What's wrong with O/S development?
-
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
I recommend using OpenVMS; it's very stable, secure, and hardly anyone tries to hack it or develop malware for it.
It also doesn't (yet) have an x86 port that is usable on bare metal. If you need another O/S to host it, you haven't gained much in security.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
I'm surprised how close they are though.
V9.0 May 2020 Limited Early Adopter's Kit
V9.1 H1 2021 General Early Adopter's Kit
V9.2 H2 2021 General ReleaseBut I'll be keeping my VAX, Alpha, and Itanium boxes anyway.
-
There seem to be a trend these days with M$ breaking its own O/S with updates. It used to happen in the olden days (definition: anything more than a couple of years ago) but not as often. Windows 10 was supposed to be the ultimate solid, stable O/S and, after decades of experience and developmental work, it should have been. Why isn't it? Is it because all the old, experienced programmers who developed it are now enjoying their retirements on various beaches around the world and the new programmers are little more than script kiddies to whom new icons and competing with that fruit company are more important than solid, reliable code that does the job? Is, as per the aforementioned fruit company, form more highly rated than function? :doh: Is it just that adding new, fancy but generally useless features are more important than fixing old bugs? :wtf: I'm sure Marketing thinks so. X| Why wasn't Windows 7 left alone a bit longer? It worked, was the most stable version of Windows to date, and just worked with nearly everything? Why did they decide that so-called smart phones were the future of computing and so ruin the desktop interface? I'm seriously thinking of going back to a flip phone. ...and for those who say Linux is the future, it's going the same way - only it's going several different ways all at once and seems to be getting less reliable by the day (it's those pesky kids again). Applications should be more important than the operating systems. What you can do with your computer should be more important than how the colours and icons look - and how much blank, white space you can use up on the screen, and who the heck thought invisible until you use them scrollbars were a good idea? :mad:
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
I had a semi-related though back in the 90's about Microsoft and Novell. At the time, Novell did one thing and did it well (NetWare). Microsoft was struggling because they were trying to do it all with one package. It still seems as though they are trying to be the be-all and end-all of computer software. Just my opinion...
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
-
There seem to be a trend these days with M$ breaking its own O/S with updates. It used to happen in the olden days (definition: anything more than a couple of years ago) but not as often. Windows 10 was supposed to be the ultimate solid, stable O/S and, after decades of experience and developmental work, it should have been. Why isn't it? Is it because all the old, experienced programmers who developed it are now enjoying their retirements on various beaches around the world and the new programmers are little more than script kiddies to whom new icons and competing with that fruit company are more important than solid, reliable code that does the job? Is, as per the aforementioned fruit company, form more highly rated than function? :doh: Is it just that adding new, fancy but generally useless features are more important than fixing old bugs? :wtf: I'm sure Marketing thinks so. X| Why wasn't Windows 7 left alone a bit longer? It worked, was the most stable version of Windows to date, and just worked with nearly everything? Why did they decide that so-called smart phones were the future of computing and so ruin the desktop interface? I'm seriously thinking of going back to a flip phone. ...and for those who say Linux is the future, it's going the same way - only it's going several different ways all at once and seems to be getting less reliable by the day (it's those pesky kids again). Applications should be more important than the operating systems. What you can do with your computer should be more important than how the colours and icons look - and how much blank, white space you can use up on the screen, and who the heck thought invisible until you use them scrollbars were a good idea? :mad:
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
"Your Organization (me) has turned off automatic updates". "Your device is missing important security and quality fixes." I wait until the crying dies down to update.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it. ― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
-
