Poll: What OS do you use everyday, or most often?
I am surprised nobody has submitted this poll, it's interesting to know anyway.
<snarky comments about quirky Leopard UI elided>
Not sure what your specific issues are, but I've been finding development on Linux to be much more accommodating for me.
On the mac getting libraries can be painful with MacPorts (I don't use Fink, does anyone know if it's better?)
The specific issues the OP mentioned were installing drivers and tweaking system preferences.
My typed, then deleted, comments were snarky.
I didn't see any value in making biased, preference-based complaints about how Leopard does things vs. what I like to do (i.e., The Right Way. :) ). But I know that most discussions about UIs tend to be full of such subjective assertions, so my little aside was my meta-comment. Or something like that.
For me (as others have pointed out as well), the ease of apt-get, and the wealth of OSS tools that seem to play better on Linux than on OSX, is the real win.
(Perhaps my biggest complaint about the OSX UI is how much I have to use the mouse to manipulate GUI items. Maybe that's just lack of experience on OSX, but Kubuntu Just Works for me. )
That's an often-cited overgeneralization.
I'm a developer and OSX is not Linux done right for me. In my book the OSX window management is ridiculously clumsy and gives me nowhere near the speed/control that I have under ion3. For example: The latter gives me tabs on every frame, that means I can rapidly tab through any windows I have attached there, without moving my eyes. It also lets me setup multiple parallel mini-IDEs without thinking, because everything stays in place and never overlaps - unless I explicitly move it or make it so. People often get dizzy watching me because my workflow involves a lot of muscle memory; I know which sequence of keystrokes gets me where, hence my edit/compile/test roundtrips are quite a bit faster than what I've seen on eclipse or OSX jockeys - who commonly have to fall back to the cable-rat for any sequence that deviates from what their IDE anticipates (e.g. to juggle a few config files along the line).
For bragging rights, my sequence to setup a new "mini-IDE" with a 50/50 horizontal split (browser window full width on top) and a 50/50 vertical split in the bottom frame (two terminal windows each in left/right):
* F9, Enter (new desktop)
* Alt+s (split horizontal)
* Alt+Down (move to bottom frame)
* Alt+d (split vertical)
* F1, F1 (launch two xterms, left)
* Alt+right (move to right frame)
* F1, F1 (launch two xterms, right)
* Alt+up (move to top frame)
* F5 (launch browser)
These sequences are my bread & butter (have 7 virtual desktops open for various tasks right now). I can not imagine going back to an old-fashioned mouse-driven window manager ever again.
So, show me functionality like that on OSX, then we can start talking about the other areas where OSX falls short for me.
@antirez what device driver did you have to write for linux, can you point me to your source code? And seriously, linux has matured significantly, what distribution have you tried? And how about quoting specific stuff instead of the some general gyaan.
I switched to OSX after using linux as my primary OS for about 5 or 6 years, and the big difference for me was that I didn't have to spend valuable time actually getting osx to work. Linux is amazingly customizable which can be great, but when it comes to getting work done all I care about is having a terminal, vim, and being able to run a local server to test my work. Anything else that I have to configure is just getting in my way.
Edit: As much as I like OSX, there is only only app that I actually require that is OSX specific, and that is quicksilver, which for me completely changes my workflow and allows me to productively use a 13" laptop as my primary development machine without the need for an external monitor. I think also goes to show my point, that OSX doesn't necessarily have any spectacular features or applications that draw me too it, but really its the fact that it is a unix based OS that I can use without hassle.
The real thing is that I just can't stand about OS X though isn't about practical like not being able to get a certain application or type of application working or anything like that (I do generally prefer the applications I use on Linux to their OS X counterparts though). It's simply that it's non-free, and the whole ecosystem of software for it is generally non-free. I know lots of Mac users and this doesn't seem to bug them or occur to them at all.
When I first turned on my iBook, I have to tell it more than once "no, I don't want a .Mac account". When I start iTunes, and possibly other applications (I just remember iTunes specifically), I have to click "I agree" to a license agreement. There are lots of really trivial bits of software which you'd get with `sudo apt-get install x` in Linux but the OS X equivalent is some sort of shareware crap... I found this to be particularly bad for tools that convert between file formats.
Am I just crazy or does this not bother anybody else that uses OS X?
That's because the exchange for a lot of OS X stuff is: You pay a small sum of money in exchange for developers that work their asses off on making your user experience perfect. Delicious Monster, Cultured Code, RealMac, Blacktree, Panic Inc. - especially Panic Inc. Then there are the developers who don't make commercial Mac apps but who are part of the same developer scene: Coudal, 37signals, Neubix, on and on.
