3 ms·

That's not an unfair comparison, because those are their intended use cases. You're looking at a Porsche and bitching that it sucks at offroading. Your compari

That's not an unfair comparison, because those are their intended use cases. You're looking at a Porsche and bitching that it sucks at offroading. Your comparison would make more sense if it was about making a car made by Porsche drive on roads not made by Porsche. Which everyone agrees is absolutely reasonable. What you're trying to sell me is the idea that poor compatibility is a feature? It was designed to have poor compatibility despite being built for a standardized platform, so that makes it a porsche? When I try to get OSX running in our VMWare cluster so that we have clonable, snapshottable machines for testing and debugging and it takes a week of effort not getting it working, you're telling me that's a "feature"? Yeah, sorry. I don't buy that.

PhasmaFelis 12y ago
> What you're trying to sell me is the idea that poor compatibility is a feature? No. I'm telling you that broad compatibility is a feature that is genuinely unnecessary for a significant set of users. I'm not one of them, BTW. I've got my MacBook Pro for toting around, my Windows desktop for gaming, a Linux box for streaming, sharing, and storage, and an Android phone for phone stuff. Each of them does what I need it to. Horses for courses. But there are plenty of people whose use case is "I need an OS that works as soon as I unbox the laptop." For those people, compatibility is not an issue, nor should it be.