131–140 of 225 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18677200
> I still wish we were better at having a standardized desktop that goes across all the distributions. A standardized desktop can be used just fine by all of Ubuntu, Fedora, and Arch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect not legally possible. There is a lot of code in the NT kernel from various other companies that at least at one point was under NDA, and a lot probably still is.
That was true of Solaris too, and they managed to work through that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think there's a developer edition of the 9570 model (there's no linux driver for the fingerprint scanner for example), and in any case we rarely get the Dell developer editions here in Australia. I am certainly saying that a fresh install of Ubuntu (and a reasonable attempt to get over the initial issues eg. using a respin available on github) has too many problems for me to either live with or spend time inv…
I think it's a bit contradictory to choose an insecure OS because a more secure one doesn't support a nice-to-have piece of security hardware. That aside, I'd be interested in the specifics of the "too many problems" that you anticipate on supported hardware (which includes most configurations of the XPS and Precision).
Maybe. But that has nothing to do with what I wrote.
> I'd be interested in the specifics
Would you? Or would you like to gather factoids in pursuit of your belief that everyone must make the choices you make?
> that you anticipate on supported hardware
Not "anticipate". Experienced, after installation (more than once). It was more trouble than it was worth to me.
> on supported hardware
As I say, I don't think there's a developer edition of the 9570. There isn't an extant linux driver for the fingerprint scanner, which surely there would be if Dell preinstalled linux on this model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just that a database server is a very specific thing. Own memory handling, own file system handling, own scheduling, ... . The core of these systems give a shit about the operating system.
It's even more so true. The complexity of kernel calls is much higher when custom memory and scheduler involved I'd say. Getting Office running is probably rather simple in comparison.
I really don't think so. MS used to render scrollbars in the kernel (was still the case in early Win10 versions)
They could and they should. Linux is an amazing OS and to have a great UI on top of it that millions of people are comfortable with would be tremendous. Think about it. The year of Linux on the desktop brought to you by Microsoft.
They should buy elementary OS. System_76 borrowed heavily from elementary OS to create Pop_Os which is a dream. Now that I'm saying it I hope they just swallow a little pride and become a major contributor to Pop_Os. Every devops and net admin I know would wiggle with joy to be issued a Dell XPS 15 + Pop_Os tuned with PowerShell and other MS tool chains fully supported.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you guys tried Linux on the desktop recently? There's a host of folks in my org running Ubuntu on Dell XPS laptops. Issues do arise, but they're pretty rare. I made the switch from Mac almost two years ago and it's been great.
Yep, on the XPS this year (the last time a new Ubuntu install a couple of weeks ago). Many problems. Some fixable, but a poorer use of my time than running or sailing or any number of three-dimensional activities I choose over screen flatland when not working.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah the article is just plain wrong about WSL being relevant here. WSL is running Linux binaries on an NT kernel. This article wants to run Win32 binaries on a Linux kernel. Totally different problems. I like WSL, but it's not part of the solution here. (Also WSL's IO performance problems suggest this kind of emulation approach has significant costs.)
I totally agree with your conclusion but I wanted to comment about the IO performance remark. If you take an IO-heavy application and compile it natively on both platforms you will find that IO performance on Linux is dramaticly faster than windows(1) (and OSX for that matter). For certain workloads, I could see a Windows application running faster under emulation on Linux than natively. 1) This is maybe not true for…
Here's a dopey idea: What if Microsoft open-sourced the Windows NT kernel? (While retaining some proprietary drivers, etc..) If handled well, a community would blossom around "NT," with multiple "unofficial" distros (maybe one with full POSIX compatibility), and lots and lots of happy developers. If things went really well, they might even achieve the resources necessary to create Windows Phone 2.0. Microsoft could s…
This is commonly suggested and I don't even think from a business revenue standpoint it would be a big deal for them. The biggest issue is that it is a 20 year code base with 20 year old bugs and open sourcing the whole thing would immediately generate open season on Windows boxes from a security standpoint. You'll see Microsoft open source new things as they go, and probably smaller components as they rework them, b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I'd prefer linux though for its window manager choices, single-rooted filesystem, lack of nags & faster file io (among other things). Why not install Linux, and run Windows under a VM? Or if locked to the Windows install, run Linux under a VM?
I've never seriously considered working primarily in a VM. For performance reasons, I suppose, but given how far the VM scene has come, that may well be an out of date prejudice. Maybe Linux under Windows (it would have to be that way round) would work. Worth considering, yes.