They have a better UI than Debian/Ubuntu/whatever. They have better security features than both OS X and Linux. If they get the open source thing right, both OS X and Linux will (have to) improve as a direct result of that. Can't lose.
// Did I miss something?
> They have a better UI than Debian/Ubuntu/whatever.
They may beat out some linux distros but there are some VERY nice looking linux distros and OS X blows Windows UI out of the water.
> They have better security features than both OS X and Linux.
Oh, give me a minute to wipe the tears out of my eyes, that was a good one.
> If they get the open source thing right, both OS X and Linux will (have to) improve as a direct result of that. Can't lose.
I venture a guess that OS X has more open source contributions than Windows (or at least more contributions that I benefit from) but let's remember they said 'Definitely Possible' not 'Coming Tomorrow'. Linux has been open source from the start and OS X has deep roots in an open source OS as well. Why would OS X or Linux "have to" improve, open sourcing shit doesn't make it any less shitty....
> // Did I miss something?
Yes you missed a "/s" flag at the end of your post. Microsoft is not making Linux or OS X "look bad" it's finally doing what every other kid on the block has been doing for a while now. Let's not praise them for doing the right thing when they should have been doing the right thing all along...
Nope.
I don't care how "nice looking" the distros are. I care about consistent, well though out design guidelines that users can rely on across many applications. And yes, OS X is better, hence they're not in the list.
They do have significantly better security features (that has been true for a while now). See my answer below for details.
Apple is one of the most secretive companies we have on this planet and I, a Apple user, am not happy about that. (Yann Lecun complained about this in a recent Facebook ad too.) All parts that matter are closed: Kernel stuff, device drivers, core libs/frameworks, the Swift compiler, etc.
Ignorance is bliss.
> They do have significantly better security features (that has been true for a while now). See my answer below for details.
You must still be responding to bigstumpy so I'll wait for that reply and respond in that thread.
> Apple is one of the most secretive companies we have on this planet and I, a Apple user, am not happy about that.
I hear that but I'm going to pick the best platform that let's me do my job best and for now (and for a while now) OS X has been that platform. I don't think I could ever go back to non-unixy OS (read: windows). I can survive on Linux (All of my code runs on Linux and I work with Linux servers) as a desktop OS but where it really shines IMHO is server OS's.
> All parts that matter are closed: Kernel stuff, device drivers, core libs/frameworks, the Swift compiler, etc.
As someone who would only care about the Swift compiler and possibly core libs/frameworks I guess this just doesn't bother me personally as much. I'd love if it was all OS for other people's benefit but it don't affect my day to day life really.
> Ignorance is bliss.
This is true but OS X let's me do my job better than Windows/Linux so call me ignorant cause development on OS X (for me) is bliss.
It's not just looks. Almost every Windows application has the same keyboard shortcuts. How many X-based Linux applications is that true for? Even classic command-line utils are wildly inconsistent (look at dd, for instance).
OS X has some great things about it but there is so much software that is only on Windows that I want to use that it ends up being hard to use other OSs for desktop (I've used both Linux and OS X for several years before coming back).
I don't use keyboard shortcuts as much as some people may but I've never experienced issues with hotkey differences between apps in OS X. The one's I use are always consistent.
> there is so much software that is only on Windows
I don't have this issue either. For every daily task I do I have a native OS X app that performs without issues (often looking better while doing it than their windows alternative/equivalent). There is 1 single windows app that I need to use 1-2 times a month that a vendor provides and I have a VirtualBox VM for that. I do understand that different sectors/professions will have different experiences but OS X does everything I need it to do and I've never felt restrained.
As far as your second point, I'm glad for you, but it wasn't my experience and I got really sick of jumping through hoops trying to emulate a Windows environment for various software that was not available in OS X.
I'm sorry but this just isn't true. I've used a MBP the last few years for my webdev work and spend most of my time in terminal, Chrome and ST3 avoiding the OSX interface whenever possible. Because the moment I open Finder and try to navigate, I wish I were using File Explorer instead.
Then I give a presentation, detach the HDMI cable, leaving my MBP screen unresponsive until I am forced to reboot, and I sigh.
