I use windows for ~10 hours per day, 5 or 6 days per week because my team is currently maintaining a legacy .NET framework codebase. I’m sure there are people on earth who use windows more than I do, but I think it’s extremely unlikely that you’re one of them.
Sure.
MacOS is an excellent workspace operating system, largely due to its near-POSIX compliance and the fact that it has access to the enormous body of tools developed for UNIX-like OSs. For development work in particular, it can use the same free and open source software, configured in the same way, that Linux uses. Aside from the DE, a developer could swap between Linux and MacOS and barely realize it. Everything from Node, to Clang, to openJDK, to Rust, along with endless ecosystems of tooling, is installable in a consistent way that matches the bulk of online documentation. This is largely in contrast to Windows, where every piece of the puzzle will have a number of gotchas and footguns, especially when dealing with having multiple environments installed.
From a design perspective, MacOS is opinionated, but feels like it’s put together by experts in UX. Its high usability is at least partially due to its simplicity and consistency, which in my opinion are hallmarks of well-designed software. MacOS also provides enough access through the Accessibility API to largely rebuild the WM, so those who don’t like the defaults have options.
The most frequent complaint that I hear about MacOS is that x feature doesn’t work like it does in windows, even though the way that x feature works in windows is steaming hot garbage. Someone who’s used to Windows would probably need a few hours/days to become as fluent with MacOS, depending on their computer literacy.
People also complain about the fact that MacOS leverages a lot of FOSS software, while keeping their software closed-source and proprietary. I agree with this criticism, but I don’t think it has anything to do with how usable MacOS is.
I’m not going to start a flame war about mobile OSs because I don’t use a mobile OS as my primary productivity device (and neither should you, but I’m not your mom). The differences between mobile OSs are much smaller, and are virtually all subjective.
You’re welcome.
Having the highest market share doesn’t mean that windows uses logical conventions, it just means that lots of people are accustomed to the conventions that it uses. The vast majority of professionals that I’ve interacted with strongly dislike having to work on a windows machine once they’ve been exposed to anything else.
Off of the top of my head, the illogical conventions that Windows uses are: storing application and OS settings together in an opaque and dangerous, globally-editable database (the registry), obfuscating the way that disks are mounted to the file system, using /cr/lf for new lines, using a backslash for directory mappings, not having anything close to a POSIX compatible scripting language, the stranglehold that “wizards” have on the OS at every level, etc. ad nausium. Most of these issues are due to Microsoft deciding to reinvent the wheel instead of conforming to existing conventions. Some of the differences are only annoying because they pick the exact opposite convention that everyone else uses (path separators, line endings), and some of them are annoying because they’re an objectively worse solution than what exists everywhere else (the registry, installation/uninstallation via wizards spawned by a settings menu).
For basic usability functions, see the lack of functional multi-desktop support 20 years after it became mainstream elsewhere. There is actually no way to switch one monitor to a 2nd workspace without switching every monitor, which makes the feature worse than useless for any serious work. In addition to that, window management in general is completely barebones. Multitasking requires you to either click on icons every time you want to switch a window, or cycle through all of your open windows with alt-tab. The file manager is kludgy and full of opinionated defaults that mysteriously only serve to make it worse at just showing files. The stock terminal emulator is something out of 1995, the new one that can be optionally enabled as a feature is better, but it still exposes a pair of painful options for shells. With WSL, the windows terminal suddenly becomes pretty useful, but having to use a Linux abstraction layer just serves to support the point that windows sucks.
I could go on and on all day, I’m a SWE with a decade of experience using Linux, 3 decades using Windows, and a few years on Mac here and there. I love my windows machine at home… as a gaming console. Having to do serious work in windows is agonizing.
Of the three major desktop operating systems, windows is by far the worst.
The only advantage windows has is that Microsoft’s monopolistic practices in the 90s and 00s made it the de-facto OS for business to furnish employees with, which resulted in it still having better 3rd party software support than the alternatives.
As an OS, it’s hard to use, doesn’t follow logical convention’s, is super opinionated about how users should interact with it, and is missing basic usability features that have been in every other modern OS for 10+ years. It’s awesome as a video game console, barely useable as an adobe or autodesk machine, but sucks as a general purpose OS.
Please, for the love of God, block me. It seems like that’s what it is going to take to get you to stop obsessing over this wild pissing contest that you’ve manufactured.
You must be one of those goofballs who thinks millennials can’t by houses because they keep buying coffee.
See sport, enormous percentages add up way faster than tiny ones. Pissing your pants over how bad your feelings are hurt when you see a scary bad man in a truck while you are eating meat 10 meals a week and driving your Corolla to and from work instead of biking is just shitting even more on the current, and every future, generation.
Sad how many people put their personal feelings ahead of objective data, and hold back meaningful progress in the process.
I’m not apologizing for anyone, I’m suggesting that we would be better served by focusing our efforts on major contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions instead of getting personally butthurt over a globally tiny number of individuals who are contributing an extra fraction of a percent of global emissions relative to their peers.
My guy I can only imagine how hard it must be to go through life completely illiterate.
“The belief that climate change is unstoppable reduces the behavioural and policy response to climate change and moderates risk perception.”
Who in this conversation do you think is claiming that large trucks don’t emit more greenhouse gasses than electric cars? That’s an impressive strawman you’ve got there. It looks really good right next to the goalposts that are speeding towards the horizon.
And I’m happy to hear that you’re done debating with yourself in a conversation that you can’t seem to keep up with.
That absolutely does not negate any of the points that I made but god bless you for trying buddy.
New large trucks actually get way better gas mileage than older ones.
Homie I’m trying to explain what you’re obviously not understanding about this, and you keep responding with arguments about how you’re correct to not understand or something?
