Really? Are we still talking about how OS X doesn't give you "full control over the system?"
Given the popularity of Macs in the developer community, it's pretty clear that you have as much control as you desire—Unix has incredible power.
And if you still somehow feel that OS X is actually constricting you (rather than just hiding advanced settings in the command line), you'd never be able to run Linux on a Mac. No, never... https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/MacBook
As for the price component, if you're making your living off a computer I surely how you can afford a decent one.
> Really? Are we still talking about how OS X doesn't give you "full control over the system?"
Well, it doesn't. Hence the reason for your need to put quotes around "full control over the system." Because, in fact, you don't. And problems I've solved in the past on Linux are still problems to this day on OS X.
> As for the price component, if you're making your living off a computer I surely how you can afford a decent one.
That's fallacious at best. This ignores people starting out, or in different locations. Not everyone is being handed a MBA and 27" monitor at their plush new SV job. It's useful to be reminded sometimes that while it's nice to have a high quality laptop, you don't need the latest and greatest Apple device to get stuff done.
> Or maybe I put quotes around it because I don't agree with that assertion and it's a quote from the article...
Well, that's unfortunate, because you are wrong. You don't have full control over the system. It's not a matter of debate. You don't. You simply don't. There are elements that you cannot control in OS X. That are closed source.
I mean, maybe you are a developer for Apple. I don't know. And maybe you do have access to the source code. But the average? No.
> Can you give me an example? I'm genuinely curious...
Proper full screen support on multiple monitors. It should finally be fixed in Mavericks. That being said, the window management is still fairly weak compared to what I implemented years ago.
(I forget the WM I was using at the time, but it wasn't properly handling full screen support in a multi-head environment. I patched it, as well as added some handling for allowing easy movement of FS windows to other screens via key-board shortcuts.)
> Yet the author certainly could get a MBA,
The author is not the only web developer out there. So I don't see how that matters.
Edit: And if being able to script is your proof that everyone has full control over OS X, you also need to share your definition of "full" as it definitely doesn't mean what you think it means.
What window management features, exactly, are impossible to implement because OSX is proprietary?
You obviously have a visceral and emotional opposition to closed-source software, and I respect that, but what exactly is the functionality that you need that OSX can't be made to provide?
>Can you give me an example? I'm genuinely curious...
Try getting connectors to MSSQL working properly (in various languages) on either OS. It's annoying as hell on Linux, damn near impossible on OSX (without cheating using ODBC instead of native drivers).
ODBC connectors don't offer the same suite of functions that native MSSQL might for a given language. This was annoyingly true for me at my last place of employment. MSSQL/T-SQL horsecrap for "BI" since everyone "knows" MSSQL is better.
As usual, these things are the decisions of the architects, not the analysts. As such...
Last time I checked, OS X did not let you replace the main window system or the OS status bar. The theme of the interface is also not as easily changeable as a KDE or GTK+ theme.
If there's a way to completely remove the graphical interface, it's definitely harder than in Linux, and not as usable afterwards.
You might argue that these options are not needed for a typical OS X user, and perhaps you're right. But you cannot say it really gives you "full control of the system".
Neither is paying $1000 (from the article) a prerequisite for it.
If you like the experience of OS X then buying MacBook is completely justified choice. Buying one just to install another OS on it is pure stupidity - you could have the same hardware for much cheaper from other vendors.
I really liked the overall point of the article—that one can get a lot done with a relatively old / under-spec'ed machine—but this: "system that was designed for the casual computer user, with little thought given to power users" is outright idiotic, and I very rarely use terms like "outright idiotic."
And while Ostrega is right that a new MacBook costs more than $1000, it's probably not uncommon to use one for years. How big a deal is it for many people to pay $1 a day for a computer versus ten cents a day? For anyone who is employed or doing technical consulting, the difference is probably negligible, especially compared to the value of time.
About time: having more screen real estate is apparently helpful: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2403565; there was also recently an article about a guy who was teaching his girlfriend how to code and found using a 27" iMac useful simply because so much information could be displayed at once. The HN discussion pointed out (correctly) that one can learn to code with much smaller monitors, but the counterpoint tended to be (also correctly) that something that can be done doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to make it easier. If having modern equipment and large screens helps someone learn or do even 5% faster, and that person is worth at least $10 / hour, the rate at which things like large screens pay themselves back is very rapid.
How is the statement idiotic? I'm a Mac user, and ever since Snow Leopard, Apple has been continually removing features for power users such as true two-dimensional workspaces support and excellent window management in favor of a Frankensteinian nightmare called Mission Control. Changing the OS' appearance requires hacking and reverse-engineering, and Apple has continued to put in consumer-friendly features that are useless for a power user. Launchpad is ridiculous. The iOS apps ported over are unnecessary bloat. The removal of Save As in favor of automatic versioning for those who don't know how to use Command-S drives many mad. The removal of scrollbars as default should be heresy.
