Highly integrated OS with strict UI and API guidelines aiming for a consistent and highly optimized user experience and...

Which paradigm is overall better for the end-user? What can the FOSS community learn from looking at these two main design paradigms?

Attached: macOS-High-Sierra.jpg (1915x1030 959.69 KB, 991.92K)

it literally stems from these two

Terrible analogy tbh. vim is more UNIX philosophy and Emacs is more GNU philosophy

They already learned. 1. Keep the OS so open ended that nobody can develop for it because of compatibility insanity and 2. Solve this awful mistake by putting everything in the browser.
It's the best of both worlds. All you need is a browser OS on your OS and you can have cross-platform support with a common UI. Personally I don't see the point in developing a desktop GUI application ever again.

Use KDE and have both.

Make a solid OS that comes in a complete package with all edges polished and balanced for all kinds of different users, and then let the user and developers do whatever the fuck they want with it. That's the ideal OS.

Attached: 2828cc6ea5d123262a9645f1d58e7159aa4f8624863e86e895b39b207b0bc307.jpg (635x353, 27.02K)

Depends on what are you thinking about.
The first approach leads to a consistent environment, but if an user doesn't like something, they can't change it - for example OSX is a very consistent OS, but that's just because there's an authority - Apple says what's acceptable in the system and what's not, I would like to use i3-wm instead of Aqua, but I can't. It's clearly a better situation for developers of applications than for end-user, because they don't have to care about concurrent solutions.
for users:
- consistent environment, everything works in similar matter
- making less choices is a good thing for some people
for developers:
- it is easier to develop applications for a consistent environment
- less platforms to handle
for users
- the user is forced to use solution provided by the authority, no way to change something if you don't like something
- solutions provided by the authority are not necessarily chosen because of the quality - this kills innovation
for developers
- you have adapt to whatever the authority forces you to, to be able to develop applications

The second approach is in my opinion better for end-user, but it breaks apart the system and community into many pieces. On GNU/Linux there are many concurrent DEs, WMs, GUIs, programs doing the same thing, system tools and there are also many distributions alone.
for users:
- with this paradigm the user decides what they want - it gives very high level of personalization
- the thing that decides what's the part of the system isn't the authority, but it's more likely the quality. If something is good, people use it, if not they don't.
for developers:
- they have freedom to pick whatever solution they want
for users
- the environment is often inconsistent - different programs use different GUI toolkits, or work poorly with different WMs. This make it harder to work with the system.
- it is harder to pick the right option, because there are a lot of them.
for developers
- it's hard to pick the right target - for example you have to maintain many GUIs for your program or pick just one.
- many packages to maintain - there are way to many poorly designed ways of packaging software and you can't use them all.

There are tiling WMs for macOS.

And they suck. I’ve tried them.

Have you ever tried macOS? Haven't seen a single faggot at my workplace whose MacBook wasn't constantly hitting the temperatures of The Sun.

Maybe that will change when (if the rumors are true) Apple finally moves the Mac to their own ARM-based chips.

For ARM to reach the IPC of x86-64 it will need identical TDP. There is no thermal advantages. That's why most ARM chips are underpowered phone chips. That's the market niche they were designed for. Apple aleady has portable machines with ARM processors, why the fuck would they compete with themselves? They might as well port full-on MacOS to the iPad. Sick of this level of ignorance and disinfo. It's almost shocking there are people this dumb on here

Attached: percy.png (294x256, 197.38K)

I do not believe this is logical. The relationship between Macs and iPads would not change. It is not the architecture, but the form factor, that makes them different kinds of machines.

You are the enemy of Gnome Foundation, why do you hate women?

I don't think you understand the primary benefit of dictating to 3rd-parties how things are "supposed" to work. It isn't that your chosen way is necessarily better though old Apple's absolutely was better than any other platform before or since, nor that customizability is confusing to users the old Mac System's greater tolerance of optional 3rd-party customization (and 3rd-party software in general) was definitely a major advantage over OSuX/iOS's harsher rigidity.

Rather, the primary advantage of having exhaustive official guidelines for default behavior is that if everything works the same out of the box, it is inherently easier to use immediately without prior experience, discover the function of independently, learn through instruction, remember the behavior of later, and master.

That is, if you know how to use anything complying with a HIG, anything else compliant is intuitive.

Attached: AMHIG.jpg (807x1024, 165.17K)

It's qualcom-shit you super massive faggot.

Apple has been designing their own mobile chips for years, idiot.

Palm. Arguably BeOS. Where the fuck is my Palm flag? This will have to do.

t. no poofs faggot

That's true, but they're mostly just lashing together premade drop-in SIP cores licensed from other companies.

I despised the PalmPilot, it took what was almost literally identical hardware to a Mac SE or Quadra, and made it feel like some crippled child's toy. Even speaking as a colossal Applefag, Palm OS's problems all came from the boneheaded design of the Newton, which likewise hobbled PowerMac 6xxx class hardware. Other platforms, like Psion/EPOC/Symbian and Windows CE, brought something much closer to the full power of a PC OS to mobile hardware.
BeOS seemed very cool, but too few applications were specifically written for it to fully express the intended character of its design, and Haiku is having identity problems caused by too many lazy *N*X ports.

Apple hasn't done that since the A4 SoC IIRC. The A5-A6 used a semi-custom CPU, the A7-A8 used a fully original CPU core, the A8x used a semi-custom GPU and fully original CPU, and everything after is basically fully in-house CPU and GPU cores. Apple doesn't license cores from anybody anymore, it's part of their profit strategy.