There seem to be a trend these days with M$ breaking its own O/S with updates. It used to happen in the olden days (definition: anything more than a couple of years ago) but not as often. Windows 10 was supposed to be the ultimate solid, stable O/S and, after decades of experience and developmental work, it should have been. Why isn't it? Is it because all the old, experienced programmers who developed it are now enjoying their retirements on various beaches around the world and the new programmers are little more than script kiddies to whom new icons and competing with that fruit company are more important than solid, reliable code that does the job? Is, as per the aforementioned fruit company, form more highly rated than function? :doh: Is it just that adding new, fancy but generally useless features are more important than fixing old bugs? :wtf: I'm sure Marketing thinks so. X| Why wasn't Windows 7 left alone a bit longer? It worked, was the most stable version of Windows to date, and just worked with nearly everything? Why did they decide that so-called smart phones were the future of computing and so ruin the desktop interface? I'm seriously thinking of going back to a flip phone. ...and for those who say Linux is the future, it's going the same way - only it's going several different ways all at once and seems to be getting less reliable by the day (it's those pesky kids again). Applications should be more important than the operating systems. What you can do with your computer should be more important than how the colours and icons look - and how much blank, white space you can use up on the screen, and who the heck thought invisible until you use them scrollbars were a good idea? :mad:
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
I don't the problem lies entirely with the programmers. In fact, I think they are minimally at fault. I think the fault lies with program managers and those who make the decisions and the behavior of the software and then issue the edicts to make it so. They are the ones who make asinine decisions like let's update laptops that have their lids closed. We don't care that it has a gaming GPU in it that requires the lid to be open for cooling. I detest two things about W10 : GUI and the update policies. There is a longer list of annoyances.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
-
There seem to be a trend these days with M$ breaking its own O/S with updates. It used to happen in the olden days (definition: anything more than a couple of years ago) but not as often. Windows 10 was supposed to be the ultimate solid, stable O/S and, after decades of experience and developmental work, it should have been. Why isn't it? Is it because all the old, experienced programmers who developed it are now enjoying their retirements on various beaches around the world and the new programmers are little more than script kiddies to whom new icons and competing with that fruit company are more important than solid, reliable code that does the job? Is, as per the aforementioned fruit company, form more highly rated than function? :doh: Is it just that adding new, fancy but generally useless features are more important than fixing old bugs? :wtf: I'm sure Marketing thinks so. X| Why wasn't Windows 7 left alone a bit longer? It worked, was the most stable version of Windows to date, and just worked with nearly everything? Why did they decide that so-called smart phones were the future of computing and so ruin the desktop interface? I'm seriously thinking of going back to a flip phone. ...and for those who say Linux is the future, it's going the same way - only it's going several different ways all at once and seems to be getting less reliable by the day (it's those pesky kids again). Applications should be more important than the operating systems. What you can do with your computer should be more important than how the colours and icons look - and how much blank, white space you can use up on the screen, and who the heck thought invisible until you use them scrollbars were a good idea? :mad:
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
� Forogar � wrote:
Why isn't it?
Never noticed, in all those years, how Office leads?
� Forogar � wrote:
I'm sure Marketing thinks so. X|
They do, and leading is Office. And people would not spend money if it doesn't look fancy and new.
� Forogar � wrote:
Why wasn't Windows 7 left alone a bit longer?
That's a sane developer talking, not marketing. I need not rub these answers in your face. Next windows will have animating icons.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
IMHO, they are hiring less skilled developers/employees to fill roles that required more skill and experience. it's a lot cheaper to higher a 30 year old with less skill and experience, than a 50+ year old with way more experience and skill.
Slacker007 wrote:
it's a lot cheaper to higher a 30 year old with less skill and experience, than a 50+ year old with way more experience and skill.
You're kidding, right? No one wants to hire 50 year olds, not because they're more expensive, but because they're 50. YEARS. OLD. The tech industry hires programmers in their 20's, managers in their 30's, and wants CEO's in their 40's. Any older than that and they just want you to die and get the :elephant: out of the way. I turn 60 in July.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Slacker007 wrote:
it's a lot cheaper to higher a 30 year old with less skill and experience, than a 50+ year old with way more experience and skill.
You're kidding, right? No one wants to hire 50 year olds, not because they're more expensive, but because they're 50. YEARS. OLD. The tech industry hires programmers in their 20's, managers in their 30's, and wants CEO's in their 40's. Any older than that and they just want you to die and get the :elephant: out of the way. I turn 60 in July.
Software Zen:
delete this;:zzz:
-
Slacker007 wrote:
it's a lot cheaper to higher a 30 year old with less skill and experience, than a 50+ year old with way more experience and skill.
