Considering that FISA courts do not try people I would say the chance if very good he'll never be convicted in one. FISA courts exist to grant surveillance requests.
I'm not a Microsoft fan, but Google has a way bigger reputation for just abandoning stuff. So bad that when Keep came out, people predicted when it would be abandoned:
That is true however the context of the thread isn't why you should pick Google over MS. The context was why developers haven't adopted.NET despite a MIT license.
Meanwhile, Microsoft still *hasn't* abandoned Windows Phone users, despite an ongoing, total failure in the marketplace:
Classic ASP - still supported. Visual Basic - still supported. Nearly all old versions of stuff available on MSDN. It would be easier to argue that they hold on to things for too long.,
And if you developed for Windows Mobile/Windows Phone you are out of luck. If you were a PlaysForSure partner you were stabbed in the back when MS went with V2.0 that didn't work with your players and only worked with their Zune and then abandon that a few years later. There's many reasons why developers are wary of MS.
MS at least supported Windows Phone for a few years, and briefly allowed upgrades to W10 on even marginally usable old hardware
Only if you defined "supported" in the loosest of terms. If we just look at Windows Mobile, that is the epitome of MS abandonment from the development and customer perspective. For example from WinMo 6 to Windows Phone 7, almost nothing was transitioned from one version to the next. If you developed for WinMo 6, you had to abandon it and go to WP7. As a customers they had to abandon their phones if they wanted WP7.
But if you actually moved to developing WP7, were you guaranteed stability? No. as the transition from WP7 to WP8 also saw the move from a WindowsCE kernel to a WindowsNT kernel. As a developer you had to compile for both versions to be on them both and eventually abandon your WP7 code going forward. Also customers were again screwed as they had to buy new phones for WP8 and could not simply update their OS due to hardware requirements.
And then WP10 finally came. Did it finally bring stability? No. Again some phones (I would say most) on WP8.1 could not update to WP10. At the same time, MS themselves are starting to abandon the platform on the development side.
So if you invested years in developing for Windows Mobile/Windows Phone you were rewarded by a platform that routinely abandoned both developers and consumers.
Now what does all this have to do with Java, other than the lawsuit?
I was responding to the thread of why more developers don't use.NET under a MIT license?
No, most people don't remember the 22 year old phrase from a company that has undergone significant change in both management and operation.
Someone asked for an example of embrace, extend, and extinguish. I posted some.
All large companies have done some bad things but in general I'd choose today's MS over Oracle any day.
And I"m not saying Oracle is better in any regards. In the context of the conversation someone asked why more people don't use.NET. I gave them specific reasons: EEE and constant abandonment.
Not to sound macabre, but didn't the FBI have both the fingers (as well as everything attached) and the iPhone in their custody well before the required password timeout kicked in? I recall Apple suggested the phone was still free to use the biometric unlock while the FBI was in possession of everything they needed to do this.
The phone was a iPhone 5C which doesn't have a fingerprint scanner. All models after the 5C and before the X have scanners. Apple did tell law enforcement how best to access the phone backups (and iCloud info); however, they ignored the advice and tried to force reset the password which locked out the phone.
So if I do recall correctly and if this is the case, then this watchdog's findings are not entirely true. Unless they mean the FBI doesn't have their shit together enough to access the terrorists phones.
No the findings are true if you read the actual report. The news reporting is not accurate. The words on the actual watchdog report is the FBI "did not have the capability to exploit" not "did not have ability to access".
The article says that the FBI didn't have the ability to "access" but the actual report says "exploit". The difference is that we know that the FBI had the ability to access the iCloud information that the phone shared but lost it when they disregarded Apple's advice on how to access that information. So the FBI had the ability to access some information on the phone. Also we know how to access the iPhone; guess the number combination. Given default settings with a forced delay, it would take 200+ days to unlock a 4 digit combination.
The report says that the FBI didn't have the capability to exploit the phone at the time of the Congressional hearings on the matter which is probably true. They probably possess some capability now depending on model and iOS version.
What do you mean it isn't certainly Java? You do remember the federal trial concerning MS right? MS tried to embrace, extinguish, and extend with Java. As for web standards, they tried the same thing with the browser (again at the trial). Then there's the hijacking of the Open Office XML standard. I suggest you do a simple google search. Or if you are too lazy, read wikipedia.
The decades of embrace, extend, and extinguish have made many wary of MS adoption. The other extreme is how MS suddenly abandons things leaving developers anxious. For example any developer that bet on Windows Phone is not getting much on return.
