Why can an ad break the Windows 11 desktop and taskbar?(ctrl.blog)
ctrl.blog
Why can an ad break the Windows 11 desktop and taskbar?
https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/windows11-empty-taskbar.html
439 comments
I had exactly the same issue. The solution is Windows LTSC (long term service package). It has no Cortana, teams, or Windows store, no Telemetry, and only update about once a month and it never updates automatically, only when you allow it to. It’s designed for applications where a computer has to be stable for a long time.
A copy can be a pain to get a hold of because Microsoft only want to licence it to corporate clients, so it’s usually not possible for individuals to buy a licence at any price. Microsoft really don’t want regular people to have access to it.
but if you look on your favourite piracy site you should see it. Then use a Windows keygen and presto it’s activated.
A copy can be a pain to get a hold of because Microsoft only want to licence it to corporate clients, so it’s usually not possible for individuals to buy a licence at any price. Microsoft really don’t want regular people to have access to it.
but if you look on your favourite piracy site you should see it. Then use a Windows keygen and presto it’s activated.
https://my.visualstudio.com includes Windows LTSC for MSDN subscribers. There is even an IoT edition.
How can you be sure these copies of Windows haven't been tampered with?
I honestly think you could run a cryptominer on it and wouldn't be any worse than all the other shitware MS bloats it with
you can verify the sha256sum against MS official list
Where is this official list? A quick google search just returns forums which seem to conclude that these are no longer published by MS.
There are some dumps online like https://www.heidoc.net/php/myvsdump.php or https://sha1.rg-adguard.net/
The issue about verification still remains. We have no way of knowing if these haven't been tampered with as well. If a malicious actor is tampering with ISOs on a large scale, they will make sure their tampered copies have the most seeds and their fake checksum lists will be at the top of search results.
find a friend with MSDN access (or whatever it's called this week), the digests are all in there
(they used to be public)
(they used to be public)
The images(wim/esd format) are downloaded from Microsoft servers. There is no tampering.
> I just want to run applications that through past probably-illegal monopolistic actions, require APIs that only exist on Windows machines.
It's gonna be ironic if one day Wine becomes the best way to run those applications because Microsoft ruined their own platform with ads and surveillance.
It's gonna be ironic if one day Wine becomes the best way to run those applications because Microsoft ruined their own platform with ads and surveillance.
Well in the edge-case requirement of running several copies of Microsoft Word simultaneously, WINE has Windows beat.
https://www.reddit.com/r/winehq/comments/he1pc0/went_overboa...
https://www.reddit.com/r/winehq/comments/he1pc0/went_overboa...
Windows should have a "minimal install" option were it only installs the base operating sysyem and not much else. That's why Windows XP/7 will always be the pinnacle of Windows releases in my opinion.
It does, but Microsoft doesn't consider that level of minimalism to be an "end user" use-case, so it's not an option available to end users to install.
Instead, in Microsoft's minds, this is a use-case exclusively of interest to embedded-device system integrators (i.e. the people building the world's ATMs, billboards, gas pumps, slot machines, ticket kiosks, etc.) So that's how they market it: https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/iot/
Make no mistake, though, you can just download and install Windows IoT Core onto any random PC; and (mostly) arbitrary Windows apps can be installed and run on top of Windows IoT Core.
The only proviso being, that IoT Core is maybe a bit too minimal for your use-case: IoT Core assumes you don't need a desktop (because you're likely remotely managing the device, and deploying a full-screen kiosk-style app that isn't meant to be broken out of.) It still has a graphical "control plane" shell sort of thing, but it's entirely built on the Metro/UWP UX, with no ability to launch programs in windowed mode. (Essentially, there's no window manager running.) I believe this means that Win32 apps that try to spawn multiple windows (e.g. old versions of Photoshop that make the palettes their own windows), won't work on IoT Core. Most modern stuff avoids that, though.
I would note that this "remote-deploy and boot apps in fullscreen, with access to Win32 but not GDI, graphics only though UWP" paradigm, closely mirrors the experience of using an Xbox One in developer mode. I bet the "distro" of Windows used between IoT Core and the modern Xbox are near-identical.
Instead, in Microsoft's minds, this is a use-case exclusively of interest to embedded-device system integrators (i.e. the people building the world's ATMs, billboards, gas pumps, slot machines, ticket kiosks, etc.) So that's how they market it: https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/iot/
Make no mistake, though, you can just download and install Windows IoT Core onto any random PC; and (mostly) arbitrary Windows apps can be installed and run on top of Windows IoT Core.
The only proviso being, that IoT Core is maybe a bit too minimal for your use-case: IoT Core assumes you don't need a desktop (because you're likely remotely managing the device, and deploying a full-screen kiosk-style app that isn't meant to be broken out of.) It still has a graphical "control plane" shell sort of thing, but it's entirely built on the Metro/UWP UX, with no ability to launch programs in windowed mode. (Essentially, there's no window manager running.) I believe this means that Win32 apps that try to spawn multiple windows (e.g. old versions of Photoshop that make the palettes their own windows), won't work on IoT Core. Most modern stuff avoids that, though.
I would note that this "remote-deploy and boot apps in fullscreen, with access to Win32 but not GDI, graphics only though UWP" paradigm, closely mirrors the experience of using an Xbox One in developer mode. I bet the "distro" of Windows used between IoT Core and the modern Xbox are near-identical.
Many standard Win32 widgets, such as context menus and tooltips, are themselves top-level windows - so if Core doesn't support that at all, it would break a lot more than just Photoshop.
Core is for headless deployment, not for running Photoshop.
I would disagree, insofar as one of the use-cases for IoT Core (and Windows Embedded before it) is for developing kiosks that run arbitrary single apps. That could include e.g. a tablet that only runs Photoshop.
But the assumption in those use-cases is that you as the system-integrator are either also the developer of the app being embedded, or at least have access to the engineers of the ISV who developed the app; and so you can get the app recompiled [and potentially slightly rewritten in the process] for the target profile (UWP) that IoT Core supports. IoT Core doesn't support just taking arbitrary Win32 GDI apps and kiosk-ifying them.
...but Windows IoT Enterprise does! IoT Enterprise is just Windows Pro LTSC but with IoT Core's virtual-appliance versioned-image deployment and management process. You can totally kiosk a "legacy" Win32 GDI app using IoT Enterprise. That's what a lot of modern billboard manufacturers and the like are still doing (until they finish redeveloping their signage apps for IoT Core), which is why you'll still sometimes see e.g. an airport terminal sign sitting around on the Windows desktop when its kiosk app failed to boot. That's an IoT Enterprise deployment.
But IoT Enterprise isn't any more minimal than Pro LTSC, it's just different, so it wasn't really the point of the discussion here. If you're a home user putting Windows on your own PC, you'd want to use Pro LTSC, not IoT Enterprise. (Unless "your own PC" is your RaspPi that you're trying to set up as a smart-fridge weather widget or something. Then maybe you do want IoT Enterprise.)
But the assumption in those use-cases is that you as the system-integrator are either also the developer of the app being embedded, or at least have access to the engineers of the ISV who developed the app; and so you can get the app recompiled [and potentially slightly rewritten in the process] for the target profile (UWP) that IoT Core supports. IoT Core doesn't support just taking arbitrary Win32 GDI apps and kiosk-ifying them.
...but Windows IoT Enterprise does! IoT Enterprise is just Windows Pro LTSC but with IoT Core's virtual-appliance versioned-image deployment and management process. You can totally kiosk a "legacy" Win32 GDI app using IoT Enterprise. That's what a lot of modern billboard manufacturers and the like are still doing (until they finish redeveloping their signage apps for IoT Core), which is why you'll still sometimes see e.g. an airport terminal sign sitting around on the Windows desktop when its kiosk app failed to boot. That's an IoT Enterprise deployment.
But IoT Enterprise isn't any more minimal than Pro LTSC, it's just different, so it wasn't really the point of the discussion here. If you're a home user putting Windows on your own PC, you'd want to use Pro LTSC, not IoT Enterprise. (Unless "your own PC" is your RaspPi that you're trying to set up as a smart-fridge weather widget or something. Then maybe you do want IoT Enterprise.)
Good news: You can go ahead and do that for about $270 per copy of Windows.
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2167558-explicit-inst...
Someone told me this when I made a similar comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27671028
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2167558-explicit-inst...
Someone told me this when I made a similar comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27671028
You would pay them? Paying Microsoft to not put garbage in your operating system is like paying the mafia to not break your shop windows.
In some way I see it the same as buying organic food in a premium. First time I learned about people paying extra for organic I thought "but that's how people always used to eat especially if you grew up in a village".
A lot of food is organic, but has to be sold as non-organic because the farm can't pay the licensing/program costs of using the official organic label.
To make the analogy work, all food would be grown organic, but only companies can buy it untampered with. Before selling to consumers producers would infuse the produce with trace amounts of neurotoxin.
Isn't this normal for apps? Spotify has a free version that is ad supported.
Microsoft is giving away Windows. Remember that not that long ago you had to pay €$200+ for an OS.
Microsoft is giving away Windows. Remember that not that long ago you had to pay €$200+ for an OS.
$139 for Windows Home and $199 for Windows Pro. Where I come from this would not be called giving away.
Official MS pricing: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/b/windows?activetab=pi...
Official MS pricing: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/b/windows?activetab=pi...
Most people surely buy/bought their license with a new PC from an OEM; OEM's apparently always paid much less, e.g. 50$ (in 2009) https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/09/micro... - and less if it was a cheap/low-end device: https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/microsoft-reducing-w...
I'm guessing they're not going to drop those fees, so whatever ad or product-placement revenue comes in is probably on top of that?
I'm guessing they're not going to drop those fees, so whatever ad or product-placement revenue comes in is probably on top of that?
Eh, it's the same. The price floor is just different.
>Accept that you are just boring plumbing, and don't have any "value added services", and you earn my money.
I'd love to see numbers on how much long term projected revenue their captive audience telemetry and ad delivery platform are valued at. I wouldn't be surprised if it renders the actual OS license sales look like a drop in the bucket.
I'd love to see numbers on how much long term projected revenue their captive audience telemetry and ad delivery platform are valued at. I wouldn't be surprised if it renders the actual OS license sales look like a drop in the bucket.
I'd like to see windows be part of office 365. Windows users get 'free' Windows on the desktop and Mac users can get licenses for parallels.
Maybe they could set it up so that Windows is free with ads, but subscribers can turn everything off and get full control.
Maybe they could set it up so that Windows is free with ads, but subscribers can turn everything off and get full control.
Office 365 E5 includes this. Or at least a Windows 10 Professional license. Not sure if you have to have Windows 10 normal first.
Sounds like you want Windows AME.
I had not heard of this project, thanks for sharing! Do you have experience using it? Is it stable in practice? How much efforts do you need for maintenance post-install compared to a normal system?
Extremely stable and fast, although the difference in UI can take some getting used to, since the Start menu is so cut down. I'd recommend installing OpenStart to get a more traditional experience. Windows Update is stripped out entirely, so I eventually went with LTSC for the sake of drivers and such. If programs like WuMgr ever stop being able to control Windows Update I might go back to AME.
Good to know, thank you
Windows Server?
LTSB
My history is rusty, but the first ads in Windows were probably in Windows 8 live tiles in the Start Menu. (Not including Internet Explorer being forced upon everyone.)
But it expanded from there - there are ads in Settings encouraging browser choice and discouraging changes to default applications.
Ads all over your first-run experience.
Ads in the taskbar encouraging you to use Edge and Teams.
The ad system is heavily integrated into Explorer / taskbar. Which is how poorly constructed ads can break such vital operating machinery.
But it expanded from there - there are ads in Settings encouraging browser choice and discouraging changes to default applications.
Ads all over your first-run experience.
Ads in the taskbar encouraging you to use Edge and Teams.
The ad system is heavily integrated into Explorer / taskbar. Which is how poorly constructed ads can break such vital operating machinery.
Even ads on the lock screen (for Microsoft Edge) and through MS-certified drivers (e.g. Corsair iCue, Dolby Atmos).
And they charge you to use this?
Sort of? I've been building PCs for about 20 years, and when doing it for others, I'd have them buy a license. For myself, the only time I can recall buying a Windows license was for Windows Home Server and WHS 2011. I got a free Windows 7 Ultimate license, which I have now upgraded through 8/8.1 to 10 Pro.
But yes, a mainstream Windows user pays for a Windows license, either through a direct license purchase, or through the baked in price of a machine.
Most users did not pay to upgrade machines from 7/8/8.1 to 10, but that was a bargain with the devil, as it made it easier on the decision-makers at Microsoft to find other ways to make money off of Windows 10 users.
But yes, a mainstream Windows user pays for a Windows license, either through a direct license purchase, or through the baked in price of a machine.
Most users did not pay to upgrade machines from 7/8/8.1 to 10, but that was a bargain with the devil, as it made it easier on the decision-makers at Microsoft to find other ways to make money off of Windows 10 users.
Part of setting up a Win 10 machine should include disabling telemetry, even though it's not easy.
https://winaero.com/how-to-disable-telemetry-and-data-collec...
It probably won't be long before the Windows 11 version is here.
https://winaero.com/how-to-disable-telemetry-and-data-collec...
It probably won't be long before the Windows 11 version is here.
> Most users did not pay to upgrade machines from 7/8/8.1 to 10, but that was a bargain with the devil
Bargain with the devil? Most users didn't pay to upgrade machines from 7/8 to 10 because they had nothing to gain from the upgrade. You only bargain to get things that you want.
Bargain with the devil? Most users didn't pay to upgrade machines from 7/8 to 10 because they had nothing to gain from the upgrade. You only bargain to get things that you want.
Er, no, they didn't pay because Microsoft offered the upgrade for free. They did upgrade, they just didn't pay to do so. Hence "a bargain with the devil."
And I'm saying that, if the upgrade had cost money, they wouldn't have done it.
Look at the number of people who upgraded from 7 to 8.
Look at the number of people who upgraded from 7 to 8.
Most people want the new and shiny even if a select few prefer the stable, safe choice. Mainstream preferences overwhelm the tech savvy. Already I see forum threads on Slickdeals where people are talking about how important it is for any computer you buy to be Windows 11 ready...
What a horror story, thanks for the comprehensive answer.
This reminds me of the "Gmail man" video Microsoft released mocking Gmail mail snooping to show you ads. Well... nowadays MS is waaaay ahead of that, with ads at the OS level.
Barely. You've been able to upgrade for free for at least 10 years, and even a new license is like £30.
It's not surprising they're trying to add adverts. Sucks though.
It's not surprising they're trying to add adverts. Sucks though.
Windows 10/Pro costs 145/259€.
If you paid 30 bucks you paid for a stolen or otherwise illegally sold license.
> You've been able to upgrade for free for at least 10 years
Actually it's 6 years. There were no free upgrades before Windows 10 as far as I'm aware.
If you paid 30 bucks you paid for a stolen or otherwise illegally sold license.
> You've been able to upgrade for free for at least 10 years
Actually it's 6 years. There were no free upgrades before Windows 10 as far as I'm aware.
> If you paid 30 bucks you paid for a stolen or otherwise illegally sold license.
Citation needed.
https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/reviews/get-windows-10-free-...
> Now, let's address the elephant in the room. While we can't vouch for all of them, websites selling lower-priced Windows keys are likely selling legitimate codes. One popular site, Kinguin, has 37 merchants worldwide selling Windows keys. Mark Jordan, Kinguin’s VP of communications, told Tom's Hardware in 2019 that Kinguin's merchants acquire the codes from wholesalers who have surplus copies of Windows they don't need.
> "It's not a gray market. It would be like buying Adidas or Puma or Nike from a discounter, from TJ Maxx," Jordan said. "There are no legal issues with buying it from us. It's just another marketplace."
> According to Jordan, Kinguin's merchants have sold “several hundred thousand” keys and are not one-time sellers posting listings for codes they don’t want. As part of its fraud protection, a Kinguin employee randomly buys a key “every now and then” to make sure they’re legitimate, he said. Jordan added that it’s rare for a customer to get a key that’s been resold, but if they did, customer support would help them get a new one for free.
Citation needed.
https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/reviews/get-windows-10-free-...
> Now, let's address the elephant in the room. While we can't vouch for all of them, websites selling lower-priced Windows keys are likely selling legitimate codes. One popular site, Kinguin, has 37 merchants worldwide selling Windows keys. Mark Jordan, Kinguin’s VP of communications, told Tom's Hardware in 2019 that Kinguin's merchants acquire the codes from wholesalers who have surplus copies of Windows they don't need.
> "It's not a gray market. It would be like buying Adidas or Puma or Nike from a discounter, from TJ Maxx," Jordan said. "There are no legal issues with buying it from us. It's just another marketplace."
> According to Jordan, Kinguin's merchants have sold “several hundred thousand” keys and are not one-time sellers posting listings for codes they don’t want. As part of its fraud protection, a Kinguin employee randomly buys a key “every now and then” to make sure they’re legitimate, he said. Jordan added that it’s rare for a customer to get a key that’s been resold, but if they did, customer support would help them get a new one for free.
> Actually it's 6 years. There were no free upgrades before Windows 10 as far as I'm aware.
Windows 7 was released in 2009. If you bought it then you've had free upgrades for 12 years.
Windows 7 was released in 2009. If you bought it then you've had free upgrades for 12 years.
Not the first ad related issue. Ads in Skype ran unsandboxed javascript, allowing filesystem access.
Yes, it looks like the ads started coming in when MS realized the potential earnings from a market dominant browser. Since they lost the browser war, they have now converted their operating system into a browser with integrated crap (like IE toolbars) in forms of bing search, cortana, app recommendations etc.
MS were talking to partners about selling ads on Win95 before it was released.
Depending on whether you count internal properties, there's the MSN icon on the desktop by default on Win95.
Windows 98 had the Channel Bar enabled by default, which was ostensibly just advertising.
That may have been something done by OEM bloatware, I don't remember anything like that showing up by default after a clean install of Win98.
It wasn’t an OEM setting - it depends on your Windows 98 SKU and install options. I think the Active Channel bar was also hidden by default if your screen resolution wasn’t high enough - and it was gone by 98SE or IE5.5, I think?
That might be why - I've never actually used the first edition of Win98, only 98SE.
To relive the experience again, I just tried installing a VM from a 98SE retail ISO and besides installing rather quickly and booting up in around 5 seconds from power-on to desktop, the whole experience felt very serene in comparison to installing anything Win8 or later --- no continuous disk activity from a hundred background processes, no in-your-face adverts or notifications pestering you the first time you see the desktop, and no attempts at being cutesy or infantilising. You get one "Welcome to Windows" app that you can easily close (and it's a regular window, not a full-screen horrorshow) and elect to not show again, and the closest thing to an advert is a single "Setup MSN Internet Access" icon on the desktop. It doesn't do anything else until you tell it to. The OS behaves more like a tool, instead of treating you like one.
More amusingly, the IE5 icon looks remarkably close to the Legacy Edge one --- it's just as flat --- and the VM shuts down in around 1 second.
To relive the experience again, I just tried installing a VM from a 98SE retail ISO and besides installing rather quickly and booting up in around 5 seconds from power-on to desktop, the whole experience felt very serene in comparison to installing anything Win8 or later --- no continuous disk activity from a hundred background processes, no in-your-face adverts or notifications pestering you the first time you see the desktop, and no attempts at being cutesy or infantilising. You get one "Welcome to Windows" app that you can easily close (and it's a regular window, not a full-screen horrorshow) and elect to not show again, and the closest thing to an advert is a single "Setup MSN Internet Access" icon on the desktop. It doesn't do anything else until you tell it to. The OS behaves more like a tool, instead of treating you like one.
More amusingly, the IE5 icon looks remarkably close to the Legacy Edge one --- it's just as flat --- and the VM shuts down in around 1 second.
> no continuous disk activity from a hundred background processes
That's because the computers at the time simply couldn't handle that kind of load. Things like telemetry and feature-usage tracking would have been things in the mid-1990s if we had the spare computing overhead space and persistent Internet connections, which we didn't - but now we do - so we have them.
> the IE5 icon looks remarkably close to the Legacy Edge one --- it's just as flat --- and the VM shuts down in around 1 second.
That's because you're likely in 16-color or 256-color mode instead of high-color (16-bit) or true-color (24/32-bit) modes - the desktop IE logo has never been flat-colored, though the logo itself is flat-colored in many places in Windows 98, also lets agree that the IE 7 logo is the worst IE logo ever.
> and the VM shuts down in around 1 second.
That's because it's a VM on modern hardware - on period-correct hardware it will still take Windows a while to boot and to shut-down.
Though while Windows 9x does shut-down rather quickly, there's a reason for that: it doesn't have the same OS and filesystem consistency protections that Windows XP and later had: there's a reason we all typically reinstalled Windows 98 every 6 months or so: things break easily - whereas my current laptop hasn't had Windows reinstalled ever in the 4 years I've had it.
That's because the computers at the time simply couldn't handle that kind of load. Things like telemetry and feature-usage tracking would have been things in the mid-1990s if we had the spare computing overhead space and persistent Internet connections, which we didn't - but now we do - so we have them.
> the IE5 icon looks remarkably close to the Legacy Edge one --- it's just as flat --- and the VM shuts down in around 1 second.
That's because you're likely in 16-color or 256-color mode instead of high-color (16-bit) or true-color (24/32-bit) modes - the desktop IE logo has never been flat-colored, though the logo itself is flat-colored in many places in Windows 98, also lets agree that the IE 7 logo is the worst IE logo ever.
> and the VM shuts down in around 1 second.
That's because it's a VM on modern hardware - on period-correct hardware it will still take Windows a while to boot and to shut-down.
Though while Windows 9x does shut-down rather quickly, there's a reason for that: it doesn't have the same OS and filesystem consistency protections that Windows XP and later had: there's a reason we all typically reinstalled Windows 98 every 6 months or so: things break easily - whereas my current laptop hasn't had Windows reinstalled ever in the 4 years I've had it.
