91–100 of 251 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can stay on an older version for a little while, maybe a year at most until it stops getting patches. Then you get to make the choice of using an OS that's vulnerable to exploits and an OS with a gigantic backdoor in it.
I have a 2010 Mini still running High Sierra (10.13) and it's getting patches.
Why don't I just run a closed-source OS in a VM? They are fussy. Having some weird graphics tablet driver problem or something can really kill the creative connection between me and my work, and if I'm coming down to the wire on a deadline, it can cost me a contract.
What about tools that work natively on Linux? They generally just don't work for professional design use. Whenever I say that, a billion people always jump in and say "Gimp and VivaDesigner and Natron and XYZ and PDQ" work fine for me," and to my astonishment, they always seem surprised that the same just isn't true in most (any?) professional workflows. Sure, with varying amounts (usually non-trivial) of extra effort I can cobble together a disparate set of tools that might sometimes yield similar results to professional design programs, but it's going to take significantly more work to produce possibly lower-quality results, and that's just not an option for a pro. If you were hiring someone to craft the image of your company in a crowded, competitive marketplace, would you pay them more to take longer and potentially end up with a suboptimal product just because they were only using OSS to do it?
A software developer could feasibly use something like windows notepad or pine to achieve the same results as an IDE, or even a more powerful text editor like SublimeText. For many non-professionals, people just editing a config file, or people making the occasional shell script, it does work fine. Better even, considering that the extra baggage of complex tools would actually slow them down rather than speed them up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I expect Apple to take the opposite path, not immediately, but eventually: disable sideloading and enforce a Mac App Store only policy on macOS, similar to iOS. After all, if all apps are reviewed and approved by Apple, there is no malware that can use this weakness or the future ones. And I am sure the 30% cut and $100 annual fee has nothing to do with the decision either. Apple only cares about customers, not money…
> I expect Apple to take the opposite path, not immediately, but eventually: disable sideloading and enforce a Mac App Store only policy on macOS, similar to iOS Yep. And when Apple does it, HN will celebrate. There's a certain type of person who's terrified by independence and freedom and who craves the comforting safety of rules and control. macOS will be the OS for that kind of person.
I hope this proof-of-concept is the last straw that gets Apple to walk this design decision back. Because if it doesn’t, I'm not looking forward to whatever it is that does.
I expect Apple to take the opposite path, not immediately, but eventually: disable sideloading and enforce a Mac App Store only policy on macOS, similar to iOS. After all, if all apps are reviewed and approved by Apple, there is no malware that can use this weakness or the future ones. And I am sure the 30% cut and $100 annual fee has nothing to do with the decision either. Apple only cares about customers, not money…
I hope this proof-of-concept is the last straw that gets Apple to walk this design decision back. Because if it doesn’t, I'm not looking forward to whatever it is that does.
I expect Apple to take the opposite path, not immediately, but eventually: disable sideloading and enforce a Mac App Store only policy on macOS, similar to iOS. After all, if all apps are reviewed and approved by Apple, there is no malware that can use this weakness or the future ones. And I am sure the 30% cut and $100 annual fee has nothing to do with the decision either. Apple only cares about customers, not money…
People have been repeating that for years, since the Mac App Store was announced. It’s not in Apple’s interest to do it. There is a ton of software, open source in particular, that Apple benefits tremendously by. It costs Apple nothing to maintain the status quo.
Going Mac App Store only would drive tons of developers off the platform and do absolutely nothing to increase sales on the Store anyway. It would be widely panned as a ham-fisted move.
I could really use a "special edition" of MacOS - sort of like what happened with XP in the later days. Strip out all the Apple stuff, privacy failures, and excessive gatekeeping [$] and just leave the raw OS. [$] for me
We need to nuke the Apple bullshit from MacOS Catalina and convert it into people’s operating system. Ethics be damned.
This is a deal breaker for me. Little Snitch is absolutely 100% essential for privacy. I’m staying on MacOS Catalina until they pry it off my cold dead hands.
I could really use a "special edition" of MacOS - sort of like what happened with XP in the later days. Strip out all the Apple stuff, privacy failures, and excessive gatekeeping [$] and just leave the raw OS. [$] for me
Ugh. I'd love to switch to Linux, but as a designer, I'm stuck. It's not a lack of understanding of how it works— Before I was a designer I was a developer, worked in IT for a while, worked in upper-level support for a while, and Linux was my primary personal and professional OS from the late 90s to like 2010. Why don't I just run a closed-source OS in a VM? They are fussy. Having some weird graphics tablet driver pr…