They're actually why I bought OS X: Once upon a time, I used Virb - designed by Neubix - read their blog, and slowly came across these other developers and their blogs, and fell in love with all these small development teams whose lives focus on developing their applications and making a profit. When I got my Mac, I started with a few of those teams' applications. Specifically, I bought Panic's Coda and demoed CC's Things. The experiences I get with those applications are stupendous.
Coda's the only thing I use that makes me love coding; without it, I get bored easily with the processes. I'd say it's absolutely been worth my $100 purchase. A hundred dollars for a code editor, FTP transmitter, CSS styler, a set of well-formatted reference books, and in-app browser testing? That's a damned good deal. And yes: I can do that for free, I could open emacs next to Safari, download free guides online. But it's worth my money not to ever have to bother with that stuff at all.
The license agreement... I don't find the license agreement at all frustrating. You click "Accept" once, then never see it again. MobileMe I got almost immediately: It syncs up everything I've got, gives me a nice email system, and it's worth the money I pay for it. I've seen the free alternatives, and they're not worth paying money for.
As for the "trivial bits of software", I've found I need very few applications to complete my Mac experience. I used the free OnyX to tweak my settings, I got Dropbox, and outside of Coda and iWork I find I rarely need anything else. I used to use Fluid.app to run web applications I liked, and that was free. Max converts every file format I need converted, excepting WMVs which I can convert using iTunes in a virtual simulator, and I need to convert WMVs very rarely.
Some people need free. Some people think that everything should be free. They're absolutely allowed to go that route. But most Mac users don't find it outrageous to pay developers for their time. A hundred dollars for a product is nothing, when that hundred dollars ensures never once having to look in a help manual to get something done or dealing with a crash or a slowdown or anything, really. It's similar to the thousands of dollars spent on the Mac itself. You don't pay that money for the RAM, or the screen. You pay that money because Apple tries to guarantee that things don't fuck up for you, and the impressive thing about Apple is that things really don't fuck up. I've been on my current set-up for a year and I've had five total crashes, each from weeks of multitasking processes without ever putting my computer to sleep. I have no problems that I can't find an app for. A lot of things on the Mac are so simple that I now have problems using Windows and Linux because they can't handle the functions that I use now. So no, that doesn't bother me, because for my money I get trust. Working with Ubuntu bothers me, because things don't feel like part of a logical whole. It's a matter of personal preference.
Also I don't like your tone when you say "But most Mac users don't find it outrageous to pay developers for their time. "
It really isn't about that. I just don't want to tie myself to proprietary software. And something like apt is fundamentally impossible with proprietary software, unless you go the App store route (let Apple control everything).
Whenever I install a proprietary application that I have downloaded from some website I googled for, I feel as if my Computer has become unclean and untrustworthy.
Basically, the second half of your post is just nonsense ("Apple never fucks up etc."), but as I said, the first part was OK.
It really isn't about that. I just don't want to tie myself to proprietary software. And something like apt is fundamentally impossible with proprietary software, unless you go the App store route (let Apple control everything).
Both of these are issues of trust. I don't think Apple will fuck me over with their iTunes user agreement. I do think the proprietary developers I purchase from won't stop making their stuff better any time soon. So far, I've never once felt that trust broken. I don't think it ever will break, because for Apple or especially a third-party developer to try and fuck its users over would be suicide. A two-man team can't afford to use their applications capriciously if their lifestyle is funded by app development.
Basically, the second half of your post is just nonsense ("Apple never fucks up etc."), but as I said, the first part was OK.
This is an argument that happens here once a week, and not just with my involvement, so I'll give my typical answer: Some people are the type that notices Apple's design expertise, and they're people who don't need explanations; other people don't care enough about design to ever notice, and that's completely fine too. Fact is, I think that my Macbook Pro with OS X is the best thing I've ever used in my life, and I love everything about it ferociously, but the things that make me fall in love likely aren't things that would interest you at all. Similarly, I don't feel your love for free software whatsoever. It's a difference of mindset that's completely cool.
Or maybe they just have different tastes and preferences. Apple Design is not the only possible design, and it has it's downsides.
Side question: Is it possible to get and use iTunes without agreeing to let Apple spy on you? The EULA says I have to grant Apple the right collect assorted information, but with no definite restrictions or limits on what I'm allowing them to collect. This is nuts. I pay several hundred dollars for a Mini, and to use the software I have agree to annoying bullshit like that?
OK, rant over.
I would love to see the current OS breakdown from ycombinator logs to compare. Anyone?
