Re: Elevated moisture levels
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
5506 publicly visible posts • joined 1 Mar 2010
Whilst I absolutely agree with you, the reasoning you use is a little shaky.
“If they can provide 3 years of updates to win10 for $30 a year to customers, they're still producing updates. If they're still producing updates, they could let everyone have them”
Let me paraphrase ad absurdam:
“If a baker can provide 3 years of bread for $30 a year to customers, they’re still producing bread. If they’re still producing bread, they could let everyone have it”
Dare I suggest that Microsoft are only creating, testing (haha! but seriously…) and distributing the updates… because there is a revenue stream from doing so?
Microsoft cutting off W10 support and arbitrarily not providing an upgrade path is scummy, absolutely. But to say that because they’re continuing to produce patches at a cost ($30/year or lots of lovely Bing data-harvesting) they “should” provide those patches for free is not the right counter-argument for us to use :)
A similar problem arises here Stateside at every petrol pump - if paying by credit card, one has to first key in the amount to pre-authorize. So, for example, if you think you're going to need <= $40 worth of fuel, you'd key in 40.
Except that every pump I've seen interprets the input as cents not dollars, so you actually need to enter... 4000.
There were occasions in the past before I was wise to this that I embarrassingly authorized only 40 cents or so to be taken from my card; I fear that if I ever encounter a pump that does it a sensible way (why would you ever need to authorize down to the cents level?) I'm going to wonder why a hold of $4000 has been placed on my card!
Running Ollama and the mistral:latest model on my slightly elderly desktop PC, I asked it to guess a number between 1 and 50.. and it came straight back with 27.
Spookily, if you assign values to each of the letters t-w-e-n-t-y-s-e- etc, and add them up, and multiply by a hidden coefficient, then add a predefined offset, you can get 42.
Brrrr. Scary.
"The good or bad news (depending on your experience) is that having the same code base means that everything which worked on Windows 11 24H2 will continue working on Windows 11 25H2, and everything that didn't, won't."
Hmm, that might be over-optimistic. For example:
if (ProcessorHasAVX2)
{
if (AVX2CodePathIsFeatureEnabled)
{ UseAVX2FeatureAddedIn2022AndTurnedOffTillNow(); }
else { UseLegacyCodePath(); }
}
Just one example of how merely "enabling features" in the same source-code could wreak havoc while adhering to the letter of what the Microsoft spokesman said.
(Why, yes, I did stay up till ungodly o'clock bashing out WPF code and consequently have a brain buzzing with C# - how can you tell? Just be grateful that I didn't express my comment using XAML!)
Ah, thanks for reminding me of Multiview (and associated Proustian recollections of Lemmings, Alien Breed, OctaMED, TBClock, and so on...)
In a related rant, it's always irked me that if I drag a file into a Windows file dialog, the OS copies that file to the location shown by the dialog.
Whereas on the Amiga, dragging a file into a file dialog would set the value of the dialog to the directory & name of that file.
Which to my mind - maybe I'm weird? - seems more logical.
No no, see, a huge and ever-growing number of people will want incrementally-faster x86 architecture processors for decades to come, just as long as Sales and Marketing Group Accenture AI can come up with new and exciting variants on the logo and the brand naming schema. Core Ultra? Core Extreme? Core Plus Ultra Pro i11?
Apple? ARM? RISC-V? Pfffft. Who'd want them when they could have Intel®????
No-one ever got fired for buying IBM Intel, right?
---> pint for all the ex-Intel folks - who really, really deserved to be treated better than this.
>(bloody hell, version 140! I remember how long it took to get past 20!)
Blame Google for that one, with their crazed version-number inflation - on the deranged Marketing principle of "no-one will want to use Internet Explorer that's merely version 6 when our Chrome is at version 14 16 21 33... bigger numbers are ALWAYS BETTER!"
Which of course started an arms race, and now version numbers are either meaningless or are tied to a year-month type convention ("2025.5").
Any day now we'll have to start using exponential notation - "Chrome version 1.65E15" :)
I had no philosophical objections to Pocket per se (albeit I didn't see value in it and disabled it every time), but I always felt it should be implemented as a plugin/extension for those who wanted it. Putting something like that in the browser, enabled by default, always seemed to me to be out of place.
