the biggest problem with switching away from Mac is losing the ecosystem benefits. When Apple TV automatically knows to fill your iCloud password, all the Apple Watch integration, syncing everything from notes to reminders. I can't see how any Linux can match all that.
It's rather easy to change the password provider from Apple's to something else, like bitwarden, on an iPad or an iPhone. I assume it's possible on Apple TV too.
I tried syncing notes with IMAP but I never managed to get it to work.
For the Apple Watch, I don't have one or any "smart" watch so I can't say anything.
I haven't. When I read that I was wondering if you were going to say it got better and is good now or something. Oh well. Good to know. Thanks for the info.
When someone asks how something is fair - coming back with life is like that or life isn't fair is not a valid response. Humanity should strive to make the systems as fair as possible while accepting the fact that unfairness will still exist. Why will theft etc be a crime if not for the idea of fairness. You can make the same life is unfair argument to defend theft but that's not the way it should be / is.
Not related to this post, but why in the world is anyone using TUI. Either go with GUI or go with commandline. This no man's land in the middle is the worst of both worlds..
TUIs are often more responsive in general. Some of us like the terminal and want to minimize as much mouse usage as possible (yes hotkeys exist in good GUI apps, but they're still primarily built around the WIMP model).
Command line often requires a lot of switch memorization. Command Line doesn't offer the full interactive/graphical power in this sort of situation. Command line is great for scripts and long running apps, or super simple interfaces.
Different apps have different requirements. Not everything needs a TUI, not everything needs a GUI, and if you want something similar to a GUI while staying in the terminal. Perhaps you don't have access to a windowing environment for some reason; perhaps you want to keep your requirements low in general.
Finally, why do you care? Some people like it others don't. Nobody comes in and shits on any programs that are GUI if they don't like it, they just don't use it.
So, to quote The Dude: "That's just, like, your opinion man". Sorry for the snark, but... It really is, and you're free to have it. But it seems an irrelevant point, and there may be better forums/posts (maybe an "Ask HN" question would be a good option) to discuss this question in depth beyond snark.
IMHO TUIs are the best of both worlds. Generally light and responsive [0], transparent over SSH, neatly falls into a tab/pane/window in screen/tmux/zellij, offer essentially everything I wanted from a GUI except graphics [1] which isn't usually a problem, and delightfully free of the latest charming "innovations" in UI reinvention (GNOME, I am looking directly at you).
[0] It is if course possible to make a light GUI and a slow+bloated TUI, but both are less common than the alternative.
[1] Sixel et al. exist but IME they rarely work well. Sadly.
Short summary: No animations, No symbols, No touch optimization, no responsive design and I do most of the other stuff in the Terminal anyways so TUI is better "integration" YMMV :)
You don't, but others can and do. With these being limitations for TUIs however, others can't do either, making this a selling point (not a TUI afficionado, just passing by).
One common use case is remote debugging over serial or ssh.
edit: and a reason you would do this locally using ssh is debugging the UI layer itself. if you have to step through the window server, you can't be using the window server at the same time. Remote lldb/gdb debugging is often just flaky. I don't know why they're so unreliable, but they are.
I have many beloved TUI tools at this point, and I am considering investing further in TUI for some further projects I am building that I would want some kind of interface for beyond a command line. I'm not convinced by this argument. Would you mind elaborating on any specifics?
It's not about whether consumers like interoperability or not.
If scenario-1 - is no interoperability but superior user experience]
scenario-2 - is interoperability with subpar user experience
there are those that would rather have the former than the latter. Pretty sure Apple can provide a better user experience without the constraint of interoperability than otherwise.
I keep seeing this being touted by Apple users (and only by Apple users, whose vendor has been telling them this for decades now). Genuinely wondering if you have any source for this besides Apple saying so. Are there any examples of this? Where a better experience was explicitly possible because of a vendor lock-in? Or where one company, that competes in e.g. the market for watches or headphones while already controlling a large share of another market (like phones), was forced to open up their system and give competitors the same access, and then the market-controlling party's product somehow got worse by giving competitors the same access?
Let me rephrase Apple's argument: "If we can't make the Apple Experience™ exclusive to Apple products only, then we will actively harm that user experience so our competitors can't ride our coat-tails."
You absolutely can make interoperability a good user experience, it's just work Apple doesn't want to do. Apple wants you to think their competitors are scary; they want the Internet to be a slum so that their walled garden looks safer.