The quietness and lack of pop ups is what I noticed when I switched from XP to Ubuntu 9.04 back in the day. I couldn't believe how it just booted and did nothing.
The biggest deal breaker I have seen with win11 so far is the following:
https://chromeunboxed.com/windows-11-insider-preview-chrome-...
Microsoft was already overriding your default apps regularly. But now to change back the default browser it looks like it will require many manual steps if I understood correctly. Multiply that by multiple machines...
https://chromeunboxed.com/windows-11-insider-preview-chrome-...
Microsoft was already overriding your default apps regularly. But now to change back the default browser it looks like it will require many manual steps if I understood correctly. Multiply that by multiple machines...
Welp... Good thing Wine and Proton keep getting better...
Because unless Microsoft pay for my computer, I won't allow them to act as if they own it.
I hear you. Don't get me wrong, I have plenty to complain about in Linux too which is why I'm still on Windows, but the day is coming where Microsoft has finally made Windows so shitty that it drives me away.
Meh, for all of Linux's minor inconveniences it works pretty damn well and the freedom to not deal with MS and Apple's bullshit is a pretty big win.
That's subjective. There are deeply ingrained paradigms on Linux that infuriate me to the point that, thus far, I'm more willing to put up with MS's bullshit than I am with Linux Desktop's.
I'm curious what those are. If they're around the UI, I've found Cinnamon is a really good approximation.
I'm already getting downvotes just for mentioning the things I've already mentioned. Unfortunately this is the common reaction whenever anyone brings up having problems with the way Linux Desktop does things. It's apparently ok to complain about lacking hardware support because that's a problem people can dismiss easily with "just buy different hardware", but if you say something like you don't want to use Linux because you think package management is a stupid way to manage applications then people just want you to shut up.
> but if you say something like you don't want to use Linux because you think package management is a stupid way to manage applications then people just want you to shut up.
In my experience people respond better when you actually explain and provides arguments to why you think “package management is a stupid way to manage applications” and not simply say this blanket statement.
For instance, I believe that *not* having a package system is a stupid way to manage applications because:
- you have to trust many more parties than a single repository;
- you incentivize people to do unsafe things like running downloaded exes from sites;
- now you need to also trust that no one tampered with the websites and have to manually checksum and verify authenticity of each application whereas a good package manager should do this for you;
- Removing applications without package managers is a worse experience.
Now I would love to hear your arguments and, maybe, change my mind.
In my experience people respond better when you actually explain and provides arguments to why you think “package management is a stupid way to manage applications” and not simply say this blanket statement.
For instance, I believe that *not* having a package system is a stupid way to manage applications because:
- you have to trust many more parties than a single repository;
- you incentivize people to do unsafe things like running downloaded exes from sites;
- now you need to also trust that no one tampered with the websites and have to manually checksum and verify authenticity of each application whereas a good package manager should do this for you;
- Removing applications without package managers is a worse experience.
Now I would love to hear your arguments and, maybe, change my mind.
> In my experience people respond better when you actually explain and provides arguments to why you think “package management is a stupid way to manage applications” and not simply say this blanket statement.
I have done this many times on HN, and it almost universally results in downvoting.
> Now I would love to hear your arguments and, maybe, change my mind.
Fine, whatever. I don't need the fake internet points. Let me start by saying my complaints here are specifically in regards to the way Linux packages, repos, and managers work to avoid someone from Haiku showing up to tell me I'm wrong:
- Repos are no better than walled gardens except that they are typically maintained by unpaid third parties
- Said unpaid third parties sometimes introduce bugs or arbitrary changes to the software
- You can't install applications to different disks or have multiple versions of the same application
- Copying applications from one computer to another is massively complicated because most package managers never consider this use case at all
- Package managers encourage the kind of interdependency hell and reliance on fixed paths that makes them necessary in the first place
- The proliferation of package formats and package managers has made packaging binaries for Linux an incredible pain in the ass
To address your points specifically:
> - you have to trust many more parties than a single repository;
This is true even in the repo world. You have to trust the developer of the application and the maintainer of the package for that repo at the very least. There is no reason someone cannot curate a repository of software that is not managed by and tied to a package manager and, in fact, there are many of these to choose from.
> - you incentivize people to do unsafe things like running downloaded exes from sites;
Yes, but I think that speaks to a failure of non-mobile OSs to implement proper application sandboxing once the internet became the dominant distribution medium for applications. I also think this threat is given far too much weight in comparison to being constrained in your choice of software.
> - now you need to also trust that no one tampered with the websites and have to manually checksum and verify authenticity of each application whereas a good package manager should do this for you;
Yes. Again, I don't think this is a big deal, especially when compared to restricting my choice in software. The thing I think makes personal computers valuable is that people can install pretty much whatever they want, make their own stuff, and easily pass it around. Package management and repos overcomplicates this.
> - Removing applications without package managers is a worse experience.
Only under "installer/uninstaller" paradigms. "Portable Applications" in Windows, or Application Bundles on Mac or NeXT, or the original Macintosh's single-file applications, or RiscOS AppDirs, or even DOS's buncha-files-ina-folder paradigm make removing an application as simple as deleting a single object. Not to mention they make copying or moving applications, or running them on different media, as trivial as any file operation.
I probably won't change your mind as a lot of this is subjective, equally your arguments do not sway me. Suffice it to say, the Linux community agrees with you, and that is part of the reason I don't want to use Linux.
I have done this many times on HN, and it almost universally results in downvoting.
> Now I would love to hear your arguments and, maybe, change my mind.
Fine, whatever. I don't need the fake internet points. Let me start by saying my complaints here are specifically in regards to the way Linux packages, repos, and managers work to avoid someone from Haiku showing up to tell me I'm wrong:
- Repos are no better than walled gardens except that they are typically maintained by unpaid third parties
- Said unpaid third parties sometimes introduce bugs or arbitrary changes to the software
- You can't install applications to different disks or have multiple versions of the same application
- Copying applications from one computer to another is massively complicated because most package managers never consider this use case at all
- Package managers encourage the kind of interdependency hell and reliance on fixed paths that makes them necessary in the first place
- The proliferation of package formats and package managers has made packaging binaries for Linux an incredible pain in the ass
To address your points specifically:
> - you have to trust many more parties than a single repository;
This is true even in the repo world. You have to trust the developer of the application and the maintainer of the package for that repo at the very least. There is no reason someone cannot curate a repository of software that is not managed by and tied to a package manager and, in fact, there are many of these to choose from.
> - you incentivize people to do unsafe things like running downloaded exes from sites;
Yes, but I think that speaks to a failure of non-mobile OSs to implement proper application sandboxing once the internet became the dominant distribution medium for applications. I also think this threat is given far too much weight in comparison to being constrained in your choice of software.
> - now you need to also trust that no one tampered with the websites and have to manually checksum and verify authenticity of each application whereas a good package manager should do this for you;
Yes. Again, I don't think this is a big deal, especially when compared to restricting my choice in software. The thing I think makes personal computers valuable is that people can install pretty much whatever they want, make their own stuff, and easily pass it around. Package management and repos overcomplicates this.
> - Removing applications without package managers is a worse experience.
Only under "installer/uninstaller" paradigms. "Portable Applications" in Windows, or Application Bundles on Mac or NeXT, or the original Macintosh's single-file applications, or RiscOS AppDirs, or even DOS's buncha-files-ina-folder paradigm make removing an application as simple as deleting a single object. Not to mention they make copying or moving applications, or running them on different media, as trivial as any file operation.
I probably won't change your mind as a lot of this is subjective, equally your arguments do not sway me. Suffice it to say, the Linux community agrees with you, and that is part of the reason I don't want to use Linux.
NixOS -- what I use -- gets mentioned here pretty frequently, so I don't just want to do an ad. But: walled garden? there's no wall. Multiple versions? Trivially. Copying applications between machines? `nix-copy-closure` is a joy to use, no exaggeration. And interdependency hell? Nix takes some pretty heroic measures to make builds reproducible, which work surprisingly well.
The proliferation of formats is pretty irrefutable; you're meant to put your source code out there and let the distro maintainers worry about it. That's no help of course if you want to ship closed-source binaries, but Linux emphasizing open source goes a little deeper than package managers.
Anyhow, maybe these are counterarguments and maybe it's just "some people who agree with you wrote a package manager." The main thing is the downsides can be fixed, and have been.
The proliferation of formats is pretty irrefutable; you're meant to put your source code out there and let the distro maintainers worry about it. That's no help of course if you want to ship closed-source binaries, but Linux emphasizing open source goes a little deeper than package managers.
Anyhow, maybe these are counterarguments and maybe it's just "some people who agree with you wrote a package manager." The main thing is the downsides can be fixed, and have been.
Maybe. I've only looked at Nix from a distance because I'm reluctant to learn a new language just to effectively manage applications, and I don't really want to have to create my own packages for things or build them from source. Also I'm pretty sure it still can't install applications to arbitrary disks and, as mentioned, it is worthless for closed source software.
If you ask me, it's an incredibly overengineered solution to a problem that is entirely self-inflicted. Still, it might eventually be preferable to Microsoft's current direction with Windows.
If you ask me, it's an incredibly overengineered solution to a problem that is entirely self-inflicted. Still, it might eventually be preferable to Microsoft's current direction with Windows.
> Repos are no better than walled gardens except that they are typically maintained by unpaid third parties
It's a garden alright but there is no wall. I've made packages out of my own programs and installed them on my system. Arch Linux literally has a repository of user packages.
> Said unpaid third parties sometimes introduce bugs or arbitrary changes to the software
Yeah. Debian is famous for their patching. Not all distributuons do this though. Arch Linux offers unpatched software.
> You can't install applications to different disks or have multiple versions of the same application
I don't get the multiple disks thing. Personally I want to virtualize disks away into a single magical root file system. Do you mean like portable Windows applications? That's possible, but would require a lot more static linking than distributions are comfortable with.
Windows makes this easy because the application's directory is magically added to the library search path. Applications can just dump all their DLLs into the same folder as the EXE and it will work. They essentially statically link their dynamic libraries. Users end up with tons of duplicated DLLs, distributions don't like that.
Multiple versions of applications and libraries is technically possible, some distributions have attempted this. Most reject this idea because it would increase maintainer workload.
> Copying applications from one computer to another is massively complicated because most package managers never consider this use case at all
This use case is strange to me as well. When I set up a new computer with Linux, I download the applications from the repository.
> Package managers encourage the kind of interdependency hell and reliance on fixed paths that makes them necessary in the first place
Yes. Linux users and distribution maintainers usually look at the operating system like a complete system, not just a support layer for applications. When maintainers package software, they integrate the software's parts into the overall system, every file in its proper place, every link is maintained. I believe this is cultural.
> The proliferation of package formats and package managers has made packaging binaries for Linux an incredible pain in the ass
It's better to just release your software. The community will package and integrate it for you if there's enough demand.
Alternatively, I've found that Arch Linux packages are really easy to create. Just one simple shell script and there's plenty of documentation and examples online. I just ignore all the other distributions.
It's a garden alright but there is no wall. I've made packages out of my own programs and installed them on my system. Arch Linux literally has a repository of user packages.
> Said unpaid third parties sometimes introduce bugs or arbitrary changes to the software
Yeah. Debian is famous for their patching. Not all distributuons do this though. Arch Linux offers unpatched software.
> You can't install applications to different disks or have multiple versions of the same application
I don't get the multiple disks thing. Personally I want to virtualize disks away into a single magical root file system. Do you mean like portable Windows applications? That's possible, but would require a lot more static linking than distributions are comfortable with.
Windows makes this easy because the application's directory is magically added to the library search path. Applications can just dump all their DLLs into the same folder as the EXE and it will work. They essentially statically link their dynamic libraries. Users end up with tons of duplicated DLLs, distributions don't like that.
Multiple versions of applications and libraries is technically possible, some distributions have attempted this. Most reject this idea because it would increase maintainer workload.
> Copying applications from one computer to another is massively complicated because most package managers never consider this use case at all
This use case is strange to me as well. When I set up a new computer with Linux, I download the applications from the repository.
> Package managers encourage the kind of interdependency hell and reliance on fixed paths that makes them necessary in the first place
Yes. Linux users and distribution maintainers usually look at the operating system like a complete system, not just a support layer for applications. When maintainers package software, they integrate the software's parts into the overall system, every file in its proper place, every link is maintained. I believe this is cultural.
> The proliferation of package formats and package managers has made packaging binaries for Linux an incredible pain in the ass
It's better to just release your software. The community will package and integrate it for you if there's enough demand.
Alternatively, I've found that Arch Linux packages are really easy to create. Just one simple shell script and there's plenty of documentation and examples online. I just ignore all the other distributions.
> It's a garden alright but there is no wall. I've made packages out of my own programs and installed them on my system. Arch Linux literally has a repository of user packages.
What I'm saying is, you have to go out of your way and put in a bunch of work to install something if it isn't in the repo. This is not the case on Windows or MacOS (or DOS, or RiscOS, or the original Mac, or NeXT, or basically any desktop operating system that has ever existed except for Linux).
> I don't get the multiple disks thing. Personally I want to virtualize disks away into a single magical root file system.
It's a bad abstraction that hides the true origin of files and causes significant problems if one of those disks ever disappears. In sane desktop operating systems I can run applications off of a USB drive and remove it when I'm done. This is possible in Linux, of course, it's just that absolutely nothing is designed to handle it so you have to put in a ton of work to make it happen.
> but would require a lot more static linking than distributions are comfortable with.
You don't even need static linking, you can use LD_LIBRARY_PATH and a custom startup script in a lot of cases, it's just a lot more work than it should be and fails in weird ways because no one expects this kind of thing. Trust me, I've been doing this for years and years now.
> Windows makes this easy because the application's directory is magically added to the library search path. Applications can just dump all their DLLs into the same folder as the EXE and it will work. They essentially statically link their dynamic libraries. Users end up with tons of duplicated DLLs, distributions don't like that.
Which is silly in my opinion, and also an artifact of Linux Desktop never having the concept of separation between platform and application. This makes Linux great for appliances and shitty for a personal computer. When you have a reliable base system of commonly used libraries a lot of the problems go away, you get security updates for libc and openssl and whatnot, and chances are whatever other DLLs you're using you are the only application on the system using them anyway[0].
> Multiple versions of applications and libraries is technically possible, some distributions have attempted this. Most reject this idea because it would increase maintainer workload.
Yeah, poorly thought out ways of doing things have consequences like that. In sane desktop OSs you don't need an army of unpaid third party maintainers. I've used some of those distributions you're talking about (Gobolinux, for instance) and they never caught on because the community hates the concept.
> This use case is strange to me as well. When I set up a new computer with Linux, I download the applications from the repository.
What about computers not connected to a network? One that I have to drive several miles away from a non-metered network to get to? This is my point, many such use cases are never considered.
> Yes. Linux users and distribution maintainers usually look at the operating system like a complete system, not just a support layer for applications. When maintainers package software, they integrate the software's parts into the overall system, every file in its proper place, every link is maintained. I believe this is cultural.
I agree, and it's why I think Linux will never make a good desktop because all that neat and orderly curation means things will break the second the unpaid third party package maintainer leaves, or a core library makes a non-backwards-compatible ABI change, or someone dared to try and install a library that "conflicts" (usually by being more up to date) with one you already have installed. This is why you only have a choice between crusty-but-stable distros and rolling release distros that break frequently. I can run almost every program available for Windows today on Windows 7, which is nearly 12 years old. I can run applications compiled for Windows 95 on Windows 11 without writing a single line of C or changing a build script.
> It's better to just release your software. The community will package and integrate it for you if there's enough demand.
If it is open source, and if there's a enough demand. I think that's bullshit. I should have the freedom to put any license I want on my software and the user should still be able to have a low-effort install experience. I shouldn't have to kowtow to some unpaid third party package repo for distribution, I should be able to mail my application to you on an SD card. That, to me, is the freedom of personal computing.
> Alternatively, I've found that Arch Linux packages are really easy to create. Just one simple shell script and there's plenty of documentation and examples online. I just ignore all the other distributions.
I don't think I should have to setup finicky build environments and compile software from source to make my own package just to use some goddamned software. I honestly don't know why Linux desktop people think this is a reasonable expectation.
Needless to say, I have a very strong opinion on this point, and you haven't made any arguments I haven't seen before in my 20 years of using Linux. You are not going to change my mind, just as I am not going to change yours, because we have different priorities and culture regarding the tradeoffs of the different methods.
Knowing this, you felt for some reason it was necessary to argue with me, why? The only reason I can think of is that you want to argue for the sake of some imaginary "undecided" reader, as a form of advertisement for Linux. Unfortunately this happens literally every time I mention not liking Linux, hence my initial reluctance to even mention why I don't like Linux. Because another reason I hate the Linux desktop is that its community is full of people who feel the need to engage in performative argumentation.
[0] https://drewdevault.com/dynlib
What I'm saying is, you have to go out of your way and put in a bunch of work to install something if it isn't in the repo. This is not the case on Windows or MacOS (or DOS, or RiscOS, or the original Mac, or NeXT, or basically any desktop operating system that has ever existed except for Linux).
> I don't get the multiple disks thing. Personally I want to virtualize disks away into a single magical root file system.
It's a bad abstraction that hides the true origin of files and causes significant problems if one of those disks ever disappears. In sane desktop operating systems I can run applications off of a USB drive and remove it when I'm done. This is possible in Linux, of course, it's just that absolutely nothing is designed to handle it so you have to put in a ton of work to make it happen.
> but would require a lot more static linking than distributions are comfortable with.
You don't even need static linking, you can use LD_LIBRARY_PATH and a custom startup script in a lot of cases, it's just a lot more work than it should be and fails in weird ways because no one expects this kind of thing. Trust me, I've been doing this for years and years now.
> Windows makes this easy because the application's directory is magically added to the library search path. Applications can just dump all their DLLs into the same folder as the EXE and it will work. They essentially statically link their dynamic libraries. Users end up with tons of duplicated DLLs, distributions don't like that.
Which is silly in my opinion, and also an artifact of Linux Desktop never having the concept of separation between platform and application. This makes Linux great for appliances and shitty for a personal computer. When you have a reliable base system of commonly used libraries a lot of the problems go away, you get security updates for libc and openssl and whatnot, and chances are whatever other DLLs you're using you are the only application on the system using them anyway[0].
> Multiple versions of applications and libraries is technically possible, some distributions have attempted this. Most reject this idea because it would increase maintainer workload.
Yeah, poorly thought out ways of doing things have consequences like that. In sane desktop OSs you don't need an army of unpaid third party maintainers. I've used some of those distributions you're talking about (Gobolinux, for instance) and they never caught on because the community hates the concept.
> This use case is strange to me as well. When I set up a new computer with Linux, I download the applications from the repository.
What about computers not connected to a network? One that I have to drive several miles away from a non-metered network to get to? This is my point, many such use cases are never considered.
> Yes. Linux users and distribution maintainers usually look at the operating system like a complete system, not just a support layer for applications. When maintainers package software, they integrate the software's parts into the overall system, every file in its proper place, every link is maintained. I believe this is cultural.
I agree, and it's why I think Linux will never make a good desktop because all that neat and orderly curation means things will break the second the unpaid third party package maintainer leaves, or a core library makes a non-backwards-compatible ABI change, or someone dared to try and install a library that "conflicts" (usually by being more up to date) with one you already have installed. This is why you only have a choice between crusty-but-stable distros and rolling release distros that break frequently. I can run almost every program available for Windows today on Windows 7, which is nearly 12 years old. I can run applications compiled for Windows 95 on Windows 11 without writing a single line of C or changing a build script.
> It's better to just release your software. The community will package and integrate it for you if there's enough demand.
If it is open source, and if there's a enough demand. I think that's bullshit. I should have the freedom to put any license I want on my software and the user should still be able to have a low-effort install experience. I shouldn't have to kowtow to some unpaid third party package repo for distribution, I should be able to mail my application to you on an SD card. That, to me, is the freedom of personal computing.
> Alternatively, I've found that Arch Linux packages are really easy to create. Just one simple shell script and there's plenty of documentation and examples online. I just ignore all the other distributions.
I don't think I should have to setup finicky build environments and compile software from source to make my own package just to use some goddamned software. I honestly don't know why Linux desktop people think this is a reasonable expectation.
Needless to say, I have a very strong opinion on this point, and you haven't made any arguments I haven't seen before in my 20 years of using Linux. You are not going to change my mind, just as I am not going to change yours, because we have different priorities and culture regarding the tradeoffs of the different methods.
Knowing this, you felt for some reason it was necessary to argue with me, why? The only reason I can think of is that you want to argue for the sake of some imaginary "undecided" reader, as a form of advertisement for Linux. Unfortunately this happens literally every time I mention not liking Linux, hence my initial reluctance to even mention why I don't like Linux. Because another reason I hate the Linux desktop is that its community is full of people who feel the need to engage in performative argumentation.
[0] https://drewdevault.com/dynlib
> Knowing this, you felt for some reason it was necessary to argue with me, why?
I didn't see it as an argument, more like a conversation. I wanted to understand your opinions better. Your post mentioned several points I had never thought about before and it was interesting. Certainly made me rethink a few things such as offline software sources. I even agree with you that many of these differences are cultural and those are slow to change.
> The only reason I can think of is that you want to argue for the sake of some imaginary "undecided" reader, as a form of advertisement for Linux.
I don't do that. I'd rather Linux remained an obscure programmer's operating system, actually. I don't really care about the Linux desktop.
I didn't see it as an argument, more like a conversation. I wanted to understand your opinions better. Your post mentioned several points I had never thought about before and it was interesting. Certainly made me rethink a few things such as offline software sources. I even agree with you that many of these differences are cultural and those are slow to change.
> The only reason I can think of is that you want to argue for the sake of some imaginary "undecided" reader, as a form of advertisement for Linux.
