I am passionate about software development, GNU/Linux, FLOSS as well as OS X. I am also a do-it-yourself apologetic: I did a lot of things in and around my house myself. I love the hacker culture. And last but not least I am a dog owner.
This is my personal replacement for Twitter, Facebook and the other data silos. My content is mine — so if you are interested in my activity, just have a look at this page.
Cory Doctorow wites about DRM products and that they are defective by design. He asks a good question: if DRM is so good for us, then why aren't DRM products labeled as such?
In our open letter on DRM labelling – a letter signed by a diverse coalition of rights holders, public interest groups, and publishers – we ask the FTC to take action to ensure that people know what they’re getting when they buy products encumbered with DRM.
He further points out that DRM is often designed as a kill switch:
What’s more, most modern DRM is designed for “renewability” – which is a DRM-vendor euphemism for a remote kill-switch. These DRM tools phone home periodically for updates, and install these updates without user intervention, and then disable some or all of the features that were there when you bought the product.
Passengers: 4.5 of 5.
I had a very pleasant experience with the Deutsche Telekom – wow!
Trying to talk to a MSSQL server instance via Ruby tunneled via SSH. Oh the pain...
Of course things like software quality, bad UX (e.g. still none of the hands-off/continuity features work) are a reason for me: why would I pay the „Apple tax“ if „it simply works“ is no longer true?
Another reason is the hardware, and that's a complex one. On one hand Apple hardware is really good, e.g. the touchpads are the best I know. But on the other hand they do stupid things like soldering the SSD and RAM onto the board or gluing the battery. At least the SSD should not be soldered, as I use my hard disks heavily (due to big databases) it is likely that it breaks before the computer is broken.
Also software freedom is a reason. I like the ideals behind the GNU project and think this is the right way.
But my absolutely main reason is performance. Linux performs so much better... I have a script touching and inserting about 2 million rows, one at a time. My Linux finishes the job within two hours, while my macbook needs six(!!) hours to complete the task. The overall performance is so much better, and disk I/O is in its own league.
I was a Linux user 10 years ago but moved to being a Mac one, mainly because I was tired of maintaining an often broken system (hello xorg.conf), and Apple had quite an appealing offer at the time: a well-maintained Unix platform matching beautiful hardware, sought-after UX, access to editor apps like Photoshop and MS Office, so best of both worlds.
I, too, was a Linux user (Gentoo, to be accurate) until some time in 2006 (iirc) and I too got tired repairing my system over and over again. Now he is switching back to Linux:
To be frank, I was a happy Apple user in the early years, then the shine started to fade; messing up your system after upgrades became more frequent, Apple apps grown more and more bloated and intrusive (hello iTunes), UX started turning Kafkaian at times, too often I was finding myself tweaking and repairing stuff from the terminal...
My reasons are are a bit different, but I can relate to that.
I would not buy it, but I think it's very cool to have a full-pledged Linux-capable computer in this size.