111–120 of 126 posts
Additionally, valgrind is incompatible with Maverick. Which is a huge pain, because it means that if I ever need to use it, I have to debug on a server.
Are you sure? IIRC valgrind supports everything up to macOS Sierra.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My Ubuntu 16.04 LTS X-Windows just froze today multiple times, not even changing to virtual terminals was possible, only hard reboot.
I spent hours last night trying to get Bumblebee to work with my Optimus laptop. Ubuntu is a great plug-and-play distribution, except when it isn’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I spent hours last night trying to get Bumblebee to work with my Optimus laptop. Ubuntu is a great plug-and-play distribution, except when it isn’t.
Optimus is a piece of shit even on windows.
Optimus is one of those ideas that’s cool on paper, but horribly implemented.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re not paying for the OS; you’re paying for the hardware. If Macintosh hardware was buggy when running Linux or Windows , for reasons to do with, say, badly-written ACPI tables, then you’d have an argument. As it is, it’s the opposite: Macs run both Windows and Linux “easily”, while other vendors’ buggy hardware has to be patched over with heuristics in these OSes because it has non-conforming device names, respo…
You will not find significant fundamental hardware differences between the latest high-end Apple and Dell laptops. > As it is, it’s the opposite: Macs run both Windows and Linux “easily”, while other vendors’ buggy hardware has to be patched over with heuristics in these OSes because it has non-conforming device names > This is, coincidentally, also the reason it’s so hard to run macOS on other vendors’ machines Are…
Additionally, valgrind is incompatible with Maverick. Which is a huge pain, because it means that if I ever need to use it, I have to debug on a server.
Have you tried the clang or gcc asan/tsan/usan sanitisers as a replacment? There are pros and cons of valgrind vs compile time instrumentation. The sanitisers increase the memory footprint, but run with less overhead. valgrind can detect some errors that the sanitizers cannot etc.
I found the style of the article to be quite refreshing somehow. The OP is not trying to look like a smartass about the discovery (a trait very common in the IT industry), and she acknowledges that she doesn't really understand what is the underlying cause. She is just happy that she discovered something and is keen on sharing it with the world.
On the other hand I find that if every other sentence ends with an exclamation mark, or a question-mark it gets quite exhausting.
Additionally, valgrind is incompatible with Maverick. Which is a huge pain, because it means that if I ever need to use it, I have to debug on a server.
You mean Sierra / High Sierra. This is because of compatibility breaking changes to some low-level kernel system calls. Since valgrind is essentially a CPU emulator, it is tightly integrated with the OS kernel, and has to be updated accordingly. The macOS contributors to valgrind seem to be relatively few, probably because most macOS developers primarily use the various sanitisers in clang (they also have UI integrat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, X configures itself nowadays and Wayland also just works. But I know where you are coming from. Everything audio related for example is still in very bad shape when you want more than Intel HDA.
Canonical is not of the same opinion, they just gave up on Wayland for the next LTS release.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They killed server because that was a losing battle: Apple was never going to "win" at servers. Despite all their effort they managed to score only a few modest wins, and the intense competition in that space made it a huge distraction. Remember Apple started down the "server" road decades ago with their A/UX UNIX server ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A/UX ). Throughout the 1990s you could get a high-end Mac spec'd…
Still it did fulfil a market, servers for Apple shops. Now there is only Mac minis for it.
You're right that the Mini is a very capable workgroup server, and providers like http://macminicolo.net/ are hosting Mac "servers" by the thousands, so it's not like they've completely given up. Intel's the only other player in this space with their NUC machines and those tend to cost as much or more.
Hopefully they'll kit out the Mini better in the 2018 iterations. That 2012 quad-code i7 variant was an exceptional unit.