If you want to discuss Android, which is an operating system designed specifically for phones, there's a great success story there about how it dominated the phone market, *replacing* other phone operating systems and Java and becoming the king of of the hill in the generic phone market. But that is off-topic, because here we are talking about the PC market.
Here, we are talking about iOS devices, which are not phone operating systems like Android and do not replace other phone operating systems like Android did. iOS devices *replace* 3 other devices: a phone (even an Android-based phone,) an iPod, and a PC (a Windows-based PC or even a Mac-based PC.) iOS devices can replace a phone because they have phone features built-in, but these are essentially provided for free. iOS devices can replace an iPod because they have iPod features built-in, but these are also essentially provided for free. What the iOS device buyer is paying for are the PC replacement features, which are unique to iOS/Mac devices and Windows devices alone: PC class operating system, PC class native C/C++ app platform with a full range of apps in every category and full-size views, PC class support including centralized software updates.
Speaking from my own experience, I used to have 2 MacBooks (and an iPod) that I used for work all day, but now I have only 1 MacBook. The apps that I used to run on the second MacBook have moved over to an iPad and an iPhone. The exact same native C/C++ apps, with full-size PC views. Not phone apps, not Java apps. Further, the money that I previously spent on that second Mac is now the money that I spend on the iPad and iPhone. About half the time, I'm not using a Mac at all. In fact, I do all my writing solely on iOS devices, and that includes music writing and recording. So in every way, my iOS devices have replaced other PC class devices — it has nothing to do with phones or even Android-based phones.
Just as many Democrats hate the ACA for being too right-wing as Republicans hate it for being too left-wing. That is the biggest problem with ObamaCare: nobody really supports it except President Obama. Nobody is willing to fight for it. If the Medicare eligibility age had been changed to zero (like it is in all other countries) then that would have had the support of 70% of the American people, and everybody would already have health care. We'd be building more hospitals and clinics because of all the new patients and doctors and clinics would be competing for patients instead of patients competing for health care.
Anyway, the ACA is not going to fix the health care in the US, and US Americans will continue to be sick and obese and infectious as well as famous for that the world over.
It is common for laboratories to be pits of suffering and despair. It is common for scientists to be emotionally-detached sociopaths. We should just be thankful this experiment has a cockroach, not a mouse or a monkey or a fellow human being.
Why not just send some Microsoft executives to a school to break the children's legs with baseball bats?
Would you want your kid running a Surface RT while competing against other kids with iPads? Your kid would have no access to art tools, music tools, touch office tools, and 99% of the other categories of human endeavor. And your kid could only work at a desk, and at about 10% of the speed of the iPad kids.
Kids need cutting-edge modern stuff because their working lives take place 10–15 years from now. A Surface RT with 1985 Microsoft Office mouse/keyboard desk-based workflow would be like a concrete block around their neck. When iPad mini is $329 with $5 movie editor, $5 music and audio tools, $10 office apps, and access to every book, movie, TV show, podcast, and modern app, it is simply malicious to suggest somebody dump failed product on them.
The Apple returbs have a full warranty and are not sold at anything like the discount that this article suggests should be applied to Surface RT. And the Apple products are already popular — a refurb is 1% or less of the total product that is sold. Users with Apple returbs go on to buy apps, accessories, and contribute to the platform. A buyer of $100 Surface tablet will not invest further in the platform.
People who buy a Surface for $100 won't necessarily use it. If they don't use it, they don't increase demand for apps and content for Surface. And $100 doesn't cover the warranty and support commitment Microsoft would have to make.
The only way to compete with iPad is to actually compete with iPad. Make a product that people in iPad use cases want to use more than iPad, so much so that they are willing to pay for it, willing to use it, willing to recommend it.
What Microsoft should do with Surface RT is buy the existing models back and retire the RT product altogether. They could give RT owners a Surface Pro (Intel) and ultimately it would work out better for them because they could regroup their ARM strategy around a Metro-only $250 8-inch tablet that might sell and get used and build a platform.
It's telling that others are competing with iPad so poorly that dumping stock at 25% of manufacturing cost is seen as the only winning strategy. Apple basically took a whole year off from iPad releases (a new model of the 10-inch was due last quarter) and yet the competing products are so bad they all lost popularity during this time when Apple has had its head down.
You can see these devices are not popular in any look at Web usage and server logs. We already know the low-cost notebook (aka netbook) market has been decimated by $329 and $399 iPads that are essentially netbooks done right, plus C apps and iPod features and high-end build quality thrown in. Claiming 20% of that price point in clamshells only in mid-2013 is a very, very small victory. Consider the entire price point and you immediately ask why these Chrome OS systems aren't tablets and why they have no C apps. Those features are the bulk of what is selling at that price point, both as primary systems for some users and secondary systems for others.
> But in just one day of striking, BART workers have cost the local economy about $73 million > in lost productivity due to delays in traffic and commuting.
No, the workers did not cost anybody anything. It's the BART management that is responsible for making the trains run on time. It's the BART management that cost the local economy about $73 million with their mismanagement of the BART system and particularly its human resources. You can't have it both ways. If BART is important then BART workers deserve to get paid. If BART workers don't deserve to get paid, then BART must be unimportant. But either way, it is management that has the responsibility. That is their one and only job.
