Hacker News Reader

> Accessing the file system is a constant hassle. Why so hard?

Apple prioritise the user at the expense of the developer. I think this is the right balance.

> I cannot install emacs on my Mac.

What's stopping you?

> Software that is free (as in GNU) is charged for in the App store.

I don't think this is in conflict with the spirit of the GNU project? Paying for software distribution is fine in the eyes of the GNU project and their licence. What's your problem with it?

> I am amazed that they care so little for those who are not quite the most important.

Apple think normal users are the most important, not developers. I think they're probably right.

Last month I heard people saying that Apple thinks normal users are more important than graphic designers, and the month before that I heard people claiming that we shouldn't worry about Parallels support because "normal users" don't need it. At this point, I'm not even convinced there is a normal user.

If you prioritised developers over everyone else... who do you think the developers would be developing for?

It's ironic that Apple is also preaching "Everyone Can Code". In other words, everyone is or can be a power user.

Computers are becoming more and more essential to our lives, so deliberately dumbing them down is a disservice to everyone, who should be learning more not less about how computers work.

My dad was in sales. My first exposure to computers was when he bought an Apple II way back in the day. He used VisiCalc, naturally, the "killer app" for the Apple II. Was he a "power user" or a "normal person"? I'd say both!

Why does a coder have to be a 'power user'? Why can't the applications needed for coding be like any other normal application? You don't need to use esoteric stuff like emacs to be a coder.

> Why can't the applications needed for coding be like any other normal application? You don't need to use esoteric stuff like emacs to be a coder.

What's a "normal application"? How would you classify Xcode?

The complexity comes from the nature of the work. Nobody wants complexity for its own sake, but sometimes you need it, otherwise you can't accomplish anything. That's what the "power" part of the power user means. The power to accomplish your goals. I would contrast "power user" with "powerless user". ;-)

Xcode is a normal application. I think you can get it from the App Store? It comes with all the permissions it needs, simulators, ability to connect to your devices etc. You don't need emacs or something like that.

People get this funny idea that coding is a fundamentally low-level activity in conflict with user protection. It isn't - it can be high-level. A compiler is a pure function!

> I think you can get it from the App Store? It comes with all the permissions it needs, simulators, ability to connect to your devices etc. You don't need emacs or something like that.

Haha, that's only because Apple controls the App Store and the OS. The first time you launch Xcode, it wants your admin privileges so it can install a bunch of stuff outside the sandbox. I shouldn't even say sandbox, because I think Xcode is not actually sandboxed?

The whole computer is a sandbox, as far as I am concerned!

Why does a coder have to use Apple's tools? Why can't the applications needed for coding be like any other normal application? You don't need to use proprietary software like xCode to be a coder.

> Why does a coder have to use Apple's tools?

A coder doesn't have to do anything. They don't have to use a Mac, they don't have to use Apple's tools.

Apple provides an ecosystem. Coding tools can fit into that ecosystem, or they can whine about it, or they can leave it.

> Why can't the applications needed for coding be like any other normal application?

They are - install them like a word processor or a graphics editor or whatever.

> You don't need to use proprietary software like xCode to be a coder.

Who said you did? You also don't need to use emacs. And it's Xcode, not 'xCode'.

The point is - Apple make it easy to code - the provide XCode. Saying 'but why not emacs' is entirely missing the point on what they're trying to do.

Seems we're in agreement then. My point wasn't that you shouldn't develop on MacOS, but that it won't fit my needs or workflow. If Apple is disinterested in supporting that, then I'm not interested in supporting them.

Why would I pay a premium to use an operating system that can't run software my free OS can?

> Why would I pay a premium to use an operating system that can't run software my free OS can?

Because you don't need all that software if your goal is to 'code'. If your goal is to run some specific ancient text editor then yeah you may struggle. If you want to code and get something done it's the right platform.

And because the 'normal' things are 10x better - power management, touchpad, display driving, etc.

Do you want to spend your time creating, or time trying to make basic display scaling work on Linux? And why are they better? Because Apple integrates.

I'd like to propose an amendment to their catchphrase, maybe you all can offer some feedback?

"Everyone Can Code*

*Unless you have a 128gb SSD."

> At this point, I'm not even convinced there is a normal user.

i think the right word is maybe "consumers" instead of "users"... the thing is, ipad and ios are fine for those use cases (super locked down, "safe", limited capabilities, better revenue funnel etc), dumbing down macos to get those users just hurts the macs value proposition imo

> Apple prioritise the user at the expense of the developer. I think this is the right balance.

Not for the developer.

> Apple prioritise the user at the expense of the developer. I think this is the right balance.

This assumes the user does no development, which is becoming less and less true over time. Computers are tools, people use them for stuff, and as the generations that didn't grow up with them die off, the ones that did are actually using them for more than just cat videos.

Also, nerfing the development experience means LESS development, which means less software and fewer bug fixes, which means a worse user experience. Gotta bootstrap starting from the boots.

The non-existence of Free Software in iOS or Android (though F-droid has made it more accessible, but still at the cost of being to actually use your device to it's max without going out of your way to Root) is all because of the friction of development to facilitate a monetizability first model.

Monetizability scales inversely with usability. The more usable something is by the end user, the less control a manufacturer has over what eventually gets done with it.

Manufacturers have come to realize this, and are pushing hard to sell people on them knowing what is best for people so they can perpetuate user hostile design paradigms. It's sickening, and practically ensures the creation of a larger rift between those who eventilually learn to use computers to their max potential and those who don't. The mechanisms required to constrain the overall programming space to enable gatekeeping mechanisms necessarily set the barrier to entry higher than it would otherwise need to be set.

Very insightful. I've never thought of it in this way, but you're exactly correct. It's the same with glued-in batteries, dongles, etc. Monetizability scales inversely with usability.

A lot has changed over the decades, security models and stances have traded a lot of flexibility. To smooth some of the rough edges of purely compiling from source take a look at homebrew (https://brew.sh/). Spacemacs (https://www.spacemacs.org/). I don’t develop desktop software any more and didn’t rush get into it on Mac, I’ve played around with swiftui a bit for iOS and server side (https://vapor.codes/). Perhaps the server side will scratch the itch?

These are stopgap solutions made to imitate aspects of other operating systems, and ultimately "break" the security model of the Mac. Apple knows the end-user is the weakest link in any security model, so by reducing the end-user's capabilities, you limit the risk they pose to the system. I'd rather just use an operating system that doesn't second-guess my choices in the first place.

Installing homebrew and emacs doesn't require turning off security. Maybe the one about "only run Apple signed software" - is that the default? I don't think it is.

I don't think a 3rd party package manager "breaks" the security model. I'm pragmatic and that gives me a few choices about flexibility. I'm able to run the software I need locally (Adobe Products) and the shell is familiar and I've got the utilities I need and the languages to interact with them and I'm able to get what I need done. Thankfully my workflow isn't one that requires fighting the OS or tooling support. I spend my time fiddling with the server side of things and now that docker is a thing it's more application side than anything.

“Software that is free (as in GNU) is charged for in the App store”

It can be argued that the App Store is incompatible with the GPL for other reasons (in spirit, if not in letter), but selling GPL software is allowed. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMon...:

“Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? (#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney)

Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)”

> I cannot install emacs on my mac. (I probably could, but how hard am I going to struggle?)

Eh? It's as simple as

$ brew install emacs

for me. I haven't come across any Emacs struggles that are Mac-specific?