this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
1397 points (96.8% liked)
linuxmemes
21607 readers
287 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
- These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudoin Windows. - No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now. Β
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't fork-bomb your computer.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Mac OSX isn't bad... so long as you sell it your soul, and don't want freedom in return, it's great π.
I kid... mostly - it's iOS that is horrifying, but Mac OSX is still Unix (tho not GNU), so not anywhere within leagues of Microdick.
And - possibly dumb question - couldn't you always just run a Linux VM at near-native speed, and get the benefits of both?
Other than all that, yeah:-)
Still not comparable to Windows though, imho.
Its sins are just of a different sort - e.g. you don't need to repair or upgrade those machines so often, bc they work so well for so long as it is, plus other than for gaming, who even upgrades machines these days to begin with?
For non-gaming, Macs are great machines. So too are Linux. While Windows sux ass no matter what. Thus that's the dividing line, imho.
I mean... a Mac machine will run non-Mac OSX software. Pretty much everything can run linux, with a little effort put into it:-) (unless somehow these M chips have prevented that? even if so, surely it's only a matter of time before someone cracks that barrier)
But yeah, it's definitely a choice. e.g., Apple does not even sell cheap Macs, whereas machines intended to run Windows can be bought all up and down the scale - though I recall at various points in time, comparing equivalently-equipped machines, Apple ones were pound-for-pound actually cheaper than their Windows equivalents. This is ofc b/c of the monopolistic practices: when you rigidly control the hardware, you are able to order in bulk, and when you order in bulk, you are able to get large discounts from the supplier!
Though surely nobody was arguing to purchase a Mac, not knowing who or what Apple is or is about? Installing Arch Linux is also known to be somewhat ah... "tricky", so if we are comparing things like ease-of-use, the question gets back to OP's "which distro?" And it's all a matter of choice - what you want to get out of it, and which constraints you want to live underneath.
But anyway, we were talking about "Mac OSX", which yeah, very much is limited to specific sets of hardware, and cannot be installed willy-nilly on any old machine, this is very much a true statement, to be paid very much attention to by anyone wanting to learn more, or use that in their purchasing / installation decisions:-). I was just saying that while Apple (& iOS) may be evil these days, Mac OSX itself kinda is great, caveat: if you can live with its restrictions, and moreover, those are MUCH less than Microsoft's set of restrictions these days (whereas Linux has its own set of difficulties).
I was only illustrating how Mac hardware is not identically the same as Mac software. They are tied together, yet distinct entities.
Your lack of recollection neither proves nor disproves anything at all. If you doubt me, look it up? (since surely if I did so for you, you would distrust that as well? π€ͺ)
I did not downvote you btw.
I never said I couldn't back it up. I only said that if you wanted to know the answer, you could look. But ofc do whatever you please.
Or I suppose you could try to goad me yet again into doing your homework for you, and see if that works? (Surely this time, if you keep trying the same action, surely this time things will work out differently than the other time(s)?π)
Or you could just think about how likely it is that in the entire history of computing, what are the chances that it was true at least once? Not that it matters, bc I've agreed with you so many times that hardware!=software and that for Macs they are tied together, and Macs are expensive, that I think we've both already forgotten already whatever it was we were talking about. Take the "win" already?
Thank you for confirming that you think of me as your bitch. This after all is why I left Reddit - to come here to do exactly the same.
You can use UTM on an M1 or up Macbook and iOS/iPadOS:
https://getutm.app/
It is not VirtualBox yet, but it is moving fast. And thank $deity itβs not Oracleβ¦ like VirtualBox
How does this work with containers?
Iβd say iOS is still unix too, just rootless.
Mac is BSD, and the Darwin kernel is open source.
I forgot about the latter, thanks for the reminder:-).
It's worth noting that Apple has (for example) gone so far as to replace bash with zsh just because the GPL v3 was too copyleft for them to handle. In other words, fuck Apple.
Right decision but for the wrong reason.
Oh, I thought it was because zsh is better.
That's the point of the BSD license.
Exactly; fuck BSD too.
Unless you're a copyleft developer your opinion on the decisions of the creators is hilariously irrelevant.
The company that laid me off let me keep my Mac which was a nice parting gift. I don't think I'd ever buy one myself. They're just way to expensive.
I hoped for that at my previous job, and they said it could happen... but it was never going to, and it was a false hope offered. Why do that to me man...? π
Then I come to my current job, and they have a super old Mac laptop that was barely holding on that nobody else wanted, and I'm like "yes please"!