If our current PC's are so great that we don't need new ones, then why are so many people buying iPads, which is a mobile PC? The reason is: to get a 300 gram system with 10 hour battery life or a $499 system with a Retina Display — systems that *are* much better than “our current PC's” for most users, most of the time. To get 300,000 touch PC apps with very fast, very easy workflows, plus another million iPhone apps — apps that are much better than our current apps, for most users, most of the time.
If Windows 8 systems were competitive with iPads then they would also be selling in huge numbers. But they are not. No amount of sugar-coating will make this turd palatable.
Imagine yourself arguing against the notebook in the late 90's or early 2000's because desktops are “just fine.” People are moving from notebooks to iPads today in the same way, because notebooks are not “just fine” today. We have pervasive Wi-Fi/3G/4G today that demands mobility and 10 hour batteries — systems that were designed for Ethernet and AC power are simply not “just fine.”
... that was made specifically for publishing scientific articles. Or something like iBookstore and Kindle Store, with DIY publishing options for anyone with moderate Mac skills.
MSNBC is clear that they have opinion shows. Fox shows opinion segments and labels them news. It is right there in the name: Fox News (55% opinion.) The amount of news or opinion is irrelevant. It's the labeling that matters.
> So, in short, I am searching for an operating system that has the nice interface and POSIX-compliant > backend of Mac OS, the openness of Linux, and runs all the software Windows can. Will a solution ever exist?:)
The answer is Mac OS X. You install Parallels (or another virtualizer) and you run Linux in one instance of the virtualizer and Windows in another instance of the virtualizer, and you can even run another copy of Mac OS X in another instance of the virtualizer. Or, you can run Linux on a remote server that you get at with SSH and not use Windows or a virtualizer at all.
Mac OS X is not a walled garden by any definition. Mac App Store is optional and only contains a small subset of all Mac apps at this time.
What software is it from Windows that you miss on the Mac?
Sandboxed Mac apps define their own sandbox. Instead of every single app having access to the entire local storage by default, apps ask for what they need access to, and get it. If an app wants access to the user's home folder, they can get it. If they only need Desktop and Documents, they get that.
The exception is that sandboxed apps cannot access the System files or Unix layer. The thing is, if you are a user who wants their app to access System files or the Unix layer, you are an advanced user and have the skills to download that app from the developer's website and audit it yourself, same as always.
> crippled "Mac App Store edition"
That is a synonym for “higher-security edition.” Or “higher-reliability edition.”
For example, look at BBEdit. The version you download from the BBEdit website can access the Unix layer to configure Apache, it can install command line tools you can use in bash. If you want to do those things, you are an advanced user who can also audit Bare Bones, download a disk image, and perform a traditional app install, and save a serial number, same as for the past 11 years, and similar to the 15 years before that. However, if you are not interested in using BBEdit to access the Unix layer — possibly because you are running a remote Web server and remote terminal — then you now have the additional option of a self-installing, self-updated, higher-security version of BBEdit that still does everything you want to do.
The thing is, this tracks with what users are doing. I stopped running a local server a few years ago because a remote staging server is accessible from Mac, iPad, and iPhone, and my remote staging server runs the same Linux as my main server. On the current Mac I'm using, I left the Unix layer totally alone and let Apple manage it. If it is misconfigured, my Mac may not work. If a remote server is misconfigured, it can be wiped and redone, or switched to another server. So I am happy to use the Mac App Store BBEdit now because it requires no maintenance, and when I get my next Mac, I only have to open Mac App Store and go to the Purchased tab and tap “install” next to BBEdit and it is done.
Nothing has been lost. You are still able to install apps the same way as ever. Mac App Store simply provides another option for those that want it.
In many cases, this has been really great. For example, the app Hype used to use the local Web server and Safari for previews, but the sandboxed version has its own Web server built-in, and you preview within the app. It works better.
In all this criticism of iOS, we should also remember that iOS almost never crashes. It is even more reliable than Mac OS X. In 3 years, my iPad had only 1 system crash, and it came back up in under a minute with no data loss because everything is Saved automatically, the system is ready to crash at any time, even though it hardly ever does. Adding sandboxing and Autosave and Versions to Mac OS X is adding reliability and security. Mac App Store adds security.
I'm down to maybe 4 apps that aren't from Mac App Store, and on my next Mac, I will likely jettison those apps. I'm already phasing out 3 of them anyway, because I have better, more-modern replacements. None of my apps need access to anything they can't get with sandboxing.
> Hold fast to your Apple anger. It is liberating.
It is juvenile and sad.
> I divested myself of Apple shares in early 2012 to finance my daughter's education, > and now I'm comfortable wishing ruin upon them without fear.
They paid for your daughter's education, and now you wish ruin upon them. Also juvenile and sad.
> anti-consumer
Calling Apple anti-consumer is just incredible. They are the only one making computers for consumers. Microsoft systems are made for CIO's and hardware vendors, Linux systems for sysadmins and CS/IT nerds, and Google systems are made for advertisers and carriers.
iPod is not a consumer product? iPhone and iPad are not consumer products? Who the hell is consuming hundreds of millions of them?
