Yes! FUTO keyboard, then go into VOICE INPUT → MODELS → Explore Voice Input Models → English-244: “Best for the most accurate results, but more demanding.”
The voice recognition is built on Whisper, and is amazing. You can speak conversationally for a long time and it gets everything right, with smart decisions based on context.
I just did. I had been using FUTO voice, but I see that FUTO keyboard also supports voice input, so I'm not sure if I should delete FUTO voice as being redundant now.
I don't believe it's necessary, it's move of an "if you want a dedicated voice keyboard, the UX is a little better" option. I don't have both installed though, as anecdotal evidence.
Ha! Me too! Exact same. Bought a Pixel 10. Intended to do the default Android for a while. But it was filled with ads for “Wicked” which had me looking at my phone with a sneer on my face I couldn't erase - as if someone had smeared feces all over it and threw it on my bed.
So I jumped straight to GrapheneOS, which was way easier and less extreme than I had been warned. So beautifully minimal, with no crap. Now my phone feels like a simple Linux (Void/Arch) PC. So wonderful.
Be careful, apps can still communicate with other apps, e.g. revoking the network permission doesn't stop apps from fetching and displaying ads over the network. I don't know enough about Android internals to understand the mechanisms behind it, but clearly there are ways for apps to exfiltrate data.
> Trying to use Network as a complete data exfiltration toggle isn't the intended purpose, and you should always consider apps within the profile being able to communicate for ALL data and access including permissions. It is not something only relevant to Network.
Eye opener. Thanks for the warning! GrapheneOS sandboxes all apps including GSF as far as I understand. It would be nice if full capabilities could be exposed or at least shown in the app settings. There is the "All permissions" view which has a "have full network access" item with the following details: `Allows the app to create network sockets and use custom network protocols. The browser and other applications provide means to send data to the internet, so this permission is not required to send data to the internet.`
Does this mean the app has this permission and even without it can fully access the internet? If so the primary "network" permission is very misleading. I wish for a smartphone-like device which installs apps with `cap_drop: ALL` by default. I wish for a government which would support such a standpoint and "assist" companies not able to provide a service which require intrusive data gathering. Either that or we're all just one big happy family with no secrets and no jealousy and no drama. sigh
Every Android app can do IPC with Android apps in the same profile. So an app without Network Access could cooperate with an app with Network Access to communicate with the outside world. Of course, most notably, a lot of apps communicate with Play Services and people generally leave on network access for Play Services to avoid breaking to much stuff.
There has been talk of developing 'IPC scopes', similar to how there are contact scopes.
To my knowledge, any app can just instruct the installed browser (Google Chrome, Vanadium, Firefox...) to open http[s]://tracker.evil-ad-network.example/?installedId=012345.
"Be careful, apps can still communicate with other apps, e.g. revoking the network permission doesn't stop apps from fetching and displaying ads over the network."
Another example relating to tracking ad targets, also known as "users":
"Around September 2024, Meta developed a creative solution to evade Androids sandboxing restrictions. (Id. 4849, 52.) Devices have localhost ports, which simulate a communications channel by allowing applications or services running on the device to communicate with each other... without those communications leaving the device. (Id. 53.) Meta modified its Pixel code (the Modified Pixel) so that it would send the _fbp cookies contents to a designated localhost port. (Id. 55.) In turn, Meta modified its Facebook and Instagram apps to listen to that localhost port for incoming data. (Id.) The Facebook and Instagram apps combined any incoming localhost data with personal information and identifiers, and subsequently shipped that combined data from the users Android device to its own servers. (Id.) As a result, even though Meta would typically have a harder time identifying Android users, Meta was now able to perfectly deanonymize Android users browsing activity if they used its apps. (Id.)
Meta's conduct was unknown until a group of internet security researchers disclosed it on June 3, 2025. (Id. 4; Dkt. No. 104-3.)
Shortly after the researchers public disclosure, Meta announced that it decided to pause use of this tracking method. (Id. 69; Dkt. No. 104-4 at 5.)
