Re: Embrace. Extend, ...
Anticipating the "extend" stage is a bit optimistic in this particular case.
241 posts • joined 2 Jul 2014
> ...especially now that Chromium Edge has replaced the legacy version on Windows 10.
And practically forced itself as the default browser in the process. Apple has been popping up Safari nags for Firefox users for at least a year now, and recently to Edge as well. Less invasive, but still a PITA.
Operating system vendors are scumbags.
It works fine without a cloud account - I set it up at home for the first time (I'd deployed it to other environments years ago) and was able to run it entirely cloud free.
For the really paranoid block trace.svc.ui.com outbound; there doesn't currently appear to be any other phone home happening except for firmware update checks.
"Teams has won the race anyway. "
In the enterprise space yes, through brute force (O365 bundling) rather than merit alone.
In consumer space Zoom has the big mindshare, to the point Zoom has almost entirely replaced Skype as a coinage for video conferencing. Nobody says "hey let's Teams with the grandparents this evening".
Couldn't agree more - it's a pity the userland tools of many popular OSes neglect to support it well, so it takes a little bit of care (but is perfectly possible) to format a UDF disk in a way that works painlessly on every major platform. I can only guess Microsoft was too busy shoving ExFAT down everyone's throat via various standards forums (e.g. SD cards) to milk those sweet royalties, while UDF would have subverted that effort.
On the flip side it's nice to see that MS turned a corner on that particular issue, so if ExFAT does in fact see proper wide adoption without patent encumbrance then it's only going to be a win for everyone.
> ...to show what professional implementation of File System looks like...
Eh? Much of the existing filesystem support in Linux was also professionally developed. As a recent example Samsung contributed the ExFAT module and user space tools.
> The difference between current Linux kernel exFAT implementation and Paragon’s proprietary exFAT must be the same as the difference between NTFS-3G and what Paragon’s NTFS3.
That's an interesting assumption to make with little to no evidence to back it up.
> When Windows, Mac, and Linux systems can all universally boot/read/write USB thumb drives formatted with NTFS, life will be that much easier for everyone.
That has worked for years already with UDF and recently ExFAT. NTFS support would be useful, sure, but adds little value for the situation described.
I can understand the interest in NTFS for working on Windows disks and images, but for booting an ISO why not just use FAT? It's not like a large amount of space is needed. Alternatively ExFAT is now in the mainline kernel that's already in far better shape than what Paragon has tossed over the fence.
> In corporate environment Windows devices are far simpler to manage, maintain, Control and secure.
Then you get home and your Mac just works for years and years, while Windows requires extensive hand-holding to keep humming. Before you ask, yes I use both on a daily basis.
> As for Chrome I can't think of a more insecure (it sends all your data to a someone else, surely that is the definition of insecure) browser that eats all the resources on your computer.
Edge slurps more than Chrome does. FWIW I'm not a fan of Chrome either.
Short-term, maybe. Long-term, no. I volunteer for charity work on a routine basis and we all use our own computers at the office. All the other volunteers use relatively new Windows 10 laptops and still ask me to do all the printing to the office printers as theirs never work properly while the Mac just works without effort.
Since I bought the MacBook (my first) eight years ago all of the other staff have been through at least two (many three) brand new laptops due to parts breaking and general slow downs, while mine still looks and runs like brand new. They are all tempted by my MacBooks reputation in this org but still balk at purchase cost, despite admitting they've spent a higher combined total on their laptops over the same period as I have. I'll probably sell this laptop soon and still get a reasonable amount for it.
Sure it's possible to get long life from PC hardware if you pay up front for it and carefully manage the OS throughout its lifetime, but then you still have a largely worthless machine after five years in terms of resale, even if it still works fine.
> Nobody was force to use IE.
Yes they were - for a while it was only only browser that worked for a good portion of the web, as websites prioritised supporting IE over web standards.
> The complaint was from companies who wanted to sell copies of their own browsers.
