In a new video, Microsoft CVP and Windows boss Pavan Davuluri has teased that the future of Windows will consist of a truly ambient and multi-modal experience made possible by AI that will redefine our usage of computers.
Linux is only “one thing” if you’re a kernel/driver developer. And even then, Linux via Android (linux fork) is completely different from the normal one.
As a user land developer, you can have glibc or musl, initd or systemd. Is dbus being used? They all work differently.
Windows is one thing to support. Linux has countless configurations.
As a user land developer, you can have glibc or musl, initd or systemd. Is dbus being used? They all work differently.
I would expect Windows RT and Windows CE to somewhat differ too. Despite being NT.
Why would an application developer care about the init system? Start scripts and units for demonized stuff can be honestly made by users and maintainers, if that’s expected to be packaged. If it’s not, it’s half an hour of googling to make functional enough ones for most purposes.
DBus is such a common thing that there are applications not working without it running, and nobody really complains. You can assume it is, or you can ignore its existence. That’s changed by installing\uninstalling DBus. Not a difference between two operating systems, LOL.
glibc or musl - yeah. Different enough. Still the OS is the same, can use a musl chroot from a glibc system. Can use as many chroots as you want.
Around year 1999. No particular reason, just it seems to have gained recognition and approval among the big fish then.
If by “when” you mean analytically, then when it stopped being “a hobby project started by a Finnish student with participation of volunteers from all around the world” and became one of the houses of power.
Oh. It’s you again. Good to see your shallow takes haven’t changed.
Can’t you have the foresight to actually read and research why things like the FOSS projects we rely on are validated? Linux is owned by no one, and is used by everyone who wants to. Plain and simple. More adoption and more contributors means a better experience for the end user and the developer.
Corporate users are a feature, not a bug, and if anything, their adoption does more to cement the success of the project more than anything else. Plus, the Linux kernel can be wrapped into many different distros designed for transparency, why not pick your favorite one, instead of the “corporate standard”?
Oh. It’s you again. Good to see your shallow takes haven’t changed.
I don’t remember you, but I get Dunning-Krueger vibes from things you write which seem to be typical “Linux as a success story” quotes without insight.
Can’t you have the foresight to actually read and research
I prefer to observe them in the wild. I mean, that is what’s called research, but it strongly seems that you by research mean something else.
why things like the FOSS projects we rely on are validated? Linux is owned by no one, and is used by everyone who wants to.
This is as fallacious as “scientific communism” and for the same reason. Because there are dimensions of this where the general consensus of those actually applying resources is neutrality, where it works as you say, and there are dimensions where it’s not.
Or you might read that Karl Popper’s article on the blind zones of dialectics. Corporate participation in a big common open project works similarly to dialectics.
Corporate users are a feature, not a bug, and if anything, their adoption does more to cement the success of the project more than anything else.
Having a stronger Prussia did nothing of the sort for the HRE, and having Ustinov as minister of defense with all his power did nothing of the sort for the USSR, and Google did nothing of the sort for the Web.
But I prefer to live this through with many things today, rather than try to fix it to my limited ability.
Took you off the blocklist 'cause you’re a great source of entertainment. Really elevates my day after my morning coffee.
I lurk a lot, and I tend to remember names in active communities after a few days. There’s some amazing people in our communities, who contribute in good faith and with rational citations.
And then there’s you. Refusing to perform a simple trip to Wikipedia to find the proper evidence in writing that validated the “Typical Linux success story” to begin with.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus’s_law
(Linus’s law Wikipedia article, take the time to read and download The Cathedral and The Bazaar so you can read arguments for the current model that aren’t fresh from your ass)
Oh and Caesar from Fallout: New Vegas called, he wants his misrepresentation of dialectics and philosophy back, you ignoramus prick.
It’s very telling to even expect that someone here doesn’t know what GPL is.
take the time to read and download The Cathedral and The Bazaar so you can read arguments for the current model that aren’t fresh from your ass
It’s probable that I’ve been a Linux user and interested in it for longer than you, and I’ve read Raymond’s thing at least 12 years ago. I’ve also read some counterarguments.
BTW, at this current point in time I’m again closer to the “bazaar” than to the “cathedral” side of the argument. And Linux isn’t.
In general, having a text in support of something is not a final argument. Honestly it’s weird to encounter it being used as such from someone who’s likely literate more than in first generation.
I’m fine with arguments fresh from my ass if those are more than you can present. And that’s how arguments among intelligent people work, FYI.
Oh and Caesar from Fallout: New Vegas called, he wants his misrepresentation of dialectics and philosophy back, you ignoramus prick.
It’s unfortunate that your intelligence doesn’t allow you to see how clumsy this is, to call someone names instead of, again, providing arguments.
That’s why it’s so entertaining to read and reply to comments like those lol. Could be genuine confusion, could be fake and bot generated, or could be takes that make you think they’re smoking that shit that made Stevie wonder.