I don't do that. I'd rather Linux remained an obscure programmer's operating system, actually. I don't really care about the Linux desktop.
> You don't even need static linking, you can use LD_LIBRARY_PATH and a custom startup script in a lot of cases, it's just a lot more work than it should be and fails in weird ways because no one expects this kind of thing. Trust me, I've been doing this for years and years now.
You don't even need a startup script to adjust the library search path, ELF binaries have the DT_RUNPATH field for that where '$ORIGIN' refers to the directory containing the executable. Using the -Wl,-rpath,$ORIGIN flag when linking gives you more or less the Windows behavior, just make sure to escape the $ORIGIN appropriately so it is passed as is and not expanded by the shell/make/your build system. And if you want, you can even put libraries in a subdirectory.
You don't even need a startup script to adjust the library search path, ELF binaries have the DT_RUNPATH field for that where '$ORIGIN' refers to the directory containing the executable. Using the -Wl,-rpath,$ORIGIN flag when linking gives you more or less the Windows behavior, just make sure to escape the $ORIGIN appropriately so it is passed as is and not expanded by the shell/make/your build system. And if you want, you can even put libraries in a subdirectory.
You can use the "buncha-files-ina-folder paradigm" on Linux and Unix as well, but generally, applications are written with the assumption that they will be installed at a particular location, and can unexpectedly fail if you put them elsewhere.
The RPM Package Manager itself is an example of this. It can be configured to be installed to a custom location via the build system, but it has hard-coded paths in some scripts so the package manager would break when it hits this code months after appearing to work correctly.
The RPM Package Manager itself is an example of this. It can be configured to be installed to a custom location via the build system, but it has hard-coded paths in some scripts so the package manager would break when it hits this code months after appearing to work correctly.
Right, theoretically Linux applications can work this way, there's even AppImage to really prove the point. The problem is that basically nothing in the Linux world does do that because it just isn't the way things are done.
At the end of the day, it's the same difference to me.
At the end of the day, it's the same difference to me.
Do you know about Snap and Flatpack? I think the latter may solve some of your problems.
1. https://snapcraft.io/
2. https://www.flatpak.org/
1. https://snapcraft.io/
2. https://www.flatpak.org/
good news for you is that linux is moving a bit more and more towards the portable application paradigm, with things like snap packages and AppImage. E.g. for texstudio I found that the version in my repos was outdated, so I just downloaded an AppImage file off their website and am using that now. Same for ultimaker cura. And you can use multiple versions in parallel.
The problem with those approaches is that they bundle all the dependencies with the application, rather than using the system libraries. That means that if a security bug comes out, I need to (e.g. heartbleed), I need to track down every single application, check their version, cross my fingers that they at least used a shared library and didn't build against the static library, and update each one individually. For well-behaved software that uses the system libraries, I only need to update the system library and be done with it.
I get that snaps are easier for developers because managing versions can be painful. Pushing that pain onto the users isn't the solution.
I get that snaps are easier for developers because managing versions can be painful. Pushing that pain onto the users isn't the solution.
Windows apps also bundle all dependencies, go check out any dotnet app(all crypto stuff is in some dotnet library..). Windows docs also encourage you to do this.
The difference is there is a set of base windows libraries that you can expect, so if you just use those with your win32 program then it's good. But most dotnet apps don't do this. It's just like using Appimage.
The difference is there is a set of base windows libraries that you can expect, so if you just use those with your win32 program then it's good. But most dotnet apps don't do this. It's just like using Appimage.
Snap and Flatpak are very much not portable (in the Portable Application sense). Snap relies on a repo and Flatpak heavily encourages one, although it does have a single-file bundle concept. Sadly both of them suffer from many of the other restrictions I mentioned.
AppImage is pretty great, I wish more projects used it.
AppImage is pretty great, I wish more projects used it.
I'm a Windows user with as-portable-as-possible software catalog, and I approve of this message.
Jokes aside, I am mostly in a complete agreement with you on it. I'd only add that both approaches should exist, and that the package-people should (learn to?) provide a more portable variant of their software. I don't have much experience with Linux (which some of my comments just might show), but all that "black box magic" that happens behinds the scenes never sat right with me... especially since I have a supernatural ability to hit some edge cases where install fails halfway, and now you can't deinstall nor reinstall, and you're stuck in limbo. (Or finishes, but just won't run on account of something not working in the background, and, well, good luck finding out what exactly and how.)
Sure, portable-style applications on Windows are not immune from not working here and there, but across two decades now - it's mostly been set it and forget it. Different versions of software can usually co-exist, or even the same one (e.g. I specialize one for specific purposes), some even co-run.
I do miss some features of the Linux (file system versatility, mostly), but I've grown to live with it. And while Microsoft is increasingly making Windows unbearable, as long as I can bypass/block their idiotic decisions (Start menu, telemetry, updates) and make them work when I want, and how I want... I guess I'll stick to it.
[[Now, when the hell does Microsoft plan on fixing up the Exporer shell and its antiquated 25X-char path issues? (LONGPATH is enabled, but Explorer still shits itself on such a path. But I try to use DOpus, anyway...).
Also, custom(izable) open/save dialog replacements, I'd kill for those.]]
Jokes aside, I am mostly in a complete agreement with you on it. I'd only add that both approaches should exist, and that the package-people should (learn to?) provide a more portable variant of their software. I don't have much experience with Linux (which some of my comments just might show), but all that "black box magic" that happens behinds the scenes never sat right with me... especially since I have a supernatural ability to hit some edge cases where install fails halfway, and now you can't deinstall nor reinstall, and you're stuck in limbo. (Or finishes, but just won't run on account of something not working in the background, and, well, good luck finding out what exactly and how.)
Sure, portable-style applications on Windows are not immune from not working here and there, but across two decades now - it's mostly been set it and forget it. Different versions of software can usually co-exist, or even the same one (e.g. I specialize one for specific purposes), some even co-run.
I do miss some features of the Linux (file system versatility, mostly), but I've grown to live with it. And while Microsoft is increasingly making Windows unbearable, as long as I can bypass/block their idiotic decisions (Start menu, telemetry, updates) and make them work when I want, and how I want... I guess I'll stick to it.
[[Now, when the hell does Microsoft plan on fixing up the Exporer shell and its antiquated 25X-char path issues? (LONGPATH is enabled, but Explorer still shits itself on such a path. But I try to use DOpus, anyway...).
Also, custom(izable) open/save dialog replacements, I'd kill for those.]]
> I'd only add that both approaches should exist, and that the package-people should (learn to?) provide a more portable variant of their software.
The great thing about portable applications is that you can still put them in a repo and use software to manage them, you just don't actually have to!
The great thing about portable applications is that you can still put them in a repo and use software to manage them, you just don't actually have to!
You've made 4 posts bashing on Linux with more complaints about supposedly being attacked than actual substance about why you don't like Linux. Could it be that the backlash you're getting is a self-fulfilling prophecy?
At any rate, I would be genuinely curious to hear what specifically you don't like about Linux beyond tautological statements like not liking its paradigms and calling package management "stupid" without any supporting rationale.
At any rate, I would be genuinely curious to hear what specifically you don't like about Linux beyond tautological statements like not liking its paradigms and calling package management "stupid" without any supporting rationale.
> You've made 4 posts bashing on Linux with more complaints about supposedly being attacked than actual substance about why you don't like Linux.
I have repeatedly complained about Windows[0] in this thread, and the very second I mention not liking Linux people really seem to want to recommend me Linux distros or ask me to tell them why. I have never seen anyone do this for any reason other than performative argumentation.
> At any rate, I would be genuinely curious to hear what specifically you don't like about Linux beyond tautological statements like not liking its paradigms and calling package management "stupid" without any supporting rationale.
I don't even need supporting rationale for an opinion. I could say I don't like any of the distro logos and that would still be a perfectly valid reason not to want to use Linux. At least in a sane world it would, but Linux users apparently have some bug up their ass about needing everyone to agree with them about how great it is.
[0] With great hostility and in the context of expecting it to eventually drive me to use Linux
I have repeatedly complained about Windows[0] in this thread, and the very second I mention not liking Linux people really seem to want to recommend me Linux distros or ask me to tell them why. I have never seen anyone do this for any reason other than performative argumentation.
> At any rate, I would be genuinely curious to hear what specifically you don't like about Linux beyond tautological statements like not liking its paradigms and calling package management "stupid" without any supporting rationale.
I don't even need supporting rationale for an opinion. I could say I don't like any of the distro logos and that would still be a perfectly valid reason not to want to use Linux. At least in a sane world it would, but Linux users apparently have some bug up their ass about needing everyone to agree with them about how great it is.
[0] With great hostility and in the context of expecting it to eventually drive me to use Linux
> I could say I don't like any of the distro logos and that would still be a perfectly valid reason not to want to use Linux
It's not perfectly valid if the purpose is to have a discussion that's meaningful to other people who don't have your exact set of preferences and pecadilloes. Saying you don't like a logo isn't a useful piece of information because for 99% of people that's not going to be a reason to use or not use a piece of software. Either you don't realize that or you're being willfully combative for its own sake.
It's not perfectly valid if the purpose is to have a discussion that's meaningful to other people who don't have your exact set of preferences and pecadilloes. Saying you don't like a logo isn't a useful piece of information because for 99% of people that's not going to be a reason to use or not use a piece of software. Either you don't realize that or you're being willfully combative for its own sake.
> It's not perfectly valid if the purpose is to have a discussion that's meaningful to other people who don't have your exact set of preferences and pecadilloes.
I don't see how what other people find meaningful has any bearing at all on whether or not I want to run Linux. Remember, before everyone crawled out of the woodwork to talk about Linux in this 'fuck Windows 11' thread I only said this:
> Don't get me wrong, I have plenty to complain about in Linux too which is why I'm still on Windows
An offhand remark about not liking Linux is apparently an open invitation for every evangelical Linux desktop asshole to berate me until I give them arguments to attack.
> Saying you don't like a logo isn't a useful piece of information because for 99% of people that's not going to be a reason to use or not use a piece of software.
By that reasoning everyone talking about privacy and security in regards to their choice of Linux should shut the hell up too because the market is pretty clear it doesn't care.
This whole "blah blah blah other people blah blah blah 99% blah blah" is what I mean by performative argumentation. It isn't about my preferences, which are really all that matters when it comes to what I should choose to run, it's about putting on a show for other people, evangelising and advertising your favorite OS.
I don't see how what other people find meaningful has any bearing at all on whether or not I want to run Linux. Remember, before everyone crawled out of the woodwork to talk about Linux in this 'fuck Windows 11' thread I only said this:
> Don't get me wrong, I have plenty to complain about in Linux too which is why I'm still on Windows
An offhand remark about not liking Linux is apparently an open invitation for every evangelical Linux desktop asshole to berate me until I give them arguments to attack.
> Saying you don't like a logo isn't a useful piece of information because for 99% of people that's not going to be a reason to use or not use a piece of software.
By that reasoning everyone talking about privacy and security in regards to their choice of Linux should shut the hell up too because the market is pretty clear it doesn't care.
This whole "blah blah blah other people blah blah blah 99% blah blah" is what I mean by performative argumentation. It isn't about my preferences, which are really all that matters when it comes to what I should choose to run, it's about putting on a show for other people, evangelising and advertising your favorite OS.
I agree with your assessment that folks should stop bashing on you for your unpopular opinion.
I happen to disagree with that opinion. However, it makes no difference to me whether you run Linux or Windows (or CP/M, RSX-11 or AmigaOS for that matter) as your daily driver.
It's both rude and obnoxious to pound on you for your unpopular opinion, especially since that's based solely on your personal preferences and not objective facts.
As for the downvotes, they are just shorthand for "I disagree with you but don't feel like putting the time and effort into rebutting your argument."
And the obverse (WRT upvotes) is also the case.
tl;dr: I think you're wrong and disagree wholeheartedly. That said, I'm glad you chose to express yourself and hope you continue to do so in the future.
I happen to disagree with that opinion. However, it makes no difference to me whether you run Linux or Windows (or CP/M, RSX-11 or AmigaOS for that matter) as your daily driver.
It's both rude and obnoxious to pound on you for your unpopular opinion, especially since that's based solely on your personal preferences and not objective facts.
As for the downvotes, they are just shorthand for "I disagree with you but don't feel like putting the time and effort into rebutting your argument."
And the obverse (WRT upvotes) is also the case.
tl;dr: I think you're wrong and disagree wholeheartedly. That said, I'm glad you chose to express yourself and hope you continue to do so in the future.
>It's not perfectly valid if the purpose is to have a discussion that's meaningful to other people who don't have your exact set of preferences and pecadilloes. Saying you don't like a logo isn't a useful piece of information because for 99% of people that's not going to be a reason to use or not use a piece of software. Either you don't realize that or you're being willfully combative for its own sake.
While I disagree strongly with GP, your argument seems to completely miss their point. GP expressed her opinion as to the utility/viability of Linux for their use case.
We both disagree with GP's arguments, but even we almost certainly don't share the same "set of preferences and pecadilloes."
Mostly, I think it's pretty closed-minded to denigrate someone who expresses an opinion (unrelated to facts presented in an objective reality).
Give the GP a break. If their "preferences and pecadilloes" don't match yours, why is that any skin off your nose? As such, why do you feel it necessary to belittle the opinion of some rando on the 'net?
I'll say it again just to make sure you understand that it's your tone and attitude that disturbs me and not the content of your argument: widespread use of package managers have completely changed Linux for the better IMHO. What's more, I find the arguments provided by GP to be both weak and unpersuasive.
While I disagree strongly with GP, your argument seems to completely miss their point. GP expressed her opinion as to the utility/viability of Linux for their use case.
We both disagree with GP's arguments, but even we almost certainly don't share the same "set of preferences and pecadilloes."
Mostly, I think it's pretty closed-minded to denigrate someone who expresses an opinion (unrelated to facts presented in an objective reality).
Give the GP a break. If their "preferences and pecadilloes" don't match yours, why is that any skin off your nose? As such, why do you feel it necessary to belittle the opinion of some rando on the 'net?
I'll say it again just to make sure you understand that it's your tone and attitude that disturbs me and not the content of your argument: widespread use of package managers have completely changed Linux for the better IMHO. What's more, I find the arguments provided by GP to be both weak and unpersuasive.
> If their "preferences and pecadilloes" don't match yours, why is that any skin off your nose?
You're right, that specifically is not skin off my nose or anyone else's. By the same token that you're not disagreeing with the content of my argument, I'm not disagreeing with GP's[0] opinion per se, but just pointing out that the hostility they're getting is a self-fulfilling prophecy brought about by the way they're expressing it. I'm not belittling their opinion, I'm belittling the fact that they are coming to this discussion with a position of 'Linux is bad because I don't like it for Reasons™ and if you disagree with that you're just another hater I don't have to explain myself to'. It's lame and unproductive and combative and not a quality contribution.
[0] Sidenote: I've never seen the term "GP" before - clearly you're referencing u/AnIdiotOnTheNet in some fashion similar to "OP" but would be curious to know what exactly that means.
You're right, that specifically is not skin off my nose or anyone else's. By the same token that you're not disagreeing with the content of my argument, I'm not disagreeing with GP's[0] opinion per se, but just pointing out that the hostility they're getting is a self-fulfilling prophecy brought about by the way they're expressing it. I'm not belittling their opinion, I'm belittling the fact that they are coming to this discussion with a position of 'Linux is bad because I don't like it for Reasons™ and if you disagree with that you're just another hater I don't have to explain myself to'. It's lame and unproductive and combative and not a quality contribution.
[0] Sidenote: I've never seen the term "GP" before - clearly you're referencing u/AnIdiotOnTheNet in some fashion similar to "OP" but would be curious to know what exactly that means.
Package management is to me one of the biggest benefit of Linux. Whenever I have to deal with Windows/macOS machines I find myself in the middle ages having to install the software manually downloading it from the internet and having to keep it updated. Even now that Microsoft had finally integrated some sort of package management in Windows and a store, there are not even the Microsoft products such as Office or Visual Studio on it!
While on Linux I type in my terminal:
On Windows each time I install the system from scratch I have to spend a day downloading and installing all the programs, on Linux I can install all the software that I need by simply launching a single one line command.
While on Linux I type in my terminal:
paru -S <software name>
On Windows each time I install the system from scratch I have to spend a day downloading and installing all the programs, on Linux I can install all the software that I need by simply launching a single one line command.
To each their own. I like having the ability to install applications to different disks, and to have two different versions of the same application installed at the same time, among other things package managers and repos restrict.
Good! You can do that on linux with AppImages, which are executables that store inside all the necessary data. You only double-click it and you open the app.
You can copy, move, rename or whatever you want with the dile as it will work everywhere!
Yes, I know what AppImages are. The problem with AppImage is that hardly anyone packages their software as an AppImage.
Have you considered doing this for yourself? If this is your only complaint and the solution exists surely you could benefit from it. I highly doubt it's the package managers holding you back.
Package management only applies to system software though. It is 100% possible to download software to your home directory and run it from there, just like in Windows.
Also, HN points are meaningless. It's better than reddit but people will still downvote good posts for the stupidest of reasons. It's better to just speak your mind and ignore the "consequences", if you can even call downvotes that.
Also, HN points are meaningless. It's better than reddit but people will still downvote good posts for the stupidest of reasons. It's better to just speak your mind and ignore the "consequences", if you can even call downvotes that.
> It is 100% possible to download software to your home directory and run it from there, just like in Windows.
Only if it has been compiled and/or packaged for such a use by someone, which is rare. The problem isn't technical, it is cultural. I don't know why I keep having to repeat this point.
Only if it has been compiled and/or packaged for such a use by someone, which is rare. The problem isn't technical, it is cultural. I don't know why I keep having to repeat this point.
Thank you for responding to the request for more info to satisfy curiosity. Operating system choice often _is_ a holy matter to people, and I'm sorry you seem to have gotten downvotes simply for mentioning your experience.
One of the issues with Linux is that it is no more "an operating system" than an automobile engine is a car; myriad operating systems exist which contain the component named "Linux", and most of them are designed to cater either to people who love getting into all the possible customisations or to people who share most of the same preferences as the designer(s).
The extreme customisability of most operating systems which include the Linux heart (kernel), tends to lead to inconsistent software behaviours and user interfaces. For instance, one OS with Linux might have _most_ applications respond to Ctrl-Q for "quit/exit", while a few stubbornly insist on Alt-F4, and sparse few use something else entirely. One result of this is that people's choice of a particular Linux-based OS and particular options (KDE vs. Gnome, Emacs vs. vi, ported vs native to their OS, and thousands more…) can also become a holy matter dear to their hearts.
It's perfectly reasonable for anyone to turned off by or annoyed by aspects of a system that clash with their familiarity or use-case. I hope you get more gentle responses in the future. Cheers.
One of the issues with Linux is that it is no more "an operating system" than an automobile engine is a car; myriad operating systems exist which contain the component named "Linux", and most of them are designed to cater either to people who love getting into all the possible customisations or to people who share most of the same preferences as the designer(s).
The extreme customisability of most operating systems which include the Linux heart (kernel), tends to lead to inconsistent software behaviours and user interfaces. For instance, one OS with Linux might have _most_ applications respond to Ctrl-Q for "quit/exit", while a few stubbornly insist on Alt-F4, and sparse few use something else entirely. One result of this is that people's choice of a particular Linux-based OS and particular options (KDE vs. Gnome, Emacs vs. vi, ported vs native to their OS, and thousands more…) can also become a holy matter dear to their hearts.
It's perfectly reasonable for anyone to turned off by or annoyed by aspects of a system that clash with their familiarity or use-case. I hope you get more gentle responses in the future. Cheers.
My only gut reaction to this is a bit of surprise. There are almost limitless variations of the "Linux Desktop", but Windows still wins out in your mind as the correct way to run a desktop.
No judgment, just bemusement. I will always choose the freedom to configure over a set-in-stone approach.
No judgment, just bemusement. I will always choose the freedom to configure over a set-in-stone approach.
I wouldn't say that. I hate Windows these days quite a bit too, I just hate it less than I hate Linux Desktop.
I also strongly disagree with the "limitless variations". Most Linux distros are just another distro (usually Ubuntu) pre-bundled with a specific set of packages. Almost all of them use the same shells, the same application distribution model, and roughly the same set of disparately developed software. The differences are largely cosmetic.
> I will always choose the freedom to configure over a set-in-stone approach.
Ironically, this is why I don't like package management and repos: I like to have complete freedom over what software I install and that model is restrictive. One of the things I like about Windows is that if I go to some rando's site where they've written some niche application, I have nearly 100% certainty that the executable I download from them will work without me doing anything special. In Linux I usually end up having to go through the hassle of creating a whole build environment (in a container because I'm not insane) to compile their github repo... after I hunt down and compile their dependencies that also weren't in my distro's repo of course.
I also strongly disagree with the "limitless variations". Most Linux distros are just another distro (usually Ubuntu) pre-bundled with a specific set of packages. Almost all of them use the same shells, the same application distribution model, and roughly the same set of disparately developed software. The differences are largely cosmetic.
> I will always choose the freedom to configure over a set-in-stone approach.
Ironically, this is why I don't like package management and repos: I like to have complete freedom over what software I install and that model is restrictive. One of the things I like about Windows is that if I go to some rando's site where they've written some niche application, I have nearly 100% certainty that the executable I download from them will work without me doing anything special. In Linux I usually end up having to go through the hassle of creating a whole build environment (in a container because I'm not insane) to compile their github repo... after I hunt down and compile their dependencies that also weren't in my distro's repo of course.
My system76 laptop (lemp10) has crashed, bugged out, failed to wake from sleep, fully frozen, and just outright failed more often than windows10 ever has for me which is also less than any of my work macbook's have either
linux is a nice operating system and the community developed aspect is neat but be real
linux is a nice operating system and the community developed aspect is neat but be real
Ditch the Desktop, embrace i3.
Or Sway, which is more or less i3-upon-Wayland.
