Because some users are putting that data on Linux. So they want Linux to be killed.

They can’t change grub. But they sure as hell can convince micro$org to search for and nuke it.

Of course no idea if this happened. Just answering why they would might want to.

Cool. At the time, it was one of the best. Although, I also liked sun-os.

I also worked with VMS a lot after uni. Hated using it. But had to respect the ideals behind it.

But watching the growth of Linux has been fantastic. In 2024. It does seem to have out evolved all the others. ( Evolved, defined as developed the ability to survive by becoming so freaking useful. )

I am starting to think it is time for a micro kernel version, though.

Was a few years later for me.

Not DMU by any chance?

Late 1990s my uni had unix workstations HPUX.

So all projects etc were expected to be done on those. Linux at the time was the easy way to do it from home.

By the time I left uni in 98. I was so used to it windows was a pain in the butt.

For most of the time since I have been almost 100% linux. With just a dual boot to sort some hardware/firmware crap.

Ham radio to this day. Many products can only do updates with windows.

Just of the top of my head discovered today.

Not a GUI as one exists. But a more configurable one as it is crap for visually impaired.

Rpi-imager gui dose not take theme indications for font size etc. Worse it has no configuration to change such thing.

Making it pretty much unsuable for anyone with poor vision.

Also it varies for each visually impaired indevidual. But dark mode is essential for some of ua.

So if your looking for small projects. Youd at least make me happy;)

Nice idea, I love. But you have to remember, those investigations cost huge time and money. When you consider the cost of a full-time staff over the 10 years, you include. Plus the cost of building a case against some of the largest cooperation. All before any court costs are considered.

We are likely better off having that money reinvested in preventing other companies from these practices.

Yep pretty much but on a larger scale.

1st please do not believe the bull that there was no problem. Many folks like me were paid to fix it before it was an issue. So other than a few companies, few saw the result, not because it did not exist. But because we were warned. People make jokes about the over panic. But if that had not happened, it would hav been years to fix, not days. Because without the panic, most corporations would have ignored it. Honestly, the panic scared shareholders. So boards of directors had to get experts to confirm the systems were compliant. And so much dependent crap was found running it was insane.

But the exaggerations of planes falling out of the sky etc. Was also bull. Most systems would have failed but BSOD would be rare, but code would crash and some works with errors shutting it down cleanly, some undiscovered until a short while later. As accounting or other errors showed up.

As other have said. The issue was that since the 1960s, computers were set up to treat years as 2 digits. So had no expectation to handle 2000 other than assume it was 1900. While from the early 90s most systems were built with ways to adapt to it. Not all were, as many were only developing top layer stuff. And many libraries etc had not been checked for this issue. Huge amounts of the infra of the world’s IT ran on legacy systems. Especially in the financial sector where I worked at the time.

The internet was a fairly new thing. So often stuff had been running for decades with no one needing to change it. Or having any real knowledge of how it was coded. So folks like me were forced to hunt through code or often replace systems that were badly documented or more often not at all.

A lot of modern software development practices grew out of discovering what a fucking mess can grow if people accept an “if it ain’t broke, don’t touch it” mentality.

Very much so. But the vulnerabilities do not tend to be discovered (by developers) until an attack happens. And auto updates are generally how the spread of attacks are limited.

Open source can help slightly. Due to both good and bad actors unrelated to development seeing the code. So it is more common for alerts to hit before attacks. But far from a fix all.

But generally, time between discovery and fix is a worry for big corps. So why auto updates have been accepted with less manual intervention than was common in the past.

Not OP. But that is how it used to be done. Issue is the attacks we have seen over the years. IE ransom attacks etc. Have made corps feel they needf to fixed and update instantly to avoid attacks. So they depend on the corp they pay for the software to test roll out.

Autoupdate is a 2 edged sword. Without it, attackers etc will take advantage of delays. With it. Well today.

If the just called it other.

It would gain a huge boost in desktop usage figures.

Thanks. That was exactly what I needed. I’ll look it up.

Blasphemy quick stone the unbelievers.

Kidding of course. Have to admit I agree. I’ve used Linux since the late 1990s. So long long before it was usable by most folks standards.

I started because my university had HPUX machines that we needed to submit work on. So wanted a unix like enviroment at home I could work on. This was a tim when linux was basically slackers on 50plus floppy disks. Xwindows needed configuring for every monitor. Honestly by current standards usability was non existant compared to windows.

But honestly I spent so much time on the system. And watched it improve. To the point I find windows an utter pain in the arse now. And will avoid it under all circumstances.

But the idea of convincing folks who have no interest. Where the hell do folks find the time.

Honestly what we have now is AI. As in it is not intelligent just trys to mimic it.

Digital Intelegence if we ever achive it would be a more accurate name.

Dammed impressive. How evil AI is managing to post defending itself.

I for one will be happy to bow to our new AI overlord.

Thanks ill lookninto that sometime soon.

Not OP. But curios on the subject. I use debian bookworm with an older Nvidia 1050.

I currently tend to use gnome. As I have multi res monitors. Mainly due to vision issues. 2x32inch 2k 1x28inch 4k and a 24inch 1k

Dose any desktop allow stable fractional scaling for each monitor independently. Its been a good few years since I looked into it. But in the past it was unstable.

As gnome shell and ubuntu. Have nio such good faith agreement.

And thisbis just a process ubuntu has to reduce its own work load.

Who really cares. Ubuntu can include and reject any software they choose.

Ubuntu users can also add and take what ever risks they choose.

And gnomeshell can choose to change there releases and software as they choose.

This os the cost of free as in speach software. If you are need 3rd parties to make your software work. You have to accept they have the same freedoms you insist on.

Personally i prefer that and the option to use older versions if thing go wrong. Then a privrate for profit ccompany making the same choices with less freedom for me.

You can. Most things have gui options.

But you quickly learn for somethings. The terminal is just easier.

If you ignore odd stuff. Most everyday stuff to maintain the system is available in a controlled panal like program. It varies based on distribution and windows manager. But the basic setup is there for most things.

Its when you want to do something creative it gets more complex. While most commands have gui apps. Most online guidance will just find the terminal an easy way to guide you.

Of course based on that definition. Fiat currency is the same. Just without the complex number.

I am really not a huge fan of crypto. But honestly all modern (post gold standard) money. Is entirly based on users confidence in the nations backing it. The proof of work used for bit coin. Really is no more a matter of faith in folks dumb enough to buy it from you later.

But as a user of a barge if you needed wanted to use railways. Because they are faster. It would be the barge maker or a new train maker you would look at. Not the railway.

Just like canals X11 still exists. And is still being developed. It has its limitations but some applications are choosing not to port. Because like barge makers. They simply do not see the need. Or merit.

If the makers of railways insisted that all current users agents had to work on them without adaption. Many of the advantages would no longer be there.

Just as if waylaid did not expect Firefox et al to adapt to its methods. The security and other advantages they seek would not be practice.

Waylaid is a replacement. Not an upgrade.

(PS yeah living in the UK replace canal with inland waterways navigation. Tends to be how we think of it. As they are such a huge part of our industrial history. I forget the US really never went through that part of europeen industrial development. Your example is a fairly unique and modern by comparison, it dose not link to any network. Where as the inland waterways accross the UK and parts of Europe were a linked inferstructure like our railways. When the railways in Europe were built. They were very much seen as a replacement to our existing canal system. By both the corperations set up to build the inferstructure and the media of the time. It is literally a part of our industrial history thought is schools here. As so much of our culture and industrial revolution is built around the events)