Having worked at NASA surely you would have known that the space shuttle problems began long before Obama. Sure he did little to save the program, but the space shuttle was far more expensive than originally planned and was at the end of its life. While NASA worked on the replacement, no proposals met the criteria needed so the whole thing was scrapped.
P.S.: don't tell me that they design the A10 soc, they just bought the company PA semi on 2008 and that's what their "design" team consists of, purchased companies
When Apple bought PA Semi in 2008, PA Semi worked on different architectures but was known for their Power processors. So by your assertion, magically somehow Apple acquired their knowledge on how to design ARM processors from a company they acquired 8 years ago who worked primarily on Power processors. You do know that ARM designs from ARM themselves 8 years ago are nothing like ARM designs today, right?
If those furnaces are outputing car chassis, they innovate.
Again by your logic, car makers don't do any innovation, steel makers do because they made the steel even if all the steelmakers do is make the steel.
there's a great book "how to analogy". you should read it.
Please answer the 3/4s question: How do you quantify 3/4s of an iPhone was made by Samsung when at best the CPU was made by Samsung in the past. If we look at the chips in the iPhone not even 10% of them by count was made by Samsung and that's if Samsung supplied the memory chips.
How do you quantify 3/4s of the phone? The last time I checked Samsung might make a few components but not 3/4 of it. Also that's like saying Ford/Honda/Toyota is made 3/4s from US Steel yet car manufacturers "innovate".
So what you're saying is that because someone (not Samsung) has devised a way for 4+ year old SoCs to run on Linux that Samsung didn't custom make it's newest flagship SoC the Exynos 9810 specifically to run Android? In the same regard, you can get Linux running on Lumia phones but that doesn't Microsoft designed/optimize their phones to run Windows Phone.
Qualcomm does not have the lead in smartphone CPUs While the numeric performance metrics are valuable, a feature comparison is also vital...... and being able to run and being able to run less than 20% of the world wide smartphones is a rather critical design flaw that more or less disqualifies A11 from even being considered a "top smartphone CPU."
The entire context of the discussion was in mobile CPU/GPU performance based on benchmarks. While benchmarks may not represent real world performance, you willing to disqualify those benchmarks merely based on Apple's marketshare is some disingenuous. That's like saying AMDs CPUS do not beat Intel ones on performance merely because AMDs are on less than 20% of consumer PCs.
Sooo, a custom made ARM V8 fine tuned to work on a specific operating system, out performs a general purpose ARM V8 able to handle multiple OS and you are surprised?
The Exynos 9810 is a custom made ARM V8 fine tuned to work on a specific operating system. And yet it lost out to a general purpose ARM V8 (Snapdragon 845). So your point being?
I bet you are also surprised that certain ASICs are able to outperform GPU's for certain crytomining algorithms. Apples, oranges etc.
No I am merely pointing out the obvious which the OP stated: Qualcomm does not have the lead in smartphone CPUs. They have the lead in smartphone CPUs you can run on Android.
Well if you read the review, the Exynos 9810 and Snapdragon 845 falls behind the Apple A11 and A10 CPUs in the same benchmarks. In GPU performance the Snapdragon 845 with it's Adreno GPU performs better than the A11 and A10 in some tests but worse in others. The Exynos 9810 was definitely worse than the 845 in GPU performance almost consistently losing to the A11 GPU and only sometimes beating the A10 GPU. That being said, yes Qualcomm has the lead in Android chips right now, but they do not have the lead in smartphone chips for benchmarks tested.
Also it could have been driven by the desire to save every amount of screen space for the content. Apple could have not put the clock and system status on the X in the separate space and opted to do it the way other phones do it. Currently that means the clock and status are hidden during some content. Or that it overlays the content at different times which can be distracting.
I seem not to remember any previous generations of cell phones that used 3D infrared technology to recognize faces. Basically the notch is an upgraded and miniaturized Kinect.
And how many distros does the Linux number include? And what is the the severity of those bugs? You see it's not as clear as you make it out to be. And yes, true security personnel have been laughing at Windows for years. Only neophytes think that Windows has been anything but secure.
I tried 1.01 on my XT-compatible. I ran 3.0 on my 386SX. How long have you, youngster?
I was laughing at people who used Windows back then. Multitasking, multi-user environments, what's that you say? If only VMS and Unix machines didn't exist so that people know what real computing entailed.
