> I grew up a Windows user, and switched to OS X because of the unix-like command line environment that more closely matched the servers I was working with in my job environments.
Out of curiosity, why would you not just go with a Linux desktop for that?
I'm not who you asked, but because I like to spend my day debugging my terrible code, not my desktop.
Before you ask, yes I do have a Linux laptop (Acer C720P ChromeBook, unlocked with Debian + Gnome), and with all the sudden issues that pop out of seemingly nowhere (my latest dragon is a recurrent kernel module crash that can fill my disk up with .core files in 10 minutes), I've switched back to a 13" rMBP. Though, I have heard that 2016 is going to be the year of the Linux Desktop...
Measuring Linux maturity by chromebooks is silly though. It's a hack. Linux on bare metal works really well these days. Especially if you use a machine that has linux in mind (ie dell xps).
I briefly tried switching to Ubuntu on my desktop a few months ago after being unable to compile some CUDA project on Windows. Gave up after spending several hours trying to figure out why it refused to set one of my monitors to anything other than 1024x768. Linux is easily the best operating system for productivity, but there are still too many issues to make it as comfortable as OSX or Windows for everyday use.
Same history here. I did actually use Linux for quite a while but ultimately gave up because Linux just isn't good at the one job only an operating system can do, which is to make the hardware available in a reliable and efficient manner.
I just got tired of fixing sound issues, trying to make a scanner work or investigating CPU states to fix heat and battery draining issues on yet another laptop. Ultimately, I think, all of this is a result of the unresolved issue of who should write and test device drivers.
It doesn't help that I disagree profoundly with the prevailing package management philosophy of Linux distributions, but that is a comparably superficial problem that can be worked around.
That's anecdata. Of course it can work the other way too. I've got a printer/scanner which "just works" with Linux. On Windows however they need crazy, proprietary driver/application which always lives in the traybar and tries hard to take over native windows settings.
Sure, that's what this whole thread is about. But I'm afraid that there is causality involved that we know about without collecting any sample data at all.
Developers of Linux device drivers for consumer devices quite often do not have access to all the hardware and information they need. And hardware makers quite often do not make high quality Linux device drivers for their consumer devices. For most consumer laptops, the vendor will not do integration testing to make sure everything works well together on Linux.
I don't think the right response to that is to deny that the average laptop or peripheral will work better with Windows. The right response is to make it clear that you have to make very deliberate hardware choices if you plan to use Linux and accept that much of the hardware you can use is always going to be slightly dated. And that is in fact what many Linux advocates are saying.
Choosing a Mac also restricts your hardware choices quite dramatically after all, so if a broad selection of hardware is your goal, Windows is the only game in town.
> Linux just isn't good at the one job only an operating system can do, which is to make the hardware available in a reliable and efficient manner.
It's not the best desktop environment out there, but apart from desktop, linux is the most popular system at every step from small embedded systems to the most powerful supercomputers. That wouldn't be the case if it couldn't make hardware available in a reliable and efficient manner.
I was speaking in the context of the question I was replying to, which was "why would you not just go with a Linux desktop for that?"
More specifically, it's the state of Linux device drivers and integration testing for laptops and consumer peripherals I'm complaining about. That's not a result of any inherent deficiency of the Linux kernel or its design. It's ultimately an economics issue.
It's not the most popular system on phones, unless you are using "Linux" in the correct sense to mean the kernel. But I believe GP was using it in the colloquial sense to mean GNU/Linux, since this thread isn't really about the Linux kernel, but the ""Linux"" userland.
Android certainly doesn't have the userland that is typically (incorrectly) called Linux.
The parent was specifically talking about making hardware available for use. That's kernel stuff, not GNU userland.
But if you want to talk about userland, then you need to buy supported equipment. OSX doesn't work with a ton of equipment out there - as that equipment does not come with OSX drivers. Windows also works like shit when it doesn't have the drivers - anyone who has had to install XP regularly will quite happily attest to just how terrible it is at supporting network cards before you install drivers.
Then, of course, there's the bonus of the AMD Catalyst driver installer program for windows: at least as recently as win7, if you didn't have drivers for video, it fell back to VGA graphics. The Catalyst driver installer was too large to be seen on VGA - you couldn't see the bottom of the installer window to see what was going on, and couldn't drag the window high enough without a hard-to-discover key chord. :)
The argument to "buy stuff your operating system supports" sounds like a cop-out, but it really isn't. OSX, for example, is difficult to make run on things other than Apple-designed computers, but if you complained about it, people would write you off as an idiot.
Because OS X has historically been vastly better than Linux at all the non-server stuff, and comes pre-installed on the good laptops. The gap is a lot smaller than it used to be, but Apple is still the easiest choice for desktop/laptop Unix.
I'm also not him, but I switched to OS X for a while, too. I couldn't afford a MacBook, so I actually ran a Hackintosh.
The reasons were 1) it ran the unixy stuff I needed for university AND modern games at the same time, and 2) it was boring and conservative. In a time where Linux and Windows were changing and breaking (Windows 8, Gnome 3, ...) it was nice to use something stable, well-tested, and polished.
I'm not that guy but I followed a similar path. For me, there is no laptop that truly competes with the MBP and runs Linux with no issues (I've never liked Thinkpads). The recent Dell XPS Dev model is the only product that has come close, but before that there was basically nothing.
I always use Linux for desktops., I see no reason not to.
For my desktop.. it does non worky things. For example I Zwift and I Game. Neither work well enough in Linux.
For my laptops... always had linux laptop problems. Sometimes have gotten really close to all the way working.. but then maybe I will find out my battery drains in 2 hours because some power saving feature is broke in my kernel and I cannot be arsed to go fix it, rather just buy a macbook.
Now for this vs macbook.. it depends how next macbook line looks. I need a 32GB ram laptop. If Apple skips that ship again, this will start to look pretty dang appealing.
That being the opposite of my experience. While we're making bland sweeping gestures, I have been having it easy developing on Linux (specifically Bodhi with Moksha DE) while fixing my partner's Windows PC every week because it fails constantly. Hell, Windows can't seem to go from location A to B and change networks without a meltdown. It's an awful OS with awful usability, a file explorer that is awful to use and a file system that makes development feel like physical pain.
There, now we're even. Let's get back to EEE, and the real porblems and advantages with this news.
It depends on what you do. It's terrible for media things, but it's the best OS for programmers and I don't have to go along with every UI trend Microsoft/Apple are implementing this week.
Or maybe they don't need a bunch of proprietary software? I've been running Linux on all of my desktops for the past few years, and I don't find myself wanting anything more. When doing research, working on free software, etc. I don't need anything I can't get on Linux. I don't play games anymore, so that basically removes most of the "Linux on the desktop" issues that people have.
Not the OP, but for me at least I did. And it was unstable and didn't work very well. My OSX laptop "just works", that isn't to say it doesn't have issues but the amount of time I spend futzing about because of driver issues, sound issues or wifi issues is drastically reduced.
Because when i switched to OS X - over 10 years ago - I still needed access to Photoshop, MS Office and other modern business tools, most of which are still not available on Linux to this day.
And also because the user experience of OS X (and the "just works" aspects of the OS in general) is far above that of any Linux desktop.
In the same boat: I bought an MacBookPro bacause I wanted a nice (new) machine with a decent keyboard/touchpad that didn't force me to purchase Windows. And the keyboard and touchpad on these things are phenomenal.
Out of curiosity, why would you not just go with a Linux desktop for that?