> anti-competitive
That describes Android and Windows. By definition, they are anti-competitive. Samsung, LG, Sony, and Motorola have agreed not to compete in operating system software. HP, Dell, and Lenovo have agreed not to compete in operating system software.
Apple competes on all fronts. What Apple did to BlackBerry with iPhone was out-competed them, fair and square, straight up, iPhone versus BlackBerry. Fight. You don't compare only the hardware of an iPhone and BlackBerry because you assume they are running the same operating system and apps. You compare the entire iPhone to the entire BlackBerry because they are competing on hardware, OS software, apps, services, accessories, even retail experience.
Why are 75% of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and the rest of Silicon Valley using Macs if those Macs did not out-compete cheaper Windows systems? Why is almost all of Hollywood on Macs if Macs did not earn their business? Why are Fortune 500 companies buying ungodly amounts of iPhones if iPhone did not earn that business? Fortune 500 are Apple fanboys?
Apple had to earn every sale. Their products are almost all purchased 1-by-1 by the person who is going to use them. And in almost every case, they had to go out of their way to get the Apple product. Their CIO was willing to dump a Dell on their desk, and they showed the CIO some research that they can do more and better work with a Mac. Or they bypassed the local screwdriver shop and drove 200 kilometers to an Apple Store to get a Mac. Specifically because of unique Mac features they could not get on any other device.
Competition.
> anti-free market
The biggest technology company in the world by market value is anti- free market? The retailer who has the highest dollar value sales per square foot — double that of Tiffany's — is anti- free market? The only hardware vendor with a 40% margin is anti- free market? The company with $150 billion in the bank is anti- free market?
Do you know what free market means?
> As someone who was a great fan of Apple computers going back to before the first Macintosh, > I find their current direction extremely disappointing and destructive.
I find your psychosis extremely disappointing and destructive. I seriously recommend you discuss this anger with a health care professional. No joke. It is not healthy. You are very likely projecting something on them, because they have done nothing to earn your anger. Apple doesn't take advantage of anyone — their customers have over 90% satisfaction.
“Just works” is an Apple thing for a very long time now. It means “zero configuration computing.” In other words, you don't have to do any I-T work before you do your real work. It's not accident that Apple made Bonjour (zero configuration networking) and App Store (zero configuration native app installs.)
For example, I do a lot of audio recording, and I can plug an Apogee MiC into either Mac, iPad, or iPhone and it just works. There are no drivers to install, no configurations to make, no rebooting of the system, no rebooting of apps. Apogee and Apple worked together to make sure that both of their devices “just work” together. There are subsystems called CoreAudio and CoreMIDI on Apple devices that are essentially music studio plumbing. Logic is plugged into CoreAudio and CoreMIDI, and an Apogee MiC (or other hardware) plugs into CoreAudio and CoreMIDI, and it all just works as though they are one device. CoreMIDI recognizes not only all the MIDI interfaces, it also manages MIDI-over-Wi-Fi, and it recognizes all of the MIDI instruments you might use. None of this stuff exists on other platforms. You have to install and configure CoreAudio and CoreMIDI equivalents yourself on a Windows system and your apps may not all work with the same ones, or at the same time, or with each other. Compare to the Mac which not only has those subsystems, it also has GarageBand out-of-the-box — a brand new Mac is already a functioning audio and music workstation.
Another example is you can plug any digital camera — even high-end SLR's — into the Mac, iPad, or iPhone and it just works because they understand all of the various proprietary camera raw formats. The disc that comes with the camera and has some cheesy Canon photo management software on there just goes into the trash, you don't use it. Image Capture and iPhoto are already there, and Aperture is in Mac App Store, available with 1-click for $79 if you want a full professional camera raw workflow with native raw editing.
A key thing is a musician or photographer can go to Apple Store and buy a Mac or iPad or iPhone and they don't need an I-T guy or a manual or anything. The device comes out of the box and it is already setup for music, photography, and also video editing.
What you are talking about is just familiarity, and possibly suitability of the tool to the task. You are doing Linuxy things on Linux, and when you go to a Mac and try to do Linuxy things, the Mac doesn't work quite the same way. That does not mean your Linux “just works,” it means your Linux is familiar to you, it feels like home, which it is. That is how Mac users feel about Macs also, separate from the just works thing. You take many features of Linux for granted — me, I take Mac features like color management and professional typography for granted. When I have the rare occasion to use a Linux or Windows system, I'm always stunned by the bad color and horrible typography. Honestly, I don't know how anyone can work with that, not seeing the actual colors in their photos, not seeing actual typography. When I go back to a Mac there is a feeling of “ah, that's how it should be,” because it is familiar to me, and I value correct color and typography in my work, the Mac is suitable to my tasks.
> Better yet, you can not switch to one specific window of an app using the keyboard shortcut > instead, they all come to the front and then you have to find the window you want.
Pressing the F3 key (or dragging 4 fingers upwards on the trackpad) shows you a bird's eye view of all your windows, organized by app. If you want a close-up of any particular window there, you can hover your mouse over it and press the spacebar. If you click on any window there, it will come to the front, ready to use. It's very easy to get to any window in about a second on OS X. The F3 key even has a picture of tiled windows on it to remind you.
