7 ms·

> Perhaps developers need to test on something other than MacBooks? This. So much this. I've gotten down-voted in the past for being really harsh on Macs, th

> Perhaps developers need to test on something other than MacBooks? This. So much this. I've gotten down-voted in the past for being really harsh on Macs, this is because I've worked places where the company would only issue MacBooks to its developers, and requests for non-Macs were denied by a blanket policy. So I kind of hold a grudge that's more fairly directed at the companies rather than Apple (but still, Apple's "our way or the highway" approach is antithetical to my way of interacting with computers). These company policies not only affect developer productivity when your engineers have decades of experience training themselves to be productive on their non-Mac system of choice, but it gets so much dumber when your company officially supports non-Mac-using users.

wodenokoto 3y ago
Isn’t the reverse just as stupid? Like, my company only dishes out Dells. I’m harsh on dell, but it’s not because of a company supplier contract.
- OJFord 3y ago
  The non-stupid reverse would be not to deny the requests for non-macs? So you'd have a mix of Dell Inspirons (or whatever) and MacBooks according to what was requested; some Edge users, some Chrome/Firefox but on Windows or Linux users, etc.
- gspencley 3y ago
  Well, yeah. For the productivity reason it's weird to tell engineers that they must use either a PC or Mac (and forget blanket "PC", if you're most productive on Linux or FreeBSD then ideally engineers can use those). The one rationale that makes sense to me when it comes to restricting choice to a certain degree is the ability for IT to remote-wipe if necessary. How important that is will depend on context. At my current place of work, most company data is accessed through various web applications so if the computer were compromised, there is no sensitive data kept locally that would require wiping. Though I suppose it could be argued that browser caches could be sensitive, and even if you couldn't sign on to those web apps, due to MFA, an attacker could still get information about procedures and tech used that would get them closer. But if they're using JAMF or something they can at least support Windows and Mac. The only other reason that I can think of that a company would have such a policy is economic... but lost productivity and user frustration is a hidden cost, so how real the economic advantages of standardizing are is something I question.
- diffeomorphism 3y ago
  The reverse of "only macs" is not "only dells" but "not only ... but a mixture of".
hunter2_ 3y ago
Best of both worlds: standardize on issuing one system (probably Mac) that is authorized for sensitive company things like coding, email, VPN, and essentially all actions that change official state; and then also give a budget for test devices that get absolutely no more access or authorization than a device bought at any retailer for consumer use (phones, tablets, computers, VR headsets, etc.). Anyone using the latter for unauthorized purposes (more than just testing with the same methods that any user of the product could do) would be equally insubordinate as if they used their own personal funds to acquire the device, since they're equivalently unmanaged. Testing is more thorough, and endpoint management remains focused on just the one authorized system.
- gspencley 3y ago
  That's not the "best of both worlds." From a customer perspective, sure, you're ensuring that the product is well supported on their devices. That makes sense. But that's "the best of one world", not "both." The other half of the equation is developer experience and productivity. I'm not going to blanket bash Mac or Apple, because many people love their devices. But being someone who has used computers since the 1980s, who has vision difficulties (the fonts and inability to adjust them on MacBooks actually cause me headaches) and is extremely accustomed to a particular workflow, keyboard layout, shortcuts, the ability to customize all aspects of the desktop environment ... I find the experience of using MacOS 8 hours per day to be intolerable. To pour salt on the wound, the new habits that I started forming on the work devices began interfering with my use of personal devices (suddenly muscle memory was getting confused). And yes, it's my choice where to work. The last time I got downvoted for expressing this opinion, I said that I almost resigned due to this. Had the company not been able to accommodate me (the CEO was actually surprised to learn that IT had instituted a blanket policy and said "that's dumb, of course we will issue PCs to those who request them") then I would have eventually found work elsewhere because it was that big of a misalignment for me. And I tried to adjust for a year and a half before finding myself in the position where I was really thinking that I couldn't do it anymore. People who have grown up using Macs, or who feel comfortable using either or, cannot empathazise with this position. But after 40 years of being a programmer, having high functioning autism and thus being inflexible in routines and habits, my computer and my way of interacting with it is almost an extension of me. When you mess with that tool, my productivity and morale drops very significantly. And having spoken with others in these environments, I know that I'm not the only one. But, again, this isn't really trying to bash Mac, it's attacking a policy that ignores that software engineers are most productive on certain systems vs others and that those choices are deeply personal. Again, security is only one factor. An important one, but you can't have "best of both worlds" while ignoring one massive "world" that I was talking about.
ajsnigrutin 3y ago
Also, give out old phones with old software... if you want to target 90% of the smartphone population, optimize for whatever phone (performance-wise) is in the 10th worst percentile. Also do bandwidth testing on slower speeds... 120mb autoplaying video on mobile is stupid, but stuff like that appears way too often, because noone tests it outside of newest phones on highest speeds possible.
- kps 3y ago
  This isn't even hard — desktop Chrome dev tools quite prominently provide emulation of mobile screen sizes and bandwidth throttling.
- grishka 3y ago
  To be fair, any autoplaying video is stupid. The whole concept was invented to inflate metrics and manipulate user behavior for the benefit of the app/site owner.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
    Don't browsers block auto video by default?
    - grishka 3y ago
      They do but only if it's with sound on. I really wish there was a browser that would simply treat <video> as an unknown tag unless you explicitly allow that particular website to play video.
- qingcharles 3y ago
  This. I used to buy old cellphones on eBay to test with to prove that stuff worked OK on really shitty hardware. p.s. please everyone: factory reset your phones before you sell them :)
FabHK 3y ago
To be fair, they should not only test on something other than a MacBook, but also on a few machines with low RAM, old/different browsers, slow connections, ad blockers, JavaScript disabled, etc. etc.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

wodenokoto 3y ago

Isn’t the reverse just as stupid? Like, my company only dishes out Dells. I’m harsh on dell, but it’s not because of a company supplier contract.

