I hate discord a lot, but this feature kinda destroys the reason discord exists. We used to have irc which is direct communication and needs both systems to be online ( yes, bouncers exist, but they arent perfect ). We moved away from irc so systems didnt need to be online and it was all in the cloud. Direct communication/file sharing from pc would kinda revert all that lol

( lets gooooo, bring irc back :p )

Oh nice, didnt know that. Thanks for the info!

Now, if proton could be used outside if steam…

No way to extract what the launcher does and use it as launch options in whatever youre using to launch the game?

I know, hence why i said youre not wrong but the example was wrong :p
Also, its more complex than that. Some teams can, some cant. And if they can it all depends on what project or context. The business world isnt that cut and dry hehe

Not saying youre wrong, but you took the wrong project as an example hehe.
Visual code is not open source. Its core is, but visual code isnt. The difference is what visual code ships with, on top of its core.
Its like saying chrome == chromium ( it isnt ).

Visual code comes with a lot of features, addins and other stuff that isnt in the core.
.net debugger for example, is not found in vscodium ( build of the vscode core ). And there is more stuff i cant think of now but have come across. Source: been using vscodium for a few months instead of vscode

Fair, and ill edit my post accordingly!

There are teams that are allowed, and within those companies are teams that are directly related to foss projects because those companies are in the foundation or supports of the foundation. However, thats doesnt mean every (product) team in the company is allowed to or that they can do or change whatever they like. Its a complex mess

Thats just dual booting. That wont work with the law if the contract says anything created using company hardware is theirs.
And yes, some companies need to give you a green light to work on projects in your free time, because they might have a team doing similar things somewhere, it might compete in something they would like to do in the future or like you said, might use company know how which is a huge nono. Its bs imo, but those clauses and rules are found in some employment agreements.
Remember, always read your employment agreements!

Yes, but not all devs within microsoft are allowed to work on non-ms foss projects. I assume wsl devs are allowed to send stuff to linux but visual studio devs probably are not.

And not every team is allowed to do that.
Also, youre telling somebody who has worked with big companies not allowing it in their employer contract that he is lying? Riiiight…
A lot of google devs also are not allowed to do any linux work outside of work without explicit permissions because of all the internal docs, teams and other work being done on linux from within google. Development rights is an absolute mess, legally.
I usually dont care and do what is right, despite what my emploter contract says, but i have gotten in trouble for it

I agree they should have sent a patch to the grub source, but keep in mind big software companies like microsoft, Verizon, … do not normally allow their product teams to send a patch or PR to open source projects. This is because in their contract it states that all code written on and during company times is owned by the company. This means that it is impossible for them to make a patch or PR because it would conflict with the projects licence and fact its open source.
This changes when the team explicitly works on the foss product/project like the ms wsl team or the team working on linux supporting azure hardware, but that is an exception. I do not believe the microsoft kernel/bootloader team is allowed to send patches to grub.

Its a terrible thing, and it shouldnt be, but thats the fact of the world atm.

Everything after w7, id agree. Windows 7 was actually legit. It ran fine on my amd athlon with 512MB ram. Ran dolphin back in the day too. Now after that it was all shite

Yes, but in reviews the handbrake benchmarks didnt even get close to the 40% amd claimed

Youre confusing comparison of os’ with hardware reviews. It makes no sense to use an arch benchmark for a public is majority windows based gamers. The arch benchmark would make sense for a journalistic piece about windows having terrible performance.
Hence why id love for gamers nexus to investigate this using a linux to windows comparison for the same task. However, this would no longer have anything to do with zen5

But the numbers would mean nothing for the consumers. You abstract away too much and reduce it too far for anyone outside the loop to make sense

This is… Interesting. I would love for gamers nexus to investigate this tbh. Means something is horribly wrong in windows ( shown by the wtf steps reviewers had to go through ).
Im also curious at the performance uplift of zen5 in linux in regard of handbrake. Amd claimed a 40% uplift there which i guess might have been in linux and with a very specific clip?

In the usb world its “host” and “device”, not “master” and “slave”.
But yes you are right

Ah, you meant original release date of the amd cpus.
Ye, makes sense.
I personally think they wanted to verify to have no issues in their cpu’s because intel is kinda euh… In a very bad state atm haha. You dont want to be part of that right now xD

… You just contradicted yourself there with the timeline/dates lol.
Wait for intel patch, but release date of cpus is before the expected release date of the microcode patch.

Tried that on the last install i had to do. Doesnt always anymore. Task manager was hidden by the setup a few times when i did that :(

I ended up using rufus to patch iso pre-extraction hehe :)