Linux is a complete mess that may likely never get fixed. The problem is people. It is a representation of democracy: a messy combination of half-arsed solutions that forms a workable cohesive. This is not a valid competitor to the Mac. It is a compromise.

Lets take Ubuntu as an example. Today you can get Ubuntu laptops that will work out of the box. Is that true tomorrow? Absolutely not. The next distro version will break something in the hardware. I have been burned by this twice now. At then end of the day the Apple premium is not really a premium. It ensures that they continue to support their legacy hardware for years. The people who bash the premium as some sort of "idiot tax" are actually valuing the software that runs on the machine at 0$. There are too many people in this world that don't understand how much effort it takes to create and maintain good reliable software. You see it on the app store where people can't fathom spending 99 cents and you see it in the bashing of Apple devices.

Lets assume that your hardware works beautifully with the current version. Then you actually look at the apps shipped with the distro. They are poorly made and do not form a cohesive OS. You are forced to hunt for other open source equivalents to basic stuff like "paint". Have you tried using the calculator or notepad equivalents? They suck compared the simple and easy to use Windows and Mac equivalents. This is something even Windows gets right. It comes from the fact that Canonical does not have the resources to build each app around a unified design and UX principle so they farm it out to the "open source community".

Finally, why do each distro version seem to break something on the same hardware year after year? There seems to be a serious lack of regression testing on these distros. For 10+ years I have witnessed how one version of Ubuntu breaks some stuff, fixes others and then the next version fixes some stuff but breaks previous working items. Then it gets worse, the subsequent version breaks previously fixed stuff again! I am forced to QA the entire OS every time a new release comes out and hope I don't miss something(which I always do)!

You know what is a compromise? Running Docker at 1/4 of its native speed inside a VM.

My solution for this is a headless Linux box under my desk and remote vscode and ssh from my MacBook. Best of both worlds so far for me.

I did try and use Linux full time but the UI drove me up the wall so I’m back comfortable in macOS but my dev work flies on that Linux box.

> This is something even Windows gets right. It comes from the fact that Canonical does not have the resources to build each app around a unified design and UX principle

Isn't it a bit on the nose that you accuse Linux of failing at the one thing that Windows is notoriously bad at, UX cohesion?

More seriously -- Linux reflects a different mentality and way of doing things. It is not for everyone. Downloading the software you want is the expected way to do things. I have no idea whether Ubuntu ships a "paint" replacement, but regardless, Pinta or Paint.NET are like three clicks away, thanks to the software repository approach.

Linux is more or less for people who want to experiment and configure things their own way, and make software that solves their own problems in the way that they want those problems solved. Creating a single, opinionated, out-of-the-box working desktop experience with perfect hardware compatibility with whatever bullshit proprietary-blob using silicon is out there is (a) hard, and (b) not what most Linux-using developers are interested in.

The people who use Linux largely recognize that yes, it is a compromise, but also that using Windows or macOS also represents a compromise. Having used Linux for nearly 15 years now myself, I can say confidently that the trade-offs for me weigh heavily in favor of Linux.

>Isn't it a bit on the nose that you accuse Linux of failing at the one thing that Windows is notoriously bad at, UX cohesion?

Yeah you can criticize Windows for trying to update their designs with Metro and the like but in reality, all the old apps that worked cohesively are still there even today. Ubuntu and the Gnome or KDE based distros never had this to begin with. Just multiple flavors of the same cruddy base applications since all the distro are using the same apps anyway.

>More seriously -- Linux reflects a different mentality and way of doing things. It is not for everyone. Downloading the software you want is the expected way to do things. I have no idea whether Ubuntu ships a "paint" replacement, but regardless, Pinta or Paint.NET are like three clicks away, thanks to the software repository approach.

Yeah thats fine but that unfortunately makes it a non-starter if you are looking for a direct replacement for macOS or Windows.

Yes Paint.NET/Pinta/GIMP are always trotted out when I post this example. Pinta has been an unstable mess every time I have installed it. Plus "paint" is a near-instant loading app that is several MB in size whereas Pinta is installing loads of supporting libraries because it is a more complex application. Your telling me that in 2021 they can't just ship a simple app to allow a user to just jump in and use to resize images or add some text to basic images? This hinders the usability of the system when I can't just quickly do a simple task and move on! It is as if the developers of this distros have never understood how a regular user uses a PC.

>The people who use Linux largely recognize that yes, it is a compromise, but also that using Windows or macOS also represents a compromise. Having used Linux for nearly 15 years now myself, I can say confidently that the trade-offs for me weigh heavily in favor of Linux.

The only thing that is a given is that any comment bashing Linux will ultimately attract someone like you that tries to twist and turn my words to justify it. I've seen it for 10+ years now without fail so i'll leave it at that.