OJFord 3y ago
The non-stupid reverse would be not to deny the requests for non-macs? So you'd have a mix of Dell Inspirons (or whatever) and MacBooks according to what was requested; some Edge users, some Chrome/Firefox but on Windows or Linux users, etc.
gspencley 3y ago
Well, yeah. For the productivity reason it's weird to tell engineers that they must use either a PC or Mac (and forget blanket "PC", if you're most productive on Linux or FreeBSD then ideally engineers can use those). The one rationale that makes sense to me when it comes to restricting choice to a certain degree is the ability for IT to remote-wipe if necessary. How important that is will depend on context. At my current place of work, most company data is accessed through various web applications so if the computer were compromised, there is no sensitive data kept locally that would require wiping. Though I suppose it could be argued that browser caches could be sensitive, and even if you couldn't sign on to those web apps, due to MFA, an attacker could still get information about procedures and tech used that would get them closer. But if they're using JAMF or something they can at least support Windows and Mac. The only other reason that I can think of that a company would have such a policy is economic... but lost productivity and user frustration is a hidden cost, so how real the economic advantages of standardizing are is something I question.
diffeomorphism 3y ago
The reverse of "only macs" is not "only dells" but "not only ... but a mixture of".

hunter2_ 3y ago

Best of both worlds: standardize on issuing one system (probably Mac) that is authorized for sensitive company things like coding, email, VPN, and essentially all actions that change official state; and then also give a budget for test devices that get absolutely no more access or authorization than a device bought at any retailer for consumer use (phones, tablets, computers, VR headsets, etc.). Anyone using the latter for unauthorized purposes (more than just testing with the same methods that any user of the product could do) would be equally insubordinate as if they used their own personal funds to acquire the device, since they're equivalently unmanaged. Testing is more thorough, and endpoint management remains focused on just the one authorized system.

gspencley 3y ago
That's not the "best of both worlds." From a customer perspective, sure, you're ensuring that the product is well supported on their devices. That makes sense. But that's "the best of one world", not "both." The other half of the equation is developer experience and productivity. I'm not going to blanket bash Mac or Apple, because many people love their devices. But being someone who has used computers since the 1980s, who has vision difficulties (the fonts and inability to adjust them on MacBooks actually cause me headaches) and is extremely accustomed to a particular workflow, keyboard layout, shortcuts, the ability to customize all aspects of the desktop environment ... I find the experience of using MacOS 8 hours per day to be intolerable. To pour salt on the wound, the new habits that I started forming on the work devices began interfering with my use of personal devices (suddenly muscle memory was getting confused). And yes, it's my choice where to work. The last time I got downvoted for expressing this opinion, I said that I almost resigned due to this. Had the company not been able to accommodate me (the CEO was actually surprised to learn that IT had instituted a blanket policy and said "that's dumb, of course we will issue PCs to those who request them") then I would have eventually found work elsewhere because it was that big of a misalignment for me. And I tried to adjust for a year and a half before finding myself in the position where I was really thinking that I couldn't do it anymore. People who have grown up using Macs, or who feel comfortable using either or, cannot empathazise with this position. But after 40 years of being a programmer, having high functioning autism and thus being inflexible in routines and habits, my computer and my way of interacting with it is almost an extension of me. When you mess with that tool, my productivity and morale drops very significantly. And having spoken with others in these environments, I know that I'm not the only one. But, again, this isn't really trying to bash Mac, it's attacking a policy that ignores that software engineers are most productive on certain systems vs others and that those choices are deeply personal. Again, security is only one factor. An important one, but you can't have "best of both worlds" while ignoring one massive "world" that I was talking about.

ajsnigrutin 3y ago

Also, give out old phones with old software... if you want to target 90% of the smartphone population, optimize for whatever phone (performance-wise) is in the 10th worst percentile. Also do bandwidth testing on slower speeds... 120mb autoplaying video on mobile is stupid, but stuff like that appears way too often, because noone tests it outside of newest phones on highest speeds possible.

kps 3y ago
This isn't even hard — desktop Chrome dev tools quite prominently provide emulation of mobile screen sizes and bandwidth throttling.
grishka 3y ago
To be fair, any autoplaying video is stupid. The whole concept was invented to inflate metrics and manipulate user behavior for the benefit of the app/site owner.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
  Don't browsers block auto video by default?
  - grishka 3y ago
    They do but only if it's with sound on. I really wish there was a browser that would simply treat <video> as an unknown tag unless you explicitly allow that particular website to play video.
qingcharles 3y ago
This. I used to buy old cellphones on eBay to test with to prove that stuff worked OK on really shitty hardware. p.s. please everyone: factory reset your phones before you sell them :)

FabHK 3y ago

To be fair, they should not only test on something other than a MacBook, but also on a few machines with low RAM, old/different browsers, slow connections, ad blockers, JavaScript disabled, etc. etc.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]