Wow, how typical. You point out the shortcomings of Linux and someone takes personal offense. Just one more thing wrong with linux: It's community.
Specific distribution: Supporting all distributions isn't hard, you know.
No. Supporting Linux is not hard at all. It's not like you have to release 10 different packages for each distribution you support... and stuff.
Flip it around and ask yourself why shouldn't company X spend a little time making something cross-platform (it's not as hard as you think) and get that many more sales?
You say "It's not as hard as you think." I say, "It's easier said than done."
This just screams troll right here. I find it a pain to develop for Windows myself given that libraries and headers can be all over the place, or are you thinking of RAD C# stuff that is useless for many applications (note I'm saying it's useless for things like, say, Flash; it certainly has a use for smaller programs and other apps that don't need speed, etc).
Yeah, I'm a troll. Instead of developing a modern tool chain, linux folk scream, "Emacs/VIM, the GNU toolchain and a command line debugger is all you will ever need!" Which, wherein lies the most fundamental problem of the Linux crowd, they feel entitled to tell people what they should want and need, rather than listen to what people want and need. And then you call them a troll.
In your minds, if company Z doesn't support Linux, they lose. If they do support linux, they lose even worse. They get screamed at for not releasing specs, not GPL'ing the source, not supporting a specific distribution, not supporting 64-bit... the list goes on.
Now if you're going to take the time to respond to this, please answer me this: Why should company X spend the most time supporting a platform that has the least marketshare?
Linux folk see the problem being that software vendors don't support linux. The fact of the matter is Linux doesn't support ISV's. There are a million different distro's with no standardization. You already have your market share working against you, and you realize that. What you don't seem to realize is that your platform is the hardest to develop for and support.
You really should do something about this before you scream with a sense of entitlement that some company should spend time and money supporting your platform when it is not likely to be financially viable.
1.) OS X is built on Darwin, a UNIX operating system. That means UNIX security ideas permeate through the system upward.
Being UNIX certified does not imply that it is secure. Apple's implementation of UNIX differs greatly from an internal standpoint from anything running mission critical UNIX, so the comparison is ridiculous. The most important aspect of the security model is shared by both OS X and Windows nowadays, in that processes run under the least privileged account possible to perform the given task. Sudo and UAC are synonymous for required privilege escalation. Regardless, it's the implementation that matters, not some arbitrary certification.
Popularity doesn't automatically mean your software gets exploited more, because Apache has a better security track record than IIS.
Can you be more specific? When you say track record, do you mean "websites running Apache/IIS that have been hacked?" Because that does not imply anything wrong with the server software itself. Most hacks have to do with gaining access to the files the HTTP server is serving and altering them. So yes, using your reasoning, way way way more Apache servers are being hacked exploited, not that it's the fault of Apache by any means, but more so the fact that most web servers run Apache -- Thus proving my point.
When these issues are brought up, you invent caveats to avoid refuting them. Somehow, one single IIS server means all the exploits over the years never happened.
Microsoft had a terrible security track record. Who is refuting this? No one. But if you look at the last two years, Apple's track record is the worse of the two. And right back at you, by the way, saying that "Just because OS X is certified UNIX, none of the exploits over the years never happened."
By that logic, Linux is even worse. And don't even bring up BSD!
I would agree with that reasoning, chances are Linux on the desktop would be even worse. Most vulnerabilities are going to be introduced in the desktop stack, so they would carry on over to BSD too. From a strictly kernel level though, Linux is still probably the least secure of the three given the rate at which new features are added. BSD variants are notorious for having a highly scrutinized commit/review process, as opposed to the Linux "LGTM" (looks good to me).
Even if OS X was just *barely* secure enough to keep hackers going after the much more difficult, but more numerous, Windows user base, there would still be at least some actual Mac attacks.
There have been proof of concept viruses made for OS X, and real actual viruses. Do a google search, I found plenty.
The more likely explanation, though, is that you have no idea what you're talking about.
But when it's been 17 years and no real linux "virus" save proof-of-concept ones that you have to install yourself, and rootkits that only come with tainted packages (and again, this doesn't matter because unlike with windows you have trusted repos), that we have yet to see a linux virus surface, and yet likely millions or billions of windows ones, it does not bode well for you.