Somewhat; the other big issue with the web's dependence on IE was that is in turn created a dependence on Windows, as nothing else could run IE. So effectively the web was in danger of becoming locked to a single vertically-integrated platform stack. Fortunately the world has managed to move on, however Microsoft still pull the same tricks with vertical integration - for example two decades later many of their web services still only work properly in a single browser.
The big difference between not and then is that they've just finally figured out how to incorporate open source into their business model.
Apart from the licensing craziness in TFA, this is the other reason I don't get why anyone would run SQL Server containers in Windows. My understanding is that the container runs SQL Server for Linux, which is a Windows app running on shims to translate Linux API calls (pretty much the inverse of WSL v1), then that in turn gets executed within a Linux kernel running in a VM on Windows, which in most cases is probably also virtualised on another hypervisor layer in the datacenter. That goes against the entire premise of running containers for efficiency.
> Open Source, you dont have to licence it, but if if it breaks you will want support and you may have to pay based on every physical core evrywhere in your estate, just in case.
Or you simply pay for support for the dev environment, reproduce the issue, apply the fix, test, then apply the same fix to production. A lot of folks run a mix of RHEL and CentOS following this same model. Much more cost effective than paying for absolutely everything, and avoids the continual wasted time of accounting for it all.
> Once again, just because you don't have to pay licenses for it.
Wrong. I know of nobody who uses Linux because it is free, except in business where using it at scale on servers saves a fortune over proprietary offerings.
Remember that desktop Windows for home use is free also.
All Linux desktop users I know of prefer it over Windows, myself included. And the few of us who need the odd commercial app not supported in Linux paid for a Mac and are happy with that too. And I speak as a previously devout Windows fan from 3.1 through to Vista.
Different strokes for different folks; deriding others over their own choice of OS is silly, especially when combined with arguments that don't hold water.
> Think about all those Active Directories goodies for free - something Linux still sorely lacking for whatever is not a public web server....
IPA for Linux just works and is a very fine solution. There's no direct equivalent of GPO though, but plenty of exceptionally capable CM tools out there as alternatives.
Software patents are unnecessary. Copyrights prevent software from being copied, unless the original author permits it. If you write software and don't want someone to copy it, that system already works. If someone figures out another way to implement the same thing with their own unique code, that's perfectly fine too, as it should be.
Functional devices can't be copyrighted, so we have patents instead - if you publicly document the workings (implementation) of a widget via a patent, in exchange you get a temporary legal monopoly for producing it. If someone comes up with a different method for doing the same thing they quite likely won't infringe the patent. If you don't patent it then anyone is free to copy or adapt the implementation.
Software patents on the other hand often prevent others from implementing something even if they don't have access to the inner workings (source code) and come up with their own unique implementation. This concept is absurd and is why patents don't translate well to software. Perhaps if software patents made working example source code a mandatory part of submission then they would better reflect their traditional counterparts, so that others would be able to invent their own non-infringing implementations.
You nailed it. This move is great PR plus it means exFAT support will become standard issue in Android, further cementing it as a standard.
Android vendors mostly don't bother at the moment as it's currently an extra cost that eats into already thin margins. The completely proprietary implementations (e.g. cameras) still need to pay.
It's also low risk; at this point MS have well passed recovering any R&D costs involved in developing the format, and with cloud services bringing in the real revenue it's not really a big deal if the proportionately small income stream from exFAT starts to dry up a bit.
This is only a good thing. Although overdue, better late than never. I really never thought I'd see it this soon.
It's clever too; my understanding of this is that it's only open source implementations that are protected from patents. It's likely that proprietary implementations (e.g. in cameras) still need to pay fees, so if anything this move may help push exFAT adoption and in turn wring more money out of those implementing exFAT but not wishing to join the open source bandwagon. Just a theory.
It's because Microsoft understands that 'aaS' offerings are where its bread is buttered now. Linux dominates servers, so much better to properly support that and make buckets of money by hosting it and providing good tools for devs than ignoring it and missing a huge slice of cloud market. Azure would be less than half the size it is now if Microsoft chose to ignore Linux.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021