Better, but still quite crude compared to alt+number to go direct to a virtual screen that's already laid out for a specific purpose.
I like the Windows 10 feature of Win-Number. Each application that is pinned on your taskbar has a number (starting at 1 for the left-most icon). If your first pinned app is Chrome, then pressing Win-1 will do an Alt-Tab of just the Chrome windows. Once you get used to your chosen application order, it is much faster than looking through all the applications at once on Alt-Tab or Win-Tab.
For the life of me, I can't figure out a quick way of switching between virtual screens on Windows 10. The only way I know is to press Win-Tab then Shift-Alt-Tab to get the desktop selection. Mind you, since I only run Windows 10 on a laptop (all the rest of my PCs are Linux) then I tend to have everything fullscreen, so multiple desktops are not as usefu as Win-Number feature.
Don't forget Nick Fury, one of the baddest dudes in the MCU, spends most of the moving Driving Miss Marvel and ends up losing his eye to a damn cat.
Do you mean the same cat (not actually a cat) that was able to kill two armed bad guys simultaneously? The one that was deemed to be a very high threat level by the alien scanners?
And given how Fury has never told anyone how he lost his eye, you could predict that it wouldn't have happened in some heroic way. Don't forget, this was a Nick Fury origin story just as much as it was for Captain Marvel. Given that one of the criticisms about the main character was her lack of growth, it seems hypercritical to complain that another character should have been the same bad-ass mutherf*cker that we know decades later.
Windows NT was once known as "OS/2 New Technology". That is from whence the "NT" originated. Neither OS/2 nor Windows NT were multiuser Operating Systems -- and they still aren't.
No, it was never released under the name OS/2. It was originally going to be a rewrite for OS/2, but they went with their own branding. Technically the kernel is more like a version of VMS rather than OS/2, and VMS was a multiuser OS just like Windows NT is. If you want to claim that it is not, then you need to back that up.
So none of this is true:
> Windows NT was already pretty mature, and was built from the ground up to be part of a network, to support multiple users
I don't know where you are getting this from, but Windows NT 3.1 was launched with multi-user support with customizable user rights. See the description from Wikipedia for Windows NT 3.1:
Every user has to log on to the computer after Windows NT 3.1 is booted up by pressing the key combination Ctrl+Alt+Del and entering the user name and password. All users have their own user account, and user-specific settings like the Program Manager groups are stored separately for every user. Users can be assigned specific rights, like the right to change the system time or the right to shut down the computer. To facilitate management of user accounts, it is also possible to group multiple user accounts and assign rights to groups of users
It was also made with a network in mind:
Designed as a networking operating system, Windows NT 3.1 supports multiple network protocols. Besides IPX/SPX and NetBEUI, the TCP/IP protocol is supported allowing access to the Internet. Similar to Windows for Workgroups, files and printers can be shared and the access rights and configuration of these resources can be edited over the network..... The Remote Access Service (RAS) allows a client from outside the network to connect to the network using a modem, ISDN or X.25 and access its resources. While the workstation allows one RAS connection at a time, the server supports 64.
That's right, there was a server version of the very first Windows NT, called Windows NT 3.1 Advanced Server. It acted as the domain controller just like the modern version does today.
It was designed as a local desktop operating system, not a network operating system, and even in 5.0 "multi-year" was a third-party application tacked on to hide other users' files in File Explorer.
Ah, no. NT 3.1 also introduced NTFS:
Windows NT 3.1 introduced the new NTFS file system. This new file system is more robust against hardware failures and allows assignment of read and write rights to users or groups on the file system level.
Let me get this straight. You say that it is untrue that drivers don't willingly speed and don't break the law, and contend that drivers don't have contempt for the law. Yet your reasoning for this is that they break the law and ignore speed limits when they think they know better (thus have contempt for the law).
Your reasons merely show that the grandparent was completely correct. So cyclists do deliberate bad behavior while drivers virtuously correct bad traffic laws.
The WSL has a very limited use case. It is not going to suddenly become the defacto way that we use Linux, and therefore will never be in a position to extinguish anything any more than Windows Services for UNIX killed it off and any more than WINE has killed off Windows.
