3 ms·

The problem isn't that MacOS doesn't work, it's that MacOS doesn't work _and_ you can't fix the things that don't work. You can anticipate "the linux brigade"

The problem isn't that MacOS doesn't work, it's that MacOS doesn't work _and_ you can't fix the things that don't work. You can anticipate "the linux brigade" because it works well for many of us. This isn't to say there _aren't_ problems. Bluetooth, audio, etc. working all depend on having the luck that someone wrote good drivers for the device you want to install Linux on. When you do have a problem, you don't have the benefit of having many people on your same configuration like you do with Apple. You might find yourself troubleshooting as the only person with your specific combo of dongle, mobo, cpu, distro, and kernel. I've been on Linux since 2009 and MacOS since 2021. I've never had a bluetooth problem with Linux but I've had a ton on MacOS (but that might just be airpods). The nice thing about Linux is that you have control over all your problems. On MacOS, if you have a solvable problem, the solution is often either "Pray that Apple fixes it in the next release" or "The fix for that costs $10 per month and it'll clog up your app switcher". On Linux, if you have a solvable problem, the solution is often "go into the settings for your distribution" or "install this tweak tool" or "find someone who had it before on a support forum and follow their steps". It's not unreasonable that someone who is fed up with unsolvable problems on MacOS would find Linux more appealing. It's not a naive mindset, it's just how things are.

sivers 8mo ago
Thanks for this very important point. It often gets lost in the discussion. The big idea with Linux/BSD/fully-open-source is that you can fix whatever you don't like. That was the breaking point for me with Tahoe. I never loved MacOS before that, but it never got in the way. Then with Tahoe, it got in the way, so I went to fix it, and found out that fixing it is actually impossible! That was the breakup moment. Sophisticated LLMs make it even easier to fix or tweak any Linux/BSD/fully-open-source software to our liking.
- tpmoney 8mo ago
  > The big idea with Linux/BSD/fully-open-source is that you can fix whatever you don't like. That's a great theory, and sometimes it's actually true, but in reality for most users most of the time, Linux is as "fixable" as Windows or macOS, because most people, even the technically savvy ones aren't driver developers. Heck most software developers probably aren't even C programmers anymore. And even if someone had the competency in the language and low level system programming, do they have the time and the inclination to re-write the audio stack so that it finally works correctly? Or to fix the fact that even in 2026, sleep and hibernate are hit and miss? And then to maintain their patch against future system updates or go through the process of getting it upstreamed? Most Linux users, and especially most Linux users switching from something like macOS or Windows would be waiting and hoping that someone else decided to fix the thing for them because they either lack the skills, time or inclination to do it themselves. And we know this is true because if it weren't true, all the various "wars" over the years like systemd and pulse audio and wayland wouldn't have been a war at all because everyone who didn't like it would have easily patched it out and moved on. But a modern full fledged OS experience is a mess of intertwined and complex dependencies. So when a distro decides to switch a big chunk of the underlying stack like that, most people either have to go along with it, or hope that enough people feel strongly enough about it to fork everything and make their own distro, and then they have to hope the forkers have the passion and drive to maintain that for them. Yes, you "can" fix whatever you don't like in linux. Just like you "can" find all the information you need to diagnose and treat whatever medical condition you might have online and at your local libraries. But most people are still going to pay a doctor, because most people don't have the time or skills to actually do it.
  - jemmyw 8mo ago
