The EEE strategy requires the "extend" part to be proprietary, in order to execute the "extinguish" part successfully. Otherwise, the attempt to extinguish simply results in a fork.
It doesn't work perfectly even in theory. Even if you start with a workforce that has some genuine ballast, and more than 10% of it, after a few rounds, you're firing genuinely productive employees to replace them with presumably even more productive ones... but at some point you're going to hit a cap based on how much you're actually willing to pay. At that point, you're just firing 10% most unlucky ones for a given time period. Worse yet, because everyone knows that they can get into that 10%, morale is universally low regardless of performance, and even the high-performing and high-rewarded employees don't have much loyalty.
WSL does all the same, but even better. As far as command line tools go, you basically get everything that's in Ubuntu package repos. If you really want to, you can even do GUI via XRDP.
Constitution grants specific executive, legislative and judicial powers (I have no idea what "legal powers" are, except as a synonym for "legislative") to the federal government. It furthermore specifically states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That's not how it works. Constitution grants powers to the federal government. If there's no grant of power to do X, then federal government can't do X.
That it "makes sound economic sense" doesn't change the fact that it's ultimately about censorship. Russia has instituted its own "great firewall", with mandatory ISP-level bans for content it deems illegal, but it's rather like a game of whack-a-mole at the moment, and makes it hard to track the people posting it. They'd much prefer all content to be actually hosted in the country, where it's subject to SORM and Yarovaya's Law, for full-on warrantless wiretapping and easy censorship.
In Russia, it would have very little influence. The vast majority of Russians hang out on Russia-specific Facebook clone, VKontakte. That one is already under the government control.
The problem is that.NET has never had something that would be a ready fit for a cross-platform GUI framework, historically
There was Windows Forms and WPF, but both of these are Windows-specific frameworks to begin with. WinForms is so tied to Win32 concepts (window handles and messages etc) that it cannot conceivably be ported - Mono tried that, and they eventually had to resort to reusing Wine code to do so, and ditch any attempts to use platform-native look and feel. WPF can conceptually run outside of Windows by design, but the implementation has a lot of native code that's intimately tied to Direct3D, so managing that is a Sisyphean task (indeed, Microsoft hasn't even ported WPF to Direct3D 11 to date!). There's a third party project called Avalonia that tries to reimplement it from scratch, but the sheer size and scope of a full-fledged modern UI framework means that they aren't going to ship a stable version anytime soon.
Realistically, when GUI comes to.NET Core, it would probably be Xamarin's XWT (to remind, Xamarin is currently owned by Microsoft). Given that Xamarin still ships MonoDevelop / Xamarin Studio (now rebranded as Visual Studio for Mac for the world at large - although MonoDevelop is still there on Linux), they might have some interest in a cross-platform.NET GUI. Currently they're using Gtk# for that, and running on Mono, but it's clear that.NET Core is going to subsume Mono long term.
In the meantime,.NET Core is focused almost entirely on the server side of things. I suppose a good way to think of it is a Java-like platform that offers a similar but more powerful and more thoroughly modernized language; a more lightweight, slimmer runtime that is designed to ship self-contained with the app; and modern package-based dependency management for libraries and frameworks (instead of Java's and traditional.NET "everything and the kitchen sink" approach to stdlib). Oh, and licensing - the runtime and all the standard libraries in the stack are MIT. All development is out in the open on GitHub, too.
As far as ASP security - ASP.NET had nothing in common with ASP of old (back when it was still Active Server Pages, with "Active" being a reference to ActiveX), except for the name, because branding. ASP.NET MVC was, in turn, a near-complete replacement for the original ASP.NET, reusing some low-level bits of the stack (HTTP request handling and such). The most recent incarnation, ASP.NET Core is a complete rewrite of everything from scratch for.NET Core, but with design strongly reminiscent of MVC, with various legacy bits trimmed, and the rest simplified and made more flexible (e.g. the entire HTTP pipeline is componentized, to make it easy to swap servers etc). I'm not aware of any fundamental security issues in it - although of course, as with any framework, security depends on how you use it.
It's hard to imagine this happening until Linux desktop becomes a viable target for commercial software - meaning it has more than 2% of desktop market share, for starters.