What exactly do you think that Microsoft is extending? They are not changing anything that already exists on Linux; they are porting new utilities that will not be part of any standard Linux installation (perhaps with the exception a default install on Azure). But none of these utilities will displace the existing GNU utiltiies.
If Microsoft ported Office to Linux, would you call that extending the operating system or just writing software that works on it? Sysinternals is no different to that.
Some people may want folks to come over to linux, but that doesn't mean they want those folks to bring the windows approach to operating systems over to linux.
I'm not sure how true that is considering how much work has gone into WINE, DXVK etc on Linux!
Besides, in what way does SysInternals go against the Linux way of doing things? It's basically just a collection of small utilities, all of which can be installed independantly and some of which are straight versions of UNIX functions (or at least inspired by them).
If they're looking for a Linux that's a perfect (or imperfect) clone of Windows...
Considering that Sysinternals is not a part of Windows (and is not installed by default) then porting it is hardly making Linux a clone of Windows. One of the first things that I do when I install Windows is copy my trusty bin folder to it that contains the Unix utilities that I can't do without. Similarly, I install PowerShell when I make a Linux system. You might as well be pragmatic about what you use. You only inconvenience yourself if you become territorial with what is allowed to be written for your OS of choice.
Windows NT was not just written for the military. I do remember NT because it was a general purpose OS that everybody ran. It was not specifically designed to make warfare more lethal (like this project is designed to do).
So they have their rights because of people like you, but if they exercise those rights then they should leave the country. And what makes you think that they are ungrateful? Perhaps they think that it is better to leave the decision of who is or isn't an enemy combatant to trained soldiers in the field rather than software written by people whose only experience of warfare is playing Call of Duty. Would you want your life to depend on software written by Microsoft?
1) if they don't want to be part of it, then they can always leave MS for some other company...
I have already addressed this in another message. There is no need for them to quit the company before it has bid for and won the contract. In the meantime, they have the right to exercise their freedom of speech. I am sure that if there were mass resignations at Microsoft, the executives would rather have been warned of the possibility prior to them bidding for the contract.
What a bizarre thing to say. Choosing to not work for the US military is not the same as working against the US military. Do you also believe that anyone who doesn't join the armed forces is a traitor?
Of course this is political, the US military has been using Microsoft products to run all sorts of services etc etc that is used towards the same goal.
There is a difference between using a company's products for military purposes and having them specifically create something that is only for a military purpose. It is especially different when using a relatively new technology like artificial intelligence that is capable of becoming extremely evil by automation (which is exactly what had been warned about since AI first gained prominence).
Nowhere in the letter did it say that they would be OK with doing the project if Obama was running it. Instead, it talks about the ethical issues, and it is all about the inner workings of Microsoft and not the DOD's policies. I presume that you haven't read the letter, so here is a couple of paragraphs that demonstrate how this is an ethical story and not a political one:
Earlier this year Microsoft published "The Future Computed," examining the applications and potential dangers of A.I. It argues that strong ethical principles are necessary for the development of A.I. that will benefit people, and defines six core principles: "fair, reliable and safe, private and secure, inclusive, transparent, and accountable."
With JEDI, Microsoft executives are on track to betray these principles in exchange for short-term profits. If Microsoft is to be accountable for the products and services it makes, we need clear ethical guidelines and meaningful accountability governing how we determine which uses of our technology are acceptable, and which are off the table. Microsoft has already acknowledged the dangers of the tech it builds, even calling on the federal government to regulate A.I. technologies. But there is no law preventing the company from exercising its own internal scrutiny and standing by its own ethical compass.
It's for this very reason that these employees should quit.
Why? Microsoft hasn't bid on or won the contract yet, so surely it would be premature to quit their jobs. If they do win it, then some of the people who are asked to betray their principles will probably quit. But the sensible thing to do at this stage is make their feelings known before it comes to such a drastic stage.
If they think that this sort of contract goes against what their departments stand for then they have the right (and even the duty) to point it out.
This submission screams political interest piece courtesy of msmash.
How is it a political piece and not an story on ethics? This is of genuine interest to the people who are interested in IT. How should people who don't work in a traditional defense industry react when they are asked to work on a project that is described by DOD's chief management officer as "about increasing the lethality of our department"? Do you think that this story should have been swept under the carpet?
