There are a couple of things that I think need some clarification. First is that you may be mistaking Windows' willingness/ability to accept whatever drives you want to throw at it as an endorsement that what you're doing is a good idea and will perform well (both speed-wise and data integrity-wise). IMHO, that's an incorrect assumption. TrueNAS will do what you want it to do but it will not endorse it as a good idea (from a data-integrity and performance POV) because it's not. People use TrueNAS for its performance, stability, data-integrity and the UI on top of it which makes it really easy to create a reliable setup. If TrueNAS isn't letting you do something easily, that should be a sign that what you're doing isn't a good idea for a super stable, reliable and performant system. In that light, it's more of a guardrail that is intended to give you pause before hopping over it. I think Unraid might be more of what you're looking for. One of its strengths and key selling points is that it will take whatever disks you throw at it and add them to your storage. It's also got a nice UI that makes things pretty easy to do. As long as you understand that throwing whatever kind of disks you want into your storage pool without concern for their age, quality, storage capacity, etc. is generally not going to be as reliable from a data-integrity standpoint as what you would get with better drives of matching storage capacity you'll be fine. For many use cases, that's sufficient. As long as you make sure that anything that you absolutely can't lose is backed up you should be good. The second thing that I think needs some clarification is that TrueNAS (or FreeNAS as it used to be called) isn't Linux. It is based on FreeBSD (a Unix flavor). While both Unix and Linux support the Posix standard, they are separate operating systems with different capabilities, strengths, and weaknesses. BTW, Unraid is based on Linux (specifically the Slackware distro). The fact that there are a ton of different Linux distros can definitely be overwhelming; it was for me when I first got started. However, I've come to view it more as giving me the ability to evaluate different things and pick the best tool for the job. I'm not stuck with taking a "jack of all trades" approach like Windows often takes. I use both Linux and Windows as daily drivers both on bare metal and VM. Both are stable and performant. It's taken me more time to read and learn about the various Linux distros but it has

It's OK. That's just a link to a joke/satire site. No need for shame, discontent or anything like that.

This seemed like less of a "close look" and more of a puff piece for Azure, which is perfectly fine, but the title was a little misleading.

For me, one of the reasons is that it's on my desktop and control is being taken away from me where before I had it. On my mobile device, I guess I've just kind of accepted not being able to have as much control (although android gives me much more than iOS). Also, I do less things on my mobile device (intentionally, for privacy reasons) than I do on my desktop so that somewhat mitigates the intrusion/snooping factor. You're right that it's not completely rational, but it is what it is. Mobile devices have always sort of "been that way", whereas desktop computer users have usually been able to have more control of their computing experience. I think at least on a subconscious level, peoples' reaction to MS exerting more control is due to this shift that is taking place. I think if mobile devices had started out the same way PCs had, there might be a similar reaction. One of my big problems is that with Windows 10, it is like MS is trying to turn my computer into a "device", rather than my tool over which I have control. I understand that some people really see this as a big benefit or a plus. Me, not so much. No judgement there; everybody's tastes are different. But the problem is MS has given me no way of easily turning it off or opting out (hunting through the registry and various configuration screens doesn't count) other than staying with MS and complaining vociferously or jumping ship and going with another OS.

Ah, I see what you're saying. Thanks for clarifying.

It's been a while since I studied this, so I may be wrong, but I believe that there is a distinction between something like giving a fingerprint or blood sample and providing a passcode. The 5th amendment protects against giving incriminating testimony against oneself. The courts have interpreted that to mean things that reveal the contents of a person's mind or knowledge. So, since fingerprints and blood/DNA samples do not reveal the contents of a person's mind or use their knowledge against themself, they are legally permissible. Passcodes are not since they reveal the contents of a person's mind or what they are thinking. Similarly, people can be forced to provide a key for a safe but not the combination. As to whether that's right or not, that debate has been going on for a long, long time. Personally, history has shown me that I'd rather err on the side of the individual than err on the side of the government. Governments have historically proven to abuse power when given too much of it.

One of our wise sage developers here has the following quote about extension methods: "Extension methods feel like you're having an affair..." That just about sums it up. :laugh:

Completely agree with you, Chris. I've been thinking the same thing. The way that Windows 8 and the Metro UI are going just don't feel right to me. One of the solutions that made the most sense to me was something that Ubuntu was trying with Android devices a little while ago. When in "mobile" mode, it used the Android UI. When you docked the computer, it would switch over to using the Ubuntu desktop UI. We have different contexts when using computers - consumer, tablet, power user, desktop, whatever you want to call it. Each context is appropriate for a given set of tasks. It seems to me that MS could really differentiate themselves by giving us something similar that sensed which context we were in (or allowed some other sort of switching) instead of jamming two unrelated contexts together and forcing us into a mobile context when we're on a desktop computer and will never use a mobile context or giving us a desktop context on a mobile computer with a screen too small to give a really good desktop experience. The current strategy seems to be a poor compromise where neither context really wins. One thing to rule them all rarely works well for everybody. Microsoft tried to put the desktop context onto mobile devices and saw that people pretty much rejected it because the desktop wasn't appropriate for mobile. The funny thing is now they're trying the reverse by putting a mobile context onto desktops and thinking that that will be better received. I think at the very least, they should go with what has always been successful for them and give users more choice, rather than following the Apple path and taking choice away.

