This change isn't a positive one, oh no. Quite the opposite
It's both, but I'd have been happier if they'd have adopted the Mozilla stack.
EdgeHTML is ultimately a fork of Trident, and the reality is that Microsoft is not good at producing secure software. They needed to get something this critical from outside. I'm not happy about a monoculture, but I'm even less happy about the monoculture operating system running an HTML/Javascript stack that ultimately will always be less secure than the alternatives.
I don't remember anyone complaining it was slow before Firefox 56, I mean, I'm sure someone did, but it felt in the same ballpark as Chrome et al. Browser makers touted speed, but "Man, Firefox is so slow, it took eleven more microseconds to render this Slashdot thread than Chrome did" was not a thing.
The problem with Firefox was, and to be honest still is, that it's a memory hog, and has been since Firefox 4 (that was when they switched to the current version numbering system and did the first superugly revamp of their UI.)
Mozilla's problem for the most part is they're not interested in fixing the real problems, instead they're mostly concerned with fixing the perceived marketing issues with the browser. That means getting rid of search boxes, which are highly popular with the existing base and a complete non-issue for new users, because Chrome doesn't have one, but not doing anything about bugs and memory usage.
I'm expecting them to fuck up the tabs and copy Chrome's "Just squish them until you can't tell them apart" approach soon.
Someone who understands why people use Firefox and what attracts people to it needs to be put in the charge of the project.
No, while they made it sound like it was, Edge started off with a fork of the IE11/Trident codebase which then underwent heavy refactoring, with a lot of removal of legacy code and rewrites to support modern standards. More information here.
I thought the problem with (American) soap operas, until recently perhaps (it's been a while since I saw one, but it was a decade or so when I first saw the term), was that they were produced on low budgets with cheap cameras that had a sizable amount of motion blur, washed out color, etc. (This was out of necessity, producers were making 45 minutes of TV every day, five days a week, all year around, for a relatively low daytime audience. Adding a few thousand dollars to the budget would result in a show becoming too expensive to make.
While it wasn't the original web browser, Mosaic was probably the web browser that did the most to popularize the web, with Netscape - which was a ground up rewrite by some of the original Mosaic team - taking that and pushing it even further forward.
In the early nineties, Spyglass licensed Mosaic, and implemented a much modified version called Spyglass Mosaic.
In 1994, Microsoft licensed Spyglass Mosaic, and the first version of IE was essentially a reskinned Spyglass Mosaic.
Since then, the code has been built upon multiple times. So IE11 still has some traces of Mosaic in it. Edge is a fork of IE11, so it's fair to assume that trace elements of Mosaic are in there too.
This is basically the end of that chapter of history. Chromium is based upon KHTML. Firefox never had any links beyond shared developers with Mosaic, both Netscape 1-4, and Netscape 6, were complete ground up rewrites.
"tolerated"??? Bullshit, nothing stopping those that want it from moving there.
House prices for the few places in the US with good transit are through the roof. There's a massive shortage of ToD in the US. The fact that, despite higher building costs, a three bedroom home with a large yard in the suburbs costs $200K, while a two bedroom apartment in a city costs 5-10x that should tell you both that you're wrong about there being "nothing stopping those who want it from moving there" and that the vast majority of people completely reject the accidentophile cartopia the elites have foisted on most of the country.
Can't speak for the OP, but I lived in a city and didn't drive. I now live in the (American) suburbs and drive. I HATE IT. It's an hour and a half of tedium every fucking day. It's not even as if there are "interesting days", if there's something new it's normally in the form of traffic being backed up for a mile or five because of anything from road works to an accident.
If there was a train stop within five miles, I'd take the train in, at least I'd be able to read or play games or just nap.
People here get very upset whenever I suggest that it might be a nice thing if cities weren't effectively banned in the US (they are, most states have draconian zoning laws that prevent high density development) and people might be given the option of living in places where public transport was a viable concept, but those people are the minority that think that staring at two white lines for hours a day, preventing yourself from being killed, is a normal thing to want to do. I get it, you like your penismobile and it's a great penis substitute for you. Stop fucking up the rest of the country because you want car driving to be mandatory so that nobody makes comments about BCSDs in reference to you.
I really think they couldn't have fucked up Hangouts, from its initial status as a Google+ project that was forced on users of their original XMPP system, to the inexplicable decision to deprecate and get rid of it, while simultaneously introducing other chat systems only to shut them down too. Who the hell would use a Google chat system right now? Once Hangouts is gone, I doubt many people will switch to a Google alternative.