I wonder how many heads would explode if these people were told that war has been waged for tens of thousands of years and Donald Trump is just the current president keeping the arms sharpened.
These aren't stupid people. You aren't going to teach them anything by pointing out that war isn't a new thing. But just because war has been waged for thousands of years does not mean to that they want to play a part in killing people. And the message in the letter is not that they object to working the Trump administration (there are plenty of government contracts that Microsoft bids for that doesn't generate a backlash).
Nor are they advocating that the JEDI program should not exist. There message is simply that they do not want to be part of it.
And who, other than you, said that this scheme would be "A-OK" if Obama did it? You are the one making this a partisan issue. Nobody said that they didn't want to work for Trump, only that they didn't want their work used to kill people. This is an ethical issue, not a political one.
That type of comment is just typical bullshit that tries to deflect any criticism (or in this case imagined criticism) by claiming a double standard that is not in evidence.
You are right that they are not based in Dallas, but they are in the same state. Dallas Buyers Club, LLC was founded in 2012 and is based in The Woodlands, Texas. Their address is:
2710 Buckthorne Place
Suite 400
The Woodlands, TX 77380
United States
Actually, Palm got their start writing software for the Zoomer devices running PEN/GEOS, which was a competitor of the Newton. And I'm not sure what Office has to do with this discussion, but Word was first available for Xenix and DOS. Excel was first on the Mac, although Microsoft already had Multiplan for CP/M and DOS so it actually makes sense to develop it on the platform where they didn't already have a spreadsheet. PowerPoint was bought from another company.
You are right that Windows was pretty much non-existent though. When Excel was first made for Windows, it came with a runtime of the OS because nobody used it.
Do you know how many compilers Microsoft have written over the years? Can you name a single instance of any one of them producing code that has ever placed a user in legal trouble due to licenses, copyrights or patents?
Twenty years ago people claimed that Microsoft were going to use submarine patents to slap infringements on people who used their compilers, and yet not one single time has this happened.
And do the 'immigrants' treat the natives of the country properly? I mean if I come to another country, say Mexico, and I am a white Anglo, and I go around waving the USAian flag, refusing to speak or learn any Spanish, claim I am superior in every way to native Mexicans, whom i deride as weak and lazy, and then demand that their hospitals provide me with free medical care after I wind up in the hospital because I was drinking and driving and ran a family of Mexicans of the road, would you say the Mexicans were racist when they want me to go back to my own country?
I would say that you are racist for claiming that all illegal immigrants act like this. You have simply imagined a worst-case scenario and used this as your evidence that immigrants are bad.
What do you mean about PowerShell's lack of pipes? The pipeline is PowerShell's biggest claim to fame. It is more powerful than the simplistic pipes of the other *nix shells, but still supports interacting with Linux programs. For example "man ls | grep the" does exactly the same thing in PowerShell as it does in bash.
I call it intuitive. Sure, it you are trying it out after being used to using bash for the last 20 years then you are going to find things perplexing, but then you don't actually find bash intuitive either; you already have more experience in it. No shell is truely intuitive when you are first starting out.
But where PowerShell is intuitive is in its predictability once you know some of it. The long naming scheme is much derided, but is uses a consistent - format so that if you want to do something that you haven't done before you can fairly easily guess at what the command name will be. If you can't figure it out then there is extensive built-in help to make it easy to find relevant command.
The great feature of treating everything as objects is that it gives you great predictability. If I want to get the files that were created after a particular date then I would use
dir | where CreationTime -gt $date
If I can't remember whether the property to filter is CreationTime or Created, then I just type cr and it expands the property name based on the type of objects that I am filtering. If I wanted to look at all the time fields then I would type *time* and it would match the first property that contains time. Pressing tab again will find the next match.
If I wanted to find all the people who were added to a database after this date then I could type
mydatabasecommand | where CreationTimeField -gt $date
I don't need to know different and obscure arguments for each command to sort or filter things, I just use the PowerShell's sort and where commands. Obviously database systems still allow to filter before the output to prevent potentially exporting hundreds of thousands of records, but this is just an example of how you can do some adhoc stuff with PowerShell.