Windows was terribly insecure, while at the same time having > 90% of the market share, and it was a recipe for disaster. If you want to live in the 90's and early 00's, then go ahead, but MS has turned things around in the security department, so don't let your corporate (or FSF) allegiances blind you to that fact.
Now, Apple may be a different story because of vulnerabilities in different parts of the stack... But when it's been 17 years and no real linux "virus" save proof-of-concept ones
Exactly! Virus makers are no different than ISV's - they aren't going to put the effort into creating applications (or viruses) for a system with almost no marketshare! What's the point? But at least you did point out that there have been POC's - which proves the fact that it can be done if someone were so inclined. I've also seen POC viruses for OS X. And, in fact, a local privilege escalation exploit that headlined on Slashdot that I tried out right then and there on my own Macbook Pro.
Windows is inheritely insecure on a network
Really? Example? A good portion of fortune 500 companies run Windows in a corporate environment, if your unsubstantiated claim were true, I imaging MS would be in some hot shit right now.
It was designed with a browser/file manager that could be used to destroy the entire system
Take the previous OS X privilege escalation exploit example and combine with "rm -R/"
Believe me, I've spent a lot of time hating Microsoft over the past 10-15 years. As such, I've run Linux, OS X, even FreeBSD on the desktop. But don't fool yourself, they have turned things around, and for that reason Windows is my current OS of choice, and it subject to change when someone releases anything better.
UNIX runs the Internet, so I suspect OS X has the more scrutinized foundation.
Yeah, I've heard this fallacy before. Are you going to tell me that the Unix that "runs" the internet in anyway resembles the Unix that runs OS X? OS X is a hybrid kernel to begin with, so that's strike one. Strike two, it's Unix with an entire desktop stack on top of it, which is where the majority of your exploits are introduced.
Simply blaming popularity for Windows' myriad of problems over the years compared to OS X ignores that Win32 began as a single-user subsystem and that Microsoft ignored the Internet until 1998.
Microsoft had a terrible track record on security. So, using that reasoning, can I use pre-OS X (or, pre-OS X 10.2 for that matter) examples to justify my point? In fairness, I look at MS track record post XP SP2.
Another counterargument is that Apache has higher market share than IIS, yet IIS has had more security flaws over the years. By your reasoning, Apache should be the one with more flaws.
Desktop software and Server software are entirely different beasts, and you're comparing them apples-to-apples. For one, a server is usually administered by a professional, which is certainly not the case with Desktops. Secondly, the number of desktop computers running Windows far outnumbers the amount of servers running any operating system. And lastly: http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html
IIS is number two overall, behind freeBSD. Must not be that insecure.
Windows has over 90% of the desktop market share, and well over that in the corporate environment. Windows XP and Vista are far more thoroughly scrutinized. You can thank OS X security to it's sub 10% market share. If, overnight OS X jumped to 90% market share, it would be torn to pieces. Security on OS X is nothing more than a facade.
It's amazing how many people hate apple for no good reason
Hate Apple for no good reason? Apple is the new Microsoft. Apple updater on Windows is malware, installing poorly written USB drivers without your consent to push their DRM agenda while, reducing system stability. iTunes is a huge steaming pile of bloated shit. They NDA they're freaking App Store denial letters, for Christ's sake (along with anyone using the iPhone SDK for that matter). They try to lock you into their overpriced platform. This is the same company trying to DRM a fucking SHOE, so you can't use your Nike+ sensor in a non-Nike+ shoe. Worst of all, the Apple "people" who seem to turn a blind eye to anything Apple does.
I really think Apple is intentionally keeping their market share low by catering to people with money. If all the sudden they have a respectable market share, they might have to shift focus to actually creating a secure operating system, which would take precious time away from shiny UI development.
Oh, and if you want a little proof that Apple isn't so hot on security, take a look on their turnaround on the two recent privilege escalation exploits and most notably, the widespread DNS exploit for which they were last to fix, in an almost negligent capacity.
Not linked to increased testosterone. Testosterone doesn't cause baldness, DHT does (which is a hormone with similar effects), the other side of the story being a gene that affects the hair follicle's susceptibility to be shrunk by DHT.
So Windows has better security/keyloggers/malware, better integration of video and audio with the OS, better browsing, better track record on viruses, better links with open source, better development environment, better Office apps, better networking, better cross platform integration with non-windows systems, better built in tools for managing your photos and for making your own home movies and DVDs, better support for games.... oh wait, it does have better games support.
