12 ms·

Strong disagree. UI is very buggy and inconsistent. CLI tools/shell is attempting to follow more-or-less standardish unix/linux setup but fails pretty hard, w

by wubrr 3y ago

Strong disagree. UI is very buggy and inconsistent. CLI tools/shell is attempting to follow more-or-less standardish unix/linux setup but fails pretty hard, with many of the same commands existing but behaving just differently enough to be annoying. Uses it's own set of shortcuts, different from what's standard on windows/linux and most other operating systems. Not sure what people mean when they say completely vague and ambiguous things like 'usability' and 'comfort' - are you referring to the fact that it has rounded buttons and corners and pretty ads? It basically falls in between a standard windows and highly modified ubuntu setup, but does far worse at both. The UI, apps, etc is far more buggy and unintuitive than windows, and the os is far less 'unix' and far less customizable than ubuntu.

stouset 3y ago
> Unix tools/shell is attempting to follow more-or-less standardish unix/linux setup but fails pretty hard, with many of the same commands existing but behaving just differently enough to be annoying. I'm pretty sure this is simply you expecting GNU and actually getting FreeBSD-based tooling. It's not wrong, it's just different than what you expected.
- wubrr 3y ago
  Not at all. As a single example - macos comes with an extremely outdated version of GNU bash (3.2) from 2007. And yes, this has consequences in that many modern bash scripts depend on bash 4+ (current latest GNU bash is 5.2+).
  - foldr 3y ago
    Zsh has been the default shell on MacOS for ages now. If you need a more modern bash then you can easily install it using brew or other common package managers. This is a total non-issue.
    - wubrr 3y ago
      Of course shipping a very outdated tool with your OS is an issue. And the fact that you need to use 3rd-party package managers to update/replace it is also an issue. But if you want to contend that anything that is solveable via customization/3rd party packages is a 'total non-issue', then I fail to see how you could argue that Linux isn't superior to MacOS in every single way.
      - karolist 3y ago
        It's not an issue even if you say it is. Takes 1 minute to setup brew on a fresh Mac, third party or not who cares when it's open source, apt is also open-source and in the same sense a third party someone develops, you just get that with the base Debian like systems, if we start counting the minute wasted to setup brew then you waste more time to install Debian in the first place, Macs come pre-installed.
        wubrr 3y ago
        It literally is an issue, and the fact that you're pointing out a potential solution should make that obvious to you. Many software companies (including FAANGs) have basically given up trying to support building/running most of their software on mac for these exact reasons, and they have really tried - dedicating hundreds of experienced engineers to the problem.
        karolist 3y ago
        I call BS on the FAANG statement. I work at FAANG and 80% SWEs use MBPs, actually if we go by literal meaning of FAANG company list, they do not even focus on desktop software and are mostly web companies and the tooling is all backend where SWE machines do not do any heavy lifting.
        wubrr 3y ago
        You work at FAANG and you can run your entire stack on MacOS? Which FAANG? Or you mean, you work at FAANG and you can run your web application which is 0.01% of the stack on your mac? > they do not even focus on desktop software and are mostly web companies and the tooling is all backend where SWE machines do not do any heavy lifting. The web frontend/ui is a relatively small portion of the development that goes on at typical FAANG. And the reason the macs 'do not do any heavy lifting' is because they literally can't - most of the complex backend systems, low low level/high performance code, etc can't be run on macos.
  - toast0 3y ago
    Using tools from the base OS is really holding it wrong. Just like ftp.exe/Internet Explorer/Edge and Safari should only be used to download a usable browser, the Apple provided CLI tools should only be used to download the tools and versions of tools that you actually want. Otherwise, you have no way to control versioning anyway. When the OS version is tied to the version of so many other tools, it's a nightmare. Apple is trying to push you in the right direction by basically not updating the CLI tools ever, even when upstream didn't change the license to something unacceptable for them to distribute as in the case of bash.
    - wubrr 3y ago
      > Apple provided CLI tools should only be used to download the tools and versions of tools that you actually want. Why? Why do I need to use 3rd party package managers, or manual installations from 3rd party sources to install common tools that aren't a decade+ outdated? > When the OS version is tied to the version of so many other tools, it's a nightmare. It doesn't need to be tied to anything. If the OS needs specific libraries/tools then they can be installed in a separate location. If there are new major versions of user-level tools (like bash) those should come by default, not some 15 year old version of the same tool, with the same license. Multiple linux distros have solved these problems in different ways 10+ years ago. > Apple is trying to push you in the right direction by basically not updating the CLI tools ever No, they are just neglecting the CLI ecosystem, the package management, and the many many outstanding bugs that have existed and been ignored for years.
      - spacedcowboy 3y ago