Says you. You don't dictate what we are "supposed" to be talking about, and I certainly didn't agree to anything of the sort.
Of course, you want to deflect again. You're losing the argument badly and changing the subject is the only way you might have some points. The problem is that you'd still lose the argument after you switch subjects as I've previously noted.
As the one who wrote the words, I can safely inform you that you're wrong. You can tell because you dropped "so if you want to avoid the corner case of some user crying to the world that you've broken their software setup you have to treat every executable/application as if it is used" and "the refusal to upgrade makes reasonable sense." Which is not a corner case specific to Windows.
You sound like someone who has never worked in a corporate IT environment before. [sarcasm]"Install whatever software you want". Nothing every goes wrong in corporate IT when that happens.[/sarcasm] Also you don't seem to know there are reasons why we have legacy software. It's not because we want to make our lives harder. Sure you can tell those companies that did not/will not update their Win 7 drivers that they should give us new drivers because you can't fathom why we still have Win 7 machines that don't use Win 10. Or hire a team programmers to write new drivers. Also to complement that team, make sure you hire lawyers to so that our programmers don't breach any copyright/patent issues while writing our own drivers. Or please approve the millions of dollars for new equipment so that we can replace older machines that work with newer ones because Win 10 is so much nicer.
Also you tell the admins that to stop crying because some idiot updated the servers/computers that affected business operations. You know like that accountant who just had to install Win 10 that borked his machine. Hey it sucks to be him but considering he's the one that approves payroll, people not being paid on time until we get his computer back is just "whining". People installing whatever software they want is the only way anything works in a corporate environment.
Because your point is stupid, and relies upon some special definition of "installed" that you still can't explain, much less reconcile with how programs were "installed" before Windows tried to put a pretty face on automated uninstallation routines, and because "so if you want to avoid the corner case of some user crying to the world that you've broken their software setup you have to treat every executable/application as if it is used".
Dear lord. Please look up what installed means. It does not mean "downloaded". You keep using the word "installed" when you mean "downloaded". Again you don't seem to work in a corporate environment where admins have to control what software is installed. They have to keep repositories. They have to test the software before updating user machines. Where do they keep the software? On machines.
You're complaining that Microsoft's operational practices are blocking your operational practices while touting how you block your users operational practices with pride?
Again go work in a corporate IT environment before you comment further as you don't seem to have a clue. The time admins spend on curated updates is time consuming enough. Allowing anyone to install anything? You do know that's how viruses and worms and ransomware get into networks right? You do know that increases the tickets and issues, right? "You installed a bitcoining mining application that runs all day and caused your computer to slow down because you wanted to
Shhhh. Let's not spook him. I haven't told him about the mobile cart yet. That might blow his mind that equipment exists where you can move a monitor and keyboard to a server so that you can access it.
No deflection. In Linus and BSD there are supposed to be distinct separations, when you follow customary practices, just as in Windows there are supposed to be distinct separations between system applications, user applications, and user data, when you follow customary practices, but in all three you can put an application in an extraodrinary place, i.e., not/usr/bin or its analog, and installed application list will not reflect it. Prove it false, or move on.
First of all, how long have you used Windows? The distinctions that you list are very recent and not always enforced as of today. Second, why again are you talking about Linux and BSD when Windows is what we are supposed to be talking about.
I didn't make a complaint - you've lost track of the thread.
To refresh your memory: You said: "Well, you can't trust the "Programs and Features" listing to include all of the software operable on the machine, . . " to which I responded Microsoft should probably fix that. That sounds like a complaint to me. Then you started to try to deflect any criticism of MS by mentioning OS X and Linux. Is your memory any clearer? Also you can always scroll up to see what you wrote.
I explained why Microsoft scanned local storage for incompatible executable applications and you lost your damn mind about how that was Microsoft's problem that it didn't know what was "installed" on the computer.
And you missed my entire point: The OP complained he had a copy of an old program on his computer and that the Win 10 installer refused to update to Win 10 because he had the file. The OP clearly stated that he had not installed the program. Why should MS care about what files someone has on their drives if they are not actually installed? That would make it so no one could use Windows machine as a repository for older programs which I initially stated.
I don't know where you work but we have a mix of new and legacy machines, and we do not allow people to install whatever software they want. That is why have network drives full of software that they can install that has been tested and configured. But according to this we cannot update the computers that are housing the software files to Win 10 because MS somehow feels that their judgement of what files we can have supersedes operational practices.
