OSNews

Let's examine your closing statements:

"As long as the OS makes it easier to write misbehaving code than to write well-working code, something is wrong with the OS itself and the blame cannot be passed on to the application developers."

Not only did you not attempt to prove the assertion (that it's "easier" to write misbehaving code in OS X), but you just to a conclusion that just isn't supported in any way.

It's almost always "easier" for developers to leave things alone, or change as little as possible, than it is to write "new" code, regardless of the elegance or ease of that new code. For instance, Adobe has large, cross-platform applications which have traditionally "rolled their own" when it comes to memory, color, and font management, interface widgets, etc. They've shown remarkable reluctance to use OS X-specific features. If their apps are having problems that no one else's seem to, it would seem to be the problem of the developer(s) and no one else. Although Apple has continued to make it possible to write and run "non-standard" code, they can't be blamed for a developer not taking advantage of the good tools, APIs, and methodologies that they have also provided.

"Even worse, it doesn't matter which API is the cleanest, which programming language is the most advanced, or any of those abstract qualities."

You're just contradicting yourself here. If you're asserting that Apple *has* in fact provided a language/API/whatever that's more advanced than other alternatives, but developers still continue to use those other alternatives, then the blame falls back on the developer. Again.

"If a small OS (in terms of market share) like MacOS has API that doesn't look like what most developers are used to, something is wrong (again) with the OS itself."

This argument leaves Win32, and soon .NET, as the only viable APIs in the world. Those are "what most developers are used to".

I also find it ironic that an engineer from Be would deride *any* multi-user capabilities, considering BeOS's complete lack of same. Or leaving your background aside for a moment, that someone who is in any way, shape or form familiar with WinXP's multi-user capabilities could possibly find them inferior to OS X's. I'm constantly amazed at the number of Windows apps that don't play nicely with multiple users, and even the core design of XP which leaves little provision for segregation of users (no per-user application directories, etc.)

I'm not an Apple apologist, and OS X is far from perfect, but *objectively* [and fairly] evaluating/critiquing the company and its offerings isn't all that tough. You might want to try it.