I've used OS X at work for the past 2 years and I completely disagree that OS X is nice for developers. I've had a lot of issues that I wouldn't have had if I was using a GNU/Linux distro like Debian. Major issues with GCC after certain updates, outdated GNU software like bash, brew is barely acceptable as a package manager (can't hold a candle to dpkg/apt), and I have to go to websites to get the installers for most big programs (Emacs, Firefox, others) like I'm using Windows anyway. I don't like like the desktop environment, either. The window manager is subpar and the virtual desktops are lacking compared to what you get with most GNU/Linux DEs.
I know that a lot of people disagree with me because I see developers with macbooks all the time, but imo OS X is not a good environment for hackers on a purely technical level (ignoring the issues of proprietary software).
This. Tweakability isn't the issue. Simply catering to pro users is the issue. I moved from Linux to OS X in 2004 and am now on the fence about moving back.
When OS X came out, Steve Jobs promised an OS that would cater to pro users as well as amateurs. He literally said so in one of his keynotes. But around 2006, Apple started focusing on the upcoming iPhone and downprioritized OS X development. Nowadays it's all about making OS X more and more like iOS. They no longer care about pro users.
Case in point: If you're doing pentesting you need a machine that stays silent when connected to a network. With OS X you always have mDNSResponder blaring out. Prior to 10.6 you'd just solve this with a simple "launchctl unload" and be done with it. From 10.6 however, unicast DNS resolution was moved into mDNSResponder, so you need to keep it running or you lose the ability to resolve anything in the DNS. Of course it's possible to filter the multicast DNS announcements with pf, but it turns out that mDNSResponder will occasionally resolve various apple.com and Akamai addresses and that can't be disabled.
Same with IPv6 link-local addressing, it used to be possible to disable it completely, now that's no longer possible because they've dumbed down the UI. And when you use WiFi, OS X will regularly send 802.1X EAPOL messages out. That can't be disabled even with pf because pf doesn't filter on layer 2. Under these circumstances I find OS X to be unusable for pentesting.
And don't get me started on the laughable HFS filesystem and the non-existence of a package manager.
> But around 2006, Apple started focusing on the upcoming iPhone and downprioritized OS X development. Nowadays it's all about making OS X more and more like iOS. They no longer care about pro users.
This is a very compelling narrative, but the set-up simply does not support the conclusion.
Making OSX more like iOS (sandboxing, for instance) is an incredibly welcome feature for pro users and newbs alike.
The other changes you point out are not related to the iOS-ification of the OS, and are not specifically "this isn't for pro users" sorts of changes as much as they are rearchitectures of the subsystems... it doesn't seem related to some "ignore the pro users" push.
I suggest you buy a usb network interface and pass the device through to a VM (Vagrant+VirtualBox is great for this) for your pentesting - then you get the best of both worlds.
As someone who's been using OSX full-time for the past two years, and using it in conjuction with a Linux-based desktop computer for the previous ~5.
Yes.
Linux is insanely better for development. But OSX is just passable enough that the form-factor of an Apple laptop wins out and I can work. I don't want to go back to using two computers and OSX is _much_ better at everyday non-developer stuff than any Linux I've ever used so I make do with bad package managers and random compilation issues.
Pray god that I never have to wipe my hard drive though. Getting all the random libraries and whatnot that I've accumulated over the years would be a pain in the arse. (I've been dragging the same backups forward ever since I got my first mac)
PS: do start using Oh-My-Zsh. Your life will be better.
No, I like bash (or fish sometimes) with my own personal configuration that I fully understand. If I were to switch to zsh, I would just use zsh, and not a giant bundle of stuff that someone else thinks I need.
I am also a friend of a self-configured shell. But projects like oh-my-zsh and Prezto are great to get some inspiration. I learned alot by browsing through their code.
> Pray god that I never have to wipe my hard drive though. Getting all the random libraries and whatnot that I've accumulated over the years would be a pain in the arse.
Something there doesn't sound right (and brings up questions about how do you even manage so many random libraries and whatnot).
Dependency and package management isn't that difficult and when I wipe my hdd/ssd it usually takes me some 30 minutes to get my generic environment bootstrapped and up to date (with a mixture of shell scripts and brew install `my-package-list.txt`). After that, each project takes few minutes to download all deps/libs with some dependency management tool.