You're kidding, right? No one wants to hire 50 year olds, not because they're more expensive, but because they're 50. YEARS. OLD. The tech industry hires programmers in their 20's, managers in their 30's, and wants CEO's in their 40's. Any older than that and they just want you to die and get the :elephant: out of the way. I turn 60 in July.
Software Zen:
delete this;I must disagree. I turn 57 next month, and am still a software engineer. My boss tells me that I am valued for the breadth of my knowledge and experience.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
There seem to be a trend these days with M$ breaking its own O/S with updates. It used to happen in the olden days (definition: anything more than a couple of years ago) but not as often. Windows 10 was supposed to be the ultimate solid, stable O/S and, after decades of experience and developmental work, it should have been. Why isn't it? Is it because all the old, experienced programmers who developed it are now enjoying their retirements on various beaches around the world and the new programmers are little more than script kiddies to whom new icons and competing with that fruit company are more important than solid, reliable code that does the job? Is, as per the aforementioned fruit company, form more highly rated than function? :doh: Is it just that adding new, fancy but generally useless features are more important than fixing old bugs? :wtf: I'm sure Marketing thinks so. X| Why wasn't Windows 7 left alone a bit longer? It worked, was the most stable version of Windows to date, and just worked with nearly everything? Why did they decide that so-called smart phones were the future of computing and so ruin the desktop interface? I'm seriously thinking of going back to a flip phone. ...and for those who say Linux is the future, it's going the same way - only it's going several different ways all at once and seems to be getting less reliable by the day (it's those pesky kids again). Applications should be more important than the operating systems. What you can do with your computer should be more important than how the colours and icons look - and how much blank, white space you can use up on the screen, and who the heck thought invisible until you use them scrollbars were a good idea? :mad:
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
Quote:
There seem to be a trend these days with M$ breaking its own O/S with updates. It used to happen in the olden days (definition: anything more than a couple of years ago) but not as often. Windows 10 was supposed to be the ultimate solid, stable O/S and, after decades of experience and developmental work, it should have been. Why isn't it?
Lack of competition? End-user apathy? For the first one, IT staff everywhere are dead-set against introducing anything new into an organisation. It's not users who are resistant to a Linux desktop; when people were allowed to choose their own devices they didn't go with the 'familiar' Windows on phone, they chose almost anything else instead. You can almost understand why, though. Someone who is a guru on Windows is probably not going to be happy about learning basic concepts. For the second one, why spend money on extra quality when it doesn't result in more money? End-users throughout the 90s and 2000s bought even the most buggiest Windows versions in droves. At this point there is not point in improving the quality of Windows: anyone who wants reliability and robustness goes with Linux (hence there are more Linux instances on Azure than Windows). For the desktop, you don't need reliably and robustness to be higher than what Windows provides at the moment.
-
There seem to be a trend these days with M$ breaking its own O/S with updates. It used to happen in the olden days (definition: anything more than a couple of years ago) but not as often. Windows 10 was supposed to be the ultimate solid, stable O/S and, after decades of experience and developmental work, it should have been. Why isn't it? Is it because all the old, experienced programmers who developed it are now enjoying their retirements on various beaches around the world and the new programmers are little more than script kiddies to whom new icons and competing with that fruit company are more important than solid, reliable code that does the job? Is, as per the aforementioned fruit company, form more highly rated than function? :doh: Is it just that adding new, fancy but generally useless features are more important than fixing old bugs? :wtf: I'm sure Marketing thinks so. X| Why wasn't Windows 7 left alone a bit longer? It worked, was the most stable version of Windows to date, and just worked with nearly everything? Why did they decide that so-called smart phones were the future of computing and so ruin the desktop interface? I'm seriously thinking of going back to a flip phone. ...and for those who say Linux is the future, it's going the same way - only it's going several different ways all at once and seems to be getting less reliable by the day (it's those pesky kids again). Applications should be more important than the operating systems. What you can do with your computer should be more important than how the colours and icons look - and how much blank, white space you can use up on the screen, and who the heck thought invisible until you use them scrollbars were a good idea? :mad:
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
I have no insider information, this is purely speculation. I think these reasons are the important ones: 1. legacy software: windows has been dragging around a lot of support for legacy software. This only compounds every time they make a change. But seeing that their major target audience are enterprises (who like to see their legacy software chugging along), they can't just stop support (Apple can do this much more easily) Maybe they should have a windows version where legacy support is optional. 2. breadth of hardware. Windows has to keep running on many hardware configurations. It's impossible for Microsoft engineers to test all possible combinations of hardware. Again, Apple doesn't have this problem. 3. priority. MS' focus is on the enterprise and on Azure. This probably means that a higher budget (and, therefore the best engineers) are working on Azure and other non-Windows services.
