Can you give examples of which apps you noticed it working for? and what desktop environment/distro? I will most certainly test.
1,018 karma · joined August 5, 2017
OK here's another, very related: the ability to have apps remember their open files when you quit and re-open them.
These are significant productivity boosters, and I will miss them. It's definitely a trade-off, but now Apple has tipped the scales too much in favour of Linux...for me.
Under many jurisdictions' consumer laws, advertised features or promises by the manufacturer are not everything that they are legally held to. There is also statutory warranty, and other parts of consumer law, which can include rules on basic expectations of how that category of consumer item is expected to perform (I'm not talking CPU speeds, but major issues like a keyboard fundamentally not working at a reasonable success rate), how long it's reasonably expected to work without failing (for that category of item), and so on.
Very broad principles, but with some clear examples provided by consumer bodies to consumers, and it's reviewed on a case by case basis. You can bring it to the proverbial small claims court (or consumer complaint body), and they can review the claim.
I suppose I just won't bring up this matter to HN before. It's too alien to the US consumer situation and mustn't apply to most readers here.
This is probably partially why I'm getting downvoted. Cultural differences. Americans are not aware of what's possible when things are actually fair for the consumer. They're used to 'tough luck' culture.
Upon further reading, I'm concluding this might not be a massive problem with other precautions in place, but the valid discussion point still remains. If a manufacturer designs a product which turns out to have a problem caused to the consumer which breaches reasonable expectations of its usability, and either needs repairing / recalling / replacing / refunding, many countries offer resource to the consumer. Under this principle, I wonder about unpatchable hardware security defects which cause a major problem...it needs to be explored more.
If I'm a lawyer, CEO, or a human rights journalist (or just anyone) who professionally needs a reasonably secure device as the normal expectation, how can it be reasonable to be required to have your laptop with you at all times in order to maintain its security?
Is there precedent in consumer law that if security integrity of hardware is a normal feature of that product category and a computer model is fundamentally unfixable in this aspect, then you have the right to demand a refund or a replacement with a model not containing the same defect? (I know that this depends on your country. My country has strong consumer law.)
It's interesting to think about where the line is there. If someone really wants to compromise your device, then they could open it up and plant a bug anyway. But this feels over the line and grounds for being a manufacturer hardware fault, because attacking it would not require to physically modify the device but to merely use the device in the manner that it already came from the manufacturer.
(I think this is a bigger problem in America than Europe.)
In either case, indeed, we need privacy (because other countries have terrible persecution around matters of mere sexuality) and as much maturity as we can muster when discussing it. I'm so proud of how mature this comment section is. Not a single giggling sexual joke in sight - at least here up at the top. Other sites would be riddled with it, with nothing serious discussed.
See Robert Green's book "The Laws of Human Nature" (2018) for his take on the following. It's very insightful. (Chapter entitled, "The Law of Gender Rigidity")
'Masculine thinking' prefers to categorise and bifurcate. (Dualism.) I'm a guy and I consider myself having a 'super' 'male' brain in some aspects even more than the average. I find it very hard to multi-task, and I easily hyperfocus.
Male thinking solves problems by breaking things down and focusing on one part of the picture at a time. It's about specialisation.
Female thinking treats things more as a whole, with everything connected. It solves problems by looking at the whole picture at once. It's about multi-tasking.
I now see that 'male thinking' (as opposed to males), such as 'specialisation', dominates modern capitalism and public policy, and often to detriment. Most females at top levels in business at this time in our culture would appear to mostly have this success because they are 'atypically' strong in 'masculine thinking'.
Personally, I think such leadership needs more female thinking. I'm slowly trying to understand it more, as my own starting point. Modern diversity policies that change what's on the outside (how many penises are around the table) don't actually solve the real problems. We're still picking what's taking place on the inside. We need diversity of things far deeper - to embrace and celebrate true 'feminine thinking' - not just what's on the surface.
So anyway, this could help explain why female sexuality is seen to be more 'fluid', on average, than among males. It's not so much how people actually are, as how people see themselves, because of how they tend to be wired. And this is not even factoring in that there is greater cultural stigma around a male being bi vs. a female being bi.
I am a male, and 100% bi.
