I was thinking more in terms of cross-platform scripting. Being able to move Bash scripts around different Linux variants, and more particularly different *nix variants, isn't always straightforward, with different variants storing different things even within the/etc structure. But still, the Bourne family has decades of library functions and the like behind it, so if I could just run Bash on Windows (without all the awful mess of Cygwin), but still be able to latch into Windows subsystems, I'd have one common scripting language, one that I have been using for over 25 years, on all my systems. That would be a boon, even if strictly speaking some scripts would be largely restricted to one platform.
What really irks me about Win10 is the instability of some of its feature. The Start Menu, even fully updated, seems prone to some pretty strange failures, all of which end up requiring weird DISM commands to fix. On my workplace network, we just back up user profiles, and when the Start Menu or Cortana go screwy, we just wipe out the profile and replace it with a week-old backup. Part of the problem here, I suspect, is MS moving to XML files, and the greater likelihood, or so it seems, of those files being corrupted.
None that I can think of. The reason for the initial move was that the Ubuntu Apache 2 package was a bit screwy at the compiler level, and moving to Debian definitely fixed that problem and Apache performed as it did under CentOS and Slackware. A lot of time has passed, so I can't really say if you'll many roadblocks.
If MS had used a Bash variant rather than that overly-verbose monstrosity that is PowerShell, I might have sided with them. In fact, I'd probably use a Linux subsystem on Windows 10 and Server 2012 if it could latch into the same configuration and reporting systems that Powershell does. But at the moment, I have a Linux development machine that runs Windows as a VM, and that works fairly well (though I don't do a lot of development these days).
Honestly, I stopped using Ubuntu about six years ago, and went with straight-up Debian (though SystemD has irritated me a bit). I have no intention of returning to Ubuntu.
Sure they can't. The OOXML format is a good example of how Microsoft can use supposedly open processes to push through a proprietary system. I have little faith in Microsoft at the best of times, but of late, with the awful half-assedness of Windows 10 (not to mention its near constant attempts to sell me shit because I didn't invest in the enterprise edition), I'm not even sure if I care what Microsoft's intentions are, because at this point, I think incompetence has replaced malice.
Windows already has a large percentage of desktop developers, as compared to any other platform. And this isn't about making cross-compatible applications, it's about Linux developers being asked to develop their Linux software in a Linux-under-Windows environment. Cross-platform tools have existed for a very long time now, and, so far as I understand, that's not what the Ubuntu-Windows subsystem is about.
But the whole point of this plea isn't to get more Linux developers writing Windows software, but rather to switch to their Ubuntu-on-Win10 subsystem to continue developing Windows software.
Why the fuck would any Linux developer want to do this? It's not as if Windows 10 offers any significant, or even real, architectural advantage, and it's not like Linux doesn't have plenty of its own development tools. So far as I can tell, Windows 10 has absolutely no developer advantages at all, and in fact, simply represents a pointless extra layer for any developer working on Linux.
You know, I almost preferred the Gates-Ballmer Microsoft, because it was brilliantly maniacal. The new Microsoft is just a whining pathetic pack of halfwits who can't really even decide what direction their company should go. Sure, they may be more open source friendly, but so the fuck what?
I don't think there is that much variation between left-leaning and right-leaning judges "legislating from the bench", it just tends that one group is fine when a like-minded court goes in their favor, but is angered when an oppositional court does not. To some extent, notions of "left" and "right" mean somewhat different things in legal terms.
But all of this really begs the question as to how likely it is that something like Roe v. Wade would be thrown out by a theoretical conservative court. Let's remember here that Roe v Wade itself is built atop rulings like Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird, and that these rulings are also the bedrock of Lawrence v. Texas. Now I'm sure there are any number of Evangelicals, Conservative Catholics and like-minded groups who would love to see all these rulings knocked down, but just how many of those who voted for Trump, or even for many downticket republicans, would want to have sodomy recriminalized, abortion banned, and contraceptives limited just to married couples?
That's what I don't really understand. Whatever most of the alt-right are, damned few of them actually seem to be social conservatives, so do they really want a social conservative Supreme Court, or is this just part of their whole contrarian schtick, where if a liberal President or RINO President did something, it must therefore automatically be wrong?
it is the Emoluments Clause (Article 1 Section 9 Clause 8) which is where Trump's troubles lie. In reality, he should have divested his control of his international business interests months or even a year ago.
