>Then began the hell of trying to do anything "unixy" on OSX. Custom libraries just for the mac (custom libev??), needing to install XCode Dev Tools to get gcc compiler(???). Sigh.
For the last year or so you don't need to install XCode to get Apple's gcc, there is a separate "Command Line Tools" ~120MB download with gcc and all that stuff.
Still, I don't see the "hell" even if you still HAD to install XCode to get gcc. My definition of hell doesn't include getting a nice IDE, with one click installation, and tons of tools and documentation in the process of getting my barebones C compiler.
>In the end I just ended up running a CentOS VM in virtualbox, and I do my development there.
Which is the smart thing to do, anyway. Get the dev environment to be like the deployment platform. Except for simple coding, why would anyone want to mess his basic system with webservers, databases, competing libraries and stuff, when he can have a clean base system and a multiple virtual development systems, with snapshots?
Even when I run Linux (with KDE) as my desktop, I still used a VMWare virtual machine for developing in.
>The ONLY benefit I currently gain from a Mac is creating iOS apps.
Well, maybe you don't need a Mac then. If you need any of the following though, you might get more from one:
1) Minimal fuss setup, including things like audio, 3D acceleration, video, sleep mode, printing, etc.
2) The ability to run MS Office, Adobe Creative Suite, AutoCAD and numerous other commercial products (and all Open Source stuff too).
3) The ability to edit your vacation video (or a full documentary) without tearing your hair out.
4) The ability to work with Pro Audio / MIDI / plugins, period.
Now, if all you do is browser, see mail, and edit some C, then why would you need a Mac for? Hell, if a Chromebook has an SSH client, you might not even need a Linux desktop for that.
I think stopping ALL crime is something that would be bad for the society in general.
If there was some control technology to stop all crime, or even just all instances of some particular crime, it would be bad for our freedom and for the society in general.
Consider drug laws. If they could enforce them 100%, we might not have junkies (though the same personalities would get into something similar, e.g drinking, or some obsessive behavior), but we would also wouldn't have thousands of works of art, and also quite a lot of inventions and tech, that were drug-inspired, from "Sgt Pepper's" (considered by most critics as the best pop record ever) to "The Doors of Perception". Not only that: nearly 1/3 of the population of the US or more would be in jail as occasional users, including most writers, CEOs, top execs and politicians that are not beyond snorting some coke.
It has nothing to do with sexism per se, and all to do with capitalism. If the bosses of any company can get away with paying ANY category of people less, they will. Including women bosses.
If they can take advantage of old societal notions of women's work value, to pay them less, they will too, despite giving or not giving a damn about those notions.
It's supported in places where a vector format is not (namely, older versions of IE that don't support SVG).
Plus, icons are easier to handle as a regular text/font asset, than as SVG, and you can use all the tools available for web typography for them.
That said, why we never had a simple vector _IMAGE_ format for the web is beyond me.
By which, I mean a simple format to display vector images at various sizes, a simple vector decoder, with no animation, javascript, styling and other stuff. A JPEG/PNG equivalent for static vector images.
That would be dead easy to add support for, compared to SVG (just treat as any other image format) and it would handle lots of use cases.