My bigger problem is many swear on FLOSS, but using Apple is OK. Go to a FLOSS conference and there are Macs everywhere.
It's undeniable that Microsoft has had positive influences on the opensource world with language servers, debug adapter protocol, an inbrowser editor that is seemingly embedded in any website with a code editor, cross-platform C# (maybe that's a curse though, I dunno), linux contributions, and probably more I'm not aware of. Apple... I dunno. Vendor lock-in and more electronic trash?
Apple isn't okay. Apple is forced onto developers. The general population using Apple products requires developers to use Macs. And, last time I checked, it's a lot easier carrying around one laptop than two. It also doesn't hurt that Apple products aren't exactly the quality of off-brand Chinese laptops.
I hope EU slaps Apple hard for abusing their market position in this. I've seen it happen in several companies I've worked in. Developers prefer Linux, but it's the only machine you can build for all target platforms, so.... macbooks it is.
Plenty of developers prefer Macs to anything else.
Of course. They are pretty great battery wise. UX and OS is however inconsistent, buggy and frustrating. I had expected "annoying design decisions", but not wrong and buggy ones.
The general population using Apple products requires developers to use Macs
They are 20% of the laptop/desktop owners? 25%? A dev is most likely going to be writing backend software to run on a linux platform on some server somewhere or write a web application (for the browser or electron). How many devs are actually going to be writing mac-native applications?
I am one of those people. I have a Macbook Air laptop, which I mainly use to remote into my Linux desktop while on the go (mainly with vscode by the way). I found this to be sweet spot of usability, while at home the laptop is in a bag, charging and waiting for the next outing. This way I can enjoy the niceties of having a big desktop PC (performance, a LOT of USB ports, a huge monitor).
The reason I have the Apple laptop is mainly because of the lightness and battery life. No other machine comes close to it. For now I sort of treat it as a dumb terminal, so MacOS is not a big hassle for me (except for the insanely dumb window management). I will try to ditch MacOS as soon as Asahi Linux releases webcam and microphone support, because it is the only thing that is stopping me from using it.
And yeah, the ugly truth is that once I damage the screen or the SSD fails, the whole thing becomes e-waste (and money-waste).
Apple does have some open source contributions. One example is CUPS, which was made by Apple and is now used by most modern Linux distros for managing printers. If you want more examples you'll have to ask someone who actually likes Apple, I'm sure they can think of more.
There's also Webkit, which a few foss browsers (ie gnome web, and whatever kde's browser is called) use instead of Chromium or Gecko, and Swift, a c++ based language that I haven't personally seen used much outside of iOS development.
Not everything Apple is bad but iMessage is an active annoyance and so is their walled garden approach. It's a bit like looking at someone you hate and talking about how that one time they brought a pie to the pot luck at work.
Sure it's cross platform, but it lacks feature parity with the Windows version. And the development experience is lacking on Linux. It's not even that they haven't brought everything over, it's that they've even removed features, like hot-reload, from Linux.
Do you think Microsoft removed features from their language because they hate Linux? Or do you think maybe the way syscalls and the filesystem work are different in Linux and that makes hot reload a bit of an engineering problem?
We can never know, but I'm guessing Microsoft didn't port their language to Linux just to shoot themselves in the foot. On the other hand, it is Microsoft.
oh
I think that's pretty silly bc free as in price seems like a pretty important pillar to me. but thanks anyway for the extra context on the nuances between "free" vs open source and correcting my misunderstanding about free as in price
In the context of the software freedom movement, the fundamental pillars are the four freedoms - to use, share, modify, and share modified copies. It's never been about price and we even say that selling free software is okay.
It's a common misconception about the free software movement to say we're against "developers making money" when we're really just about computer users having the four freedoms. We just argue that those four freedoms come before the developer's business model.
this confuses me more, if it's free to use and share, how can it be not free of charge? is putting up a paywall not expressly limiting all four of those freedoms for people who can't afford to pay? I know the article says you could get it free from a friend, but how is that different from stealing if the original dev is charging money for it? idk it just seems weird to me to focus so much on free not meaning free-of-charge when the same effort could be spent emphasizing alternate ways of monetization besides paywalling software that's intended to be shared
besides that, it is sad to learn that people use a straw-man argument like saying someone is against developers making money just because of the idea that they support free-of-charge software. I feel like companies such as red hat have pretty much proven that free-of-charge software can be made in a system where developers still get paid (ie through selling support, taking donations, etc).
thanks again for the extra context, I appreciate you helping me improve my understanding of this situation
I think Apple is supposedly meant to be more respectful of privacy, which to be fair I haven't heard of much scandal around user data from apple, they have other issues though