Then you see the reply, and that’s when you know for sure! XD
It is one thing. FreeBSD and NetBSD are not one thing. Linux is one thing.
And I meant Linux, not distributions and userlands, so you’re the troll here.
https://www.linux.org/pages/download/
fuck off, one thing LOL
Yes, and the same can be said about Windows NT, yet it’s called one thing. Honestly I think I’m getting tired of American intelligence.
Linux is only “one thing” if you’re a kernel/driver developer. And even then, Linux via Android (linux fork) is completely different from the normal one.
As a user land developer, you can have glibc or musl, initd or systemd. Is dbus being used? They all work differently.
Windows is one thing to support. Linux has countless configurations.
I would expect Windows RT and Windows CE to somewhat differ too. Despite being NT.
Why would an application developer care about the init system? Start scripts and units for demonized stuff can be honestly made by users and maintainers, if that’s expected to be packaged. If it’s not, it’s half an hour of googling to make functional enough ones for most purposes.
DBus is such a common thing that there are applications not working without it running, and nobody really complains. You can assume it is, or you can ignore its existence. That’s changed by installing\uninstalling DBus. Not a difference between two operating systems, LOL.
glibc or musl - yeah. Different enough. Still the OS is the same, can use a musl chroot from a glibc system. Can use as many chroots as you want.
So I’m curious. If you mean the Linux kernel, when and how do you think it went off down the wrong path?
Around year 1999. No particular reason, just it seems to have gained recognition and approval among the big fish then.
If by “when” you mean analytically, then when it stopped being “a hobby project started by a Finnish student with participation of volunteers from all around the world” and became one of the houses of power.
Oh. It’s you again. Good to see your shallow takes haven’t changed.
Can’t you have the foresight to actually read and research why things like the FOSS projects we rely on are validated? Linux is owned by no one, and is used by everyone who wants to. Plain and simple. More adoption and more contributors means a better experience for the end user and the developer.
Corporate users are a feature, not a bug, and if anything, their adoption does more to cement the success of the project more than anything else. Plus, the Linux kernel can be wrapped into many different distros designed for transparency, why not pick your favorite one, instead of the “corporate standard”?
I don’t remember you, but I get Dunning-Krueger vibes from things you write which seem to be typical “Linux as a success story” quotes without insight.
I prefer to observe them in the wild. I mean, that is what’s called research, but it strongly seems that you by research mean something else.
This is as fallacious as “scientific communism” and for the same reason. Because there are dimensions of this where the general consensus of those actually applying resources is neutrality, where it works as you say, and there are dimensions where it’s not.
Or you might read that Karl Popper’s article on the blind zones of dialectics. Corporate participation in a big common open project works similarly to dialectics.
Having a stronger Prussia did nothing of the sort for the HRE, and having Ustinov as minister of defense with all his power did nothing of the sort for the USSR, and Google did nothing of the sort for the Web.
But I prefer to live this through with many things today, rather than try to fix it to my limited ability.
Took you off the blocklist 'cause you’re a great source of entertainment. Really elevates my day after my morning coffee.
I lurk a lot, and I tend to remember names in active communities after a few days. There’s some amazing people in our communities, who contribute in good faith and with rational citations.
And then there’s you. Refusing to perform a simple trip to Wikipedia to find the proper evidence in writing that validated the “Typical Linux success story” to begin with.
Let me save you the trip by the way: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel (Wikipedia article)
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0 (Direct link to the GPL 2.0 license, since you likely don’t have the initiative to scroll 10% down the page)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus’s_law (Linus’s law Wikipedia article, take the time to read and download The Cathedral and The Bazaar so you can read arguments for the current model that aren’t fresh from your ass)
Oh and Caesar from Fallout: New Vegas called, he wants his misrepresentation of dialectics and philosophy back, you ignoramus prick.
It’s very telling to even expect that someone here doesn’t know what GPL is.
It’s probable that I’ve been a Linux user and interested in it for longer than you, and I’ve read Raymond’s thing at least 12 years ago. I’ve also read some counterarguments.
BTW, at this current point in time I’m again closer to the “bazaar” than to the “cathedral” side of the argument. And Linux isn’t.
In general, having a text in support of something is not a final argument. Honestly it’s weird to encounter it being used as such from someone who’s likely literate more than in first generation.
I’m fine with arguments fresh from my ass if those are more than you can present. And that’s how arguments among intelligent people work, FYI.
It’s unfortunate that your intelligence doesn’t allow you to see how clumsy this is, to call someone names instead of, again, providing arguments.
I just read this whole thread and holy shit you sound insufferable.
That’s why it’s so entertaining to read and reply to comments like those lol. Could be genuine confusion, could be fake and bot generated, or could be takes that make you think they’re smoking that shit that made Stevie wonder.
Then you see the reply, and that’s when you know for sure! XD
You probably should be busy in manual agricultural work then.