> I am doing a pure software-to-software comparison.

I would argue this is impossible at this point. Most of the benefits of the entire Apple ecosystem are about integration - Macbook Pros are the fastest machines with the best battery life because of the great hardware but also the software integration.

> There was no application in the MacOS desktop that made me feel like I was missing out on something. Of all the tools that I am used to use - emacs + developer tools, email clients, messaging clients, media players, media managers, browsers, the occasional office productivity - none of the MacOS counterparts had any significant advantage over what I have in a Linux desktop.

This isn't really comparing OSes is it? You're comparing software that runs on the OS. Every tool I have on my linux machines I have an equivalent tool for on Mac, or I use the same tool, but the Macbook with MacOS is a workhorse that I can trust to "just work."

I don't think desktop Linux is bad, not by any means, and there are reasons I still go to it first on my personal machines until something forces me to make a different decision, but I also get tired of Linux users telling all of us that our experiences are old and all of these issues are fixed when they're just not, even if that isn't Linux' or the distro's fault.

▲

rglullis 2 hours ago | parent [-]

If you are willing to give the advantage to MacOS due to the integration with the hardware, then you should only judge Linux when provided on hardware from Linux-centric vendors like system76, Tuxedo, Starlite and Framework.

▲

eightysixfour 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I understand the point you are trying to make, but I disagree with it. MacOS doesn’t claim to work on other hardware, Linux does.

If System76 said PopOS only works on their hardware, it would be fair to only evaluate it on their hardware. When SteamOS only claimed to work on Steam Decks, the only good evaluation way to evaluate it was on Steam Decks.

▲

pxc 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

[delayed]

▲

jeremyjh an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> MacOS doesn’t claim to work on other hardware, Linux does.

Who exactly is "Linux", and what specifically is the claim? It looks to me like you don't want to lose the argument on these grounds, but maybe you could still have a nice laptop with Linux on it that just works.

	▲	eightysixfour 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Who exactly is "Linux", and what specifically is the claim? Linux distributions have a set of claims for what hardware they work with, usually as minimum system requirements. Since they are the minimum system requirements the expectation should, within reason, exist that the OS will work if you meet or exceed those requirements. I say "within reason" because no OS can promise that, minimum is not a forward looking statement and the newest hardware is often the hardest to support. > It looks to me like you don't want to lose the argument on these grounds Agreed, because I didn't make any claims that this direction of argument negates. Linux has a harder task supporting a broader array of hardware, that doesn't mean that every argument should compare it to MacOS only on golden/chosen hardware. If you build a distribution that only claims it works on specific hardware, like SteamOS did, then I agree that's a valid comparison. > but maybe you could still have a nice laptop with Linux on it that just works. I'm sure I could, I never claimed you couldn't.

▲

rglullis an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> MacOS doesn’t claim to work on other hardware, Linux does.

It's the inverse. You claim that Apple "just works" for you and that Linux doesn't. I am saying that if you want to lend credibility to your argument, you need to use hardware that has a certifying vendor behind it.