8 ms·

A lot of us would prefer MS/Apple to never be within touching range of our hardware.

dhosek 4mo ago
On the other hand, your “us” is not very big compared to your “not us.” I like Linux as a server OS (and would pick it over Windows or MacOS for that any day of the week that ends in y), but as a desktop OS it’s just more work than I care to exert (in fact, Windows also exceeds my tolerance for fiddliness in a desktop OS). My general preference is for “you don’t have to” over “you can” as much as possible which is the exact opposite of the Linux desktop experience.
- bigyabai 4mo ago
  macOS and Windows are both such a chore for development, though. WSL was the closest I got to an "it just works" dev environment, but it exposes just how bad native toolchains like Cygwin and git bash are. macOS is hardly any better, and once you manage to install all of the GNU utilities it just feels like a poorly-supported Linux distro. It's a bunch of wasted effort to imitate a fraction of Linux's power. So what are we supposed to use? ReactOS? SerenityOS? The entire mainstream is a "you have to..." OS, I fear the day when I have to abandon GNOME for a desktop that treats developers like chopped liver. Your general preference is fine, but I'm surprised that it aligns with the OEMs that want to put advertisements all over your desktop.
  - nomel 4mo ago
    > it just feels like a poorly-supported Linux distro. That's because it's Unix, not Linux.
    - bigyabai 4mo ago
      macOS, as shipped, is only Unix-like. Even when configured to pass UNIX certification, it doesn't qualify without the temporary waivers: if you want your installation of macOS 15.0 to pass the UNIX® 03 certification test suites, you need to disable System Integrity Protection, enable the root account, enable core file generation, disable timeout coalescing, mount any APFS partitions with the strictatime option, format your APFS partitions case-sensitive (by default, APFS is case-insensitive, so you’ll need to reinstall), disable Spotlight, copy the binaries uucp, uuname, uustat, and uux from /usr/bin to /usr/local/bin and the binaries uucico and uuxqt from /usr/sbin to /usr/local/bin, set the setuid bit on all of these binaries, add /usr/local/bin to your PATH before /usr/bin and /usr/sbin, enable the uucp service, and handle the mystery issues listed in the four Temporary Waivers. [1] Maybe your installation of macOS is technically Unix, but mine sure as hell ain't. Desktop "Unix" in 2026 is little more than lipstick on a pig anyhow. [1] https://www.osnews.com/story/141633/apples-macos-unix-certification-is-a-lie/ https://www.osnews.com/story/141633/apples-macos-unix-certif...
      - duskwuff 4mo ago
        As an aside: > ... copy the binaries uucp, uuname, uustat, and uux from /usr/bin to /usr/local/bin and the binaries uucico and uuxqt from /usr/sbin to /usr/local/bin ... This should be your hint that UNIX certification is more of a box-checking exercise than a real test of functionality. UUCP has been functionally obsolete since at least the mid-1990s; it's surprising that macOS even bothers shipping its binaries, and it's exceptionally silly that UNIX certification requires it to be present and installed in /usr/local.
        wtallis 4mo ago
        It doesn't look like the certification requires those UUCP binaries to be in /usr/local, that's just where you have to put them on macOS to be able to `chmod +s` them, which is what the certification actually requires. Less arbitrary, but even more clearly obsolete and bad practice for a modern OS.
        duskwuff 4mo ago
        Oh, that makes more sense. I'm still not sure why you couldn't give the binaries setuid in their default locations, given that compliance testing also requires SIP to be disabled - but, in any case, at least they aren't setuid by default. Anyways, "real UNIX systems must implement UUCP" is still extremely silly.
        comex 4mo ago
        Disabling SIP still leaves the root filesystem as read-only and signature-checked (this is referred to as SSV, 'signed system volume'). There is a separate command to disable SSV, but it breaks the ability to install OS updates and is rarely used. /usr/local is one of the paths that's redirected to the read-write data volume.
      - spockz 4mo ago
        I get most of this, but spotlight doesn’t need to be disabled altogether. That is a requirement for the verification, not the actually running as unix.
  - dhosek 4mo ago
    I don’t use Windows so I don’t have advertisements on my desktop. I have had very little friction with using MacOS for development.
happyopossum 4mo ago
Then maybe a "lot of" you should not be buying Apple hardware?
- 13415 4mo ago
  Or Apple could just fix these issues.
  - jjtheblunt 4mo ago
    what issues are you referencing?

