one issue caused by updated every 2 - 4 years; most of the time you just need to wait a few days to get a fix. If it's urgent a downgrade of the affected package(s) can remedy the issue instantly.) So in my experience even a perpetual "beta version" of Debian Linux is more stable than "regular releases" of other systems… I didn't had any not trivially solvable issues with my Linux boxes in the last 15 years. But I read about the major fails of either macOS or Windows more or less on a daily basis in the news… I really don't understand why anybody would use those systems therefore. Of course YMMV… I don't use any exotic hardware, don't buy the most shiny stuff right away, and I only use Debian Testing—as almost all other distris are imho broken. The ones that aren't are imho on the other hand too complicated to handle (like e.g. NixOS).
  - mikhailt 4y ago
    > But I read about the major fails of either macOS or Windows more or less on a daily basis in the news… I really don't understand why anybody would use those systems therefore. When the install base is over two billion of users, we're bound to hear issues. Just bitrot alone can cause some % of issues. We're not hearing from 99% of the users, only those that have an issue and took the time to say something. There's no reason for the news or even people to go on the web every day to say Windows/macOS/Linux still works fine with updates with no software issues. I'm not saying OS are immune to issues but there's no evidence that Windows updates is causing billions of devices to break or brick on a constant daily basis here. Yes, some software may break, some incompatibility issues but Windows is pretty decent with its updates. It's also fairly easy to rollback by uninstalling the previous Windows update. Plus, macOS with Time Machine is an exceptional backup mechanism (Linux with TimeShift is great as well). Windows is...questionable. I use Reflect but I doubt most people know how to back up properly. However, I can't say that I speak for 99% either, all I can report is from people around me. I work for an employer with over 900 employees and most are on macOS, I can confidently tell you that it is not an issue at all. We rarely have an update issue. Altho, we do inform people to wait a few days before installing an update, mainly to make sure our custom stuff is working fine first. > So in my experience even a perpetual "beta version" of Debian Linux is more stable than "regular releases" of other systems… Considering one of the most popular distro is Ubuntu, which itself is based on the Debian Sid branch and a huge number of distro is based on Ubuntu; it's already safe to say that Debian is stable usually across most of its update channel. Debian is nice but I struggle to get it to work on my laptop with nVidia GPU. Some of its defaults was odd as well. I can say Debian stable is extremely snappy, it honestly shocked me. I just wish it would work out of the box on my stuff without me spending hours to figure it out. I gave up and switched back to Pop_OS; nvidia and Wi-Fi chips didn't work at all. Hopefully, that might improve over time as I hear Debian 12 is going to be more flexible with "non-free" binary firmware and drivers for its images/installer. > I don't use any exotic hardware, don't buy the most shiny stuff right away, and I only use Debian Testing That's the thing, as long as we do that, it'll be safer and less likely to break. We have to work harder to find the right hardware for the right linux support. Casual users are just going to buy whatever's configured for them. For me, if I want to get the best Debian experience, I have to find a laptop without nVidia chip, an older Intel or AMD Chipset and hope it works out of the box. Don't get me started on Wi-Fi chipset as well.
goosedragons 4y ago
And modern macOS has no Nvidia drivers at all. Would Linux be a better OS if they simply removed the choice for the user to use Nvidia if they want like Apple does? I'd argue not and I'd also argue blaming Linux for a third party's support they don't really control is a bit ridiculous. It has loads of weirdly missing basic features like the ability to adjust the sound of a monitor's speakers when connected by HDMI or DP. Updates are the absolute slowest of any OS regardless of whether it's a whole new version or a security update. And if your SSD kicks the bucket the whole machine is a brick.
- mikhailt 4y ago
  > And modern macOS has no Nvidia drivers at all. Why would it, there is no modern Mac (excluding Mac Pro) with nvidia GPU and soon, not even an AMD GPU once they stop selling all Intel based Macs. macOS is not an OS you can install on any other hardware. So, how does that apply to the reason why companies and developers are continuing to use macOS in the first place? If the companies and developers need nVidia support, they wouldn't buy the Macs in the first place, they would've bought the devices and use the OS that supports it. We're not talking about which OS is better or whatever, we're talking about why there is momentum and why many developers/users are still using macOS despite the obvious better solutions out there like Linux + System76/ThinkPad/XPS/etc. > Would Linux be a better OS if they simply removed the choice for the user to use Nvidia if they want like Apple does? They mostly already do (or did). Many distros refuse to let users install the closed-source nvidia's drivers from the installers or included in the image because it's not open source. I'm not disagreeing with them but the fact is that I am only able to use Linux due to Pop_OS that had nvidia drivers built into their image. I even got a few other people to Pop simply because of their hardware using Nvidia GPU. I couldn't use Debian/Fedora 2-3 years ago because of this. Many distros seem to be opening up to allowing non-free drivers into their image and installers; Fedora is getting better at this. Debian 12 sounds like it is going to open up to this as well. Users would have an easier time working with Linux if many distros include support for installing nVidia drivers out of the box. If I bought a ThinkPad with nVidia GPU and Linux didn't even boot on it because the nVidia GPU is too new or there's no open source drivers, I'm still going to say it is Linux and I'm not bothering with it anymore, I'll just install Windows and move on because it just works and does what I want it to do. > It has loads of weirdly missing basic features like the ability to adjust the sound of a monitor's speakers when connected by HDMI or DP. Updates are the absolute slowest of any OS regardless of whether it's a whole new version or a security update. And if your SSD kicks the bucket the whole machine is a brick. 1. I don't use monitor's speakers, they're horrible but I can understand why that'd piss people off. Definitely agree that macOS should support adjusting the monitor's settings and audio out of the box instead of forcing people to use a third party tool. 2. Meh, all updates are slow. Fedora updates are just as slow if you install updates via their software app instead of dnf, which requires a reboot for any updates. Debian upgrade took just as long on my older laptop, so I'm going to say this is not a con on macOS because it applies to various OSes. 3. SSD has nothing to do with macOS tho, this is a hardware lockdown by Apple, yes it is horrible but it does nothing to slow down or pause companies and developers from continuing to use Macs. This is fairly easy to work around by using Time Machine to back up your data and swap out the logic board at Apple or get a new Mac. Also, Macs don't really break this easily, by the time it may break, companies and developers are already buying the next models.