Bc if its Windows vs. Mac, and especially if "nothing" isn't even an option, then a million times out of a million I will choose super old, barely holding on Mac that nobody else wants.:-)
It's a single SSH command away from my work Linux, and it has MacVim, tons of other open source software available, plus a bunch of stuff that only Mac OSX has, like Preview and other fairly nice tools, which have open source equivalents like ImageMagick and gimp, but aren't nearly as easy to use.
I don't need a nice car, and I went without one entirely until I moved to the Midwest where it becomes absolutely necessary, but it's essential to have a good computer for me:-).
A VM doesnβt change the underlying OS collecting data from you
Privacy and data collection-wise MacOS is fine. It's their main selling point. Doesn't even force updates on you. I know it's a low bar, but damn Windows bar is at the floor at this point.
MacOS collects a large amount of data compared to Linux (although not even close to windows). Take a look at their tosdr page and this
I didn't say it's perfect, but it's not terrible. And I think that page is mostly about Apple services, like iCloud and stuff, not MacOS specifically. It's not necessary to use the services.
I mean, if you log in to Facebook at all, whatever MacOS collects is a drop in a bucket in comparison.
You have no point.
I think their point is that people don't actually buy Apple products for privacy and therefore it's not "the main selling point".
I had to look it up (e.g. https://www.extremetech.com/internet/317371-evaluating-apples-data-collection-in-macos-big-sur) and damn, I didn't know that they collected and sent THAT detailed of info!? (and perhaps they didn't, until Big Sur)
Even so, as the other reply mentioned, it's still leagues away from Windows at this point. But yeah, fair then that both Windows and Mac OSX are doing it, while Linux is not.
Still, if you had to pick a machine for your grandma to use, or like either Windows or Mac at work (but not Linux, though lets say that there is a terminal SSH option to Linux available from either), I would pick Mac OSX. It's fine if others would pick Linux for the former, but I don't think Mac OSX is a bad choice there.
While Windows... urg, is basically synonymous with being a cuss word nowadays. Witch: "a pox be upon thee - nay, moresooth, may you be cursed to only use Windows for the rest of your days!" (Onlookers: "gasp! what could anyone have done to be cursed with that bad of a punishment!? I would not wish that upon even my worst enemy!?") hehe:-P
That link doesn't say what you think it does.
That Apple blocks you from running every program you put onto it until/unless it can be properly certified, and that "Big Sur can bypass any firewall restrictions the end-user attempts to create"? It's true that it's not nearly as bad as it may sound at first, and they even released a statement that:
Though I also understand that if someone wants the ultimate in privacy, it's difficult to trust such a corporate promise, especially one like Apple known to hide or lie about such things. (Edit: also... "developer ID certificate checks", so if you don't register with Apple as a known developer then...?)
I still use Mac OSX myself, but if someone wants to avoid that and use Linux for this reason, I'm not going to argue with them - whereas I would push back a little bit if a friend were to tell me they planned to put Windows (as the primary OS) onto a machine.
Yeah, that's what network-level blocking is for.
Zenarmor ftw.
damn had not heard of that and I have so many friends fucking with OPNsense. Thanks!
"always" in this case is when you have two or more gpus in your system, which limits the ability to "just" run a vm considerably.
Ah, for gaming, yes Macs are not fantastic gaming machines that's for sure.
Then again, Linux has long been known to have issues with gaming as well, especially with an Nvidia card...
Unless you use Steam, and then both work, kinda?
Still it seems like it's Linux and Mac OSX on one side, and Microsoft left behind thousands of years in the past, except maybe for gaming where literally an old Windows running on a VM may run the widest selection of games?
But I still don't see the logic of grouping Macs together with Windows, even for gaming.
For VMs, I expected more someone to bring up the switch to the M1 chipset, a huge setback for VMs definitely even if temporary, though I'm old enough to remember that Linux and Macs both running Intel were often easier to get things running on than Linux on Intel vs. Linux on AMD. But things definitely change over time, as to what is easiest at any given moment.
Microsoft sucks tho - now THAT'S universal. Can't we all just get together, united in our hate for it?! (/s, or, well, actually... not!)
Edit: hey, anyone want to start like an anti-Windows or I-fucking-hate-fucking-Windows community? I'll join it today if you do!? :-)
The obvious downside is that Linux is no longer the host OS. MacOS or Windows would be closed source code managing your hardware. And any VM could only be as fast as the host OS allows it to be.
The host OS is likewise limited, but more by hardware, so it might be a small performance tradeoff, depending on whether, as you brought up, you need Linux to be ultimately in control rather than to simply run some software.
So that would not always work, ofc... but it sometimes would!:-)