Then after a few years they should announce that they plan to close those messaging services down within the next two.
Nobody will care because nobody in their right mind right now is going to use a Google messaging system ever again, so if they buy the systems you're proposing, there will be a mass exodus to Skype or Facebook messenger or something like that.
Well, kinda: it'll terminate immediately. It's comparing 0 to minus one (assuming that's a less than sign that's missing) on its first loop. 0 is not less than -1, so the loop will end.
(I'm struggling to understand the AC who replied to you, where's he or she getting the nine from? But regardless, he or she's wrong too)
It's good, but it suffered poor take up because it started out as a branch of Google+ which meant two things:
1. Nobody wanted to use it because that meant having to use Google+
2. Google decided to force it on everyone, removing the XMPP chat system in GMail, for example, and replacing it with Hangouts, which made people even more pissed off and made it harder to get acceptance. Whenever there was an alternative, ANY alternative, people would use it, even if it were Skype.
I'm disappointed it'll be turned off in two years. This should be a lesson to Google that turning off the "Do no evil" motto for a few years because FACEBOOK IS WINNING ARGH WE MUST DO SOMETHING is ultimately dumb and will destroy them.
...find a consumer electronics catalog (Sears will do) from the 1980s, and look at the color TVs. Let's just say that either those TVs had superb color and resolution, color and resolution that would put today's modern 4K TVs to shame, when taking pictures of hot air balloons and wind surfing sails, or the practice of showing a placeholder image has been part of the advertising since electronic screens were first invented.
And you can't blame them, there's no way to fairly represent a screen image via other media (in that case print, in this case as part of an ad, squished, stretched, and color adjusted, intended for viewing in a web browser), so why bother?
I don't think - maybe I'm wrong - but I'm pretty certain that nobody in their right mind looks at a photo on a webpage or print and thinks "That's typical of the quality I'd get from that camera shown next to it."
The 3GPP (the people responsible for GSM/UMTS/LTE) have said they don't plan to release a "standard" until March next year, the standard being slightly faster than the current generation of LTE. The standard will undergo continuous revisions then until it's ready to submit to the ITU as a true "5G" technology, which will be... 2020.
So Qualcomm are talking about of their rears. What's going to happen is that a beta of an unfinished technology will be present in some phones by Christmas 2019, which will not be appreciably better than anything out right now, and might even be worse given the whole "Your phone may find itself connected via "5G NR" and due to a bug in your phone, or the tower, which is likely because this involves brand new hardware and software that's not undergone significant field testing, your phone doesn't work properly.
Apparently this proof of concept is written in Javascript and targets Firefox. FTA:
For their academic paper, the research team says it successfully carried out a SplitSpectre attack against Intel Haswell and Skylake CPUs, and AMD Ryzen processors, via SpiderMonkey 52.7.4, Firefox's JavaScript engine.
The article also agrees with the person who was modded insightful:
Nonetheless, researchers said that existing Spectre mitigations would thwart the SplitSpectre attacks. This includes CPU microcode updates that CPU vendors have released over the past year, updates to popular code compilers to harden apps against Spectre-like attacks, and the browser-level modifications that browser vendors have shipped with post-January 2018 browser releases to make it infeasible to carry out web-based Spectre attacks.
The joke is they're going to where ChromeOS is thought to be, not where it is now. It was originally a "secure" OS that you couldn't install software on that wasn't NaCl or HTML5. Now you can install Android apps and can - albeit this is not production ready in my opinion - install arbitrary GNU/Linux applications (yeah, sudo apt-get install libreoffice works, add your own repos, compile your own applications, etc.)
(What it is good at right now, perhaps better at than Windows, is web development. Install VSCode and Atom in your Penguin container, and then install whatever web stacks you want in custom containers running whatever LXD compatible operating system you want. So all of a sudden there's interest in high end Chromebooks.)
So Windows is going to be locked down, while Chromebooks look, within the next year or two, to become general purpose computers you can do whatever you want with.
And I'd make a guess that Locked Down Windows will still be less secure than ChromeOS. Because the amount of work needed to add the level of sandboxing and integrity checking needed to make Windows as secure is going to be very, very, high.
(The other question though is "What's the point?" Who is going to want to use locked down Windows? Nobody uses it because they like Edge, or because they're easy to administer, we all use it because of the extensive software base and the implications that has in terms of everyone being able to swap files with one another. Without the ability to install arbitrary software, Windows becomes a difficult to maintain unreliable unstable insecure operating system with quirks everyone hates.)