If you look at product that Microsoft ported to Linux so far, it's all either server-side stuff (e.g. SQL Server), or developer-centric stuff (e.g. Visual Studio Code). That makes sense, insofar as Linux dominates the server market, and is a popular platform for developers, especially for web apps and services.
But if you were a product manager in the Office org, can you think of a business plan to come up with, justifying expenses to port Office to some stack that can target Linux, on the basis of some expected return on investment?
Do you find that convincing? I don't. Those things don't help Linux, they only help MS. What license are they under?
Mostly MIT license these days; some projects that were open sourced earlier (like Python support in Visual Studio) are Apache license.
P.S.: I found.net.core is basically useless without the rest of it. I looked at using it when they announced it was released. Most of the others I haven't even looked at, and don't intend to. C# could be interesting, but the last time I looked it wasn't, I don't remember the details of why, but it had to do with the interesting parts being tied to MSWindows.
You must have been looking at something else, because the whole point of.NET Core was to untie the ecosystem from Windows, and none of the things that run on Core require Windows. It's certainly perfectly usable by itself (plus ASP.NET Core, which is also fully cross-platform, with.NET Core being its sole dependency) to create web applications, for example.
Visual Studio Code runs on OS X and Linux. SQL Server runs on Linux.
Seriously, have you actually looked at any of that stuff since, oh, ten years ago?
Also, at this point, Xfce can do pretty much everything that Gnome 2 could - while still being more lightweight (dunno how it compares to MATE, but since that's a fork, presumably about the same).
I don't know. I waited until my state legalized recreational marijuana, so that I could just walk into the store and have the usual open peddle-me-your-goods conversation with the clerks.
But I do know quite a few people who were going through the medical marijuana route before then - and those who went into any details about the process, did seem to be using anxiety as the official excuse.
Thing is, there's an inherent balance between power and safety here. Some things that need to be in the API for certain very useful extensions also happen to be very dangerous if extensions abuse them. If you throw them away, you increase safety but reduce power.
The problem with Firefox doing that, specifically, is that a different power vs safety balance is one of the few things that are left that still distinguish them from Chrome. Worse yet, this is at a time where, because of how prominent WebKit/Blink is, many websites are starting to target it exclusively, and ignore Firefox - which means that overall experience is getting worse for Firefox users, and the bias is already in favor of Chrome before you consider any actual differences between the browsers at all. So Firefox can't really compete on being better overall - but it can compete on being sufficiently different, that there's a niche for which it is arguably better. And that has been power users, with their extensions that they can't have anywhere else. And in the past few years, Firefox has been consistently doing things that piss them off.
This is all very much dark magic right now. Because of the legal issues, there's very little genuine research into it. So all you have is a lot of anecdotes, which are still not data even if you aggregate them. Even the well-established tropes like indica vs sativa differences are vastly oversimplified (or rather an attempt to generalize certain traits of specific strains that just happened to be correlated with these), and do not reflect the real story. On top of that all, individual physical response seems to vary a lot.
About the only thing that we've clearly established is the lack of any immediate and obvious physical harm. So, at least, it's safe (where legal) to experiment, and find what works best for you personally. It may well be some particular strain, or a blend.
"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."
The standing laws, as enacted by Congress, make illegal immigration a deportable offense. The way DACA is implemented, it's by the executive branch effectively refusing to enforce those laws with respect to a specific group of people.
You appear to still be missing the point that this has nothing to do with who invented it, and everything with when and how it was popularized and became the de facto standard.
I don't need to, because most users don't. We can reminisce about the good old days of Amiga (or whatever), but it doesn't matter. The point is, Apple and Google went where users already were, and you can hardly blame them for it.
The "desktop paradigm", since Windows 95, has been to have tons of icons for apps (and documents) on the desktop. That is what iOS and Android copied.
You could argue that it's not the optimal paradigm, and I would even agree with you. But it's what the vast majority of users on desktop PCs use and are accustomed to.
Slashdot Mirror
The windows 10 replacement was a nightmare because it consumes the whole screen in some tablet-mode nonsense.
You know Win10 apps still have an "Unmaximize" button on the toolbar, right?
The EEE strategy requires the "extend" part to be proprietary, in order to execute the "extinguish" part successfully. Otherwise, the attempt to extinguish simply results in a fork.