In this consolidated action, Plaintiffs assert nine claims against Meta: ... (3) violation of the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2511(1); (4) violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Acts (CIPA) wiretapping provisions, Cal. Penal Code 631; (5) violation of CIPAs eavesdropping provisions, Cal. Penal Code 632; (6) violation of CIPAs eavesdropping device provisions, Cal. Penal Code 635; ... Plaintiffs assert an additional two claims against Google: negligence and negligent misrepresentation.
Plaintiffs CIPA pen register, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation claims are DISMISSED. Dismissal is with LEAVE TO AMEND because the Court cannot conclude on the current record that amendment would be futile. All other claims survive dismissal."
The above is an excerpt from In re Meta Android Privacy Litigation (3:25-cv-04674, N.D. Cal., June 3, 2025)
Of course Meta will eventually settle, like Google did in Brown v Google, in Google's case on the eve of trial. The wiretapping claims would be catastrophic for these companies
But the Court's observations are interesting
"At this early stage in the case, and given the undeniably significant portion of mobile phones using Apples iOS, it is reasonable to infer an industry custom of placing tight controls on communications between apps based on Apples restrictions."
I mean...... Google Camera has slightly different approach to low light photos and much better panorama mode, which means you can just install it and use with network access denied.
I mainly use native camera (good in most cases, can be brought up immediately with double power button press, from locked), Google camera (rarely), BlackMagic for when I need control over videos and ProShot when I need control over images (the last one might be hard to install - it's a paid app (I'm a paid user, this is how I got it), but not long time ago the moron of the developer made the app "incompatible" with devices without Google surveillance buttplug claiming it will prevent people pirating it form opening support cases....???).
So you can have multiple camera apps. Thankfully Google is not Samsung or Sony, and all the apps have full access to the cameras.
That sounds like the answer is actually yes: we're not talking about the lack of a camera app, but the lack of a camera app that knows the details of the usually-proprietary camera firmware
Problem with stock Google camera app is that it made horrible HDRlike images even with HDR turned off. You cannot adjust amount of reduced highlights and increased shadows which makes images unrealistic with lack of depth.
What you are describing is not Google’s alturism but keeping competition in check. If Google didn’t “allow” GrapheneOS it opens up a new market segment for other smartphone manufacturers. Apple really cashed in on privacy for a few years so it’s not unfathomable that Xiaomi or someone else goes all in on “privacy focused android” in absence of pixel+graphene combo.
I don't think any Chinese company can pull the privacy card. They're bound by their government to spy on their customers just like American ones are.
Otherwise Huawei would have already jumped into that gap. They have their own Google-independent OS now so they could have marketed it to privacy enthusiasts where the lack of Google services would have been a positive not a negative.
> Apple really cashed in on privacy for a few years
Apple didn't "cash in", their marketing dept made sure privacy/security engineering got just enough budget to pull off miracles & then spend even more to successfully make the public forget about the very nasty Celebgate.
TBF if Google locked down the devices like that it would be a GPL violation. Not their first or whatever but still, there's a reason for them not to do that beside "being nice"
It's also because so many Linux developers are on the payroll of big tech. Look at all the submissions. 95% are just big tech. And look at the key people in the Linux Foundation. All a bunch of business suits with compromised motives. Serving their company above the community. There's only a few unencumbered people in there now.
Linux is no longer the community-driven choice. It's big business with billions hanging on the line. The grassroots origins are long over.
And how many options are there exactly? How many of them are capable of at least making and receiving a phone call without any issues 99% of the time?
While I agree with your general sentiment, I feel necessary to acknowledge that it's just not there (yet?). GrapheneOS is a great option if you want to have a fully working and secure device.
Years ago I looked into GrapheneOS, and I ultimately didn't go with it because, at least at the time, they only supported pixel phones (specifically pixel phones that Google actively had security updates for). I realized that if I got that OS, I would be at the mercy of Google supporting the device in order to continue using GrapheneOS.
In the end I just opted out of the android ecosystem altogether and went with a flip phone that I used as a hotspot for an iPod touch (we only used over VPN with locked down DNS and nothing google related).
My privacy lasted about two weeks, because unfortunately Spotify was able to fingerprint that device to Facebook.