        Because the newer tools changed the licensing terms, and the corporate lawyers won’t let anything under GPL3 anywhere near anything if they can help it. GPL2 was viral, but the terms were easier to stomach. Apple is allergic to GPLv3 code because there is a clause in the license requiring you provide a way to run modified version of the software which would require Apple to let users self sign executables. This is a simple result of the GPL going where Apple will not, so OSX is stuck with whatever is MIT, BSD, Apache, or GPL2 licensed. I like the GPL, I license my open source stuff under it, but it doesn’t work for all cases. Apple is fine with not using software licensed under the GPL, when it conflicts with other company principles. Simple as.
  - skuhn 3y ago
    Unfortunately this will never be fixed. It's not a technical problem. They refuse to ship software licensed under GPL v3, and bash 3.2 is the final GPL v2 version. I hate it.
    - tcmart14 3y ago
      Didn't they stop 'shipping' bash by default awhile ago? Now the default shell is zsh?
      - skuhn 3y ago
        bash is still shipped on macos 14, the default shell is zsh since 10.15 in 2019.
    - Someone 3y ago
      I wonder why they haven’t fixed it yet by removing bash and the other GPL-licensed tools. Even if they currently need one to boot the system, they have the resources to change that.
      - iAMkenough 3y ago
        I refuse to drop Samba and go back to AFP
        Someone 3y ago
        Are you sure you’re using Samba? AFAIK, Apple removed that years ago (I think because it’s GPLv3 licensed) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Message_Block#Netsmb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Message_Block#Netsmb: “NSMB (Netsmb and SMBFS) is a family of in-kernel SMB client implementations in BSD operating systems. It was first contributed to FreeBSD 4.4 by Boris Popov, and is now found in a wide range of other BSD systems including NetBSD and macOS“ https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/03/23/inside_mac_os_x_10_7_lion_server_apple_replaces_samba_for_windows_networking_services https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/03/23/inside_mac_os_x_1...: “The upcoming release of Mac OS X 10.7 Lion Server will remove the formerly bundled open source Samba software and replace it with Apple's own tools for Windows file sharing and network directory services” I also think they complete removed AFP support.
  - jlokier 3y ago
    > Why? Why do I need to use 3rd party package managers, or manual installations from 3rd party sources to install common tools that aren't a decade+ outdated? There actually is a reason. It's not lack of maintenance. It's because Bash 3.2 is the last version licensed as GPLv2. Bash 4.0 and later changed license to GPLv3. Apple decided it's not safe for them to ship any software with GPLv3 with macOS, because of stronger legal conditions in GPLv3. This is also the reason they stopped updating Samba. They changed the default shell to Zsh long ago. The old Bash is kept around, so that users who want to stick with Bash can still use it as their shell, and so that existing scripts for macOS (for example in installers) continue to work. If nobody cared about Bash, I expect they would have dropped it from macOS when switching to Zsh, rather than keeping the old version. So from a certain point of view, Bash 3.2 is the most recent version they can ship. As for other tools like "cp", "ls", "rm", "touch", etc. I agree they are annoying on macOS, when you are used to the versatile GNU/Linux command line options. I sometimes type options after filename arguments due to habit on Linux. macOS commands very annoyingly treats those options as filenames instead. And I miss options like "touch --date". However, this is not due to old tools. Those differences are just how up current (up to date) BSD commands work. They are just a different unix lineage than Linux. The GNU tools were intentionally written to be more user-friendly than traditional UNIX™ tools, which is why the command line options are generally nicer. GNU/Linux systems come with GNU tools of course. macOS never did because it is derived from BSD and comes with BSD tools (with Apple enhancements, like "cp -c"). You get the same on most other unix environments that are not GNU/Linux. People install the GNU tools on top, if they want the GNU command line experience instead of the default. Sometimes with the "g" prefix (like "gls", "gtouch" etc.). These days, even if Apple decided it's worth the technical fallout of switching from BSD command line tools to GNU, they wouldn't do it for the same legal reason as what keeps Bash at 3.2: The current GNU tools are licensed as GPLv3.
    - Nullabillity 3y ago
      > So from a certain point of view, Bash 3.2 is the most recent version they can ship. Apple could choose to be GPLv3 compliant tomorrow, if they wanted to.
      - 3y ago
shepherdjerred 3y ago
> CLI tools/shell is attempting to follow more-or-less standardish unix/linux setup but fails pretty hard, with many of the same commands existing but behaving just differently enough to be annoying. macOS is UNIX certified and POSIX compliant. You're probably expecting GNU commands, but macOS is based off of FreeBSD (and is not related Linux).
- wubrr 3y ago
  First of all unix/freebsd/linux are all closely related. Second, macos does not come with current freebsd set of CLI tools, and in fact comes with several very outdated GNU CLI tools.
  - shepherdjerred 3y ago
    Yes, macOS does include some GNU programs, and both the FreeBSD and GNU programs that it includes are rather outdated.
zaphar 3y ago
CLI tools/shell is attempting to follow more-or-less standardish unix/linux setup but fails pretty hard, with many of the same commands existing but behaving just differently enough to be annoying. They wasn't following unix/Linux standards they are following unix/bsd standards. Standards that predate Linux and for some of us are very familiar indeed.
- wubrr 3y ago