Just the same way I would imagine that you've got your oh-my-zsh config version controlled (speaking of oh-my-zsh, I'd like to also mention prezto[0]!)
> Pray god that I never have to wipe my hard drive though.
You will have to, and sooner than you think. Hard drives do not last forever.
That's why instead of hoping to never reinstall an OS again, i decided to embrace OS installation and do it often, from scratch. This means:
- Reducing tweaks to the only necessary ones.
- Keeping a "how to install" text file in bitbucket.
- Having my home folder under git.
To be honest, everytime I install a new Ubuntu a cry a little, because they are going the wrong way. But I still reinstall regularly (every 6 months) and keep my "how to install" file up to date, so I only have to copy paste some commands and follow some step mechanically.
Oh-my-zsh was pretty wasteful on resources (theming and plugins). The stock config in archlinux is pretty decent (good completion) but avoid OMZ pitfalls.
How do you figure? I spend pretty much all of my time in vim, the terminal, of the browser. And having been at this since the early days of the web, I'm pretty sure I've got the wrong and right of it figured out. I'm primarily a bash user, but it's merely a matter of preference.
Unfortunately as a piece of hardware it seems to me virtually unrivalled, the latest internal components are available to new machines promptly, they have great displays with loads of real estate, long battery life, very good manufacturer support and the 13" is a superb, thin form factor for travelling with.
I run a cluster of Linux VMs on it using vagrant so it's just my browser, IDE and compiler to worry about (which being a Java dev isn't the big deal I'm sure GCC is). But I sorely long for a Debian based Linux desktop and package manager on the host. Every new macbook I get I try and install Linux and every time it's unfathomably painful, even when it works the experience is so poor I'm forced to abandon it.
But what other mobile kit is out there, built to the same standards?
Surely it's a myth that macbook hardware is of superhero "unrivalled" quality. I haven't seen links to comparative data backing up the claim. Failure rates, service rates, lifespan, side by side images of components at a microscopic level, data showing resistance to heat, cold, dust, impacts etc.
What you will find is a lot of people repeating the claim about Apple hardware and the OS. A belief based it seems on one fact - they are happy with their Mac and haven't used anything else for ages, so how can other computers possibly be as good.
We know also that the glowing Apple logo proudly displayed by too many DJs, speakers at conferences, and certain movies and TV shows, is an effective marketing campaign. Ever-present, hitching a free ride on whatever is taking place on stage. This matters, it's not like a Marshall logo on speaker stacks, it's more prominent, center stage, often the only light source in frame.
I wish more presenters and performers opted out of the glowing marketing campaigns of the equipment they use. The brand of your equipment is not the reason why you're up there presenting.
This is so interesting! Your parent said "unrivaled hardware" and went on to give some examples of the types of things meant by that: frequent component updates, nice high-res displays, battery life, support, and form factor. (Left out the trackpad, which really is a huge differentiator.) You replied by questioning things like failure rates, lifespan, side by side component images, and resistance to heat, cold, dust, and impacts. There is a big difference between your lists, his are things users care about day to day, and yours are things engineers or IT managers care about. Well, I'm a user, and while I have very little affection for Apple, as far as I can tell they're the only ones making very nice user-focused laptop hardware at reasonable prices ($1000-$1200 vs. more like $2000 for a similarly nice (but, irrelevantly, more powerful!) non-Mac in my experience).
I find the logo and "sameness" rather embarrassing, but it seems to be the only game in town. Please do link me to a $1200 non-Mac laptop with a high-res 15" screen, thin form factor, and nice trackpad.
> Please do link me to a $1200 non-Mac laptop with a high-res 15" screen, thin form factor, and nice trackpad.
The cheapest high-res/HiDPI/Retina 15" MacBook costs $1999, not $1200. The baseline 13" rMBP costs $1199 after the education discount though[1].
[1] By the by, if you order from the Apple Online Store in the US, you can get the student discount no matter what. There's no verification of any kind (like to possession of a .edu address and what not): http://store.apple.com/us-hed
Whoops, I did actually mean 13". But also: I did buy last year's 15" model new-in-box for $1200 - there seems to be a pretty fast price drop-off, perhaps because Mac buyers really do have an above average focus on latest-and-greatest.
