Comment by embedding-shape | Hacker News Reader

Comment by embedding-shape | Hacker News Reader

embedding-shape

> "people often want a system that's under their control, isolated from their primary machine, and capable of running 24 hours a day, seven days a week," said Brooks. "A Mac mini is an amazing system for that," he added.

These execs are so out of touch they believe Apple hardware to be "a system that's under their control", how does it come to this? Besides, a VM without bi-directional sharing of data gives you pretty much the exact same thing.

Did hundreds/thousands of developers really go out there and bought Mac Minis just because one prominent technology semi-celebrity happens to have used a Mac Mini for the development of their thing? Seems bananas people would spend hundreds on monies on something they barely grasp how it works.

The remote access story for macOS is absolute sadness, without Jump Desktop there would be zero performant ways to access that “system under my control”.

And all of that because Tim Apple fears any feature that could mean people could have less than one iDevice per person.

I'm curious what you mean. I have been accessing Macs remotely over SSH and VNC for like 20 years and it's always been easy and as performant as the network would allow.

The built in high rez screen sharing between Macs works well too. Through Tailscale I’ve accessed my main Mac from both the opposite coast of the US and from the other side of the Pacific and it works great.

Host resolution automatically matches that of client, image quality is great, framerate is decent, latency is minimal. The host creates virtual screens for the connection so connected screens don’t light up and the machine remains locked to anybody accessing it physically too, which is a nice privacy assurance.

Thanks, I'll revisit that - it definitely wasn't working like this when I needed this 10+ years ago.

I think tech people spend hundreds on tech because it’s fun.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com