I would highly recommend LineageOS. Supports non-Pixel phones, some of them many years old (although now that I double check, the Galaxy S3 and OnePlus One aren't on the devices list anymore, I guess they do stop supporting old stuff eventually...). The OnePlus 5 is still supported and was released in 2017. For anything older than that, I guess I'd recommend looking into postmarketOS.
I thought the PinePhone community had succeeded in making custom firmware for the modem in the PinePhone, though I'm not sure of the legality of actually using it. Plus both PinePhone and Librem 5 had a killswitch to disconnect the modem at least.
Your point is valid and yeah, it's a never-ending fight just to keep the control we have. Things like the Play Protect API and loads of Android apps being coupled to Play Services is it's own big challenge we're stuck with just to stay within the Android ecosystem
iOS is also going into this direction, just open the AppStore, it’s all the cheapest most horrible apps. Temu (shop like you don't give a s* about the planet), addictive AI Waifu’s (who needs human interaction anyway), clean your stuff but fake-time-wasting style (it's free dopamine!), search option’s first hit is often scammy (ie search for MS Authenticator). I feel that Steve ("If you want pr0n get an Android") would turn around in his grave from the sight of this.
Its just a matter of time before this cesspool will leak into the rest of the OS, AppStore shows us the temptation is too big for Apple. When my iPhone 12 mini dies it’s /e/OS or GrapheneOS for me. My devices should serve me and my thoughts are my own.
The AppStore has been like that for eons, but then again I don’t know a single person that uses it or checks the “content” posted there. It’s an utter waste of time.
I don’t think it will leak. After the U2 debacle, Apple might have learned not to push too hard on this front.
Big list, unfortunately one of my banks is not there (BCGE, Switzerland), most probably meaning I can't even login into ebanking in any other way since they have their properietary authentication app (CrontoSign, also not listed). Its rather small regional/cantonal bank so I get it, even though that region is Geneva, mecca of (some types of) banking.
Other banks that I use are there. Almost perfect...
Being missing means they haven’t been tested, not that they don’t work. Generally they probably only don’t work if they require the google play verification thingy
My banking apps were missing in list too, it doesn't mean that they are not working. You can test and report on that issue tracker about your banking app if it works :)
If your bank doesn't have its own payment app, but PayPal Card is available in your country, I got this setup to work on Graphene by installing PayPal into the Secure Folder, install the sandboxed Play Services there (required) and setup the mobile payments in the app. It's not a great solution, but for I keep it around for emergencies.
My banks app complains will block me and tell me to disable developer mode, but if I turn it right back on after launching the app it won't complain for maybe another week. The post that really annoys me, though, is that if you don't set up biometric unlock they will not allow you to use the extended login cookie, so you need to put in your password every time, most don't work with password managers either (whether intentionally or not).
All factory operating systems come with ads and bloat and spyware, Apple/Samsung included. Google remains the lesser of all other evils because at least to date, they offer an open source OS, bootloader unlocking, and root. A community driven mobile OS is absolutely where we should go, but for now and the foreseeable future you can call a Lyft, deposit a check (in America), and do other mainstream tasks on AOSP flavors without Google/Apple/Samsung having to know anything about it. It's never been easier to make the user friendly choice too: https://grapheneos.org/install/web
Technically they already did a built in ad with Android KitKat. Mostly benign, but I do remember being at an Android event and KitKats samples being given out to everyone. As well as KitKat wrappers being branded with the Android logo for a while.
I started cdbaby.com in my bedroom, just me, fulfilling orders myself.
It got an immediate great reception from a few people, very thankful, happy to pay for the service, and telling all their friends. So that's how I knew it was worth sticking with.
But still, it was very VERY slow going, like even after 9 months I was only getting a few orders a week. After a year it was a few orders a day. That's when I hired my first employee.
It didn't really take off until FOUR YEARS later, of this continuous slow growth.
In hindsight, looking at the numbers, it doubled in size every year for 10 years. But that didn't look like success until year 4.
So when people say, “I started my business but it's been a few months and it's not a success yet!” I have to tell this tale.
That just seems like an ad for their LLC incorporating service.
Ok, road tabbaco alcool taxes have risen in Estonia in 2025. But wtf does that matter for an e-resident?! Or that there are going to be harder ways to "secretly distribute profits". But that's just tax avoidance and they are leading with these ideas on their blog?