Yes. Apple has had two root escalation vulnerabilities come to light in the last couple of months, and were way behind everyone else in patching that widespread DNS vulnerability. Apple is perfectly happy with their tiny market share because it gives the perception of security since it isn't targeted by virus makers. Better development? Yes. How marketable and approachable is objective-c? That's Apple's first strike with development. I'll take Visual Studio over XCode any day of the week. And Office apps? Are you serious? What Office apps are you implying are better on Mac? Microsoft Office?!?
So, you think it does all those things better because it has an option in Explorer to show hidden files in the GUI and Finder does not (which is a point I have already conceded about some of the shortcomings of the Finder)?
Argument fail, dude. That's just one example of something I find ridiculously wrong with OS X. The little things matter.
Since you say it was 2 years old and $3000 I'll assume you had a BTO 17" Powerbook. With a machine like that, there must have been something deeper if you're trying to justify not hating it, or perhaps even selling it, given the high (but obviously not 100% return) resale valu
Wrong, 2.13 ghz 15" macbook pro with 2gig ram. Oh by the way? Widespread manufacturing error caused an entire generation of these to be shipped with gobs of thermal paste on the processor, video chip, and northbridge, effectively insulating them from heatsink. Apple would not aknowledge this as a problem and people were left with laptops that would burn the shit out of their legs and run hot.
Or given how much you seemed to detest it and try to justify the cost, you didn't spend 5 seconds googling or looking through the *vast* number of open source/shareware/third party apps for the Mac for a Finder replacement like Pathfinder.
Way to defend OS X. "OS X isn't that bad when you replace system components with third party solutions!"
I think really the last straw were people like you. The kind of people I didn't want to be associated with by owning an Apple (a contributing factor in moving away from Linux, among it's many other downfalls). People who use Windows don't care if someone else uses OS X or Linux. They don't care, because they're normal people who don't feel the need become attached to an operating system and become evangelistic and defend it and take critisisms of it personally. Bash Windows, my operating system of choice. I don't give a fuck, I know it has it's own downfalls. Now realize the same with your OS of choice and you won't sound like a smarmy douche bag.
It's something of a sensationalist term to call using the terminal to view hidden files as a "command line hack" - I think you're just trying to justify hating the OS
When you spend $3000 on a laptop you try very hard to justify not hating it, trust me. I gave it two years of fair use, and that was enough. Bottom line, Windows does everything OS X does and does it better.
Point is, security gets in the way, no matter where you go. Of course it's always the OS X and Linux folks who point out how ridiculous UAC is, as if their own shit don't stink.
Yeah, but some of us actually happen to like Unix-like OSes.
Which was my main motivation for buying a Mac. It didn't take long to realize that the pretty front-end desktop and the powerful Unix back-end were mutually exclusive. So if I want to view hidden files I need to use the freaking terminal? Would it really be so hard to add an option into finder? I need to resort to a command-line hack to do that? Just one example of many major annoyances. Oh, and the constant "it just works" mantra annoyed the shit out of me whenever I'd try to import pictures from my digicam and the shit would freeze, and I'd have to do it on a Windows box.
UAC is graphical sudo without a password. Which, when considering the nature of Window's on the desktop, the password is redundant, so personally I think they got it right with UAC. That won't stop people from complaining though, as we've seen...
How do you *know* that it's Apple's software updater that's causing the UAC box to appear, and not an opportunistic bit of malware that's been watching for the software update dialog to show up?
Apple software update is an opportunistic bit of malware.
Yeah, it will totally suck to have your graphics hardware properly supported under Linux. Considering you're dual booting Linux along side one of the most locked-down proprietary consumer platforms available while at the same time complaining about a binary driver on the Linux side is.... Ironic.
Oh puh-leeze, if there is any company that has been given a free pass on quality issues, it's Apple. Apple's hardware is no better than any other manufacturer and the OS is crap, but they made it pretty which is all that matters in the shallow minds of their consumers.
Slashdot Mirror
Specific distribution: Supporting all distributions isn't hard, you know.
No. Supporting Linux is not hard at all. It's not like you have to release 10 different packages for each distribution you support... and stuff.
Flip it around and ask yourself why shouldn't company X spend a little time making something cross-platform (it's not as hard as you think) and get that many more sales?
You say "It's not as hard as you think." I say, "It's easier said than done."
