When I used Mac OS X, everything was very shiny, but also not fully there, functionally.
You almost had everything you need, but those few packages that needed to be manually built. And that setting was almost reasonable, but not quite. And there was always something that could be worked around, but never get solved.
So yes, I could run MS Word without resorting to Wine, but I couldn't get any work done without working around many many small issues.
I was glad when that Mac broke down. It was the worst computer I ever had -- even when considering the ThinkPad I had before burst into flames one day -- because the software never worked as I expected it to.
And I'm too old to learn how to reuse my computer. Especially when I can get it running the way I like (as long as I don't use OS X, that is.)
I will second this. I used OS X for a year and hated how I had to fight it at every turn. It was a while ago, but when I had to install any package/library, it was a complete headache. Ports were worse, I once hosed my packages trying to upgrade one because it needed uninstalling everything and reinstalling them again one by one, but it didn't seem to like that.
Apart from development being a complete pain, the UI was designed for casual users. The virtual desktop implementation switched desktops on alt+tab, rendering desktops completely useless for separation of activities. There were many such small annoyances, and I was thoroughly glad to switch to Ubuntu in the end.
for a developer, os/x is a joke as a unix. and it is a loss of time for a developer since it is not present on servers and will never be. i recommend every developer to avoid os/x totally, since it doesn't add any useful business skill to your arsenal. just get the right compatible linux hw and make sure your client and server are inline.
i myself have lost 5 years in the mac world. there is no skill set i gained there, which made any sense in my dev work. i just remember annoyingly slow visual effects which make you lose a zillion seconds a year watching.
>When I used Mac OS X, everything was very shiny, but also not fully there, functionally. You almost had everything you need, but those few packages that needed to be manually built.
It seems like you wanted to use OS X for something it wasn't intended: a programming workstation to target Linux deployment.
Use a Virtual Machine for that. You'll get an environment like the one you deploy to, snapshots, easy backup, multiple versions of deployment environments with provisioning AND your desktop remains clean.
The reverse situation (trying to use a Linux system as a Desktop machine) is terribly IMHO. As soon as you step in common 2013 Desktop use (e.g edit the video files from your camera or use some proprietary software, hardware etc) you are in a world of pain.
I except from any desktop OS I use in 2013 FULL multimedia capabilities, consuming AND editing, and with a large variety of software offerings to chose from for each.
Now, if you're satisfied with just a terminal a browser window and a way to play mp3 and avis, sure, use Linux.
What was your tech stack? What problems did you run into?
I'm surprised, because I imagine that's how a big fraction of developers here on HN work, and I've very rarely heard that complaint before.
People try to use a Desktop OS like OS X like a development workstation targeting Linux and the full Linux userland and then complain.
Go to any developer's conference and it's 80+ MBP and Air's with OS X. Do you hear them bitch?
Use a Virtual Machine or a remote/cloud etc server like the pros do. It's 2013. It's not rocket science.
"Oh, I tried installing something and I broke my MacPorts" -- well, cry me a river.
Do you know how many times I (and millions of people) have struggled with borked RPMs and DEBS, external repos not being totally compatible, latest stuff only being available on experimental repos, having to revert to manual compilation, messing with hardware drivers et all in Linux?
I think he's saying that he replaced Ubuntu 12.04 with OS X. Now he's using the same software, but the command-line tools have fewer features and it costs more money.
(VLC, Transmission, Chrome + Flash, etc. all work fine on Linux. If you must use Safari, though, OS X is probably the platform of choice. Also, if you have "minimalism concerns" you probably have some goal other than using your computer to be maximally productive.)
>I think he's saying that he replaced Ubuntu 12.04 with OS X. Now he's using the same software, but the command-line tools have fewer features and it costs more money.
Right, because all you use your desktop computer for is command-line tools.
Or because using Brew, MacPorts et al to upgrade all command-line tools (if one wants, since most of the newer "features" are things you'd use once in a blue moon if you're lucky anyway) is very difficult.
(Not to mention that lots of people don't do any work on their Desktop/Laptop's command line itself anyway, even in Linux, but in some remote system or a virtual machine...)
>Also, if you have "minimalism concerns" you probably have some goal other than using your computer to be maximally productive.
Except if, crazy I know, this "minimalist" thing actually helps you with being maximally productive, instead of being some guy spending his days tinkering with insignificant stuff and getting various bits to work together deluding himself he is achieving something...
>If you must use Safari, though, OS X is probably the platform of choice.
Or if you also want multimedia to work as GOD intended or do any work with them. Or if you want to run essential for tons of people proprietary applications not available for Linux, from the Creative Suite to Autocad to whatever...
Having a Desktop that works 99% of the time, and isn't made by amateur hour volunteers that either let things stagnate for ages (GTK+), or change their ideas every second month (from UI direction to media framework), is not "GUI frippery". Except if you spend all your time buried in the command line to begin with.
