Live data from Hacker News

Welcome (back) to Macintosh

take.surf

261–270 of 276 posts

Re: Welcome (back) to Macintosh

#261
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The big idea with Linux/BSD/fully-open-source is that you can fix whatever you don't like. That's a great theory, and sometimes it's actually true, but in reality for most users most of the time, Linux is as "fixable" as Windows or macOS, because most people, even the technically savvy ones aren't driver developers. Heck most software developers probably aren't even C programmers anymore. And even if someone had th…

Does it matter? Generally Linux desktop distributions are made for the people who use them, who would tend towards people who will fix things. You mention distros but there obviously are a lot of passionate distro makers because right now it seems like there are more distros than ever. There are often comments on threads like this that go along the lines of "If only the people making Linux desktop did X then they'd g…

> Does it matter?

It does matter if you're selling someone on the idea of switching away from their mac or windows machine that they're complaining about something the OS vendor has done by highlighting that with Linux they could "fix it themselves". It misses the point that most people don't want to "fix it themselves" and even if they had the inclination to that, for many problems they don't have the time or the skills. If someone is upset that Apple forced a move to Liquid Glass with Tahoe and all the bad UX that comes along with it, it's possible that they could also have the skills to fix their OS if they were equally upset that their chosen linux distro switched to Wayland. But it's more likely than not that they don't have those skills and so for that user, Linux is theoretically an OS they can fix, and practically just as likely to force them to accept the march of technology as any other OS they use.

Re: Welcome (back) to Macintosh

#262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. I noted in my comment the option to re-add it to the toolbar, but everyday users can't be expected to know this is possible or how to do it. Nor should they have to, given that mail retrieval is something that everyone can logically be expected to do if they're told they were just sent a message.

People who want to click a button to skip waiting for the next mail poll time (and who even know what that means!) probably can be expected to know that just about every toolbar can be customised.

I don't think that follows at all. If my mom goes to log into her bank account and is told to look for a code in an E-mail, she's going to go the E-mail program and try to fetch new mail.

Remember... HN does not even come close to representing the general public.

Re: Welcome (back) to Macintosh

#263
post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not often enough for me to really notice. I use my MBP around 10-12 hours a day, maybe more. I don't love the finder but never really have bugs exactly. Time machine isn't great but it's ok. It gets stuck if you don't have enough disk space. The other things don't really affect me.

My biggest gripes are around Spotlight. Have you ever tried to search for a file or or create a smart folder that works ? These features are horrendous . And Cmd+Space [type app name] used to be a decent app launcher. These days I often find it sits and spins and I end up using the Finder and navigating to Applications -- and that's faster than Spotlight. When I actually need to find a buried file, I drop into a term…

I've never tried smart folders - I didn't know that feature existed.

Search is mostly ok for me.

Re: Welcome (back) to Macintosh

#264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because you are annoyed about some temporary problems (yes, they are temporary) What leads you to believe that anything he mentioned is temporary?

Some people believe the Republican rule is also temporary. It’s a difference in ahem, temperament I suppose. The fine article made the same comparison.

I mean... https://newrepublic.com/post/207270/military-leaders-iran-wa...

Re: Welcome (back) to Macintosh

#265
post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am currently all-in on the Apple ecosystem and have been for almost 13 years now. But quality of life in Apple land has steadily been getting worse, so I have been considering making the sort of change you describe, but not quite ready to make that leap yet. What would you say was the hardest part of the transition for you?

I’m firmly anti-Tahoe and haven’t updated, and I’ve started to find Apple despicable. But… Anyone saying they had no trouble migrating away is either lying or delusional. Just off the top of my head: external accessory issues when Linux wakes up from sleep; trackpad quality; battery life; full-disk encryption is still spotty if you, for example, want to use ZFS; boot-level security can be a nightmare to setup (althou…

I don't remember ever having external accessory issues, I don't use a track pad, battery life is fine (although I will admit macs seem to do better) and the ZFS one is just odd. Literally first time I hear this because while it sure would be nice... everyone uses btrfs or xfs or even ext4 with FDE without any problems for the last.. 15 years? Just one FS apparently has some issues?

Maybe your definition of broken is just as subjective as mine (aka I don't remember ever seeing window management so bad as OSX since fvwm)

Re: Welcome (back) to Macintosh

#266
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it matter? Generally Linux desktop distributions are made for the people who use them, who would tend towards people who will fix things. You mention distros but there obviously are a lot of passionate distro makers because right now it seems like there are more distros than ever. There are often comments on threads like this that go along the lines of "If only the people making Linux desktop did X then they'd g…

> Does it matter? It does matter if you're selling someone on the idea of switching away from their mac or windows machine that they're complaining about something the OS vendor has done by highlighting that with Linux they could "fix it themselves". It misses the point that most people don't want to "fix it themselves" and even if they had the inclination to that, for many problems they don't have the time or the sk…

I personally wouldn't try to sell Linux to anyone and get them to switch. It is a futile game and I see no real reason for it. People will move if they have reason to (in any direction) and the best one can do is show and tell. I will tell people what I like using if they ask. I'm more likely to tell folks not to switch because I don't want to be technical support for anyone outside my household.