Edit to add: My point is really not about the price but that taking away the "brand status" as a factor or even making it a confounding factor, Mac laptops completely own the "nice-for-user hardware" space.
Did you really get a Late 2013 15" rMBP, new, for $1200? Where'd you get it?
I'd like to (perhaps) get the Dell UP2414Q monitor, which is Retina-esque monitor (3840x2160 -- double of 1920x1080), and the Late 2013 15" rMBP is the only Apple laptop that can use the monitor in Retina mode at 60Hz.
Also, I've heard quite the opposite with regard to MacBook prices -- they stay up, while the prices of all other laptops drop significantly. For example, a high-end Late 2008 MBP still sells for nearly a thousand dollars on eBay, whereas a ThinkPad X200 will cost you only around $100 . As a side, you can squeeze 7-8 hours of battery life out of the ThinkPad X200 (running Arch).
I guess it's possible I got a really good deal! I got a late 2011-model from ebay around this time last year (so May 2013), which turned out to be new in the box (but I wouldn't have minded a refurb), for $1199 plus tax.
I guess you're right that PCs retain their value even worse, but even $2000 to $1300 in a bit more than a year seems like a good deal.
A friend of mine own a Yoga 2 Pro. He's using Chakra Linux, and he had to go through a great deal of difficulty to adapt KDE to the HiDPI screen. He somehow managed to do it partially (like by setting font sizes to insane numbers, etc). Even still, there UI elements scattered around that still appear as though you're looking at them from space.
> I wish more presenters and performers opted out of the glowing marketing campaigns of the equipment they use. The brand of your equipment is not the reason why you're up there presenting.
This. It looks like everyone is happy to promote the Apple brand on top of themselves. For free.
A bar graph comparing failure rates among manufacturers appears on page 6. Asus and Toshiba represent the top tier, but Apple's better than average and not far behind them.
That said, I think much of the "unrivaled quality" that many perceive in Macs has less to do with failure rates and more to do with the details - MagSafe power adapters, fantastic trackpads, the general lack of crapware; all these details come together to give an overall impression of a more put-together piece of electronics. This is coming from someone whose first act upon firing up a brand-new Mac is to stick a copy of Windows on it. (Nuking the price advantage I'd otherwise be getting from going with Macs in the process.)
I run GNU/Linux on a CF-53 [1], and the experience has been nothing short of perfection. I say this having owned a 2011 iMac, 2013 Macbook Air which I still own, and the usual Dells and Lenovos: I would never willingly use any other laptop to get work done.
The CF-53 features a hardware on/off wireless switch, magnesium alloy casing that you can jump on, port protectors that fight dust and debris, and a keyboard that is to die for. The tactile feedback on the keyboard is absolutely incredible. It is the best laptop keyboard man has ever devised.
I hear it all the time, that Macs are the highest quality money can buy, but compared to what? Compared to cheap, plasticky crap run of the mill consumer Windows laptops from HP? Yea of course, get a Macbook there's no doubt.
But compared to a Panasonic? No way Jose, Panasonic makes better quality hardware that lasts longer and will take any abuse, which is why you'll read reviews by armed forces deployed in the ME use who recommend Toughbooks over competing ruggedized machines, including machines made by military contractors like General Dynamics.
You can spill water all over the 53, and drop it to the ground from three feet. Order one with built-in GOBI wireless card or GPS to make up for the bulk. Buying on ebay is commonly done to obtain toughbooks on the cheap. They last forever anyway, and they are often dumped on the market en masse once off of corporate and government leases. I would take my whatever-priced CF-53 with 10,450 operating hours over a brand new $1200 Macbook or brand new $1800 plasticky feeling consumer Windows PC without hesitation.
The only other laptop I'd consider buying for a mobile workstation is a CF-52, and only because it offers a higher resolution display and a higher performance GPU.
It looks like an excellent laptop for what it's for, but at 2.7kg its just far too heavy and overall large for me. I have a bag with me at all times of every day with my MacBook Pro retina in it, and at 1.5kg and 13" screen plus a LOT of power under the hood (at least, more than enough for the VMs I'm running on it, I have the 8GB + 256GB SDD model) it's just perfect for my usage.