Even if I liked tiling wms and keyboard-only GUI that wouldn't actually fix many of the issues I have with Linux Desktop. The issues have to do with the multitude of disparately developed complex systems that are kludged together under the hood.
Well, I did spend a few days finding a modern version of Linux that can run on a Mac mini PPC... Its OS X was outdated so I installed Yellowdog on it, then Debian and now that Debian don't support 32 bits G4 anymore all I found was Void Linux. Plus side: there's so little loading at boot, it start very fast. Downside: I had to install Linux like it's 1995.
So I know well Linux is far from perfect... But it has become at least as good as the competition for my uses.
Debian still has an unofficial 32-bit powerpc port, just doesn't have security supported releases of the port.
I switched over to ElementaryOS for my movie/music/games/3d-modeling/video-editing/daw machine a bit ago.
It's pretty, and it (mostly) "just works." I legitimately believe this project is on its way to eat Windows and Apples pies.
Worth watching the progress of: https://elementary.io/
It's pretty, and it (mostly) "just works." I legitimately believe this project is on its way to eat Windows and Apples pies.
Worth watching the progress of: https://elementary.io/
I don't particularly appreciate Linux distributions that try to pretend they're not Linux distributions by slapping "OS" in their name. Regardless, Elementary doesn't fix any of the issues I personally have with Linux Desktop that keep me from switching today.
Eh, IDK. The Arch and Ubuntu experience are very far apart for me, especially as far as hardware support goes (beyond just kernel drivers, I mean - lots of devices need userland utilities to support their functionality, things like remote scanning for instance). They are different OSes that happen to share a kernel, but that's it. Even the userland close to the kernel can be very different.
They share a kernel, shells, package management as an application distribution model, and many disparately developed complex systems. They all run the same software more or less.
Once you've used a few dozen different Linux distros, which I have over the 20 years I've used Linux for things, you find that almost all of them are basically the same. Occasionally there's an outlier like Gobolinux or Rox that everyone ignores but even they still has most software in common.
Once you've used a few dozen different Linux distros, which I have over the 20 years I've used Linux for things, you find that almost all of them are basically the same. Occasionally there's an outlier like Gobolinux or Rox that everyone ignores but even they still has most software in common.
Which applications do you use for video editing and DAW? How does the experience measure up to the competition on Windows?
I recently switched back to Linux after not using it as my main OS for a couple of years.
I was surprised how better it got, one example, everything worked well out of the box, and I installed Arch Linux not Ubuntu, no problem at all, GNOME 40 is great, fonts are good out of the box, gestures that works, things like screen brightness works, Wayland is finally stable, printer installs without too much trouble.
I was surprised how better it got, one example, everything worked well out of the box, and I installed Arch Linux not Ubuntu, no problem at all, GNOME 40 is great, fonts are good out of the box, gestures that works, things like screen brightness works, Wayland is finally stable, printer installs without too much trouble.
You're damning it with faint praise there rather than selling it.
But why would you want to default to Chrome and not Firefox... ?
OK OK the point is, it should be the user's choice to (easily) switch. Even if they are wrong!
OK OK the point is, it should be the user's choice to (easily) switch. Even if they are wrong!
The user is never wrong, just sometimes incorrect.
> Windows 11 Insider Preview makes it more difficult for users to default to Chrome
Are they implying that it won't be more difficult to default to Firefox? I ditched Chrome already.
Are they implying that it won't be more difficult to default to Firefox? I ditched Chrome already.
Eh, give it a day or two, someone will make a tool that sets it and keeps it set just like they did for Windows 10, or, leave. That's what I'm doing, Windows 10 currently only gets booted for me to play a couple e-sports games with bad DRM that some of my friends and I play together, other than that, I'm in Linux full time on Pop_OS!
I'm sure someone will come up with a tool to fix a Windows feature yet again (like they did with Start shell). But we have to judge the intention of the original product designer and all I see is regress.
I wonder if users who are unwilling to deal with increased hassle in browser changing will also give up things like iPhone/iOS which outright ban competing browser engines.
Unlikely.
I have nothing against Edge. I just already know where everything is on Chrome. That's why default changes annoy me.
I have nothing against Edge. I just already know where everything is on Chrome. That's why default changes annoy me.
Nitpick: they don’t ban competing engines. They disallow JITing JavaScript outside a WebView. Firefox or Chrome could include their own, but the wouldn’t be able to JIT the JavaScript. A distinction without a difference, but it’s a lie to say they ban other engines.
Yes they do:
> 2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
> 2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
Huh. I guess I was mistaken. I could've sworn they allowed developers to use their own rendering code at one point.
[deleted]
Do you think it would be accurate to say that functionally or effectively bans competing engines by forbidding a major component? I believe Mozilla or Google would prioritize including their own engine if it was reasonably possible.
Yes. But I don't think its allowed to run a virtual machine of any kind in the App Store, which the browser javascript engine is/has been.
Apple is not a slave to or victim of their own policy. I feel like a browser is an important and unique enough piece of software that they could choose to make an exception, but obviously it doesn’t fit their business goals which appear to essentially the same as what Microsoft was thinking with Internet Explorer 6.
Somewhat related: I removed Edge a few years ago because I didn't use it and thought it's just a regular application. A recent Windows update however just wouldn't install: Every time it would abort and roll back the update installation just after the reboot, reporting one of those mysterious and very helpful Windows Update error codes. After a few days of scratching my head I found out that due to a bug, that specific update [1] can't be installed unless Edge is installed (prior to the update). IIRC the reason is that helpfully Windows installs the lastest Edge version for you during the OS update, so that "you can experience the fastest web browser, Microsoft Edge!" (or something like that, you know the drill.
Nowadays it's not even supported to remove Edge since - according to certain Windows news outlets - Edge is somehow integrated into Windows 10 so by removing it you could break the OS. (Just why??) The aforementioned news outlets also ask why you would ever want to remove Edge - "Have you tried the new Edge browser? It's quite fast nowadays!"
To clarify: I am not opposed to Edge itself in any way, but the whole "Why would you ever want to do that?" rubs me the wrong way.
Another "Why would you ever want to do that?" story: IIRC, in Windows 8 there was a semi-official way to place your home directory on a different drive than your system directory. Back then I had a 128 GB SSD I wanted to use as a system drive for Windows, but because my downloads folder quickly accumulates a lot of baggage (> 50 GB) I wanted to place it on another drive. A few years down the road the upgrade to Windows 10 failed with a mysterious error code. Again, after a few days of scratching my head I found out that my setup (with the home directory on another drive) is not supported for the Windows 8.1 to 10 upgrade.
Common Windows news outlets and forums also commented this issue along the lines of "Why would you ever place your home directory on another drive?" I guess I was too spoiled with the UNIX way (of separate mount points inside a unified hierarchy) to see the error in my ways... (/s)
[1] Sorry, I don't remember the specific error code or update number anymore. Perhaps the 2004 update?
Nowadays it's not even supported to remove Edge since - according to certain Windows news outlets - Edge is somehow integrated into Windows 10 so by removing it you could break the OS. (Just why??) The aforementioned news outlets also ask why you would ever want to remove Edge - "Have you tried the new Edge browser? It's quite fast nowadays!"
To clarify: I am not opposed to Edge itself in any way, but the whole "Why would you ever want to do that?" rubs me the wrong way.
Another "Why would you ever want to do that?" story: IIRC, in Windows 8 there was a semi-official way to place your home directory on a different drive than your system directory. Back then I had a 128 GB SSD I wanted to use as a system drive for Windows, but because my downloads folder quickly accumulates a lot of baggage (> 50 GB) I wanted to place it on another drive. A few years down the road the upgrade to Windows 10 failed with a mysterious error code. Again, after a few days of scratching my head I found out that my setup (with the home directory on another drive) is not supported for the Windows 8.1 to 10 upgrade.
Common Windows news outlets and forums also commented this issue along the lines of "Why would you ever place your home directory on another drive?" I guess I was too spoiled with the UNIX way (of separate mount points inside a unified hierarchy) to see the error in my ways... (/s)
[1] Sorry, I don't remember the specific error code or update number anymore. Perhaps the 2004 update?
> Edge is somehow integrated into Windows 10 so by removing it you could break the OS. (Just why??)
One technical reason is probably that the majority of it - the engine - is also what drives Webview2 (a web view that you can embed into your applications just like you could embed IE into your applications).
One technical reason is probably that the majority of it - the engine - is also what drives Webview2 (a web view that you can embed into your applications just like you could embed IE into your applications).
That's probably the case but then windows should just force webview2 to be its own package independent from Edge's main browser UI.
Or better yet, build the Edge browser so that it's actually an app using webview2 to help ensure that webview2 has a great API experience and is actually easy to use.
Or better yet, build the Edge browser so that it's actually an app using webview2 to help ensure that webview2 has a great API experience and is actually easy to use.
>After a few days of scratching my head I found out that due to a bug, that specific update [1] can't be installed unless Edge is installed (prior to the update).
Holy cow, thank you so much! Pretty sure it was updating from 20H1 KB5003214. I was stuck on that one. I've been having this exact problem, which is pretty annoying because of the combination of how easy it is to accidentally update and that "undoing changes" takes about 3x longer than the update itself. Looking at "Installed Updates" after the fact it says that it pushed through KB5004331 in mid August, but I kinda don't believe that, as it has been continually giving me this BS; it literally happened last night. Installing Edge just now fixed it. I only really use Windows for leisure, so I was lamenting having to deal with a reinstall, which was what I was reading was the needed course of action.
Holy cow, thank you so much! Pretty sure it was updating from 20H1 KB5003214. I was stuck on that one. I've been having this exact problem, which is pretty annoying because of the combination of how easy it is to accidentally update and that "undoing changes" takes about 3x longer than the update itself. Looking at "Installed Updates" after the fact it says that it pushed through KB5004331 in mid August, but I kinda don't believe that, as it has been continually giving me this BS; it literally happened last night. Installing Edge just now fixed it. I only really use Windows for leisure, so I was lamenting having to deal with a reinstall, which was what I was reading was the needed course of action.
They got slammed by anti-trust over integrating Explorer before. They should be slammed 10x as hard over this.
The difference is that IE/Edge no longer dominates the market. There is a fair competition between browsers now, so there is no need for an anti-trust lawsuit. Or if there is, it should be against Google.
Microsoft got in trouble for bundling, that is, using their Windows monopoly to unfairly advantage IE over Netscape. They still arguably have a monopoly position on the desktop and they're using the exact same tactics they used in the 90s, so yes they should get in trouble for this all over again.
Wasn't the issue that Windows dominated the desktop OS market, which they used to push their own browser, not that IE dominated the browser market? And the former is still true.
Microsoft is still using it's near-monopoly position on the desktop to push it's browser. Exactly the same thing it was slammed for before.
> Another "Why would you ever want to do that?" story: IIRC, in Windows 8 there was a semi-official way to place your home directory on a different drive than your system directory. Back then I had a 128 GB SSD I wanted to use as a system drive for Windows, but because my downloads folder quickly accumulates a lot of baggage (> 50 GB) I wanted to place it on another drive. A few years down the road the upgrade to Windows 10 failed with a mysterious error code. Again, after a few days of scratching my head I found out that my setup (with the home directory on another drive) is not supported for the Windows 8.1 to 10 upgrade.
That bit was eventually fixed – while I had to move the ProgramData folder back to C:, I successfully upgraded from 7 directly to 10 with my home directory on a different drive.
Although yes, it's apparently still not officially supported – supposedly it breaks installation of apps from the store (but so far, I don't really care about the store anyway), and somewhat more annoyingly, I suspect that during major OS upgrades some misguided migration routine that is hardcoded to C: gets to run, because at least twice now I've noticed file paths in the registry being rewritten to suddenly point to C:\Users, when they actually need to point to D:\Users.
That bit was eventually fixed – while I had to move the ProgramData folder back to C:, I successfully upgraded from 7 directly to 10 with my home directory on a different drive.
Although yes, it's apparently still not officially supported – supposedly it breaks installation of apps from the store (but so far, I don't really care about the store anyway), and somewhat more annoyingly, I suspect that during major OS upgrades some misguided migration routine that is hardcoded to C: gets to run, because at least twice now I've noticed file paths in the registry being rewritten to suddenly point to C:\Users, when they actually need to point to D:\Users.
For GP's case, they should just move Download directory to D: that is officially supported by GUI, rather than move entire %HOME% to D:.
> I guess I was too spoiled with the UNIX way (of separate mount points inside a unified hierarchy) to see the error in my ways... (/s)
FWIW it's totally possible to mount a volume at a folder location instead of assigning a drive letter, so you actually can mount a separate drive at C:\Users separate from the rest of C:\ or whatever your system drive letter is.
FWIW it's totally possible to mount a volume at a folder location instead of assigning a drive letter, so you actually can mount a separate drive at C:\Users separate from the rest of C:\ or whatever your system drive letter is.
I went so far as to delete the installation directories of any versions of Edge that I could find. Nothing appears to be broken, and I haven't really had to deal with it since (other than random updates seemingly reinstalling it, so I just remove the directories again).
From Win 95 was always the case that IE/Edge is an integral part of Windows.
> Microsoft pushed a promotional message
which is why "I'm out" after 20 years or so on Windows.
I don't want an OS that sends me messages like that, supports adverts, or (initially at least) demands to be always connected to the internet to store my "stuff" in their cloud.
I haven't booted into Windows for (checks `uptime`) about 4 weeks now.
which is why "I'm out" after 20 years or so on Windows.
I don't want an OS that sends me messages like that, supports adverts, or (initially at least) demands to be always connected to the internet to store my "stuff" in their cloud.
I haven't booted into Windows for (checks `uptime`) about 4 weeks now.
I use windows for affinity suite and unreal 4 and I think that’s it. About half my gaming needs windows too. Everything else is Ubuntu. Ubuntu is a great OS, it’s just missing a few apps (mostly graphics related) that certain people need for their work
I worked in IT for 10 years, and most of the time I had to work with Windows even in the server. I was also a gamer who played 3-4 hours a day.
I switched to Arch Linux and, outside of the few pain points which weren't a big deal for anyone who's used to "google, read docs, apply" workflow everything went great!
I would be hopeful for the future of gaming on Linux, and then you see things like kernel-level anti-cheating and Valorant adapting their anti-cheat to support TPM 2.0. I'm not a gamer anymore (at least not as much as I used to play) but stuff like that make me shrug my shoulders. 1 step forward, 2 steps back.
I switched to Arch Linux and, outside of the few pain points which weren't a big deal for anyone who's used to "google, read docs, apply" workflow everything went great!
I would be hopeful for the future of gaming on Linux, and then you see things like kernel-level anti-cheating and Valorant adapting their anti-cheat to support TPM 2.0. I'm not a gamer anymore (at least not as much as I used to play) but stuff like that make me shrug my shoulders. 1 step forward, 2 steps back.
They coupled the OS to cloud stuff so tightly they break together? That's so absolutely bonkers, even if it's a boiled frog situation, I'm speechless. I'll start dual booting Linux to get used to it because this is finally unacceptable.
Well, considering that real frogs jump out when the water gets too hot, maybe people will too. (If there's an alternative, and they really feel the inconvenience.)
I'm trying to break away from Windows but Linux OSes are in such poor shape as replacements for workstations... In particular I'm talking about desktop environments, not so much the OSes themselves, although the kernel and the OSes at times have their own problems too.
I decided to try GNOME 40, everything was sort of okay until I couldn't even even pin custom applications to the dock... I had to write .desktop files or something and I just gave up. I also tried ElementaryOS but still ran into tons of usability issues.
Granted, a lot of those issues are because some apps are missing Linux specific functionality and developers aren't really focused on supporting Linux, but honestly there are power users waiting to get away from Windows right now. Every other week my friends are talking about how once there's a good Linux alternative they're switching and never looking back. Now with Valve's Proton things are looking better than ever for gaming, but it still feels like Linux has a long way to go.
I decided to try GNOME 40, everything was sort of okay until I couldn't even even pin custom applications to the dock... I had to write .desktop files or something and I just gave up. I also tried ElementaryOS but still ran into tons of usability issues.
Granted, a lot of those issues are because some apps are missing Linux specific functionality and developers aren't really focused on supporting Linux, but honestly there are power users waiting to get away from Windows right now. Every other week my friends are talking about how once there's a good Linux alternative they're switching and never looking back. Now with Valve's Proton things are looking better than ever for gaming, but it still feels like Linux has a long way to go.
Before I switched to Linux (from macOS) I believed such commenters as they gave me the plausible excuse.
This is wrong. Linux is very good for an average person.
Well, if that average person wants to do something unusual and doesn’t want to invest even a fraction of their time into learning the system… well, blame on them. Making a desktop file is no rocket science, and something you can learn how to do within half an hour at most. Don’t listen to someone who makes such a bold statement as ‘Linux in such a bad state’ and then immediately shows their lack of competence with showing they are unable to make a desktop file. It is not Linux, it is you and all those guys who upvoted you to become the top voted comment on this thread.
ElementaryOS is trash, just get yourself Fedora Workstation or even Ubuntu, if you have no idea of how to deal with Linux, changes are it will be much easier for you with those distros.
This is wrong. Linux is very good for an average person.
Well, if that average person wants to do something unusual and doesn’t want to invest even a fraction of their time into learning the system… well, blame on them. Making a desktop file is no rocket science, and something you can learn how to do within half an hour at most. Don’t listen to someone who makes such a bold statement as ‘Linux in such a bad state’ and then immediately shows their lack of competence with showing they are unable to make a desktop file. It is not Linux, it is you and all those guys who upvoted you to become the top voted comment on this thread.
ElementaryOS is trash, just get yourself Fedora Workstation or even Ubuntu, if you have no idea of how to deal with Linux, changes are it will be much easier for you with those distros.
Forgot to add about the distros: I didn't mean Ubuntu and Fedora are bad in any way, but the opposite. I think they are very good for an average person who looks to escape Windows. Personally I think Fedora Workstation is much better than Ubuntu, but very similar in that very departments: being very popular and yet working out of the box.
It sucks to say this on Hacker News, but you're being really naive. If I, as a power user, have trouble installing and even running Linux, how can you expect a normal user to do it?
I run into non-stop issues with Linux. I ran into a bug where I can't even boot into a Linux OS without artifacts if I have more than one monitor turned on. I ran into sound driver bugs where my microphone pitch is completely off on Discord and other apps. The Fedora installer didn't even open for me.
Linux is not accessible. If it was, you'd see hundreds of power users moving to it. You're doing the Linux community a disservice by writing it off as "people being impatient".
I run into non-stop issues with Linux. I ran into a bug where I can't even boot into a Linux OS without artifacts if I have more than one monitor turned on. I ran into sound driver bugs where my microphone pitch is completely off on Discord and other apps. The Fedora installer didn't even open for me.
Linux is not accessible. If it was, you'd see hundreds of power users moving to it. You're doing the Linux community a disservice by writing it off as "people being impatient".
I wonder how do you solve the technical problem if there was driver issue in Windows.
When I am facing issue in Windows, I google it, then I got some regedit trick to perform. If that works, that's great. If not, then I need to search for another trick until it works. Since windows command line sucks, I have to hop through different configuration windows to try solving the issue. A very frustrating experience.
Could an average Windows user could able to diagnostic their problem and confidently perform an action knowing it will work? My experience is they just ask their friend, family or ask for immediate solution on social media. If they can't solve it, then maybe just buy a new one.
I think Windows is just as accessible as how many friends and family using Windows.
When I am facing issue in Windows, I google it, then I got some regedit trick to perform. If that works, that's great. If not, then I need to search for another trick until it works. Since windows command line sucks, I have to hop through different configuration windows to try solving the issue. A very frustrating experience.
Could an average Windows user could able to diagnostic their problem and confidently perform an action knowing it will work? My experience is they just ask their friend, family or ask for immediate solution on social media. If they can't solve it, then maybe just buy a new one.
I think Windows is just as accessible as how many friends and family using Windows.
> I wonder how do you solve the technical problem if there was driver issue in Windows.
This just doesn't happen that often in Windows, at least for the majority of hardware.
Yeah yeah, I know everyone has an anecdote of some graphics card driver update screwing up their multi-monitor setup, or that cheap no-name Chinese headset or camera bought off Amazon that never worked (and which they promptly returned).
But chances are, if you buy a well known branded component at Best Buy or Staples or even online, and you're not running some ancient version of Windows, the drivers will work. At worst, you might have to ask the IT guy at work or your kid who's more tech savvy, and they'll figure it out by downloading the drivers off the OEM's site. They certainly won't need to jump into a command line and compile a patched driver into a kernel like you'll end up having to do on Linux.
The reason for this is because the software engineers who wrote the drivers spent 90% of their time ensuring it would work in "most" versions and configurations of Windows, 9% of their time getting it to work with Mac (maybe), and anywhere from 0% to 1% for Linux.
When I was younger, I really enjoyed the challenge of digging into Linux and learning about how drivers and various subsystems worked. But now... I don't want to spend half my weekend to get a $40 USB camera or headset to work properly. I get paid decent money to write and fix software at work, 50 hours a week, and the novelty of doing it on Linux has long worn off.
This just doesn't happen that often in Windows, at least for the majority of hardware.
Yeah yeah, I know everyone has an anecdote of some graphics card driver update screwing up their multi-monitor setup, or that cheap no-name Chinese headset or camera bought off Amazon that never worked (and which they promptly returned).
But chances are, if you buy a well known branded component at Best Buy or Staples or even online, and you're not running some ancient version of Windows, the drivers will work. At worst, you might have to ask the IT guy at work or your kid who's more tech savvy, and they'll figure it out by downloading the drivers off the OEM's site. They certainly won't need to jump into a command line and compile a patched driver into a kernel like you'll end up having to do on Linux.
The reason for this is because the software engineers who wrote the drivers spent 90% of their time ensuring it would work in "most" versions and configurations of Windows, 9% of their time getting it to work with Mac (maybe), and anywhere from 0% to 1% for Linux.