There are many other ways of getting around windows also, but they are mostly mouse/trackpad gestures, not key shortcuts. Command+Tab and Command+` are the main keyboard shortcuts for window management. They cycle through apps and windows, respectively.
Key shortcuts can also be radically customized in the Keyboard preference pane. But for the most part, the key shortcuts on the Mac belong to apps, which use them extensively, and they can also be customized.
> Some apps require a lot of real-estate and there is no way to maximize a window with a single button click in OS X.
Sure there is. All you do is stretch the window until it take up the whole screen, and then the maximize button will toggle between the window's natural size and the full-screen size. One of the sizes is always your preference, the other is the app's preference. If you want the window big, make it big with your mouse. If that doesn't work, there is an app for that — one that makes it work more like Windows. But generally speaking, the pervasive drag-and-drop on the Mac is more useful than a full-screen window.
There is also a full-screen button at the right of each window's menubar that makes the app take over the screen if you are really focused in on that one app.
The thing is, as much as you may be used to your way of doing things and as much as you might have to adapt somewhat to use a Mac, the system is very straightforward and has its own integrity, so it takes almost no time to learn. And the main thing is: the apps are worth it. If the Mac app platform is useful to you, you adjust to the menus and windows within a week. If the Mac app platform is not worth it to you, then you don't use a Mac. Easy.
And for the traditionalist in you, remember the Mac was first, and it always had a mouse. So there is no need to act like holy shit what is this crazy Mac doing? It's very sensible for a mouse-based system that has always had a mouse built-in to navigate windows with the mouse. Very sensible for a system with a multitouch trackpad to have a gesture that explodes the desktop into a menu you can click on with your mouse.
That is great nostalgia, but there is no way that any NeXT system had faster graphics than today's Mac. I think you are forgetting just how incredibly slow computers were in the 20th century, no matter what system you were using.
Using OpenGL and PDF for the Mac display today makes exactly as much sense as using PostScript in the 1980's. Using PostScript today would be ridiculous.
But for most Mac users, the “furniture” is Logic or Final Cut or iPhoto or iMovie, and the “plumbing” is the desktop user interface and system updates or patches. Most Mac users really do want Apple to be responsible for the plumbing. For fixing it, for enhancing it, for managing its evolution over time. Mac users really do want to spend 100% of their time in their apps.
The reason that full-screen apps were added is because some Macs run Photoshop all day long, or Final Cut all day long. Everything else is completely irrelevant to the user. Not only do they not want to see Terminal, they don't want to see the Desktop.
Imagine you had a brother whose only interest is making graphics. You might install GIMP for him to use, and when he was using it, all he would know about or care about is GIMP, not any of the ways that you configured your Linux system. That is a Mac user. 100% of their technical prowess is graphics technical prowess, or movie-making technical prowess, or music-making technical prowess. The system is Apple's responsibility. We pay Apple to take care of the plumbing.
No, the point is not valid. The iOS-like features are all optional. They can either be ignored completely or turned off.
And further, the iOS-like features are very natural extensions of OS X. They were coming to OS X anyway, even if iOS never existed. Some are simply the result of Macs have multitouch trackpads. Some are simply the result of the rise of malicious software. Some are simply the result of the fact that today's users have 50 apps instead of the 5 they were running 15 years ago.
The menubar doesn't really have anything to do with it. The app that implements focus-follows-mouse simply has to be smart enough to do the right thing when your mouse is headed up for the menubar, in the case that it might cross another window on its way.
And if that were a problem in some way — if you're nerdy enough to want focus-follows-mouse, you are certainly nerdy enough to control the menus with your keyboard.
There is also an app called CheatSheet that you activate by holding the Command key down for 2 seconds, and it explodes the menus into an overlay window. Probably a great addition to MondoMouse, which provides focus-follows-mouse.
Plus if you buy a 3rd party 3-button mouse, it may have its own driver that includes focus follows mouse.
> Because Apple shows you the only way (or the highway).
No. Apple includes only the features that almost everybody needs. Everything else, you add via an app or driver or script. Focus follows mouse is a very traditional old school feature that is only popular with advanced users who have the skills to install a 3rd party mouse driver and enable focus follows mouse.
The problem is, the “iOS-ification of OS X” is like Antennagate — it's a melodramatic theme from a gadget blog soap opera. Pointing out that you can drop LaunchPad out of your Dock, set Security to “run anything,” get your apps via insecure Web downloads and so on is not going to fix the head of steam that many people have because gadget blogs have been encouraging them to be mad at Apple for their success. The fact that iPhone 4 had a less than 1% return rate while other smartphones — which could also be death-gripped — are returned at a 20% rate is not going to convince many people that the antenna wasn't flawed.
Fundamentally, there are some people that are unhappy that Apple created computing systems that are big enough to hold actual culture, not just insular computing culture.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to discuss Android, which is an operating system designed specifically for phones, there's a great success story there about how it dominated the phone market, *replacing* other phone operating systems and Java and becoming the king of of the hill in the generic phone market. But that is off-topic, because here we are talking about the PC market.