Just wanted to share my experience. We've been using TFS and its associated source control and as dissatisfied as you are with git, I am likewise dissatisfied with TFS's source control (and also visual source safe). I find that it is big, clunky, arcane and I hate that branching requires making a completely new copy of the source code. I dislike that being able to effectively use it requires that I have a central server set up with not only TFS but a SQL Server database. Reverting to previous versions has been a frustrating and error prone experience and there have been all sorts of other annoyances that we've disliked. On the other hand, since we've been using git, the workflow of branching and committing has really clicked with us. git is so much more quick and lightweight (even using the windows version) and it has been so easy to branch merge and commit; it's really been helpful. After I read the first few chapters of the git book by Scott Chacon, I found that sufficient to get started for what we needed. Just like any source control system, it's got its advanced concepts which we may use some day but, for now, we're really enjoying using git. One of our developers is also using the hg-git plugin for Mercurial because that's what he prefers. I don't really like Mercurial. For me, personally, I find it more confusing than git, but if that's what he likes, that's cool. I really like that we can all use what we're comfortable with and still work together. I don't think that so many people have just picked up git because it's trendy. The learning curve would be a damper to that if that were the case. I think that these people have found, like we have so far, that git is a superior VCS. I'm really sorry to hear that you haven't had a good experience with git. Gotta go with what works for you. That's just my two cents...

You know, I agree with this, but I think that therein lies a problem somewhat. For folks that have coded low level grunt work stuff lots and lots, this is really nice and is a huge help because it lets you spend your valuable time on more productive things. What about, though, people that are just starting out? By not having to do the low level stuff, they miss out on learning the foundational things that the experienced people learned cold through repetition. It seems like there's the potential for newer people to miss out on valuable experience. Before too long you get people that can do quite a bit of things with the language, yet they are confused about the difference between value types and reference types or some other foundational skill. What do you guys think?

This. 100% agreed. I was going to say that his conversation with the Apple fanboi is eerily similar to an MS fanboi that I was talking to last week about Metro. When I tried to mention some problems that I had with Metro, he just reverted back to the tired old standby of "You just don't like change." Fanboyism is the mind killer.

First of all, I'm a Windows user and fan; I'm not a Linux troll. Having said that, the more that I've gotten to know Linux specifically and Unix in general, the more impressed I have become with it's overall architecture and style. When I first started working with Linux it was because I was forced to and it wasn't a pretty experience. However, it's slowly started to grow on me and I can honestly say that I appreciate a lot of stuff about it. I don't do kernel programming in Windows or Linux, but I'd be interested to hear some more about the differences or pros/cons of each and what your take on all of it is.

Guys, your responses are textbook for why more people don't like Linux. Quite frankly, you're needlessly being dicks to this guy when he's expressing valid concerns. Why not take the opportunity to teach and introduce, rather than try to show how much smarter you are? How is somebody supposed to know or even learn about the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard unless somebody helps them out and points them in the right direction? Trying to show off like that just makes you look petty like the comic book guy on the Simpsons. I like Linux and I'm liking it more the more I learn about it. You have to admit, though, that the learning curve is quite high and it's not always easy or straightforward to find the answers to questions or how to do something. I've invested a lot of time learning about Linux and that time is paying off. Should somebody have to invest this time all at once on the front end to begin to start getting use out of Linux? Perhaps it might be better to get somebody hooked and then tell them about all of the cool things they can now begin to learn? Thank heavens for distros like Ubuntu and Mint so that people can see that Linux doesn't have to be so scary. Hopefully they'll get in and discover how fun it can be to learn to configure your computer to behave exactly how you'd like it. I'm really encouraged to see more and more Linux tutorials and help for people just getting started with the OS. We need more of this. For those people that don't want to dig as deeply, though, they shouldn't be left to an incredibly difficult computing experience. Linux is good enough to meet both types of needs.

Chris Maunder wrote:

I can't stand it. What I can't stand most is that, at its core it's an excellent OS. Security, the tweaks like the resource manager, file copies, the underlying security, and the general stability is excellent. A far more stable and flexible OS than iOS, and I use both.
 