-
IMHO, they are hiring less skilled developers/employees to fill roles that required more skill and experience. it's a lot cheaper to higher a 30 year old with less skill and experience, than a 50+ year old with way more experience and skill.
Apart from being cheap, the 30 year olds are willing to work night shifts without compensation, to fit a manager's dysfunctional perspective on technical skills vs. NUMBERS that get them PAID. Reality in a corporate mindset refuses to be tested in the TANGIBLE world. They honestly believe that, by uttering buzzwords, they have the "magic" to create their own "truth" by telling everyone only what they want to hear. In reality, 50+yo technicians are hated to death for seeing through the BS, and refusing to serve their heads up on a silver plate.
-
I must disagree. I turn 57 next month, and am still a software engineer. My boss tells me that I am valued for the breadth of my knowledge and experience.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
I'm 65, and still a programmer. Of the 12 developers on our team, I'm the only one that codes as a hobby. I'm looking forward to retiring in a few years.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
There seem to be a trend these days with M$ breaking its own O/S with updates. It used to happen in the olden days (definition: anything more than a couple of years ago) but not as often. Windows 10 was supposed to be the ultimate solid, stable O/S and, after decades of experience and developmental work, it should have been. Why isn't it? Is it because all the old, experienced programmers who developed it are now enjoying their retirements on various beaches around the world and the new programmers are little more than script kiddies to whom new icons and competing with that fruit company are more important than solid, reliable code that does the job? Is, as per the aforementioned fruit company, form more highly rated than function? :doh: Is it just that adding new, fancy but generally useless features are more important than fixing old bugs? :wtf: I'm sure Marketing thinks so. X| Why wasn't Windows 7 left alone a bit longer? It worked, was the most stable version of Windows to date, and just worked with nearly everything? Why did they decide that so-called smart phones were the future of computing and so ruin the desktop interface? I'm seriously thinking of going back to a flip phone. ...and for those who say Linux is the future, it's going the same way - only it's going several different ways all at once and seems to be getting less reliable by the day (it's those pesky kids again). Applications should be more important than the operating systems. What you can do with your computer should be more important than how the colours and icons look - and how much blank, white space you can use up on the screen, and who the heck thought invisible until you use them scrollbars were a good idea? :mad:
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
IMHO they are trying to keep up to date their systems with latest technology and customer needs, that today are far more complex than few (10-20) years ago, and this is not easy at all. Apple started this battle of making everything looks "easy", but Windows - compared to iOs - it's not a toy. Windows supports a lot of different hardware and a lot of feature, GUI, server, for home but also business needs, etc. Linux does good servers, iOs good UI for home use (and few for business, local pcs, no big networks). I like the freedom Windows give us, the development experience, and so one. In more than 20 years I never had a problem that was not related to HW (HDD, RAM, etc). On the other side, with Apple you need to stick to super-expensive basic hardware, and you have no way to customize it on your needs, or do a upgrade, install your sw, be able to be "free" etc etc. Linux could give us the same freedom, but they are way back in GUI, if hey only worked together we could have had an amazing OS, but instead you have 1000 half-baked cakes (in terms of GUI). So, I think Microsoft is doing an amazing job if you consider the amount of hardware is running on, and the smooth UX on desktops apps, many for free too. And yeah, speaking about hw, please don't compare a 300$ low-entry-celeron ACER vs a 2000$ Mac as many Apple fanboys did in the past (and still today), but instead compare a 2000$ Dell (or similar) vs a 2000$ Apple.
