I still can't understand why so many hackers/developers use OS X. Where I work doing web development, Linux machines account for less than 10% of the workstations, and the vast majority use OS X. When I tried OS X at one point I found it horrible. The most irritating thing was the keyboard which could not be mapped in the "standard" PC way (i.e. Ctrl Super Alt in the bottom left). I could get some programs to respect custom key bindings, but others would not. Besides that, there is no standard package manager for OS X and nearly all of the built-in libraries are terribly out-of-date. Worse yet from a security/privacy/philosophical viewpoint, OS X is proprietary software. We have no idea what risks or hidden back-doors exist inside.

I've been using Linux for many years now and I'm still investing time daily sharpening my tools. It's an investment that continues to pay exponentially increasing rewards. Nearly all of the remote computing resources I use in my job are running Linux. That probably is true for most HN users. Is Linux really that much more difficult to use on the desktop? I find getting all my laptop hardware running smoothly is one of the easiest system administration tasks I face. And I only face that task once in a blue moon when I upgrade laptops.

For me it's a few things:

- The battery life is very, very good and combined with the screen (Retina 13"), made it perfect for me.

- It's still a POSIX environment so I can still use most of what I had from Linux without issue.

- It doesn't require as much maintenance as Linux. I don't have to fiddle with things to get it to work the way I want, it already does that.

- The hardware support has been great whenever I've had issues.

>It doesn't require as much maintenance as Linux.

What maintenance does Linux require? The only thing I can think you might be implying is that there are bugs caused by updating that cause system issues frequently and this is simply untrue. Software updates have been known to cause issues on all systems, and I can find plenty of results on google showing OS X having issues after updates. Linux, in my experience, is the "set it and forget it" operating system. OS X is great though, just not for everyone (personally the environment doesn't have the capabilities I look for in an OS).

I get scared everytime I do an apt-get update because I've had it break my Linux box more than once, sometimes horribly (especially when doing a dist-upgrade to get a new kernel).

It's even worse when the Nvidia drivers don't automatically recompile for the new kernel. I've had many upgrade that resulted in no functional X-Window session so I had to use the terminal to download and recompile the video drivers.

I realize that's a problem with binary blobs rather than open source drivers, but it's also a reality.

I had that fear under Ubuntu because a new dist upgrade is usually especially unstable. Now that I use Arch I don't fear upgrades. I do perform them fairly often though, because massive upgrades in general can be problematic.

Distributions have improved their NVIDIA packages to such a degree that I haven't encountered problems with driver upgrades in many years, across several distributions.

It's the hardware, stupid. :-)

I mean, compare: http://www.apple.com/macbook-air/ with: https://www.crowdsupply.com/kosagi/novena-open-laptop (ok, you could also buy an Asus laptop or something that would be nice looking enough, and cheaper than a novena laptop).

Another point, is that when you're at home, with a linux laptop, you can spend two days configuring the wifi. But when you're going out to a conference, MacOSX shows its worth.

Oh, and for several MacOSX versions now you can map the modifier keys as you wish, in the System Preferences / Keyboard panel.

MacOSX is not entirely proprietary. Darwin is open sourced (in large part). And as developers, we use a lot of free software on MacOSX, starting with emacs, and all the linux tools you can get from MacPorts or Homebrew. Right, because between ourselves, the BSD tools provided by Apple suck.

But actually, it's the econony, stupid! ;-)

As a Linux hacker, I much prefer to earn the money I need to pay for taxes, internet, electricity, food and shelter (oh, and clothing, sometimes you get to go to conferences), developing applications on a unix machine like MacOSX, or iOS, rather than on MS-Windows. (Yes, there's also Android, but java...)

So don't make a mistake, the main workstation is a Linux box, and even while developing MacOSX application, most of the code is written from the Linux box, even if it's compiled by Xcode on the MacOSX system nearby. Because, honestly, Linux is much more ergonomical! (if only because you really can configure it as you wish (and also strangeley, the keyboard feels much more responsive with linux than with MacOXS, let alone MS-Windows)). Anyways, remember, the Network is the computer! But most customers are still MS-Windows users, or MacOSX or iOS users, (or Android users right). So while you keep Linux close to the heart, you have to have a MacOSX system to earn your living.

(And there's also the possibility to run MacOSX on a Virtual Machine on Linux, but let's be honest, it means that legally you still have to own Apple hardware).