    Does it matter? Generally Linux desktop distributions are made for the people who use them, who would tend towards people who will fix things. You mention distros but there obviously are a lot of passionate distro makers because right now it seems like there are more distros than ever. There are often comments on threads like this that go along the lines of "If only the people making Linux desktop did X then they'd get more people". But there there isn't really anyone making Linux on the desktop. It's not a product. Even the products within it are built on the work of people with very disparate interests. It's kind of amazing that we get a cobbled together working experience at all. Apple and Microsoft can focus on particular things, like getting more users, or supporting hardware they want to sell, or trying to get you to sign up to Office 365. No Linux desktop environment can have that kind of focus. So when you say it's not fixable to most users I think: well it's not supposed to be. It's not supposed to be anything, it just kind of is. Like coming across a mountain instead of a theme park - it's not a curated experience, it's not going to be for everyone, you might get hurt, but it's far far more beautiful.
    - tpmoney 8mo ago
      > Does it matter? It does matter if you're selling someone on the idea of switching away from their mac or windows machine that they're complaining about something the OS vendor has done by highlighting that with Linux they could "fix it themselves". It misses the point that most people don't want to "fix it themselves" and even if they had the inclination to that, for many problems they don't have the time or the skills. If someone is upset that Apple forced a move to Liquid Glass with Tahoe and all the bad UX that comes along with it, it's possible that they could also have the skills to fix their OS if they were equally upset that their chosen linux distro switched to Wayland. But it's more likely than not that they don't have those skills and so for that user, Linux is theoretically an OS they can fix, and practically just as likely to force them to accept the march of technology as any other OS they use.
      - jemmyw 8mo ago
        I personally wouldn't try to sell Linux to anyone and get them to switch. It is a futile game and I see no real reason for it. People will move if they have reason to (in any direction) and the best one can do is show and tell. I will tell people what I like using if they ask. I'm more likely to tell folks not to switch because I don't want to be technical support for anyone outside my household. I don't think anyone will switch from MacOS to Linux because of rounded corners. If they're really into theming it would make sense. Being able to fix things is also a bit of a vague statement. You can fix things in many different ways, and you can fix some things in every OS. Fixing might be writing your own code, or switching a theme, or an application, or a distro, or the whole OS. The level of lockdown then matters. MacOS has the greatest lockdown because you can't just get a new Macbook and fix it by installing something other than MacOS.
rafaelmn 8mo ago
You fix something then the next system update breaks everything. Depending on the machine mood and what I'm currently running slack/chrome will crash while attempting to screen share. Audio routing will get messed up randomly every time I need to use a DAW. Sorry but the level of stuff that Apple users complain about when they say "not working" is not comparable to the level of unreliability of linux for me - it's not even in the same class of reliability - Apple users are just spoiled and rightfully mad about the platform quality deteriorating. I'm not a Linux noob, I've been running linux desktop on and off for a long time (I remember ordering the free Ubuntu CD's and having to go to customs with my father at 14-15 so over 20 year probably - holly shit time flies). The last attempt was like a year ago for two months. Linux is still very much a hobby you pick up to run your computer for me and every colleague I see using it just confirms this even if they won't admit it (issues connecting to calls, unmuting, turning on camera, etc.). Like I'm annoyed that I can't use HDMI 2.1 via my USB 4 dock on Mac because it doesn't support some protocol, on Linux HDMI 2.1 on my AMD card is a no go from the start (unless I want to go with some random dude unofficial kernel driver patches). I still use my desktop as SSH workstation and run arch on it, but my client is MacOS - I just need something that works reliably for everyday productivity tasks.