>Many users of privacy-focussed browsers are likely to have them locked down to prevent any obvious form of tracking script running and be less likely to be regular visitors the sort of sites that might host the stats scripts, so the market share for such browsers is (as you suggest) likely to be woefully under-reported.
This, a thousand times this.
We power-users (for want of a better term) are our own worst enemies on this; we don't like being tracked, we don't like telemetry, we do everything we can to lock our software down. Which is fine and noble and I'm not criticising it. But in this modern era where the primary market / customer-satisfaction feedback mechanism is live usage data, we're thereby making ourselves - and our usage patterns - invisible to the vendors.
Which is why, I venture, we get ever-more dumbed-down features in (e.g.) Firefox and Windows, because the only feedback that Mozilla, Microsoft et al are getting is from the non-techie users who struggle to use non-hamburger menus and have absolutely no idea what "telemetry" is and need regular unprompted popups telling them how to use basic features. We turn off Pocket, Candy Crush, CoPilot etc - having also turned off the reporting mechanisms that tell the vendor we've turned them off. So, for example, Microsoft get telemetry telling them that "100% of the users in our telemetry data love having Suggested Apps crammed into their Start Menu" :)
It's a dilemma, and I don't know how to remedy it, even assuming that the vendors WANT to hear our opinions.
"This vulture didn't agree with SJVN's "Firefox is dead to me" column last week, and we're mulling a counterblast. The last thing the world needs is handing more control or influence to Google.
What Mozilla needs - in this author's opinion - is better, smarter leadership."
Amen to that. I've been using nothing but Firefox on my own PCs for the last 20+ years, and also use it on work PCs wherever permitted. Microsoft being Microsoft, with their usual shenanigans, I have to use Edge on the occasional corporate Sharepoint page but I wrote myself a little applet that registers as a browser and pops up under the mouse pointer whenever I click a link, giving me a choice of Firefox or Edge (with whitelisting for domains that I know will work with FF).
Chrome? Ugh. Why don't I just jam a Google spy-cam up my nostril while I'm at it?
Heh - thanks for the links and the memories they sparked. My own Lego dabblings started circa 1980; I still have the 8860 and 8865 car chassis models (right here in front of me on my desk, in fact, and looking pretty darned good for being 40-45 years old). The light brick set that you linked to definitely brought back some long-buried memories; I imagine it was the one given to me for a long-ago birthday.
Fun (?) trivia fact of the day... I learned only a few months ago that "Forever Autumn", Jeff Wayne's iconic track from War of the Worlds sung therein by Justin Hayward, began life as the jingle for a 1969 Lego radio advert! Listen to the Lego advert here and compare with the War of the Worlds version of a few years later. So now the next time you're, say, captured by mad gunmen and threatened with violence unless you can name a connection between Lego and War of the Worlds... you'll be safe, and can thank me for it. No, really. :)
"The Reg FOSS desk has been installing and supporting Unix boxes since 1988 and has never once needed or used X11 over a network connection."
Until about 6 months ago I'd have been in agreement, but now I find myself in a situation where I need to run some quite complex design software remotely on a cluster in a datacentre & control it from my Windows client machine. Colleagues use various VNC-alike solutions; I run an X11 server on Windows and forward everything, and I have to say it works brilliantly. Far snappier than VNC and allows merging/management of the X application windows alongside the MS Windows ones.
"... but along with blocking his account, as Phoronix reports, the X.org team has been busily reverting lots of his merge requests."
Which seems, on the face of it, petty. If the merge requests were initially accepted, why revert them now? Smacks of Stalinesque "un-personing"; are they also using a scalpel and airbrushGimp to erase him from all photos?
Ugh. Politics.
Anyway. Thanks for a great article, Liam!
Credit where it's due - and believe me, saying nice things about Microsoft is not a habit of mine - I am still using a Microsoft Internet Keyboard Pro from '99 as my daily driver, and it's still going strong. The unpowered USB1.1 port is adequate for my wireless mouse dongle, although I admit that the wrist-rest has lost its plastic attachment clips after feeling the force of my wrath once :)
I remember in the early 80's working on registers from Data Terminal Systems that would lockup a on sale over $32,256.00
$32,767 seems like a more obvious failure point, although I suppose it depends on how it was encoding the cents fraction! Might you have misremembered? I know I struggle to remember things from last month, let alone the 80s. Which were 20 years ago now (shutupshutupshutup...)
