4 ms·

Not being completely "comfortable" (I'd say satisfied) is a given for any software choice. Nothing is perfect and everything is a tradeoff. Linux presents no s

Not being completely "comfortable" (I'd say satisfied) is a given for any software choice. Nothing is perfect and everything is a tradeoff. Linux presents no shortage of compromises itself. You could just as well say that if you're not satisfied with native Linux software, then you're not satisfied, or "comfortable", with Linux. This example is especially humorous since you might very well end up bringing another OS into the fold (to virtualize or, heaven forbid, emulate). That's about as strong a signal of dissatisfaction as they come.

teddyh 2y ago
There is a crucial difference. With macOS, if Apple does some change to it, you just… live with it. If you’re not comfortable with the direction the author is taking macOS, you probably are not trusting that author in general, and hence probably should abstain from using it. With Linux, it is created by a myriad of creators, and you can freely mix and match. Don’t like what Ubuntu is changing? Use Debian! Don’t like what Gnome is doing? Use KDE! You can completely avoid whatever entity is doing what you consider questionable things, if you so choose. But with macOS, you have macOS from Apple, period. You can’t differentiate between departments or individual authors within Apple; it’s all a monolithic entity. Therefore, if you disagree with a single bit of macOS, like SIP, you can’t remove SIP (and its authors) from your macOS. It’s all macOS from Apple, and you can’t portion out and choose your trust.