Over twenty states have no faithless elector laws, and those that do in general only levy a very small fine against a faithless elector. In other words, what you have here is a constitutional convention, and constitutional conventions last as long as everyone agrees they should. If enough electors were to select another candidate, other than some of them being fined, then that person becomes President. Clearly Trump and his supporters feel nervous enough about all of this to declare that he really won an actual majority of the popular vote, in an attempt to argue that the electors should abide by the public will.
I can understand the Evangelicals and Conservative Catholics cheering, since there's some small chance that a Conservative court might throw out Roe v Wade, but really what exactly is a conservative court going to do for the Alt-right? Get rid of civil rights laws so it's okay to refuse business to African-Americans or gays? Do they imagine that a conservative Supreme Court will somehow force society to accept a pack of loudmouthed racists, force employers to ignore their outbursts?
Strictly speaking the rules are that the Electoral College picks the President, and the Constitution gives very few rules as to how they do that. Now I think the EC picking someone other than Trump would be an even worse disaster than picking Trump, but let's be clear as to what the rules actually are. And let's also be clear that Trump's vast international business network poses a potential Constitutional crisis if he doesn't divest himself of it soon.
Loudmouths say lots of absurd things. America was built on conspiracy theories. The Declaration of Independence invokes at least one, when it references the Crown's allowing the residents of New France keeping their civil legal system as evidence that King George intended to overthrow the English Common Law system:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
Of course, that never actually happened and Quebec remains the only part of the former British North America that uses a civil law system. Meanwhile a few decades later one of those Founding Father's happily purchased French territory for the US and allowed it to retain that dreaded alien legal system.
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking more in terms of cross-platform scripting. Being able to move Bash scripts around different Linux variants, and more particularly different *nix variants, isn't always straightforward, with different variants storing different things even within the /etc structure. But still, the Bourne family has decades of library functions and the like behind it, so if I could just run Bash on Windows (without all the awful mess of Cygwin), but still be able to latch into Windows subsystems, I'd have one common scripting language, one that I have been using for over 25 years, on all my systems. That would be a boon, even if strictly speaking some scripts would be largely restricted to one platform.
What really irks me about Win10 is the instability of some of its feature. The Start Menu, even fully updated, seems prone to some pretty strange failures, all of which end up requiring weird DISM commands to fix. On my workplace network, we just back up user profiles, and when the Start Menu or Cortana go screwy, we just wipe out the profile and replace it with a week-old backup. Part of the problem here, I suspect, is MS moving to XML files, and the greater likelihood, or so it seems, of those files being corrupted.
None that I can think of. The reason for the initial move was that the Ubuntu Apache 2 package was a bit screwy at the compiler level, and moving to Debian definitely fixed that problem and Apache performed as it did under CentOS and Slackware. A lot of time has passed, so I can't really say if you'll many roadblocks.
It is the main *desktop* OS used. It is not the main OS used overall.
If MS had used a Bash variant rather than that overly-verbose monstrosity that is PowerShell, I might have sided with them. In fact, I'd probably use a Linux subsystem on Windows 10 and Server 2012 if it could latch into the same configuration and reporting systems that Powershell does. But at the moment, I have a Linux development machine that runs Windows as a VM, and that works fairly well (though I don't do a lot of development these days).
Honestly, I stopped using Ubuntu about six years ago, and went with straight-up Debian (though SystemD has irritated me a bit). I have no intention of returning to Ubuntu.
Sure they can't. The OOXML format is a good example of how Microsoft can use supposedly open processes to push through a proprietary system. I have little faith in Microsoft at the best of times, but of late, with the awful half-assedness of Windows 10 (not to mention its near constant attempts to sell me shit because I didn't invest in the enterprise edition), I'm not even sure if I care what Microsoft's intentions are, because at this point, I think incompetence has replaced malice.
Windows already has a large percentage of desktop developers, as compared to any other platform. And this isn't about making cross-compatible applications, it's about Linux developers being asked to develop their Linux software in a Linux-under-Windows environment. Cross-platform tools have existed for a very long time now, and, so far as I understand, that's not what the Ubuntu-Windows subsystem is about.