BRT is way more than just a few dedicated lanes and some cross ticketing (the latter of which is not actually a requirement for BRT, if it were then BRT would be hard in countries that don't have a working commuter rail system or have more conventional mass transit systems.) If that's all that were needed, it'd be a spectacularly low bar as most big cities in Europe have bus lanes already.
BRT usually combines dedicated roads and median-separated lanes with light rail style stations, running a system similar to light rail but with rubber tires and no track.
While it probably has niches, it's not that great an idea, existing mostly because politicians hate trains. But adding bus lanes to a city does not mean it has "BRT", it just means the buses find it easier to get around the city. Those buses will continue to stop at normal bus stops. They just won't be part of the traffic.
We don't have 10 gigabits to the home, and frankly it's going to be hard to process 6 gigabits of data (yes, your MPEG decoder may output that, but that's application specific hardware and buses, not general purpose Ethernet going to general purpose CPUs.)
Seems a little over the top to refuse to use something that reduces bandwidth by well over 99% for something that most people will find impossible to perceive.
No, not that, that's not a real IP address, I'm talking about its real, routable IP address?
It doesn't have one does it? Your router has one, but your computer is 10.x.x.x or 192.168.x.x, right? And those are NOT routable IP addresses. Every time you make a connection to a computer that isn't on your Ethernet network, you're having to use multiple proxies, and you've (together with everyone else) given up completely on nearly all protocols that require incoming connections, with most requiring hacks and/or proxies to work.
Your computer doesn't have an IP address because there aren't enough IP addresses and haven't been since the mid-1990s. So what you're saying is "impending" actually happened a long time ago.
It's not FUD, and it is holding the Internet back.
IP addresses are intended to be routable. And that's the problem, those who claim we're not running out of IP addresses forget that, in practice, we haven't had enough IP addresses since the mid 1990s. Almost all devices end up having to use virtual IP addresses like those in the 10.x and 192.168.x ranges.
I don't trust them. Windows 10, a Nadella initiative, caused a lot of headaches by:
1. Not actually being an improvement over 8.1 on certain hardware (it's a terrible tablet OS when 8.1 was the best tablet OS at that time)
2. Being constantly advertised over and over again on Windows 7-8.x users desktops to the point that many people were clicking on it and accidentally installing it.
3. Going from a relatively stable set of OSes to operating systems that force a reboot roughly once a week, due to incompetence on Microsoft's part.
4. Incorporating privacy destroying features that simultaneously eat up CPU and cause a terrible user experience for users. Why is it again that I can't do a traditional search, I have to use Cortana?
Meanwhile, the privacy issues aren't the only problem with what Microsoft are doing, they're also apparently keen on trying to monopolize the browser market again, with attempts to force users to use Edge for everything.
They've added some nice features to Windows 10 (love the Linux mode), but to make it stable I have to, ironically (and dangerously) disable Windows Update. I don't know what data my Windows PC is sharing with third parties. I'm being encouraged to use insecure software like Edge over better alternatives like Firefox.
For me to trust Microsoft I need three things:
1. A commitment to making stable, secure, software. It doesn't matter to me why my computer crashes once a week, I don't want it to do that.
2. A commitment to privacy that starts with not sharing data it shouldn't in the first place.
3. A commitment to recognizing that third parties can and do develop software that's more suited to many end user's needs than Microsoft's, and an end to overriding their choices and otherwise trying to force end users to only use Microsoft applications.
And those commitments need to be backed by their behavior.
Perhaps they can start by postponing the next major update of Windows for six months, and in it stripping out telemetry, and rebuilding Windows Update so it doesn't force reboots and for the most part doesn't need them.
The Windows kernel is the only truly great part of Windows. It's always been the "userland" part, which defines where everything is and what tools run where, that sucked. Microsoft switching to a Linux kernel wouldn't help anyone.
I'm non Vegan, and I'd be hypocritical if I said I was overly concerned about Animal welfare (if so, why not already be one? And why do I buy the cheapest eggs? etc), but...
...there are multiple good reasons for coming up with a manufactured "beef" steak. Aside from potential efficiencies if mass produced (cattle farming isn't), there's also the ability to make cuts of meat that do not exist in nature - filets with the full flavor of a strip steak, for example. You can basically make something with a custom texture and flavor, and forego strips of fat and other aspects of the real thing that do not add to the joy of eating a good steak.