And that's the thing. When someone says "It's the highest quality|best|perfect laptop" I add a "...for me" to the end of the sentence mentally. :)
The only major gripe I have is with the apparently decreased battery life.
There are ways of extending battery life [1], but I'm usually plugged in when I work so I haven't played with it.
I also haven't tested Linux support for:
- GOBI
- GPS
- touchscreen
- multiple monitors
- printers, scanners, fax machines
as I don't use those things or they did not come with my particular CF-53 model.
Otherwise, the keyboard fn-buttons to adjust brightness, volume, etc work straight out of the box without any need for configuration. Wireless works better for me straight out of the box on Arch than on Windows, even taking into consideration the host of proprietary Panasonic wireless drivers [2]. Overall it's a very clean experience.
It's fallen from about 4 feet flat onto a hardwood surface once before without any discernible side effects. That was one of those times I realized if it was any other laptop I'd have a major malfunction on my hands. It's also fallen off the bed numerous times before. It just keeps going like nothing happened.
The bulk definitely takes some getting used to, but the machine has become so indispensable to me that I'm willing to have it weigh me down. I really do consider it the Lamborghini of mobile workstations, very excessive in many ways, but once you've used it there's nothing anyone can say to you to shake your belief that it is the very best workstation computing experience in the world.
What the 53 compromises in form factor it more than makes up for in productivity, enjoyment and peace of mind. It's a clear level up from Macbooks and Thinkpads galore, form factor aside. And it runs Linux real g00t.
That's why I have manufacturer logo on the back of my laptop covered by a innocent "no free advertising" sticker all the time, not only when presenting.
Even for the clothes, the only logo I occasionally have printed on my clothes is the logo of my employer on a clothes provided by them for free. That much advertising is acceptable for me.
It's not like I'm going out of my way to prevent advertising. Of course I don't cover a logo of my car, but I also don't drive cars on races or other events where I am publicly presenting something. If I were a famous car driver or even running mechanic shop, I would make sure not to show any, eg. tire manufacturer poster unless I have clear financial interest to do so.
But, if I'm presenting something computer related to an audience interesting in computer related stuff, it's perfectly reasonable not to show any unpaid advertising related to computers. I don't want that anyone in the audience get an impression that I recommend any specific laptop brand.
I wouldn't buy one of those 4WD's with the big TOYOTA lettering on the back. This is comparable to the Apple logo because its going out of its way to be noticed, "look at me, look at me".
Covering up a car's logo with a sticker is obviously not an option, so personally I would avoid those big TOYOTA cars.
Regular car logos aren't so greedy for attention. They don't glow at night, or cover the entire rear panel of the car.
I'm quite surprised that so many people in this industry, and DJs at gigs are happy for the logo to sit there glowing all night on stage. I don't get it, Apple isn't sponsoring your talk or performance.
I guess I'm too optimistic about people caring about keeping a good distance between marketing, capitalism and the expression of ideas and art. To me, those things should remain completely separate.
Actually it's exactly Apple's strategy to have their glowing logo shown around everywhere when people are using them. If you have a Mac and use it in this way you are basically acting as a promoter for the brand whether you like it or not.
Here's the one piece of hardware that really matters to me: the keyboard. This is totally in the realm of champagne problems, I realize, but my muscle memory is so tuned to the apple layout, down to the key size, that using something at else this time is a constant reminder that my fingers aren't quite home.
I don't really like the trends of laptop hardware these days, so my preference and yours differ greatly. I use hardware that's a few years old and is known to work well with fully free GNU/Linux operating systems. Shiny new tech (which usually requires proprietary firmware/drivers to function) doesn't appeal to me. There's this push to make laptops so unreasonably thin that they have to solder everything to the board and remove all user servicability to do it. I use a Thinkpad X220 currently and I am happy with it.
I spent years with Linux desktops and laptops. Switched to Mac about 10 years ago. Of all my developer friends I know, not only have I had the least amount of problems with my Mac laptops, but - sorry for the cliche - things just work. The latest and greatest is nice and while I'm not obsessed with having the newest, I like using what's new.