It doesn't work perfectly even in theory. Even if you start with a workforce that has some genuine ballast, and more than 10% of it, after a few rounds, you're firing genuinely productive employees to replace them with presumably even more productive ones... but at some point you're going to hit a cap based on how much you're actually willing to pay. At that point, you're just firing 10% most unlucky ones for a given time period. Worse yet, because everyone knows that they can get into that 10%, morale is universally low regardless of performance, and even the high-performing and high-rewarded employees don't have much loyalty.
WSL does all the same, but even better. As far as command line tools go, you basically get everything that's in Ubuntu package repos. If you really want to, you can even do GUI via XRDP.
Constitution grants specific executive, legislative and judicial powers (I have no idea what "legal powers" are, except as a synonym for "legislative") to the federal government. It furthermore specifically states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That's not how it works. Constitution grants powers to the federal government. If there's no grant of power to do X, then federal government can't do X.
Look, dude, I'm Russian. It's not how any of it works. I know, I grew up there.
Russia is different from US in that regard - in Russia, corporations are appendages of the government, not the other way around.
That it "makes sound economic sense" doesn't change the fact that it's ultimately about censorship. Russia has instituted its own "great firewall", with mandatory ISP-level bans for content it deems illegal, but it's rather like a game of whack-a-mole at the moment, and makes it hard to track the people posting it. They'd much prefer all content to be actually hosted in the country, where it's subject to SORM and Yarovaya's Law, for full-on warrantless wiretapping and easy censorship.
In Russia, it would have very little influence. The vast majority of Russians hang out on Russia-specific Facebook clone, VKontakte. That one is already under the government control.
The problem is that .NET has never had something that would be a ready fit for a cross-platform GUI framework, historically
There was Windows Forms and WPF, but both of these are Windows-specific frameworks to begin with. WinForms is so tied to Win32 concepts (window handles and messages etc) that it cannot conceivably be ported - Mono tried that, and they eventually had to resort to reusing Wine code to do so, and ditch any attempts to use platform-native look and feel. WPF can conceptually run outside of Windows by design, but the implementation has a lot of native code that's intimately tied to Direct3D, so managing that is a Sisyphean task (indeed, Microsoft hasn't even ported WPF to Direct3D 11 to date!). There's a third party project called Avalonia that tries to reimplement it from scratch, but the sheer size and scope of a full-fledged modern UI framework means that they aren't going to ship a stable version anytime soon.
Realistically, when GUI comes to .NET Core, it would probably be Xamarin's XWT (to remind, Xamarin is currently owned by Microsoft). Given that Xamarin still ships MonoDevelop / Xamarin Studio (now rebranded as Visual Studio for Mac for the world at large - although MonoDevelop is still there on Linux), they might have some interest in a cross-platform .NET GUI. Currently they're using Gtk# for that, and running on Mono, but it's clear that .NET Core is going to subsume Mono long term.
In the meantime, .NET Core is focused almost entirely on the server side of things. I suppose a good way to think of it is a Java-like platform that offers a similar but more powerful and more thoroughly modernized language; a more lightweight, slimmer runtime that is designed to ship self-contained with the app; and modern package-based dependency management for libraries and frameworks (instead of Java's and traditional .NET "everything and the kitchen sink" approach to stdlib). Oh, and licensing - the runtime and all the standard libraries in the stack are MIT. All development is out in the open on GitHub, too.
As far as ASP security - ASP.NET had nothing in common with ASP of old (back when it was still Active Server Pages, with "Active" being a reference to ActiveX), except for the name, because branding. ASP.NET MVC was, in turn, a near-complete replacement for the original ASP.NET, reusing some low-level bits of the stack (HTTP request handling and such). The most recent incarnation, ASP.NET Core is a complete rewrite of everything from scratch for .NET Core, but with design strongly reminiscent of MVC, with various legacy bits trimmed, and the rest simplified and made more flexible (e.g. the entire HTTP pipeline is componentized, to make it easy to swap servers etc). I'm not aware of any fundamental security issues in it - although of course, as with any framework, security depends on how you use it.
It's hard to imagine this happening until Linux desktop becomes a viable target for commercial software - meaning it has more than 2% of desktop market share, for starters.
