Windows Subsystem for Linux

[Rusky]

I hope they don't destroy Windows scheduler by implementing Ubuntu on Windows

Or worse, add memory overcommit support! D:

[Kevin]

Show me one alternative for Office that can do what Office can do. There is no suitable replacement for Word or Excel.

For the things I want to do with it, there is. For everything else I can't tell.

I rarely came across a document edited in Libre Office that looks how it should look - why should I give it a chance? Isn't "screwing up all the paragraphs and lists and references" also a bug?

It never did that for me.

Are you talking about editing documents that are in a Microsoft format, i.e. the quality of the import/export filters? I don't think it works that much better the other way round, i.e. editing .odt files in Word.

[zdz]

Show me one alternative for Office that can do what Office can do. There is no suitable replacement for Word or Excel.

For the things I want to do with it, there is. For everything else I can't tell.

I rarely came across a document edited in Libre Office that looks how it should look - why should I give it a chance? Isn't "screwing up all the paragraphs and lists and references" also a bug?

It never did that for me.

Are you talking about editing documents that are in a Microsoft format, i.e. the quality of the import/export filters? I don't think it works that much better the other way round, i.e. editing .odt files in Word.

Old, but still relevant http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ ... 00020.html

Is Microsoft still offering support for .odt? I'll admit that I am clueless for the other way around.

[iansjack]

And yet just earlier today I was struggling my way through a Microsoft knowledge base article on fixing the "duplicate emails in Outlook 2016" which told me to use IMAP instead of POP3 instead of providing me with an actual bug fix.

So you are blaming Microsoft for your technical incompetence? It took me 5 seconds to find this bug fix: https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/kb/3145116

[Kevin]

Old, but still relevant http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ ... 00020.html

Not sure how it's relevant for what I wrote. Do you mean the 80/20 thing? But then, I don't think it would be fair to say that LibreOffice only implements 20% of the features MS Office has.

Is Microsoft still offering support for .odt? I'll admit that I am clueless for the other way around.

I'm pretty sure they still do, as a fig leaf because some governments can only buy software that supports it. I've never used it myself, but from I've heard it's actually worse than what LO does with .doc/.docx.

Anyway, my main point was that if you want to compare office suites, you need to compare both using their native file format for the comparison to be meaningful.

[zdz]

Old, but still relevant http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ ... 00020.html

Not sure how it's relevant for what I wrote. Do you mean the 80/20 thing? But then, I don't think it would be fair to say that LibreOffice only implements 20% of the features MS Office has.

Is Microsoft still offering support for .odt? I'll admit that I am clueless for the other way around.

I'm pretty sure they still do, as a fig leaf because some governments can only buy software that supports it. I've never used it myself, but from I've heard it's actually worse than what LO does with .doc/.docx.

Anyway, my main point was that if you want to compare office suites, you need to compare both using their native file format for the comparison to be meaningful.

The native format matters, sure, but you have to compare them on what the market needs. This is a general problem: "in order to get people to use our product we need to have people that use our product".
Anyway, this started from the idea that Microsoft makes lower quality poorly tested products, and we ended up in a Office stand-off.

The article was for this line "For the things I want to do with it, there is. For everything else I can't tell." And to combat some of the "it's bloatware" arguments people are throwing around You have to remember that every user has different needs.

Do people really think that a company who does stuff like this https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnew ... 0/?p=93281 is just rushing unfinished products? I know that is an old story, but it's just an example.

[alexfru]

Do people really think that a company who does stuff like this https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnew ... 0/?p=93281 is just rushing unfinished products? I know that is an old story, but it's just an example.

There have been other workarounds to support software from earlier OS versions (both DOS and Windows). However, I'm not sure it's about "rushing unfinished products". It's about winning the user, making it easier for him to adopt the new OS. I think it was more important in older days when DOS and Windows (and then later Windows 9x and NT-based Windows) sort of competed and the company wanted users to switch. But while compatibility has always been important, Microsoft has always changed the Windows driver model in ways rendering dead many otherwise perfectly functioning devices and if their manufacturer had gone out of business or discontinued support for the hardware on newer Windows, there was nothing to do other than sticking to the old PC with old Windows for its lifetime or buying new hardware. Thus, the compatibility story has always been chequered. I guess, Microsoft could get away with it and it may have been a boon to hardware manufacturers as they got to sell new stuff that otherwise wouldn't have sold equally well.

[zdz]

Do people really think that a company who does stuff like this https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnew ... 0/?p=93281 is just rushing unfinished products? I know that is an old story, but it's just an example.

There have been other workarounds to support software from earlier OS versions (both DOS and Windows). However, I'm not sure it's about "rushing unfinished products". It's about winning the user, making it easier for him to adopt the new OS. I think it was more important in older days when DOS and Windows (and then later Windows 9x and NT-based Windows) sort of competed and the company wanted users to switch. But while compatibility has always been important, Microsoft has always changed the Windows driver model in ways rendering dead many otherwise perfectly functioning devices and if their manufacturer had gone out of business or discontinued support for the hardware on newer Windows, there was nothing to do other than sticking to the old PC with old Windows for its lifetime or buying new hardware. Thus, the compatibility story has always been chequered. I guess, Microsoft could get away with it and it may have been a boon to hardware manufacturers as they got to sell new stuff that otherwise wouldn't have sold equally well.

That is true for drivers, but you have to agree that they needed to change their driver model. Many changes were necessary in order to bring a higher security to the OS. And let's not talk about all those driver "developers" who want to do something and go for the first undocumented idea they can find on google, or that something should be done in user mode, or is something that shouldn't be done in the first place. And they do offer great tools for testing those drivers. Again, is Microsof the only OS that changed its driver model over time? I don't think so.