  What standards are those exactly? Everyone knows that macos (and windows) took a lot from unix/bsd. But that does not mean they are actively following any kind of reasonable modern standard. And saying they might be following some 30 year old supposed bsd standard is pretty hilarious for an OS that portends to be cutting-edge, intuitive and well-integrated.
  - masswerk 3y ago
    Hum, BSD is still very much around.
_gabe_ 3y ago
I think the buggy apps and UI isn’t emphasized enough on Macs. I honestly can’t remember the last time I was on Windows and performing an action failed to give me any visual indicator whatsoever that something happened, but that’s common on my M2. I’ll click something, have no feedback, and then a few seconds later the thing happens. Just a couple concrete examples, if you open an app in a workspace, then switch screens to a different workspace, then click the app in the dock, nothing happens. I would expect to be taken to the screen and have the app made visible, but instead, nothing. I kept thinking that the app must be frozen or something until I switched screens and found it. Another example, I was carrying my laptop to and from work. I put it in my backpack with padding that protects the laptop. I didn’t jostle it around, I literally just carried it to and from work. I get home and the screen is in some sort of weird flickering bugged out state. I had to forcefully restart it just to get it working again. With all that said, the trackpads and gestures on Macs are amazing. The displays are also very visually appealing. The performance is good.
- wtallis 3y ago
  > I honestly can’t remember the last time I was on Windows and performing an action failed to give me any visual indicator whatsoever that something happened I find that more often than not I can't make it through the Windows setup without worse janky stuff happening. Pretty often when toggling off all the bullshit privacy settings that shouldn't be opt-out to begin with, I'll get a visual indication of the switch starting to move after my click, then turning around and going back to the default—so my click was definitely received, but rejected somehow. That seems worse to me than a correct response delayed. > if you open an app in a workspace, then switch screens to a different workspace, then click the app in the dock, nothing happens. I would expect to be taken to the screen and have the app made visible, but instead, nothing. There is a visual indication in that the contents of the menu bar change to reflect the newly active app; unlike on Windows a Mac app can be active without having an active or foreground window. There's a system setting to control whether to switch spaces in this scenario, but I don't recall whether the behavior you describe is the default or something you accidentally configured to annoy you.
  - 3y ago
nvarsj 3y ago
I was always kind of puzzled that big tech companies seem to exclusively use Macs for software dev. Then when I joined one, I discovered that everyone uses remote Linux VMs for actual development. Which makes a lot more sense - Macbook as a glorified thin client with great battery life suits it pretty well. Although, I still sorely miss Linux/Windows window management.
BigJ1211 3y ago
As someone who uses Windows, Arch with Hyperland and MacOS almost daily. I am immensely curious about what you find inconsistent and buggy about macOS? In my experience that’s been the least buggy and inconsistent of the three. My Mac and Linux shortcuts align more than my Windows and Linux/Mac ones. For the most used ones it’s CMD + whatever the standard key is for that shortcut, instead of Control. Overal I prefer that the Super key is more useful than what has been the default for many years with Windows. I also use the CLI for virtually everything on Mac and Linux, MacOS isn’t all that different and feels more like another Linux flavour than it’s own beast. The only UI gripes I can think off immediately is no window snapping and closing the window doesn’t mean you’ve exited the application. The first requires a third-party tool (I recommend Rectangle), the latter is a change in behaviour. Frankly I’m not really all that interested in defending MacOS, but I hope you realise that saying “very buggy and inconsistent” without naming anything specific isn’t any less vague and ambiguous than “usability and comfort”. Your reaction comes off as “I’m used to this, therefore the other thing is bad and unintuitive.” I’m sure this isn’t your intention, so specifics would be illuminating.
- wubrr 3y ago
  > I am immensely curious about what you find inconsistent and buggy about macOS? I posted a list of recent issues I've run into elsewhere in the thread, but there are many bugs and inconsistencies in macos: - Doc breaking/becoming inaccessible. - Running app windows disappearing/becoming inaccessible. - Cursor/caret disappearing when editing text. - Can't move windows between workspaces. - Constant issues with external monitors. - Switching between windows via command-tab regularly breaks. These are all well-known issues that have existed for years. If you google them you will find threads and workaround from 5+ years ago. > My Mac and Linux shortcuts align more than my Windows and Linux/Mac ones Because.. you changed your linux shortcuts to match macos? The most obvious example is that ctrl+c/s/v etc are instead command+c/s/v on macos. > I hope you realise that saying “very buggy and inconsistent” without naming anything specific isn’t any less vague and ambiguous than “usability and comfort”. There are literally dozens of examples of issues listed in this thread. I hope you realize that saying 'give me examples' when there are many many examples all around the post your replying too is a bit disingenuous. I can't keep repeat ing what I've already posted in the thread in every single comment.
deergomoo 3y ago
> Uses it's own set of shortcuts, different from what's standard on windows/linux Mac OS predates both. Also, this is personal preference, but I find engaging Command with my thumb far more comfortable than Control with my pinky.