When I was younger, I really enjoyed the challenge of digging into Linux and learning about how drivers and various subsystems worked. But now... I don't want to spend half my weekend to get a $40 USB camera or headset to work properly. I get paid decent money to write and fix software at work, 50 hours a week, and the novelty of doing it on Linux has long worn off.
Purchased a "Microsoft Xbox Wireless Controller + Wireless Adapter for Windows 10" off Amazon.
Brand is Microsoft and it is designed for Windows 10. (Non-affiliate link: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B078T3R8YS)
Plugged it into a USB 3.0 port on my Windows 10 machine. Hardware not recognized. Clicked, "Search automatically for drivers" (which has maybe worked once, ever), No drivers found.
Went to Google... All the "support" answers that you see from microsoft when you google "drivers for windows 10 xbox controller" provide basic IT support responses and no links to drivers. Found a link on reddit somewhere to a microsoft page where I finally found drivers that worked.
> if you buy a well known branded component at Best Buy or Staples or even online, and you're not running some ancient version of Windows, the drivers will work
Microsoft brand main stream product (over 5000 reviews on amazon), doesn't work out of the box on Windows 10...
I can't say that my personal experience is in line with anything you mention, re "things working out of the box on windows more than mac or linux".
Brand is Microsoft and it is designed for Windows 10. (Non-affiliate link: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B078T3R8YS)
Plugged it into a USB 3.0 port on my Windows 10 machine. Hardware not recognized. Clicked, "Search automatically for drivers" (which has maybe worked once, ever), No drivers found.
Went to Google... All the "support" answers that you see from microsoft when you google "drivers for windows 10 xbox controller" provide basic IT support responses and no links to drivers. Found a link on reddit somewhere to a microsoft page where I finally found drivers that worked.
> if you buy a well known branded component at Best Buy or Staples or even online, and you're not running some ancient version of Windows, the drivers will work
Microsoft brand main stream product (over 5000 reviews on amazon), doesn't work out of the box on Windows 10...
I can't say that my personal experience is in line with anything you mention, re "things working out of the box on windows more than mac or linux".
Just buy a piece of hardware that is compatible with Linux and then you get a pain free experience.
I am more productive when enjoying higher IO throughput on linux file system. Windows's program was always unresponsive and hurting my productivity.
Another example is an unknown driver bug could cause Windows system process go up to 100% CPU usage and there are no obvious solution to the problem. I don't think average user like it. They just think computer is generally buggy and accept that. They don't know anything better.
I am more productive when enjoying higher IO throughput on linux file system. Windows's program was always unresponsive and hurting my productivity.
Another example is an unknown driver bug could cause Windows system process go up to 100% CPU usage and there are no obvious solution to the problem. I don't think average user like it. They just think computer is generally buggy and accept that. They don't know anything better.
The last paragraph in your response really resonates with me. My time is much more valuable now, than it was when I'd find excuses to tinker with my tools.
Today, I just want my tools to work, and I want to use those tools to get things done.
Today, I just want my tools to work, and I want to use those tools to get things done.
>It sucks to say this on Hacker News, but you're being really naive. If I, as a power user, have trouble installing and even running Linux, how can you expect a normal user to do it?
It has less to do with technical abilities of the user and more to do with their general outlook and what they value. If you look for deficiencies, you'll find them. If you value the freedom and no bullshit experience, research the hardware and put in some effort to make it work.
It has less to do with technical abilities of the user and more to do with their general outlook and what they value. If you look for deficiencies, you'll find them. If you value the freedom and no bullshit experience, research the hardware and put in some effort to make it work.
The completely different experiences people have make me wonder what’s going on and what broken to cause it.
I have no great skill set and mess around with machines at weekends. I got Ubuntu desktop running on the metal and in a VM on both Proxmox and ESXi with everything passed through and working nicely and did so without any particular issues (bar thunderbolt, but that turned out to be hardware and a new machine was shipped to me and it now works).
This was on a Nuc, but the different experiences point to something being very wrong.
I have no great skill set and mess around with machines at weekends. I got Ubuntu desktop running on the metal and in a VM on both Proxmox and ESXi with everything passed through and working nicely and did so without any particular issues (bar thunderbolt, but that turned out to be hardware and a new machine was shipped to me and it now works).
This was on a Nuc, but the different experiences point to something being very wrong.
It’s largely driver support. If the manufacturer doesn’t support Linux it’s a roll of the dice. Nothing Linux can do about it really.
> Linux is not accessible
Linux is extremely accessible.
Most popular linux variants can be downloaded for free, and it's easy to find solutions to most common issues you run into. I'd be surprised if there isn't a StackOverflow post or two that have solutions to the issues you ran into, and even if there aren't, you can usually get answers just by asking.
Some linux variants are better than others, and YMMV per use case, but saying "linux is not accessible" is incredibly inaccurate.
Linux is extremely accessible.
Most popular linux variants can be downloaded for free, and it's easy to find solutions to most common issues you run into. I'd be surprised if there isn't a StackOverflow post or two that have solutions to the issues you ran into, and even if there aren't, you can usually get answers just by asking.
Some linux variants are better than others, and YMMV per use case, but saying "linux is not accessible" is incredibly inaccurate.
I refer to this technique as the Distro Distract. I first ran into it during my first experience with Linux in the mid-nineties.
I install a distro, I experience problems, there's not a lot of info out there. I hit #linux or some forum and I am told that what I really have is an XY problem, and the real problem is that I am running the wrong distro.
So I install Distro #2. And my problems have vanished! But ... but there are new problems that were not there in the first distro. So I hit the forums again and get someone nearly identical telling me that what my actual problem is is that I just have no idea how to pick a decent distro, and what I should really be using is ...
People do not want to cycle through one distro after another. That is not accessible. It takes time to pick out the next one and install (less now), and then you go through your stuff until you hit yet another brick wall.
I install a distro, I experience problems, there's not a lot of info out there. I hit #linux or some forum and I am told that what I really have is an XY problem, and the real problem is that I am running the wrong distro.
So I install Distro #2. And my problems have vanished! But ... but there are new problems that were not there in the first distro. So I hit the forums again and get someone nearly identical telling me that what my actual problem is is that I just have no idea how to pick a decent distro, and what I should really be using is ...
People do not want to cycle through one distro after another. That is not accessible. It takes time to pick out the next one and install (less now), and then you go through your stuff until you hit yet another brick wall.
You describe Windows approach, when a reboot solves a weird problem. In the Linux world you don't solve your problems by just mindlessly doing the same things again and again until it works. The best approach is to explore and learn, the longer you do that the simpler it becomes. That’s how Linux is best to be treated.
What if my life is finite? What if I want to accomplish something with my time, rather than "learn linux noob"? Rebooting Windows is 10 seconds of my time. Learning Linux took me hundreds of hours. Hours I want back, frankly.
The thing is you are going to spend less and less time on that after you get through the basics. It is not as huge as you think, especially if you work with computers.
Accessible for power users, yes. Not the average person.
Linux is great and an incredible testament to the power of open source.
But my god, it’s made by nerds, for nerds - which is great for folks like us, but there is absolutely no taste or consistency in UI/UX in any of the distros I’ve seen.
ElementaryOS is perhaps the prettiest Linux distro, yet it is so much uglier than even the perennial virtual corporate suit, Windows.
I just want an OSS Linux distro that’s beautiful, intuitive, and deeply customizable when I want to put on my power user hat. Is that too much to ask?
Linux is great and an incredible testament to the power of open source.
But my god, it’s made by nerds, for nerds - which is great for folks like us, but there is absolutely no taste or consistency in UI/UX in any of the distros I’ve seen.
ElementaryOS is perhaps the prettiest Linux distro, yet it is so much uglier than even the perennial virtual corporate suit, Windows.
I just want an OSS Linux distro that’s beautiful, intuitive, and deeply customizable when I want to put on my power user hat. Is that too much to ask?
I was in the same boat, as a Mac user. The thing you need to understand is that the beauty is not in the visual aesthetics of the GUI, but in other things.
‘It’s not how it looks like, it’s good it works’ is the phrase we believe Steve Jobs kept saying. Well, here it is. Linux is very ugly from the beautiful UI standpoint. But at some point you may realize you just don’t need any interface, and that’s where the beauty starts.
‘It’s not how it looks like, it’s good it works’ is the phrase we believe Steve Jobs kept saying. Well, here it is. Linux is very ugly from the beautiful UI standpoint. But at some point you may realize you just don’t need any interface, and that’s where the beauty starts.
Yeah unfortunately the Linux experience is still highly dependent on how well your hardware is supported, and whether you’re going to stick to the happy path (so not much gaming, photo/video editing, or coding in .NET).
I’m squarely in the linux happy path (I bought a Thinkpad because they’re known for good linux support) and it’s amazing, far better than Windows. But that’s also because staying in the happy path is a conscious choice: I actively avoid the stupid kinds of tech pain that eat entire weekends. For all that stuff I keep a Windows box around, which I power up once a month or so.
I’m squarely in the linux happy path (I bought a Thinkpad because they’re known for good linux support) and it’s amazing, far better than Windows. But that’s also because staying in the happy path is a conscious choice: I actively avoid the stupid kinds of tech pain that eat entire weekends. For all that stuff I keep a Windows box around, which I power up once a month or so.
Youre issues are mostly to do with your device manufacturers, you’re facing driver issues because the manufacturer never even once bothered to test it for linux.
I’ve never had any one of the problems you prescribed because luckily my system parts were all linux compatible.
Don’t blame linux for this, its your manufacturer who didn’t bother with the compatibility.
I’ve never had any one of the problems you prescribed because luckily my system parts were all linux compatible.
Don’t blame linux for this, its your manufacturer who didn’t bother with the compatibility.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Having used many flavors of Linux over the years as my work desktop, they are all very capable of being my daily driver.
The only thing holding me back at home is anti cheat support for proton.
The only thing holding me back at home is anti cheat support for proton.
Why would you even want that?
If someone has Windows on an intel PC with a graphics card (nvidia or amd) and 2 monitors 1 connected to the graphics card and the other to the integrated GPU, they WONT be able to use both monitors once they install Linux (any distro). SURPRISE!!!
I use linux in my home pc. I play games and code. I've been tinkering with linux since 1999. With FreeBSD since 1997. Linux has come a long way, but still has A LOT of HUGE rough edges.
I use linux in my home pc. I play games and code. I've been tinkering with linux since 1999. With FreeBSD since 1997. Linux has come a long way, but still has A LOT of HUGE rough edges.
Most dedicated GPUs have 2 or 3 monitor ports, so having the integrated GPU also support a extra monitor is not something that worked on windows (at least not until recently, I tried back in the day), also is not a something I would call a rough edge, let alone reasonable to expect in general.
You average user works on Ms Office, plays some games, uses photoshop and other apps that linux has some alternatives barely.
No libre office is not a replacement, GIMP is not a replacement, proton for games is not. They’re compromises. Same about Wine.
Im a linux+windows user. Linux is not even near when it comes to average UX.
GNOME team believes that convergence between classic desktop and mobile environment is a process that takes place right now. And thus it's completely fine and justified to abandon the desktop paradigm that majority of people is familiar with and promote this weird hybrid - because GNOME actually behaves and works like neither desktop nor mobile. Of course there's nothing wrong with trying to bring novelty, new fresh ideas - some might be really good but a valid criticism should be taken into account. Especially when it's been piling up for a while.
Anyway, unlike with Windows the choice is possible on Linux distributions. You can try KDE/Plasma, Budgie, Cinnamon, lightweight Xfce or MATE, or other more advanced solutions like one of tiling window managers. But if for whatever reasons you still wanna stick with GNOME, you can "patch" it with extensions that may give you Windows-like programs menu, desktop icons (the lack of these in GNOME Shell is often bring up as one of the worst offenses), a proper taskbar or dock, more customization for tray icons and notifications or even tweaked animations. It takes time but results are satisfying. Some distributions like Manjaro Linux offer ready to use layouts which are setting up necessary extensions to mimic behavior of other OSes, while on other you need to work through this alone.
GNOME in current form can be "tamed" but if you really want yo make your workflow "yours" or bring familiarity to Linux distribution, then KDE/Plasma customization would be best solution. Here you can have an example what can be done: https://youtu.be/2GYT7BK41zk
Anyway, unlike with Windows the choice is possible on Linux distributions. You can try KDE/Plasma, Budgie, Cinnamon, lightweight Xfce or MATE, or other more advanced solutions like one of tiling window managers. But if for whatever reasons you still wanna stick with GNOME, you can "patch" it with extensions that may give you Windows-like programs menu, desktop icons (the lack of these in GNOME Shell is often bring up as one of the worst offenses), a proper taskbar or dock, more customization for tray icons and notifications or even tweaked animations. It takes time but results are satisfying. Some distributions like Manjaro Linux offer ready to use layouts which are setting up necessary extensions to mimic behavior of other OSes, while on other you need to work through this alone.
GNOME in current form can be "tamed" but if you really want yo make your workflow "yours" or bring familiarity to Linux distribution, then KDE/Plasma customization would be best solution. Here you can have an example what can be done: https://youtu.be/2GYT7BK41zk
For that specific issue I would suggest using MenuLibre: an easy to use menu editor that will allow you to create a launcher for your custom app that you can then pin to the dock
It's really a shame Gnome shell and Ubuntu Unity are so terrible.
However, Ubuntu Mate is pretty great and does everything I want or need.
And you can install Mate on an existing Ubuntu install and the suckage goes away.
https://ubuntu-mate.org/
However, Ubuntu Mate is pretty great and does everything I want or need.
And you can install Mate on an existing Ubuntu install and the suckage goes away.
https://ubuntu-mate.org/
Sigh, now I pressed Win+C because the article mentioned it... of course that opens cortana, the app that insists on being unclosable and sticking around in your alt-tab order, no matter whatever you do.
Lovely.
Lovely.
It’s C for Chat in Win11.
Used to be C for Charms in Windows 8. RIP
(Global Share/Print/Cast/Project was a good idea, just needed more apps to support it.)
(Global Share/Print/Cast/Project was a good idea, just needed more apps to support it.)
Really wish I could meet the idiot who closed that bug as WNF. Just know they have some dumb as rocks reason for keeping that behavior.
"The user may want to return to Cortana. WNF"
"The user may want to return to Cortana. WNF"
It's also just plain weird and inconsistent - like so many windows apps by MS. The default OS behavior is fine, and works. Why are they going to the extra effort to break it? Other apps sometimes decide to minimize to the tray, but even those don't stick around in your alt-tab order o_O. You'd think first party apps would adhere more strictly to OS norms, but no...
Dark patterns make money. MS likes making money. If you don't want to be a pawn in their social experiment use something else.
($_$) Why indeed...?
Siri on the Mac isn’t this bad but it is also horrible. Getting it too never appear and never try to help is an irritating step which is required on a new install.
Ah in Windows 10. It's slightly harder to close, but... task manager > end task does it!
> However, that doesn’t answer why the Windows shell was so poorly architect in the first place.
It's simple really: Microsoft doesn't have any competent developers working on the Windows user interfaces. My guess is that if you display any competence you wind up being moved to somewhere they care about like Azure, PowerShell, or the licensing team.
At this point I'm wondering if it is worth trying to build my own desktop on top of Windows Server Core.
It's simple really: Microsoft doesn't have any competent developers working on the Windows user interfaces. My guess is that if you display any competence you wind up being moved to somewhere they care about like Azure, PowerShell, or the licensing team.
At this point I'm wondering if it is worth trying to build my own desktop on top of Windows Server Core.
This is also why they never bother getting cut and paste to work between apps from companies they buy.
It’s compounded by clueless salespeople who don’t know their products well enough to push the improvements that their customers want.
It’s compounded by clueless salespeople who don’t know their products well enough to push the improvements that their customers want.
The inconsistency in the way copy/paste works just inside of Outlook is maddening.
Copy text and an image from an email? Images paste in all broken.
Copy just the image from the email? Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Copy the image from the email, paste it into Paint, crop the canvas, then copy from Paint into whatever? Works every time.
Copy text and an image from an email? Images paste in all broken.
Copy just the image from the email? Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Copy the image from the email, paste it into Paint, crop the canvas, then copy from Paint into whatever? Works every time.
I have the habit of "washing" everything with Notepad to get rid of inconsistencies:
Copy text, data, etc from wherever
Paste it into Notepad
Copy it again
Paste it where you want it and then apply any formatting according to the destination app's formatting rules
Not a great workaround but at least it works.
Copy text, data, etc from wherever
Paste it into Notepad
Copy it again
Paste it where you want it and then apply any formatting according to the destination app's formatting rules
Not a great workaround but at least it works.
> I have the habit of "washing" everything with Notepad to get rid of inconsistencies
I also do that. I 100% attribute that to browsers and people who want to copy/paste HTML and have it all colorized and formatted in the destination app.
I also do that. I 100% attribute that to browsers and people who want to copy/paste HTML and have it all colorized and formatted in the destination app.
FWIW, this is necessary in linux and android too.
Ah yes - the "sheepdip" as we call it
I used to do that and then I learnt about Crt + Shift + v. That pastes the text without any formatting.
Ctrl+Shift+V is great, when it works. Which it doesn't annoyingly often, such as Atlassian's Confluence wiki. So I paste and re-copy things in the URL bar all the time. Ctrl + L V A X
That used to work in Google sheets, but now it only pastes the last thing copied from Google sheets. Really frustrating.
In Windows programs another shortcut for unformatted text is Control Alt V where Control Shift V does not work
https://superuser.com/questions/407113/shortcut-in-word-or-e...
https://superuser.com/questions/407113/shortcut-in-word-or-e...
That's broken in Outlook 2108. Now they want you to paste (CTRL+V) and then hold CTRL and click on/navigate to the obscure icon for the paste variant you want.
Excel is even worse. Perform any action between the time you copy and the time you paste and everything on your clipboard is lost.
Excel is insane, the undo button is universal, meaning if you are editing multiple spreadsheets, you can’t just undo changes to one of them if you made a mistake between editing, you have to undo all changes to all open spreadsheets to get back to your desired undo point.
Joel Spolsky used to work on Excel and he has written some brilliant stuff about it (at least, in its early days). My personal favourite is the revelation that the Excel team had their own C compiler, which kind of takes Not Invented Here into the stratosphere.
Oh god this is one feature that literally makes me want to jump on a plane to Redmond and throw my own excrement at them like a deranged chimpanzee.
It's still an MDI app under the covers (not that that's any excuse).
Yeah, this is so unproductive, it boggles the mind.
This is why I always open up multiple instances of Excel.
Yeah this really sucks. Fortunately I'm largely away from the spreadsheet world. My motto is stay as far away from business as you can and have a happy life.
[deleted]
> Microsoft doesn't have any competent developers working on the Windows user interfaces
Oh please. Do you really think that MS has nobody with any level of competency on any single team in their entire org? Do you really think that low of others? Could it possibly be that sometimes... things have bugs? Shit breaks in ways you don't expect. Things happen.
Painting an entire group of people you've never met with such a large brush is gross. It's just software and these are just people.
Oh please. Do you really think that MS has nobody with any level of competency on any single team in their entire org? Do you really think that low of others? Could it possibly be that sometimes... things have bugs? Shit breaks in ways you don't expect. Things happen.
Painting an entire group of people you've never met with such a large brush is gross. It's just software and these are just people.
> Oh please. Do you really think that MS has nobody with any level of competency on any single team in their entire org?
I dunno, let's see:
> Microsoft doesn't have any competent developers working on the Windows user interfaces
Looks like I am specifically calling out one subset here in particular. So I would say that no, no I don't believe what you're implying I believe.
> Could it possibly be that sometimes... things have bugs? Shit breaks in ways you don't expect. Things happen.
Bugs happen to everyone, but the people working on the Windows interfaces have poor architectural choices, nonsensical user-hostile decisions, and a history of reinventing the wheel with slower (and buggier!), less featureful, interfaces.
> Painting an entire group of people you've never met with such a large brush is gross. It's just software and these are just people.
This is the image they project into the world, if they want to be thought of differently then they should actually do something to project that image instead.
I dunno, let's see:
> Microsoft doesn't have any competent developers working on the Windows user interfaces
Looks like I am specifically calling out one subset here in particular. So I would say that no, no I don't believe what you're implying I believe.
> Could it possibly be that sometimes... things have bugs? Shit breaks in ways you don't expect. Things happen.
Bugs happen to everyone, but the people working on the Windows interfaces have poor architectural choices, nonsensical user-hostile decisions, and a history of reinventing the wheel with slower (and buggier!), less featureful, interfaces.
> Painting an entire group of people you've never met with such a large brush is gross. It's just software and these are just people.
This is the image they project into the world, if they want to be thought of differently then they should actually do something to project that image instead.
It's very refreshing for me to find someone that can succinctly describe how fucking incompetent almost all of the UI / UX designers and developers at Microsoft are without being hammered down as "a troll" in the comments.
There are a LOT of us out here that remember how well things were designed and implemented 20, 30, and 40 years ago, and how disgustingly broken everything is now, and how everyone nowadays ACCEPTS THIS AS NORMAL.
Microsoft Teams is a steaming pile of shit. Windows Desktop Explorer is a steaming pile of shit. The XAML bullshit they're using for the Start Menu button in Windows 10 (and I'm guessing Windows 11, since I am not going to be installing it) is a steaming pile of shit. Microsoft's invasive advertising and telemetry IN A DESKTOP OPERATING SYSTEM is a steaming pile of shit.
People need to stop pretending this shit isn't broken. People need to stop calling people who point out how fucking broken this shit is "trolls".
There are a LOT of us out here that remember how well things were designed and implemented 20, 30, and 40 years ago, and how disgustingly broken everything is now, and how everyone nowadays ACCEPTS THIS AS NORMAL.