Here, we are talking about iOS devices, which are not phone operating systems like Android and do not replace other phone operating systems like Android did. iOS devices *replace* 3 other devices: a phone (even an Android-based phone,) an iPod, and a PC (a Windows-based PC or even a Mac-based PC.) iOS devices can replace a phone because they have phone features built-in, but these are essentially provided for free. iOS devices can replace an iPod because they have iPod features built-in, but these are also essentially provided for free. What the iOS device buyer is paying for are the PC replacement features, which are unique to iOS/Mac devices and Windows devices alone: PC class operating system, PC class native C/C++ app platform with a full range of apps in every category and full-size views, PC class support including centralized software updates.
Speaking from my own experience, I used to have 2 MacBooks (and an iPod) that I used for work all day, but now I have only 1 MacBook. The apps that I used to run on the second MacBook have moved over to an iPad and an iPhone. The exact same native C/C++ apps, with full-size PC views. Not phone apps, not Java apps. Further, the money that I previously spent on that second Mac is now the money that I spend on the iPad and iPhone. About half the time, I'm not using a Mac at all. In fact, I do all my writing solely on iOS devices, and that includes music writing and recording. So in every way, my iOS devices have replaced other PC class devices — it has nothing to do with phones or even Android-based phones.
Just as many Democrats hate the ACA for being too right-wing as Republicans hate it for being too left-wing. That is the biggest problem with ObamaCare: nobody really supports it except President Obama. Nobody is willing to fight for it. If the Medicare eligibility age had been changed to zero (like it is in all other countries) then that would have had the support of 70% of the American people, and everybody would already have health care. We'd be building more hospitals and clinics because of all the new patients and doctors and clinics would be competing for patients instead of patients competing for health care.
Anyway, the ACA is not going to fix the health care in the US, and US Americans will continue to be sick and obese and infectious as well as famous for that the world over.
It is common for laboratories to be pits of suffering and despair. It is common for scientists to be emotionally-detached sociopaths. We should just be thankful this experiment has a cockroach, not a mouse or a monkey or a fellow human being.
The basis for competition in mobile PC's is “make it as useful as iPad.”
Why not just send some Microsoft executives to a school to break the children's legs with baseball bats?
Would you want your kid running a Surface RT while competing against other kids with iPads? Your kid would have no access to art tools, music tools, touch office tools, and 99% of the other categories of human endeavor. And your kid could only work at a desk, and at about 10% of the speed of the iPad kids.
Kids need cutting-edge modern stuff because their working lives take place 10–15 years from now. A Surface RT with 1985 Microsoft Office mouse/keyboard desk-based workflow would be like a concrete block around their neck. When iPad mini is $329 with $5 movie editor, $5 music and audio tools, $10 office apps, and access to every book, movie, TV show, podcast, and modern app, it is simply malicious to suggest somebody dump failed product on them.
If the product requires so much explanation it is not ready to be sold to consumers.
The Apple returbs have a full warranty and are not sold at anything like the discount that this article suggests should be applied to Surface RT. And the Apple products are already popular — a refurb is 1% or less of the total product that is sold. Users with Apple returbs go on to buy apps, accessories, and contribute to the platform. A buyer of $100 Surface tablet will not invest further in the platform.
People who buy a Surface for $100 won't necessarily use it. If they don't use it, they don't increase demand for apps and content for Surface. And $100 doesn't cover the warranty and support commitment Microsoft would have to make.
The only way to compete with iPad is to actually compete with iPad. Make a product that people in iPad use cases want to use more than iPad, so much so that they are willing to pay for it, willing to use it, willing to recommend it.
What Microsoft should do with Surface RT is buy the existing models back and retire the RT product altogether. They could give RT owners a Surface Pro (Intel) and ultimately it would work out better for them because they could regroup their ARM strategy around a Metro-only $250 8-inch tablet that might sell and get used and build a platform.
It's telling that others are competing with iPad so poorly that dumping stock at 25% of manufacturing cost is seen as the only winning strategy. Apple basically took a whole year off from iPad releases (a new model of the 10-inch was due last quarter) and yet the competing products are so bad they all lost popularity during this time when Apple has had its head down.
You can see these devices are not popular in any look at Web usage and server logs. We already know the low-cost notebook (aka netbook) market has been decimated by $329 and $399 iPads that are essentially netbooks done right, plus C apps and iPod features and high-end build quality thrown in. Claiming 20% of that price point in clamshells only in mid-2013 is a very, very small victory. Consider the entire price point and you immediately ask why these Chrome OS systems aren't tablets and why they have no C apps. Those features are the bulk of what is selling at that price point, both as primary systems for some users and secondary systems for others.
> But in just one day of striking, BART workers have cost the local economy about $73 million
> in lost productivity due to delays in traffic and commuting.
No, the workers did not cost anybody anything. It's the BART management that is responsible for making the trains run on time. It's the BART management that cost the local economy about $73 million with their mismanagement of the BART system and particularly its human resources. You can't have it both ways. If BART is important then BART workers deserve to get paid. If BART workers don't deserve to get paid, then BART must be unimportant. But either way, it is management that has the responsibility. That is their one and only job.
