I second that. Sure, you could get productive on Windows and Linux, but they're definitely not low maintainence. Plus, you could always install Windows using BootCamp or VMWare Fusion.
I second that. Sure, you could get productive on Windows and Linux, but they're definitely not low maintainence [sic].
Nor are Macs. Every piece of software needs to be updated manually, as there is no system-wide update manager. If you want to install UNIX software (like C libraries that your language needs to bind to), you will need to install some sort of ports system, and maintain that. (When I used a Mac a few years ago, none of the ports systems all had the latest versions of packages I needed, so I had more than one installed. This was a fucking nightmare to maintain.)
Anyway, this (along with Apple's evil-ness) is what killed OS X for me. Yeah, it's really pretty, but it is too hard to maintain. Debian is much better. It is never missing anything I need, and full-system updates are just an apt-get away.
For programming, nothing beats a good UNIX system, as long as you are willing to learn how to use it properly.
When I used a Mac a few years ago, none of the ports systems all had the latest versions of packages I needed, so I had more than one installed. This was a fucking nightmare to maintain.
macports is pretty much dead simple to deal with. And if you want to install something straight from source on OS X it is often no more difficult as it is on linux. My servers are all debian and ubuntu and it's basically painless using them side by side with OS X all day. Plus, with OS X you can have most linux desktop apps + any OS X apps. Even so, OS X is definitely not necessary if someone spends all of his or her time in the shell, and if that's the case linux would be a better choice.
When I used a Mac a few years ago, none of the ports systems all had the latest versions of packages I needed
Things change. Hackers have been migrating to the Mac en masse. So MacPorts has gotten better and better.
Two or three years ago I went through the pain of installing Ruby/Rails, MySQL, Apache, and git from source -- that was the popular choice at the time, because MacPorts was just not up to date. But MacPorts now has current versions of ruby, mysql, git, and apache, so it's time to switch back.
Yeah, it's probably not as good as apt-get. On the other hand, on the Mac I have Mac software, which more than makes up for it. And if I'm ever nostalgic for apt-get a Linux virtual machine is not far away.
I'd argue there is really no such thing as a low maintenance developer system. Any good developer will need to customize their environment alot to be as productive as possible, and this means different things for different developers. Personally I choose linux because I like the development tools available there best and find it easiest to make any changes I need. That said though, OSX and Windows are perfectly legitimate choices for different people. From what I've seen though, OSX is no more low maintenance for your average developer's "requirements" than anything else.
For web development though I'd say osx or linux. I just havent seen sort of tools on windows to justify putting up with it unless you're focused on microsoft technologies (or a hopelessly entrenched windows user).
You say upgrading every 6 months is low maintainence? Not to mention having new versions of everything pushed to you every week. Sorry, but I just don't have the bandwidth for that kind of thing.
If you had said Debian, I would have agreed, but Ubuntu is just a pain to maintain.
I use PCLinuxOS on my PC. So far, I don't have any qualms. Simple, easy to use and new releases come out when the developers feel the time is right.
There are the versions that are supported for 4 years. Boradband internet is good if you are running Ubuntu, that is true, but the actual effort of updating is not so bad (you could also automate it).
I have not yet run updates on my MacPort installation, but I would expect similar updates to Ubtuntu, except taking much longer (as MacPorts seems to compile everything on my Notebook, rather than downloading binaries). Or what do you mean by "everything"?
I don't know how the project is organized internally, but as a user it seems to me that the Ubuntu guys have no fixed schedule for pushing new updates. I will have updates to a few libs in the morning, then another, much larger update in the evening, followed by another small update next morning. If I don't install the updates, they pile up over time. These days, if I ever end up using Ubuntu, I never update anything unless it's something I need (eg, new version of Python, Emacs etc.).
I don't want new software as soon as it is released. I can do without bleeding edge software. I just want a safe, stable distro.
I think the updates are all security updates, which I personally want to get as soon as possible. It's true that a lot of times it seems like software I don't need, but who can tell in today's complex software environments? Maybe some other program I need relies on the program that I don't seem to need.
It's actually one thing that might speak against Ubuntu that for every release they freeze the version of the software version. At least that is my understanding. It is of course possible to install newer versions, but it would be more complicated than just using the package manager.
Another thing that just came to mind: if updates at random times bother you, I am sure you can configure the updater program to only check for updates once a week or something like that.
FWIW, Apple also pushes out hundreds of megabytes of updates I don't even need. At least the apt-based Linux distributions only try to update packages you have.
I wrote a blog entry on this. although it's from a hobbyists's perspective: http://blog.uncool.in/2009/03/10/thoughts-on-using-a-mac-as-...