Guy said “don’t be hyperbolic about the 1.5c goal because if people feel hopeless they are less likely to act.” We shouldn’t be acting like the scary life threatening consequences of climate change are unstoppable. That is one narrative, you silly goof.
The chuds driving jacked up pickups aren’t contributing very much to global CO2 emissions actually.
The tendency of individuals to place far more blame on passenger vehicles (of which medium and heavy trucks constitute less than 1/4th in the US- likely far less elsewhere) as a contributor to global warming than they are actually responsible for actually had a name; The Transportation Fallacy.
Exact numbers vary by year and country, but it seems like passenger transportation accounts for about ~7% of global CO2 emissions. To put that in perspective, the same source indicates that we can remove the same amount of CO2 by eliminating food waste as we would by taking every passenger vehicle on earth off the road.
The auto manufacturing lobby wants you to sell your current working vehicle and buy a Tesla or a Prius, even though the carbon debt of manufacturing that vehicle won’t break even with an IC engine for ~300,000 miles. And even when it does break even with your current vehicle, if everyone on earth did the same thing, it would barely dent our global emissions.
They want you to feel satisfied about doing your part in a way that earns them revenue, instead of focusing your energy on things that will cost the energy lobby money but actually have an effect.
Sorry, long rant, but I wish more people realized how convenient of a scapegoat the type of car someone drives is. Yes, a more fuel efficient car is better than a gas guzzler, of course. But that’s such a small part of the problem, yet it gets such a huge amount of the mental energy that people spend trying to reduce personal emissions. Eat less meat, push for nuclear power generation, make sure your home is well insulated and uses efficient appliances, fight for working from home where possible, switch from grass to native plants. Drive less. The chuds rolling coal are idiots, but they’re a very, very small part of the problem. So many better ways to spend our energy.
Did you even read the article, Mr/Ms climate scientist?
He’s asking people not to talk like the world is going to catastrophically end once we hit that 1.5 degrees milestone, because it’s making people feel hopeless and apathetic, which is actually slowing our efforts to change.
And he’s totally right. If the government told people a meteor the size of Texas was going to impact earth in 12 hours, there would be effectively zero effort to stop it. If you tune in to a lot of the conversation around climate change from people who are not climate scientists, but who want to leave a better world for their kids and believe climate scientists, they feel hopeless. It feels like a foregone conclusion that we are going to go over the 1.5 degree goal (probably because it is), and if we think the biosphere is going to collapse when it does, it is really, really hard to take action.
It’s not saying to undersell the risks, he’s saying to be truthful about the risks. We can definitely still salvage complex life on earth with optimistic, consistent effort, but recent media coverage has been giving the impression that it’s too late. This is bad and counterproductive.
Keep on fighting the good fight brother/sister.
I think this answer misses the mark a little bit with regards to the context of what it is about capitalism that causes so much controversy.
People who critique capitalism aren’t usually advocating for an economic system completely devoid of private ownership (though some are). They’re often raising issue with a certain type of capital ownership.
Say you’re the owner of a sprocket manufacturing corporation, and I’m a worker. You yourself don’t work, you just inherited a sprocket empire from your grandfather, who founded that sprocket empire using funds from selling his emerald mines that were worked by slaves.
I put in an honest days work 5 days a week, and in those 5 days, I produce $2000 worth of sprockets. It costs $10 per week to maintain the sprocket machines, $10 per week for electrical power to cover my sprocket making activities, $30 per week to repay the loan that was taken to build the factory, and $50 per week in other miscellaneous expenses needed to allow me to make sprockets.
That means that of the $2000 worth of sprockets I produced, $1900 of profit was generated.
You pay me a salary of $500 per week, and collect $1400 per week from my (and each other laborer’s) work.
The point of criticism is that you’re accumulating wealth, which other people had to work to produce, without doing any work yourself. You’re simply a parasitic freeloader on society because of an arbitrary concept of “ownership” over something that you don’t use personally.
Some responses to these criticisms include the following:
“You should just negotiate for a higher salary, or go work somewhere that’s paying more.”
This is the example from classical economic theory, and there are a whole handful of reasons that it doesn’t work. The voluntary exchange between a worker and a capitalist (meaning one who owns the means of production) isn’t actually (fully) voluntary. A worker who finds his working conditions unsatisfactory can’t reasonably just choose not to work. The threat of financial ruin, homelessness, and starvation act as a metaphorical gun to the head of the laborer giving the capitalist a significant negotiating advantage.
Add to this the fact that it’s been theorized and demonstrated that capitalism tends toward regulatory capture and monopoly, and you have a situation where the means of production become more and more concentrated in the hands of a group of elites, while the workers’ bargenaining power becomes weaker and weaker due to less competition in the labor market.
“The capitalist deserves the profits that they extract because of [this work that they’ve done]”
If the owner of the factory is functioning as a floor manager, they should be paid a fair salary for being a floor manager. If they’re working as a director, they are entitled to a director’s salary. These critiques of capitalism aren’t saying that there should be no hierarchy in an enterprise (though some alternatives to capitalism do call for that). Just that the only people who are entitled to the wealth from something that’s produced are those who are working to produce it.
This same thing goes for other forms of capital ownership too, by the way. Landlords are a classical example. I’ve heard it claimed that landlords are entitled to their rents because many of them work so hard at repairs and managing their properties. They’re totally entitled to be compensated for any labor they engage in, but the wealth that they extract from tenants far exceeds the value of the labor that they supply. Which is kind of the whole point of rental property, if “investors” couldn’t extract a passive income (income in excess of work performed), they wouldn’t be buying homes and then renting them out.
You have no idea what you’re talking about, if you think people here are bad you must be the most fragile little snowflake who ever lived.
Go curl up and jerk off in your safe space.
/s for those who weren’t sure.