Slashdot Mirror
Windows 10 the Last Version of Windows? Not So Fast.
A multitude of tech sites are breathlessly reporting that Windows 10 will be the last version of Windows. These claims are based on a brief comment from developer evangelist Jerry Nixon while speaking a Microsoft Ignite session on "Tiles, Notifications, and Action Center." However, as Paul Thurrott points out, you probably shouldn't take this news too seriously. Windows development has been changing for the past several years. At the very least, we've known since we learned Windows 8 would be developed for multiple form factors. We've known it specifically about Windows 10 since it was announced — Microsoft has talked about transitioning away from giant, monolithic updates. Thurrott says,
The reason anyone is talking like this is that Microsoft is pushing a "Windows as a service" vision, which doesn't mean "subscription service" but rather that it plans to upgrade Windows 10 going forward with both functional and security updates, plus of course bug fixes. You know, just like it's done with every single version of Windows. Ever. ... In other words, nothing to see here. Beyond the usual: things change. If it makes sense to keep updating Windows 10 and not change the brand or version number, Microsoft will do that. If it makes sense to release something called Windows 10 R2, Windows 11, or Windows Yoghurt — seriously, who cares? — then they'll do that.
It's not about how it's labeled, it's about the level of difficulty getting from one to the next.
They'll just do what Apple did, like Windows 10.4 Tiger, Windows 10.5 Leopard, Windows 10.6 Snow Leopard, etc.
Responsible software should have a released branch that has only bug fixes, and then other versions for new features. Otherwise, how the fark can one use your software for certified products? How can someone do a risk analysis on something as a platform, when it might change daily? Feature changes should not be casually thrown in. Yes, mozilla stupidly did this - but most software does not, and should not. Fortunately in the case of Firefox, it's not used as a /platform/, it's used as a client, so as long as the previous features still work the same it's not as big of a deal. Something as core as the OS itself though? Do you really want device manufacturers to stop using your product? Yes we get it - hire the cheapest (h1b) workers you can, and reduce down to having a single branch - since what made you a massive company seems to not be something you want to do anymore, and you'd prefer to act like a tiny hole in the wall shop.
It turns out that the talks about ditching Patch Tuesday were just some speculation as well. It could live on.
"Did Bigfoot and Nessie's lovechild (Nessfoot?) post nude selfies on Instagram?! Find out at 11!"
@11: "No, none of that happened. Just another Kardashian sighting. Still,...News!"
Who cares? The problem with all of this is Microsoft seems to be saying "we reserve the right to drastically change your computer as we see fit, and if it breaks that will be your problem".
And, I'm sorry, but both for the computers I maintain at work, and my personal machine ... they're not the property of Microsoft. They're used for stuff that we need to maintain, and we'll decide what version we run and when/how we upgrade the system.
If Microsoft thinks they're going to do anything but piss of the world by suddenly deploying mandatory updates of what their vision of the future is, or by dropping functionality, or deciding we should all have new GUIS ... they can piss off.
Microsoft seems to be angling towards them being able to inform us what we're running, how it looks, and when that gets deployed.
And I'm sorry, Microsoft, but we neither trust your competence nor your motivations in this regard.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Windows 2: The Search for More Money. Whatever they decide to call it, that one will still be the most accurate.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Version 8 and above are empty vessels for Microsoft's beyond-the-desktop ambitions.
Looks to me like they realized a few things:
1) Practically NOBODY upgraded Windows on their machines, they simply got a new computer that had the latest version of Windows on it when their old machine got too slow, died, or was no longer shiny enough.
2) Circa Vista and Windows 8 it became clear that people were actually going with older OS's on new machines rather than adopting MS's vision of how they should use their computer, and still never upgraded. MS was pretty powerless against this. Even their attempt to push touch by tying it to Windows 8 on laptops backfired and people would rather take Windows 7 on a laptop to avoid a touch based laptop with Windows 8 on it.
So MS is loosing almost no revenue by keeping you up to date, but they get to push whatever new "vision" they have on us at almost any time. So we can get Vista'ed, lose the Start menu, get tiled, Clippy'ed, or Ribbon'ed any time they decide to "improve" our lives.
Thats why you have a package manager and you can do pinning and dependency management.
This has been in the linux world for about 20 years. Take a look at the various rolling Linux distributions.
Not saying WIndows will do it like this but the problem has already been solved.
After all, Microsoft has been working on Windows for 30+ years. By now it must be as good as it gets. A "Perfect 10", so to speak. All problems fixed, all security issues resolved, time to move on to bigger and better things.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
Everything after Win2K was Ballmer, including both Windows Me and Windows XP.
I'm just plain yogurt.
... Long live the version number. We saw it with Windows 95/98, XP and Vista, despite the names they still had nice conventional version numbers just like earlier versions. You just had to know where to look for them. MS may remove visible version numbers from Windows, but they'll still keep adding functionality and making backwards-incompatible changes which means software will still need some way of telling whether the system it's installed/running on supports the functionality it needs. Application developers being too lazy to write the large chunks of code needed to probe every single API they want to use and test for which specific variation is present, and the Windows team not having the time/resources let alone the inclination to go back and retrofit everything in Windows with individual version numbers or feature/variant flags, that means a version number that can be incremented to indicate the point at which a particular API or variation became available that app devs can easily test. And of course corporations are going to demand some way to make sure that the Windows 10 machines they buy in 2017 will run the Windows 10 image from 2016 and that the 2017 "written for Windows 10" software will actually run on machines using that image.
Android (well Google) and Apple both pissed off their customers by breaking all their software with every single frequent update. Windows is the only product that hasn't technically done that since the OSes are too few and far between. Maybe they should look at fragmentation and compatibility disasters at their competitors and NOT DO THE EXACT SAME THING!!!
MS is doing exactly that with Windows 10, there will be the slow release branch that will be mostly security fixes, with infrequent but pre-announced feature changes (kind of the service pack model but more modern), and the fast release branch which will be more disruptive but will do things like keep Edge more up to date with emerging standards.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Responsible software should have a released branch that has only bug fixes, and then other versions for new features. Otherwise, how the fark can one use your software for certified products? How can someone do a risk analysis on something as a platform, when it might change daily? Feature changes should not be casually thrown in. Yes, mozilla stupidly did this - but most software does not, and should not. [...].
Maybe "did," but they don't anymore and haven't since 2012, which is shortly after they switched to the stupid Chrome-esque release model. They have an "ESR" (extended support release) branch intended for the enterprise but usable by anyone who only wants important fixes without big changes for a relatively long period of time--though in the world of Web browsers right now, I guess that only means a year.
R.Mo
Call me when they've implemented systemd.
What version?
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Lone Starr: Who hasn't heard of Yogurt!
Princess Vespa: Yogurt the Wise!
Dot Matrix: Yogurt the All-Powerful!
Barf: Yogurt the Magnificent!
Yogurt: Please, please, don't make a fuss. I'm just plain Yogurt.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
I became a Microsoft Insider, you know to beta test Win10, but just couldn't agree to their ToS. I know if your also a Microsoft Insider you've read the ToS; I just couldn't allow MS to access my mic, webcam or just browse my system whenever they wanted; I only went as far as downloading it.
3.1, 95, 98, me, (2000), XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, 10.... who the heck taught Microsoft product managers how to count?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50