So, if they've got this right, or even if it's just early days, my hat off to them.
Slashdot Mirror
It's both, but I'd have been happier if they'd have adopted the Mozilla stack.
EdgeHTML is ultimately a fork of Trident, and the reality is that Microsoft is not good at producing secure software. They needed to get something this critical from outside. I'm not happy about a monoculture, but I'm even less happy about the monoculture operating system running an HTML/Javascript stack that ultimately will always be less secure than the alternatives.
I don't remember anyone complaining it was slow before Firefox 56, I mean, I'm sure someone did, but it felt in the same ballpark as Chrome et al. Browser makers touted speed, but "Man, Firefox is so slow, it took eleven more microseconds to render this Slashdot thread than Chrome did" was not a thing.
The problem with Firefox was, and to be honest still is, that it's a memory hog, and has been since Firefox 4 (that was when they switched to the current version numbering system and did the first superugly revamp of their UI.)
Mozilla's problem for the most part is they're not interested in fixing the real problems, instead they're mostly concerned with fixing the perceived marketing issues with the browser. That means getting rid of search boxes, which are highly popular with the existing base and a complete non-issue for new users, because Chrome doesn't have one, but not doing anything about bugs and memory usage.
I'm expecting them to fuck up the tabs and copy Chrome's "Just squish them until you can't tell them apart" approach soon.
Someone who understands why people use Firefox and what attracts people to it needs to be put in the charge of the project.
You're saying there's a developer mode that allows you to install whatever operating system you want?
No, while they made it sound like it was, Edge started off with a fork of the IE11/Trident codebase which then underwent heavy refactoring, with a lot of removal of legacy code and rewrites to support modern standards. More information here.
I thought the problem with (American) soap operas, until recently perhaps (it's been a while since I saw one, but it was a decade or so when I first saw the term), was that they were produced on low budgets with cheap cameras that had a sizable amount of motion blur, washed out color, etc. (This was out of necessity, producers were making 45 minutes of TV every day, five days a week, all year around, for a relatively low daytime audience. Adding a few thousand dollars to the budget would result in a show becoming too expensive to make.
Think As The World Turns, not Eastenders.
While it wasn't the original web browser, Mosaic was probably the web browser that did the most to popularize the web, with Netscape - which was a ground up rewrite by some of the original Mosaic team - taking that and pushing it even further forward.
In the early nineties, Spyglass licensed Mosaic, and implemented a much modified version called Spyglass Mosaic.
In 1994, Microsoft licensed Spyglass Mosaic, and the first version of IE was essentially a reskinned Spyglass Mosaic.
Since then, the code has been built upon multiple times. So IE11 still has some traces of Mosaic in it. Edge is a fork of IE11, so it's fair to assume that trace elements of Mosaic are in there too.
This is basically the end of that chapter of history. Chromium is based upon KHTML. Firefox never had any links beyond shared developers with Mosaic, both Netscape 1-4, and Netscape 6, were complete ground up rewrites.
KDE Konqueror.
KHTML (Konqueror) was first. Apple forked that to make Webkit. Google initially used Webkit and then forked Webkit to make Blink.
Blink powers Chrome/Chromium, Opera, and the future versions of Edge. It's based upon Webkit.
Webkit powers Safari. It's based on KHTML.
KHTML powers Konqueror. It's something the KDE team hacked together from chewing gum, old razor blades, and discarded coffee grinds.
Discarded coffee grinds powers Mr Coffee. They're based on coffee beans.
You see where this is going.
This is an official announcement, the previous story was a (well sourced presumably) rumor.
House prices for the few places in the US with good transit are through the roof. There's a massive shortage of ToD in the US. The fact that, despite higher building costs, a three bedroom home with a large yard in the suburbs costs $200K, while a two bedroom apartment in a city costs 5-10x that should tell you both that you're wrong about there being "nothing stopping those who want it from moving there" and that the vast majority of people completely reject the accidentophile cartopia the elites have foisted on most of the country.
Can't speak for the OP, but I lived in a city and didn't drive. I now live in the (American) suburbs and drive. I HATE IT. It's an hour and a half of tedium every fucking day. It's not even as if there are "interesting days", if there's something new it's normally in the form of traffic being backed up for a mile or five because of anything from road works to an accident.
If there was a train stop within five miles, I'd take the train in, at least I'd be able to read or play games or just nap.