If I want to find new entries in a CSV file, I use
Import-Csv file.csv | where CreationTimeField -gt $date
The way PowerShell treats everything as an object is as powerful as the way *nix treats everything as files. Both methods normalise access to disparate systems on the computer. I put PowerShell on all my Linux systems, and I use whichever shell is the best for what I want to do at that time. There are some things where bash is better, and others where running PowerShell to do the task saves me a lot of time. PowerShell was the one thing that irritated me to lose when I began to migrate my PCs away from Windows after Microsoft started going downhill post-Windows 7.But when they released PowerShell for Linux and MacOS, I could have the best of both worlds.
Slashdot Mirror
Better, but still quite crude compared to alt+number to go direct to a virtual screen that's already laid out for a specific purpose.
I like the Windows 10 feature of Win-Number. Each application that is pinned on your taskbar has a number (starting at 1 for the left-most icon). If your first pinned app is Chrome, then pressing Win-1 will do an Alt-Tab of just the Chrome windows. Once you get used to your chosen application order, it is much faster than looking through all the applications at once on Alt-Tab or Win-Tab.
For the life of me, I can't figure out a quick way of switching between virtual screens on Windows 10. The only way I know is to press Win-Tab then Shift-Alt-Tab to get the desktop selection. Mind you, since I only run Windows 10 on a laptop (all the rest of my PCs are Linux) then I tend to have everything fullscreen, so multiple desktops are not as usefu as Win-Number feature.
Don't forget Nick Fury, one of the baddest dudes in the MCU, spends most of the moving Driving Miss Marvel and ends up losing his eye to a damn cat.
Do you mean the same cat (not actually a cat) that was able to kill two armed bad guys simultaneously? The one that was deemed to be a very high threat level by the alien scanners?
And given how Fury has never told anyone how he lost his eye, you could predict that it wouldn't have happened in some heroic way. Don't forget, this was a Nick Fury origin story just as much as it was for Captain Marvel. Given that one of the criticisms about the main character was her lack of growth, it seems hypercritical to complain that another character should have been the same bad-ass mutherf*cker that we know decades later.
Windows NT was once known as "OS/2 New Technology". That is from whence the "NT" originated. Neither OS/2 nor Windows NT were multiuser Operating Systems -- and they still aren't.
No, it was never released under the name OS/2. It was originally going to be a rewrite for OS/2, but they went with their own branding. Technically the kernel is more like a version of VMS rather than OS/2, and VMS was a multiuser OS just like Windows NT is. If you want to claim that it is not, then you need to back that up.
So none of this is true:
> Windows NT was already pretty mature, and was built from the ground up to be part of a network, to support multiple users
I don't know where you are getting this from, but Windows NT 3.1 was launched with multi-user support with customizable user rights. See the description from Wikipedia for Windows NT 3.1:
It was also made with a network in mind:
That's right, there was a server version of the very first Windows NT, called Windows NT 3.1 Advanced Server. It acted as the domain controller just like the modern version does today.
It was designed as a local desktop operating system, not a network operating system, and even in 5.0 "multi-year" was a third-party application tacked on to hide other users' files in File Explorer.
Ah, no. NT 3.1 also introduced NTFS:
Let me get this straight. You say that it is untrue that drivers don't willingly speed and don't break the law, and contend that drivers don't have contempt for the law. Yet your reasoning for this is that they break the law and ignore speed limits when they think they know better (thus have contempt for the law).
Your reasons merely show that the grandparent was completely correct. So cyclists do deliberate bad behavior while drivers virtuously correct bad traffic laws.
1) Embrace...
I believe you know the rest
Ooh, I know this one!
2) FUD
The WSL has a very limited use case. It is not going to suddenly become the defacto way that we use Linux, and therefore will never be in a position to extinguish anything any more than Windows Services for UNIX killed it off and any more than WINE has killed off Windows.
I haven't said it's against any way of doing anything.
Then what does this mean:
I see we're well into the "extend" phase now.
What exactly do you think that Microsoft is extending? They are not changing anything that already exists on Linux; they are porting new utilities that will not be part of any standard Linux installation (perhaps with the exception a default install on Azure). But none of these utilities will displace the existing GNU utiltiies.