As if the "Programs and Features" list was the end-all-be-all and the scanner finding anything else was somehow wrong. Microsoft fixed exactly the problem that you're complaining of -- they scanned the entire local storage for incompatible executable applications.
Again that is MS problem that should probably fix. And again you missed the point: MS should not be stopping an update process for the mere presence incompatible software installation files that have not been executed and override their users wishes. If MS wants to warn the user about the presence of files, that's another matter.
I would assume that MS is trying to get more installs by showing some flexibility in what it can do on the server side. For example Server 2016 requires you to install a GUI if you want one; Windows Server is more driven by command line than before, etc.
While you posted what I said, once again, all you did was try to put words in my mouth, rather than responding to what I actually wrote.
I posted what you wrote. You can resort to denial all you want.
I didn't say either of those things. In the sentence "They're completely joking and so are their friends.", "They're" refers to the subject of my previous sentence "My teenage kids".
In response to whether you actually know Flat Earthers, you respond with "My teenage kids" but then admit they are not Flat Earthers. So to the topic of Flat Earthers, you start talking about other people than Flat Earthers.
It's pretty funny that you quote what I say, then turn around and give your "interpretation" of it, ignoring the words I actually wrote.
What you posted is clear above.
Once again, I never wrote anything about "all of the people who posted the videos".
Again my point: You don't know anything about the people who posted the videos, do you? Therefore you cannot know whether they are or are not joking.
Also, if you'd ever bother to read what I actually wrote, "So I guess you just hang out with a different crowd." would imply that I am "guessing" that you know a different group of people.
Again my point: I know Flat Earthers. But when you say: "To be fair, his username is "UnknowingFool", so his position on this is appropriate..." you are trying to insult someone who has MORE knowledge than you by implying that I know less.
That statement doesn't imply any claims on my part about "knowing" who you know or don't know, but simply a guess which actually guesses in the opposite direction you seem to want to falsely attribute to me.
Explain why you felt the need to try to insult someone.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that FISA courts do not try people I would say the chance if very good he'll never be convicted in one. FISA courts exist to grant surveillance requests.
I'm not a Microsoft fan, but Google has a way bigger reputation for just abandoning stuff. So bad that when Keep came out, people predicted when it would be abandoned:
That is true however the context of the thread isn't why you should pick Google over MS. The context was why developers haven't adopted .NET despite a MIT license.
Meanwhile, Microsoft still *hasn't* abandoned Windows Phone users, despite an ongoing, total failure in the marketplace:
What? Microsoft is no longer developing either features or hardware for Windows Phone as announced by Microsoft. I consider that abandoning the platform. Add to that 3rd party developers are not flocking to the platform as well as current developers are not updating their apps, I would say WP10 is dead.
Classic ASP - still supported. Visual Basic - still supported. Nearly all old versions of stuff available on MSDN. It would be easier to argue that they hold on to things for too long.,
And if you developed for Windows Mobile/Windows Phone you are out of luck. If you were a PlaysForSure partner you were stabbed in the back when MS went with V2.0 that didn't work with your players and only worked with their Zune and then abandon that a few years later. There's many reasons why developers are wary of MS.
MS at least supported Windows Phone for a few years, and briefly allowed upgrades to W10 on even marginally usable old hardware
Only if you defined "supported" in the loosest of terms. If we just look at Windows Mobile, that is the epitome of MS abandonment from the development and customer perspective. For example from WinMo 6 to Windows Phone 7, almost nothing was transitioned from one version to the next. If you developed for WinMo 6, you had to abandon it and go to WP7. As a customers they had to abandon their phones if they wanted WP7.
But if you actually moved to developing WP7, were you guaranteed stability? No. as the transition from WP7 to WP8 also saw the move from a WindowsCE kernel to a WindowsNT kernel. As a developer you had to compile for both versions to be on them both and eventually abandon your WP7 code going forward. Also customers were again screwed as they had to buy new phones for WP8 and could not simply update their OS due to hardware requirements.
And then WP10 finally came. Did it finally bring stability? No. Again some phones (I would say most) on WP8.1 could not update to WP10. At the same time, MS themselves are starting to abandon the platform on the development side.
So if you invested years in developing for Windows Mobile/Windows Phone you were rewarded by a platform that routinely abandoned both developers and consumers.
Now what does all this have to do with Java, other than the lawsuit?