by wubrr 3y ago

stouset 3y ago

> Unix tools/shell is attempting to follow more-or-less standardish unix/linux setup but fails pretty hard, with many of the same commands existing but behaving just differently enough to be annoying. I'm pretty sure this is simply you expecting GNU and actually getting FreeBSD-based tooling. It's not wrong, it's just different than what you expected.

wubrr 3y ago
Not at all. As a single example - macos comes with an extremely outdated version of GNU bash (3.2) from 2007. And yes, this has consequences in that many modern bash scripts depend on bash 4+ (current latest GNU bash is 5.2+).
- foldr 3y ago
  Zsh has been the default shell on MacOS for ages now. If you need a more modern bash then you can easily install it using brew or other common package managers. This is a total non-issue.
  - wubrr 3y ago
    Of course shipping a very outdated tool with your OS is an issue. And the fact that you need to use 3rd-party package managers to update/replace it is also an issue. But if you want to contend that anything that is solveable via customization/3rd party packages is a 'total non-issue', then I fail to see how you could argue that Linux isn't superior to MacOS in every single way.
    - karolist 3y ago
      It's not an issue even if you say it is. Takes 1 minute to setup brew on a fresh Mac, third party or not who cares when it's open source, apt is also open-source and in the same sense a third party someone develops, you just get that with the base Debian like systems, if we start counting the minute wasted to setup brew then you waste more time to install Debian in the first place, Macs come pre-installed.
      - wubrr 3y ago
        It literally is an issue, and the fact that you're pointing out a potential solution should make that obvious to you. Many software companies (including FAANGs) have basically given up trying to support building/running most of their software on mac for these exact reasons, and they have really tried - dedicating hundreds of experienced engineers to the problem.
        karolist 3y ago
        I call BS on the FAANG statement. I work at FAANG and 80% SWEs use MBPs, actually if we go by literal meaning of FAANG company list, they do not even focus on desktop software and are mostly web companies and the tooling is all backend where SWE machines do not do any heavy lifting.
        wubrr 3y ago
        You work at FAANG and you can run your entire stack on MacOS? Which FAANG? Or you mean, you work at FAANG and you can run your web application which is 0.01% of the stack on your mac? > they do not even focus on desktop software and are mostly web companies and the tooling is all backend where SWE machines do not do any heavy lifting. The web frontend/ui is a relatively small portion of the development that goes on at typical FAANG. And the reason the macs 'do not do any heavy lifting' is because they literally can't - most of the complex backend systems, low low level/high performance code, etc can't be run on macos.
- toast0 3y ago
  Using tools from the base OS is really holding it wrong. Just like ftp.exe/Internet Explorer/Edge and Safari should only be used to download a usable browser, the Apple provided CLI tools should only be used to download the tools and versions of tools that you actually want. Otherwise, you have no way to control versioning anyway. When the OS version is tied to the version of so many other tools, it's a nightmare. Apple is trying to push you in the right direction by basically not updating the CLI tools ever, even when upstream didn't change the license to something unacceptable for them to distribute as in the case of bash.
  - wubrr 3y ago
    > Apple provided CLI tools should only be used to download the tools and versions of tools that you actually want. Why? Why do I need to use 3rd party package managers, or manual installations from 3rd party sources to install common tools that aren't a decade+ outdated? > When the OS version is tied to the version of so many other tools, it's a nightmare. It doesn't need to be tied to anything. If the OS needs specific libraries/tools then they can be installed in a separate location. If there are new major versions of user-level tools (like bash) those should come by default, not some 15 year old version of the same tool, with the same license. Multiple linux distros have solved these problems in different ways 10+ years ago. > Apple is trying to push you in the right direction by basically not updating the CLI tools ever No, they are just neglecting the CLI ecosystem, the package management, and the many many outstanding bugs that have existed and been ignored for years.
    - spacedcowboy 3y ago