2% tax on profits to support the military, and 2% extra on VAT is what changed in 2025 and important for e-Residents.
Thanks for this very important point. It often gets lost in the discussion.
The big idea with Linux/BSD/fully-open-source is that you can fix whatever you don't like.
That was the breaking point for me with Tahoe. I never loved MacOS before that, but it never got in the way. Then with Tahoe, it got in the way, so I went to fix it, and found out that fixing it is actually impossible! That was the breakup moment.
Sophisticated LLMs make it even easier to fix or tweak any Linux/BSD/fully-open-source software to our liking.
> The big idea with Linux/BSD/fully-open-source is that you can fix whatever you don't like.
That's a great theory, and sometimes it's actually true, but in reality for most users most of the time, Linux is as "fixable" as Windows or macOS, because most people, even the technically savvy ones aren't driver developers. Heck most software developers probably aren't even C programmers anymore. And even if someone had the competency in the language and low level system programming, do they have the time and the inclination to re-write the audio stack so that it finally works correctly? Or to fix the fact that even in 2026, sleep and hibernate are hit and miss? And then to maintain their patch against future system updates or go through the process of getting it upstreamed?
Most Linux users, and especially most Linux users switching from something like macOS or Windows would be waiting and hoping that someone else decided to fix the thing for them because they either lack the skills, time or inclination to do it themselves. And we know this is true because if it weren't true, all the various "wars" over the years like systemd and pulse audio and wayland wouldn't have been a war at all because everyone who didn't like it would have easily patched it out and moved on. But a modern full fledged OS experience is a mess of intertwined and complex dependencies. So when a distro decides to switch a big chunk of the underlying stack like that, most people either have to go along with it, or hope that enough people feel strongly enough about it to fork everything and make their own distro, and then they have to hope the forkers have the passion and drive to maintain that for them.
Yes, you "can" fix whatever you don't like in linux. Just like you "can" find all the information you need to diagnose and treat whatever medical condition you might have online and at your local libraries. But most people are still going to pay a doctor, because most people don't have the time or skills to actually do it.
> but in reality for most users most of the time, Linux is as "fixable" as Windows or macOS,
I disagree with this. For most users, most of the time, Linux is significantly more fixable than Windows or MacOS.
In nearly 20 years, I've never had to write a line of C or touch the Linux kernel to fix issues I've had on Linux.
For example, one of my big peeves I've had lately on both PopOS and MacOS are the looooong animations to switch desktops.
On PopOS, I had two paths to fix this: Tweak the COSMIC desktop to fix the behavior, or the simple thing of simply installing GNOME (or KDE or any other DE of choice).
On MacOS, I'm SOL. There's no way to fix that on my Macbook (short of installing Asahi Linux, of course).
> Just like you "can" find all the information you need to diagnose and treat whatever medical condition you might have online and at your local libraries. But most people are still going to pay a doctor, because most people don't have the time or skills to actually do it.
This isn't a great analogy, but it's worth noting: Many conditions are expected to be self-diagnosed and self-treated. I don't go to the doctor for scrapes, bruises, colds, dry eyes, a stubbed toe, etc. By this analogy, Linux users are buying their own aspirin and applying their own band-aids, while MacOS users are waiting in line, dependent on someone else to fix these things.
I say this as someone who uses both MacOS and Linux daily.
> On PopOS, I had two paths to fix this: Tweak the COSMIC desktop to fix the behavior, or the simple thing of simply installing GNOME (or KDE or any other DE of choice).
So what did you do? Did you fix the DE? Again, this is effectively outside the skill of the sorts of people who would be "switching" to linux due to the issues with macOS or Windows.
And while installing a new DE is certainly easier than re-programming one, it's still dependent on someone else having written a DE that not only solves your problem, but doesn't introduce entirely new ones and isn't so fundamentally different to the user that they might as well have switched OSes in the first place. And if the user's primary issue was being forced into a major interface re-design like liquid glass, having to switch to a completely new DE is more of a lateral move than actually fixing the problem.