I was responding to the thread of why more developers don't use .NET under a MIT license?
No, most people don't remember the 22 year old phrase from a company that has undergone significant change in both management and operation.
Someone asked for an example of embrace, extend, and extinguish. I posted some.
All large companies have done some bad things but in general I'd choose today's MS over Oracle any day.
And I"m not saying Oracle is better in any regards. In the context of the conversation someone asked why more people don't use .NET. I gave them specific reasons: EEE and constant abandonment.
Not to sound macabre, but didn't the FBI have both the fingers (as well as everything attached) and the iPhone in their custody well before the required password timeout kicked in? I recall Apple suggested the phone was still free to use the biometric unlock while the FBI was in possession of everything they needed to do this.
The phone was a iPhone 5C which doesn't have a fingerprint scanner. All models after the 5C and before the X have scanners. Apple did tell law enforcement how best to access the phone backups (and iCloud info); however, they ignored the advice and tried to force reset the password which locked out the phone.
So if I do recall correctly and if this is the case, then this watchdog's findings are not entirely true. Unless they mean the FBI doesn't have their shit together enough to access the terrorists phones.
No the findings are true if you read the actual report. The news reporting is not accurate. The words on the actual watchdog report is the FBI "did not have the capability to exploit" not "did not have ability to access".
The article says that the FBI didn't have the ability to "access" but the actual report says "exploit". The difference is that we know that the FBI had the ability to access the iCloud information that the phone shared but lost it when they disregarded Apple's advice on how to access that information. So the FBI had the ability to access some information on the phone. Also we know how to access the iPhone; guess the number combination. Given default settings with a forced delay, it would take 200+ days to unlock a 4 digit combination.
The report says that the FBI didn't have the capability to exploit the phone at the time of the Congressional hearings on the matter which is probably true. They probably possess some capability now depending on model and iOS version.
What do you mean it isn't certainly Java? You do remember the federal trial concerning MS right? MS tried to embrace, extinguish, and extend with Java. As for web standards, they tried the same thing with the browser (again at the trial). Then there's the hijacking of the Open Office XML standard. I suggest you do a simple google search. Or if you are too lazy, read wikipedia.
The decades of embrace, extend, and extinguish have made many wary of MS adoption. The other extreme is how MS suddenly abandons things leaving developers anxious. For example any developer that bet on Windows Phone is not getting much on return.
Having worked at NASA surely you would have known that the space shuttle problems began long before Obama. Sure he did little to save the program, but the space shuttle was far more expensive than originally planned and was at the end of its life. While NASA worked on the replacement, no proposals met the criteria needed so the whole thing was scrapped.
P.S.: don't tell me that they design the A10 soc, they just bought the company PA semi on 2008 and that's what their "design" team consists of, purchased companies
When Apple bought PA Semi in 2008, PA Semi worked on different architectures but was known for their Power processors. So by your assertion, magically somehow Apple acquired their knowledge on how to design ARM processors from a company they acquired 8 years ago who worked primarily on Power processors. You do know that ARM designs from ARM themselves 8 years ago are nothing like ARM designs today, right?
If those furnaces are outputing car chassis, they innovate.
Again by your logic, car makers don't do any innovation, steel makers do because they made the steel even if all the steelmakers do is make the steel.
there's a great book "how to analogy". you should read it.
Please answer the 3/4s question: How do you quantify 3/4s of an iPhone was made by Samsung when at best the CPU was made by Samsung in the past. If we look at the chips in the iPhone not even 10% of them by count was made by Samsung and that's if Samsung supplied the memory chips.
But according to your logic, AMDs don't count because you want to create artificial constructs to your logic.
How do you quantify 3/4s of the phone? The last time I checked Samsung might make a few components but not 3/4 of it. Also that's like saying Ford/Honda/Toyota is made 3/4s from US Steel yet car manufacturers "innovate".
No its not. Google "linux on Exynos"
So what you're saying is that because someone (not Samsung) has devised a way for 4+ year old SoCs to run on Linux that Samsung didn't custom make it's newest flagship SoC the Exynos 9810 specifically to run Android? In the same regard, you can get Linux running on Lumia phones but that doesn't Microsoft designed/optimize their phones to run Windows Phone.
Qualcomm does not have the lead in smartphone CPUs While the numeric performance metrics are valuable, a feature comparison is also vital...... and being able to run and being able to run less than 20% of the world wide smartphones is a rather critical design flaw that more or less disqualifies A11 from even being considered a "top smartphone CPU."