sivers 8mo ago

Thanks for this very important point. It often gets lost in the discussion. The big idea with Linux/BSD/fully-open-source is that you can fix whatever you don't like. That was the breaking point for me with Tahoe. I never loved MacOS before that, but it never got in the way. Then with Tahoe, it got in the way, so I went to fix it, and found out that fixing it is actually impossible! That was the breakup moment. Sophisticated LLMs make it even easier to fix or tweak any Linux/BSD/fully-open-source software to our liking.

tpmoney 8mo ago
> The big idea with Linux/BSD/fully-open-source is that you can fix whatever you don't like. That's a great theory, and sometimes it's actually true, but in reality for most users most of the time, Linux is as "fixable" as Windows or macOS, because most people, even the technically savvy ones aren't driver developers. Heck most software developers probably aren't even C programmers anymore. And even if someone had the competency in the language and low level system programming, do they have the time and the inclination to re-write the audio stack so that it finally works correctly? Or to fix the fact that even in 2026, sleep and hibernate are hit and miss? And then to maintain their patch against future system updates or go through the process of getting it upstreamed? Most Linux users, and especially most Linux users switching from something like macOS or Windows would be waiting and hoping that someone else decided to fix the thing for them because they either lack the skills, time or inclination to do it themselves. And we know this is true because if it weren't true, all the various "wars" over the years like systemd and pulse audio and wayland wouldn't have been a war at all because everyone who didn't like it would have easily patched it out and moved on. But a modern full fledged OS experience is a mess of intertwined and complex dependencies. So when a distro decides to switch a big chunk of the underlying stack like that, most people either have to go along with it, or hope that enough people feel strongly enough about it to fork everything and make their own distro, and then they have to hope the forkers have the passion and drive to maintain that for them. Yes, you "can" fix whatever you don't like in linux. Just like you "can" find all the information you need to diagnose and treat whatever medical condition you might have online and at your local libraries. But most people are still going to pay a doctor, because most people don't have the time or skills to actually do it.
- jemmyw 8mo ago
  Does it matter? Generally Linux desktop distributions are made for the people who use them, who would tend towards people who will fix things. You mention distros but there obviously are a lot of passionate distro makers because right now it seems like there are more distros than ever. There are often comments on threads like this that go along the lines of "If only the people making Linux desktop did X then they'd get more people". But there there isn't really anyone making Linux on the desktop. It's not a product. Even the products within it are built on the work of people with very disparate interests. It's kind of amazing that we get a cobbled together working experience at all. Apple and Microsoft can focus on particular things, like getting more users, or supporting hardware they want to sell, or trying to get you to sign up to Office 365. No Linux desktop environment can have that kind of focus. So when you say it's not fixable to most users I think: well it's not supposed to be. It's not supposed to be anything, it just kind of is. Like coming across a mountain instead of a theme park - it's not a curated experience, it's not going to be for everyone, you might get hurt, but it's far far more beautiful.
  - tpmoney 8mo ago
    > Does it matter? It does matter if you're selling someone on the idea of switching away from their mac or windows machine that they're complaining about something the OS vendor has done by highlighting that with Linux they could "fix it themselves". It misses the point that most people don't want to "fix it themselves" and even if they had the inclination to that, for many problems they don't have the time or the skills. If someone is upset that Apple forced a move to Liquid Glass with Tahoe and all the bad UX that comes along with it, it's possible that they could also have the skills to fix their OS if they were equally upset that their chosen linux distro switched to Wayland. But it's more likely than not that they don't have those skills and so for that user, Linux is theoretically an OS they can fix, and practically just as likely to force them to accept the march of technology as any other OS they use.
    - jemmyw 8mo ago
      I personally wouldn't try to sell Linux to anyone and get them to switch. It is a futile game and I see no real reason for it. People will move if they have reason to (in any direction) and the best one can do is show and tell. I will tell people what I like using if they ask. I'm more likely to tell folks not to switch because I don't want to be technical support for anyone outside my household. I don't think anyone will switch from MacOS to Linux because of rounded corners. If they're really into theming it would make sense. Being able to fix things is also a bit of a vague statement. You can fix things in many different ways, and you can fix some things in every OS. Fixing might be writing your own code, or switching a theme, or an application, or a distro, or the whole OS. The level of lockdown then matters. MacOS has the greatest lockdown because you can't just get a new Macbook and fix it by installing something other than MacOS.

rafaelmn 8mo ago

You fix something then the next system update breaks everything. Depending on the machine mood and what I'm currently running slack/chrome will crash while attempting to screen share. Audio routing will get messed up randomly every time I need to use a DAW. Sorry but the level of stuff that Apple users complain about when they say "not working" is not comparable to the level of unreliability of linux for me - it's not even in the same class of reliability - Apple users are just spoiled and rightfully mad about the platform quality deteriorating. I'm not a Linux noob, I've been running linux desktop on and off for a long time (I remember ordering the free Ubuntu CD's and having to go to customs with my father at 14-15 so over 20 year probably - holly shit time flies). The last attempt was like a year ago for two months. Linux is still very much a hobby you pick up to run your computer for me and every colleague I see using it just confirms this even if they won't admit it (issues connecting to calls, unmuting, turning on camera, etc.). Like I'm annoyed that I can't use HDMI 2.1 via my USB 4 dock on Mac because it doesn't support some protocol, on Linux HDMI 2.1 on my AMD card is a no go from the start (unless I want to go with some random dude unofficial kernel driver patches). I still use my desktop as SSH workstation and run arch on it, but my client is MacOS - I just need something that works reliably for everyday productivity tasks.