Microsoft Teams is a steaming pile of shit. Windows Desktop Explorer is a steaming pile of shit. The XAML bullshit they're using for the Start Menu button in Windows 10 (and I'm guessing Windows 11, since I am not going to be installing it) is a steaming pile of shit. Microsoft's invasive advertising and telemetry IN A DESKTOP OPERATING SYSTEM is a steaming pile of shit.
People need to stop pretending this shit isn't broken. People need to stop calling people who point out how fucking broken this shit is "trolls".
I suspect the nonsensical user-hostile decisions are not being made by the devs themselves. And if I was in their position (of implementing nonsensical user-hostile decisions) I would probably not give two shits whether it was done well or not.
And I don't think anyone would blame you as a person for making that choice, but I also wouldn't call you a highly competent developer.
It's part of the HN Cycle™
* Blog complains about Windows being a mess
* Comments about how the Mac workflow is better
* Blog complains about how the Mac is too restricted
* Comments about how Linux is finally good now®
* Blog complains about Linux desktop
* Comments about how WSL2 saved them from the nightmare that is GNOME/KDE/etc
repeat ad nauseum
* Blog complains about Windows being a mess
* Comments about how the Mac workflow is better
* Blog complains about how the Mac is too restricted
* Comments about how Linux is finally good now®
* Blog complains about Linux desktop
* Comments about how WSL2 saved them from the nightmare that is GNOME/KDE/etc
repeat ad nauseum
I do think it's finally become true (for me at least) that desktop linux is Actually Good ©
Previously on more user friendly distros like Ubuntu I didn't feel that the advantages over Windows were significant enough to warrant certain software suites being unavailable (adobe, autocad, etc.). And lightweight distros like Arch caused too much headache even with the wiki and knowing "what you were doing."
Arch now feels both relatively easy to use day to day, while still being incredibly customizable with almost no bloatware. The only real problem is certain almost non-negotiable utilities like PulseAudio not necessarily being as high quality as most of the user utilities.
Previously on more user friendly distros like Ubuntu I didn't feel that the advantages over Windows were significant enough to warrant certain software suites being unavailable (adobe, autocad, etc.). And lightweight distros like Arch caused too much headache even with the wiki and knowing "what you were doing."
Arch now feels both relatively easy to use day to day, while still being incredibly customizable with almost no bloatware. The only real problem is certain almost non-negotiable utilities like PulseAudio not necessarily being as high quality as most of the user utilities.
I'd be willing to try linux again, but the thing that stops me every time is having to go into terminal and start building my f'n software and manually updating or fixing some terminal only setting that is breaking things
I absolutely refuse to use an operating system for casual use that requires daily terminal knowledge and endless googling to remember and use.
It is what it is, but I do enough of this stuff professionally that I want an operating system that works from the second you push the power button with peripherals and software that work instantly after plugging in.
The second I'm digging through old forums looking for some multi-line arcane terminal script to paste to make things work, I boot back into something else and delete the linux partition
I absolutely refuse to use an operating system for casual use that requires daily terminal knowledge and endless googling to remember and use.
It is what it is, but I do enough of this stuff professionally that I want an operating system that works from the second you push the power button with peripherals and software that work instantly after plugging in.
The second I'm digging through old forums looking for some multi-line arcane terminal script to paste to make things work, I boot back into something else and delete the linux partition
Obvious troll is obvious.
The obvious troll is describing exactly why most people don't use linux.
Linux desktop is awful. At least WSL2 saved me from the nightmare that is GNOME/KDE/etc
I like the Mac workflow a lot better.
I think the Mac is getting too restricted these days, with the T2 and SIP and all
[deleted]
Except it's not a cycle, those are different people commenting different topics.
Its a cycle on HN.
Yes, if someone from one group states a position, someone from another group will rebut it. It's not a quirky pattern, it's just how discussion works.
[deleted]
This is hilarious because it's so true... There's also a conversational/argumentative style where you take the opposite position, either because you like to go against the flow or because you want to see how well the other guy's argument stands up to yours. I think if you look at my comments I tend to have a lot that are "well, no, <contrary idea because reasons>". If I'm at all representative of HN, it would surprise me if part of the HN Cycle™ is contrarianness.
True the gist of it is that people just like complaining and that the grass is always greener.
Its a controversial opinion (I think) but I'm inclined to agree. I do tend to find that devs are often much harsher to other devs, sometimes unfairly so, than any other profession that I know of.
If you complain your mechanic is slow and expensive, a load of other mechanics will come and tell you (and probably rightly so) that the job is more difficult and complex than you know of. But you don't see that often with devs, which is a bit disappointing.
If you complain your mechanic is slow and expensive, a load of other mechanics will come and tell you (and probably rightly so) that the job is more difficult and complex than you know of. But you don't see that often with devs, which is a bit disappointing.
Probably because your mechanic isn't actively making your car perform worse, gluing ads onto the body, or redesigning your steering wheel based on the latest fads.
I highly doubt the devs themselves run microsoft. I could be wrong but theres probably a manager or two in there as well. Maybe I'm stuck in the past, but I was under the impression that devs build the thing, others decide what it is thats built. If that is the case, then I personally wouldn't call a dev 'incompetant' because of a decision not made by them.
Of course you could say they should stand up against this, but again, whilst theres this hostility towards other devs, why are you going to risk not being able to put food on the table for someone on the internet who thinks your an idiot?
(As an aside, the analogy doesn't really stretch that far since developers are hired by companies whereas mechanics are paid directly by customers. Perhaps car designers would be a better fit here, but again, other car designers would be quick to point out the problems with your complaints, but thats by the by)
Of course you could say they should stand up against this, but again, whilst theres this hostility towards other devs, why are you going to risk not being able to put food on the table for someone on the internet who thinks your an idiot?
(As an aside, the analogy doesn't really stretch that far since developers are hired by companies whereas mechanics are paid directly by customers. Perhaps car designers would be a better fit here, but again, other car designers would be quick to point out the problems with your complaints, but thats by the by)
> Of course you could say they should stand up against this, but again, whilst theres this hostility towards other devs, why are you going to risk not being able to put food on the table for someone on the internet who thinks your an idiot?
Very few developers are in the position of starving if they refuse to implement terrible ideas. If they are in that position, fine, but at least feel an appropriate amount of shame for the garbage you're making.
> Perhaps car designers would be a better fit here, but again, other car designers would be quick to point out the problems with your complaints, but thats by the by
I think the car designer version supports what I'm saying: Tesla wants to replace the steering wheel with a yoke and people are rightly criticizing them for it.
Very few developers are in the position of starving if they refuse to implement terrible ideas. If they are in that position, fine, but at least feel an appropriate amount of shame for the garbage you're making.
> Perhaps car designers would be a better fit here, but again, other car designers would be quick to point out the problems with your complaints, but thats by the by
I think the car designer version supports what I'm saying: Tesla wants to replace the steering wheel with a yoke and people are rightly criticizing them for it.
I’m a contractor working for a consultancy who is working for a tobacco company, I was told it would be a retail client and I feel bad, not bad enough to quit immediately as i do genuinely need the money right now but I’ll leave when I can.
(I tried passive aggressively quitting by insisting they put my day rate up expecting them to say no but they did)
(I tried passive aggressively quitting by insisting they put my day rate up expecting them to say no but they did)
All things aside, I really doubt that engineers working on critical infrastructure of one of the most popular OS for Microsoft couldn't INSTANTLY get another dev job literally almost anywhere else.
> gluing ads onto the body
Surprisingly I have heard of this being done. Mechanics placing stickers on windows without permission.
Surprisingly I have heard of this being done. Mechanics placing stickers on windows without permission.
I see this in Europe a lot. Brand new cars often have the dealership name and logo on a sticker on the back window, or the license plate frame, or even the body of the car.
Jesus Christ, is the dealership playing me to advertise their business on the item I just paid them money for?! If not, then take that branding shit off!
Jesus Christ, is the dealership playing me to advertise their business on the item I just paid them money for?! If not, then take that branding shit off!
This happens in North America too. I explicitly asked the dealer where I bought my car not to slap their unpaid adverts all over it, and they still put a sticker on the trunk lid, a license plate frame on the rear, and an inventory tracking sticker on the windshield.
I also prefer all my cloths unbranded.
Other professions have professional organizations that have strict rules about maintaining the public trust in the profession. Challenging each other’s competence publicly is really discouraged. By contrast, many trades people can criticize each other and do so endlessly… even though those trades have a higher bar for being allowed to practice than software does. It’s harder to make a spaghetti mess that somebody else has to build on because of standards and physical constraints too
I think that might be it, mechanics wasn't really the example I was going for, but I couldn't think of the actual profession (something like an architect I guess). I guess it might just be a trades thing, which as you say makes sense
I see you've never been in a video editing bay. An editor is where all of the results from the other crafts of trade all land in one pile. Plus, it's actually the editor's job to get rid of the crap and pull out the gems. The vitriol I've heard (and given) from an edit bay would make for a great niche series that would only be understood by other editors (meaning it would not be succesful).
That sounds more like banter (or something like that) to me to be honest, I haven't been to a video editing bay so yeh I have no idea, but to be honest in my experience the vitriol given is inversely proportional to how serious it is.
As I said, could be wrong though, maybe developers arent alone in not liking each other
As I said, could be wrong though, maybe developers arent alone in not liking each other
>As I said, could be wrong though, maybe developers arent alone in not liking each other
of course there are other groups of people that don't like other people. have you seen the world today?
of course there are other groups of people that don't like other people. have you seen the world today?
I assume your joking, but there has been a problem of people taking things far too literally in this thread, so in case not, I meant developers being often unfairly harsh to other developers.
>maybe developers arent alone in not liking each other
Of course I'm not dead serious, but there is some seriousness implied. You called out devs specifically not being alone in not liking one another. I made a reference to another profession that doesn't like their direct related counterparts. What in the world did you think that meant? There are not chefs that don't like other chefs or that there are not chefs that don't like devs?
Of course I'm not dead serious, but there is some seriousness implied. You called out devs specifically not being alone in not liking one another. I made a reference to another profession that doesn't like their direct related counterparts. What in the world did you think that meant? There are not chefs that don't like other chefs or that there are not chefs that don't like devs?
I told my current mechanic about my last mechanic's quote for a job and they laughed and said it was a rip-off and otherwise derided them. And my current mechanic works fast and doesn't waste my money.
Have your wheels fallen off yet :)
Anecdotally I think it's pretty common for mechanics to claim that their competitors don't know what they're doing.
Maybe that was a terrible example, although I could be wrong.
It kind of makes sense actually, of course I hear of more developers being hostile to other developers compared to say mechanics, but that could be because I hear from more developers full stop. There's probably a term for it and everything.
That being said, I'm sure I've come across a lot more camaraderie amongst other professions than developers. Anecdotally, I know theres been a few times I've complained about or seen people complain about a certain profession and seen a wave of posts come in from other workers defending them. Then again, its possible those just stick out in my mind more than the many times that presumably hasn't happened.
It kind of makes sense actually, of course I hear of more developers being hostile to other developers compared to say mechanics, but that could be because I hear from more developers full stop. There's probably a term for it and everything.
That being said, I'm sure I've come across a lot more camaraderie amongst other professions than developers. Anecdotally, I know theres been a few times I've complained about or seen people complain about a certain profession and seen a wave of posts come in from other workers defending them. Then again, its possible those just stick out in my mind more than the many times that presumably hasn't happened.
I think that you have this impression because you are comparing the inside of a professional environment with the outside of others. I'm pretty sure that in inner circles of other professions they speak trash of others, but you don't see it from the outside, just like a random Joe won't never read HN whrrry devs speak trash of other devs
> Shit breaks in ways you don't expect.
Well, to be fair, the cause and effect in this case shouldn't even be connected in a way that allows for this. It's like a bad CD in your car stereo causing your engine to fail. A smart car manufacturer makes it so that the data bus cannot send information from the public areas to the engine area. A bad car manufacturer does not put up those blocks.
Well, to be fair, the cause and effect in this case shouldn't even be connected in a way that allows for this. It's like a bad CD in your car stereo causing your engine to fail. A smart car manufacturer makes it so that the data bus cannot send information from the public areas to the engine area. A bad car manufacturer does not put up those blocks.
Cars aren't always the greatest either - never mind the CD player, the radio receiver can be an entry point:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33622298
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33622298
Automotive EE here. Worth noting that almost every infotainment system is android or Linux-based right now.
They crash all the time. They’re absolutely awful quality. they are made almost exclusively with cheap foreign engineering. It’s really the wild west when it comes to things.
The vehicle interfaces are usually subsystem modules in the radio. Your Linux side talks to your “vehicle side” over usb, uart, SPI, etc. There is still a good module there most of the time, but it has 100% trust of its main processor.
Since 2018, US vehicles since almost all come with a firewall to separate the radio/telemetric/infotainment busses from the vehicle busses.
Their solution wasn’t to harden the fancy systems, it was just to separate them from the important ones. So the vulnerabilities are still there, just moved a little.
I despise these big stupid complicated displays that encourage accidents.
They crash all the time. They’re absolutely awful quality. they are made almost exclusively with cheap foreign engineering. It’s really the wild west when it comes to things.
The vehicle interfaces are usually subsystem modules in the radio. Your Linux side talks to your “vehicle side” over usb, uart, SPI, etc. There is still a good module there most of the time, but it has 100% trust of its main processor.
Since 2018, US vehicles since almost all come with a firewall to separate the radio/telemetric/infotainment busses from the vehicle busses.
Their solution wasn’t to harden the fancy systems, it was just to separate them from the important ones. So the vulnerabilities are still there, just moved a little.
I despise these big stupid complicated displays that encourage accidents.
It is unlikely. But that can actually happen.
A catastrophic failure of the head unit can impact the electrical system which can do weird things with the spark plugs or other systems.
A catastrophic failure of the head unit can impact the electrical system which can do weird things with the spark plugs or other systems.
> Shit breaks in ways you don't expect.
It broke because it could not hit an unessential cloud service. This is absolutely something someone should have expected.
It broke because it could not hit an unessential cloud service. This is absolutely something someone should have expected.
>This is absolutely something someone should have expected
It's ok, we rushed the implementation to meet this sprint's goals, the fix is part of the next sprint. /s
It's ok, we rushed the implementation to meet this sprint's goals, the fix is part of the next sprint. /s
In fairness, this kind of mistake is the kind I’d expect a junior to make, and only the once.
Putting time outs and other error handling around remote endpoints is prettier much the first lesson you’re taught when interfacing with remote end points.
Yes mistakes happen and I’ve seen other companies ship products that have failed in similar ways, but I’ve always believed Microsoft is thought of as a FANNG and to see a school boy error in their flag ship product a couple of months before it ships really makes me question the standard of leadership running the team.
Who’s QAing it? Why wasn’t those functions covered in unit tests? Who peer reviewed that code? And who’s running the development teams that allow all this guardrails to fail? It’s not just one engineer who had to fuck up to cause that bug.
Putting time outs and other error handling around remote endpoints is prettier much the first lesson you’re taught when interfacing with remote end points.
Yes mistakes happen and I’ve seen other companies ship products that have failed in similar ways, but I’ve always believed Microsoft is thought of as a FANNG and to see a school boy error in their flag ship product a couple of months before it ships really makes me question the standard of leadership running the team.
Who’s QAing it? Why wasn’t those functions covered in unit tests? Who peer reviewed that code? And who’s running the development teams that allow all this guardrails to fail? It’s not just one engineer who had to fuck up to cause that bug.
I had the misfortune of working with a vendor that did work in sprints. I couldn't see it as anything other than an awful way to work that caused things to take longer than they needed to because priorities couldn't be shifted on the fly and anything other than break fixes couldn't be released mid-sprint.
That fixed release cycle might make certain things easier, but it also causes a forced lag on all changes and encourages shipping code that isn't actually complete so you don't have to tell people to wait another 2 weeks for the change.
That fixed release cycle might make certain things easier, but it also causes a forced lag on all changes and encourages shipping code that isn't actually complete so you don't have to tell people to wait another 2 weeks for the change.
This pretty much sums up sprints, extra meetings at start and end, less flexibility (we don’t want to change the scope of the sprint) and generally worse for everyone.
I wish some of Kanban was more widely accepted, especially things like making sure you have enough worked planned in the backlog to just keep taking tasks and working on them till completion.
I wish some of Kanban was more widely accepted, especially things like making sure you have enough worked planned in the backlog to just keep taking tasks and working on them till completion.
https://apenwarr.ca/log/20171213 - “An epic treatise on scheduling, bug tracking, and triage” includes comments on software Kanban and has same well written hate on sprints.
[deleted]
It's gross incompetence.
If you have Microsoft's resources, you should be able to compete with a good UI. They can't. To me, that's a sign of complete incompetence. Excuse it however you like, but those guys are getting paid and failing at the job.
I don't understand the need to apoligize for shit software. It's shit. I don't care that some idiot spent their whole life taking that shit. It still smells, looks, and tastes like shit. I'm not going to enjoy it as a delicacy because they "care".
If you have Microsoft's resources, you should be able to compete with a good UI. They can't. To me, that's a sign of complete incompetence. Excuse it however you like, but those guys are getting paid and failing at the job.
I don't understand the need to apoligize for shit software. It's shit. I don't care that some idiot spent their whole life taking that shit. It still smells, looks, and tastes like shit. I'm not going to enjoy it as a delicacy because they "care".
Taking into account the mess win 10 UI is together with Teams and Office 365 i would say that, yes, they don't have any competent developer in those teams.
As others have pointed out, the very reason they're facing this much criticism is because this bug was very foreseeable and avoidable.
Its a little hyperbolic of them, but the root issue is still that a buggy advertisement in the operating system, as part of a non-vital cloud service, caused the operating system to break. This doesn't feel like an "it happens", right?
As a competent developer of user interfaces, I'd consider working for Microsoft career suicide.
It would look bad on my resume. And given how much of a mess it is, it sounds like a terribly stressful job. I think any dev who doesn't see those red flags (or care about them) is very, very likely incompetent.
Honestly, even they weren't it's like a self fulfilling prophecy. It's fairly incompetent to take a job that people believe is for incompetent people. Unless you totally turn shit around, which obviously nobody has.
It would look bad on my resume. And given how much of a mess it is, it sounds like a terribly stressful job. I think any dev who doesn't see those red flags (or care about them) is very, very likely incompetent.
Honestly, even they weren't it's like a self fulfilling prophecy. It's fairly incompetent to take a job that people believe is for incompetent people. Unless you totally turn shit around, which obviously nobody has.
Might it be that not everyone would view taking on a big challenge with a potential ton of impact "career suicide"--or, would you shun an industry peer who tried to make Windows better?
If it would be the exception to the norm that would be fair. But the bugs and regressions in the Windows desktop UI are so numerous these days that there must be a reason why the quality is so much below the average. Poor management driving the good developers out could be one of them (or it's just because they fired their QA, who knows).
Oh please. Do you really think that MS has nobody with any level of competency on any single team in their entire org?
He said no such thing.
He said no such thing.
" Microsoft doesn't have any competent developers working on the Windows user interfaces"
Verbatim quote. The commenter being responded to said exactly that.
Verbatim quote. The commenter being responded to said exactly that.
And?
> And?
It seems the did in fact say such a thing that you said they didn't say.
I imagine you're misinterpreting what I said. That's reasonable, I can see how I was not clear.
I was saying that there's no way there's a single team at MS that does not have a competent person on it, not that there's no way ALL teams have 0 competent people on it.
It seems the did in fact say such a thing that you said they didn't say.
I imagine you're misinterpreting what I said. That's reasonable, I can see how I was not clear.
I was saying that there's no way there's a single team at MS that does not have a competent person on it, not that there's no way ALL teams have 0 competent people on it.
[deleted]
I think someone is angry he failed his interview in Redmond...
Really really good developers are in high demand, and they're hard to find. At the top there's a ton of salary competition with the FAANG companies and other large companies, or with startups that offer equity and more interesting work. MS is neither of these.
How bold of you to suggest they have anyone competent working on PowerShell or Azure.
Everything I go near from them is a monumental crapfest these days. They could be a good platform if they stopped this schizophrenic direction changing and actually fixed shit rather than hiding it behind layers of new shit.
Everything I go near from them is a monumental crapfest these days. They could be a good platform if they stopped this schizophrenic direction changing and actually fixed shit rather than hiding it behind layers of new shit.
That's the reality of modern software development: creating new shits on top of old shits. They don't have the time to clean up the old shits. I guess we have to accept that.
If copyright terms didn't last so long, then other people could take the old layers and "compost" them into fertilizer for new code.
I think you have an excellent point.
only if the code was available.
The problem is if it was a zoo this deep in shit it’d be shut down from an animal welfare point of view.
Perhaps we should consider software welfare as well.
“Clean up your shit or we’ll fine you”
Perhaps we should consider software welfare as well.
“Clean up your shit or we’ll fine you”
Aka “technical debt”
I'm wondering what's the average programming skill MSFT takes in. I mean they definitely have a lot of competitive people who work in kernels and system programming fields, but I'm not sure about the other departments. Maybe the less important fields are for new hires to get into the game and that's why they suck.
> At this point I'm wondering if it is worth trying to build my own desktop on top of Windows Server Core.
Oh, I'm not the only one thinking this then! That's good to know. For years I've been tinkering at the edges of this by having my own app launcher, and my own desktop widgets, and an explorer style start menu navigation app.
All I need is to hook into the systray (although, do I need that? it's just a distraction), and put together a good/fast app switcher app, and I could ditch explorer.exe and the startmenu app completely.
Oh, I'm not the only one thinking this then! That's good to know. For years I've been tinkering at the edges of this by having my own app launcher, and my own desktop widgets, and an explorer style start menu navigation app.
All I need is to hook into the systray (although, do I need that? it's just a distraction), and put together a good/fast app switcher app, and I could ditch explorer.exe and the startmenu app completely.
