Ever noticed how they always bring up the threat model discussion whenever someone asks for or provides a serious privacy and anonimity advice and they try to persuade us to lower our expectations and use less private tools, but never the other way around?
I have yet to see a single thread where someone with a low threat model is told that their threat model doesn't make sense and that they should try to put some effort into avoiding NSA/feds/actual adversaries and not just "surveillance capitalism".
This is a psyop to make us stop caring about avoiding actual surveillance.
Stop threat modeling. Always try to achieve the best possible privacy and anonimity.
Other than trying out the MacOS for the first time to learn how bad it is, why would anyone make a hackintosh? Windows and Linux are infinitely better operating systems, more open, with better backwards compatibility, more hardware support, independence from vendor servers and more available software.
A reminder that with MacOS you need internet connection in order to re-install the OS as it requires activation just like iPads and iPhones. Imagine one day Apple stops supporting your Macbook model, shuts down its activation server and your computer turns into brick after something goes wrong and it requires a factory reset.
One thing to consider is that a lot of what some consider “bad” about macOS is purely subjective and varies depending on the user’s background and mental models. It’s not uncommon for people who grew up on Macs to find operating systems with Windows-esque desktop environments as “bad” as some find macOS.
macOS installs don’t require an internet connection or activation, I’m not sure where that came from. Macs registered with iCloud can be remotely bricked with Find My but that’s completely separate and fully optional.
Yes, Tim Cook could flip a switch and my mac would become activation locked. Considering that Windows 11 has been working really hard to sneak remote attestation below our noses (and other stuff), I think it's safe to cross out Windows as well.
As long as Microsoft wants to keep Windows compatible with user-controllable hardware (like computers that let you disable secure boot and TPM or enroll custom keys), there should always be a way to debloat Windows.
Microsoft doesn't care that much about user-controllable hardware, not as much as they used to. Their partnerships with OEMs have grown very deep and they managed to push Pluton for any device that wants to be certified for W11. They could go a few steps past this in a few short years.
True, Windows will never be as locked down as macOS that only runs on Apple designed custom ARM hardware. I guess my skepticism comes from my expectation that my Windows computer should be able to run games (unlike my macbook which holds personal data and work), and remote attestation is going to be used first in anticheats.
I used to love macOS in the 2000s and 2010s. I never made a Hackintosh but I was always intrigued by them. Before WSL was introduced, the Mac was the best platform for people who needed to use proprietary software packages such as Microsoft Office and the Adobe Creative Suite while running Unix. There was (and still is) a lot of native software on the Mac that is well-polished, such as OmniGraffle and Keynote.
Times have changed, though. While macOS still provides a more consistent user experience, IMO, than Windows or Linux, Windows with WSL means I can run Microsoft Office and other proprietary apps alongside a seamlessly integrated Linux environment without needing to SSH into a VM. The popularity of Electron apps undercuts the Mac’s consistency while also making Linux a more viable option since Linux can run the same Electron apps macOS and Windows do. Microsoft Office is now available as a Web app via Microsoft 365; while I prefer the macOS and Windows versions to the in-browser version, the in-browser version gives Linux users access to Office. I also believe macOS’s Unix environment has not kept up with advances made in the BSD and Linux world. Windows can be quite annoying with its notifications, but unfortunately the Mac in recent years also has annoying notifications; I know this because I use a work-issued MacBook Pro regularly.
In my opinion, the most compelling reason for a Hackintosh in 2024 is for Intel Mac users reliant on Mac software tools to still use them without being restricted to Apple’s hardware. The 2019 Mac Pro is still very expensive, and Apple’s ARM lineup requires paying substantial sums of money for RAM upgrades with no workaround since there are no DIMMs.
Even if you try to install it using a flash drive, it still asks you to connect to the internet to "verify" the installation.
https://sneak.berlin/20201204/on-trusting-macintosh-hardware... explains how it's ensured on the firmware level that you really connect with Apple servers.
I see your points, but I don't want to make compromises for my daily work based on a scenario that's unlikely to ever occur. If the apocalypse comes, I'll gladly use Ubuntu, but in the meantime I'm ok with not reinstalling my OS when I'm somewhere without internet.
Hardware support, sure. Backwards compatibility is a double edged sword though. While it's awesome to have it's also the reason why parts of Windows feel so dated and inconsistent.
> While it's awesome to have it's also the reason why parts of Windows feel so dated and inconsistent.
I'm not convinced.
What Windows could do is make the old components available for old software, while directing all new software to use new components. Old software will feel dated and inconsistent, but the alternative is that this software would not work at all. If you don't install old software, you'll still have a perfectly seamless experience.
I understand that backwards compatibility is the reason Windows still has two control panels. However, if it was up to me, the legacy control panel would be completely hidden from the UI until the user installs some software that uses a custom control pane (or something).
I mostly don't understand why this hasn't happened.
Web Integrity failed so now they are trying to lock down the internet by refusing authentication to anyone not using "trusted" passkey implementation (eventually the only trusted implementation will be TPM with unmodified Windows/MacOS/Chrome OS/Android/iOS).
I wouldn't say they are completely made up, you could probably meet some people with such views but I'd say they're a small majority. But yeah, you don't tell your girlfriend she had an affair with her boss unless you're total jerk, so I'd say the author of the article used these figurative examples trying to demonstrate different outlooks without caring for realism that much.
There's no reason to update a program once it's feature complete if it works offline. Apple is pushing harmful updoot ideology that kills old (but perfectly usable) programs.
This is maybe true for software that can never conceivably interact with the outside world (can’t open files, isn’t scriptable, etc) but at least on Windows and macOS where shipping static binaries or necessary libraries with the software is the norm, vulnerabilities pile up pretty quickly these days making it a bad idea to regularly use or in some cases even have installed software past a certain age. For these programs it’s better to just run them in a VM where compatibility can be perfect by running an old OS and the size of the potential crater resulting from an exploit is minimized.
It’s a bit of a different situation under Linux where the norm is dynamically linked libraries kept up to date with a package manager, but even there static binaries and things like flatpaks and app images can be bad news.