The split of the UI, however, is so clumsily done that the fall is the worse for it being on something that should be so much better. I used to go back to iOS and complain about dumb things like having to eject USB storage, or not being able to shake a window and have all other windows collapse, or the stupidness of the "+" sign on iTunes minimising it. Now I no longer complain. Now I just stay quiet and sad.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I have really liked Linux as I've used it and gotten to know it better. As a programmer, it feels like "my" operating system in a way that Windows doesn't. I look forward to learning more and getting better at it. On the other hand, you're absolutely right about this being the reason that Linux doesn't have a larger foothold. As much as I like Linux, it often takes way too long to do things that take a few seconds or minutes to do on my Windows box. For my things that I need to "just work" and get done quickly, I still do them on my Windows OS. Don't get me wrong: Linux has made huge strides as far as usability goes, as evidenced by Ubuntu. However, there are still those things that would be really difficult for a consumer to do or figure out and I believe that is why Linux is still not as popular as the other OSs, even though it's "free as in beer." This isn't necessarily a bad thing, though. Look what you get with consumerization: Gnome3, Unity and Metro. I'm super grateful, though, that Linux's modularity allows me to dump parts I don't like and swap in parts that I prefer. That, I think, is its biggest strength. Like I said, Linux has made some great strides where usability is concerned and I do see it one day gaining widespread popularity on the desktop among technologists and consumers alike.

Thank you as well, Chris. I feel like my understanding has increased. Upon reflecting about it, the answer to what would make it less distracting and give content the focus is kinda complex; I can really appreciate all the thought that you guys must have put into this. There are some things that jumped out at me and then others that I realized are kind of subjective to me. First, as I said before, the lack of colors (in many implementations, bright, blinding white) usually makes the text hard to read because, for some reason, my eyes really need the definition and the visual cues that the colors and borders give. I can see, though, that you guys have added background colors to the text boxes in the forums and that really makes a big difference. I also noticed that the borders in the forum have changed. They aren't overstated but they are just enough to provide good, clear distinction and separation. The UI not only feels less cluttered but I can see how the content stands out more. The other part of it is subjective for me and I don't really know what could be done about it because that just comes down to personal taste. For me, I really like the color variety of the pre-Metro style. To me, the flat, basic colors of the Metro style kind of depress me and make me feel like I'm living in some eastern European communist utilitarian slum (sincerely no offense intended there). As I have seen the Metro implementations of various UIs, I have felt in the back of my mind that something was "off" and it was distracting me as I was interacting with the UI. Not only that, but on my desktop and my phone, I have pretty nice graphics cards and I like seeing all of the visual candy of the pre-Metro style. :) Like I said, though, this is all really subjective and it comes down to what I like vs. what others like; not much that anybody can do there. Thanks for interacting with all of us your users. It really means a lot that you would solicit and, where possible, incorporate our feedback. Just another reason why Code Project is a great site. Regards, John

Once again, I really appreciate your response. I can definitely tell that you and those working with you have put a lot of thought into how you have structured the UI. This reminds me of an art discussion that I had once. I had somebody try to explain to me what was so great about modern art. The person was knowledgeable and obviously knew what they were talking about but, try as they might, I just couldn't see it and still can't. I appreciate classical and realism but my tastes just don't lie with modern art. Similarly, you have been very patient and provided lots of good information (for which I am grateful) but I still can't seem to like Metro and its design principles; ironically, Metro distracts me from the content and makes it harder for me to read. D'OH!! Also, as maligned as they are, I still like skeuomorphisms. I guess that my tastes just lie elsewhere. Like I said before, though, this is the best Metro implementation that I've seen so far. Thanks again for taking the time to explain Metro a bit more. Regards, John

Chris, I truly and honestly thank you for responding to me about this. Metro is something that to me seems pretty incomprehensible and ugly. I see, though, that there are a lot of people who feel that it is light and refreshing. So I really appreciate you taking the time to help explain this. Can I ask a couple more questions to try to understand the other side better? First, what is considered the content? Is it the text? Is it pictures? Where I'm coming from is that, to me, everything on the page is content. The text, the icons, the graphics, etc. are all content, the way that I see it. To me, it seems that Metro takes part of the content, makes it bland and depressing and then I'm left with a nearly blank sheet of paper with writing on it. To make it worse, it seems that a popular Metro ideal is a lack of borders and separation so everything on the page tends to run together. I think that perhaps, I and a number of other people either aren't understanding what the content is supposed to be so perhaps that's keeping us from understanding what the beauty of Metro is that many other people seem to see. Unfortunately, many in the Metro camp dismiss this view by saying something to the effect of "You're just a dinosaur..." so nobody understands either side. Can you help me to understand this? Regards, John

Agreed.

I think that this is one of the best Metro-ish implementations that I've seen and that is saying something because I despise Metro. It doesn't look all basic and Playskool-ish like everything else Metro. Good job! The only quibble that I have is a general quibble with Metro: why do all the icons and buttons, i.e. print, bookmark, etc. have to be flat, bland and colorless? Most phones and computers have good enough graphics cards to be able to handle things like that. Maybe it's just me, but that's one of the things that makes me feel depressed when looking at most Metro themes.