This just screams troll right here. I find it a pain to develop for Windows myself given that libraries and headers can be all over the place, or are you thinking of RAD C# stuff that is useless for many applications (note I'm saying it's useless for things like, say, Flash; it certainly has a use for smaller programs and other apps that don't need speed, etc).
Yeah, I'm a troll. Instead of developing a modern tool chain, linux folk scream, "Emacs/VIM, the GNU toolchain and a command line debugger is all you will ever need!" Which, wherein lies the most fundamental problem of the Linux crowd, they feel entitled to tell people what they should want and need, rather than listen to what people want and need. And then you call them a troll.
...But please, lets be realistic.
In your minds, if company Z doesn't support Linux, they lose. If they do support linux, they lose even worse. They get screamed at for not releasing specs, not GPL'ing the source, not supporting a specific distribution, not supporting 64-bit... the list goes on.
Now if you're going to take the time to respond to this, please answer me this: Why should company X spend the most time supporting a platform that has the least marketshare?
Linux folk see the problem being that software vendors don't support linux. The fact of the matter is Linux doesn't support ISV's. There are a million different distro's with no standardization. You already have your market share working against you, and you realize that. What you don't seem to realize is that your platform is the hardest to develop for and support.
You really should do something about this before you scream with a sense of entitlement that some company should spend time and money supporting your platform when it is not likely to be financially viable.
Plus, it was also the first time I'd seen a woman penetrated with a Vidal Sassoon Hairspray can.
Pshhh, you must not get out often.
1.) OS X is built on Darwin, a UNIX operating system. That means UNIX security ideas permeate through the system upward.
Being UNIX certified does not imply that it is secure. Apple's implementation of UNIX differs greatly from an internal standpoint from anything running mission critical UNIX, so the comparison is ridiculous. The most important aspect of the security model is shared by both OS X and Windows nowadays, in that processes run under the least privileged account possible to perform the given task. Sudo and UAC are synonymous for required privilege escalation. Regardless, it's the implementation that matters, not some arbitrary certification.
Popularity doesn't automatically mean your software gets exploited more, because Apache has a better security track record than IIS.
Can you be more specific? When you say track record, do you mean "websites running Apache/IIS that have been hacked?" Because that does not imply anything wrong with the server software itself. Most hacks have to do with gaining access to the files the HTTP server is serving and altering them. So yes, using your reasoning, way way way more Apache servers are being hacked exploited, not that it's the fault of Apache by any means, but more so the fact that most web servers run Apache -- Thus proving my point.
When these issues are brought up, you invent caveats to avoid refuting them. Somehow, one single IIS server means all the exploits over the years never happened.
Microsoft had a terrible security track record. Who is refuting this? No one. But if you look at the last two years, Apple's track record is the worse of the two. And right back at you, by the way, saying that "Just because OS X is certified UNIX, none of the exploits over the years never happened."
By that logic, Linux is even worse. And don't even bring up BSD!
I would agree with that reasoning, chances are Linux on the desktop would be even worse. Most vulnerabilities are going to be introduced in the desktop stack, so they would carry on over to BSD too. From a strictly kernel level though, Linux is still probably the least secure of the three given the rate at which new features are added. BSD variants are notorious for having a highly scrutinized commit/review process, as opposed to the Linux "LGTM" (looks good to me).
Even if OS X was just *barely* secure enough to keep hackers going after the much more difficult, but more numerous, Windows user base, there would still be at least some actual Mac attacks.
There have been proof of concept viruses made for OS X, and real actual viruses. Do a google search, I found plenty.
The more likely explanation, though, is that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Your signature is so appropriate.
But when it's been 17 years and no real linux "virus" save proof-of-concept ones that you have to install yourself, and rootkits that only come with tainted packages (and again, this doesn't matter because unlike with windows you have trusted repos), that we have yet to see a linux virus surface, and yet likely millions or billions of windows ones, it does not bode well for you.
Windows was terribly insecure, while at the same time having > 90% of the market share, and it was a recipe for disaster. If you want to live in the 90's and early 00's, then go ahead, but MS has turned things around in the security department, so don't let your corporate (or FSF) allegiances blind you to that fact.