If Microsoft ported Office to Linux, would you call that extending the operating system or just writing software that works on it? Sysinternals is no different to that.
Some people may want folks to come over to linux, but that doesn't mean they want those folks to bring the windows approach to operating systems over to linux.
I'm not sure how true that is considering how much work has gone into WINE, DXVK etc on Linux!
Besides, in what way does SysInternals go against the Linux way of doing things? It's basically just a collection of small utilities, all of which can be installed independantly and some of which are straight versions of UNIX functions (or at least inspired by them).
If they're looking for a Linux that's a perfect (or imperfect) clone of Windows...
Considering that Sysinternals is not a part of Windows (and is not installed by default) then porting it is hardly making Linux a clone of Windows. One of the first things that I do when I install Windows is copy my trusty bin folder to it that contains the Unix utilities that I can't do without. Similarly, I install PowerShell when I make a Linux system. You might as well be pragmatic about what you use. You only inconvenience yourself if you become territorial with what is allowed to be written for your OS of choice.
Windows NT was not just written for the military. I do remember NT because it was a general purpose OS that everybody ran. It was not specifically designed to make warfare more lethal (like this project is designed to do).
So they have their rights because of people like you, but if they exercise those rights then they should leave the country. And what makes you think that they are ungrateful? Perhaps they think that it is better to leave the decision of who is or isn't an enemy combatant to trained soldiers in the field rather than software written by people whose only experience of warfare is playing Call of Duty. Would you want your life to depend on software written by Microsoft?
Oh, I see. You are a troll.
1) if they don't want to be part of it, then they can always leave MS for some other company...
I have already addressed this in another message. There is no need for them to quit the company before it has bid for and won the contract. In the meantime, they have the right to exercise their freedom of speech. I am sure that if there were mass resignations at Microsoft, the executives would rather have been warned of the possibility prior to them bidding for the contract.
What a bizarre thing to say. Choosing to not work for the US military is not the same as working against the US military. Do you also believe that anyone who doesn't join the armed forces is a traitor?
Of course this is political, the US military has been using Microsoft products to run all sorts of services etc etc that is used towards the same goal.
There is a difference between using a company's products for military purposes and having them specifically create something that is only for a military purpose. It is especially different when using a relatively new technology like artificial intelligence that is capable of becoming extremely evil by automation (which is exactly what had been warned about since AI first gained prominence).
Nowhere in the letter did it say that they would be OK with doing the project if Obama was running it. Instead, it talks about the ethical issues, and it is all about the inner workings of Microsoft and not the DOD's policies. I presume that you haven't read the letter, so here is a couple of paragraphs that demonstrate how this is an ethical story and not a political one:
It's for this very reason that these employees should quit.
Why? Microsoft hasn't bid on or won the contract yet, so surely it would be premature to quit their jobs. If they do win it, then some of the people who are asked to betray their principles will probably quit. But the sensible thing to do at this stage is make their feelings known before it comes to such a drastic stage.
If they think that this sort of contract goes against what their departments stand for then they have the right (and even the duty) to point it out.
Of course, you ignore how many chinses visa holders are in America on full time spying.
And how is that relevant? Surely spies don't come "knocking on their freedom" as the OP suggested.
This submission screams political interest piece courtesy of msmash.
How is it a political piece and not an story on ethics? This is of genuine interest to the people who are interested in IT. How should people who don't work in a traditional defense industry react when they are asked to work on a project that is described by DOD's chief management officer as "about increasing the lethality of our department"? Do you think that this story should have been swept under the carpet?
I wonder how many heads would explode if these people were told that war has been waged for tens of thousands of years and Donald Trump is just the current president keeping the arms sharpened.
These aren't stupid people. You aren't going to teach them anything by pointing out that war isn't a new thing. But just because war has been waged for thousands of years does not mean to that they want to play a part in killing people. And the message in the letter is not that they object to working the Trump administration (there are plenty of government contracts that Microsoft bids for that doesn't generate a backlash).
Nor are they advocating that the JEDI program should not exist. There message is simply that they do not want to be part of it.
But A-OK when Obama did it!