Can you expand on what is so egregious about Finder? Also in terms of apps on each platform I don't think you can really make a point about Windows beating out OS X. On average I've found OS X apps to be leaps and bounds over Windows equivalents.
> Then I give a presentation, detach the HDMI cable, leaving my MBP screen unresponsive until I am forced to reboot, and I sigh.
I've used an HDMI cable at work with my Mac weekly if not more often and I've never had that issue. As well as my extra monitors (one runs on HDMI and the other on Thunderbolt).
Hm? The dmg files that you have to double-click on, manually drag into your app folder, then manually unmount from the desktop? Why do I still have to do all that busywork in 2015?
DMG files are a way to ship app bundles (or other files). They're basically images with compression and checksumming added on top (I think). Images are useful (compared to, say, a zip archive) because you can mount them (e.g., over a network). That's useful for all kinds of sysadmin-y things. (Compression and checksumming are obviously useful as well.)
The only thing I care about is the apps that I'm running on the OS. They're what I came to the computer for, not a purple or blue desktop.
I'm not saying my opinion is better than others. And I used to be smitten with all the little font, color and widget adjustments that Windows or Linux has. But I gradually found myself just not caring about all that, because they have nothing to do with what I want to do: work and play.
Just to be clear: Linux is doing fine. OS X is a hell of a lot worse.
---
I forgot to say what I actually wanted to say: I said security features, not overall security. Linux is FOSS.
> Windows
> Microsoft's Windows Vista (released January 2007) and later have ASLR enabled for only those executables and dynamic link libraries specifically linked to be ASLR-enabled. For compatibility, it is not enabled by default for other applications. Typically, only older software is incompatible and ASLR can be fully enabled by editing a registry entry "HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management\MoveImages", or by installing Microsoft's Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit.
> The locations of the heap, stack, Process Environment Block, and Thread Environment Block are also randomized. A security whitepaper from Symantec noted that ASLR in 32-bit Windows Vista may not be as robust as expected, and Microsoft has acknowledged a weakness in its implementation.
> Host-based intrusion prevention systems such as WehnTrust and Ozone also offer ASLR for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 operating systems. WehnTrust is open-source. Complete details of Ozone's implementation is not available.
> It was noted in February 2012 that ASLR on 32-bit Windows systems prior to Windows 8 can have its effectiveness reduced in low memory situations. Similar effect also had been achieved on Linux in the same research. The test code caused the Mac OS X 10.7.3 system to kernel panic, so it was left unclear about its ASLR behavior in this scenario.
> Mac OS X
> In Mac OS X Leopard 10.5 (released October 2007), Apple introduced randomization for system libraries.
> In Mac OS X Lion 10.7 (released July 2011), Apple expanded their implementation to cover all applications, stating "address space layout randomization (ASLR) has been improved for all applications. It is now available for 32-bit apps (as are heap memory protections), making 64-bit and 32-bit applications more resistant to attack."
> As of OS X Mountain Lion 10.8 (released July 2012) and later, the entire system including the kernel as well as kexts and zones are randomly relocated during system boot.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_space_layout_randomizat...
They all have ASLR, but the Windows implementation is supposed to be better than Linux' (even if it's just a little). Anyway, they're both better than Apple's. The details really do matter here.
---
By the way: Linux plays a very odd role here because it's also run on servers. Might be an unfair comparison.
---
You really shouldn't google for these things (for the same reason you shouldn't listen to me either). Having said that, this source seems alright: https://www.cert.org/blogs/certcc/post.cfm?EntryID=191
Make sure to have a look at the Reddit discussion as well.
Another good example for this is how /dev/urandom is implemented in Linux and FreeBSD/OS X. They both have it but it's not quite the same.
---
Also note that the reason MS invests more into security than Apple does is because of their painful history. Makes all the sense in the world, doesn't it?
---
Here's another one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_operating_system...
Note that Capsicum and SELinux aren't used that much (unfortunately). I don't know if Apple's sandbox is "inspired by" Capsicum. I also don't know why the MS sandbox isn't listed there. What's the feature called that gives each app it's own System32?
Edit:
Found this but it's from 2011 so probably out of date: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/21/mac_os_x_lion_securi...
> Did I miss something?