201–210 of 419 posts
It’s ridiculous that the base and Pro only support 1 and 2 external displays, respectively. Want 3 monitors? Have to pay for the Max. https://www.macrumors.com/2023/11/02/m3-chip-still-supports-...
Can I sidecar to two or more iPads with this yet?
--
"Use an iPad as a second display for a Mac"
It’s ridiculous that the base and Pro only support 1 and 2 external displays, respectively. Want 3 monitors? Have to pay for the Max. https://www.macrumors.com/2023/11/02/m3-chip-still-supports-...
From what I know, this isn't some artificial limitation that Apple imposes. Adding support has a cost that most customers don't need to pay. Regardless, most people aren't going to be plugging in three monitors into their laptops, so most people aren't going to care about this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using tools from the base OS is really holding it wrong. Just like ftp.exe/Internet Explorer/Edge and Safari should only be used to download a usable browser, the Apple provided CLI tools should only be used to download the tools and versions of tools that you actually want. Otherwise, you have no way to control versioning anyway. When the OS version is tied to the version of so many other tools, it's a nightmare. Ap…
> Apple provided CLI tools should only be used to download the tools and versions of tools that you actually want. Why? Why do I need to use 3rd party package managers, or manual installations from 3rd party sources to install common tools that aren't a decade+ outdated? > When the OS version is tied to the version of so many other tools, it's a nightmare. It doesn't need to be tied to anything. If the OS needs speci…
GPL2 was viral, but the terms were easier to stomach. Apple is allergic to GPLv3 code because there is a clause in the license requiring you provide a way to run modified version of the software which would require Apple to let users self sign executables.
This is a simple result of the GPL going where Apple will not, so OSX is stuck with whatever is MIT, BSD, Apache, or GPL2 licensed.
I like the GPL, I license my open source stuff under it, but it doesn’t work for all cases. Apple is fine with not using software licensed under the GPL, when it conflicts with other company principles.
Simple as.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course shipping a very outdated tool with your OS is an issue. And the fact that you need to use 3rd-party package managers to update/replace it is also an issue. But if you want to contend that anything that is solveable via customization/3rd party packages is a 'total non-issue', then I fail to see how you could argue that Linux isn't superior to MacOS in every single way.
It's not an issue even if you say it is. Takes 1 minute to setup brew on a fresh Mac, third party or not who cares when it's open source, apt is also open-source and in the same sense a third party someone develops, you just get that with the base Debian like systems, if we start counting the minute wasted to setup brew then you waste more time to install Debian in the first place, Macs come pre-installed.
Both in Single and Multicores and GPU memory bandwidth
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not at all. As a single example - macos comes with an extremely outdated version of GNU bash (3.2) from 2007. And yes, this has consequences in that many modern bash scripts depend on bash 4+ (current latest GNU bash is 5.2+).
Unfortunately this will never be fixed. It's not a technical problem. They refuse to ship software licensed under GPL v3, and bash 3.2 is the final GPL v2 version. I hate it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using tools from the base OS is really holding it wrong. Just like ftp.exe/Internet Explorer/Edge and Safari should only be used to download a usable browser, the Apple provided CLI tools should only be used to download the tools and versions of tools that you actually want. Otherwise, you have no way to control versioning anyway. When the OS version is tied to the version of so many other tools, it's a nightmare. Ap…
> Apple provided CLI tools should only be used to download the tools and versions of tools that you actually want. Why? Why do I need to use 3rd party package managers, or manual installations from 3rd party sources to install common tools that aren't a decade+ outdated? > When the OS version is tied to the version of so many other tools, it's a nightmare. It doesn't need to be tied to anything. If the OS needs speci…
Because you want to control the version of 3rd party software.
> It doesn't need to be tied to anything. If the OS needs specific libraries/tools then they can be installed in a separate location
The OS installs tools in /usr/bin and you should install tools in a separate location. Apple provides a commercial UNIX, not a Linux distribution. /usr/local or /opt are traditional locations for you to place the 3rd party software you want to use on your commercial UNIX.
If you want the OS to ship with updated tools, of course it's tied to the OS version. Then if you want bash 70, you'll need to run macOs Fresno or later, or install bash 70 in /usr/local. You should just install your version anyway, and then you won't have to worry about OS versions (unless bash 70 requires kernel apis unavailable before macOs Fresno, in which case you're stuck; but most software isn't intimately tied to kernel versions)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unix tools/shell is attempting to follow more-or-less standardish unix/linux setup but fails pretty hard, with many of the same commands existing but behaving just differently enough to be annoying. I'm pretty sure this is simply you expecting GNU and actually getting FreeBSD-based tooling. It's not wrong, it's just different than what you expected.
Not at all. As a single example - macos comes with an extremely outdated version of GNU bash (3.2) from 2007. And yes, this has consequences in that many modern bash scripts depend on bash 4+ (current latest GNU bash is 5.2+).
There actually is a reason. It's not lack of maintenance.
It's because Bash 3.2 is the last version licensed as GPLv2. Bash 4.0 and later changed license to GPLv3.
Apple decided it's not safe for them to ship any software with GPLv3 with macOS, because of stronger legal conditions in GPLv3. This is also the reason they stopped updating Samba.
They changed the default shell to Zsh long ago. The old Bash is kept around, so that users who want to stick with Bash can still use it as their shell, and so that existing scripts for macOS (for example in installers) continue to work. If nobody cared about Bash, I expect they would have dropped it from macOS when switching to Zsh, rather than keeping the old version.
So from a certain point of view, Bash 3.2 is the most recent version they can ship.
As for other tools like "cp", "ls", "rm", "touch", etc. I agree they are annoying on macOS, when you are used to the versatile GNU/Linux command line options. I sometimes type options after filename arguments due to habit on Linux. macOS commands very annoyingly treats those options as filenames instead. And I miss options like "touch --date".
However, this is not due to old tools. Those differences are just how up current (up to date) BSD commands work. They are just a different unix lineage than Linux.
The GNU tools were intentionally written to be more user-friendly than traditional UNIX™ tools, which is why the command line options are generally nicer. GNU/Linux systems come with GNU tools of course. macOS never did because it is derived from BSD and comes with BSD tools (with Apple enhancements, like "cp -c").
You get the same on most other unix environments that are not GNU/Linux. People install the GNU tools on top, if they want the GNU command line experience instead of the default. Sometimes with the "g" prefix (like "gls", "gtouch" etc.).
These days, even if Apple decided it's worth the technical fallout of switching from BSD command line tools to GNU, they wouldn't do it for the same legal reason as what keeps Bash at 3.2: The current GNU tools are licensed as GPLv3.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Air is not the computer for people who use a lot of external monitors. 99.9%+ of MBAir users will never connect even one external monitor. They make a small MacBook Pro that is suited for that task.
You need to spend a minimum of $2000 though, the new $1600 MacBook Pro also only supports one external display.