And to be clear, the fact that it's POSSIBLE for someone to fix a problem for you even if you can't, and it doesn't have to be the primary OS vendor is a benefit of using an open source OS. So I'm not saying it's not possible to benefit from this. I'm just saying that for most users, most of the time, the ability to "fix it themselves" is effectively as out of reach for them as it is using macOS or Windows because having access to the source code is only the tiniest part of actually fixing a problem for themselves.
Since my doctor analogy fell flat, let me try again with a traditional car analogy. A kit car is infinitely more open, customizable and user controllable than any car bought from an auto manufacturer. And yet, for the vast majority of drivers, buying a kit car, even if it was turn key and pre-built would do absolutely nothing to make it more likely that they will do their own repairs or modifications to the car. They will continue taking it to the same mechanics they always took their traditional cars to, they will continue to buy off the shelf parts if possible and do without if not.
Nope, I swapped to GNOME. Forking the DE was something I was considering doing just to contribute back. It's not something I'd recommend someone to do. (That said, it's Rust and not C, so the barrier for entry is much lower.)
If someone can install Linux, they can install a new DE. It's easy peasy.
> if the user's primary issue was being forced into a major interface re-design like liquid glass, having to switch to a completely new DE is more of a lateral move than actually fixing the problem.
No, switching DEs fixes the problem. If MacOS were open source, then you'd have a community-run fork from before Liquid Glass. (If MacOS were open source, you'd also probably have an LTS branch anyways, and no dark patterns forcing you to update.)
Ubuntu users dismayed by Unity were able to stay on GNOME by installing GNOME. Ubuntu users dismayed when Unity went away were able to stay on Unity because someone forked it. GNOME users dismayed by GNOME 3 are able to stay on forks of GNOME 2.
And it's worth stressing that _none_ of these were so bad as Liquid Glass.
>for most users, most of the time, the ability to "fix it themselves" is effectively as out of reach for them
This is the thing I take contention with. This seems hard to square with the experience of someone using Linux. Is this an assertion you're making as someone who doesn't use it?
I think the most common experience on Linux is that people are able to fix the things that annoy them. It's a tangible and normal thing, not a hypothetical.
> No, switching DEs fixes the problem. If MacOS were open source, then you'd
>have a community-run fork from before Liquid Glass. (If MacOS were open
>source, you'd also probably have an LTS branch anyways, and no dark patterns
>forcing you to update.)
>Ubuntu users dismayed by Unity were able to stay on GNOME by installing GNOME.
>Ubuntu users dismayed when Unity went away were able to stay on Unity because
>someone forked it. GNOME users dismayed by GNOME 3 are able to stay on forks >of GNOME 2.
And again, all of these solutions are the user being dependent on someone else doing the work they want for them, and are very much not "fixing it themselves" any more than installing Asahi linux on their macbook would be "fixing it themselves"
> Is this an assertion you're making as someone who doesn't use it?
No it's an assertion I'm making knowing that the vast majority of computer users barely understand what it is their computer is doing at any given time or why. And of the subset of users that do have an understanding, an even smaller subset of those users have the necessary skills, time and inclination to fix something wrong with the system. I worked computer retail for years. The vast majority of people I interacted with had no interest in knowing what their computer was doing under the hood or how they could solve their own problems. For every one customer that I had the chance to show how they could do something for themselves, I had 10-15 other customers tell me they didn't want to know, they just wanted it fixed.
I have plenty of experience using Linux. I spent 7 years working at a job where I was thankfully allowed to use a Linux box as my primary development machine. My home network runs stacks of Debian boxes, my 3d printers are running klipper, my home media systems Ubuntu or Debian. I built an arcade system than runs off of a Debian box. I've built remote scanning and printing workstations out of some Raspberry Pis for a company I worked for, and built custom touch screen inventory workstations prototyping them out on "Puppy Linux" installations (some weirdness around needing to work forward from a very old x11 config that didn't work with modern ubuntu at the time). I've been installing and using Linux in some form or another since I first spent 3 days twice in a row downloading the set of 600MB install CDs for "mkLinux" over a 33.6 dialup connection (twice because the first time I pulled the files down in "text mode" which broke the images).