Most of these things can be solved with preferences and a bunch of "defaults write"s, but it just solidifies the reasoning behind that statement.
Let's not even start with the hardware. Apple's decision to remove antiglare and high-res, 1:1 pixel panels (non-Retina) is egregious. The removal of upgradeability for the sake of 2mm in thickness has to be one of the most short-sighted and absurd decisions I've ever seen a company make.
So, he's right. With Mavericks, the trend seems to be changing, and I hope it does, but for now, I'll reserve my judgment until it releases officially.
What's also more depressing is that in an attempt to chase consumers, pro manufacturers are making the same awful hardware decisions Apple made, while alienating their true markets.
Don't believe me? Search Lenovo T440s. I won't bother calling it a ThinkPad, because it isn't one.
It's free and open source, and really makes it so much easier to manipulate windows, especially when you have several terminal windows open and want to organize them without using a multiplexer like tmux or screen.
>Given the popularity of Macs in the developer community
I haven't noticed this. I've noticed that popularity in the web developer community, but almost every non-web developer I've seen with a Mac has torn out OS X and put Linux or BSD on it.
I think that you may be vastly overestimating the number of web and mobile app developers. They're still a relatively small proportion of all software developers.
While web developers may be more vocal and have more content on the web (this isn't unexpected, since they are web developers, after all), you shouldn't forget about the numerous other developers out there. They're working on systems software, embedded software, industrial control software, accounting and billing software, various other kinds of business software, scientific software, and so forth.
These days, these kinds of developers generally use Windows or Linux systems, running on non-Mac PC hardware of some sort. And there are a whole lot of these developers.
It's a shame too because it's a complete mess in these other fields. And the open source community has been trying to fill in the gaps(quite well I might add). But again official documentation is still lagging. Which is understandable, these people have lives and they are doing it in their free time.
If you look at ARM and Microcontroller development, it's really a sad state of affairs. There isn't a single option officially ARM gives you to do Linux based application. Ironically the only software that is probably going to run on those embedded devices...Linux.
Honestly I wish they would scrap their horrible pathetic excuse for a development environment, and listen to the community who actually you know buy their devices.
Case in point. Try to compare the horridness of the Official STM32 libraries with libopencm3, which is amazing and incredibly simple.
> I think that you may be vastly overestimating the number of web and mobile app developers. They're still a relatively small proportion of all software developers.
Do you think? I'd be interested to see statistics on this (I'm not doubting you in saying that!). Being as web development (in my experience as a web developer and occasional software developer) is the entry level for software development, I'd have thought web developers easily make up the majority of overall software developers. Everyone is a PHP developer these days, it seems.
Perhaps you're right though (having just read your second paragraph).
I meant it to be a counter to your point; web developers don't really need access to their own systems, so the fact that they have a monoculture of Macs doesn't speak to the access that OS X allows you to have.
edit: and to be really frank, what web developers do for a living is write software that they eventually intend to deploy on Linux.
I'm currently running Archlinux on a Macbook air. The instructions in that wiki article were rather confusing. I had to fiddle around quite a bit to get the EFI boot manager to work. The wireless driver is shit cause the MBA uses a Broadcom card. The version in the latest stable kernel actually segfaults and crashes the OS when you try to use a WPA2 network. Also, I still can't get the audio capture to work in ALSA.
In general, there is very little to reason to buy a Macbook if you want a capable Linux laptop. I only have an MBA because my company gave it to me. Better to buy a similarly-priced Thinkpad and use that.
Yeah, I've had plenty of problems with that in the past. I'm currently using an older version of the kernel. Apparently, the problem has been fixed in 3.11 (currently in rc). I'll just wait until that becomes stable before upgrading.
Does OS X even let you turn off an external monitor yet? (Via a control panel setting or other software driven interface?) In Linux and Windows I can use the OS to turn it off. The Mac forces me to unplug the monitor or power it off manually.
Didn't OS X users just get the ability to resize windows by any edge or corner? They only had to wait 10 years for that wonderful feature.
How about being able to properly replace the Dock? You can't, because Apple does not allow non-Apple programs to affect NSScreen visibleFrame.
Maybe you can tell us how much Finder can be controlled versus the file browsers in Windows or say Gnome/KDE? Wait, nope - turns out it's sorely lacking in extendability hooks.
Furthermore - OS X has shitty package management and limits what you can do with your terminal as well because you cannot replace certain packages without breaking your entire system - http://cloudhead.io/2011/04/18/why-osx-doesnt-cut-it/
So, no...OS X is not as maleable as other operating systems.
Given the popularity of Macs in the developer community, it's pretty clear that you have as much control as you desire—Unix has incredible power.
And if you still somehow feel that OS X is actually constricting you (rather than just hiding advanced settings in the command line), you'd never be able to run Linux on a Mac. No, never... https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/MacBook
As for the price component, if you're making your living off a computer I surely how you can afford a decent one.