-
There seem to be a trend these days with M$ breaking its own O/S with updates. It used to happen in the olden days (definition: anything more than a couple of years ago) but not as often. Windows 10 was supposed to be the ultimate solid, stable O/S and, after decades of experience and developmental work, it should have been. Why isn't it? Is it because all the old, experienced programmers who developed it are now enjoying their retirements on various beaches around the world and the new programmers are little more than script kiddies to whom new icons and competing with that fruit company are more important than solid, reliable code that does the job? Is, as per the aforementioned fruit company, form more highly rated than function? :doh: Is it just that adding new, fancy but generally useless features are more important than fixing old bugs? :wtf: I'm sure Marketing thinks so. X| Why wasn't Windows 7 left alone a bit longer? It worked, was the most stable version of Windows to date, and just worked with nearly everything? Why did they decide that so-called smart phones were the future of computing and so ruin the desktop interface? I'm seriously thinking of going back to a flip phone. ...and for those who say Linux is the future, it's going the same way - only it's going several different ways all at once and seems to be getting less reliable by the day (it's those pesky kids again). Applications should be more important than the operating systems. What you can do with your computer should be more important than how the colours and icons look - and how much blank, white space you can use up on the screen, and who the heck thought invisible until you use them scrollbars were a good idea? :mad:
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
I feel this is rose-tinted. Used all the Windows versions extensively, from leaked alpha builds to preview server versions and everything in between. Windows 10 is the best version in my opinion, and before that Windows 8.1, and before that Windows 7, before that Windows XP, and before that 98SE, and before that 3.1 My metrics are hardware support, first hand experience with BSOD, maintenance effort, and most critically: how often does family bug me with technical questions per year. Since Windows 10, the latter has dropped off to 0 calls each year. :D
-
IMHO, they are hiring less skilled developers/employees to fill roles that required more skill and experience. it's a lot cheaper to higher a 30 year old with less skill and experience, than a 50+ year old with way more experience and skill.
It's a double-edged sword, I guess. On one hand, experienced specialists are reliable workers who can handle many tasks, but on another hand, they are more expensive and supercilious. Sometimes is better to hire a young mind with fewer demands, because one day they become experienced too. Also, it trends change rapidly and programmers have to learn something new permanently. So if you're experienced it's well, but on another hand, you have less free space on your "hard drive".
-
There seem to be a trend these days with M$ breaking its own O/S with updates. It used to happen in the olden days (definition: anything more than a couple of years ago) but not as often. Windows 10 was supposed to be the ultimate solid, stable O/S and, after decades of experience and developmental work, it should have been. Why isn't it? Is it because all the old, experienced programmers who developed it are now enjoying their retirements on various beaches around the world and the new programmers are little more than script kiddies to whom new icons and competing with that fruit company are more important than solid, reliable code that does the job? Is, as per the aforementioned fruit company, form more highly rated than function? :doh: Is it just that adding new, fancy but generally useless features are more important than fixing old bugs? :wtf: I'm sure Marketing thinks so. X| Why wasn't Windows 7 left alone a bit longer? It worked, was the most stable version of Windows to date, and just worked with nearly everything? Why did they decide that so-called smart phones were the future of computing and so ruin the desktop interface? I'm seriously thinking of going back to a flip phone. ...and for those who say Linux is the future, it's going the same way - only it's going several different ways all at once and seems to be getting less reliable by the day (it's those pesky kids again). Applications should be more important than the operating systems. What you can do with your computer should be more important than how the colours and icons look - and how much blank, white space you can use up on the screen, and who the heck thought invisible until you use them scrollbars were a good idea? :mad:
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
Turn off invisible scroll bars: https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/103061-turn-off-automatically-hide-scroll-bars-windows-10-uwp-apps.html
-
Turn off invisible scroll bars: https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/103061-turn-off-automatically-hide-scroll-bars-windows-10-uwp-apps.html
Thanks for this info. However, my point is why would they be invisible by default? What idiot thought that was a good idea? The same one who thought hiding file extensions by default was a good, secure, idea? :mad:
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
-
Thanks for this info. However, my point is why would they be invisible by default? What idiot thought that was a good idea? The same one who thought hiding file extensions by default was a good, secure, idea? :mad:
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.