The only bad things about OS X are due to the proprietary and closed nature of some of the components (and the older versions used for some unix userland stuff). Implementation and experience wise, the whole desktop is miles ahead of Gnome/KDE.
Even Miguel De Icaza agrees, and he's the one of the handful who bloody started "Desktop Linux".
A lot of people complain about the Finder because other people do so.
I've used Unices since Sun OS days. I've used Linux for 15 years (from RedHat 5 and Mandrake to Ubuntu 12.04). I've used Windows for 6 years. I've used Macs for 8 years.
What exactly is the problem with the Finder compared to what's offered on the other platforms?
Specific, measurable, gripes. Not "it feels slow" junk.
GNU/Linux is the name to be used on UNIX-like systems that use GNU as its userland and Linux as its kernel. Often called simply "Linux" instead since many people think it sounds better.
I agree with putting database stuff in a VM. I have messed my install a few times with things like this. Brewing too much will do the same thing. Especially the newbe mistake of installing both Ports and Brew. Blah.
For backups I recommend Backblaze. Far cheaper than any amazon solution and it is set and forget.
Cool note. You can create an installation DVD from the downloadable updates (mountain lion, etc.) see link at end. So you don't need to first install and update afterwards.
Also, good tip, if you have a macbook, get 16GB of ram for it and be happy for the rest of your life. It speeds things way up. I am usually at about 10GB of RAM in-use, so I am glad I sprang for 16GB rather than the planned 8.
> get 16GB of ram for it and be happy for the rest of your life
Seconded. This is the most awesome thing ever. If you like your workstation getting out of the way, this is like deactivating the light filters in Sunshine (2007).
What? By "Linux" I assume he mean UNIX-like operating system. As a desktop I guess Mac is the best choice for casual computer users, but the best UNIX-like operating system in general must be OpenBSD.
Well, it's really hard for Linux to make the right decision. The community is so diverse, FSF developing the userland, OSI the kernel and a third party shipping the distribution of them. The GNU/Linux desktop can't be done right, unless you customize it to your needs.
That's not true: the Open Source Initiative has no hand in the development of the kernel.
The strongest link between the OSI and the kernel is the fact that Linus is more approving of the OSI's position on ethics and co-existence with commercial software than he is of the FSF's position.
I've a decade-long linux user and am forced to use OSX on a daily basis due to iOS app dev. And OSX needs some real improvement coming from a Linux perspective. Here's why.
Window management (If you used Compiz not for its effect but window management, you'll understand why) suck.
Dual screen sucks. Try expanding one to a different viewport and you can't use the other screen. I haven't tried 3 screens yet.
Need more configurability and better CLI integration. (IE: Try the command to start Postgres, as is compared to ubuntu's service manner)
The article talks about a bunch of software the user installed, but doesn't say much about why "mac" is "linux" done right. Perhaps many of the author's problems would be fixed just by changing to a different Linux distribution. Or even tweaking the previous Linux. I don't know, because none of the broken things are described.
I feel sorry for the BSD folks, being seen as some variant of Linux.
There are lots of things I really like about OS X. (I'm on Snow Leopard.) There are some things I find really frustrating and annoying. Usually these are because of my ignorance. (And they're usually GUI weirdnesses, not BSD weirdnesses.)
It's made me start thinking of using BSD as a desktop - which for my use cases is perhaps a bit dumb.
I have a FreeBSD desktop. I use it to test code I will deploy to my FreeBSD servers and to build packages to deploy to my servers.
FreeBSD desktop is as broken as Linux desktop. It's the same shambles as Linux. You can get it working, sure. You can even get it working pretty well. The thing is my time is worth more than that. I use OSX on a day to day basis because I get what I want out of the box. It's just rock solid.
I have found that absolute titles, presented as fact, are usually trolling. What other justification could there be for claiming OS X is right and Linux is wrong?
Mac OS is POSIX compliant and has a terminal. That's pretty much where the comparison ends.
Blah blah blah freedom blah blah. That aside, the Mac desktop doesn't really do it for me. Mac OS and Windows look awfully nice, but so does Unity (which I also don't use). The best desktop, IMHO, is no desktop: tiling window managers give a pretty serious edge for any info-junky willing to climb the hill.
Hmph. An anonymous blog from someone that's only been using MacOS for three months. Why is this here?
There are some Linux-y things that MacOS gets really, really wrong:
- package management. There is a lot of very good open source software that can potentially run on MacOS. If you want to use any of it with a reasonable package manager, you're pretty much forced to choose between either Homebrew or MacPorts, both of which are incompatible with each-other, and neither of which is complete.