Now, Apple may be a different story because of vulnerabilities in different parts of the stack... But when it's been 17 years and no real linux "virus" save proof-of-concept ones
Exactly! Virus makers are no different than ISV's - they aren't going to put the effort into creating applications (or viruses) for a system with almost no marketshare! What's the point? But at least you did point out that there have been POC's - which proves the fact that it can be done if someone were so inclined. I've also seen POC viruses for OS X. And, in fact, a local privilege escalation exploit that headlined on Slashdot that I tried out right then and there on my own Macbook Pro.
Windows is inheritely insecure on a network
Really? Example? A good portion of fortune 500 companies run Windows in a corporate environment, if your unsubstantiated claim were true, I imaging MS would be in some hot shit right now.
It was designed with a browser/file manager that could be used to destroy the entire system
Take the previous OS X privilege escalation exploit example and combine with "rm -R /"
Believe me, I've spent a lot of time hating Microsoft over the past 10-15 years. As such, I've run Linux, OS X, even FreeBSD on the desktop. But don't fool yourself, they have turned things around, and for that reason Windows is my current OS of choice, and it subject to change when someone releases anything better.
None of the problems you see with Apple SW on Windows are present on Macs.
So if I buy Apple's overpriced MP3 player or phone I need to buy Apple's overpriced computer for it to work properly?
Exactly.
UNIX runs the Internet, so I suspect OS X has the more scrutinized foundation.
Yeah, I've heard this fallacy before. Are you going to tell me that the Unix that "runs" the internet in anyway resembles the Unix that runs OS X? OS X is a hybrid kernel to begin with, so that's strike one. Strike two, it's Unix with an entire desktop stack on top of it, which is where the majority of your exploits are introduced.
Simply blaming popularity for Windows' myriad of problems over the years compared to OS X ignores that Win32 began as a single-user subsystem and that Microsoft ignored the Internet until 1998.
Microsoft had a terrible track record on security. So, using that reasoning, can I use pre-OS X (or, pre-OS X 10.2 for that matter) examples to justify my point? In fairness, I look at MS track record post XP SP2.
Another counterargument is that Apache has higher market share than IIS, yet IIS has had more security flaws over the years. By your reasoning, Apache should be the one with more flaws.
Desktop software and Server software are entirely different beasts, and you're comparing them apples-to-apples. For one, a server is usually administered by a professional, which is certainly not the case with Desktops. Secondly, the number of desktop computers running Windows far outnumbers the amount of servers running any operating system. And lastly: http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html IIS is number two overall, behind freeBSD. Must not be that insecure.
I work for a software developer
Well, those are some impressive credentials. What are you, secretary? Assistant (to the) regional manager?
So I do know windows inside and out.
Oh, so what does this imply? That you know the .NET stack? In-depth knowledge of the Win32 API?
Can you at least make an argument without using baseless claims and accusations? Anecdotal evidence, hard evidence, anything?
Windows has over 90% of the desktop market share, and well over that in the corporate environment. Windows XP and Vista are far more thoroughly scrutinized. You can thank OS X security to it's sub 10% market share. If, overnight OS X jumped to 90% market share, it would be torn to pieces. Security on OS X is nothing more than a facade.
It's amazing how many people hate apple for no good reason
Hate Apple for no good reason? Apple is the new Microsoft. Apple updater on Windows is malware, installing poorly written USB drivers without your consent to push their DRM agenda while, reducing system stability. iTunes is a huge steaming pile of bloated shit. They NDA they're freaking App Store denial letters, for Christ's sake (along with anyone using the iPhone SDK for that matter). They try to lock you into their overpriced platform. This is the same company trying to DRM a fucking SHOE, so you can't use your Nike+ sensor in a non-Nike+ shoe. Worst of all, the Apple "people" who seem to turn a blind eye to anything Apple does.
I really think Apple is intentionally keeping their market share low by catering to people with money. If all the sudden they have a respectable market share, they might have to shift focus to actually creating a secure operating system, which would take precious time away from shiny UI development.
Oh, and if you want a little proof that Apple isn't so hot on security, take a look on their turnaround on the two recent privilege escalation exploits and most notably, the widespread DNS exploit for which they were last to fix, in an almost negligent capacity.
No, don't use it to save word docs unless that you can verify they look normal in word first.
THATSWHATSHESAID!
Phonetic spelling of the jingle, douche!
Not linked to increased testosterone. Testosterone doesn't cause baldness, DHT does (which is a hormone with similar effects), the other side of the story being a gene that affects the hair follicle's susceptibility to be shrunk by DHT.
