The site is down, but we're talking hardware here right? If it can't run MacOS natively, what's the point? I'm not buying Apple stuff necessarily because of the nice form factor, I'm buying it for Unix environment that doesn't suck.
macOS is a unix, but it's not a linux. You probably will end up running in containers anyway, because it's just too different from your servers (e.g. provisioning scripts will not run correctly), and windows supports those containers just fine.
Even if you're not running in containers, you'll probably still be fine. I've been doing web dev for a while on windows and mac (node, php, java, ...) and haven't had major issues getting my workflows to carry over. The only thing that can cause problems are windows file path issues (or rather web app code assuming *nix paths), and for that there is WSL.
Another possible thing you may like about macOS is the unix command line, which is a fair argument, but between msys, wsl and powershell (which is equally powerful yet different) I don't miss anything myself. Again, the command line tools on the mac are subtly different from those on linux, so your shell scripts don't automatically carry over to the server. YMMV.
Finally we get to the UI. If you're hooked on mac-only software, ok fine. There are good alternatives though. For example, I switched from textmate to visual studio code so I could bounce between OS's. Otherwise I find it to be an even mix. Windows task view is similar to mission control. Windows does window docking better than the mac. The mac does system updates better than windows. Windows does gaming support better than the mac. The mac does consistent UI design better than windows. Windows has touch screens, the mac has better trackpads. It all balances out.
I like living on both sides of the fence. It makes me feel like I'm not locked into a platform.
To be fair, that's true of MacOS and Windows too, but Ubuntu makes it easiest to try / think it might be a good idea.
The things they change from Debian are usually things I disapprove of, such as communicating with proprietary services. I think it also tracks user analytics by default, unlike Debian which shows you a modal during installation asking for permission to regularly keep track of your installed packages; and they set the default value to "disabled".
It keeps the body light, rigid, and cool. No plastic vents to form cracks. No flex when I hold it from a corner. No sweaty palms from the warm plastic. No seams around the screen to collect dust.
Nothing I've seen comes close. If it wasn't a work machine I'd throw Ubuntu or Arch over it in a heartbeat. Mac OS isn't bad, it's just not close a good linux set up.
Windows has plenty of warts that I doubt WSL will resolve (can't delete open files, spectacular suicide if you use symlinks or junctions on system resources, different administrative abstractions and CLI tools, that sort of thing) but I might be willing to give it a spin if someone other than microsoft says nice things about it.
I don't buy the "I've used OSX for so long I can't possibly adapt my workflow to Windows" argument. It took me a few days to get used to the new idioms, but it wasn't that bad. Then again, I've been pretty OS agnostic for my career - Irix, SunOS/Solaris, Linux, OSX, and now Windows+WSL. Other than the part of my career when I was doing systems research and had to care about OS-specific details (e.g., writing Linux kernel modules), I haven't really found it hard to adapt to new environments and be happily productive.
It isn’t perfect, but it’s good enough that I don’t notice the warts too frequently. I’m not very fickle though: at this point in my career, I’ve come to the conclusion that all systems suck in their own special ways.
It's available in Google's cache.[1]
[1] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...