Its a shame because I have looked at the messy bug tracker for Ubuntu and have tried to fix issues but then I stop and realize what is the point when it breaks again in some subsequent version of the distro. I wish someone would just dump a bunch of money, hire former Windows/Mac devs and properly build a lot of the supporting components of some distro, then all the other distros can roll up those better apps and then we have at least something that can be called adequate in 2021.

> The only thing that is a given is that any comment bashing Linux will ultimately attract someone like you that tries to twist and turn my words to justify it.

The only thing that's a given is that any post that proclaims the relative merits of Linux versus alternative operating systems will immediately attract posts like yours bashing it, so shrug.

More seriously than my previous response.

> I wish someone would just dump a bunch of money, hire former Windows/Mac devs and properly build a lot of the supporting components of some distro, then all the other distros can roll up those better apps and then we have at least something that can be called adequate in 2021

My point is not that you're wrong to feel this way, but rather that you should recognize that "adequate" is ultimately subjective. Adequate for whom? Adequate how?

The Linux ecosystem is largely designed by and for people who are willing to tinker, willing to customize, who want to design software that scratches their own itches, and who aren't looking for a perfect out-of-the-box experience from a distro. A handful of people want to bring about "the year of Linux on the desktop", but they're a minority and even for them the interest is usually secondary to their own use of Linux.

There's no "twisting your words" required here. What you want is a near-perfect out of the box Linux experience. What most Linux users want is ... something else. My point is simply that that's okay. Linux doesn't have to be for everyone. Your problems with it are not everyone's problems with it. In particular,

> that unfortunately makes it a non-starter if you are looking for a direct replacement for macOS or Windows.

Most Linux users don't want a direct replacement for macOS or Windows. Maybe there's a class of "theoretical Linux switchers" out there who would switch and would be the majority of Linux users if they did, but they are not, at present, the majority of the people using and working on Linux.

What Linux provides me with is (a) a well-integrated package manager containing fully free/libre software, (b) a comprehensible system (where I can understand fully how each part works), and (c) a modifiable system (where I can change how the system operates to the extent I want). Having a perfect replacement of the MS Paint application is not even on my radar. But that said:

> Plus "paint" is a near-instant loading app that is several MB in size whereas Pinta is installing loads of supporting libraries because it is a more complex application.

Maybe you're exaggerating, but on my system Pinta has an installed size of only 2.88 MiB and has only two direct dependencies. Maybe you're thinking of the fact that it's written in Mono (the C# runtime), but that's a shared installation with all other Mono applications. It's equivalent to Windows shipping with the .NET runtime or UWP.

> But isn't this much, much easier if you just piggyback on the Apple hardware ?

Sure, it's easier, but then I'm not sure what the point is or what makes it one of the biggest opportunities of our time.

I also understand why it never happened - there is already a unix-based OS which is designed with perfect compatibility with the Apple Hardware called OSX! I'm not sure what the advantage to a consumer would be for replacing OSX with linux - other than the fact that it gives consumers choice - but of course providing a distro that only operates on a specific Mac is then limiting hardware choice so it doesn't really solve that in some respects.

And if it's just for developers, then wouldn't developers want some choice of hardware, good support for tooling, the ability to test native apps without virtualisation e.t.c.

IMO I suspect the Venn-diagram of developers who:

* want a Mac but don't want OSX

* don't mind that they can't upgrade their hardware

* are willing to run some totally-new operating system

* Accept that it will initially lack the support of the runtimes they use, and some software, and won't be able to develop certain types of software because of this.

* Accept that if they wish to continue using the OS for their next laptop they will be fully locked-in to a single hardware model.

is pretty vanishingly small.

In short, Apple does things in non-standard ways without explaining how to get another OS to work.

Apple doesn’t prioritize lack of binary blobs. The EFI firmware is all proprietary. All their Wi-Fi have been switched to Broadcom.

They do weird non-standard things to the Thunderbolt controller, e.g., you have to lie to the firmware and claim to be macOS in order for it not to disable the Thunderbolt controller.

Newer MacBooks hide a bunch of hardware behind the proprietary T2, and whatever embedded OS runs the Touch Bar.

MacBooks are not ideologically pure, and sunk efforts to get an OS working on other machines are often wasted on MacBooks because Apple does things in bizarrely different ways.

Steam Deck (For Games)

I only ever need a laptop when traveling, I have a big desktop setup at home. I plan to take my Steam Deck traveling with a portable monitor and keyboard.

I like the idea, but I worry that Apple's m.o. is to allow something like this in the margins and then cut it off at the knees if it becomes too successful. Whether by altering their hardware, using security lock-out (à la iPhone), or replicating it without acknowledging where it came from.

> But isn't this much, much easier if you just piggyback on the Apple hardware ?

Would that be even legal? I mean selling a commercial OS that would be marketed to install as a replacement OS on the most locked, most proprietary hardware on the market?