obviouslygreen

The point was that what you get without selecting or installing anything else via a package manager is still apparently far less than what you get with a "base install" from a BSD (at least according to the article) and that that starting point is what I'm used to.

I meant small in terms of packages. The kernel, a shell, and not much else unless you specify it. Obviously you will specify something else, but the point was that I'm used to specifying exactly what else I want, so I have that habit to break/relearn.

The point you ignored or missed is that as a Linux user with no BSD exposure there's a basic difference in philosophy that creates several kinds of tradeoffs that I find compelling and interesting. I'm not "bringing up" anything in terms of absolute pros and cons, I'm highlighting what I consider noteworthy differences in terms of learning more about things I have not used.

I've never used a BSD or even looked into it... given what I read there, it seems like it'd be a lot nicer in at least one sense, since Debian releases die off and release-upgrade can be either perfect or very painful.

On the other hand, I do love how small and unassuming a basic Linux installation is, and -- as the author repeatedly and correctly stresses -- I'm used to doing things the way I currently do them. That's not good or bad, it's just momentum.

I do hope I'll get the chance to work with a BSD at some point, but much like my attempts to really get into Clojure... well, unlike the Stones, most of us do not have time on our side.

Better suggestion: Be careful when listening to anyone making absolute judgments based on generalizations.

Some operating systems, just like some applications, are better for certain purposes (often because they were designed and built specifically to be suitable for those purposes). "You can do anything with anything" is a very idealistic oversimplification that's implied by the idea that no OS is ever better than any other.

I think it's less a matter of attitude and more a matter of being really, really good at doing it either unobtrusively or at least in a way that people won't mind or won't understand.

With so many years of experience with how users interact with information, they have the potential for unprecedented insight into the realities of UI interaction.

I'm not saying it's a good thing, and I agree that Google isn't doing us as users any favors in this regard (any more than Microsoft ever did or does), but there's more behind the fact that they're getting away with it among less user outrage than simply public image.

"Lukewarm" with respect to a "desktop experience" depends entirely on what you want from your desktop. I have the same "why does this software hate me" while attempting to use OS X. It doesn't make either of our experiences more or less valid; it simply means that different people have different tastes and requirements, and that any given mix of hardware and software might be great for you but will be totally inappropriate for someone else.

1. It usually comes installed on great hardware.

2. It's less vulnerable to most things than Windows.

Beyond that, if you choose to build a Hackintosh, in my opinion you (for whatever reason) enjoy OS X enough to depend on it but don't like Apple enough to run their OS without paying their hardware premium (entirely understandable from the price perspective but a little illogical if you take it a bit further).

Frankly, I can't see any reason for the Hackintosh middle ground other than people who can't cope without the OS but can't afford the hardware. The software is little more than a neutered and compromised version of BSD that lets you part way into a walled garden (cue It's a trap! meme).

Granted: There's also the requirement of a Mac for iOS development... but guess what? You're still stuck with the developer program membership fee. Save $500 here, lose $100 a year there, along with probably being in violation of half a dozen usage limitations.

It's easy (and often correct), in hindsight, to say that some things should be prepared for in better or different ways. However, that's a different animal than "crap, something is up, we need to react in the best way we can now."

Pretty much all software (whether that's apps, websites, programming languages, or anything else) past a certain complexity has quirks. Getting used to the quirks is part of learning the software.

Massively changing large swathes of your built-in software is bad for users! I get that it'd be suicide to say "OK, permanent feature freeze... now," but big changes to the UI on apps that are (to many normal users) fundamental to using Android break the user's understanding of their use, often amounting to months of acclimation down the drain.

It's very frustrating.

I'm too exhausted to go look up the exact fallacy, but this is something like a straw man. And, whatever it is, it's the same one the article's title makes.

Not everyone takes pleasure from doing fundamentally stupid things in terms of lifespan. If they did, as a species, it's extremely unlikely, statistically speaking, that we would have survived this long.

Espouse your insane idea of fun all you want, but please, don't pretend it's somehow objective or intrinsic to humanity.