The entire context of the discussion was in mobile CPU/GPU performance based on benchmarks. While benchmarks may not represent real world performance, you willing to disqualify those benchmarks merely based on Apple's marketshare is some disingenuous. That's like saying AMDs CPUS do not beat Intel ones on performance merely because AMDs are on less than 20% of consumer PCs.
Sooo, a custom made ARM V8 fine tuned to work on a specific operating system, out performs a general purpose ARM V8 able to handle multiple OS and you are surprised?
The Exynos 9810 is a custom made ARM V8 fine tuned to work on a specific operating system. And yet it lost out to a general purpose ARM V8 (Snapdragon 845). So your point being?
I bet you are also surprised that certain ASICs are able to outperform GPU's for certain crytomining algorithms. Apples, oranges etc.
No I am merely pointing out the obvious which the OP stated: Qualcomm does not have the lead in smartphone CPUs. They have the lead in smartphone CPUs you can run on Android.
Well if you read the review, the Exynos 9810 and Snapdragon 845 falls behind the Apple A11 and A10 CPUs in the same benchmarks. In GPU performance the Snapdragon 845 with it's Adreno GPU performs better than the A11 and A10 in some tests but worse in others. The Exynos 9810 was definitely worse than the 845 in GPU performance almost consistently losing to the A11 GPU and only sometimes beating the A10 GPU. That being said, yes Qualcomm has the lead in Android chips right now, but they do not have the lead in smartphone chips for benchmarks tested.
Also it could have been driven by the desire to save every amount of screen space for the content. Apple could have not put the clock and system status on the X in the separate space and opted to do it the way other phones do it. Currently that means the clock and status are hidden during some content. Or that it overlays the content at different times which can be distracting.
I seem not to remember any previous generations of cell phones that used 3D infrared technology to recognize faces. Basically the notch is an upgraded and miniaturized Kinect.
And how many distros does the Linux number include? And what is the the severity of those bugs? You see it's not as clear as you make it out to be. And yes, true security personnel have been laughing at Windows for years. Only neophytes think that Windows has been anything but secure.
I tried 1.01 on my XT-compatible. I ran 3.0 on my 386SX. How long have you, youngster?
I was laughing at people who used Windows back then. Multitasking, multi-user environments, what's that you say? If only VMS and Unix machines didn't exist so that people know what real computing entailed.
Says you. You don't dictate what we are "supposed" to be talking about, and I certainly didn't agree to anything of the sort.
Of course, you want to deflect again. You're losing the argument badly and changing the subject is the only way you might have some points. The problem is that you'd still lose the argument after you switch subjects as I've previously noted.
As the one who wrote the words, I can safely inform you that you're wrong. You can tell because you dropped "so if you want to avoid the corner case of some user crying to the world that you've broken their software setup you have to treat every executable/application as if it is used" and "the refusal to upgrade makes reasonable sense." Which is not a corner case specific to Windows.
You sound like someone who has never worked in a corporate IT environment before. [sarcasm]"Install whatever software you want". Nothing every goes wrong in corporate IT when that happens.[/sarcasm] Also you don't seem to know there are reasons why we have legacy software. It's not because we want to make our lives harder. Sure you can tell those companies that did not/will not update their Win 7 drivers that they should give us new drivers because you can't fathom why we still have Win 7 machines that don't use Win 10. Or hire a team programmers to write new drivers. Also to complement that team, make sure you hire lawyers to so that our programmers don't breach any copyright/patent issues while writing our own drivers. Or please approve the millions of dollars for new equipment so that we can replace older machines that work with newer ones because Win 10 is so much nicer.
Also you tell the admins that to stop crying because some idiot updated the servers/computers that affected business operations. You know like that accountant who just had to install Win 10 that borked his machine. Hey it sucks to be him but considering he's the one that approves payroll, people not being paid on time until we get his computer back is just "whining". People installing whatever software they want is the only way anything works in a corporate environment.
Because your point is stupid, and relies upon some special definition of "installed" that you still can't explain, much less reconcile with how programs were "installed" before Windows tried to put a pretty face on automated uninstallation routines, and because "so if you want to avoid the corner case of some user crying to the world that you've broken their software setup you have to treat every executable/application as if it is used".
