Re: Apple requires too much money and sacrifice of control

On 2025-03-25 15:04:30 +0000, CrudeSausage said:

On 2025-03-25 10:35, Johnny LaRue wrote:

In article <KBxEP.1621523$TBhc.513900@fx16.iad>,
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

On 2025-03-25 00:00, Johnny LaRue wrote:

In article <uorjtj1svg4iel6a1il22vrqbe394idovc@4ax.com>,
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

 A Mac mini would be $1400.  What I could build for that is
unbelievable.  Getting macOS to me isn't so amazing, Linux does OK.  I
think Apple is like M$ selling products to high-end users first.

 Yes, Apple costs more than Dell.   And BMWs cost more than Chevys.   And
steak costs more than chicken.
 What is your point?
 But what is the alleged "sacrifice of control"?   What does that even
mean?    My Macs are somehow "out of control"?

 He's suggesting that in addition to Apple devices being more or less a
walled garden (not really since you can install from outside the Apple
Store even though the operating system makes that needlessly annoying
for some applications like Betterbird), you lose control in that your
hardware is abandoned after a number of years. On an x86-64 machine,
this isn't a problem since you can go ahead and install Linux. However,
once Apple decides not to supply you with MacOS anymore, you're stuck.
You /CAN/ continue to use it, but the lack of updates might make its use
a danger if you are connecting to the Internet.

 Macs continue to run fine.
 I have an 11 year old Mini that works fine.   I have this ancient Dual
G5 tower (20 years old) that runs fine.   I am using screen sharing (the
equivalent to remote desktop on Windows) from my M2 Macbook Pro to type
this message on the PPC G5 tower because I like MT-NewsWatcher.
 I have an even older Dual G4 tower (23 years old, the wind tunnel box
AKA Mirror Drive Door) that also runs fine.
 No "loss of control" here.   And if installing Linux means you are "in
control" then I would rather be "out of control".

 On this old Mac, the only advantage I would get from using MacOS is that the webcam would work without issue. It is possible to get it working in Linux, but it will stop working one kernel update later. The choice is therefore between using an outdated MacOS which becomes less secure with every passing day

Old devices actually become *more* secure because most of the hackers and malware makers, like every other fool, insist on moving to the very latest shiny new toy on the block with the most users and "zero-day" holes, rather than wasting time on an old version of the OS with a dwindling user base.
Besides which, Macs are more secure out of the box to begin with. I've been using and supporting other people's Apple devices since the days of the Apple II and I have never ever seen any of them infected with malware. Windows boxes on the other hand are constantly infected with virus crap (although a little less these days), sometimes to the point that there is so much malware and anti-malware that they struggle to even boot - you just have to blink your eyes "wrong" and Windows gets virus infected.

but properly supports the hardware or a secure Linux which doesn't allow every component to work out of the box. I chose Linux since I don't need to be seen through this camera anyway.

That is of course because Apple controls the software and the main hardware, so they know exactly what they have put in the OS to make it work. Windows, Linux, Andoird, etc. are separate from the hardware maker, so have to try to support numerous different combinations of varying hardware.
There's the largely true (again a little less so these days) old saying:
   "Mac has plug and play, Windows has plug and pray."   :-)