      Because the newer tools changed the licensing terms, and the corporate lawyers won’t let anything under GPL3 anywhere near anything if they can help it. GPL2 was viral, but the terms were easier to stomach. Apple is allergic to GPLv3 code because there is a clause in the license requiring you provide a way to run modified version of the software which would require Apple to let users self sign executables. This is a simple result of the GPL going where Apple will not, so OSX is stuck with whatever is MIT, BSD, Apache, or GPL2 licensed. I like the GPL, I license my open source stuff under it, but it doesn’t work for all cases. Apple is fine with not using software licensed under the GPL, when it conflicts with other company principles. Simple as.
- skuhn 3y ago
  Unfortunately this will never be fixed. It's not a technical problem. They refuse to ship software licensed under GPL v3, and bash 3.2 is the final GPL v2 version. I hate it.
  - tcmart14 3y ago
    Didn't they stop 'shipping' bash by default awhile ago? Now the default shell is zsh?
    - skuhn 3y ago
      bash is still shipped on macos 14, the default shell is zsh since 10.15 in 2019.
  - Someone 3y ago
    I wonder why they haven’t fixed it yet by removing bash and the other GPL-licensed tools. Even if they currently need one to boot the system, they have the resources to change that.
    - iAMkenough 3y ago
      I refuse to drop Samba and go back to AFP
      - Someone 3y ago
        Are you sure you’re using Samba? AFAIK, Apple removed that years ago (I think because it’s GPLv3 licensed) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Message_Block#Netsmb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Message_Block#Netsmb: “NSMB (Netsmb and SMBFS) is a family of in-kernel SMB client implementations in BSD operating systems. It was first contributed to FreeBSD 4.4 by Boris Popov, and is now found in a wide range of other BSD systems including NetBSD and macOS“ https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/03/23/inside_mac_os_x_10_7_lion_server_apple_replaces_samba_for_windows_networking_services https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/03/23/inside_mac_os_x_1...: “The upcoming release of Mac OS X 10.7 Lion Server will remove the formerly bundled open source Samba software and replace it with Apple's own tools for Windows file sharing and network directory services” I also think they complete removed AFP support.
- jlokier 3y ago
  > Why? Why do I need to use 3rd party package managers, or manual installations from 3rd party sources to install common tools that aren't a decade+ outdated? There actually is a reason. It's not lack of maintenance. It's because Bash 3.2 is the last version licensed as GPLv2. Bash 4.0 and later changed license to GPLv3. Apple decided it's not safe for them to ship any software with GPLv3 with macOS, because of stronger legal conditions in GPLv3. This is also the reason they stopped updating Samba. They changed the default shell to Zsh long ago. The old Bash is kept around, so that users who want to stick with Bash can still use it as their shell, and so that existing scripts for macOS (for example in installers) continue to work. If nobody cared about Bash, I expect they would have dropped it from macOS when switching to Zsh, rather than keeping the old version. So from a certain point of view, Bash 3.2 is the most recent version they can ship. As for other tools like "cp", "ls", "rm", "touch", etc. I agree they are annoying on macOS, when you are used to the versatile GNU/Linux command line options. I sometimes type options after filename arguments due to habit on Linux. macOS commands very annoyingly treats those options as filenames instead. And I miss options like "touch --date". However, this is not due to old tools. Those differences are just how up current (up to date) BSD commands work. They are just a different unix lineage than Linux. The GNU tools were intentionally written to be more user-friendly than traditional UNIX™ tools, which is why the command line options are generally nicer. GNU/Linux systems come with GNU tools of course. macOS never did because it is derived from BSD and comes with BSD tools (with Apple enhancements, like "cp -c"). You get the same on most other unix environments that are not GNU/Linux. People install the GNU tools on top, if they want the GNU command line experience instead of the default. Sometimes with the "g" prefix (like "gls", "gtouch" etc.). These days, even if Apple decided it's worth the technical fallout of switching from BSD command line tools to GNU, they wouldn't do it for the same legal reason as what keeps Bash at 3.2: The current GNU tools are licensed as GPLv3.
  - Nullabillity 3y ago
    > So from a certain point of view, Bash 3.2 is the most recent version they can ship. Apple could choose to be GPLv3 compliant tomorrow, if they wanted to.
    - 3y ago