I don't think anyone will switch from MacOS to Linux because of rounded corners. If they're really into theming it would make sense.

Being able to fix things is also a bit of a vague statement. You can fix things in many different ways, and you can fix some things in every OS. Fixing might be writing your own code, or switching a theme, or an application, or a distro, or the whole OS. The level of lockdown then matters. MacOS has the greatest lockdown because you can't just get a new Macbook and fix it by installing something other than MacOS.

Re: Welcome (back) to Macintosh

#267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but in reality for most users most of the time, Linux is as "fixable" as Windows or macOS, I disagree with this. For most users, most of the time, Linux is significantly more fixable than Windows or MacOS. In nearly 20 years, I've never had to write a line of C or touch the Linux kernel to fix issues I've had on Linux. For example, one of my big peeves I've had lately on both PopOS and MacOS are the looooong animat…

> On PopOS, I had two paths to fix this: Tweak the COSMIC desktop to fix the behavior, or the simple thing of simply installing GNOME (or KDE or any other DE of choice). So what did you do? Did you fix the DE? Again, this is effectively outside the skill of the sorts of people who would be "switching" to linux due to the issues with macOS or Windows. And while installing a new DE is certainly easier than re-programmi…

> So what did you do? Did you fix the DE?

Nope, I swapped to GNOME. Forking the DE was something I was considering doing just to contribute back. It's not something I'd recommend someone to do. (That said, it's Rust and not C, so the barrier for entry is much lower.)

If someone can install Linux, they can install a new DE. It's easy peasy.

> if the user's primary issue was being forced into a major interface re-design like liquid glass, having to switch to a completely new DE is more of a lateral move than actually fixing the problem.

No, switching DEs fixes the problem. If MacOS were open source, then you'd have a community-run fork from before Liquid Glass. (If MacOS were open source, you'd also probably have an LTS branch anyways, and no dark patterns forcing you to update.)

Ubuntu users dismayed by Unity were able to stay on GNOME by installing GNOME. Ubuntu users dismayed when Unity went away were able to stay on Unity because someone forked it. GNOME users dismayed by GNOME 3 are able to stay on forks of GNOME 2.

And it's worth stressing that _none_ of these were so bad as Liquid Glass.

>for most users, most of the time, the ability to "fix it themselves" is effectively as out of reach for them

This is the thing I take contention with. This seems hard to square with the experience of someone using Linux. Is this an assertion you're making as someone who doesn't use it?

I think the most common experience on Linux is that people are able to fix the things that annoy them. It's a tangible and normal thing, not a hypothetical.

Re: Welcome (back) to Macintosh

#268
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it matter? Generally Linux desktop distributions are made for the people who use them, who would tend towards people who will fix things. You mention distros but there obviously are a lot of passionate distro makers because right now it seems like there are more distros than ever. There are often comments on threads like this that go along the lines of "If only the people making Linux desktop did X then they'd g…

> Does it matter? It does matter if you're selling someone on the idea of switching away from their mac or windows machine that they're complaining about something the OS vendor has done by highlighting that with Linux they could "fix it themselves". It misses the point that most people don't want to "fix it themselves" and even if they had the inclination to that, for many problems they don't have the time or the sk…

Your comments really sound like you don't have experience with Linux. This sounds like you're repeating things others have heard.

> it's more likely than not that they don't have those skills

No, they absolutely do.

Even at the most basic level of interacting with the OS, Linux desktops usually offer more options in its Settings application than you'd get with MacOS.

If something annoys you on Linux, it probably annoyed someone else, and there's probably a toggle or switch for it.

If not, the barrier to fixing it is usually "sudo apt install cool_thing". Higher than "open the settings app", but it doesn't require compiling or coding. It only requires literacy (and, granted, not everyone is literate).

> Linux is ... practically just as likely to force them to accept the march of technology

For starters, let's not characterize Liquid Glass as "the march of technology". It's a symptom of dysfunction within Apple.

Second, no, this is just simply wrong. Many Linux distros offer LTS versions. Ubuntu 16.04 was released in 2016 and its support is ending this year, after a decade. (That's not counting the five more years of security maintenance.) Very importantly, these also don't have dark patterns to tick you to update like Apple did with Tahoe.

Re: Welcome (back) to Macintosh

#269
post #87
post #7

TBH I plan downgrade i.e. recovery. I wanted Tahoe because apparently it contains Rosetta with x86-64-v3 support but more I need it in my work, so home computer will be reinstated. Btw isn't Rosetta going to be left but only for gaming and containerisation?

I thought you could only do it if you have own TM backup. Do they offer cloud recovery for older versions?