The wifi thing was true a few years ago, but isn't anymore if you are using a mainstream distribution like Ubuntu or Fedora.

Thing is, the parents comment makes no sense because it's implying that your wifi drivers would stop working if you connected to different wifi.

OS X has plenty of problems, see: http://www.imore.com/os-x-mavericks-problems-drive-me-nuts-h...

I've personally experienced many of these my self. OS X is cool, but I wish the fan base would stop acting like it never has any bugs or issues. OS X does get bugs, OS X does crash, OS X can break, OS X does not always 'just work'. Just go to discussion.apple.com and look at all the issues everyone is having. OS X is a great OS though, but it's not infallible.

What do you mean by the hardware? If I buy my computer part-by-part, and then assemble it (which I can do with a laptop too), I can make a much better box, for a significantly lower price, not to mention that I can customize the setup (better sound card if needed, etc) any way I want. And I can alter it after, do partial upgrades, without having to buy a whole new computer. I'm not a Linux Hacker, just a simple developer, but I wouldn't give up my freedom to alter my machine any way I want, even if it would cost me less money ;). Fortunately I have the privilege that I only have to develop software to Linux platform... because I chose to.

The quality of the Macbook Air outweighs any downsides having to use OS X (which I agree isn't that great). And OS X isn't so bad that it's worth my while to try to run Linux on my Mac.

>The most irritating thing was the keyboard which could not be mapped in the "standard" PC way (i.e. Ctrl Super Alt in the bottom left).

That's funny. After using a mac for several years, that's my biggest gripe about working on most linux boxes. OS X separates text viewing and editing functions (C-f, C-k, C-a, etc in eamcs parlance) from system functions (S-c :: copy, S-v :: paste, S-w :: close window). In Linux, ctrl-A will either get you a cursor at column one, or select everything. I wish it were easier to define these actions system-wide the way OS X does.

True, there are application-specific mappings in Linux. But what gets me is the Mac keyboard layout is asymmetrical. The right-hand side does not include a Meta (Alt) key. That makes efficient keyboarding extremely inconvenient.

Yes, it is that much more difficult for people whose primary goal is doing stuff other than tweaking their computer. And as others have mentioned, nothing gets you more battery life than OS X on Apple hardware.

Not sure how any of the various Linux package managers are more "standard" than brew on OS X...

"Doing stuff" for developers often includes installing and running packages such as databases, programming languages, editors, etc. On OS X, there is only an App Store built-in. You have to choose one of many package managers[1]. Each package may get installed in its own non-standard way. Linux distributions like Debian or Arch have standardized package managers which handle dependencies and updates much more smoothly than any OS X implementation I've come across.

1. http://www.onthelambda.com/2013/10/14/the-state-of-package-m...

You don't have to choose, nowadays you just use Homebrew for anything that might not be built-in.

Take a look of this http://brew.sh/

>Yes, it is that much more difficult for people whose primary goal is doing stuff other than tweaking their computer.

Come on now, it's not 2005. Ubuntu runs smoothly on just about everything I've installed it on and I usually end up having to do more tweaking on Windows 8 than Ubuntu. As far as OS X goes, it's not perfect out of the box either, especially for anyone coming from a different environment who needs to tweak it to meet their standards.

Easy...

OSX comes with the best hardware and you can develop in any programing language... not the same for Windows

Who's talking about Windows here? We're talking about Linux.

And you can, with a bit of effort, run Linux on a MacBook. Yes, it's not for everyone, and it took a good 10 months from the last MacBook Air release before I could run Linux natively on it (without VMWare), but for those of us who really like Linux, it's worth it.

I totally get that the effort is not worth it for lots of people, though.

I'm surprised, thought Linux of some kind would have been most popular.

I just bought a new laptop. A Macbook Air. Part of the reason was OS X over Linux. This is for two distinct reasons:

a) Battery life. For the most part, shoehorning Linux onto a PC is going to negatively affect battery life.

b) Despite being a bit of a "hacker", I have a day job and don't want to spend too much time tinkering with my OS. OS X is more polished than Linux and is less likely to go wrong.

I'm guessing that while most HN'ers aren't in exactly the same situation as me, they have more important things to do (i.e. working on their ideas) rather than wrangle with Linux.