If you look at product that Microsoft ported to Linux so far, it's all either server-side stuff (e.g. SQL Server), or developer-centric stuff (e.g. Visual Studio Code). That makes sense, insofar as Linux dominates the server market, and is a popular platform for developers, especially for web apps and services.
But if you were a product manager in the Office org, can you think of a business plan to come up with, justifying expenses to port Office to some stack that can target Linux, on the basis of some expected return on investment?
Do you find that convincing? I don't. Those things don't help Linux, they only help MS. What license are they under?
Mostly MIT license these days; some projects that were open sourced earlier (like Python support in Visual Studio) are Apache license.
P.S.: I found .net.core is basically useless without the rest of it. I looked at using it when they announced it was released. Most of the others I haven't even looked at, and don't intend to. C# could be interesting, but the last time I looked it wasn't, I don't remember the details of why, but it had to do with the interesting parts being tied to MSWindows.
You must have been looking at something else, because the whole point of .NET Core was to untie the ecosystem from Windows, and none of the things that run on Core require Windows. It's certainly perfectly usable by itself (plus ASP.NET Core, which is also fully cross-platform, with .NET Core being its sole dependency) to create web applications, for example.
Visual Studio Code runs on OS X and Linux. SQL Server runs on Linux.
Seriously, have you actually looked at any of that stuff since, oh, ten years ago?
What happened is that it stopped being a CDE clone, and decided to just be a sensible generic DE - a goal that it has achieved.
Also, at this point, Xfce can do pretty much everything that Gnome 2 could - while still being more lightweight (dunno how it compares to MATE, but since that's a fork, presumably about the same).
I don't know. I waited until my state legalized recreational marijuana, so that I could just walk into the store and have the usual open peddle-me-your-goods conversation with the clerks.
But I do know quite a few people who were going through the medical marijuana route before then - and those who went into any details about the process, did seem to be using anxiety as the official excuse.
Thing is, there's an inherent balance between power and safety here. Some things that need to be in the API for certain very useful extensions also happen to be very dangerous if extensions abuse them. If you throw them away, you increase safety but reduce power.
The problem with Firefox doing that, specifically, is that a different power vs safety balance is one of the few things that are left that still distinguish them from Chrome. Worse yet, this is at a time where, because of how prominent WebKit/Blink is, many websites are starting to target it exclusively, and ignore Firefox - which means that overall experience is getting worse for Firefox users, and the bias is already in favor of Chrome before you consider any actual differences between the browsers at all. So Firefox can't really compete on being better overall - but it can compete on being sufficiently different, that there's a niche for which it is arguably better. And that has been power users, with their extensions that they can't have anywhere else. And in the past few years, Firefox has been consistently doing things that piss them off.
This is all very much dark magic right now. Because of the legal issues, there's very little genuine research into it. So all you have is a lot of anecdotes, which are still not data even if you aggregate them. Even the well-established tropes like indica vs sativa differences are vastly oversimplified (or rather an attempt to generalize certain traits of specific strains that just happened to be correlated with these), and do not reflect the real story. On top of that all, individual physical response seems to vary a lot.
About the only thing that we've clearly established is the lack of any immediate and obvious physical harm. So, at least, it's safe (where legal) to experiment, and find what works best for you personally. It may well be some particular strain, or a blend.
Did they implement tab and history synchronization across devices? That's pretty much the only reason why I didn't stay last time I tried Vivaldi.
Article 2, Section 3:
"He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."
The standing laws, as enacted by Congress, make illegal immigration a deportable offense. The way DACA is implemented, it's by the executive branch effectively refusing to enforce those laws with respect to a specific group of people.
You appear to still be missing the point that this has nothing to do with who invented it, and everything with when and how it was popularized and became the de facto standard.
I don't need to, because most users don't. We can reminisce about the good old days of Amiga (or whatever), but it doesn't matter. The point is, Apple and Google went where users already were, and you can hardly blame them for it.
The "desktop paradigm", since Windows 95, has been to have tons of icons for apps (and documents) on the desktop. That is what iOS and Android copied.
You could argue that it's not the optimal paradigm, and I would even agree with you. But it's what the vast majority of users on desktop PCs use and are accustomed to.
Anyone who wants a more modern language, for example.
There are no missing bits. Roslyn - the underlying library - is fully open source.