Everybody at my workplace who develops for Linux uses Windows for a variety of reasons, including me. And I also use Windows at home.
There certainly are people who use nothing but Linux, also for good reason. I have at various times. But a huge number of applications are still only written for Windows (or Windows+macOS) whose alternatives either don't exist or are less adequate in a number of ways.
I don't think you understand how much Window$ 10 relies on the internet to properly function.
But that is completely false. Does Windows 10 absolutely, 100% require the Internet for any function that existed in previous versions, which in those versions did not require the Internet? No.
Yes, Microsoft does cloud computing. Yes, they want you to do it. No, you are not required to do it. Stop acting like you are.
Sandboxing and redirection is already implemented for AppX. The main effort would be to make VS work in the existing constraints, considering how much deeper the program integrates than a typical application.
Explain how offering Linux in Windows locks "people into cloud computing crap". This is local, nothing to do with the cloud.
They obviously can't lock you in because Ubuntu/Suse/Fedora have always been available outside of Windows... I don't even know how you came up with that bullshit.
Microsoft owns the store, the OS, and Visual Studio. They can allow first-party applications like VS to bypass restrictions against executing and debugging unsigned applications.
This isn't a new concept. Actually it is a less efficient version of a method introduced well over a decade ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... in that one, the single large "safe zone" is replaced with a grid of car-sized zones which only one vehicle is allowed to enter at a time.
I implemented it with Roombas during a class for my MS, back in 2006 I believe. Others have done similar things with robotic cars.
If your assumption is that current Home users would suddenly have S one day, then that would be really bad. But also very unlikely since that would kill apps that users already have and would cause a larger outrage than Microsoft has ever seen.
The best we can do is speculate until Microsoft announces their future roadmap for Windows editions. I speculate that S will be a free (as in beer), or only available to OEMs.
No. Considering VS has not even been announced as a store app, then it certainly has not been announced that it will work in a fundamentally different way.
I'm surprised it isn't already in the store. It would certainly use Centennial (instead of being a full port to UWP), and being a first-party product it could bypass restrictions that other Centennial apps cannot.
The moment that there is doubt (very reasonably so in this case) on the evidence of guilt then not guilty becomes a mandatory verdict.
Agreed, if there is doubt on all the evidence. Just doubting one piece of evidence in the face of mountains of seemingly legitimate evidence shouldn't get the defendant off the hook.
Why the hell do so many people believe every political issue has precisely two sides, and only one side has merit? In the real world we tackle difficult problems by relying on a number of solutions, and we care more about what works than about ideals.
If an employer is going to pay only $5/hr, why bother?
That depends largely on factors such as your cost of living and family situation.
Keep in mind that I made up the $8/hour UBI. It was based on the values in the article. Looking more closely at those numbers and comparing with GDP, income tax receipts, and current social program costs, I suspect that $17k-$24k per household is unsustainable. In the US I think it could be more realistic between $5k and $10k (or equivalent to $2.5/hour to $5/hour) with a larger benefit for cases like disability. Enough to keep you alive with food/clothing/shelter, but not enough to make most people decide to stay home.
So would you bother to work if the employer pays $7/hour while UBI covers $4/hour? Still a win for both parties over the hypothetical $10 minimum wage.
Getting the numbers right is important, which affirms your point. But that doesn't mean that UBI at any level is doomed.
Slashdot Mirror
Everybody at my workplace who develops for Linux uses Windows for a variety of reasons, including me. And I also use Windows at home.
There certainly are people who use nothing but Linux, also for good reason. I have at various times. But a huge number of applications are still only written for Windows (or Windows+macOS) whose alternatives either don't exist or are less adequate in a number of ways.
Your entire premise is this:
I don't think you understand how much Window$ 10 relies on the internet to properly function.
But that is completely false. Does Windows 10 absolutely, 100% require the Internet for any function that existed in previous versions, which in those versions did not require the Internet? No.
Yes, Microsoft does cloud computing. Yes, they want you to do it. No, you are not required to do it. Stop acting like you are.
No, what is your point? You keep using terms that acknowledge the WSL method is at least slightly better than VM, in multiple ways.