"Linux is only free if your time has no value"

@robzyb hit the nail on the head - a great many of us just want something that works, every day. At some point in my life I loved tinkering with my OS, jumping between distros weekly, etc. now I just want to get things done. I used desktop Linux for 10 years before jumping to OS X in 2011.

I'm sure people will immediately chime in and say that Thinkpads work well with Ubuntu or that System76 does the job, and I'm sure it does, but the experience of running OS X on Apple hardware is simply unmatched.

>something that works, every day.

>the experience of running OS X on Apple hardware is simply unmatched.

Eh. Seems a lot of people on HN believe this, but it's not always the case. Just a quick visit to discussion.apple.com will show all sorts of issues people have with the OS including bugs like http://www.cnet.com/news/some-lion-users-plagued-by-black-sc... which is a bug in the OS.

Edit: just some things I noticed in the short time I used OS X: The gmail integration is buggy. I didn't get messages on time, and I have to either quit the app or take Mail offline and then online again before new mail will start streaming in. Sometime I couldn't get it to quit.

The 'quicklook' thing seemed really slow, which seemed to be a problem a lot of users had.

Multi-monitor support isn't that great. I had multiple windows on multiple desktops for some reason and it just felt weird.

I had issues with audio stopping and not working again until I did a reboot.

In some apps scrolling was really rough.

Window management in OSX is easily my biggest complaint. Installing Spectacle (open source) at least gave me back the Windows shortcuts for half screen, full-screen, and next monitor. The full screen width menu system drives me nuts, as with a 27" monitor I have to go 3ft to the left to find whatever non-keystroked command I need. It feels at least 15 years behind to me, especially given their fondness for those big cinema displays.

Apple seems to think I should unitask on a single monitor. That's not how I work, so it's not for me.

I'm a long time Linux desktop user, since the days of Debian Slink and Windowmaker, but I dig OS X. It's slick. I wish there was a desktop on Linux that could strike that balance between features, usability and stability. That being said, I'm also cheap. If Mac's were more competitively priced, I would probably own one, but paying that much over market value for what essentially is a "pretty" PC that can run OS X has always been an issue for me. I just chug along on my aging but sturdy Thinkpad with Linux. I think Apple could change the game if they decoupled OS X from the hardware. Who would pay for Window 8 when you could just install OS X instead?

Who would buy a Mac when you could just install OS X on a PC? (Note: I don't necessarily subscribe to this viewpoint, but I think Apple do, and have historically. And I speak as someone who was cheap enough to buy a Mac Mini and bring my own monitor - the only way I could justifiably afford OS X)

That's the thing, Apple fans will just keep buying Apple no matter what. Even if you could by a PC with OS X there would always be a demand for Apple hardware. If Apple sold OS X separately from Macs people would still buy Macs.

Legally, you still would have to, yes.

This is probably just me, but the biggest reason I use Linux is the package manager and repositories (Arch's package manager and wiki are amazing). Anything other than that, Windows or OS X, feels like it's missing something and I have to work around it.

People are saying they have to spend a lot of time configuring Linux but in my experience that's not the case (obviously once it's installed in the case of Arch, which for me is a worthwhile investment).

I do admire the polish of OS X's desktop though.

OS X has everything an end-user needs already (iLife apps are best of breed on any platform and come for free !), that's the beauty. For the rest there's the seamless App Store.

Now for hackers, you already get a long way with the built-in BSD commands, but one word : http://brew.sh

Brew leads to the same kind of experience as MinGW on Windows. It's just not as good as the package managers on Linux.

When I don't want to tinker with my Debian anymore, I just stop doing it and things work the way I left them. That's the main beauty of good Linux distros that keeps me so attached to them - I always can play with stuff, but I don't have to. And when I want to, it's much better choice than OS X for that.

If you want to buy the best laptop hardware available, and price is not much of a concern, you get a MacBook Pro. I hate the keyboard, but everything else is top quality.

Once you've done that, you could install Linux or Windows or FreeBSD on it, but if you don't have an overwhelming requirement, you'll keep it on Mac OS.

And if you're like most hackers, you have one work laptop and you carry it around everywhere, and it's your primary machine.

Personally, I don't carry a laptop back and forth: I have a Linux desktop at the office, and a Linux desktop at home, and a Mac laptop for travel and moving around the house.