My Mac is from 2021 so I will just reset it to factory and reinstall up to sonoma

Re: Welcome (back) to Macintosh

#270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On PopOS, I had two paths to fix this: Tweak the COSMIC desktop to fix the behavior, or the simple thing of simply installing GNOME (or KDE or any other DE of choice). So what did you do? Did you fix the DE? Again, this is effectively outside the skill of the sorts of people who would be "switching" to linux due to the issues with macOS or Windows. And while installing a new DE is certainly easier than re-programmi…

> So what did you do? Did you fix the DE? Nope, I swapped to GNOME. Forking the DE was something I was considering doing just to contribute back. It's not something I'd recommend someone to do. (That said, it's Rust and not C, so the barrier for entry is much lower.) If someone can install Linux, they can install a new DE. It's easy peasy. > if the user's primary issue was being forced into a major interface re-desig…

> No, switching DEs fixes the problem. If MacOS were open source, then you'd >have a community-run fork from before Liquid Glass. (If MacOS were open >source, you'd also probably have an LTS branch anyways, and no dark patterns >forcing you to update.) >Ubuntu users dismayed by Unity were able to stay on GNOME by installing GNOME. >Ubuntu users dismayed when Unity went away were able to stay on Unity because >someone forked it. GNOME users dismayed by GNOME 3 are able to stay on forks >of GNOME 2.

And again, all of these solutions are the user being dependent on someone else doing the work they want for them, and are very much not "fixing it themselves" any more than installing Asahi linux on their macbook would be "fixing it themselves"

> Is this an assertion you're making as someone who doesn't use it?

No it's an assertion I'm making knowing that the vast majority of computer users barely understand what it is their computer is doing at any given time or why. And of the subset of users that do have an understanding, an even smaller subset of those users have the necessary skills, time and inclination to fix something wrong with the system. I worked computer retail for years. The vast majority of people I interacted with had no interest in knowing what their computer was doing under the hood or how they could solve their own problems. For every one customer that I had the chance to show how they could do something for themselves, I had 10-15 other customers tell me they didn't want to know, they just wanted it fixed.

I have plenty of experience using Linux. I spent 7 years working at a job where I was thankfully allowed to use a Linux box as my primary development machine. My home network runs stacks of Debian boxes, my 3d printers are running klipper, my home media systems Ubuntu or Debian. I built an arcade system than runs off of a Debian box. I've built remote scanning and printing workstations out of some Raspberry Pis for a company I worked for, and built custom touch screen inventory workstations prototyping them out on "Puppy Linux" installations (some weirdness around needing to work forward from a very old x11 config that didn't work with modern ubuntu at the time). I've been installing and using Linux in some form or another since I first spent 3 days twice in a row downloading the set of 600MB install CDs for "mkLinux" over a 33.6 dialup connection (twice because the first time I pulled the files down in "text mode" which broke the images).

But it's also these experiences that inform my opinion that Linux presents plenty of its own pain points and that plenty of those pain points are simply unfixable by the vast majority of their users. Every other year or so, some updates to Ubuntu would inevitably break multi-display handling or the network or something else on my dev machine at work. I would easily lose a day or two to hunting down esoteric configuration options and work arounds and digging into things that most computer users will never want to touch. My arcade system worked fine for months until an update to something in the Debian/Ubuntu audio stack broke audio on boot. It's been over a year now and it's still broken. You have to manually go into alsamixer, swap which audio "card" the system thinks its talking to (the onboard audio presents as two different cards, one for the normal audio jacks and one for HDMI out) and then toggle the muting on the various outputs until you find the one that was enumerated to be your current output on this boot. As near as I can figure out, it has something to do with a change in the order that the audio system is brought up on boot. It's now loaded much earlier in the boot process and apparently this particular chip and board combination doesn't initialize the second card until after some later step in the boot process pokes it. So when the audio system first comes up, it only sees the one card, can't apply the saved configurations and drops into a default. I've built some work around scripts that try to re-apply the audio settings again later in the process, but so far they're only about 60% effective. In the mean time, it's just broken for me and plenty of other people like me with the same AMD on board audio setup. And I'm someone comfortable digging into debugging hardware boot-up issues and the rats nest that is the linux audio stack.

But this same box also saw me need to switch from XFCE to KDE because some bug with the "notifications" system in XFCE hard hangs any user input for 5 minutes or so if you try to pop up a notification before the first time a user logs into the DE, something that I was doing because the arcade doesn't have a mouse plugged in, but you can hit a hotkey combo to switch to a keyboard mouse control scheme and I wanted a notification to display when you switched control schemes.

I have a raspberry pi running home-assistant that refused to boot if one of the zwave radio devices is plugged in to USB on boot. No idea why and it's been working fine ever since I switched to a different zwave radio, but was certainly a pain if the power ever flickered.

And lets not get into the nightmare that getting each individual linux system to play nicely with DHCPv6 was. Apparently every linux distro does IPv6 DHCP things just a little differently and even across versions of the same distro it can vary wildly.

Are all of these things fixable by AN end user? Yes, probably they are. Are all of them fixable by me? Probably with enough free time and a little luck, yes they probably are. Are they fixable by most people who use a computer day to day and especially the sort of people who aren't already interested in Linux? No almost certainly not. Those users would rely on people like me (or more likely the people I'm relying on) to figure it out and drop a solution in the up stream or provide some package you can install to replace the broken component. And again, I'm not denying that this possibility is a benefit. It's just not the same as "fixing it yourself".

Post reply on HN