There is, I am using a Slimbook with their Ubuntu. Just works.
Ask HN: Why is there no Linux distro that “just works” like macOS?
71–80 of 157 posts
Re: Ask HN: Why is there no Linux distro that “just works” like macOS?
#72[deleted]
Re: Ask HN: Why is there no Linux distro that “just works” like macOS?
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
OP writes: > I am talking about a distro, that you don't have to configure anything for. A distro that handles things like external devices screen recording without weird glitches. I don't read this as a plea for better HIG? This is HN, so I'm assuming most of us live in the terminal anyway. I'll never understand why people prefer MacOS for development. From my experience, it is clearly worse in pretty much every res…
Mostly because we have no viable option. Most work places want to have one device for all staff. So the IOS team and the Android team and Marketing and API and JS team, all need one common system. Windows is out for the Rails/Elixir team, and IOS team need Macs. Marketing and Sales teams could live in Windows or Mac's The only Venn diagram match is Mac. Low powered or high powered, Mac is the answer. Honestly... Pack…
The ios being exclusive to MacOS is an Apple made problem though.
So you're paying double in hardware cost because of some decision by Apple that no other platform may compile for ios.
Re: Ask HN: Why is there no Linux distro that “just works” like macOS?
#74Manjaro also just works.
If I didn't have arch running I'd be using that.
Arch isn't perfect but pretty close on the desktop.
And since you don't want to deal with setup and configuration, Manjaro handles that out of the box.
Re: Ask HN: Why is there no Linux distro that “just works” like macOS?
#75To people commenting how "well if you install Linux the right way on the right hardware like this here purpose-built laptop, it also 'just works'", what the OP is trying to underline isn't just the technical aspect of the OS booting flawlessly and recognizing its periphery, but also the whole experience that comes after. One special part of this, which is easily overseen, is the fact that Apple has poured hundreds of…
> One special part of this, which is easily overseen, is the fact that Apple has: - vertically integrated and sells a very narrow selection of hardware That's 90% of the "just works". The UX/UI part is the other 90% (yes the math is right) And to be fair, MacOS is full of weird UX quirks, and sometimes it does not work. But they have the best trackpads, very good usability (and it's not just Cargo Culting) that goes…
>"- vertically integrated and sells a very narrow selection of hardware"
Or maybe this really is just the 10%, as we will both agree that this part is also true for every single Windows PC laptop OEM - Dell, HP, Lenovo, Asus, Acer etc.
Re: Ask HN: Why is there no Linux distro that “just works” like macOS?
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mostly because we have no viable option. Most work places want to have one device for all staff. So the IOS team and the Android team and Marketing and API and JS team, all need one common system. Windows is out for the Rails/Elixir team, and IOS team need Macs. Marketing and Sales teams could live in Windows or Mac's The only Venn diagram match is Mac. Low powered or high powered, Mac is the answer. Honestly... Pack…
The ios being exclusive to MacOS is an Apple made problem though. So you're paying double in hardware cost because of some decision by Apple that no other platform may compile for ios.
No post body was provided.
Re: Ask HN: Why is there no Linux distro that “just works” like macOS?
#77Using Linux Mint for 8+ years on a lot of different laptops and 4 desktops.
Everything "just works".
Re: Ask HN: Why is there no Linux distro that “just works” like macOS?
#78Wow, lots of disappointing answers. Easy: Apple hires TEAMS of designers, UX-experts/engineers [...]. The reward incentives in open source environments are not aligned with the required workload. People who seriously compare any modern linux desktop environment to the UX that macOS delivers must be lost in tunnel-vision/confirmation bias, it's not even close. Also, like some said, as Apple provides their own hardware…
Although you're right about the incentive structure, I have a hard time seeing such a clear difference in UX quality in practice.
I've used OSX for a year after over 20 years of Linux. I really tried to like it, but to me or didn't feel any more polished than modern Linux distros. Just... different. Different flaws, different glitches, different inconsistencies, different trade-offs. shrug
Re: Ask HN: Why is there no Linux distro that “just works” like macOS?
#79I've installed Artix (Arch based) two years ago in a 4 years old laptop. Just had to install a network program, because I didn't want to configure wifi on the terminal. Everything else, since then... No yay -Syyu has caused any issues.
Additionally, you have to consider that macOS and Linux have different purposes. The later is meant to be used to perform computational work. The former is meant to spy on you. Naturally people who want to spy on you will work very hard for you to not have any barriers - whereas Linux people are more focused on empowering you to make more computational work.
Re: Ask HN: Why is there no Linux distro that “just works” like macOS?
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One special part of this, which is easily overseen, is the fact that Apple has: - vertically integrated and sells a very narrow selection of hardware That's 90% of the "just works". The UX/UI part is the other 90% (yes the math is right) And to be fair, MacOS is full of weird UX quirks, and sometimes it does not work. But they have the best trackpads, very good usability (and it's not just Cargo Culting) that goes…
>"- vertically integrated and sells a very narrow selection of hardware" Or maybe this really is just the 10%, as we will both agree that this part is also true for every single Windows PC laptop OEM - Dell, HP, Lenovo, Asus, Acer etc.
That's....not even remotely true.
First of all, they are by definition not vertically integrated, because the same company doesn't create the hardware and the OS.
Second of all, have you actually compared the selection of hardware between Apple and any of these brands? I'll admit it's been a little while since I tried to give someone recommendations on a Windows machine, but the selection is just dizzying, and not in a helpful "here are all the different possible variables you could configure, and here are the possible values for them" way. They have (or, as I said, had) multiple different named lines within each product category, and several models within each line, and then each model has different possible configurations.
And unless you're the kind of person who has already studied the components enough to be able to build your own computer, you're not going to be able to easily tell, "Which of these actually has the most of the things I am looking for?"
Meanwhile, Apple's product lines aren't quite as simple as they once were, but they're still very straightforward. It's generally quite clear what the tradeoffs are when you're comparing between any give pair of devices in their lineup.