So Windows has better security/keyloggers/malware, better integration of video and audio with the OS, better browsing, better track record on viruses, better links with open source, better development environment, better Office apps, better networking, better cross platform integration with non-windows systems, better built in tools for managing your photos and for making your own home movies and DVDs, better support for games.... oh wait, it does have better games support.
Yes. Apple has had two root escalation vulnerabilities come to light in the last couple of months, and were way behind everyone else in patching that widespread DNS vulnerability. Apple is perfectly happy with their tiny market share because it gives the perception of security since it isn't targeted by virus makers. Better development? Yes. How marketable and approachable is objective-c? That's Apple's first strike with development. I'll take Visual Studio over XCode any day of the week. And Office apps? Are you serious? What Office apps are you implying are better on Mac? Microsoft Office?!?
So, you think it does all those things better because it has an option in Explorer to show hidden files in the GUI and Finder does not (which is a point I have already conceded about some of the shortcomings of the Finder)?
Argument fail, dude. That's just one example of something I find ridiculously wrong with OS X. The little things matter.
Since you say it was 2 years old and $3000 I'll assume you had a BTO 17" Powerbook. With a machine like that, there must have been something deeper if you're trying to justify not hating it, or perhaps even selling it, given the high (but obviously not 100% return) resale valu
Wrong, 2.13 ghz 15" macbook pro with 2gig ram. Oh by the way? Widespread manufacturing error caused an entire generation of these to be shipped with gobs of thermal paste on the processor, video chip, and northbridge, effectively insulating them from heatsink. Apple would not aknowledge this as a problem and people were left with laptops that would burn the shit out of their legs and run hot.
Or given how much you seemed to detest it and try to justify the cost, you didn't spend 5 seconds googling or looking through the *vast* number of open source/shareware/third party apps for the Mac for a Finder replacement like Pathfinder.
Way to defend OS X. "OS X isn't that bad when you replace system components with third party solutions!"
I think really the last straw were people like you. The kind of people I didn't want to be associated with by owning an Apple (a contributing factor in moving away from Linux, among it's many other downfalls). People who use Windows don't care if someone else uses OS X or Linux. They don't care, because they're normal people who don't feel the need become attached to an operating system and become evangelistic and defend it and take critisisms of it personally. Bash Windows, my operating system of choice. I don't give a fuck, I know it has it's own downfalls. Now realize the same with your OS of choice and you won't sound like a smarmy douche bag.
It's something of a sensationalist term to call using the terminal to view hidden files as a "command line hack" - I think you're just trying to justify hating the OS
When you spend $3000 on a laptop you try very hard to justify not hating it, trust me. I gave it two years of fair use, and that was enough. Bottom line, Windows does everything OS X does and does it better.
Point is, security gets in the way, no matter where you go. Of course it's always the OS X and Linux folks who point out how ridiculous UAC is, as if their own shit don't stink.
Yeah, but some of us actually happen to like Unix-like OSes.
Which was my main motivation for buying a Mac. It didn't take long to realize that the pretty front-end desktop and the powerful Unix back-end were mutually exclusive.
So if I want to view hidden files I need to use the freaking terminal? Would it really be so hard to add an option into finder? I need to resort to a command-line hack to do that? Just one example of many major annoyances.
Oh, and the constant "it just works" mantra annoyed the shit out of me whenever I'd try to import pictures from my digicam and the shit would freeze, and I'd have to do it on a Windows box.
UAC is graphical sudo without a password. Which, when considering the nature of Window's on the desktop, the password is redundant, so personally I think they got it right with UAC. That won't stop people from complaining though, as we've seen...
How do you *know* that it's Apple's software updater that's causing the UAC box to appear, and not an opportunistic bit of malware that's been watching for the software update dialog to show up?
Apple software update is an opportunistic bit of malware.
Yes, because that is so much less informative than the Ubuntu or OS X graphical sudo prompt.
Yeah, it will totally suck to have your graphics hardware properly supported under Linux. Considering you're dual booting Linux along side one of the most locked-down proprietary consumer platforms available while at the same time complaining about a binary driver on the Linux side is.... Ironic.
Oh puh-leeze, if there is any company that has been given a free pass on quality issues, it's Apple. Apple's hardware is no better than any other manufacturer and the OS is crap, but they made it pretty which is all that matters in the shallow minds of their consumers.