I spent a lot of time fighting the proprietary thing. It's a noble effort, but I realized after years of sub-standard drivers, laptops that don't turn on when you open them, cpu fans buzzing out of control, etc, etc, I'd rather spend my time doing things instead of screwing with things.
Linux is great, I love it on the server and pretty much use it exclusively there. But I haven't seen any laptop manufacturer come close to building any laptop that's close to a Mac laptop. When you start off building based on cost vs. based on function & product, then you're always building something sub-standard. It may seem like indulgence, but no one makes unibody laptops but Apple. No one can.
I spend my days working on a beautiful machine that functions how I expect. I fiddle with very little, don't have to worry about upgrading or tearing anything apart and just focus on getting the things done. You can do this on Linux too for sure, but I feel like for me, the Linux desktop on crappy hardware is not fun or satisfying.
I have a Retina MBPro with 16GB of ram (soldered) and I couldn't be happier. In a few years when I want a laptop with 32gb ram, I'll give this one to a friend or family member and buy another one.
> after years of sub-standard drivers, laptops that don't turn on when you open them, cpu fans buzzing out of control, etc, etc, I'd rather spend my time doing things instead of screwing with things.
You left in '04, this nonsense ended in '06, '07. Partly because no one is really changing the hardware much, partly because we have first class support from Intel now.
If you cherry pick laptops these days, you can even surpass Mac OS or Windows. My MacBook Air from 2012 has longer battery life and stays cooler using a stock Linux kernel than with it's Mac counterpart.
The trick is that it has very well supported Intel components. As a matter of fact, Linus used this laptop for some time.
I run a MacBook Pro (Retina), and love OS X... but I completely agree. At some points, running Ubuntu/Debian on various machines I've used worked better OOTB with Linux that Windows itself did, with far less "find a random driver binary around the web somewhere, on a companies unmaintained FTP server, that probably no longer works with the latest changes in Windows" faffing around.
I hear this a lot, somewhat-technical people inserting 'macs are for dum people that don't know computers'. Truth is, a lot of mac users do know computers (obviously), and it's not that we can't mess with drivers and tweaking, it's that WE DONT WANT TO.
I moved away from Windows/Linux 6 years ago, not sure how things have changed, but I have no intention on going back to that.
Video drivers are still unacceptably bad on Linux. Docking, sleep etc fail for no reason understandable to even experienced users. I use Linux at work because it's still better than Windows but dream I would have a Mac.
- Are you claiming that this machine will run Linux well? If so, you're missing links to back that claim.
- Are you claiming that the specs match a 13" MacBook? If so, you must realize that it's possible to have a poor experience even with the same technical specs.
- I haven't heard good things about Lenovo's non-ThinkPad laptops. Has this changed recently? Do you have something (a review perhaps) to backup the idea that anyone should seriously entertain this laptop as a legitimate choice?
> Are you claiming that this machine will run Linux well?
Yes, I use it daily. There are a few issues but overall it's awesome:
1) The wifi driver is fairly new and hasn't been ported to BSD yet so you must use Linux (most want to anyways).
2) HiDPI support is not great among the various DEs, but Gnome 3 and Unity are both pretty good. Some applications are not so great though, Chrome in particular.
3) This computer has a touchscreen and that works at least in Gnome 3 but there's nothing like the Windows 8 metro interface on linux. So you kind of lose that really nice feature.
> Are you claiming that the specs match a 13" MacBook?
Perhaps not the brand new Macbooks but the ones that were its peer, yes.
> I haven't heard good things about Lenovo's non-ThinkPad laptops. Has this changed recently? Do you have something (a review perhaps) to backup the idea that anyone should seriously entertain this laptop as a legitimate choice?
Lenovo is a big company, they release everything from cheapy laptops to high-end Thinkpads. This is their Ultrabook (Thinkpads are not ultrabooks) and those are generally high quality, this one is as well.
FWIW, my brother uses* (and I have used, briefly) a non-thinkpad Yoga daily, and it's a very nice machine. He's had it since ~August 2013. Like any device I could come up with complaints about it, but nothing really springs to mind. It seemed to be responsive, light, mechanically well-designed, and sports one of Lenovo's awesome warranrties.