Honestly I'm surprised I haven't yet stumbled across a community of people doing this. If I had to guess, there's probably a stumbling block that makes it unsuitable for a lot of desktop use cases that I'm not aware of.
It used to be the case that directx 9 wouldn’t install, and several software would detect the server is and refuse.
There are various (mostly non-English) communities making weird chimeric combinations of XP/Vista/7-era OS mods, more recently guided by the leaked source; I don't think they're interested in doing anything legal, but also seem to not be interested in post-Win8 either.
I'm pretty sure Retrobar will work with the systray, that is if you're into the classic Windows taskbar experience.
This is insulting and trivially untrue. The Windows shell org has a number of excellent engineers. When I was at Microsoft it was one of the most senior and highest-tenured orgs. There are fantastic engineers such as Raymond Chen (https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/) and many more.
Do not mistake domains you don't understand as being bad at things. Programs and extensions that are 26 years old are still running strong on Windows 10 today. The economy runs on ancient tools that rely on that compatibility.
Throwing together a pretty context menu isn't as important as making sure that all of the UI elements are accessible to screen readers and other tools. It's also trivial compared to ensuring that old programs that assumed they could just click on the third menu item to make something happen keep working even if you redesign the menu.
Do not mistake domains you don't understand as being bad at things. Programs and extensions that are 26 years old are still running strong on Windows 10 today. The economy runs on ancient tools that rely on that compatibility.
Throwing together a pretty context menu isn't as important as making sure that all of the UI elements are accessible to screen readers and other tools. It's also trivial compared to ensuring that old programs that assumed they could just click on the third menu item to make something happen keep working even if you redesign the menu.
Is your argument that the windows desktop is a good piece of software or that software developers who consistently create bad software are actually good developers?
I realize most of the terrible bloat, adware, security holes etc are probably caused by external factors, but at some point I think it's important to take responsibility for your own work and either push back on or move on.
I realize most of the terrible bloat, adware, security holes etc are probably caused by external factors, but at some point I think it's important to take responsibility for your own work and either push back on or move on.
I certainly consider it a good piece of software. It does more things across more environments than its competitors.
I have and regularly use machines with all the major desktop platforms in my house - Windows, OS X, Linux, Chrome OS. While I cycle between them, I strongly prefer the Windows machines. The alternatives are all are missing all sorts of window management things such as snapping to screen quadrants and multimon borders, keyboard shortcuts for moving and snapping windows. Monitors with different DPIs is a challenge on Mac and hopeless on Linux. There are all sorts of UI affordances in Windows to do things like open new copies of an app (middle click on the taskbar icon), close an app (middle click on the taskbar preview), and so on.
There are a number of changes I strongly disagree with in Windows 11 such as removing the ability to put the taskbar on the side, but as a whole I still think the Windows desktop is an excellent piece of software that's significantly more usable than the alternatives.
I have and regularly use machines with all the major desktop platforms in my house - Windows, OS X, Linux, Chrome OS. While I cycle between them, I strongly prefer the Windows machines. The alternatives are all are missing all sorts of window management things such as snapping to screen quadrants and multimon borders, keyboard shortcuts for moving and snapping windows. Monitors with different DPIs is a challenge on Mac and hopeless on Linux. There are all sorts of UI affordances in Windows to do things like open new copies of an app (middle click on the taskbar icon), close an app (middle click on the taskbar preview), and so on.
There are a number of changes I strongly disagree with in Windows 11 such as removing the ability to put the taskbar on the side, but as a whole I still think the Windows desktop is an excellent piece of software that's significantly more usable than the alternatives.
With Windows you cant "pin" a window to keep it always visible (always on top). Something that linux distros have had for about 25 years.
Its not ready for the desktop.
Its not ready for the desktop.
...a functionality which was provided by probably thousands of micro, small, and large indopendent utilities over the last 25+ years.
They might have those excellent engineers, but none of them seem to be working on consumer versions of Windows.
> At this point I'm wondering if it is worth trying to build my own desktop on top of Windows Server Core.
Supposedly there used to be all sorts of third party shells. Only thing I’ve found to still exist are a few black box ports though.
Supposedly there used to be all sorts of third party shells. Only thing I’ve found to still exist are a few black box ports though.
I was following the development of WSL and got the impression that The people that work on kernel kinda know what they are doing and even listen to requests. The network team takes long to respond but still kinda implements requests. And NTFS is developed by a single person that lives in a wine cellar with a machine gun (as seen by every new file system feature being built in layers above ntfs.) And explorer and other user facing features are done by monkeys on typewriters.
Highly controversial opinion: around the time quality seemed to very noticeably take a nosedive (Win8?) was also roughly the time all the "diversity and inclusion", "anti-meritocracy" etc. stuff took off. Maybe we are just seeing the proof of what happens when you hire people for who they are rather than what they can do.
Someone in another comment here mentions Raymond Chen. He is from the "old Microsoft", and probably has significantly less power than he used to.
Someone in another comment here mentions Raymond Chen. He is from the "old Microsoft", and probably has significantly less power than he used to.
Because Microsoft sees the 1/10 of a penny it gets from the ad as more important than your Desktop and your Taskbar.
It seems that in this case they would get 100% of the money. Of course that would be clear if you read the article, as the ad is for Microsoft Teams.
Edit: I am dumb. Please disregard.
Edit: I am dumb. Please disregard.
I think OP meant that the 100% of the value of the ad does go to Microsoft, but that the value of a single ad would be very low, in fractional pennies.
edit: <snark now unnecessary>
edit: <snark now unnecessary>
Ok, I thought about it and came to the conclusion that I am slow today. I apologize.
Don't worry, Fridays are supposed to be read-only.
What you are saying makes even less sense.
I believe what they’re trying to say, is that for Microsoft the revenue that they’re “booking” per ad is 1/10th of$0 .01. Not that they’re only getting 1/10th of the ad revenue.
And that they’d rather is $0.001 over your desktop experience as your desktop usage doesn’t generate them income.
And that they’d rather is $0.001 over your desktop experience as your desktop usage doesn’t generate them income.
Actually I think they are being penny wise and pound foolish. Alternately, they are distracted by the new shiny.
Early sources, such as this classic book
https://www.amazon.com/Image-Guide-Pseudo-Events-America/dp/...
frame public relations and marketing folk as cynical manipulators who don't fall for the illusions they create.
The post-modern environment has had about 60 years to develop since that book was written and I think the culture has deteriorated and I believe that, today, the image makers really do live in the "the matrix" they've created and have trouble distinguishing it from reality. (I think of how Valmont in Dangerous Liaisons really fell for his victim Madame de Tourvel.)
My contacts with local business people and people who sell ads for radio and newspapers have convinced me that prices for advertising were too high for a long time because the people who buy advertising get gratification from hearing their name on the radio and the people who advertise won an auction because they get more gratification from hearing their name on the radio more than anyone else.
Years ago somebody who was an "influencer" would try to appear authentic (not an "influencer") but today authentic people will try to look inauthentic ("i pretend to be an influencer even though I don't get paid") to get credibility.
People under this spell will run ads in situations when they clearly shouldn't and they'll be astonishingly resistant to anyone who tries to talk sense into them.
(Your desktop usage does make income for Microsoft since your OEM bought Windows for you. If they annoy you enough you might switch to Linux, MacOS, etc. Unfortunately your OEM probably wants to wreck the value of a $2000 computer they sold you by selling $2 worth of annoying ads.)
Early sources, such as this classic book
https://www.amazon.com/Image-Guide-Pseudo-Events-America/dp/...
frame public relations and marketing folk as cynical manipulators who don't fall for the illusions they create.
The post-modern environment has had about 60 years to develop since that book was written and I think the culture has deteriorated and I believe that, today, the image makers really do live in the "the matrix" they've created and have trouble distinguishing it from reality. (I think of how Valmont in Dangerous Liaisons really fell for his victim Madame de Tourvel.)
My contacts with local business people and people who sell ads for radio and newspapers have convinced me that prices for advertising were too high for a long time because the people who buy advertising get gratification from hearing their name on the radio and the people who advertise won an auction because they get more gratification from hearing their name on the radio more than anyone else.
Years ago somebody who was an "influencer" would try to appear authentic (not an "influencer") but today authentic people will try to look inauthentic ("i pretend to be an influencer even though I don't get paid") to get credibility.
People under this spell will run ads in situations when they clearly shouldn't and they'll be astonishingly resistant to anyone who tries to talk sense into them.
(Your desktop usage does make income for Microsoft since your OEM bought Windows for you. If they annoy you enough you might switch to Linux, MacOS, etc. Unfortunately your OEM probably wants to wreck the value of a $2000 computer they sold you by selling $2 worth of annoying ads.)
I don’t disagree. I was just trying to provide clarification on my understanding of what the previous commenters had said.
It saddens me that a developer decided to stuff json into the registry, when it's perfectly possible to instead store nice and compact binary data structures. But this is 2021, can't have efficient data representation anymore.
I prefer data be serialized into something human readable wherever there is any chance a person might want to edit it manually. Storage is dirt cheap and de-serializing JSON is very fast.
The registry isn't the place to do it, and I'm surprised anyone still bothers with it in 2021. All my software relies on config files, and this is the pattern Microsoft themselves have promoted for years with .NET
The registry isn't the place to do it, and I'm surprised anyone still bothers with it in 2021. All my software relies on config files, and this is the pattern Microsoft themselves have promoted for years with .NET
The registry is a good idea for anything *other* programs need to know. Putting the information for any given program into the registry is a bad idea and I think far more an anti-piracy measure than good programming.
This is really emblematic of how I think Windows (and Microsoft) lost its way. Maybe the registry wasn't ultimately the best implementation, but I don't dislike the idea behind it-- a centralized repository of information and configuration for programs. Flawed as it may be, it was an attempt at something more sophisticated than storing things in files. I feel like this is the case for a lot of legacy MS technologies-- they attempted to really innovate, and maybe they fell short but at least they were trying. OLE, COM, .NET, JET engine, WinFS, Longhorn, all attempts at making an advancement in the OS space. Seems like recently though that they've just succumbed to the "Unix philosophy" of doing everything in a simple yet primitive/crude way. It greatly disappoints me that now NOBODY is trying to make an operating system for the future, not based on the local maximum of Unix, except maybe Google and Fuchsia. Shoving JSON into the registry is like a caveman using a hoverboard as a club or something. Sad!
Stuffing json inside a registry key is as close to "unix philosophy" as changing your bikes tires is to knitting.
I'm using "Unix philosophy" in this sense to mean using crude, well understood methods as opposed to a more sophisticated but complex system. I think that's the real Unix philosophy anyway, not just piping text or whatever.
The Unix philosophy (as it is in 2021) is very anti-registry. Everything should be a config file. Full of JSON, preferably.
The fact that we're no longer shocked and aghast at the idea of Microsoft pushing advertisements to the desktop - but rather that those ads have bugs in them - shows how far the Overton window has shifted. Boiling the frog.
We have had ads in windows since st least the release of 8 many years ago (many in tech time at least). On top of that, manufacturers have been pushing ads onto windows for even longer in the form of preinstalled crapware.
The bug is really the only thing that is new here.
The bug is really the only thing that is new here.
A good time to thank Stallman for seeing all this coming and preparing way back in 1983. As far as I know he was the first person to kick off the open source OS effort, and of course quite a few people have helped over the decades.
Not really, the only reason why UNIX got widespread was because originally AT&T wasn't allowed to charge for it, and its source code was available for a symbolic price alongside the source code, which eventually lead to the UNIX V6 annotated book.
Had AT&T been allowed to sell UNIX from the get go, Stallman would have had to base his endevours on something else.
Then again, it doesn't matter given the amount of GPL-hate nowadays that everyone goes with business friendly licenses.
Had AT&T been allowed to sell UNIX from the get go, Stallman would have had to base his endevours on something else.
Then again, it doesn't matter given the amount of GPL-hate nowadays that everyone goes with business friendly licenses.
None of the OSes that Stallman suggests are acceptable are actually acceptable, though.
No real way to build a skyscraper or produce a state of the art feature film on free software.
Stallman was as wrong about just as much stuff as he was right.
It turns out that a few hundred billion dollars of paid software engineering effort can't simply be waved away as "nonfree, so irrelevant". The whole world moved on to devices where not only is the software nonfree, there is not even an option of choosing free software, and, even if there were, there is no comparable free software to choose.
Why? Because they work better and allow you to get more things done in less time.
No real way to build a skyscraper or produce a state of the art feature film on free software.
Stallman was as wrong about just as much stuff as he was right.
It turns out that a few hundred billion dollars of paid software engineering effort can't simply be waved away as "nonfree, so irrelevant". The whole world moved on to devices where not only is the software nonfree, there is not even an option of choosing free software, and, even if there were, there is no comparable free software to choose.
Why? Because they work better and allow you to get more things done in less time.
What OS's RMS suggest are irrelevant to the gp's comment that RMS saw this slippery slope in computing coming long before most.
> No real way to build a skyscraper or produce a state of the art feature film on free software.
Yes, CAD software is a known issue in FOSS land, but you can still run them in wine on linux when you have to. It is getting better though, lots of consistent updates to some of the foss-cads.
Blender on the other hand, is now often the backbone of the feature film industry. As a matter of fact a large portion of the industry is moving more and more towards at least OSS. (https://www.aswf.io/projects/)
> The whole world moved on to devices where not only is the software nonfree
This is a blanket statement and not true. What about the fact that foss generally runs the vast majority of the internet that allows those non-free devices to function? You've basically got a bunch of linux boxes at the edge of every residential network. Reminds of that time I got into an argument with the Guardians senior technical editor who tried to tell me linux was irrelevant... The supercomputing top 500 certainly doesn't reflect such claims, since you mentioned "state-of-the-art".
> there is not even an option of choosing free software, and, even if there were, there is no comparable free software to choose.
In the vast majority of the cases, there are plenty of FOSS alternatives to choose.
> Why? Because they work better and allow you to get more things done in less time.
Why? Because the school system got locked into to proprietary software when it shouldn't have and thats all they train people on for the most part. Not because of inherent issues in the software interface.
> No real way to build a skyscraper or produce a state of the art feature film on free software.
Yes, CAD software is a known issue in FOSS land, but you can still run them in wine on linux when you have to. It is getting better though, lots of consistent updates to some of the foss-cads.
Blender on the other hand, is now often the backbone of the feature film industry. As a matter of fact a large portion of the industry is moving more and more towards at least OSS. (https://www.aswf.io/projects/)
> The whole world moved on to devices where not only is the software nonfree
This is a blanket statement and not true. What about the fact that foss generally runs the vast majority of the internet that allows those non-free devices to function? You've basically got a bunch of linux boxes at the edge of every residential network. Reminds of that time I got into an argument with the Guardians senior technical editor who tried to tell me linux was irrelevant... The supercomputing top 500 certainly doesn't reflect such claims, since you mentioned "state-of-the-art".
> there is not even an option of choosing free software, and, even if there were, there is no comparable free software to choose.
In the vast majority of the cases, there are plenty of FOSS alternatives to choose.
> Why? Because they work better and allow you to get more things done in less time.
Why? Because the school system got locked into to proprietary software when it shouldn't have and thats all they train people on for the most part. Not because of inherent issues in the software interface.
> Yes, CAD software is a known issue in FOSS land, but you can still run them in wine on linux when you have to. It is getting better though, lots of consistent updates to some of the foss-cads.
And if you have any issue at all and need technical support, the company will say "That is not a supported configuration, sorry." and you're on your own.
> This is a blanket statement and not true. What about the fact that foss generally runs the vast majority of the internet that allows those non-free devices to function?
And non-free software runs the networking hardware that that internet runs over.
> Because the school system got locked into to proprietary software when it shouldn't have and thats all they train people on for the most part.
Because the school system trains people on what is actually being used, and not on what should, theoretically, be used, in a hypothetical scenario where everyone has weeks or months to relearn everything they know about computing (like how to install and use Linux, and then how to install and use Wine, and then how to install and use their proprietary business tools on Wine on Linux and solve any bugs that come up).
And if you have any issue at all and need technical support, the company will say "That is not a supported configuration, sorry." and you're on your own.
> This is a blanket statement and not true. What about the fact that foss generally runs the vast majority of the internet that allows those non-free devices to function?
And non-free software runs the networking hardware that that internet runs over.
> Because the school system got locked into to proprietary software when it shouldn't have and thats all they train people on for the most part.
Because the school system trains people on what is actually being used, and not on what should, theoretically, be used, in a hypothetical scenario where everyone has weeks or months to relearn everything they know about computing (like how to install and use Linux, and then how to install and use Wine, and then how to install and use their proprietary business tools on Wine on Linux and solve any bugs that come up).
I was always perplexed at Blender's quality and polish, given that it is F/OSS. It turns out it started off as proprietary software, and was open-sourced later. (It's also impossible to create a feature film, start to finish, with Blender alone, which was my point; not that there aren't 3d animation tools that work on linux.)
[deleted]
Compare Blender in its proprietary days to Blender now. Its polish and functionality cannot be attributed to it having at one point been proprietary, because almost everything to love about the software today was created in its FOSS state.
Why does it have to be an either/or? Of course Stallman and a large group of volunteers can't compete with giant corporations. But their contributions are very valuable and needed.
It also turns out that few hundred billion dollars of paid software engineering was greatly subsidized by volunteer open source work. Every Android phone in the world uses an open source kernel as one very obvious example.
I for one am very grateful for Stallman and everyone else. I use Linux for everything. Works great, meets all of my needs with zero complaints. If it wasn't for them, I'd have no choice but to use Windows or MacOS.
It also turns out that few hundred billion dollars of paid software engineering was greatly subsidized by volunteer open source work. Every Android phone in the world uses an open source kernel as one very obvious example.
I for one am very grateful for Stallman and everyone else. I use Linux for everything. Works great, meets all of my needs with zero complaints. If it wasn't for them, I'd have no choice but to use Windows or MacOS.
> Of course Stallman and a large group of volunteers can't compete with giant corporations.
If they (or their ideology) can't, then nothing else they say has any relevance.
> But their contributions are very valuable and needed.
How so? Decades of their braying has not solved the problem; indeed things have gotten much worse.
If they (or their ideology) can't, then nothing else they say has any relevance.
> But their contributions are very valuable and needed.
How so? Decades of their braying has not solved the problem; indeed things have gotten much worse.
> No real way to build a skyscraper or produce a state of the art feature film on free software.
I don't know much about building skyscrapers, but we neither need "state of the art feature film" nor are incapable of producing perfectly adequate film with the tools currently available as free software. There are also countless feature film and animation tools that run and are used on Linux all the time.
Irrespective, I do actually think your viewpoint is valid generally speaking in that FOSS operating systems are inadequate for general purpose computing. They're great for servers or specific tooling, but they suck horse chestnuts if you just want something you can install whatever you want on them and just expect it to work as well as you can on something like macOS or Windows. Those who deny that usually are power users that don't see things from the perspective of the average person who isn't a software engineer or tinkerer.
Of course, this is a failing of both the system and society itself. We ought to know better, but we are too lazy and too hooked on convenience to care enough.
I don't know much about building skyscrapers, but we neither need "state of the art feature film" nor are incapable of producing perfectly adequate film with the tools currently available as free software. There are also countless feature film and animation tools that run and are used on Linux all the time.
Irrespective, I do actually think your viewpoint is valid generally speaking in that FOSS operating systems are inadequate for general purpose computing. They're great for servers or specific tooling, but they suck horse chestnuts if you just want something you can install whatever you want on them and just expect it to work as well as you can on something like macOS or Windows. Those who deny that usually are power users that don't see things from the perspective of the average person who isn't a software engineer or tinkerer.
Of course, this is a failing of both the system and society itself. We ought to know better, but we are too lazy and too hooked on convenience to care enough.
That's far from being true. Installing software on Windows and Macos is a shitshow.
Dealing with updates is such a pain that it built the habit of ignoring updates as much as possible by default.
The only thing that made things a bit better for users with little technical knowledge is the fact that more things are done in the browser nowdays, and this is true for any operating system.
Dealing with updates is such a pain that it built the habit of ignoring updates as much as possible by default.
The only thing that made things a bit better for users with little technical knowledge is the fact that more things are done in the browser nowdays, and this is true for any operating system.
Most of the apps on my phone are from f-droid so your premise is void.
It's true that it's unreasonably hard to get a decent mobile device that's also free by his definition, but there definitely are free app choices which are often superior to their closed equivalent if you step outside of the apple ecosphere.
It's true that it's unreasonably hard to get a decent mobile device that's also free by his definition, but there definitely are free app choices which are often superior to their closed equivalent if you step outside of the apple ecosphere.
How about the baseband? How about the tools used to design the CPU? How about the firmware in the handheld scanner that the delivery person used to bring it to you?
What's your point here? That corporations who don't have to worry about the costs of proprietary software can deploy such without concern?
>Stallman was as wrong about just as much stuff as he was right.
When it comes to predicting the future correctly, 50/50 is a pretty good track record IMHO.
When it comes to predicting the future correctly, 50/50 is a pretty good track record IMHO.
The >=50% he was wrong about (I phrased it carefully, it could even be 99/1, as he has been Quite Seriously Wrong about many other things (how to lead FSF, how to communicate with the public, how to behave at conferences)) is likely of vastly greater importance than the few minor technical aspects he was right about.
I'm on Team Free Software but I'm also on Team Productivity and it turns out that software engineering matters a lot to the latter and the quality and quantity of engineering effort put into free software is a tiny, tiny fraction of that put in to nonfree software.
I doubt the right way to change this is by yelling at/chastising users and developers. If it were, Stallman would have been successful. As it appears, he's been mostly a failure.
I'm on Team Free Software but I'm also on Team Productivity and it turns out that software engineering matters a lot to the latter and the quality and quantity of engineering effort put into free software is a tiny, tiny fraction of that put in to nonfree software.
I doubt the right way to change this is by yelling at/chastising users and developers. If it were, Stallman would have been successful. As it appears, he's been mostly a failure.
but but... microsoft of today isn't like the microsoft of the 90's, right?