But it's also these experiences that inform my opinion that Linux presents plenty of its own pain points and that plenty of those pain points are simply unfixable by the vast majority of their users. Every other year or so, some updates to Ubuntu would inevitably break multi-display handling or the network or something else on my dev machine at work. I would easily lose a day or two to hunting down esoteric configuration options and work arounds and digging into things that most computer users will never want to touch. My arcade system worked fine for months until an update to something in the Debian/Ubuntu audio stack broke audio on boot. It's been over a year now and it's still broken. You have to manually go into alsamixer, swap which audio "card" the system thinks its talking to (the onboard audio presents as two different cards, one for the normal audio jacks and one for HDMI out) and then toggle the muting on the various outputs until you find the one that was enumerated to be your current output on this boot. As near as I can figure out, it has something to do with a change in the order that the audio system is brought up on boot. It's now loaded much earlier in the boot process and apparently this particular chip and board combination doesn't initialize the second card until after some later step in the boot process pokes it. So when the audio system first comes up, it only sees the one card, can't apply the saved configurations and drops into a default. I've built some work around scripts that try to re-apply the audio settings again later in the process, but so far they're only about 60% effective. In the mean time, it's just broken for me and plenty of other people like me with the same AMD on board audio setup. And I'm someone comfortable digging into debugging hardware boot-up issues and the rats nest that is the linux audio stack.
But this same box also saw me need to switch from XFCE to KDE because some bug with the "notifications" system in XFCE hard hangs any user input for 5 minutes or so if you try to pop up a notification before the first time a user logs into the DE, something that I was doing because the arcade doesn't have a mouse plugged in, but you can hit a hotkey combo to switch to a keyboard mouse control scheme and I wanted a notification to display when you switched control schemes.
I have a raspberry pi running home-assistant that refused to boot if one of the zwave radio devices is plugged in to USB on boot. No idea why and it's been working fine ever since I switched to a different zwave radio, but was certainly a pain if the power ever flickered.
And lets not get into the nightmare that getting each individual linux system to play nicely with DHCPv6 was. Apparently every linux distro does IPv6 DHCP things just a little differently and even across versions of the same distro it can vary wildly.
Are all of these things fixable by AN end user? Yes, probably they are. Are all of them fixable by me? Probably with enough free time and a little luck, yes they probably are. Are they fixable by most people who use a computer day to day and especially the sort of people who aren't already interested in Linux? No almost certainly not. Those users would rely on people like me (or more likely the people I'm relying on) to figure it out and drop a solution in the up stream or provide some package you can install to replace the broken component. And again, I'm not denying that this possibility is a benefit. It's just not the same as "fixing it yourself".
Does it matter? Generally Linux desktop distributions are made for the people who use them, who would tend towards people who will fix things. You mention distros but there obviously are a lot of passionate distro makers because right now it seems like there are more distros than ever.
There are often comments on threads like this that go along the lines of "If only the people making Linux desktop did X then they'd get more people". But there there isn't really anyone making Linux on the desktop. It's not a product. Even the products within it are built on the work of people with very disparate interests. It's kind of amazing that we get a cobbled together working experience at all.
Apple and Microsoft can focus on particular things, like getting more users, or supporting hardware they want to sell, or trying to get you to sign up to Office 365. No Linux desktop environment can have that kind of focus. So when you say it's not fixable to most users I think: well it's not supposed to be. It's not supposed to be anything, it just kind of is. Like coming across a mountain instead of a theme park - it's not a curated experience, it's not going to be for everyone, you might get hurt, but it's far far more beautiful.
It does matter if you're selling someone on the idea of switching away from their mac or windows machine that they're complaining about something the OS vendor has done by highlighting that with Linux they could "fix it themselves". It misses the point that most people don't want to "fix it themselves" and even if they had the inclination to that, for many problems they don't have the time or the skills. If someone is upset that Apple forced a move to Liquid Glass with Tahoe and all the bad UX that comes along with it, it's possible that they could also have the skills to fix their OS if they were equally upset that their chosen linux distro switched to Wayland. But it's more likely than not that they don't have those skills and so for that user, Linux is theoretically an OS they can fix, and practically just as likely to force them to accept the march of technology as any other OS they use.