- the init system, launchd. I'm not super stoked to see systemd gaining ground in Linux, given the occasional troubles with launchd. When launchd works -- and it usually does, to be fair -- it works well and you never think about it. When it doesn't work however, when there's some kind of system problem traced back to something in launchd, good f_cking luck. I hope you really love XML.
- user management. It's really easy to create a hidden user in MacOS which will have full access to the session of a logged-in user. (I took advantage of this to play a fun prank on a former employer once.) Desktop Linux kinda-sorta potentially has this problem too, but MacOS exacerbates it with the way it handles user management in system preferences.
totally agree, Ubuntu's upstart for example is way better than launchd, the files structure on ubuntu also seems to make more sense, additionally, Mac finder really sucks compared to other OS's file managers ..
I don't understand this article and at the end I'm still wondering why is Mac OS Linux done right.
What are the 'broken' things about Ubuntu and how is Mac OS fixing them? How is Mac OS helping you be more productive? The author lists programs for every task like somehow they (or something similar) are not available for Linux. (Almost) everything you listed there has a Linux flavor.
>Stuff like mysql and mongo [...] should go into a VM of ubuntu or what not.
42 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 95.5 ms ] threadWhen I used Mac OS X, everything was very shiny, but also not fully there, functionally. You almost had everything you need, but those few packages that needed to be manually built. And that setting was almost reasonable, but not quite. And there was always something that could be worked around, but never get solved.
So yes, I could run MS Word without resorting to Wine, but I couldn't get any work done without working around many many small issues.
I was glad when that Mac broke down. It was the worst computer I ever had -- even when considering the ThinkPad I had before burst into flames one day -- because the software never worked as I expected it to.
And I'm too old to learn how to reuse my computer. Especially when I can get it running the way I like (as long as I don't use OS X, that is.)
Apart from development being a complete pain, the UI was designed for casual users. The virtual desktop implementation switched desktops on alt+tab, rendering desktops completely useless for separation of activities. There were many such small annoyances, and I was thoroughly glad to switch to Ubuntu in the end.
i myself have lost 5 years in the mac world. there is no skill set i gained there, which made any sense in my dev work. i just remember annoyingly slow visual effects which make you lose a zillion seconds a year watching.
It seems like you wanted to use OS X for something it wasn't intended: a programming workstation to target Linux deployment.
Use a Virtual Machine for that. You'll get an environment like the one you deploy to, snapshots, easy backup, multiple versions of deployment environments with provisioning AND your desktop remains clean.
The reverse situation (trying to use a Linux system as a Desktop machine) is terribly IMHO. As soon as you step in common 2013 Desktop use (e.g edit the video files from your camera or use some proprietary software, hardware etc) you are in a world of pain.
I except from any desktop OS I use in 2013 FULL multimedia capabilities, consuming AND editing, and with a large variety of software offerings to chose from for each.
Now, if you're satisfied with just a terminal a browser window and a way to play mp3 and avis, sure, use Linux.
Go to any developer's conference and it's 80+ MBP and Air's with OS X. Do you hear them bitch?
Use a Virtual Machine or a remote/cloud etc server like the pros do. It's 2013. It's not rocket science.
"Oh, I tried installing something and I broke my MacPorts" -- well, cry me a river.
Do you know how many times I (and millions of people) have struggled with borked RPMs and DEBS, external repos not being totally compatible, latest stuff only being available on experimental repos, having to revert to manual compilation, messing with hardware drivers et all in Linux?
asr aside, I have lam(1) but no lsm. Is it native to OS X or can you borrow it somewhere?
I had it installed with my Mac, can’t sure if it’s native or comes with Xcode command line tools.
Maxims-MacBook-Air:~ maximveksler$ which lsm /usr/bin/lsm
(And within that spectrum, from a all-over system perspective, i.e. not just GUI frippery, I'd rate OS X at about the same level as HP/UX. Maybe.)
(VLC, Transmission, Chrome + Flash, etc. all work fine on Linux. If you must use Safari, though, OS X is probably the platform of choice. Also, if you have "minimalism concerns" you probably have some goal other than using your computer to be maximally productive.)
Right, because all you use your desktop computer for is command-line tools.
Or because using Brew, MacPorts et al to upgrade all command-line tools (if one wants, since most of the newer "features" are things you'd use once in a blue moon if you're lucky anyway) is very difficult.
(Not to mention that lots of people don't do any work on their Desktop/Laptop's command line itself anyway, even in Linux, but in some remote system or a virtual machine...)
>Also, if you have "minimalism concerns" you probably have some goal other than using your computer to be maximally productive.
Except if, crazy I know, this "minimalist" thing actually helps you with being maximally productive, instead of being some guy spending his days tinkering with insignificant stuff and getting various bits to work together deluding himself he is achieving something...
>If you must use Safari, though, OS X is probably the platform of choice.
