Getting Linux to work on random hardware is certainly harder than getting OSX to run on Mac hardware. That's not an unfair comparison, because those are their intended use cases.
You're looking at a Porsche and bitching that it sucks at offroading. Well, yeah. That's not what it's for. If you work offroad and need to carry cargo, a Porsche is not the vehicle for you, but that doesn't mean it's a bad car.
That's not an unfair comparison, because those are their intended use cases. You're looking at a Porsche and bitching that it sucks at offroading.
Your comparison would make more sense if it was about making a car made by Porsche drive on roads not made by Porsche. Which everyone agrees is absolutely reasonable.
What you're trying to sell me is the idea that poor compatibility is a feature? It was designed to have poor compatibility despite being built for a standardized platform, so that makes it a porsche?
When I try to get OSX running in our VMWare cluster so that we have clonable, snapshottable machines for testing and debugging and it takes a week of effort not getting it working, you're telling me that's a "feature"?
> What you're trying to sell me is the idea that poor compatibility is a feature?
No. I'm telling you that broad compatibility is a feature that is genuinely unnecessary for a significant set of users.
I'm not one of them, BTW. I've got my MacBook Pro for toting around, my Windows desktop for gaming, a Linux box for streaming, sharing, and storage, and an Android phone for phone stuff. Each of them does what I need it to. Horses for courses.
But there are plenty of people whose use case is "I need an OS that works as soon as I unbox the laptop." For those people, compatibility is not an issue, nor should it be.
You're looking at a Porsche and bitching that it sucks at offroading. Well, yeah. That's not what it's for. If you work offroad and need to carry cargo, a Porsche is not the vehicle for you, but that doesn't mean it's a bad car.