On the other hand, your “us” is not very big compared to your “not us.” I like Linux as a server OS (and would pick it over Windows or MacOS for that any day of the week that ends in y), but as a desktop OS it’s just more work than I care to exert (in fact, Windows also exceeds my tolerance for fiddliness in a desktop OS). My general preference is for “you don’t have to” over “you can” as much as possible which is the exact opposite of the Linux desktop experience.

bigyabai 4mo ago
macOS and Windows are both such a chore for development, though. WSL was the closest I got to an "it just works" dev environment, but it exposes just how bad native toolchains like Cygwin and git bash are. macOS is hardly any better, and once you manage to install all of the GNU utilities it just feels like a poorly-supported Linux distro. It's a bunch of wasted effort to imitate a fraction of Linux's power. So what are we supposed to use? ReactOS? SerenityOS? The entire mainstream is a "you have to..." OS, I fear the day when I have to abandon GNOME for a desktop that treats developers like chopped liver. Your general preference is fine, but I'm surprised that it aligns with the OEMs that want to put advertisements all over your desktop.
- nomel 4mo ago
  > it just feels like a poorly-supported Linux distro. That's because it's Unix, not Linux.
  - bigyabai 4mo ago
    macOS, as shipped, is only Unix-like. Even when configured to pass UNIX certification, it doesn't qualify without the temporary waivers: if you want your installation of macOS 15.0 to pass the UNIX® 03 certification test suites, you need to disable System Integrity Protection, enable the root account, enable core file generation, disable timeout coalescing, mount any APFS partitions with the strictatime option, format your APFS partitions case-sensitive (by default, APFS is case-insensitive, so you’ll need to reinstall), disable Spotlight, copy the binaries uucp, uuname, uustat, and uux from /usr/bin to /usr/local/bin and the binaries uucico and uuxqt from /usr/sbin to /usr/local/bin, set the setuid bit on all of these binaries, add /usr/local/bin to your PATH before /usr/bin and /usr/sbin, enable the uucp service, and handle the mystery issues listed in the four Temporary Waivers. [1] Maybe your installation of macOS is technically Unix, but mine sure as hell ain't. Desktop "Unix" in 2026 is little more than lipstick on a pig anyhow. [1] https://www.osnews.com/story/141633/apples-macos-unix-certification-is-a-lie/ https://www.osnews.com/story/141633/apples-macos-unix-certif...
    - duskwuff 4mo ago
      As an aside: > ... copy the binaries uucp, uuname, uustat, and uux from /usr/bin to /usr/local/bin and the binaries uucico and uuxqt from /usr/sbin to /usr/local/bin ... This should be your hint that UNIX certification is more of a box-checking exercise than a real test of functionality. UUCP has been functionally obsolete since at least the mid-1990s; it's surprising that macOS even bothers shipping its binaries, and it's exceptionally silly that UNIX certification requires it to be present and installed in /usr/local.
      - wtallis 4mo ago
        It doesn't look like the certification requires those UUCP binaries to be in /usr/local, that's just where you have to put them on macOS to be able to `chmod +s` them, which is what the certification actually requires. Less arbitrary, but even more clearly obsolete and bad practice for a modern OS.
        duskwuff 4mo ago
        Oh, that makes more sense. I'm still not sure why you couldn't give the binaries setuid in their default locations, given that compliance testing also requires SIP to be disabled - but, in any case, at least they aren't setuid by default. Anyways, "real UNIX systems must implement UUCP" is still extremely silly.
        comex 4mo ago
        Disabling SIP still leaves the root filesystem as read-only and signature-checked (this is referred to as SSV, 'signed system volume'). There is a separate command to disable SSV, but it breaks the ability to install OS updates and is rarely used. /usr/local is one of the paths that's redirected to the read-write data volume.
    - spockz 4mo ago
      I get most of this, but spotlight doesn’t need to be disabled altogether. That is a requirement for the verification, not the actually running as unix.
- dhosek 4mo ago
  I don’t use Windows so I don’t have advertisements on my desktop. I have had very little friction with using MacOS for development.

happyopossum 4mo ago

Then maybe a "lot of" you should not be buying Apple hardware?

13415 4mo ago
Or Apple could just fix these issues.
- jjtheblunt 4mo ago
  what issues are you referencing?