[luma]

Embedded in your response is the general attitude one hears when concerned about not being able to do "a thing" in the Apple ecosystem: why would you want to do that?

Questioning the use case and insisting that one doesn't actually _want_ to do a thing instead of allowing the user to control their own system is the quintessential Apple experience.

[qeternity]

You can still do this thing, you just do it a different way that doesn't fundamentally risk breaking the OS. I understand that there may be some non-zero sized group of people who absolutely want to screw with protected OS files, and even for this group of people you can go and disable SIP and mess with the OS all you want (one of the Macs I have is a hackintosh, which requires some decent modification).

However most people, including me, and I'd venture most engineers too, would rather have a hardened system.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> Embedded in your response is the general attitude one hears when concerned about not being able to do "a thing" in the Apple ecosystem: why would you want to do that?

Funny, that's a quote I hear a lot in Linux Desktop ecosystems as well. I think it is just the nature of people so accustomed to a certain way of thinking that any other use case that comes along is automatically considered to be doing it wrong.

[msla]

Linux doesn't have a single desktop ecosystem. Apple very much has One Apple Way.

If Linux is going to get attacked for not having a single GUI, it would be nice if it weren't also attacked for having a repressive GUI monoculture. /s