Just disable Javascript; it will load fine.

Normally I would retort “But we paid money for it - so they need to support it”

For how long? 15 years? 20? 30? Should they still be supporting Windows 95?

Windows has the longest support period of any commercial operating system. iOS’s longest support period for a phone was 8 years, Android is now 8 years for the new PIxel, macOS supports computers for anywhere between 5-10 years, averaging about 7, and Windows 10 will support computers for 10 years. Previous Windows operating systems have supported computers for even longer, but 10 years is still longer than anybody else. I’ve paid for a few Windows 10 licenses in my time, and I don’t think I’ll ever pay for another one. I don’t use it enough to care about the limitations of unlicensed Windows.

Mind you, we wouldn’t even need to be having this conversation if Windows was free software and some other organization took on the duty of maintaining it. That would be a lot less work for Microsoft and keep Windows 10 users happy. While I’m at it, I’d also like a pony.

When they rugpull Win10 I will just complete move to Linux. The only thing holding me back is some industrial software that I use for work and they’re in the process of multi-platform support.

I’d love to do that. I already use Linux for most of my work, but Adobe not being there means I need to fall back to macOS or Windows for some projects. While Photoshop is coming to the web (someday), After Effects and inDesign are unlikely to ever end up there. I can hope, but I’ll likely be stuck on one of these other operating systems for a long time to come, I suspect.

Maybe Wine will some day support Adobe’s terrible DRM…and maybe hell will freeze over, too.

I don’t see a problem with this business model. They’re doing work maintaining software they don’t want to maintain, so charging for it makes sense. It’s surprising to me that Windows doesn’t already charge a yearly subscription fee for OS upgrades.

Many people aren’t going to pay the annual fee and will keep using Windows 10 without the security patches anyhow, so obviously this will weaken a lot of people’s security, but, well… Microsoft needs to make money. And it’s not like they need to worry about their customers defecting to another operating system. You can’t just download and install macOS on an old Dell machine. If they’re going to buy a new computer, it makes sense to get a less expensive one than what Apple’s offering, ergo they’ll get a new Windows 11 computer.

And if they wanted to and could use Linux…well, they’d already be using it. Overall, I’m completely nonplussed about this announcement. If you weren’t going to pay Microsoft money, nothing has changed. If you need a longer support period, you now have an easy option. And hey, there’s always the chance Microsoft will backtrack and provide free updates anyway. Especially given the lack of details on pricing, it seems like they’re sounding out the idea rather than fully committed to deploying it.

Microsoft Exchange. For running an email server. It’s easily the most popular use for Windows servers.

In fairness, it’s so there’s a log of why the machine was shut down. It’s for the sysadmins in charge rather than Microsoft. In practice, most people just choose “Other” as the reason so it’s fairly useless. I have no idea if there’s a way to turn it off, though.

Exchange.

What’s next? Hopefully, Microsoft won’t start injecting a poll at shutdown demanding to know why I’m turning my PC off for the day.

Well, if you decide to run Windows Server, I have news for you…

I’m always worried about over explaining or sounding pendantic.

That makes two of us :)

Red Hat, the world’s largest provider of open source software, would begin to reserve the source code of its flagship product, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, to paying customers only.

I think they should have done that in the first place. You can sell open source software just fine; you shouldn’t be expected to make the sources public—only to those with a binary copy of your software who ask for it. Organizations that write and maintain open source software should be paid for their work.

In 1984, a researcher named Richard Stallman released a software project called GNU. Stallman licensed GNU for free, with his only stipulation that users sign an agreement called the GNU General Public License. […] To Stallman, freedom meant no restrictions — not necessarily no costs. “Think free as in free speech, not free beer,” he is quoted as saying.

Yes. Stallman sold copies of GNU Emacs on physical media back in the day.

This article doesn’t touch on the contentious issue, which is that RHEL’s terms say, if you share the Red hat sources as a customer to a non-customer, Red Hat may stop serving you as a customer. The controversy isn’t about cost. It’s about being punished for exercising the freedoms Red Hat gives you.

Of course, SUSE and Ubuntu Enterprise have had the same terms for years. Red Hat was the outlier until now.

I ran an iPhone for many years and never updated anything at all. The apps were updated automatically.

Edit: Ah, you’re talking about an iOS update. Forgive my lack of reading comprehension. Apps that have been automatically updated have been known to stop working, however.

What non-AGPL software were you hoping to be compatible with fediverse software? Or am I misunderstanding why you want non-AGPL software?

For a moment, I thought this meant Slack was now only going to work on Wayland compositors…

So how else would you combat malicious forks like what happened to new pipe?

Trademarks. Anyone malicious can take your source-available code anyway, but if they infringe on your trademark by calling it “Firefox” or “Newpipe”, you are legally in your right to take it down. Trademarks deal with fraud; copyright doesn’t.

Iceweasel is a classic example of what happens when free software projects like Firefox seek to defend their trademark. They didn’t want to allow Debian to use the Firefox name, as that may cause users to attribute quality problems to Mozilla when Debian is actually responsible because of the patches they had made.

Want to remove an app using the GrayJay name without your permission if it’s a registered trademark? Here’s a link to report it to Google Play.

You’ve got Firefox and Brave. Edge + Chrome are based on the free software Blink engine, while Webkit is one of the only free software projects Apple develops and maintains. Who doesn’t use VLC? