Alright, I'm sick of all these empty memes about macOS,

>>61943131
4. Cocoa is objectively better than both gtk and qt, although qt supports it. The reason is that Cocoa actually has a good-looking, consistent design, is pleasant programming for, and all the while it enforces standards which are tied to the user interface, giving standard hotkeys for many features including common window management functions like fullscreen, tabs, client info, settings menu, etc. which gives any program some form of familiarity so that the user can start using it efficiently as fast as possible through these standard hotkeys, whereas most linux and windows programs all have different hotkeys that the user must learn.
5. macOS is Unix-like, and as was previously said, the libc is based on FreeBSD, and most of what runs on Linux runs on FreeBSD, and most of what runs on FreeBSD also runs on macOS. Through this you can install most if not all applications that you're familiar with from Linux into macOS and use it casually. This includes many terminal and X11-based applications through XQuartz. Many package management systems work on macOS including macports, which is a great ports-like package manager that both supports binary packages if you're on the run and source-based packages if you want more customizability.
6. The soon to be released (on macOS) APFS gives it a decent, stable, case-sensitive, copy-on-write filesystem that supports many of the features which makes ZFS great like snapshots, clones, etc. But also supports encryption from the filesystem itself, which ZFS doesn't. All of this while Linux is struggling to get Btrfs to a stable state, and even that is a very mediocre implementation of a copy-on-write, ZFS-like filesystem.
7. It's neither GNU, FreeDesktop.org, nor Linux while supporting all of them, and has more proprietary support from the Windows world including Adobe and Microsoft products, so you have the best of all worlds.

>>61943131
>>61943138
woah hold up niggy

>>61943131
nobody gonna read that, go suck some cocks mackfag

>>61943131
>>61943138

All of this is nice, but the problem lies in what you have to do in order to get these benefits. Paying $1500 for a computer guaranteed to die once the warranty is up just isn't a smart business decision for me. Furthermore, that consistency in management you get with Cocoa severely limits the end user, which, while great for the layman who can't be bothered to touch a terminal, isn't great for the man willing to get down and dirty with his toys.

number 3 and 5 bring up an interesting question, however; If macOS is built on a FreeBSD base, and most FreeBSD programs run on macOS, what makes the inverse less true? Why cant FreeBSD run macOS programs? Does Mach's modular style prevent it?

Not many people here will understand anything you just said. Who cares what some underage gamers on 4chan of all places think anyway?

>>61943246
FreeBSD doesn't support macOS's proprietary Quartz display stack, which is implemented through Cocoa. It's a real shame that it's proprietary. However, if a compatibility layer were to be made between something like Qt and Cocoa, FreeBSD could easily run many macOS binaries the same way it runs many Linux binaries. I don't think there's a high enough demand to make this kind of compatibility layer though.

Mach's modular style doesn't prevent anything, these are all userspace issues. Applications that are terminal-based and don't rely on Apple proprietary libraries could most likely be built on FreeBSD effortlessly.

>>61943131
>You forgot
- Hardware vendor lock-in
>You forgot
- Especially engineered to be a pain in the ass to virtualize

Sorry, these reasons keeps me away from MacOS. Especially the first one. Mac hardware is embarrassing

>>61943348
>pain in the ass to virtualize
literally just use a premade VM and patch it with unlocker and darwin.iso
everything that doesn't require 3d acceleration will work on a macOS vm
also
>>61943246
>what is hackintosh
nearly compatible with any intel PC but works mostly better with gigabyte boards (which have a wide price range)
you can build a pretty good PC and just install macOS on it

>>61943509
>hackintosh
less stable than FreeBSD

File: 1498359363694.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>61943131
>>61943138
didn't read, lmao

>>61943131
interesting
although I don't necessarily agree with you, I commend you for your effort

>>61943517
I find it funny whenever some 200IQ genius from /g/ insta replies to the Hackintosh suggestion that it's somehow "unstable" even thought me and many people from the insanelymac/osx86 have upgraded our hackintoshes for years without problem. I'm running Sierra with a 2011 motherboard and have been using pretty much the same 5~6 kexts since then with ZERO issues (audio, network, sleep, resumé, graphics et cetera...)

>>61943700
Dude you have convinced me I'm going to gather the information and files require to set-up a hackintosh.

I have a relatively old but still ok pc i7 4770k, gtx 770 and z87x gigabyte motherboard, last time I've checked people ran it pretty good on these components, we're about to see.

>>61943700
Hackintosh has no driver support

tl;dr? wait a second, I don't care

>>61943700
Same here with a T420 from 10.12.1 to 10.12.6 now.

Imagine being so much of a shill you write a huge wall of text that nobody will bother reading anyways.
Sage and hide guys.