How Apple's operating systems mistreat the user
gnu.org
gnu.org
The list is of course right (perhaps up to fine details) but misses the point. Apple products, and same for Android, are utterly usable without a degree in Linuxology. You don't shake in trepidation whenever you do an upgrade. You also don't just install random stuff from enormous Git repos that cannot possibly be scrutinised for security details. You don't get core dumps just because you selected an exotic option in config.
I like Linux, but I don't have 10 hrs/week just to keep it running. It's just not an option, and Apple products will do.
Having been forced to use Microsoft products again recently, I think the analogy doesn't extend to Windows though. I'd take Linux products over MS any time. Windows is awful.
Linux phones are about 3x more popular.
Isn't that true for all popular distros?
I really don't know a lot of people who feel confident doing a macOS update. The thing borks everything so often it's not even a meme, just a fact of life so people I know tend to be super careful with it and only update when the apps they use start dropping compatibility for older OSXes (or when they buy a new mac :-)).
I don't really have an hour to dick around during working hours and I don't want to leave my machine on overnight (or if I do it's because I want it to be doing something). So I almost never update.
IME it doesn't break as often as Windows; but Linux is "best" here, updates are in the single-digit minutes.
I’m not going to deny there are issues with the Mac (or iOS) platform, there clearly are, but let’s keep it honest. While we’re at it, let’s keep it honest about other platforms too.
Have multiple macs and use them for both personal and work use.
I really despise some of the open source crusaders that look the other way when things don’t fit their narrative.
Common tools such as Postgres, Swift, Python, OpenSSH, billion other pieces of open software that are funded by the same companies that this article shits on.
There is a place for proprietary software in the society. And there is a place for open source software in the society.
Matlab is amazing even though it’s closed source. When I have a fricking Jet Engine hoisted up on a test stand and I discover some bug in the instrumentation Matlab toolbox, I can call them and speak to an engineer directly in about 45 seconds. We are not a 10 people company. We have billions on the line. And, $13k a year in licensing proprietary software with instant support is fine. It gets the job done. Docs are unbelievably comprehensive.
I love open source software and truly see value in it. But if something is closed source but has proven track record, I’m fine with it.
Good luck trying to convince Bloomberg Terminal to release their source code.
I am not explicitly criticising GNU/FSF, but I think it's important to remember that they are always going to take the most extreme view on these matters, because that's why those projects exist.
(personally I see FSF/RMS as a lighthouse. I find their presence useful for navigation, but I don't necessarily want to get too close to them ;)
MIT license > GPL which is a draconian piece of work.
Linux needs a pragmatic, less asshole, more inclusive and approachable community.
GNU guys aren’t helping.
Talking about pragmatism, why do a weather app developers feel the need to get permission to access to my contact list, sms, my web browser history, and so on? It seems clear that regardless of what kind of software a developer, community or company do, there are political aspects that pushes away pragmatism. Simple programs that do a practical job and nothing else should be the norm, but there seems to always be a will to push it away from that.
Correct, you don't. LTS releases are good for at least 5 years, so you install it, tick the box for automatic updates and don't worry about anything for years. Then when the next LTS is out, you wait a few months, then click upgrade and drink a coffee. Time invested: 1 hr/5 years.
But what's with the weird tone? iMonsters? 10 year old news articles?
And why's it so bad that other applications can do malicious stuff on your computer? Shouldn't the author be happy that there's still enough openness on the Mac for this to occur? Isn't that what they want?
[1] https://support.apple.com/guide/photos/export-photos-videos-...
This (and a bunch of others) seems poorly sourced. It looks like Photos.app behaves the same as Aperture.app and many others. Your Library is a special folder. Your original photos are kept in whatever format they were originally taken in and all organizationational and library metadata are in a series of sqlite databases that are logically organized. I would be happy to see an open source photo library app structured the same way.
If you want original files, copy them out. If you want changes or metadata, dig through the databases. If you want "baked out" images, bulk export from Photos.app.
Modern iPhones will capture HEIF and HEVC photo and video, but it's not like they're secret or proprietary file formats. Apple switched away from JPEG and MOV because those formats are less efficient and cannot support modern features--much better than CR2/NEF raw formats other camera makers use.
PhotoStructure libraries are set up this way, except you can choose to either keep all your assets where they were, or import them into a single, deduplicated directory structure.
The SQLite database schema is commented and straightforward, and migrations between versions are humanly readable (if you want to see exactly how the schema evolves).
I've open-sourced much of the code, but know that I'm hoping it can pay for rent some day soon. The current beta release is free in exchange for feedback. The next version will have both free and paid tiers.
> ... much better than CR2/NEF raw formats other camera makers use.
HEIV/HEIC typically contains one or more lossy, compressed images, much like JPEG.
CR2, NEF, ARW, ORF and DNG formats are all "raw" lossless formats that directly store sensor data along with metadata.
They're for very different use cases.
Another way of looking at it, is that if it's allowed for dropbox it could be allowed for other apps.
End of the day it's your decision whether you want to still use an Apple device, assuming you have the choice, after knowing the potential problems with it.
I think the "lame overreach" hurts the credibility of the argument--even if it has merit.
More recently Dropbox has started using a kernel extension to support its SmartSync feature, which will soon be stymied, as Apple makes it more convoluted to load third party kexts in Big Sur.
I could make the claim that GNU software can get you killed, because military organisations build applications on top of it. This is true, but it hardly seems a fair point to make in assessing something like GNU/Linux.
There are legitimate weaknesses and user hostile designs in Apple operating systems, but Dropbox is not one of them.
Edited to add: anyone who remotely cares about security would not allow Dropbox anywhere near their systems, but that’s another discussion!
And the same people will cry censorship if Apple tries to enforce anything on Dropbox.
I'm ready to leave MacOS if this becomes reality (no way to install apps outside of Apple Store). So so far it's pretty easy to install custom apps and grand them root permissions.
It's the latest step in a multi-year effort to make macOS a little less of a wild-west of software, but as with all the previous steps, it's pretty trivial for knowledgeable users to override - you just right click on an app and choose "Open" and you can bypass the signature/notarization checks.