201–210 of 276 posts
With Linux they have to reverse-engineer it. Microsoft shouldn't need to...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The operating systems industry could use a bit of a shake up. There is no OS industry anymore. What's left is OS's that ship telemetry and ads to customers (both Apple and MS do this). Linux-based OS's made a lot of progress, but still they're not ready for mass adoption.
I have a pretty good handle on what ads and telemetry MS ships. What ads and telemetry does Apple ship to their customers?
- Every CLI program you start
- Every app you download and run
- Every typo you type
- Every siri conversation you have
Just like Windows, you can opt out with some shenanigans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does. Officially there is an ARM build of Windows that Microsoft licenses to OEMs, and there is (or maybe was?) Windows IoT Core which has a build for ARM. If I recall (grain of salt then) a while after the first M1 Mac came out one of Apple’s VPs had said something on the record about Apple having tried to get Microsoft to sell retail licenses of a Windows 10 for ARM build, because they didn’t want to deprecate B…
>a while after the first M1 Mac came out one of Apple’s VPs had said something on the record about Apple having tried to get Microsoft to sell retail licenses of a Windows 10 for ARM build Not quite. The Craig Federighi quote is: >As for Windows running natively on the machine, “that’s really up to Microsoft,” he said. “We have the core technologies for them to do that, to run their ARM version of Windows, which in t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Windows on ARM supports that already[1]. The low traction is probably because of the (sorry) bad hardware. Windows branded ARM as the budget option so nobody wanted it. Then Apple came along and flipped the script. [1]: https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2020/12/10/introdu...
It’s not just that the hardware was lacking, there was no good solution for running x86 binaries. ARM windows has no Rosetta.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You cannot have a "fully open" license which disallows commercial usage. Both the OSI and FSF definitions of "open source" and "free software" licenses would exclude such a license. Of course you can create a proprietary license which disallows commercial usage, but it won't be "fully open".
FSF-compatible licenses absolutely can exclude commercial usage, and software can be made simultaneously available under a separate (paid) commercial license if the authors wish. It's only the OSI that doesn't allow this.
Can they? The FSF seems pretty strict on saying that commercial usage cannot be excluded.
> “Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” On the contrary, a free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. This policy is of fundamental importance—without this, free software could not achieve its aims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft and Apple are traditional enemies. Microsoft has no reason to make Apple's hardware more attractive to customers. The thing I don't get is why a consumer would want this. You want an _extremely expensive_ windows laptop. I guess the hope would be that the battery life is worlds better than anything you'd get in standard windows-land. But in reality battery life optimization requires paying careful to the de…
Why would Microsoft not want this? They make money off of selling Windows licenses, not selling hardware (Yes, I'm aware the Surface exists). The more available hardware to install Windows etc on, the more $ Microsoft makes.
I kind of doubt it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Windows on ARM supports that already[1]. The low traction is probably because of the (sorry) bad hardware. Windows branded ARM as the budget option so nobody wanted it. Then Apple came along and flipped the script. [1]: https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2020/12/10/introdu...
It’s not just that the hardware was lacking, there was no good solution for running x86 binaries. ARM windows has no Rosetta.
But unoffically, there is a leaked build of Windows 10 15035 for ARM32, and it's possible to sideload it onto an original Windows RT device.
The x86_32 emulator was present in the ARM64 Windows release by this point, but, i don't know if the leaked ARM32 release includes an ARM32 version of the x86_32 emulator.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You cannot have a "fully open" license which disallows commercial usage. Both the OSI and FSF definitions of "open source" and "free software" licenses would exclude such a license. Of course you can create a proprietary license which disallows commercial usage, but it won't be "fully open".
FSF-compatible licenses absolutely can exclude commercial usage, and software can be made simultaneously available under a separate (paid) commercial license if the authors wish. It's only the OSI that doesn't allow this.
No, they can't, use-restricted licenses are non-free, by the FSF definition.
> software can be made simultaneously available under a separate (paid) commercial license if the authors wish.
This is true, but the Free license cannot be use-restricted, or it ceases to be a Free license (if the copyright owner, owing no obligation to any upstream licensor, does it, they could add the use restriction to a Free license, but it would by that act cease to be a free license; that violates Freedom 0.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such a license is not possible.
How exactly is that? There are plenty of licenses that don't allow commercial usage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't imagine why a Windows user would want to run it on better hardware? Or that there are Windows workflows that just don't work on OSX? Or want a fanless laptop with good performance?
TBH I have a hard time understanding why people choose to run windows at all, except for playing games. If you're stuck using windows because the corporate overlords insist, then yeah that sucks. Also you can always run windows in a VM. Even on an M1.