*based on the context of this thread, I should mention that while he is a technical person, he runs Windows and does not attempt to run linux or anything else natively.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the non-ThinkPad Lenovo's. I've been on an ideapad u260 for years. It has outlasted my Macbook Air which was used half as often and cost twice as much. I run both windows and ubuntu on it without issue.
It was the first lenovo I owned, as it nears 4 years of usage, I'm only now starting to look at replacements, and I think I could definitely get away with using this for another few years.
Absolutely. I spent 3 years on MacBook Airs + OSX, and about a month ago, I just had finally had enough of the 'not-quite-right' development environment. Installed Ubuntu (on the MBA, it actually worked perfectly), and haven't looked back.
All the things I'd learned to work-around, suddenly became non-issues, and all of a sudden I had a real window manager again.
You've hit the nail on the head. I have been in a very similar situation, using OS X for development on a Macbook Pro for 3 years also.
You are absolutely correct when you say that everything is 'not-quite-right': package managers are absent by default; Linux tools are sometimes hackily modified to work on Mac; additional tools have to be manually downloaded.
It's possible and the interface is generally fairly slick but everything feels like a hacky solution to a problem that is just not there with Linux.
Totally agree. I've got a Macbook Air (OSX Mavericks) and a (Lenovo)Thinkpad (Arch Linux). I'd add to your points that it's not only a software issue, but also a hardware issue. Recently I've found myself tweaking the trackpoint settings and have gone so far as modifying the driver and the syndaemon utility just to be able to get a better user experience.
When it comes to Apple's hardware/software combination, I'm sometimes surprised by how Linux compares really poorly in my experience. Weight and form factor aside, the trackpad on my Thinkpad is awful. Really god damned awful. And I wouldn't usually complain much about that, but the other fact is that the TrackPoint nipple is probably equally as bad in build quality and when you move the pointer a bit, it seems to get stuck and continues to move your pointer until you rub that nipple left or right. The sensitivity of the TrackPad however, is a disgrace, and the minimum jump seems to be something like 10 pixels, on a 12.5" screen. That's very choppy.
So: when I'm on my Macbook, I miss the trackpoint. When I'm on my Lenovo, I miss the Mac's multitouch trackpad, and a better trackpoint.
Software will improve the experience, but better hardware has to come with that, in general. When it comes down to it, the best quality you'll get out of your money will probably come from a Macbook (throwing in the form factor if it's to your taste, which adds points), so developers end up going for the better hardware, the better user experience, and hey, it happens to come with OSX, which without much effort has this really usable development environment, unix utilities, etc. Good enough, I'd say, given what the alternative usually is. And I still develop on Linux most of the time.
And I wouldn't usually complain much about that, but the other fact is that the TrackPoint nipple is probably equally as bad in build quality and when you move the pointer a bit, it seems to get stuck and continues to move your pointer until you rub that nipple left or right.
Back in the day, IBM made some good hardware. The Trackpoint was one of the things they made that were cited as examples of good engineering. Specifically, it was designed not to do what you just described.
Yeah, putting IBM/Lenovo aside, even the average Compaq or Dell laptop from back in the day had a significantly superior nub compared to my X210. I was really disappointed when I got it, because I remembered nubs being lot more comfortable to use than this thing that "sticks" frequently and has almost painful resistance.
The other benefit of nubs was that not having a huge touch pad at the bottom of the laptop let them bring the keyboard much closer to the edge, where (like a regular keyboard) it is much more comfortable to type on. Since modern Thinkpads include the touchpad anyway, you have no choice but to hurt your wrists constantly for the sake of a device that (if you're like me) you completely disabled in the BIOS because it just got in the way.
Mine is an X230, really disappointed with the nub. I'm getting sentimental here, remembering my old IBM Thinkpad. I just wish a manufacturer realizes there's a market for trackpoints and releases a well-built trackpoint only model. I'm not gonna hold my breath though. I heard the X240 is even worse, which is a pity because I almost got it since it came with an SSD... but I'm not a big fan of soft-key buttons.
Leaving the trackpoint in the middle / deadzone and then monitoring it's data input values, I always got a (-3,-1) gravity (not sure if that was the term), which is quite bad to be honest. I couldn't get around tweaking the dead zone well enough to avoid the issue. I would take an IBM over this anyday.