45.5% Windows
37.6% Mac
15.1% Linux
84.94% Windows
12.46% Mac
1.55% Linux 21.37% Windows (199)
40.28% Mac (375)
35.12% Linux (327)
I for one browse hn on my Macintosh, play tf2 and warsow on my windoze xp machine and have wholesome programming fun on my Linux box.
Seems like there's a discrepancy somewhere, and I would say that it's users voting for the OS they would like to use as their main OS and not the one they actually use.
The little tricks that psychology plays on us...
[1] ycombinator visitor OS breakdown
[2] ycombinator visitor OS breakdown of people who actively contribute by voting/comments. (note intentionally avoiding the ones who post)
Given what user ratsbane reports (above) - windows 46% & mac 38% the gap is not big. So it could be like among visitors the breakdown win-(mac+linux) is like 60-30, then among ones who check out articles 45-50 and among ones who contribute it is 30-60.
Additionally it might be the case looking at comments people vote on both mac & linux as they use both and at same capacities.
* Focus follows mouse
* Alt+LMB drag to move whole window
* Alt+MMB drag to move nearest corner (ie resize)
The default Mac interface in particular I find difficult, as there's just one tiny resize tab in one corner. Is there anything that can help me here? Or do you do things differently?
Personally I don't use the mouse much at all so I don't need focus follows mouse, and I don't move windows and instead use the methods described above to move between them.
It's good enough I gave up on Quicksilver. I never used the fancier features.
MercuryMover - lets you move windows and resize them to preset positions with hotkeys (left half of screen, top half of screen, etc.)
MondoMouse - adds hotkeys that allow you to drag or resize a window from any position
There's also a Mac application that lets you resize your window from any side, but I don't recall what it's called.
(I really use it because it lets me use the scrollwheel on any window, without bringing the window to the foreground or giving focus to it).
So do Mac users simply not like fullscreen windows, do they all have some utility that does this, or am I just missing something? To me it seems like an extreme shortcoming, but I'm sure there's a reason for the limitation.
While few applications on any platform seem to support this kind of true fullscreen mode, I use "almost fullscreen" windows all the time: on OSX the green orb in the upper left corner of every window acts as a toggle which maximizes the window or returns it to its original size. I say "almost fullscreen" because the omnipresent menu bar and window decorations remain visible when you work this way.
There's an application called Mega Zoomer that gives all Cocoa apps a sexy fullscreen view. But mostly, the answer's that Mac users don't like fullscreen.
It's pretty obvious that you don't have a choice and that Apple, right or wrong, has mandated that you don't need to have your windows in fullscreen mode. Instead of openly discussing the shortcomings of the OS you come up with this sort of reasoning: I really don't like being forced into maxing my windows, much better not to have the choice. You don't need it. Besides if you really want it it's easy - you just go to site xyz and download the app that makes it possible. To me that just a semi-circular argument, and not a very good solution to a problem that I'm sure a lot of people have.
There are many examples like this, and the reasoning is always the same: You don't need that, it's much better to do it the Mac way. We know much better than you what you want....
Sorry to be harsh, and it's not picking at you Zimbabwe, it's picking at the Mac cult.
I prefer GNU/Linux, it allows me to change what I need to.
OS X is completely Unix-based. All the things you can tweak are things I can tweak, too. I can also treat OS X like Linux if I want to: Getting Gnome or KDE to run on a Mac is really easy. I tried it out by downloading Amarok, which was a huge mistake because the lack of polish in KDE shines through when it's next to Mac stuff.
(I can make an argument about why closed source is a bad thing, but it would be rather lengthy. I'm assuming you'd rather me not derail this thread by providing it?)
Edit: typo
In 1986, I used QNX with primitive window managers -- I still miss a scroll button with a large usable trackball to scroll through code, and the focus followed pointer. I started using Macs about 1987, and the interface felt awkward at first, but I liked it's overlapping windows as opposed to apps that filled the screen, or only ran at a specific resolutions.
I remember Microsoft Excel for DOS which was ported from Macintosh. Since it was DOS, they built an entire Window Manager for Excel. I think that this is why Windows inherited the application windows within windows (Multiple Document Interface) that some applications still have, and some people still love MDI in apps like Opera. I think that because of this Excel port, Windows inherited function names from the original Mac API. I don't like the gymnastics of using my pinky finger to hold down the Control key in Windows, I'd prefer using my thumb on the Command key in Mac OS, but thankfully Microsoft put out a little hack to reverse those keys.
To me, Linux inherits X Windows, features from older Unix window managers, and a bias from Windows because that's what a lot of people have used. But Linux brings lots of choices and possibilities, and lots of configuring if that's what your into.