If our current PC's are so great that we don't need new ones, then why are so many people buying iPads, which is a mobile PC? The reason is: to get a 300 gram system with 10 hour battery life or a $499 system with a Retina Display — systems that *are* much better than “our current PC's” for most users, most of the time. To get 300,000 touch PC apps with very fast, very easy workflows, plus another million iPhone apps — apps that are much better than our current apps, for most users, most of the time.
If Windows 8 systems were competitive with iPads then they would also be selling in huge numbers. But they are not. No amount of sugar-coating will make this turd palatable.
Imagine yourself arguing against the notebook in the late 90's or early 2000's because desktops are “just fine.” People are moving from notebooks to iPads today in the same way, because notebooks are not “just fine” today. We have pervasive Wi-Fi/3G/4G today that demands mobility and 10 hour batteries — systems that were designed for Ethernet and AC power are simply not “just fine.”
... that was made specifically for publishing scientific articles. Or something like iBookstore and Kindle Store, with DIY publishing options for anyone with moderate Mac skills.
MSNBC is clear that they have opinion shows. Fox shows opinion segments and labels them news. It is right there in the name: Fox News (55% opinion.) The amount of news or opinion is irrelevant. It's the labeling that matters.
> So, in short, I am searching for an operating system that has the nice interface and POSIX-compliant :)
> backend of Mac OS, the openness of Linux, and runs all the software Windows can. Will a solution ever exist?
The answer is Mac OS X. You install Parallels (or another virtualizer) and you run Linux in one instance of the virtualizer and Windows in another instance of the virtualizer, and you can even run another copy of Mac OS X in another instance of the virtualizer. Or, you can run Linux on a remote server that you get at with SSH and not use Windows or a virtualizer at all.
Mac OS X is not a walled garden by any definition. Mac App Store is optional and only contains a small subset of all Mac apps at this time.
What software is it from Windows that you miss on the Mac?
No, you don't understand it.
Sandboxed Mac apps define their own sandbox. Instead of every single app having access to the entire local storage by default, apps ask for what they need access to, and get it. If an app wants access to the user's home folder, they can get it. If they only need Desktop and Documents, they get that.
The exception is that sandboxed apps cannot access the System files or Unix layer. The thing is, if you are a user who wants their app to access System files or the Unix layer, you are an advanced user and have the skills to download that app from the developer's website and audit it yourself, same as always.
> crippled "Mac App Store edition"
That is a synonym for “higher-security edition.” Or “higher-reliability edition.”
For example, look at BBEdit. The version you download from the BBEdit website can access the Unix layer to configure Apache, it can install command line tools you can use in bash. If you want to do those things, you are an advanced user who can also audit Bare Bones, download a disk image, and perform a traditional app install, and save a serial number, same as for the past 11 years, and similar to the 15 years before that. However, if you are not interested in using BBEdit to access the Unix layer — possibly because you are running a remote Web server and remote terminal — then you now have the additional option of a self-installing, self-updated, higher-security version of BBEdit that still does everything you want to do.
The thing is, this tracks with what users are doing. I stopped running a local server a few years ago because a remote staging server is accessible from Mac, iPad, and iPhone, and my remote staging server runs the same Linux as my main server. On the current Mac I'm using, I left the Unix layer totally alone and let Apple manage it. If it is misconfigured, my Mac may not work. If a remote server is misconfigured, it can be wiped and redone, or switched to another server. So I am happy to use the Mac App Store BBEdit now because it requires no maintenance, and when I get my next Mac, I only have to open Mac App Store and go to the Purchased tab and tap “install” next to BBEdit and it is done.
Nothing has been lost. You are still able to install apps the same way as ever. Mac App Store simply provides another option for those that want it.
In many cases, this has been really great. For example, the app Hype used to use the local Web server and Safari for previews, but the sandboxed version has its own Web server built-in, and you preview within the app. It works better.
In all this criticism of iOS, we should also remember that iOS almost never crashes. It is even more reliable than Mac OS X. In 3 years, my iPad had only 1 system crash, and it came back up in under a minute with no data loss because everything is Saved automatically, the system is ready to crash at any time, even though it hardly ever does. Adding sandboxing and Autosave and Versions to Mac OS X is adding reliability and security. Mac App Store adds security.
I'm down to maybe 4 apps that aren't from Mac App Store, and on my next Mac, I will likely jettison those apps. I'm already phasing out 3 of them anyway, because I have better, more-modern replacements. None of my apps need access to anything they can't get with sandboxing.
> Hold fast to your Apple anger. It is liberating.
It is juvenile and sad.
> I divested myself of Apple shares in early 2012 to finance my daughter's education,
> and now I'm comfortable wishing ruin upon them without fear.
They paid for your daughter's education, and now you wish ruin upon them. Also juvenile and sad.
> anti-consumer
Calling Apple anti-consumer is just incredible. They are the only one making computers for consumers. Microsoft systems are made for CIO's and hardware vendors, Linux systems for sysadmins and CS/IT nerds, and Google systems are made for advertisers and carriers.
iPod is not a consumer product? iPhone and iPad are not consumer products? Who the hell is consuming hundreds of millions of them?