The track-pad on the Macbook Air I have is crap. No buttons.
You can click, or emulate a double click with two fingers. No third button emulation that I have worked out (and no, using your other hand on the keyboard does not count). As far as I am concerned that is a big disadvantage not having the paste buffer functionality available for the track-pad.
For a third button you can get BetterTouchTool[1] and set up an event for the Tackpad under "Global". I have tapping the top right of the track pad (about a 1cm square) trigger the third mouse button. Perhaps it's not as great as a real middle mouse button (can't middle drag, real pain for GIS and CAD software) but it does handle opening links in new tabs and closing tabs via middle click.
So if that trackpoint issue happens sometimes (every couple of minutes or so, not on every movement), then that's AFAIK inherent to the technology. It recalibrates itself if you let go of it for a second or two.
BTW, having only ever used thinkpads with disabled trackpads (I agree they suck on thinkpads), how do people not touch these with their palms all the time by accident?
I agree that the desktop manager is subpar. I don't like the way it groups the windows via application (command-~ to switch between windows of the same app is nice, but I don't like how command-tabbing to an app or clicking it from the bar brings all that apps windows to the foreground).
I also don't like the way closing all the windows of an app doesn't necessarily quit the program. To close a program completely, you often have to press command-Q, or right click the app and quit it that way. I've used a mac at work for years, so I'm used to it now, but it still seems unintuitive and awkward.
Not to mention the poorly featured Finder and Terminal applications. Yes, you can install 3rd-party replacements, but the defaults are pretty woeful.
I completely agree on the package manager issue. I switched to OS X about 6 years ago. Before that I mainly used Arch Linux with wmii. My switch from Arch to OS X took about 6 months in which I slowly migrated. At first, it was pretty great but when I wanted to upgrade software or install some new one it was horrible. Back then I used macports and I can't remember all the problems. It was a downgrade from pacman (and apt). I gave up coding a bit because it wasn't so much fun anymore.
Lately, I started using a linux vps as my development environment and it's so much better. It's worth switching just for a good package management system.
If you are caring about things like specific bash versions, then you probably don't fall into the category of people who don't want to micromanage every aspect of their system.
There is a big difference between caring about 'specific bash versions', and wanting a version of bash released after 2007. How many other applications on your computer are 7 years out of date?
Apple refuses to update bash (and other GNU software) because they use the GPLv3, so all OS X users receive GNU software that is horribly out-of-date. Apple ships Emacs, but it's version 22.1 from 2007, and the current stable release is 24.3.
- do you work on graphic files ? will you use Photoshop ?
- how do you communicate with your clients/peers ? (would you just refuse a MSWord or Excel doc for instance, if it didn't render properly ?)
- do you have to deal with specific hardware ? (for instance, Blackberry phones)
- do you have to debug websites or other apps on iOS devices, anything mac related ?
All of the above seem non trivial, while potentially critical depending on what you do. I think it would be interesting to know where you are on the spectrum.
Yes. And they're cheap. Well, last year I was looking for a laptop with
- >=16G RAM
- IPS hi-res screen
- okay battery
Dell Precision, HP mobile workstations and rMBP -- the Mac is the cheapest. Now I regret it a bit as the cooling of rMBP is quite bad compared to the other two, but at least it's slim.
I tend to agree. I use Mac OS only because it natively supports Photoshop and MS Office and I may need to install these at some point. It also has first class support for the kind of dev I do (e.g. most other devs in my field also use a Mac) making troubleshooting slightly easier.
As for the UI, until Mavericks I think it was behind the last stable Gnome 2 release. Now it is ahead in some areas but still behind in others.
Finally, Ubuntu continually screwing up things like audio support or ruining areas of the UI (ironically to make them more like OS X) also helped me make the switch.
> I don't consider OS X to be a development environment for serious development.
You are indirectly saying that people doing development on OSX are not 'serious developers' or at least are not doing 'serious development.'