Since the advent of USB mice, the Mac now has more than one mouse button. I remember seeing a mouse at a CAD/CAM show that probably had about nine buttons on the mouse.
Don't flip the bozo bit.
Could you indicate the reason for the poll? That will get the conversation going in the direction you want it to and will give everybody some context when replying.
This poll is different from the favorite color poll because it's technology related, I guess it's not only me who is curious about this question, as people are actually upmodding the poll.
Does the OS really matter that much these days? I use OS/X on the notebook because everything works! Could only get 90% of stuff to work reliably on a HP notebook (C700) with Ubuntu. The Mac Book Pro cost three times the HP, but it's worth every dollar in saved time. Don't get me started on how much Vista kept getting in the way as originally shipped on the HP.
What am I missing?
I'm not sure about CPU performance differences between VB and anything else, but it's never been a problem for me.
Just wondering what would make VirtualBox "fantastic", VMWare et al are already pretty good...
I use Windows to play Quake Live.
1. Mac OS X - for "normal people" stuff. Web browsing, IM, Twitter, music, movies, foo.
2. Linux (Ubuntu) - so that I can build (3).
3. Haiku (http://haiku-os.org) - because I can.
In serverland, 1 dedicated server (France) and 1 slice (USA) running Ubuntu 9.04 server, the other vps running RHEL; Mono 2.4.2.
I always have a stack of Putty windows open.
Granted, in terms of user interface (among other things), OS X is far superior to Gnome; however, aside from the gorgeous design of Aqua, in terms of actual day-to-day usability, they are pretty much on par with each other (at least as far as I'm concerned).
Ummm, so, I already voted for Linux since that's where all the work gets done. Should I vote for Windows, too?
That's why companies standardize on a toolchain. By the way, we standardized on Ubuntu at my company. And while the the home computer is my girlfriends Macbook I hardly ever really use it, so I voted once.
In my context, we are building something new, that has never existed before, and we don't know the design we are going to converge on. Of course we have some reasonable ideas that we want to try out. But for us, slapping components together to achieve a desired behavior is way more productive than building that behavior cleanly de novo, because we don't know if the behavior we have in mind will work. The immediate goal is to try out a broad gamut of possibilities, quickly; find something that works; and then to push ahead to the next stage of the workflow. The medium term goal is to assemble a workflow that takes us from sample to analyzed data. The longer term goal is to iterate this workflow, so we go faster and faster from sample to analysis, on bigger and bigger data sets.
As we complete a single iteration, we get a chance to clean up our toolchain. But we only to clean it up enough that it will support the amount of scaling up we want to do in the next iteration, since the next level of scale will introduce new, unexpected problems.
Once we have a system that runs fast enough, and big enough to be worth deploying on an ongoing basis (say for a five year lifespan) it starts to pay to build a clean toolchain, reducing our ridiculous, MacGyver'ed, Rube Goldberg monstrosity into something clean, maintainable, and extensible. But if we tried to do this from the beginning, by now we would have gotten exactly.... nowhere.
Of course there's a balance. One perpetually runs the risk of creating an intractable hairball. That's another sign it's time to clean up the toolchain...
I've been thinking of getting a macbook lately - I've never used OSX and have heard good things (I also love the look of them).
I'm torn between my tried and true Fedora/ Thinkpad (I'll upgrade my existing one) combo and a shiny new macbook.
Are there any converts here? Did you miss the package manager? Do you find the paid upgrades not worth it compared to the 6 monthly Linux distro revisions?
I have a bad feeling I'll miss the convenience of yum install [package].
Personally, I develop on a macbook and virtualize Windows XP and Linux (Arch Linux). I tend to just use which ever is the native environment for what I'm working with (eg: C on linux, ruby on mac).
Windows/Windows/Windows/Windows/OSX side-by-side, shared keyboard through Synergy (w/ synergy server as a Vista+Vaio).
With 4 perpetual ssh connections to different flavors of Linuxy servers (CentOS/CentOS/Fedora/SuSE). With 2 perpetual RDP sessions open to 2 more Windows boxen.
I prefer Linux for its freedom, I'll put up with the lack of a polished OS and inconveniences for the freedom it provides.
For developing it's great though.
But not enough to change my OS completely (a la Linux)
Synergy rules.
They feel sort of Reddit-ish. :)
I'm thinking my first poll should be, "Should James make a poll?"
:)
Home - OSX
It would be interesting to measure the usage of say posting this comment, how many machine instructions were used at the OSX end, and how many by the various routers (running their own operating systems), servers etc used in the full life cycle of what I am doing.
From my own experience, using Gmail is a different experience in each OS. I can't stand to use it on OS X, whereas on Windows it was always open.
(practically)