MayeulC 4y ago

> all from updating Linux Stopping breakage on updates is one of the big promises of ostree-based systems (fedora Silverblue and Kionite), and declarative systems (Guix and Nix). Easy rollbacks, updates are installed in the background with no impact on the running system, and atomically switched on reboot.

mikhailt 4y ago
> Stopping breakage on updates is one of the big promises of ostree-based systems (fedora Silverblue and Kionite), and declarative systems (Guix and Nix). Easy rollbacks, updates are installed in the background with no impact on the running system, and atomically switched on reboot. That will be wonderful and by then, maybe, Linux may be considered as long as it is all simple to use. Until then, macOS/Windows/ChomeOS will continue to be the most commonly used PC OSes. I was happy when my sister switched to using Linux (Mint) but they lasted 6 months before switching to Windows and they said they have no plans to try again because it ain't worth the hassles.
still_grokking 4y ago
I see breakage on updates only on macOS and Windows. There it is a constant. People usually fear updates on those systems by now. It's always: "Let's wait and hear what others say what breaks, and whether there are workarounds", or "Let's wait for the first few minor updates to the major update; you know…". OTOH my Debian Testing boxes almost never break even I update them every single day. (You get maybe one issue caused by updated every 2 - 4 years; most of the time you just need to wait a few days to get a fix. If it's urgent a downgrade of the affected package(s) can remedy the issue instantly.) So in my experience even a perpetual "beta version" of Debian Linux is more stable than "regular releases" of other systems… I didn't had any not trivially solvable issues with my Linux boxes in the last 15 years. But I read about the major fails of either macOS or Windows more or less on a daily basis in the news… I really don't understand why anybody would use those systems therefore. Of course YMMV… I don't use any exotic hardware, don't buy the most shiny stuff right away, and I only use Debian Testing—as almost all other distris are imho broken. The ones that aren't are imho on the other hand too complicated to handle (like e.g. NixOS).
- mikhailt 4y ago
  > But I read about the major fails of either macOS or Windows more or less on a daily basis in the news… I really don't understand why anybody would use those systems therefore. When the install base is over two billion of users, we're bound to hear issues. Just bitrot alone can cause some % of issues. We're not hearing from 99% of the users, only those that have an issue and took the time to say something. There's no reason for the news or even people to go on the web every day to say Windows/macOS/Linux still works fine with updates with no software issues. I'm not saying OS are immune to issues but there's no evidence that Windows updates is causing billions of devices to break or brick on a constant daily basis here. Yes, some software may break, some incompatibility issues but Windows is pretty decent with its updates. It's also fairly easy to rollback by uninstalling the previous Windows update. Plus, macOS with Time Machine is an exceptional backup mechanism (Linux with TimeShift is great as well). Windows is...questionable. I use Reflect but I doubt most people know how to back up properly. However, I can't say that I speak for 99% either, all I can report is from people around me. I work for an employer with over 900 employees and most are on macOS, I can confidently tell you that it is not an issue at all. We rarely have an update issue. Altho, we do inform people to wait a few days before installing an update, mainly to make sure our custom stuff is working fine first. > So in my experience even a perpetual "beta version" of Debian Linux is more stable than "regular releases" of other systems… Considering one of the most popular distro is Ubuntu, which itself is based on the Debian Sid branch and a huge number of distro is based on Ubuntu; it's already safe to say that Debian is stable usually across most of its update channel. Debian is nice but I struggle to get it to work on my laptop with nVidia GPU. Some of its defaults was odd as well. I can say Debian stable is extremely snappy, it honestly shocked me. I just wish it would work out of the box on my stuff without me spending hours to figure it out. I gave up and switched back to Pop_OS; nvidia and Wi-Fi chips didn't work at all. Hopefully, that might improve over time as I hear Debian 12 is going to be more flexible with "non-free" binary firmware and drivers for its images/installer. > I don't use any exotic hardware, don't buy the most shiny stuff right away, and I only use Debian Testing That's the thing, as long as we do that, it'll be safer and less likely to break. We have to work harder to find the right hardware for the right linux support. Casual users are just going to buy whatever's configured for them. For me, if I want to get the best Debian experience, I have to find a laptop without nVidia chip, an older Intel or AMD Chipset and hope it works out of the box. Don't get me started on Wi-Fi chipset as well.