People here get very upset whenever I suggest that it might be a nice thing if cities weren't effectively banned in the US (they are, most states have draconian zoning laws that prevent high density development) and people might be given the option of living in places where public transport was a viable concept, but those people are the minority that think that staring at two white lines for hours a day, preventing yourself from being killed, is a normal thing to want to do. I get it, you like your penismobile and it's a great penis substitute for you. Stop fucking up the rest of the country because you want car driving to be mandatory so that nobody makes comments about BCSDs in reference to you.
It currently does, but as far as I'm aware it's not integrated with their other messaging systems.
Anyway, yes, Hangouts is deprecated. As in they've made an official statement they intend to shut it down, and people within Google are saying it'll happen within two years (see the update part.) They'll be branding some replacement products as "Hangouts" ("Hangouts Chat" and "Hangouts Meet"), but these aren't the same service or similar in how they work.
I really think they couldn't have fucked up Hangouts, from its initial status as a Google+ project that was forced on users of their original XMPP system, to the inexplicable decision to deprecate and get rid of it, while simultaneously introducing other chat systems only to shut them down too. Who the hell would use a Google chat system right now? Once Hangouts is gone, I doubt many people will switch to a Google alternative.
Then after a few years they should announce that they plan to close those messaging services down within the next two.
Nobody will care because nobody in their right mind right now is going to use a Google messaging system ever again, so if they buy the systems you're proposing, there will be a mass exodus to Skype or Facebook messenger or something like that.
Well, kinda: it'll terminate immediately. It's comparing 0 to minus one (assuming that's a less than sign that's missing) on its first loop. 0 is not less than -1, so the loop will end.
(I'm struggling to understand the AC who replied to you, where's he or she getting the nine from? But regardless, he or she's wrong too)
It's good, but it suffered poor take up because it started out as a branch of Google+ which meant two things:
1. Nobody wanted to use it because that meant having to use Google+
2. Google decided to force it on everyone, removing the XMPP chat system in GMail, for example, and replacing it with Hangouts, which made people even more pissed off and made it harder to get acceptance. Whenever there was an alternative, ANY alternative, people would use it, even if it were Skype.
I'm disappointed it'll be turned off in two years. This should be a lesson to Google that turning off the "Do no evil" motto for a few years because FACEBOOK IS WINNING ARGH WE MUST DO SOMETHING is ultimately dumb and will destroy them.
And you can't blame them, there's no way to fairly represent a screen image via other media (in that case print, in this case as part of an ad, squished, stretched, and color adjusted, intended for viewing in a web browser), so why bother?
I don't think - maybe I'm wrong - but I'm pretty certain that nobody in their right mind looks at a photo on a webpage or print and thinks "That's typical of the quality I'd get from that camera shown next to it."
The 3GPP (the people responsible for GSM/UMTS/LTE) have said they don't plan to release a "standard" until March next year, the standard being slightly faster than the current generation of LTE. The standard will undergo continuous revisions then until it's ready to submit to the ITU as a true "5G" technology, which will be... 2020.
So Qualcomm are talking about of their rears. What's going to happen is that a beta of an unfinished technology will be present in some phones by Christmas 2019, which will not be appreciably better than anything out right now, and might even be worse given the whole "Your phone may find itself connected via "5G NR" and due to a bug in your phone, or the tower, which is likely because this involves brand new hardware and software that's not undergone significant field testing, your phone doesn't work properly.
Do not want.
The article also agrees with the person who was modded insightful:
(My bold and italics)
The joke is they're going to where ChromeOS is thought to be, not where it is now. It was originally a "secure" OS that you couldn't install software on that wasn't NaCl or HTML5. Now you can install Android apps and can - albeit this is not production ready in my opinion - install arbitrary GNU/Linux applications (yeah, sudo apt-get install libreoffice works, add your own repos, compile your own applications, etc.)
(What it is good at right now, perhaps better at than Windows, is web development. Install VSCode and Atom in your Penguin container, and then install whatever web stacks you want in custom containers running whatever LXD compatible operating system you want. So all of a sudden there's interest in high end Chromebooks.)
So Windows is going to be locked down, while Chromebooks look, within the next year or two, to become general purpose computers you can do whatever you want with.
And I'd make a guess that Locked Down Windows will still be less secure than ChromeOS. Because the amount of work needed to add the level of sandboxing and integrity checking needed to make Windows as secure is going to be very, very, high.