[ What is the difference between 'serious development' and regular development anyways? I'm pretty sure that Apple employees aren't developing iOS and OSX on Windows or Linux. Do you not consider systems-level (building an operating system) development to be 'serious'? ]
Funnily, I have never been able to take developers who use Windows seriously. Must be a remnant from may teenage "Down with M$!!!!!!!11111oneoenoenone" years when I was a diehard opensource fanatic.
I don't know a single person that uses windows for development other than people writing windows specific(.net) software, judging by the overall vibe on HN and /r/programming I'd assume this is a general trend.
I would guess that for every hacker, there are 10 JEE developers that just use their Windows machine for developing applications that never see the outside of the corporation they work at.
HN and /r/programming are great resources, but they're not by any means representative of developers or the programming world in general. Indeed, I think it's quite safe to say the vast majority of developers have never heard of HN (or even Github) and while they might know of Reddit most of them probably don't visit. This might be a lamentable thing, depending on your views, but it is what it is.
It's really easy to get caught up in the SV culture, but it's by no means the rule. There's millions of developers out there whose code is never made public, writing Java, .NET, C, C++, Ada, Fortran, and other languages that HN would regard as obscure, niche, or dead. They're consulting or working for small businesses, medium size businesses, enterprises, local, state, federal governments.
I don't know if most of them use Windows, but it's definitely a hugely substantial fraction. It's not a small minority.
I really dislike Windows, and use OS X and Linux entirely (and have for the past... hell, nearly 8 years now!) -- but Visual Studio is an amazing IDE. Like, really really good. VS.Php[0], Resharper... tonnes of amazing plugins so even other languages other than .Net are amazing in it.
Where I work, it's a 50/40/10% split between Windows, OS X and Linux as our DE's, though most of us run a Linux VM for the development server to run on. Makes life easier that way, and with Vagrant we're all running the exact same environment, despite differing opinions on how to do things!
Something I've noticed in some large cross-platform (Windows, Linux) C++ projects I've been involved in is that the developers, given the choice, will just as often choose to work in Windows. Visual Studio is an incredibly powerful IDE.
This is something I'd agree on, Visual Studio is amazing, but not good enough for me to switch to windows over. IMO all of the stuff jetbrains makes is almost as good as VS anyway.
I only used Linux for a short while and that was when Ubuntu Unity was a very new thing, so I assume it got better now, but then it couldn't possibly compare to OSX virtual desktops; it was usable, but very annoying.
Having said that, I need a terminal (iTerm2), a browser, and a packet manager (homebrew), and I'm happy. I assume build issues would happen on Linux too, and they would probably be harder to resolve (more versions of the OS).
One of the nice things about Linux desktops is that you're not tied to the default window manager like you are in Windows and OSX. While Linux distros might have a default window manager (like your Unity example for Ubuntu) it is still easy to switch.
This allows developers to experiment with different paradigms with regards to the GUI, see for example the popularity of tiling WMs on Linux. (i3 has my preference, others swear by xmonad).
I know it is possible to change window managers for Windows and OSX as well but the experience is just not the same.
I used to love KDE, then they messed it up with KDE 4. Moved to Ubuntu / Gnome. Then Ubuntu screwed it up when they made it all Unity based. Screw that, I was happy working the way I was without to much shiny. Now using XFCE, and its refreshingly simple.
He prefers a tiling windows manager at the application level rather than within tmux.
People make a big deal out of tmux's split screens, but my workflow is much more flexible with xmonad and GNU screen (with the caveat that it requires more upfront).
roughly the same here. I've always been a fan of XFCE, but preferred KDE until KDE4. And I just re-installed KDE 3 days ago, still don't like it.
I switched over to XFCE for a while, until finally settling on i3. I'm perfectly happy with i3, and even if KDE pulled their heads out of their butts, I doubt I would go back.
Unity is not most people's Linux experience, and it's easy to swap in something better if it doesn't fit your needs (which, so far as I'm aware, is very much not the case on Mac). Given that the parent mentioned Debian, I don't think they were raving about Unity.
IMHO, Unity is not the strongest contender for a full, desktop environment on Linux. Both Gnome and KDE provide an environment that I find more comparable to Windows and OSX.
I know that a lot of people disagree with me because I see developers with macbooks all the time, but imo OS X is not a good environment for hackers on a purely technical level (ignoring the issues of proprietary software).