shepherdjerred 3y ago

> CLI tools/shell is attempting to follow more-or-less standardish unix/linux setup but fails pretty hard, with many of the same commands existing but behaving just differently enough to be annoying. macOS is UNIX certified and POSIX compliant. You're probably expecting GNU commands, but macOS is based off of FreeBSD (and is not related Linux).

wubrr 3y ago
First of all unix/freebsd/linux are all closely related. Second, macos does not come with current freebsd set of CLI tools, and in fact comes with several very outdated GNU CLI tools.
- shepherdjerred 3y ago
  Yes, macOS does include some GNU programs, and both the FreeBSD and GNU programs that it includes are rather outdated.

zaphar 3y ago

CLI tools/shell is attempting to follow more-or-less standardish unix/linux setup but fails pretty hard, with many of the same commands existing but behaving just differently enough to be annoying. They wasn't following unix/Linux standards they are following unix/bsd standards. Standards that predate Linux and for some of us are very familiar indeed.

wubrr 3y ago
What standards are those exactly? Everyone knows that macos (and windows) took a lot from unix/bsd. But that does not mean they are actively following any kind of reasonable modern standard. And saying they might be following some 30 year old supposed bsd standard is pretty hilarious for an OS that portends to be cutting-edge, intuitive and well-integrated.
- masswerk 3y ago
  Hum, BSD is still very much around.

