NVidia 1070 Ti

> You need to do some research when buying hardware that is compatible with Linux

This backs up my point -- I don't have to waste time researching anything with macOS.

> Nvidia is notoriously hostile to linux

That may be true, but as a user, I don't care why macOS works better, or whether it's fair. I just care that it does.

> I'm sticking to either AMD or Intel for my video cards, where everything works flawlessly.

Not an option if you need CUDA support.

> I believe the point the parent is making that Apple hardware is now bad enough that having Linux on well supported hardware, would require less fiddling

Researching what hardware is supported counts as fiddling.

That's sound advice.

As someone who doesn't use Linux as their daily driver, can I expect Linux to run perfectly in a VM on an M1 Mac?

It's important to buy hardware that is supported and properly documented by the manufacturer. Apple is not one of those that do that.

I don't see a trend there. Some things always worked, while others didn't. Same for the current MBP's. It's the usual problem for hardware where the vendor doesn't provide Linux drivers: you need somebody to write these drivers in their spare time and only a few people are willing to do so. I maintain an overview of the Linux compatibility of the MBP's >=2016 (https://github.com/Dunedan/mbp-2016-linux/) and it's absolutely astonishing what a few people can achieve, even without documentation of the hardware. Given, the hardware support isn't that good yet in Linux, but if there would be 10 instead of 2-3 people working in their spare time on the drivers, first class support would be there pretty soon. So if you care about Linux compatibility of Macs: Get your hands dirty and do something about it!

> It's just not worth getting a Mac to run linux.

For me it's worth it, because it feels like somebody thought really hard about getting things right, which results in really, really nice hardware (except for the latest keyboards and the Touch Bar of course).

You can't run a lot of software on linux, you can run less of it compared to windows and osx. All hardware is limited, all the x86 laptops have soldered CPUs, there is no such thing as unlimited hardware.

>Also from an hardware standpoint Mac are overpriced machines, with insufficient I/O that forces you to bring a bag of adapters with yourself and components that are all soldered on the motherboard, impossible to upgrade.

M1 is not overpriced for its benefits, the x86 stuff I agree with though and fuck their keyboards. No more Jony Ive, so ports are back!

>The reason why I use Linux is that I can do whatever I want on my computer, I don't have to have signed applications, annoying prompts to tell me that the software is not Apple approved (till there are the prompts and Apple doesn't decide to forbid all unsigned software as on iOS), and similar.

The problem I have with this is that its not that you can do whatever, you MUST do it and use a lot of time in configuration. I find the root prompt just as annoying in linux. I just want a working environment, not a bunch of software that asks me to set every preference.

Not really. It's the field Linux choose to play.

But let's constrain it if you like.

Does Linux have "better hardware support" than OS X for even a single, specific, hardware product from a specified vendor?

At least for my multimedia work, the answer is a resounding no.

Same here, but with a twist: out of the box, Linux makes it easier for me to install the things I need to do my job. The display, power management, etc. issues are all frustrating, true, but ultimately not as important.

Different folks have different priorities.

The simple answer is both Apple hardware and software support is well defined and is the gold standard.

Linux Desktop software support on the other hand is ill defined and even if the hardware claims to have support, it somewhat worse than macOS or even Windows thanks to the inconsistency of the Linux desktop stack letting it down.

This has been an eternal problem with the Linux desktop, and at this point you might as well use Windows with WSL2, since that is the best 'Linux Desktop'.

There doesn't seem to a contradiction there. I knew people who preferred Linux on Apple hardware. They were very happy with it.

I turn the lid down on my laptop and it goes to sleep. It pull it up and the system comes back up. Reliably. Every single time.

I guess that narrows my choices down to Windows and MacOS. Between them I find it much harder to choose, but Macs just have a solid lead on the hardware front for now. The M1/M2 chips are just chef's kiss. And I don't know why most Windows laptops come with such junk webcams.

Edit: I almost forgot! Linux still doesn't have hardware accelerated video playback on browsers. How can anybody recommend using linux on their laptop despite this is beyond me. Is this a joke? Like do you guys just always keep your laptops plugged in all day? Why not just get a desktop at that point?

Are you talking about laptops that shipped with Linux though? I suspect not.

You'd have about as much fun putting macOS on a laptop that shipped with Windows, and vice versa, as you would putting Linux on either of them.

Because OSX, besides being a user prison, is certainly far from being as good as their hardware.

that's not how this works. They choose apple and get macOS or they choose pc and get windows with it.

You don't have to be best, just better than the alternative.

MacOS comes with specialized set of hardware. So good luck tailoring Mac, without it costing like an average Ferrari.

Linux is just worse for average user. Not average HN user, mind you. But people who struggle to figure out print screen.

I fought with Linux in the past. It's death by thousand gremlin bites.

Big part of that is lack of drivers, but there are also major fractures in the space: Gnome vs KDE, X.org vs Wayland, etc.

Can the MS hardware run Linux without me doing a bunch of work with drivers etc?

Same reason you run Linux on a Dell or Other laptop. Because you prefer Linux. In Apple's case, the M1 is particularly appealing right now.

For me personally, this project is mostly interesting as insurance for if/ when Apple ships a version of MacOS I don't care for or stops supporting the M1. That's likely... 10 years out, but you never know.

I have used Linux as my main driver on all my desktops and laptops between 1999 and 2021 until I migrated to Macbook Pro.

The simple reason is that maintaining basic operating system to do the basic things it should be doing should not be taking so much of my time. I am sick and tired of fixing another audio, wifi or power usage issue because package maintainers decided they have a different idea or spend time fixing my graphics driver every couple of months at the most inopportune time. I need to be able to open my laptop and reliably be able to continue with my work, is that so much to ask for?

So I switched to MacOS and for now I could not be happier. Setting up some things is as frustrating as it has always been for me but at least once I do it it tends to keep working.

The reason seems pretty obvious.

There are enough people who do not want to deal with MacOS and Darwin regardless the hardware specs.

Also the way of least friction is usually to use whatever the rest of your team uses. There are even relevant differences in Docker for MacOS vs Docker for Linux that make cross platform difficult (in particular thinking about host.docker.internal, but there are certainly more). Working with C/C++ is another pain point for cross platform, which already starts with Apples own Clang and different lib naming conventions.

Going away from x86 makes this situation certainly not better.