But the whole point of this plea isn't to get more Linux developers writing Windows software, but rather to switch to their Ubuntu-on-Win10 subsystem to continue developing Windows software.
And why should any developer be interested in moving to another platform just to help MS find bugs?
What exactly is there to offer? I can't imagine anyone wanting to throw an extra layer on top of their work just to help Microsoft find bugs.
Why the fuck would any Linux developer want to do this? It's not as if Windows 10 offers any significant, or even real, architectural advantage, and it's not like Linux doesn't have plenty of its own development tools. So far as I can tell, Windows 10 has absolutely no developer advantages at all, and in fact, simply represents a pointless extra layer for any developer working on Linux.
You know, I almost preferred the Gates-Ballmer Microsoft, because it was brilliantly maniacal. The new Microsoft is just a whining pathetic pack of halfwits who can't really even decide what direction their company should go. Sure, they may be more open source friendly, but so the fuck what?
I don't think there is that much variation between left-leaning and right-leaning judges "legislating from the bench", it just tends that one group is fine when a like-minded court goes in their favor, but is angered when an oppositional court does not. To some extent, notions of "left" and "right" mean somewhat different things in legal terms.
But all of this really begs the question as to how likely it is that something like Roe v. Wade would be thrown out by a theoretical conservative court. Let's remember here that Roe v Wade itself is built atop rulings like Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird, and that these rulings are also the bedrock of Lawrence v. Texas. Now I'm sure there are any number of Evangelicals, Conservative Catholics and like-minded groups who would love to see all these rulings knocked down, but just how many of those who voted for Trump, or even for many downticket republicans, would want to have sodomy recriminalized, abortion banned, and contraceptives limited just to married couples?
That's what I don't really understand. Whatever most of the alt-right are, damned few of them actually seem to be social conservatives, so do they really want a social conservative Supreme Court, or is this just part of their whole contrarian schtick, where if a liberal President or RINO President did something, it must therefore automatically be wrong?
it is the Emoluments Clause (Article 1 Section 9 Clause 8) which is where Trump's troubles lie. In reality, he should have divested his control of his international business interests months or even a year ago.
I think you'd better read the Constitution again.
Over twenty states have no faithless elector laws, and those that do in general only levy a very small fine against a faithless elector. In other words, what you have here is a constitutional convention, and constitutional conventions last as long as everyone agrees they should. If enough electors were to select another candidate, other than some of them being fined, then that person becomes President. Clearly Trump and his supporters feel nervous enough about all of this to declare that he really won an actual majority of the popular vote, in an attempt to argue that the electors should abide by the public will.
I can understand the Evangelicals and Conservative Catholics cheering, since there's some small chance that a Conservative court might throw out Roe v Wade, but really what exactly is a conservative court going to do for the Alt-right? Get rid of civil rights laws so it's okay to refuse business to African-Americans or gays? Do they imagine that a conservative Supreme Court will somehow force society to accept a pack of loudmouthed racists, force employers to ignore their outbursts?
Looking forward to restarting your local Klan chapter, I see
I'll wager you'll blame someone Jewish.
Strictly speaking the rules are that the Electoral College picks the President, and the Constitution gives very few rules as to how they do that. Now I think the EC picking someone other than Trump would be an even worse disaster than picking Trump, but let's be clear as to what the rules actually are. And let's also be clear that Trump's vast international business network poses a potential Constitutional crisis if he doesn't divest himself of it soon.
You can tell how insecure the alt right really are when even victory can't prevent them from casting conspiracy theories.
Dont worry little delicate snowflake, the Electoral College will elect Trump.
Loudmouths say lots of absurd things. America was built on conspiracy theories. The Declaration of Independence invokes at least one, when it references the Crown's allowing the residents of New France keeping their civil legal system as evidence that King George intended to overthrow the English Common Law system:
Of course, that never actually happened and Quebec remains the only part of the former British North America that uses a civil law system. Meanwhile a few decades later one of those Founding Father's happily purchased French territory for the US and allowed it to retain that dreaded alien legal system.
And how do you know the Russians are involved? Because the first thing they do is try to point at the nearest Jew and blame him.
Solipsism doesn't strike me as a good thing to base a democracy on.
And they would be wrong