I personally wouldn't try to sell Linux to anyone and get them to switch. It is a futile game and I see no real reason for it. People will move if they have reason to (in any direction) and the best one can do is show and tell. I will tell people what I like using if they ask. I'm more likely to tell folks not to switch because I don't want to be technical support for anyone outside my household.
I don't think anyone will switch from MacOS to Linux because of rounded corners. If they're really into theming it would make sense.
Being able to fix things is also a bit of a vague statement. You can fix things in many different ways, and you can fix some things in every OS. Fixing might be writing your own code, or switching a theme, or an application, or a distro, or the whole OS. The level of lockdown then matters. MacOS has the greatest lockdown because you can't just get a new Macbook and fix it by installing something other than MacOS.
Your comments really sound like you don't have experience with Linux. This sounds like you're repeating things others have heard.
> it's more likely than not that they don't have those skills
No, they absolutely do.
Even at the most basic level of interacting with the OS, Linux desktops usually offer more options in its Settings application than you'd get with MacOS.
If something annoys you on Linux, it probably annoyed someone else, and there's probably a toggle or switch for it.
If not, the barrier to fixing it is usually "sudo apt install cool_thing". Higher than "open the settings app", but it doesn't require compiling or coding. It only requires literacy (and, granted, not everyone is literate).
> Linux is ... practically just as likely to force them to accept the march of technology
For starters, let's not characterize Liquid Glass as "the march of technology". It's a symptom of dysfunction within Apple.
Second, no, this is just simply wrong. Many Linux distros offer LTS versions. Ubuntu 16.04 was released in 2016 and its support is ending this year, after a decade. (That's not counting the five more years of security maintenance.) Very importantly, these also don't have dark patterns to tick you to update like Apple did with Tahoe.
> Your comments really sound like you don't have experience with Linux. This sounds like you're repeating things others have heard.
It's really disappointing to me that so many people assume that just because you're not convinced that linux is the right solution for every computer user that you don't have experience with the system. As I mentioned in my other reply to you, I have plenty of experience with Linux, and those experiences are why I say that Linux is just as "unfixable" to your average computer user as MacOS or Windows is.
> > The big idea with Linux/BSD/fully-open-source is that you can fix whatever you don't like.
> That's a great theory, and sometimes it's actually true, but in reality for most users most of the time, Linux is as "fixable" as Windows or macOS, because most people, even the technically savvy ones aren't driver developers.
But there a whole lot more people who are happy to pay Claude $200/month now than there used to be. Claude isn’t a driver developer, but it’s taken a bunch of different open projects and modified for them for me in such a way that it’s made my life meaningfully better.
Things I couldn’t do for years, that I’ve wanted for years, got accomplished in 2 evenings: one to implement and deploy, one to optimise because the original deployment was a good POC but not good enough to keep running (e.g. doubling or tripling of CPU usage or RAM from prior to modification).
Sure, you could argue I’m paying a doctor, but there isn’t a doctor for the apple ecosystem. There’s just “suck it up, sunshine.”
(Written from my iPad, where I continue to suck it up)
While I understand that, I can't help but compare this to Mac hardware rather than software. There was a years-long stretch when it seemed like they'd really seriously lost the plot: the butterfly keyboard, the Touch Bar, the "trashcan" Mac, heat issues across the line. There was a real case to be made for abandoning Macs based on hardware issues alone (and I'm sure some folks did, and hopefully they're happy for it).
Then came Apple Silicon. And at least in my eyes, Apple hardware is the best it's been in a really long time.
There are some definite trainwrecks in the current state of Liquid Glass (especially on the Mac), and there have been other dubious choices and mounting bugs made over the last few years. But I've used both Windows 11 and a recent Linux distribution (Fedora, via Asahi Linux, running KDE Plasma), and while I like the latter it's just not enough to make me give up what I like on the Mac in terms of Mac-only applications and little life-bettering affordances I've internalized over the years I've been here. Yes, if the trajectory they're on now in software continues, I'll have to re-evaluate that -- but their hardware took a real turn for the better after Jony Ive and some of his deputies left. Alan Dye and some of his deputies left earlier this year, and I'm not going to count the new team out before giving them a chance to prove themselves.