goosedragons 4y ago

And modern macOS has no Nvidia drivers at all. Would Linux be a better OS if they simply removed the choice for the user to use Nvidia if they want like Apple does? I'd argue not and I'd also argue blaming Linux for a third party's support they don't really control is a bit ridiculous. It has loads of weirdly missing basic features like the ability to adjust the sound of a monitor's speakers when connected by HDMI or DP. Updates are the absolute slowest of any OS regardless of whether it's a whole new version or a security update. And if your SSD kicks the bucket the whole machine is a brick.

mikhailt 4y ago
> And modern macOS has no Nvidia drivers at all. Why would it, there is no modern Mac (excluding Mac Pro) with nvidia GPU and soon, not even an AMD GPU once they stop selling all Intel based Macs. macOS is not an OS you can install on any other hardware. So, how does that apply to the reason why companies and developers are continuing to use macOS in the first place? If the companies and developers need nVidia support, they wouldn't buy the Macs in the first place, they would've bought the devices and use the OS that supports it. We're not talking about which OS is better or whatever, we're talking about why there is momentum and why many developers/users are still using macOS despite the obvious better solutions out there like Linux + System76/ThinkPad/XPS/etc. > Would Linux be a better OS if they simply removed the choice for the user to use Nvidia if they want like Apple does? They mostly already do (or did). Many distros refuse to let users install the closed-source nvidia's drivers from the installers or included in the image because it's not open source. I'm not disagreeing with them but the fact is that I am only able to use Linux due to Pop_OS that had nvidia drivers built into their image. I even got a few other people to Pop simply because of their hardware using Nvidia GPU. I couldn't use Debian/Fedora 2-3 years ago because of this. Many distros seem to be opening up to allowing non-free drivers into their image and installers; Fedora is getting better at this. Debian 12 sounds like it is going to open up to this as well. Users would have an easier time working with Linux if many distros include support for installing nVidia drivers out of the box. If I bought a ThinkPad with nVidia GPU and Linux didn't even boot on it because the nVidia GPU is too new or there's no open source drivers, I'm still going to say it is Linux and I'm not bothering with it anymore, I'll just install Windows and move on because it just works and does what I want it to do. > It has loads of weirdly missing basic features like the ability to adjust the sound of a monitor's speakers when connected by HDMI or DP. Updates are the absolute slowest of any OS regardless of whether it's a whole new version or a security update. And if your SSD kicks the bucket the whole machine is a brick. 1. I don't use monitor's speakers, they're horrible but I can understand why that'd piss people off. Definitely agree that macOS should support adjusting the monitor's settings and audio out of the box instead of forcing people to use a third party tool. 2. Meh, all updates are slow. Fedora updates are just as slow if you install updates via their software app instead of dnf, which requires a reboot for any updates. Debian upgrade took just as long on my older laptop, so I'm going to say this is not a con on macOS because it applies to various OSes. 3. SSD has nothing to do with macOS tho, this is a hardware lockdown by Apple, yes it is horrible but it does nothing to slow down or pause companies and developers from continuing to use Macs. This is fairly easy to work around by using Time Machine to back up your data and swap out the logic board at Apple or get a new Mac. Also, Macs don't really break this easily, by the time it may break, companies and developers are already buying the next models.