Live data from Hacker News

Virtualize OS X on Linux

grodola.blogspot.com

141–143 of 143 posts

Re: Virtualize OS X on Linux

#141
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reverse scrolling? It's an option on the touchpad / mouse settings to scroll naturally/unnaturally isn't it? Going to sleep - it's under power options in Settings. Also writing to NTFS is not a problem they care about. When's the last time you wrote to ext4 or HFS+ on Windows natively without extra tools? It's exactly the same here - they support HFS, HFS+ and FAT32 and VFAT. Windows supports NTFS and FAT32 and VFAT.…

> Reverse scrolling? It's an option on the touchpad / mouse settings to scroll naturally/unnaturally Yes, but do you want to have different setting for your trackpad and mouse at the same time? You need a third party software. It's not as bad as I told the story > Going to sleep - it's under power options in Settings But I don't want to open the settings and change the behavior of the whole system if I right now need…

So if I'm right, you're complaining that MacOS and Windows aren't Linux?

I think you are expecting the wrong thing from the OS. How do you keep Windows awake for 10 minutes only? Proper NTFS support on Linux is only recent (and I don't think it supports all the excellent features of NTFS).

If an OS vendor adds in support for something that is only partial or offers messages regarding "this isn't really supported", either a) nobody would use it, or b) people would use it and complain. It is safer to release something complete, or not at all. And since "typical" Mac users aren't trying to mount ext4, ReiserFS, XFS or NTFS on their machines I can see why they would not support it.

For comparison, when's the last time you used COM or DCOM on Linux or Mac? When's the last time you ran a Cocoa app on Linux? Does it sicken you that RedHat and SUSE won't pull their finger out and support these technologies? Why doesn't RedHat release a driver for SQL Server ODBC support independent of Microsoft? They must be attempting to force their own Linux-centric monopoly!

You can see how foolish this sounds. It is based on unrealistic expectations.

Re: Virtualize OS X on Linux

#142
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under which area does Apple have a monopoly? Mac market share is tiny.

They're the only vendor for the Mac platform and one of two competitors for mainstream desktop OSes. Tell me they don't have market power. It's just...self limited to a niche of a bigger market.

Microsoft also happens to be the only vendor of Windows. They get to dictate what goes in the OS, what is left out, what technologies they'll support, what APIs and development platforms will exist in the future (MFC, C++, .net). Is this a problem?

Also my Hotpoint dishwasher at home has a circuit board that I can only buy from Hotpoint. Does this mean they are abusing their position? Should I expect to be able to run something else on my dishwasher?

My car is a Volkswagen. I cannot take engine management software from a Chrysler and put it into my Volkswagen. Yet Volkswagen is a very large competitor in the "car" market. Does this mean that Volkswagen is abusing its position regarding the engine management software in my car?

If I am right, you are saying that Apple has a monopoly of power inside its own operating system. Yes, I think that's correct!

Where I work, my company has a monopoly on the features and timescale in the application software that we develop. I don't think anyone would ever call that a monopoly in the true sense of the word. Would you let me dictate what features go in your software?

Why would Apple let anyone else tell them what should go in their software?

Re: Virtualize OS X on Linux

#143

I wish Apple would port their DE/WM to Linux and Free it with a license that says something along the lines of "you can install this if you paid for it". I'd easily pay 100$ for the Apple DE/WM suite sitting over my distro. I guess this is the closest you can get (aside from using Elementary OS).

Why bother? The Gnome boys are hard at work on that already...

Because they've been hard at work on it for over 20 years, and they don't seem to be getting any closer.
Post reply on HN