_gabe_ 3y ago

I think the buggy apps and UI isn’t emphasized enough on Macs. I honestly can’t remember the last time I was on Windows and performing an action failed to give me any visual indicator whatsoever that something happened, but that’s common on my M2. I’ll click something, have no feedback, and then a few seconds later the thing happens. Just a couple concrete examples, if you open an app in a workspace, then switch screens to a different workspace, then click the app in the dock, nothing happens. I would expect to be taken to the screen and have the app made visible, but instead, nothing. I kept thinking that the app must be frozen or something until I switched screens and found it. Another example, I was carrying my laptop to and from work. I put it in my backpack with padding that protects the laptop. I didn’t jostle it around, I literally just carried it to and from work. I get home and the screen is in some sort of weird flickering bugged out state. I had to forcefully restart it just to get it working again. With all that said, the trackpads and gestures on Macs are amazing. The displays are also very visually appealing. The performance is good.

wtallis 3y ago
> I honestly can’t remember the last time I was on Windows and performing an action failed to give me any visual indicator whatsoever that something happened I find that more often than not I can't make it through the Windows setup without worse janky stuff happening. Pretty often when toggling off all the bullshit privacy settings that shouldn't be opt-out to begin with, I'll get a visual indication of the switch starting to move after my click, then turning around and going back to the default—so my click was definitely received, but rejected somehow. That seems worse to me than a correct response delayed. > if you open an app in a workspace, then switch screens to a different workspace, then click the app in the dock, nothing happens. I would expect to be taken to the screen and have the app made visible, but instead, nothing. There is a visual indication in that the contents of the menu bar change to reflect the newly active app; unlike on Windows a Mac app can be active without having an active or foreground window. There's a system setting to control whether to switch spaces in this scenario, but I don't recall whether the behavior you describe is the default or something you accidentally configured to annoy you.
- 3y ago

nvarsj 3y ago

I was always kind of puzzled that big tech companies seem to exclusively use Macs for software dev. Then when I joined one, I discovered that everyone uses remote Linux VMs for actual development. Which makes a lot more sense - Macbook as a glorified thin client with great battery life suits it pretty well. Although, I still sorely miss Linux/Windows window management.

BigJ1211 3y ago

As someone who uses Windows, Arch with Hyperland and MacOS almost daily. I am immensely curious about what you find inconsistent and buggy about macOS? In my experience that’s been the least buggy and inconsistent of the three. My Mac and Linux shortcuts align more than my Windows and Linux/Mac ones. For the most used ones it’s CMD + whatever the standard key is for that shortcut, instead of Control. Overal I prefer that the Super key is more useful than what has been the default for many years with Windows. I also use the CLI for virtually everything on Mac and Linux, MacOS isn’t all that different and feels more like another Linux flavour than it’s own beast. The only UI gripes I can think off immediately is no window snapping and closing the window doesn’t mean you’ve exited the application. The first requires a third-party tool (I recommend Rectangle), the latter is a change in behaviour. Frankly I’m not really all that interested in defending MacOS, but I hope you realise that saying “very buggy and inconsistent” without naming anything specific isn’t any less vague and ambiguous than “usability and comfort”. Your reaction comes off as “I’m used to this, therefore the other thing is bad and unintuitive.” I’m sure this isn’t your intention, so specifics would be illuminating.

wubrr 3y ago
> I am immensely curious about what you find inconsistent and buggy about macOS? I posted a list of recent issues I've run into elsewhere in the thread, but there are many bugs and inconsistencies in macos: - Doc breaking/becoming inaccessible. - Running app windows disappearing/becoming inaccessible. - Cursor/caret disappearing when editing text. - Can't move windows between workspaces. - Constant issues with external monitors. - Switching between windows via command-tab regularly breaks. These are all well-known issues that have existed for years. If you google them you will find threads and workaround from 5+ years ago. > My Mac and Linux shortcuts align more than my Windows and Linux/Mac ones Because.. you changed your linux shortcuts to match macos? The most obvious example is that ctrl+c/s/v etc are instead command+c/s/v on macos. > I hope you realise that saying “very buggy and inconsistent” without naming anything specific isn’t any less vague and ambiguous than “usability and comfort”. There are literally dozens of examples of issues listed in this thread. I hope you realize that saying 'give me examples' when there are many many examples all around the post your replying too is a bit disingenuous. I can't keep repeat ing what I've already posted in the thread in every single comment.

deergomoo 3y ago

> Uses it's own set of shortcuts, different from what's standard on windows/linux Mac OS predates both. Also, this is personal preference, but I find engaging Command with my thumb far more comfortable than Control with my pinky.