[alexfru]

That is true for drivers, but you have to agree that they needed to change their driver model. Many changes were necessary in order to bring a higher security to the OS. And let's not talk about all those driver "developers" who want to do something and go for the first undocumented idea they can find on google, or that something should be done in user mode, or is something that shouldn't be done in the first place. And they do offer great tools for testing those drivers. Again, is Microsof the only OS that changed its driver model over time? I don't think so.

I understand that new features require changes. And some are quite radical. However, I think they still could've supported the old driver model for at least one more release.

[iansjack]

I think they still could've supported the old driver model for at least one more release.

As zdz said, often these changes are made to increase security. I couldn't agree that, in that case, the less secure model should also be supported in the new OS.

[onlyonemac]

Linux refuses to disable the touch screen on my laptop

Maybe you should read up on how to configure the relevant input device subsystem (hint: look at your Xorg configuration).

The question explicitly excluded the problem of .docx compatibility, so your whining is irrelevant

Where? Nowhere did the question say "you don't need to worry about .docx compatibility".

while GNOME is good for completely annihilating all the features and customizability you praise Linux OSes for?

Did I ever say that I use GNOME? No, I did not. In fact, I use MATE - because it gives me the features and customisability that I want, and Linux itself being a customisable OS lets me choose which desktop environment I want to use.

[Kazinsal]

Any OS that requires you to research arcane text based configuration to disable or enable a purely GUI feature is a complete failure at being a desktop operating system.

[onlyonemac]

Any OS that requires you to research arcane text based configuration to disable or enable a purely GUI feature is a complete failure at being a desktop operating system.

Or perhaps the developers decided not to duplicate functionality, or figured that the feature was something that only a handful of users would actually care about and that those users would be willing to spend a few minutes researching how to write a configuration file, or that they could find a copy-and-paste example online from someone else who had done the same thing.

[zdz]

That is true for drivers, but you have to agree that they needed to change their driver model. Many changes were necessary in order to bring a higher security to the OS. And let's not talk about all those driver "developers" who want to do something and go for the first undocumented idea they can find on google, or that something should be done in user mode, or is something that shouldn't be done in the first place. And they do offer great tools for testing those drivers. Again, is Microsof the only OS that changed its driver model over time? I don't think so.

I understand that new features require changes. And some are quite radical. However, I think they still could've supported the old driver model for at least one more release.

As someone who writes (not that often) and uses ( ) Windows drivers I can't agree with this. If the old model was still supported the addoption of the new model would have been slow. And it's not like it's extremely hard to adapt to the new model. And after the shock you have when you first see the new model you start to appreciate what it can do for you, because it really makes your life easier, you just have to, you know, read the docs before starting to code. I don't know, and I don't want to guess, but do you have any experience with Windows as a developer (user mode and / or kernel mode) ?

Maybe you should read up on how to configure the relevant input device subsystem (hint: look at your Xorg configuration).

So if I tell you "maybe you should see what registry key you should edit" Windows is unusable, but it's ok for another OS to do this kind of things? I presume that "refuses to turn off" means "I select the option that says 'turn off', but nothing happens".

Or perhaps the developers decided not to duplicate functionality, or figured that the feature was something that only a handful of users would actually care about and that those users would be willing to spend a few minutes researching how to write a configuration file, or that they could find a copy-and-paste example online from someone else who had done the same thing.

See the registry thing above. And having the possibility of doing the same thing from multiple places isn't duplicate functionality. The core component that does the action can be the same, but you access it from different places. Because you want to make your users happy, you want to have an intuitive and easy to use interface (graphic, console, speech, doesn't matter).

[onlyonemac]

So if I tell you "maybe you should see what registry key you should edit" Windows is unusable, but it's ok for another OS to do this kind of things?

I don't have a problem with hacking the Windows registry. What I do have a problem with is not putting the option that I want in the registry but hardcoding it because it's part of Microsoft's brand image and they don't want it changed, and what I also have a problem with is how inefficient the implementation of the registry is, and how non-standardised the organisation of its contents are, and how easy it is to break it by importing conflicting values from a .reg file or network login

. I presume that "refuses to turn off" means "I select the option that says 'turn off', but nothing happens".

I interpreted it as "Linux detects that I have a touch screen, so it insists that I have to use it and doesn't give me the option to disable it". Without further information, either interpretation has an equal probability of being correct.

And having the possibility of doing the same thing from multiple places isn't duplicate functionality. The core component that does the action can be the same, but you access it from different places.

You're still duplicating work that 90% of users won't even care about (and introducing all of the issues that come with duplicating work, such as code maintainability and room for bugs to get in).

• Microsoft: if 90% of users don't care about changing this setting, we'll leave it out altogether
• Linux: if 90% of users don't care about changing this setting, we won't put it in the "easy-to-use configuration manager", but there's always the text configuration files that advanced users can edit

(Also note that in cases involving system configuration the underlying software and the interfaces are developed by completely separate teams of developers, and the team developing the underlying software make sure that there's a configuration option in their file for everything that can possibly be configured, and the team developing the interface put just the options that the majority of their users want and that will fit with the rest of their project in their graphical configuration utilities. And this is a good thing, because if say I'm a desktop user and I just want to quickly share some files with someone over a network I can just right-click on them and choose "share" (or whatever the option's called in your file manager) and not worry about the underlying details, but if I'm running a file-sharing server I can configure things in greater depth to set the system up exactly as I want and need it to be.)