593

True? (lemmy.world)

submitted 3 months ago by pettend@lemmy.world to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

70 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 50 points 3 months ago

Macs excel in multimedia creation. It’s not just a cool setup. Yes, I’m prepared for the inevitable downvotes.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 34 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yeah, more software was written for the more user-friendly computers with the (generally) less-technical userbase.

[+] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world -12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yeah, the people at Pixar have no clue how to use a computer. Lol

In all seriousness, even the same media software, like Pro Tools, is more versatile on Mac than on Windows. I can say that with first-hand experience.

The “dumbed-down” Apple device is the iPhone. You get admin privileges on MacOS like a big boy. You can use bash or zsh commands in Terminal all you want.

[-] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 36 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

You get admin privileges on MacOS like a big boy. You can use bash or zsh commands in Terminal all you want.

Cool. So try updating to a version of Bash from the last 15 years, because the pre-installed one is Bash 3, because Bash 4 and 5 are under the GPLv3 license, which Apple won't comply with.

...ah, no, you can't update the pre-installed Bash, because it's on a section of the file system that is read-only even with admin access. You can install Bash 5 as a separate shell, and use that as your default terminal shell, but any scripts written with the standard #!/bin/bash instead of the more flexible #!/usr/bin/env bash will still use Bash 3.

This "handholding" (or really, a safety net) is arguably a good thing, or at least a positive tradeoff; but you can't claim it doesn't exist.

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I agree it’s not as limitless as Linux, but there’s plenty of room for advanced users.

I’ve never needed to use a newer version of Bash. What is an example of something one couldn’t do with Bash 3 or zsh?

[-] TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee 8 points 3 months ago

I get that this is an Apples to Oranges comparison, but Powershell 7 is way easier to use than the default Windows Powershell because of autocomplete. I imagine that newer versions of Bash have made improvements that are similarly powerful.

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Oh, gotcha. I thought you were talking about limitations, not features. My misunderstanding.

[-] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago

It's not so much a problem of there being things you "can't do" in other shells or older Bash, as that it breaks existing shell scripts, which is frustrating.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

I'm not sure what you mean. I have updated bash with a single homebrew command.

[-] dust_accelerator@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 3 months ago

The poster you're replying to was not referring to 3rd party software in user space.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Ok, yeah, I can see that there would be times this could matter but like 90% of the time this wouldn't have mattered for my use case afaik. I didn't realize you couldn't backup the old copy in /bin and symlink to the brew one from there. In fact I thought I did do that long ago.

[-] computergeek125@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

If it's anything like when I used a Mac regularly 7y ago, Homebrew doesn't install to /bin, it installs to /usr/local/bin, which only works for scripts that use env in their shell "marker" (if you don't call it directly with the shell). You're just putting a higher bash in the path, not truly updating the one that comes with the system.

[-] paperplane@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

That's mostly still true, with the small caveat that the default prefix on arm64 macOS is /opt/homebrew rather than /usr/local, so you might have to add it explicitly to your PATH

[-] computergeek125@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Oh thank goodness, that was one of my main complaints with the system. Did they ever get around to requiring sudo like Macports (and any other reasonable system level packages manager on BSD/Linux)?

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

It's been a long time since I even did this, and I've gotten at least one new machine since. I got several replies so I'll just link my original response: https://lemmy.world/comment/11431853

[-] computergeek125@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Gotcha. Yeah low level Unix has some weird stuff going on sometimes.

[-] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 0 points 3 months ago

Did you read the linked Q&A?

What do you get if you run /bin/bash --version?

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

It's been a long time since I even did this, and I've gotten at least one new machine since. I got several replies so I'll just link my original response: https://lemmy.world/comment/11431853