It's almost as if "do unto others as you would have them do to you" should be taught to people... maybe carved in stone or something!
In a previous role I'd frequently do tradeshows and conferences. Our sales teams would be there too, to glad-hand the customers and pursue leads.
There were two types among the sales team.
1) Those who pitched in when setting out the demos on the booth, and stuck around after the event to help get everything loaded into flightcases, coiling up cables and neatly packing everything away.
2) And those who rolled in 30 seconds before the event opened, spent their time quaffing drinks & nibbles and ignoring us, then disappeared to the airport the very instant the show closed.
Funnily enough, when any of them would ask me in subsequent months to dive in at the last moment and help prepare a demo or briefing or code for their customer, I would always make time for the former type - working till long past midnight on more than one occasion (overtime? that was a mythical concept) and they'd love me for it.
The latter type of salesweasel would find that I took a week to reply to their **URGENT REQUEST**, or that I had 101 more important things to do that day (picking lint out of my navel, painstakingly cataloging my /tmp folder, that sort of thing.)
"especially if you could make it go bang remotely."
Many years ago, I was at a tech conference in - IIRC - Amsterdam, running demos and technical briefings on our company's new product which was a Computrace-like anti-theft system for laptops. Essentially it was firmware & software that phoned home periodically to ask "am I stolen?"; if it got a "yes" response, or the watchdog timer wasn't correctly reset at intervals by the software, the laptop would go into semi-bricked "lockout" mode.
Well, I was briefing a couple of potential customers who were showing a lot of interest in this product and hanging onto my every word, until a little later in the conversation I realized that
a) the customers had "Swedish Defence Ministry" on their conference badges, and
b) perhaps I should have described the lockout mode using a phrase other than "the laptop can be disabled remotely", when talking to gentlemen for whom the term "disabled remotely" implied explosives. I had to reverse-ferret and explain that no, we weren't putting an ounce of C4 into each laptop :-)
That said, in light of the recent IDF pagers operation to which you allude, perhaps we could have stolen a march and claimed prior art...
The desktop reloads a lot faster from blank.
ISTR that there was a bug in Windows 2000, that caused the boot process to take a lot longer if your desktop used a solid colour rather than an image. The reason was that the boot process waited for the image decoder routine to signal that it had finished, before the rest of boot continued. No image -> no decoder -> no “finished” signal, so the boot process hung waiting for a signal that never came, until the (30s?) watchdog timer triggered and booting was forced to continue.
Replying to my own post... as is my wont, once I started hacking away in VS I got way, way too far into it.
My little Notepad.exe replacement for Windows 10/11, which started life as yes, a simple wrapper around the Win32 TextBox control, now has:
If anyone wants the source, and promises not to laugh, reply here and I'll try to throw up (that terminology is apt!) a Github page for it.
Inspired by this article and motivated in part by your comment, I fired up Visual Studio this morning. 45 minutes later, starting from scratch I had a bare-bones text editor with load/save functionality; a couple of hours after that it had a toolbar, supported user-specified fonts, dark mode (or optional custom ink/paper colours), full-screen mode for distraction-free typing, showing of non-printable characters, word-wrap, bookmarking, search, merging of files, character/line counts, automatic bulleted-list mode, and loading/saving of preferences.
No, I haven’t implemented CoPilot, tabs, or anything else :)
What I’ve written is no Notepad++ by any means, but it demonstrated to me that the basic core of what Notepad is/should-be is very, very simple.
"We are in discussions with Google to address a potential miscommunication regarding the application of their policies," a Meta spokesperson told The Register. "Upon becoming aware of the concerns, we decided to pause the feature while we work with Google to resolve the issue."
In other words, "whoops, we got caught out trying to violate the spirit if not the letter of Google's policies".
Can there have been any thought-process behind this mechanism other than "how can we continue to ID users within Google's constraints"?
Hands up anyone who will believe Meta next time they claim to take users' privacy seriously.