(The other question though is "What's the point?" Who is going to want to use locked down Windows? Nobody uses it because they like Edge, or because they're easy to administer, we all use it because of the extensive software base and the implications that has in terms of everyone being able to swap files with one another. Without the ability to install arbitrary software, Windows becomes a difficult to maintain unreliable unstable insecure operating system with quirks everyone hates.)
BRT is way more than just a few dedicated lanes and some cross ticketing (the latter of which is not actually a requirement for BRT, if it were then BRT would be hard in countries that don't have a working commuter rail system or have more conventional mass transit systems.) If that's all that were needed, it'd be a spectacularly low bar as most big cities in Europe have bus lanes already.
BRT usually combines dedicated roads and median-separated lanes with light rail style stations, running a system similar to light rail but with rubber tires and no track.
While it probably has niches, it's not that great an idea, existing mostly because politicians hate trains. But adding bus lanes to a city does not mean it has "BRT", it just means the buses find it easier to get around the city. Those buses will continue to stop at normal bus stops. They just won't be part of the traffic.
We don't have 10 gigabits to the home, and frankly it's going to be hard to process 6 gigabits of data (yes, your MPEG decoder may output that, but that's application specific hardware and buses, not general purpose Ethernet going to general purpose CPUs.)
Seems a little over the top to refuse to use something that reduces bandwidth by well over 99% for something that most people will find impossible to perceive.
What's your computer's IP address?
No, not that, that's not a real IP address, I'm talking about its real, routable IP address?
It doesn't have one does it? Your router has one, but your computer is 10.x.x.x or 192.168.x.x, right? And those are NOT routable IP addresses. Every time you make a connection to a computer that isn't on your Ethernet network, you're having to use multiple proxies, and you've (together with everyone else) given up completely on nearly all protocols that require incoming connections, with most requiring hacks and/or proxies to work.
Your computer doesn't have an IP address because there aren't enough IP addresses and haven't been since the mid-1990s. So what you're saying is "impending" actually happened a long time ago.
It's not FUD, and it is holding the Internet back.
IP addresses are intended to be routable. And that's the problem, those who claim we're not running out of IP addresses forget that, in practice, we haven't had enough IP addresses since the mid 1990s. Almost all devices end up having to use virtual IP addresses like those in the 10.x and 192.168.x ranges.
I don't trust them. Windows 10, a Nadella initiative, caused a lot of headaches by:
1. Not actually being an improvement over 8.1 on certain hardware (it's a terrible tablet OS when 8.1 was the best tablet OS at that time)
2. Being constantly advertised over and over again on Windows 7-8.x users desktops to the point that many people were clicking on it and accidentally installing it.
3. Going from a relatively stable set of OSes to operating systems that force a reboot roughly once a week, due to incompetence on Microsoft's part.
4. Incorporating privacy destroying features that simultaneously eat up CPU and cause a terrible user experience for users. Why is it again that I can't do a traditional search, I have to use Cortana?
Meanwhile, the privacy issues aren't the only problem with what Microsoft are doing, they're also apparently keen on trying to monopolize the browser market again, with attempts to force users to use Edge for everything.
They've added some nice features to Windows 10 (love the Linux mode), but to make it stable I have to, ironically (and dangerously) disable Windows Update. I don't know what data my Windows PC is sharing with third parties. I'm being encouraged to use insecure software like Edge over better alternatives like Firefox.
For me to trust Microsoft I need three things:
1. A commitment to making stable, secure, software. It doesn't matter to me why my computer crashes once a week, I don't want it to do that.
2. A commitment to privacy that starts with not sharing data it shouldn't in the first place.
3. A commitment to recognizing that third parties can and do develop software that's more suited to many end user's needs than Microsoft's, and an end to overriding their choices and otherwise trying to force end users to only use Microsoft applications.
And those commitments need to be backed by their behavior.
Perhaps they can start by postponing the next major update of Windows for six months, and in it stripping out telemetry, and rebuilding Windows Update so it doesn't force reboots and for the most part doesn't need them.
The Windows kernel is the only truly great part of Windows. It's always been the "userland" part, which defines where everything is and what tools run where, that sucked. Microsoft switching to a Linux kernel wouldn't help anyone.
I'm non Vegan, and I'd be hypocritical if I said I was overly concerned about Animal welfare (if so, why not already be one? And why do I buy the cheapest eggs? etc), but...
So, if they've got this right, or even if it's just early days, my hat off to them.