Or if you also want multimedia to work as GOD intended or do any work with them. Or if you want to run essential for tons of people proprietary applications not available for Linux, from the Creative Suite to Autocad to whatever...
The only bad things about OS X are due to the proprietary and closed nature of some of the components (and the older versions used for some unix userland stuff). Implementation and experience wise, the whole desktop is miles ahead of Gnome/KDE.
Even Miguel De Icaza agrees, and he's the one of the handful who bloody started "Desktop Linux".
A lot of people complain about the Finder because other people do so.
I've used Unices since Sun OS days. I've used Linux for 15 years (from RedHat 5 and Mandrake to Ubuntu 12.04). I've used Windows for 6 years. I've used Macs for 8 years.
What exactly is the problem with the Finder compared to what's offered on the other platforms?
Specific, measurable, gripes. Not "it feels slow" junk.
For backups I recommend Backblaze. Far cheaper than any amazon solution and it is set and forget.
Cool note. You can create an installation DVD from the downloadable updates (mountain lion, etc.) see link at end. So you don't need to first install and update afterwards.
Also, good tip, if you have a macbook, get 16GB of ram for it and be happy for the rest of your life. It speeds things way up. I am usually at about 10GB of RAM in-use, so I am glad I sprang for 16GB rather than the planned 8.
http://lifehacker.com/5928780/how-to-burn-os-x-mountain-lion...
Seconded. This is the most awesome thing ever. If you like your workstation getting out of the way, this is like deactivating the light filters in Sunshine (2007).
Also, someone should tell the author Mac is not Linux.
"Y is X done right" is a common idiom. It doesn't imply that Y is a variant of X.
E.g in the case he means OS X is a unix-clone (actually a fully certified UNIX) that has made the right choices, Desktop wise, unlike Linux.
That's not true: the Open Source Initiative has no hand in the development of the kernel.
The strongest link between the OSI and the kernel is the fact that Linus is more approving of the OSI's position on ethics and co-existence with commercial software than he is of the FSF's position.
"Linux is the open-source community's flagship product."
I've a decade-long linux user and am forced to use OSX on a daily basis due to iOS app dev. And OSX needs some real improvement coming from a Linux perspective. Here's why.
Window management (If you used Compiz not for its effect but window management, you'll understand why) suck. Dual screen sucks. Try expanding one to a different viewport and you can't use the other screen. I haven't tried 3 screens yet. Need more configurability and better CLI integration. (IE: Try the command to start Postgres, as is compared to ubuntu's service manner)
I'm a dev though.
I feel sorry for the BSD folks, being seen as some variant of Linux.
There are lots of things I really like about OS X. (I'm on Snow Leopard.) There are some things I find really frustrating and annoying. Usually these are because of my ignorance. (And they're usually GUI weirdnesses, not BSD weirdnesses.)
It's made me start thinking of using BSD as a desktop - which for my use cases is perhaps a bit dumb.
FreeBSD desktop is as broken as Linux desktop. It's the same shambles as Linux. You can get it working, sure. You can even get it working pretty well. The thing is my time is worth more than that. I use OSX on a day to day basis because I get what I want out of the box. It's just rock solid.
Linux is just the Kernel... and Mac isen't an OS too...
Blah blah blah freedom blah blah. That aside, the Mac desktop doesn't really do it for me. Mac OS and Windows look awfully nice, but so does Unity (which I also don't use). The best desktop, IMHO, is no desktop: tiling window managers give a pretty serious edge for any info-junky willing to climb the hill.
There are some Linux-y things that MacOS gets really, really wrong:
- package management. There is a lot of very good open source software that can potentially run on MacOS. If you want to use any of it with a reasonable package manager, you're pretty much forced to choose between either Homebrew or MacPorts, both of which are incompatible with each-other, and neither of which is complete.
- the init system, launchd. I'm not super stoked to see systemd gaining ground in Linux, given the occasional troubles with launchd. When launchd works -- and it usually does, to be fair -- it works well and you never think about it. When it doesn't work however, when there's some kind of system problem traced back to something in launchd, good f_cking luck. I hope you really love XML.
- user management. It's really easy to create a hidden user in MacOS which will have full access to the session of a logged-in user. (I took advantage of this to play a fun prank on a former employer once.) Desktop Linux kinda-sorta potentially has this problem too, but MacOS exacerbates it with the way it handles user management in system preferences.
What are the 'broken' things about Ubuntu and how is Mac OS fixing them? How is Mac OS helping you be more productive? The author lists programs for every task like somehow they (or something similar) are not available for Linux. (Almost) everything you listed there has a Linux flavor.
>Stuff like mysql and mongo [...] should go into a VM of ubuntu or what not.
Oh.
> Flash was installed with a bit of vomiting involved. If you don’t use ClickToFlash you are insane.
Flamebait.