‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

I said no and Apple said yes

886 points · 701 comments · thatslast

  1. vitro · · focus · HN ↗
    Not trying to start flamewars, but more and more I wonder how much are people willing to put up with such practices. On linux for 15+ years and everytime I try to use mac or win, it is an ordeal. And ads. F*cking ads in a system someone has purchased. And spying. Really user hostile environment. No, thank you.
    1. steve_taylor · · focus · HN ↗
      Linux distros would never do something as egregious as, let's say, unturnoffable app updates, would they?
      1. zeta0134 · · focus · HN ↗
        Depends on the distro really. Linux (the kernel) doesn't have or require such a concept, but it's quite possible to build a linux-based system whose surrounding operating system is designed to work this way. My Meta Quest 3 is one such example. Linux kernel, but Horizon OS only allows updates to be postponed. It'll automatically install them and in one case soft-bricked itself, forcing me to recover manually. (Great job, Meta.)

        This flexibility makes it difficult to make broad sweeping statements about the thing. Certainly however, it's impressive to log into a linux server and see an uptime measured in years. (Impressively horrifying, depending on your security posture, but impressive nonetheless.)

        1. steve_taylor · · focus · HN ↗
          I was referring to Ubuntu's Snap.
      2. thesuitonym · · focus · HN ↗
        By way of example, Debian has a stable branch which receives only security fixes, and even then, only if you run the update scripts. It will receive security updates for 5 years, and after that, will still be completely usable, provided you don't want new versions of software, or are willing to put in the work to compile them yourself.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.