Is VM actually better in any way (besides "I already have a good VM setup and don't want to change")?
Sandboxing and redirection is already implemented for AppX. The main effort would be to make VS work in the existing constraints, considering how much deeper the program integrates than a typical application.
Explain how offering Linux in Windows locks "people into cloud computing crap". This is local, nothing to do with the cloud.
They obviously can't lock you in because Ubuntu/Suse/Fedora have always been available outside of Windows... I don't even know how you came up with that bullshit.
So someone would pay for VS and deal with the hack you described just to keep from paying $50 for Windows 10 Pro?
Even so, there are other ways to prevent arbitrary code execution, e.g. sandboxing/containerization, local signing, etc.
WSL has native performance.
Many Linux server developers run Windows. This way they don't need a separate machine or VM.
Microsoft owns the store, the OS, and Visual Studio. They can allow first-party applications like VS to bypass restrictions against executing and debugging unsigned applications.
Keep in mind this is not a referendum
And thus it is pretty much useless. A politician will ignore unfavorable results, but proclaim positive feedback as a mandate.
This isn't a new concept. Actually it is a less efficient version of a method introduced well over a decade ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... in that one, the single large "safe zone" is replaced with a grid of car-sized zones which only one vehicle is allowed to enter at a time.
I implemented it with Roombas during a class for my MS, back in 2006 I believe. Others have done similar things with robotic cars.
If your assumption is that current Home users would suddenly have S one day, then that would be really bad. But also very unlikely since that would kill apps that users already have and would cause a larger outrage than Microsoft has ever seen.
The best we can do is speculate until Microsoft announces their future roadmap for Windows editions. I speculate that S will be a free (as in beer), or only available to OEMs.
Again, no. You made up the idea of submitting compiler output to the store in order to test on the development machine. That was not the topic at all.
I'm not sure who claimed that. From day 1 they said there were limitations against services, drivers, apps that need admin, etc.
No. Considering VS has not even been announced as a store app, then it certainly has not been announced that it will work in a fundamentally different way.
Not certain, maybe a deep integration with the registry or other OS bits that are not straightforward to resolve under the store model.
Could be they are waiting for SDK bits that aren't ready yet.
I'm surprised it isn't already in the store. It would certainly use Centennial (instead of being a full port to UWP), and being a first-party product it could bypass restrictions that other Centennial apps cannot.
Interesting perhaps, but what you said has nothing to do with the previous comment.
One case shouldn't constrain all the others. I hope they are working on putting VS in the store, but they shouldn't have to delay the OS for it.
It's fine if the Windows Store succeeds, so long as a reasonable Pro option always exists that allows you to bypass it.
I assumed these cameras were always recording, so that they could save the previous few minutes once recording was activated.
The moment that there is doubt (very reasonably so in this case) on the evidence of guilt then not guilty becomes a mandatory verdict.
Agreed, if there is doubt on all the evidence. Just doubting one piece of evidence in the face of mountains of seemingly legitimate evidence shouldn't get the defendant off the hook.
How about...
...we try to do both?
Why the hell do so many people believe every political issue has precisely two sides, and only one side has merit? In the real world we tackle difficult problems by relying on a number of solutions, and we care more about what works than about ideals.
Yep, and they really can't compete by just having a comparable product. It has to be better for a lot of people if they ever want market share.
That's a good thing... either it will be good and gain traction, or bad and go away.
If an employer is going to pay only $5/hr, why bother?
That depends largely on factors such as your cost of living and family situation.
Keep in mind that I made up the $8/hour UBI. It was based on the values in the article. Looking more closely at those numbers and comparing with GDP, income tax receipts, and current social program costs, I suspect that $17k-$24k per household is unsustainable. In the US I think it could be more realistic between $5k and $10k (or equivalent to $2.5/hour to $5/hour) with a larger benefit for cases like disability. Enough to keep you alive with food/clothing/shelter, but not enough to make most people decide to stay home.
So would you bother to work if the employer pays $7/hour while UBI covers $4/hour? Still a win for both parties over the hypothetical $10 minimum wage.
Getting the numbers right is important, which affirms your point. But that doesn't mean that UBI at any level is doomed.