I doubt they do mich different than you do with their OS.

People are more motivated by feelings than actual logic. The person you are responding to even states that Ubuntu “feels good to use”. That is some car advertisement level of feeling based reasoning.

Another thing is that people really hate it when things change. Especially a UI change. Every change in the Windows UI has been met with disgust. And if there is one thing different between linux distros, it’s where they place all the buttons, menus, etc. So people prefer to stay with the distro they know.

It is only logical that an algorithm trained on the ways of a Vulcan, is precise and accurate in it operation and communication. Vastly more fascinating are the result when you ask it to behave like a human.

The problem with C++ is not the lack of safety features. It’s the ever lasting backwards compatibility that is keeping it both alive and down at the same time.

Having to support 50 year old code, is going to limit any restriction you place. But it is usually the restrictions that make a language good.

Example: You can write perfectly good modern C++ code without any pointers. But pointers are so ingrained into the language, that it is impossible to remove them.

Google is not a mobile phone network provider. SMS routing is not really their cup of tea. It is an industry with lots of established players, lota of local issues, and little to gain for Google. If it where up to Google, everyone would be using their app instead of SMS.

I don’t understand why someone would want to rent their car. Maintenance is not that hard, and companies always make you pay way more for their subscription models. By owning the car, you can pick who does maintenance. Meaning there can be competition, so prices/quality remains good.

For some, this subscription model is great. But do you agree, that is it a bad thing if they force it on us?

“You can simply remove the appraiserres.dll file in the Windows 11 ISO file to make the Setup avoid these checks and install Windows 11 on any unsupported hardware too.” From the following article: https://nerdschalk.com/how-to-use-rufus-to-disable-tpm-and-secure-boot-in-bootable-windows-11-usb-drive/

That sounds hard, but Rufus made this easy. Just select the right option. So just use Rufus to create the install usb: https://rufus.ie/en/#

This also allows local accounts, and disables all the tracking bullshit with a single click each.

Disabling the tpm requirement is just a registry hack in win 10, or a selectable option when creating an install usb with rufus.

I think they will make a simple calculation; What is going to cost more: The bad PR of nolonger updating 240 million pc’s, or accepting that a small portion of your users does not have tpm?

They haven’t stopped advanced users from installing win11 on older hardware so far. So no loss there. I also doubt they lose enterprise money if they allow win10 to upgrade regardless, as tpm is now well entrenched as the default on new hardware.

Or just circumvent the “requiments” that are so required that a few registry hacks disable them, allowing you upgrade to win11 via windows update.

Or if you want a fresh install, use rufus to create the install usb stick, and select the option to disable the tpm requirement.

This info needs to be more widespread.

I already saw this happening on Reddit. The largest subreddit were filled with generic posts. They got a lot of content, not necessarily good content. But there were plenty of small or medium sized subreddits that had much better content. The Fediverse feels like it is missing the big subreddits. It also feels too small to have the small niche subreddits. What is here in terms of content feels more like a few medium sized subreddits.

There is also a sizable market for laptops that do not do much more than log onto a remote desktop. Especially with remote working, that has becomes the perfect middle ground between security, cost, and ease of use. A cheap ARM processor would work perfectly for those machines.

I love this show for the fact that at one point, this guys water is actually used as a solution for some random problem. None of the nonsense is left as just nonsense, it is all part of the world.

I’m currently driving a Scoda Fabia myself. The globe box just broke, because something inside got stuck, and the 20 year old plastic handle just didn’t want to budge, and broke instead. Meanwhile, I just drove 1500km in it over the span of 3 days. It just keeps chugging along.

The quote: “Subject to the terms of this license, we grant you a non-transferable, non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license to access and use the code solely for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution.”

Source: Section 2.1 of https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/raw/master/LICENSE?ref_type=heads

Ofcourse. But that is because the seashells are the obviously superior method. The friction is with the sand and sawdust method.

I imagine actually applying your solution would cause quite some friction.

I already get an internal struggle to scream out of frustration every time I see the mail box of one of my colleagues having 100+ unread mails. Most coming from automated systems like Jira, Jenkins, etc. I funnel all those mails into separate folders, and just click through them once in a while. Or mass mark them as read.

I don’t think I could survive 5000 notifications.

So if Gabe suceeds, we get a gaming ecosystem with different hardware sellers, all using a platform that other software sellers are not blocked from using (Linux)? And the only reason Valve wins, is because they invested into providing the best possible distribution platform on Linux?

This does not make them evil by any standard I know. It just sounds like a solid long term business plan.

What exactly is the threat?

If I read the article correctly, the CEO’s statement is effectively saying that employees who refuse to work according to the companies policy, may be fired.

While I agree that it is bad policy, I don’t see how this is unlawful policy, nor do I see how enforcing the policy is a threat.