Just last week I installed Windows 11 by downloading the ISO from Microsoft and creating a bootable USB stick with Rufus [1]. Rufus has options to make the Windows installer skip the Microsoft account login. Worked great!
There are reasons to install Windows. For one, I had to install it for my wife, and making her switch to another OS she isn’t used to would be quite a hassle. I also use it at work, and I need to run Visual Studio.
But I have the Pro version, and, AFAIK, there is a stark contrast between Pro and Home. Even though there is a push in Europe to make software Linux-compatible, there are still many, many companies and government institutions fully entrenched in the Microsoft world. Going Linux-only just for the sake of it sometimes does not make much sense business-wise.
In some industries, Microsoft subscriptions are a drop in the ocean. Switching out things like Entra ID, Office, and print/scanning solutions would cost so much more, and come bundled with enough risk that no sane project manager would take it on lightly.
As a C# software provider, making something Windows- and Linux-compatible is easier than ever. So giving up on Windows is effectively the wrong move, because you would miss out on the behemoth companies that are simply too large to transition easily.
I know the majority of HN readers are fed up with Windows. That is completely understandable. But not everything about it is bad.
- It is very "standardized" (i.e. there exist no distributions that do things differently from each other).
- It cares about binary backward compatibility: it is nearly always possible to run a binary from 30 years ago, and if you are willing to invest some own effort, eben running Win16 binaries can often be run. Compare this to GUI applications on GNU/Linux.
- The operating system and the applications are very separated. I can basically install every version of an application that I want:
If there exists a newer release of some software than what the "distribution" (which of course does not exist in the Windows world) provides that you want to try out: install it now, you don't have to wait for your distribution. There is also no nightmare that some shared library versions have to fit the ones provides by the distribution.
Similarly, I you want to stay with an older version of a software for a longer time: go for it.
It is a very common situation that for some pieces of software, you have very specific requirements which version you want: with Windows, this is very easy, while on GNU/Linux this is - in my experience - a nightmare for unexperienced users.
- If you build one software release on Windows, it will run on basically every Windows computer (the typical thing that you have to do at most is to additional install a runtime provided by Microsoft (e.g. for C++ or C#)). No consideration necessary how to handle each distribution.
> It is very "standardized" (i.e. there exist no distributions that do things differently from each other).
You mean how the "program files" or "documents" directory names are localised but 50% of windows program don't know other languages exist and use the english name regardless breaking all sort of stuff?
Interesting. But the only thing I would miss, is something like a settings menu. Or do you really expect me to fiddle around in config files to configure basic stuff like wifi? Or am I just stupid? Oh wait, I could use claude for that....
Thanks for the recommendation, but "nmtui" is also the most Linux answer you could have given me :)
And it completely misses the point. Yes, there’s a lightweight tool for everything, but the appeal of KDE is that I don’t need to know. It mostly just works, is extendable and configurable.
But i also understand the appeal of staying minimal. The thing is, i want some kind of middleground: I want a simple tiling window manager. But i also want to easily install and configure stuff without falling back to the command line.
Maybe it's also brain damage of using too much Windows (with wsl). But there I have a different problem: It's easy to install and configure stuff, but it's everything else than minimal.
> Maybe it's also brain damage of using too much Windows (with wsl). But there I have a different problem: It's easy to install and configure stuff, but it's everything else than minimal.
You could make your own tiny Windows 'distro' building on Tiny 11.
I have jgmenu mapped to F4 but I never remember to use it. I usually just CMD+P and type what I need.
I can see the appeal of KDE - I just got fed up of things breaking when I did mandatory upgrades for security. I don't have to choose between stability and security. After 10+ years, I would find it harder to go pecking through menus for what I need when I can just type it.
This will be pushed down from people, who will have no deep understanding of it. But it does check some boxes in an ISO certification.
Well, now you must to work with a confusing tool which slows you down. You are not allowed to use claude directly anymore, because someone heard that mythos is really bad for security. But hey, the tool integrates well with Jira!
You hate every second working with this thing. All the joy you had with explorative coding is forever gone, which was the sole reason you entered this field.
Deep inside you know that you can't change your job, because every other employer will cut its workforce as AI removes all manual labor of a software engineer and reduces risk to a minimum.
Oh, now we can finally move all those jobs to india without risk and shareholders will love it! How awesome is that! Wait, do we still need that guy in cubicle 42, who bitches and moans about AI every day? Nah...
The paper uses a minimal weight of 30g and surface area of 1cm² for a replicator. On page 13 it says that you need at least 40 of them to travel through intergalactic space, but also states that there is more mass floating around in interstellar space. The probes should create muliple staging areas.
I assume if such a replicating probe would really be possible, it should be straightforward to just send of a million of them and hope for the best.
In my opinion, a huge limiting factor is communication. How do you know if those probes reached their target?
There's also an ethical aspect to it. Should we really fill the universe with self replicating paperclips? Because once you start the process, when and how would you stop it?
It's so sad that we're the ones who have to tell the agent how to improve by extending agent.md or whatever. I constantly have to tell it what I don't like or what can be improved or need to request clarifications or alternative solutions.
This is what's so annoying about it. It's like a child that does the same errors again and again.
But couldn't it adjust itself with the goal of reducing the error bit by bit? Wouldn't this lead to the ultimate agent who can read your mind? That would be awesome.
> It's so sad that we're the ones who have to tell the agent how to improve by extending agent.md or whatever.
Your improvement is someone else's code smell. There's no absolute right or wrong way to write code, and that's coming from someone who definitely thinks there's a right way. But it's my right way.
Anyway, I don't know why you'd expect it to write code the way you like after it's been trained on the whole of the Internet & the the RLHF labelers' preferences and the reward model.
Putting some words in AGENTS.md hardly seems like the most annoying thing.
tip: Add a /fix command that tells it to fix $1 and then update AGENTS.md with the text that'd stop it from making that mistake in the future. Use your nearest LLM to tweak that prompt. It's a good timesaver.
While this may be the end goal, I do think humanity needs to take the trip along with AI to this point.
A mind reading ultimate agent sounds more like a deity, and there are more than enough fables warning one not to create gods because things tend to go bad. Pumping out ASI too quickly will cause massive destabilization and horrific war. Not sure who against really either. Could be us humans against the ASI, could be the rich humans with ASI against us. Anyway about it, it would represent a massive change in the world order.
The problem is the demand for dynamic content in AAA games. Large exterior and interior worlds with dynamic lights, day and night cycle, glass and translucent objects, mirrors, water, fog and smoke. Everything should be interactable and destructable. And everything should be easy to setup by artists.
I would say, the closest we can get are workarounds like radiance cascades. But everything else than raytracing is just an ugly workaround which falls apart in dynamic scenarios. And don't forget that baking times and storing those results, leading to massive game sizes, are a huge negative.
Funnily enough raytracing is also just an approximation to the real world, but at least artists and devs can expect it to work everywhere without hacks (in theory).
Maybe I'm missinformed, but doesn't starlink have to comply with rules made by local authorities? Afaik, when the internet goes down, like it happened in Thailand, Starlink can't be used too, because it always roots traffic to a ground station near the source.
If this would not happen, I would agree that Starlink is the future. But as it is right now, I don't see the point, unless you are living in or travelling to remote places.
reply