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool kool-aid-drinking Apple fanboy, and think you're being too kind: it's a shibboleth, cargo-cult thinking, a thought-terminating cliche: most simply, utterly irrational and meaningless as rendered.
I'm more than happy to entertain it when there's specifics, but it's most kindly described as lazy, the way I see it deployed these days.
interoperability with subpar user experience is just an excuse for poor engineering or low resources. I.e, my x-wifi-network card doesn't work in Linux. No one is spending time making it work / too many devices to test properly. It is the manufacturers responsibility to make it work with linux and they don't care so there are a few people that make it work and write generic drivers that may or may not be optimized to the specific manufature. Same story for all " interoperability subpar user experience"
It means Apple has the encryption keys to your backed-up data. So they can, in theory, access it, if the UK Gov demands that they do. That might never happen to you, but with ADP it would have been impossible, because even Apple can't access it.
Potentially. It really just means your data is stored unencrypted, so anybody that has access to Apple's servers can access your data. I don't believe any government has open access to Apple's servers, but they can get a warrant.
They always could. With advanced data protection they could not. The law mandated to add a backdoor to allow the government to also see encrypted data (which made the encryption insecure by definition). Apple refused to comply so you don’t even have the option to encrypt your backups now.
The AI is multiple programs working together, and they already pass math problems on to a data analyst specialist. There's also an option to use a WolframAlpha plugin to handle math problems.
The reason it didn't have math from the start was that it was a solved problem on computers decades ago, and they are specifically demonstrating advances in language capabilities.
Machines can handle math, language, graphics, and motor coordination already. A unified interface to coordinate all of those isn't finished, but gluing together different programs isn't a significant engineering problem.
> The AI is multiple programs working together, and they already pass math problems on to a data analyst specialist. There's also an option to use a WolframAlpha plugin to handle math problems.
is quality of this system good enough to qualify for AGI?..
I guess we will know it when we see it. Its like saying computer graphics got so good that we have holodeck now. We dont have holodeck yet. We don't have AGI yet.
The duality of AI's capability is beyond comical. On one side you have people who can't decide whether it can even count, on the other side you have people pushing for UBI because of all the jobs it will replace.
Jobs are being replaced because they're good enough at bullshitting that the C-suites see dollar signs by being able to not pay people by using aforementioned bullshitting software.
Like that post from Klarna that was on HN the other day where they automated 2/3 of all support conversations. Anyone with a brain knows they're useless as chat agents for anyone with an actual inquiry, but that's not the part that matters with these AI systems, the amount of money psycho MBAs can save is the important part
We're at full employment with a tight labor market. Perhaps we should wait until there's a some harder evidence that the sky is indeed falling instead of relying on fragmented anecdotes.
If I have a non-profit legally chartered save puppies, you give me a million dollars, then I buy myself cars and houses, I would expect you have some standing.
Disputing the activities under a Delaware charter would seem to fall under the jurisdiction of the Delaware Chancery Court, not the California court Musk went to. Delaware is specifically known for it being easy for non-profits to easily tweak their charters over time:
For example, it can mean that a founder’s vision for a private foundation may be modified after his or her death or incapacity despite all intentions to the contrary. We have seen situations where, upon a founder’s death, the charitable purpose of a foundation was changed in ways that were technically legal, but not in keeping with its original intent and perhaps would not have been possible in a state with more restrictive governance and oversight, or given more foresight and awareness at the time of organization.
It is more complex than that because they cant change what they do on a whim. no-profits have charters and documents of incorporation, which are the rules they will operate by both now and moving forward.
Why do you think that money was spent a decade ago? Open AI wasn't even founded 10 years ago. Musk's funding was the lions share of all funding until the Microsoft deal in 2019
The reality was different. Prior to MSFT, Open AI ran a lean company operating within the the budget of Musk funding, focusing on science and talent. For example, in 2017, their annual compute spend was <$8 million compared to like 450 million for deep mind.
Big spend only came after MSFT, which invested $1B and then $10B, primarily in the form of credit for compute.
I think the missing info here is that Musk gave the non-profit the initial $100 million dollars, which they used to develop the technology purportedly for the benefit of the public, and then turned around and added a for-profit subsidiary where all the work is happening.
He has plenty of standing, but the "supposed to benefit all mankind" argument isn't it. If that were enough, everyone not holding stock in MSFT would have standing, and they don't.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.