Dear lord. Please look up what installed means. It does not mean "downloaded". You keep using the word "installed" when you mean "downloaded". Again you don't seem to work in a corporate environment where admins have to control what software is installed. They have to keep repositories. They have to test the software before updating user machines. Where do they keep the software? On machines.
You're complaining that Microsoft's operational practices are blocking your operational practices while touting how you block your users operational practices with pride?
Again go work in a corporate IT environment before you comment further as you don't seem to have a clue. The time admins spend on curated updates is time consuming enough. Allowing anyone to install anything? You do know that's how viruses and worms and ransomware get into networks right? You do know that increases the tickets and issues, right? "You installed a bitcoining mining application that runs all day and caused your computer to slow down because you wanted to
Shhhh. Let's not spook him. I haven't told him about the mobile cart yet. That might blow his mind that equipment exists where you can move a monitor and keyboard to a server so that you can access it.
No deflection. In Linus and BSD there are supposed to be distinct separations, when you follow customary practices, just as in Windows there are supposed to be distinct separations between system applications, user applications, and user data, when you follow customary practices, but in all three you can put an application in an extraodrinary place, i.e., not /usr/bin or its analog, and installed application list will not reflect it. Prove it false, or move on.
First of all, how long have you used Windows? The distinctions that you list are very recent and not always enforced as of today. Second, why again are you talking about Linux and BSD when Windows is what we are supposed to be talking about.
I didn't make a complaint - you've lost track of the thread.
To refresh your memory: You said: "Well, you can't trust the "Programs and Features" listing to include all of the software operable on the machine, . . " to which I responded Microsoft should probably fix that. That sounds like a complaint to me. Then you started to try to deflect any criticism of MS by mentioning OS X and Linux. Is your memory any clearer? Also you can always scroll up to see what you wrote.
I explained why Microsoft scanned local storage for incompatible executable applications and you lost your damn mind about how that was Microsoft's problem that it didn't know what was "installed" on the computer.
And you missed my entire point: The OP complained he had a copy of an old program on his computer and that the Win 10 installer refused to update to Win 10 because he had the file. The OP clearly stated that he had not installed the program. Why should MS care about what files someone has on their drives if they are not actually installed? That would make it so no one could use Windows machine as a repository for older programs which I initially stated.
I don't know where you work but we have a mix of new and legacy machines, and we do not allow people to install whatever software they want. That is why have network drives full of software that they can install that has been tested and configured. But according to this we cannot update the computers that are housing the software files to Win 10 because MS somehow feels that their judgement of what files we can have supersedes operational practices.
As if the "Programs and Features" list was the end-all-be-all and the scanner finding anything else was somehow wrong. Microsoft fixed exactly the problem that you're complaining of -- they scanned the entire local storage for incompatible executable applications.
Again that is MS problem that should probably fix. And again you missed the point: MS should not be stopping an update process for the mere presence incompatible software installation files that have not been executed and override their users wishes. If MS wants to warn the user about the presence of files, that's another matter.
I would assume that MS is trying to get more installs by showing some flexibility in what it can do on the server side. For example Server 2016 requires you to install a GUI if you want one; Windows Server is more driven by command line than before, etc.
While you posted what I said, once again, all you did was try to put words in my mouth, rather than responding to what I actually wrote.
I posted what you wrote. You can resort to denial all you want.
I didn't say either of those things. In the sentence "They're completely joking and so are their friends.", "They're" refers to the subject of my previous sentence "My teenage kids".
In response to whether you actually know Flat Earthers, you respond with "My teenage kids" but then admit they are not Flat Earthers. So to the topic of Flat Earthers, you start talking about other people than Flat Earthers.
It's pretty funny that you quote what I say, then turn around and give your "interpretation" of it, ignoring the words I actually wrote.
What you posted is clear above.
Once again, I never wrote anything about "all of the people who posted the videos".
Again my point: You don't know anything about the people who posted the videos, do you? Therefore you cannot know whether they are or are not joking.
Also, if you'd ever bother to read what I actually wrote, "So I guess you just hang out with a different crowd." would imply that I am "guessing" that you know a different group of people.
Again my point: I know Flat Earthers. But when you say: "To be fair, his username is "UnknowingFool", so his position on this is appropriate..." you are trying to insult someone who has MORE knowledge than you by implying that I know less.
That statement doesn't imply any claims on my part about "knowing" who you know or don't know, but simply a guess which actually guesses in the opposite direction you seem to want to falsely attribute to me.
Explain why you felt the need to try to insult someone.