So glad I saw this coming about windows 8/10 and left windows land never to look back.
So glad I saw this coming about windows 8/10 and left windows land never to look back.
I'm ok with cheaper products that are funded with ads. I'm not ok with not having the option to pay more to not see ads.
- How can I pay microsoft to never see an ad in windows? (paying for office 365 gets rid of most of them, but not all)
- How can I pay my cable provider to not see unskippable ads in on-demand content?
- How can I pay my newspaper to have an app that doesn't show me an ad every couple of pages?
- How can I pay google to just show me the results, without filling the majority of the page with ads? (Paper cut: this used to exist, but google got rid of it before I ever found out it existed.)
- How can I pay microsoft to never see an ad in windows? (paying for office 365 gets rid of most of them, but not all)
- How can I pay my cable provider to not see unskippable ads in on-demand content?
- How can I pay my newspaper to have an app that doesn't show me an ad every couple of pages?
- How can I pay google to just show me the results, without filling the majority of the page with ads? (Paper cut: this used to exist, but google got rid of it before I ever found out it existed.)
By giving you the option of paying to avoid ads, the entity selling ads drastically lowers the price of their remaining ads since the people buying ads are very interested in advertising to those who have the ability to not pay for ads.
So I’ve seen this argument before, and I kind of get it but… shouldn’t there be some dollar value that equals the expected value of the ads, above which they’d be better off accepting payment instead of ads? I get that it might be somewhat higher than we’d expect, but surely that number can’t be all that high?
It would not be feasible to figure that out for each and every person, so the only practical way is to break the audience into various groups that advertisers pay to reach.
Theoretically, you could break down these groups and offer no ads, then some ads, then some more ads, etc, but the more complicated you make it, the more people you turn away at the same time.
Hence the most optimal solution for the seller is to sell a product/service to both customers and advertisers. However, technology gives sellers better opportunity to group people in various tranches and sell differently, so maybe we will see a more accurate price point develop.
Theoretically, you could break down these groups and offer no ads, then some ads, then some more ads, etc, but the more complicated you make it, the more people you turn away at the same time.
Hence the most optimal solution for the seller is to sell a product/service to both customers and advertisers. However, technology gives sellers better opportunity to group people in various tranches and sell differently, so maybe we will see a more accurate price point develop.
Perhaps people buying ads are interested in advertising to people with the money to avoid the ads... but is it wise to?
I would be interested to see how effective ads are for different groups of people. Are the people who are paying to get rid of the ads more or less susceptible to buying products based on an ad?
As a person who gets annoyed at ads, I would be LESS likely to buy something that I've seen from an intrusive ad.
I would be interested to see how effective ads are for different groups of people. Are the people who are paying to get rid of the ads more or less susceptible to buying products based on an ad?
As a person who gets annoyed at ads, I would be LESS likely to buy something that I've seen from an intrusive ad.
Same. Even if I get an ad for a product that actually interests me, if it's interrupted my experience against my will, I will seek out their competitor to buy the same product lmao.
"Okay, that's cool, I want this, but not from you."
"Okay, that's cool, I want this, but not from you."
Huh, insightful! I never thought of it that way.
Agreed.
The fact that all software seems to be migrating towards being totally funded by ads or subscriptions is distressing.
I just want to pay a fixed price and own something again. It drives me nuts that now-a-days everything is about rent seeking or shoving ads into view (or both, see streaming media services).
The fact that all software seems to be migrating towards being totally funded by ads or subscriptions is distressing.
I just want to pay a fixed price and own something again. It drives me nuts that now-a-days everything is about rent seeking or shoving ads into view (or both, see streaming media services).
This also potentially gives rise to perverse incentives like the one described in this comic: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-01-12
Basically if there's an option to remove ads the platform hosting ads will be incentivized to pick _worse_ ads to get people to pay up the removal fee.
A lot F2P smartphone games are examples of this in action... they offer a way to remove ads by paying but then in return have some of the worst unskippable ads before you've paid.
Basically if there's an option to remove ads the platform hosting ads will be incentivized to pick _worse_ ads to get people to pay up the removal fee.
A lot F2P smartphone games are examples of this in action... they offer a way to remove ads by paying but then in return have some of the worst unskippable ads before you've paid.
[deleted]
This is the inevitable result of Win10 being "free". They have to generate revenue somehow.
Yes, because otherwise, Microsoft just wouldn't be making any money.
I still remember very fondly the days when this sort of shit was firmly in the realm of adware/spyware and widely avoided by the technically-inclined. Unfortunately the (for lack of better word) sheeple who end up with dozens of toolbars in their browsers and innumerable pieces of adware/spyware outnumbered everyone else, and MS thought they could get away with the same tactics since they already had a near-monopoly on desktop OSs.
The frog is already medium-rare, and MS knows that.
The frog is already medium-rare, and MS knows that.
Speak for yourself. This behaviour has kept me away from Windows for a decade. I won't even consider a Windows laptop anymore.
I did buy a Surface Go 2 a few weeks ago, and I returned it after 3 days in large part because of this behaviour.
I did buy a Surface Go 2 a few weeks ago, and I returned it after 3 days in large part because of this behaviour.
Well, it's a surface so therefore sooner or later it will be plastered with ads and functionality is secondary to eyeballs. So this is more or less by design. Every time you see a surface that does not have advertising on it you have to wonder how long it will remain that way.
On this note, is anyone familiar with the state of alternative Windows shells? The last time I played with them was ca. 20 years ago when the cool kids were running LiteStep on Windows XP.
The LiteStep web site and forums still seem to be up, but I don't think it's been under active development for quite a while. I've also seen some scattered praise for Classic Shell / Open Shell (although I'm not sure whether that's a full shell replacement) and heard of a handful of people running the ReactOS shell on Windows.
Is this still at all viable, or has MS made an intractable mess of the relevant APIs over the years?
The LiteStep web site and forums still seem to be up, but I don't think it's been under active development for quite a while. I've also seen some scattered praise for Classic Shell / Open Shell (although I'm not sure whether that's a full shell replacement) and heard of a handful of people running the ReactOS shell on Windows.
Is this still at all viable, or has MS made an intractable mess of the relevant APIs over the years?
I'm one of those people that quite heavily customised their Windows 10 experience to run away from the actual Windows 10 as far as possible. I can confirm that Classic Shell (now Open-Shell) is 100% the one piece of software that makes Windows 10 usable. Having to use an unfamiliar Windows 10 machine with its Start Menu is jarring and unpleasant. The replacement Start Menu is just better.
Windows 10 Explorer has a couple of mods that change its functionality, but I guess that it could be replaced by a third party application entirely. There are both Explorer-style and Norton Commander-style (dual pane) file managers that would do the job just as well if not better than the stock application. Notepad and Task Manager also seem very easy to replace with freeware alternatives. I haven't tried such measures recently, but I can see no reason why they should fail.
If you want to mod away the Windows 10 taskbar (which is the one thing I actually like about Windows 10), you may want to check out RetroBar. It's a C#(?) replica of the classical-style Windows taskbar from 95 to XP eras. It even has the same icons and hides the original Windows 10 taskbar. It actually feels uncanny, running something so close to the real thing on such a new OS. It's very nice.
Other than that, I don't know of anything that would e. g. get rid of the new Control Panel or other mandatory parts. In practice, if you replace the things I listed above, it's really unlikely that you'll come across the stock Windows UI in the course of normal daily use.
Windows 10 Explorer has a couple of mods that change its functionality, but I guess that it could be replaced by a third party application entirely. There are both Explorer-style and Norton Commander-style (dual pane) file managers that would do the job just as well if not better than the stock application. Notepad and Task Manager also seem very easy to replace with freeware alternatives. I haven't tried such measures recently, but I can see no reason why they should fail.
If you want to mod away the Windows 10 taskbar (which is the one thing I actually like about Windows 10), you may want to check out RetroBar. It's a C#(?) replica of the classical-style Windows taskbar from 95 to XP eras. It even has the same icons and hides the original Windows 10 taskbar. It actually feels uncanny, running something so close to the real thing on such a new OS. It's very nice.
Other than that, I don't know of anything that would e. g. get rid of the new Control Panel or other mandatory parts. In practice, if you replace the things I listed above, it's really unlikely that you'll come across the stock Windows UI in the course of normal daily use.
Windows (a product that you need to buy a license for) has builtin ads. Well, good for MS, I guess...as for me, I'm quite happy that MS has pushed me away from its stack already with Vista: it sure isn't getting any better.
Windows 7 was a perfectly decent OS. In my opinion, the best one they ever made. Rock solid in the end, able to run on anything from ultra low cost embedded stuff to high performance workstations, no ads...
Only thing that bugs me to no end is that they never released a "final" version that has all available security and quality updates included, so one does not need to run Windows Update for hours after a fresh SP1 install (after wasting hours getting WU to run in the first place, it broke thanks to some signature hashing update).
Only thing that bugs me to no end is that they never released a "final" version that has all available security and quality updates included, so one does not need to run Windows Update for hours after a fresh SP1 install (after wasting hours getting WU to run in the first place, it broke thanks to some signature hashing update).
?
In your 1st paragraph, you praise Win7 as "rock solid," and in the 2nd, you point out the incredibly lame and showstopping bugs in their SHIT updater which show just how jello solid their OS is. I have the same types of updater issues on Win10 boxes I have to support. I assume that the new clusterfuck will be more of the same.
The Windows Shell works the way it does because it worked that way before. If I wrote an extension for explorer 15 years ago and it used a bug or even an undocumented api it probably still works. That’s the good thing. The other side of the coin is that things can never fundamentally be fixed. It appears that explorer must block the UI thread while waiting for a network share operation (for example) due to some fundamental eternal compatibility promise.
Not any more. I mean, they'll still work, but shell extensions are now hidden behind another layer in the right click menu on Windows 11.
If the OS has ads out of the box, it is already broken.
So... also Ubuntu then
Yes? Ubuntu has its fair share of problems over time as well. Luckily there are hundreds of other distros.
Where are the Ubuntu ads? I remember the Amazon ads back in the day, but there haven't been any in quite some time.
They promote other technologies of theirs via the MOTD, which some consider an ad. See https://news.softpedia.com/news/canonical-under-fire-for-put... .
Here's the current MOTD: https://motd.ubuntu.com/
Here's the current MOTD: https://motd.ubuntu.com/
Ubuntu has weird ads in the apt upgrade or something like that promoting their other services. They also sneak in their Snap package for Chromium even if user asks apt to do it. In general the Snap push feels like making proprietary apps normal on Linux desktop.
[deleted]
> How come that it would stop responding just because of one failed cloud service?
Because the network the developers are on ALWAYS connects to the cloud service so nobody ever ran into an issue.
Because the network the developers are on ALWAYS connects to the cloud service so nobody ever ran into an issue.
Unless the main purpose of your software is to be a client for an online service, you should always assume that the normal state of the user's network connection is offline, and being online is an exception.
Get this guy a couch - someone has a case of the vapours. PRERELEASED SOFTWARE HAS A BUG IN IT OMG! Yes, there are still going to be problems. No, it's not the end of the world and there's still time to fix it. This is a tempest in a teapot and utterly not worth the screen space on HN.
This happened to my girlfriend's laptop that she uses for school. By the time they released this fix I had already backed up what she needed, wiped the SSD, and installed a clean version of windows 10. After that, we'll both be on windows 10 as long as possible.
She was running a pre-release OS?
Well, she is dating a Hackernews.
Which is why it’s mystifying. If she was running an obscure distro, compiled from source after checking each line for nefarious code like everyone should do, and after having prepared the hardware (carefully consulting the compatibility list), that would be normal.
Best not to use a beta OS on your main workstation anyway.
Why would you ever run a beta/ pre-release on your main machine? That seems like asking for trouble.
She can do whatever she wants with her stuff. I told her I could run it back for her if she wanted when I saw she was on 11 but she said she liked it.
Why not? It's beta, not alpha. Things may bug out, but that's about it I would expect.
Reminds me of this Leslie Lamport quote:
A distributed system is one in which the failure of a computer you didn't even know existed can render your own computer unusable
Although I wasn't expecting a Windows 11 desktop machine to be a distributed system!
A distributed system is one in which the failure of a computer you didn't even know existed can render your own computer unusable
Although I wasn't expecting a Windows 11 desktop machine to be a distributed system!
Wait, why are we ok with the fact that windows has ads in them?
The choices are to accept Windows w/ ads, or reject Windows altogether
It's not about being ok with it, it's about only having the nuclear option, switching OS entirely, as the alternative
It's not about being ok with it, it's about only having the nuclear option, switching OS entirely, as the alternative
Or rip and tear into Windows to remove the ad-bearing components. Granted, this may not be a choice for long, but worked for a while.
Expect more of the same. My impression from my years in the Windows org is that the only team with any devs remaining working on the desktop version of Windows is the shell team, and that is being staffed more and more by webdevs.
I for one can't wait for explorer.exe to be entirely replaced by Electron
Used to be part of the Win 95 beta and such. It was greatly exciting back then.
Now I'm in no rush to install Win11 whatsover, even though my main PC that I built last year actually has the Asus TPM module (added later) as I needed Bitlocker.
My high end Asus motherboard at over AUD$500 didn't include this $50 module, which is a Win 11 requirement. (Well it cost me that much when including postage).
A pet gripe with Win10: Entering your name as part of a normal setup creates a screwed up username, which is very annoying when using command line paths. Doing an "offline" installation lets you pick your own, but still inundates you with stupid "are you sure" questions and forces you to give 3 kinds of "what's your favourite colour" answers when setting up a password.
The above is so annoying, when almost everything else has gotten so good.
(Very notable exception: The fact that I even have to see the words "candy crush" in my start menu when done, and that Store tries to force you to log in every time you get something from it eg Terminal or Ubuntu for WSL2).
I'm sure Win11 will make keeping in control even harder. I predict this is going to be another failure. Tic-toc, never fails for them.
Now I'm in no rush to install Win11 whatsover, even though my main PC that I built last year actually has the Asus TPM module (added later) as I needed Bitlocker.
My high end Asus motherboard at over AUD$500 didn't include this $50 module, which is a Win 11 requirement. (Well it cost me that much when including postage).
A pet gripe with Win10: Entering your name as part of a normal setup creates a screwed up username, which is very annoying when using command line paths. Doing an "offline" installation lets you pick your own, but still inundates you with stupid "are you sure" questions and forces you to give 3 kinds of "what's your favourite colour" answers when setting up a password.
The above is so annoying, when almost everything else has gotten so good.
(Very notable exception: The fact that I even have to see the words "candy crush" in my start menu when done, and that Store tries to force you to log in every time you get something from it eg Terminal or Ubuntu for WSL2).
I'm sure Win11 will make keeping in control even harder. I predict this is going to be another failure. Tic-toc, never fails for them.
[deleted]
I had a weird issue the other day (two days ago?) too where trying to load Microsoft Store/check for updates would just completely freeze the program. And also my start menu would not execute apps - I could search for them and hit enter to run them - but nothing would happen.
I'm wondering if it was related to some of this. You're absolutely right that an OS should never "soft-lock" on cloud/networking issues. It's insane to me that we still deal with this as programmers in the year 2021. Write asynchronous code. Expect network slowness or weirdness.
I'm wondering if it was related to some of this. You're absolutely right that an OS should never "soft-lock" on cloud/networking issues. It's insane to me that we still deal with this as programmers in the year 2021. Write asynchronous code. Expect network slowness or weirdness.
If I remember correctly, then your specific issue was supposedly fixed in one of the recent Insider builds.
Windows Search is heavily cloud-dependent, and yes it’s performance suffers under poor network conditions.
Windows Search is heavily cloud-dependent, and yes it’s performance suffers under poor network conditions.
Operating systems in beta are buggy, usually up until the eleventh hour. Yet, we continue to be surprised when the latest macOS preview or Windows beta eats our homework.
Just a couple months ago we were bemoaning the issues in macOS Monterey, including VPN apps just not working. If you don't want bugs, don't run the beta.
Edit: why the downvotes? A bug in a beta is the only news here. Ads in Windows are not new. Critical bugs in Windows are not new. Windows updates and services breaking Windows is not new. Literally the whole point of the beta program is to find bugs like this.
Just a couple months ago we were bemoaning the issues in macOS Monterey, including VPN apps just not working. If you don't want bugs, don't run the beta.
Edit: why the downvotes? A bug in a beta is the only news here. Ads in Windows are not new. Critical bugs in Windows are not new. Windows updates and services breaking Windows is not new. Literally the whole point of the beta program is to find bugs like this.
It's hard to even make the "this is what you signed up as an Insider" argument when they're supposedly releasing this thing next month. This launch is gonna be a mess.
[deleted]
That Windows has ads in it sounds completely insane to me... you buy an OS.. and you still get ads? Makes my memories of win95 seem fonder.
> There’s an enormous elephant in the room, though: how Microsoft could have let this happen? Yes, this is a beta build for early adopters. Yes, rough edges and productivity losses are expected.
Why pay lip service to the fact that you're intentionally running beta software if that won't affect your view? Yes, your beta software broke. That happens.
Why pay lip service to the fact that you're intentionally running beta software if that won't affect your view? Yes, your beta software broke. That happens.
Just saying I've been using Ubuntu for my primary work machine (in a massive company) for over a year now and things work great, haven't had to fiddle with anything strange haven't had any weird issues and the UI is much nicer than Windows. I'd recommend giving it a try.
Microsoft Teams was installed on my test Windows 11 box without asking. When the Teams notification appeared, I was like "WTF is this shit?" I had to go, search for Teams in the start menu and then uninstall it. After this incident upgrading to Windows 11 I'm not.
I'm pretty sure Teams came with installing office for me, not installing Windows 11. I could be wrong though.
Teams is intended to be part of the Win 11. They have had even ads about that; no need to install it anymore!
https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/24/22548738/microsoft-teams-...
https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/24/22548738/microsoft-teams-...
Until it's a 'commercial offense' I will counter/refuse everything that contain ads.
If a Linux OS becomes a good at gaming as Windows and get an office suit as good as Windows, we can't move away general public from Windows. These are the two things left which most people use it for.
So what is the chance of an ad by a third party exploiting systems or accidentally breaking them.
Is there a good reason to believe that that ad space will be treated differently in the long term from any other space?
Is there a good reason to believe that that ad space will be treated differently in the long term from any other space?
Does anyone know if the Windows 11 pro version will have the ads and privacy shenanigans ?. Or you require the enterprise version, which is not easy to get for the average joe.
last week I tried the w10 enterprise (latest iso) and -holy crap- on the start menu search , there was an ad "for minecraft", I did run those removeappx scripts but even then... yes I am back to linux (not everything is fantastic there, I am talking about theming) but when I remove the m$-edge and the darn thing is being reinstalled AGAIN after an update, that is absurd -not to mention I had to play with the policy to cut off the telemetry - at least on linux I have the friggin control.
According to the author:
>I’m not saying Microsoft needs to remove its account, cloud gaming, entertainment, software delivery, and other cloud services.
No need.
Millions of people have been saying it for a while.
>I’m not saying Microsoft needs to remove its account, cloud gaming, entertainment, software delivery, and other cloud services.
No need.
Millions of people have been saying it for a while.
Well, ultimately because the new taskbar is a half finished mess, and the idea that it is ready to push out a month from now to mass users is completely bonkers.
C'mon man, throw a try/catch around that sh*t!
I think it might be time to change to Linux. I really hope Valve can get EAC and Battleye running soon (Gaming anti-cheat services).
Correction: Why can an ad break the windows 11 beta desktop and taskbar
I'm not crazy! I had to reinstall Windows last night, extremely frustrating.
because it's beta? ^^
but joke aside, I don't get ads in the taskbar or start menu
but joke aside, I don't get ads in the taskbar or start menu
They can’t make it too good they still have to sell us Windows 12.
Everyone blames Microsoft for this shit, but the real blame should go to everyone who STILL chooses to use their user hostile, buggy, platform.
If you want to see stuff like this change then use an OS that actually views its users as more than ad revenue.
If you want to see stuff like this change then use an OS that actually views its users as more than ad revenue.
I wonder if the LTSC version will have this nonsense in it.
I'll stick to using Windows Server as my desktop.
I've been thinking about this more and more. Is it worth it?
I've been doing so for years. Much less bloatware. I do run other operating systems, including Windows 10, as VMs.
because it's beta? ^^
how can you ppl live like this?
How can people trust a company with a product like this, and a product history like it has, with their code on Github, or with their personal/career info on LinkedIn?
I've always considered Microsoft as the "McDonalds of Software" -- they sell billions of copies, but the product isn't of quality or healthy.
I've always considered Microsoft as the "McDonalds of Software" -- they sell billions of copies, but the product isn't of quality or healthy.
There is not much of an alternative. LinkedIn and GitHub are basically Facebooks of their respective niches, and they actually matter for career advancement.
their native stack is so bad that they though the web tech would be a much better and solid alternative
this is very sad on many levels
windows needs a full reboot, and even that i'm not sure it's gonna be saved, it's poorly managed
they can't even agree on what this version is, internals says windows 10, marketing team says windows 11
billion dollar company, they said
this is very sad on many levels
windows needs a full reboot, and even that i'm not sure it's gonna be saved, it's poorly managed
they can't even agree on what this version is, internals says windows 10, marketing team says windows 11
billion dollar company, they said
jseigj43(2)
how can you people live like this?
Remember when 70% of iOS apps stopped working because the Facebook SDK crashed on launch after Facebook servers started sending slightly differently formatted JSON crap? And then, it happened again?
Looks like this innovation has finally landed in Windows!
Looks like this innovation has finally landed in Windows!
That was third party apps. This is the OS itself.
Computers are about the applications you run and what you make with them. Nobody wants to know the name of their OS vendor, or buy anything else from them. Sorry, Microsoft. If something is good, I'll find out about it. (Happy to pay for Github, for example!)