Dell tax on options, I'd wager. If you look at the cost on everything that isn't the base, laptop manufacturers generally add an extra 100% on the retail price of these parts. 200% if you're Apple.
Not sure why you got down voted, Apple's single most insidious, egregious rip off? Memory.
To upgrade your iMac from base 8GB, 4x4 to 32GB is SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS.
Alternatively you can buy this aftermarket from Crucial, same timings, etc, for $139.98.
There is no earthly way that can possibly be justified - a four hundred and thirty per cent mark up on retail prices - even more when you consider the after market lets you keep the original 8GB, whereas your six hundred bucks at apple.com does not.
Not surprised to read in the comments they're a subsidiary of Online.net. Ever since they've introduced ultra-cheap dedicated boxes ten years ago, it seems everybody's been sub-renting either them or OVH. I wonder why there aren't more similar offers worldwide, at least in Europe (I can only think of Leaseweb, and they're data capped). The network backbone isn't much different in Britain, Holland or Germany. And the server units aren't really custom.
Serious question, never used a git GUI in my life, is there a practical point to it ? I just can't see myself doing it without zsh, my nested .dotfiles, fasd and so on. And worst case scenario, I can always git them back.
Believe or not, there are a number of cases where you can work faster in a GUI than the CLI: many operations on the topology of the repo for instance. See somes examples at http://gitup.co/.
If you want to visualize the topology of a nontrivial git history, It's several times better in a gui than as a tree drawn using slashes and pipes in a shell window. Compare a nice graphical tree with something you might get from "git log --graph --oneline --all" or a similar command. The shell window just isn't up to the task of drawing nice things, just like it doesn't show pictures very nicely by converting them to ascii.
If you want to see side-by side diffs that's also a lot better in a nice text editor than in a text window. Getting balloon tooltips when hovering commit hashes hidden in a gutter etc. allows more information to be fit onto the screen.
The reason you use a graphical UI is because a text ui doesn't fit all the information you want to show in a good way. Most git tools might not need show or draw a large amount of information (push/pull/commit/...) but some do (blame, log --graph for example).
Not everybody is as comfortable in the CLI as you are. I prefer graphical git "tree" views over the CLI-drawn, but other than maybe that, no, it doesn't sound like there would be a point to it for you.
The lead tech at one place I work at uses the commandline for his own commits, but a gui app (can't recall which one) for manipulating merges and pull requests, as it more reliably deals with issues in his experience.
To be completely honest, I also do it like this at the moment, using Kdiff as a merge tool. I've been thinking about moving over to Ediff, but I'm lazy.
I honestly have no idea why people would want to have to click buttons for this stuff.
The one exception in my case is 3-way merges. I handle those in Meld, which I find to be better suited than any of the integrated threesome tools in these git GUIs.
Even that I could probably do better in emacs if I set it up.
In my situation I use gitg to add changes by chunks or lines, I think that's much more faster than cli.
But gitg is hard to compile on Ubuntu lts if you want newer versions, I wonder if there is a good alternative?
I generally do that sort of thing(staging/destaging lines and chunks) in my editor. If I could shift the merge tool stuff into my editor quickly I would do that as well.
The reason is that it reduces context switching and difference between environments: sure, I could spend hours making the fonts, colours, and keybindings the same between the git gui and my editor; I could get really good at switching to the window; etc. But even a slightly worse version of it in the editor is going to be way less work.
At least, that's how I see it.
Also, I'm sure there must be a PPA or something for gitg on Ubuntu, if you really like the tool.
Odd you'd say that. Though I'm not a native English speaker, I found Spanish to be among the hardest languages I've come across (more so than Modern Greek or German), and I come from a French background with wide knowledge across all of the Romance board. I'd expect a English speaker to struggle even more than I did.
(The easiest language being English, due to exposure, extreme alienation by French a few centuries back and overall simplicity for the more casual ranges of speech.)
* Limited number of glyphs is a killer feature for the keyboard age
* No noun genders to remember
* The informal 2nd person ("thou") got chased out of common use centuries ago, along with its verb conjugations
* Reasonably forgiving sentence structure
Its too bad the spelling and pronunciation are such disasters.
At this point it's not economy, it's religion.