It's a good point. I hated that butterfly keyboard, and the Touch Bar was an utterly useless gimmick for me. And they realised that and rolled it back (and added ports again!).
They do eventually listen to their customers. Let's hope it doesn't take as long for these changes to get rolled back.
I'm kinda stuck with Mac at work. I don't mind it, but I run Linux on all my personal computers and find that is way better.
I wonder how much connect there is between those in charge of hardware and those in charge of working software. It would be one thing if the software had a design direction, we all hated it, but it was implemented to its logical conclusion and pure stupid bugs weren't left to linger for years. That would be a matter of difference in taste and vision.
But I wonder if they have the ability to execute... anything, anymore. It's starting to look a little like Windows, which in a totally shameless and burlesque fashion has 3 or 4 design paradigms at the same time, jumbled together in a big stew.
It does feel like the decision making is internal-politics-driven rather than customer-satisfaction-driven, for both Mac and Windows now. Senseless changes that have little in common with other changes.
We've had this for decades with Windows, and internal leaks confirming that it's all to do with turf wars between departmental heads.
As you say, it's an indication that Apple are going down the same road, and are unable to actually execute a vision anymore.
I was 100% Apple: Mac Mini on the desktop, Macbook Air laptop, iPhone, and two iPads.
Then came Tahoe.
I hated it so badly and it wouldn't let me change the things I hated.
I noticed a subtle sneer as I worked, having to use this stupid computer that wouldn't let me adjust it to my liking anymore.
Then I noticed I wasn't working as much as I used to because I just viscerally hated having to work in that Tahoe environment.
At first I did the thing of erasing the entire computer and doing a USB install just go back to the previous.
But then like you said: “I don't feel like we own them.” I didn't trust Apple to not keep making it worse.
So I switched. Got a Linux desktop, and a Framework laptop. Sooooo nice!! Snappy-fast Linux just the way I want it.
While I was at it, got my first Android phone and installed GrapheneOS on Google Pixel. Sooooo nice! So quiet, doing only what I want.
Even got my first Android tablet to replace the iPad. (OnePlus Pad 3.) It's great too. I'm loving the whole Android ecosystem, when made nerdy like Linux.
So yeah I'm 100% off Apple now and will never go back.
I am currently all-in on the Apple ecosystem and have been for almost 13 years now. But quality of life in Apple land has steadily been getting worse, so I have been considering making the sort of change you describe, but not quite ready to make that leap yet. What would you say was the hardest part of the transition for you?
I’m firmly anti-Tahoe and haven’t updated, and I’ve started to find Apple despicable. But…
Anyone saying they had no trouble migrating away is either lying or delusional.
Just off the top of my head: external accessory issues when Linux wakes up from sleep; trackpad quality; battery life; full-disk encryption is still spotty if you, for example, want to use ZFS; boot-level security can be a nightmare to setup (although Evil Maids aren’t a concern for me); systemd things that don’t work and don’t report they’re not working; inconsistent shortcuts for basic things.
Man, I like the ideals behind BSD and Linux, but we gotta stop pretending that basic UX stuff is done and fixed, when we know perfectly well that it’s been broken for a decade (running Linux servers or desktop-on-the-side since 2015).
I don't remember ever having external accessory issues, I don't use a track pad, battery life is fine (although I will admit macs seem to do better) and the ZFS one is just odd. Literally first time I hear this because while it sure would be nice... everyone uses btrfs or xfs or even ext4 with FDE without any problems for the last.. 15 years? Just one FS apparently has some issues?
Maybe your definition of broken is just as subjective as mine (aka I don't remember ever seeing window management so bad as OSX since fvwm)
ZFS got me into a weird race condition with systemd trying to unlock different filesystems that it couldn’t find because the root system itself wasn’t ready. ZFS-on-root is itself not really recommended, but you work around that.
Might as well give a recommendation then: I've been using hashcards [0] for a few weeks now and have enjoyed its simplicity and the fact that it all stays forever in raw markdown files and versioned git. A simple justfile has also been helpful.
The voice recognition is built on Whisper, and is amazing. You can speak conversationally for a long time and it gets everything right, with smart decisions based on context.
My stupid thumbs text no more.
reply