And who, other than you, said that this scheme would be "A-OK" if Obama did it? You are the one making this a partisan issue. Nobody said that they didn't want to work for Trump, only that they didn't want their work used to kill people. This is an ethical issue, not a political one.
That type of comment is just typical bullshit that tries to deflect any criticism (or in this case imagined criticism) by claiming a double standard that is not in evidence.
You are right that they are not based in Dallas, but they are in the same state. Dallas Buyers Club, LLC was founded in 2012 and is based in The Woodlands, Texas. Their address is:
2710 Buckthorne Place
Suite 400
The Woodlands, TX 77380
United States
Source: Bloomberg
Here is a report of Dallas Buyers Club, LLC suing an Australian ISP about the film Dallas Buyers Club showing that they are linked.
Actually, Palm got their start writing software for the Zoomer devices running PEN/GEOS, which was a competitor of the Newton. And I'm not sure what Office has to do with this discussion, but Word was first available for Xenix and DOS. Excel was first on the Mac, although Microsoft already had Multiplan for CP/M and DOS so it actually makes sense to develop it on the platform where they didn't already have a spreadsheet. PowerPoint was bought from another company.
You are right that Windows was pretty much non-existent though. When Excel was first made for Windows, it came with a runtime of the OS because nobody used it.
Do you know how many compilers Microsoft have written over the years? Can you name a single instance of any one of them producing code that has ever placed a user in legal trouble due to licenses, copyrights or patents?
Twenty years ago people claimed that Microsoft were going to use submarine patents to slap infringements on people who used their compilers, and yet not one single time has this happened.
And do the 'immigrants' treat the natives of the country properly? I mean if I come to another country, say Mexico, and I am a white Anglo, and I go around waving the USAian flag, refusing to speak or learn any Spanish, claim I am superior in every way to native Mexicans, whom i deride as weak and lazy, and then demand that their hospitals provide me with free medical care after I wind up in the hospital because I was drinking and driving and ran a family of Mexicans of the road, would you say the Mexicans were racist when they want me to go back to my own country?
I would say that you are racist for claiming that all illegal immigrants act like this. You have simply imagined a worst-case scenario and used this as your evidence that immigrants are bad.
What do you mean about PowerShell's lack of pipes? The pipeline is PowerShell's biggest claim to fame. It is more powerful than the simplistic pipes of the other *nix shells, but still supports interacting with Linux programs. For example "man ls | grep the" does exactly the same thing in PowerShell as it does in bash.
I call it intuitive. Sure, it you are trying it out after being used to using bash for the last 20 years then you are going to find things perplexing, but then you don't actually find bash intuitive either; you already have more experience in it. No shell is truely intuitive when you are first starting out.
But where PowerShell is intuitive is in its predictability once you know some of it. The long naming scheme is much derided, but is uses a consistent - format so that if you want to do something that you haven't done before you can fairly easily guess at what the command name will be. If you can't figure it out then there is extensive built-in help to make it easy to find relevant command.
The great feature of treating everything as objects is that it gives you great predictability. If I want to get the files that were created after a particular date then I would use
If I can't remember whether the property to filter is CreationTime or Created, then I just type cr and it expands the property name based on the type of objects that I am filtering. If I wanted to look at all the time fields then I would type *time* and it would match the first property that contains time. Pressing tab again will find the next match.
If I wanted to find all the people who were added to a database after this date then I could type
I don't need to know different and obscure arguments for each command to sort or filter things, I just use the PowerShell's sort and where commands. Obviously database systems still allow to filter before the output to prevent potentially exporting hundreds of thousands of records, but this is just an example of how you can do some adhoc stuff with PowerShell.
If I want to find new entries in a CSV file, I use
The way PowerShell treats everything as an object is as powerful as the way *nix treats everything as files. Both methods normalise access to disparate systems on the computer. I put PowerShell on all my Linux systems, and I use whichever shell is the best for what I want to do at that time. There are some things where bash is better, and others where running PowerShell to do the task saves me a lot of time. PowerShell was the one thing that irritated me to lose when I began to migrate my PCs away from Windows after Microsoft started going downhill post-Windows 7.But when they released PowerShell for Linux and MacOS, I could have the best of both worlds.