His actions are only seen as a 'sin' if you already agree his whistleblowing wasn't warranted.
I'm not sure this instinct applies much to this situation, but it immediately came to mind. Vertical integration is where user privacy (from service providers) starts to erode.
Ideally, we should have competing but inter-operable service providers on common platforms and protocols which have nothing to do with the service providers.
That way, leadership positions can be an equation of balancing financial benefit from government incentives against financial loss from having a low quality candidate take up valuable space just because they tick a diversity box.
I'm all for diversity, I would know. I'm LGBTQ. But how CSR is often done in the corporate world is rather stultifyingly and 'token' at best.
I still think this is good - do prove me wrong - just saying it could be done better.
It's only MBP NVIDIA GPU in Linux (older model) that I have extensive experience on so far, and it's been terrible with nouveau.
This is because I honestly cannot find a laptop with the combination of 64+ GB RAM, a non-NDIVIA GPU (edit: to clarify, this is because of NVIDIA's notoriously bad compatibility with Linux), and other premium hardware aspects like its market-leading trackpad at this time - and I doubt that will change anytime soon.
I live with the debilitating T2 kernel panic hardware bug every week. There's also a very bad graphics bug that I and many others are facing. (Not sure if that one can be avoided by simply using Linux.)
I just want to do away with this T2 chip, and whatever it does to get in the way of an otherwise great Intel-based computing experience. The CPU can handle all my encryption just fine...
Thank you to your team for what you're doing. I assume Apple will constantly patch T2 jailbreaks with future macOS system updates (as that's how firmware is updated), and play a long-term cat and mouse game.
But where should we draw the line and balance the scales of helping or promoting human health (including education, which can save lives), restricting businesses who don't care about human health, and allowing citizens to have the freedom to be as unhealthy as they want (which I'll agree should be a human right)?
With cigarettes, the most alarming label messaging doesn't seem to stop its most determined users from enjoying them. Was a fierce cultural war fought against that regulation? IIRC, yes. (From a documentary.)
One factor here seems to be a war for freedom of diet and lifestyle, extending to the desire to not even have to see messages that tell you your lifestyle may be unhealthy for you (or your children), even if the science is clear.
I think any regulation that at minimum benefits consumers when it's hardly anything for corporations to add to their existing labelling is good for society and a great allocation of resources.
This is different to the forced wearing seatbelts when driving, which genuinely forces the restriction of one's physical freedom, and yet benefits no one else but you (within the scope of your own decisions) if you have a car accident.
Mere information, backed by science, is good.
What if some outages like this are the US government performing security attack testing to test infrastructure of PRISM-like partners (or just anyone economically important to the US), so that when real attacks come from cyber enemy states like China, things have already been probed to see what needs to be fixed.
Kind of like national security HIIT, so your body politic is ready for war. National security is about economic health too. It's all part of the one picture.
</creative thinking>
I don't see any of MSFT's actions threatening this on a really big picture level. It's always been and always will be up to 'the community' to build and make Linux and free software what it is.
Linux, especially Linux Desktop, is wonderfully flourishing right now, and I don't think it's because 'MS hasn't offered a more compelling alternative to Linux' in the cloud. More largely, it's because we've built what we've wanted. Maybe I'm naive about what we've been ungratefully depending on. If so, I'd settle for a mildly cautious and watchful neutral ground. All I can say is, please contribute to Linux and FOSS if you can. I do.
There's a possibility the leaked files are tampered from the original code anyway, i.e. backdoors were removed before being initially leaked. Rationale being that Microsoft / government wanted to control the situation long-term by letting something tampered be what leaks out underground instead of the 100% full thing.
Torrent poster also discusses that possibility: https://www.reddit.com/r/windowsxp/comments/iz46du/the_windo...
Nonetheless, it's interesting if anything plausible is found.
Also, it's not just (allegedly) all of XP source that's been leaked:
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/the-windows-...
It's also Windows Server 2003, MS DOS 3.30, MS DOS 6.0, Windows 2000, Windows CE 3, Windows CE 4, Windows CE 5, Windows Embedded 7, Windows Embedded CE, Windows NT 3.5, and Windows NT 4!
That's a huge amount of stuff to analyse.