> anti-competitive
That describes Android and Windows. By definition, they are anti-competitive. Samsung, LG, Sony, and Motorola have agreed not to compete in operating system software. HP, Dell, and Lenovo have agreed not to compete in operating system software.
Apple competes on all fronts. What Apple did to BlackBerry with iPhone was out-competed them, fair and square, straight up, iPhone versus BlackBerry. Fight. You don't compare only the hardware of an iPhone and BlackBerry because you assume they are running the same operating system and apps. You compare the entire iPhone to the entire BlackBerry because they are competing on hardware, OS software, apps, services, accessories, even retail experience.
Why are 75% of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and the rest of Silicon Valley using Macs if those Macs did not out-compete cheaper Windows systems? Why is almost all of Hollywood on Macs if Macs did not earn their business? Why are Fortune 500 companies buying ungodly amounts of iPhones if iPhone did not earn that business? Fortune 500 are Apple fanboys?
Apple had to earn every sale. Their products are almost all purchased 1-by-1 by the person who is going to use them. And in almost every case, they had to go out of their way to get the Apple product. Their CIO was willing to dump a Dell on their desk, and they showed the CIO some research that they can do more and better work with a Mac. Or they bypassed the local screwdriver shop and drove 200 kilometers to an Apple Store to get a Mac. Specifically because of unique Mac features they could not get on any other device.
Competition.
> anti-free market
The biggest technology company in the world by market value is anti- free market? The retailer who has the highest dollar value sales per square foot — double that of Tiffany's — is anti- free market? The only hardware vendor with a 40% margin is anti- free market? The company with $150 billion in the bank is anti- free market?
Do you know what free market means?
> As someone who was a great fan of Apple computers going back to before the first Macintosh,
> I find their current direction extremely disappointing and destructive.
I find your psychosis extremely disappointing and destructive. I seriously recommend you discuss this anger with a health care professional. No joke. It is not healthy. You are very likely projecting something on them, because they have done nothing to earn your anger. Apple doesn't take advantage of anyone — their customers have over 90% satisfaction.
“Just works” is an Apple thing for a very long time now. It means “zero configuration computing.” In other words, you don't have to do any I-T work before you do your real work. It's not accident that Apple made Bonjour (zero configuration networking) and App Store (zero configuration native app installs.)
For example, I do a lot of audio recording, and I can plug an Apogee MiC into either Mac, iPad, or iPhone and it just works. There are no drivers to install, no configurations to make, no rebooting of the system, no rebooting of apps. Apogee and Apple worked together to make sure that both of their devices “just work” together. There are subsystems called CoreAudio and CoreMIDI on Apple devices that are essentially music studio plumbing. Logic is plugged into CoreAudio and CoreMIDI, and an Apogee MiC (or other hardware) plugs into CoreAudio and CoreMIDI, and it all just works as though they are one device. CoreMIDI recognizes not only all the MIDI interfaces, it also manages MIDI-over-Wi-Fi, and it recognizes all of the MIDI instruments you might use. None of this stuff exists on other platforms. You have to install and configure CoreAudio and CoreMIDI equivalents yourself on a Windows system and your apps may not all work with the same ones, or at the same time, or with each other. Compare to the Mac which not only has those subsystems, it also has GarageBand out-of-the-box — a brand new Mac is already a functioning audio and music workstation.
Another example is you can plug any digital camera — even high-end SLR's — into the Mac, iPad, or iPhone and it just works because they understand all of the various proprietary camera raw formats. The disc that comes with the camera and has some cheesy Canon photo management software on there just goes into the trash, you don't use it. Image Capture and iPhoto are already there, and Aperture is in Mac App Store, available with 1-click for $79 if you want a full professional camera raw workflow with native raw editing.
A key thing is a musician or photographer can go to Apple Store and buy a Mac or iPad or iPhone and they don't need an I-T guy or a manual or anything. The device comes out of the box and it is already setup for music, photography, and also video editing.
What you are talking about is just familiarity, and possibly suitability of the tool to the task. You are doing Linuxy things on Linux, and when you go to a Mac and try to do Linuxy things, the Mac doesn't work quite the same way. That does not mean your Linux “just works,” it means your Linux is familiar to you, it feels like home, which it is. That is how Mac users feel about Macs also, separate from the just works thing. You take many features of Linux for granted — me, I take Mac features like color management and professional typography for granted. When I have the rare occasion to use a Linux or Windows system, I'm always stunned by the bad color and horrible typography. Honestly, I don't know how anyone can work with that, not seeing the actual colors in their photos, not seeing actual typography. When I go back to a Mac there is a feeling of “ah, that's how it should be,” because it is familiar to me, and I value correct color and typography in my work, the Mac is suitable to my tasks.
> Better yet, you can not switch to one specific window of an app using the keyboard shortcut
> instead, they all come to the front and then you have to find the window you want.
Pressing the F3 key (or dragging 4 fingers upwards on the trackpad) shows you a bird's eye view of all your windows, organized by app. If you want a close-up of any particular window there, you can hover your mouse over it and press the spacebar. If you click on any window there, it will come to the front, ready to use. It's very easy to get to any window in about a second on OS X. The F3 key even has a picture of tiled windows on it to remind you.
There are many other ways of getting around windows also, but they are mostly mouse/trackpad gestures, not key shortcuts. Command+Tab and Command+` are the main keyboard shortcuts for window management. They cycle through apps and windows, respectively.
Key shortcuts can also be radically customized in the Keyboard preference pane. But for the most part, the key shortcuts on the Mac belong to apps, which use them extensively, and they can also be customized.
> Some apps require a lot of real-estate and there is no way to maximize a window with a single button click in OS X.
Sure there is. All you do is stretch the window until it take up the whole screen, and then the maximize button will toggle between the window's natural size and the full-screen size. One of the sizes is always your preference, the other is the app's preference. If you want the window big, make it big with your mouse. If that doesn't work, there is an app for that — one that makes it work more like Windows. But generally speaking, the pervasive drag-and-drop on the Mac is more useful than a full-screen window.
There is also a full-screen button at the right of each window's menubar that makes the app take over the screen if you are really focused in on that one app.
The thing is, as much as you may be used to your way of doing things and as much as you might have to adapt somewhat to use a Mac, the system is very straightforward and has its own integrity, so it takes almost no time to learn. And the main thing is: the apps are worth it. If the Mac app platform is useful to you, you adjust to the menus and windows within a week. If the Mac app platform is not worth it to you, then you don't use a Mac. Easy.
And for the traditionalist in you, remember the Mac was first, and it always had a mouse. So there is no need to act like holy shit what is this crazy Mac doing? It's very sensible for a mouse-based system that has always had a mouse built-in to navigate windows with the mouse. Very sensible for a system with a multitouch trackpad to have a gesture that explodes the desktop into a menu you can click on with your mouse.
That is great nostalgia, but there is no way that any NeXT system had faster graphics than today's Mac. I think you are forgetting just how incredibly slow computers were in the 20th century, no matter what system you were using.
Using OpenGL and PDF for the Mac display today makes exactly as much sense as using PostScript in the 1980's. Using PostScript today would be ridiculous.
But for most Mac users, the “furniture” is Logic or Final Cut or iPhoto or iMovie, and the “plumbing” is the desktop user interface and system updates or patches. Most Mac users really do want Apple to be responsible for the plumbing. For fixing it, for enhancing it, for managing its evolution over time. Mac users really do want to spend 100% of their time in their apps.
The reason that full-screen apps were added is because some Macs run Photoshop all day long, or Final Cut all day long. Everything else is completely irrelevant to the user. Not only do they not want to see Terminal, they don't want to see the Desktop.
Imagine you had a brother whose only interest is making graphics. You might install GIMP for him to use, and when he was using it, all he would know about or care about is GIMP, not any of the ways that you configured your Linux system. That is a Mac user. 100% of their technical prowess is graphics technical prowess, or movie-making technical prowess, or music-making technical prowess. The system is Apple's responsibility. We pay Apple to take care of the plumbing.
No, the point is not valid. The iOS-like features are all optional. They can either be ignored completely or turned off.
And further, the iOS-like features are very natural extensions of OS X. They were coming to OS X anyway, even if iOS never existed. Some are simply the result of Macs have multitouch trackpads. Some are simply the result of the rise of malicious software. Some are simply the result of the fact that today's users have 50 apps instead of the 5 they were running 15 years ago.
> Mouse Acceleration: There is no way to modify the acceleration curve in OS X, let alone disable acceleration.
Sure there is.
The menubar doesn't really have anything to do with it. The app that implements focus-follows-mouse simply has to be smart enough to do the right thing when your mouse is headed up for the menubar, in the case that it might cross another window on its way.
And if that were a problem in some way — if you're nerdy enough to want focus-follows-mouse, you are certainly nerdy enough to control the menus with your keyboard.
There is also an app called CheatSheet that you activate by holding the Command key down for 2 seconds, and it explodes the menus into an overlay window. Probably a great addition to MondoMouse, which provides focus-follows-mouse.
CheatSheet
MondoMouse | atomicbird
> focus follows mouse
There is an app for that.
MondoMouse | atomicbird
Plus if you buy a 3rd party 3-button mouse, it may have its own driver that includes focus follows mouse.
> Because Apple shows you the only way (or the highway).
No. Apple includes only the features that almost everybody needs. Everything else, you add via an app or driver or script. Focus follows mouse is a very traditional old school feature that is only popular with advanced users who have the skills to install a 3rd party mouse driver and enable focus follows mouse.
The problem is, the “iOS-ification of OS X” is like Antennagate — it's a melodramatic theme from a gadget blog soap opera. Pointing out that you can drop LaunchPad out of your Dock, set Security to “run anything,” get your apps via insecure Web downloads and so on is not going to fix the head of steam that many people have because gadget blogs have been encouraging them to be mad at Apple for their success. The fact that iPhone 4 had a less than 1% return rate while other smartphones — which could also be death-gripped — are returned at a 20% rate is not going to convince many people that the antenna wasn't flawed.
Fundamentally, there are some people that are unhappy that Apple created computing systems that are big enough to hold actual culture, not just insular computing culture.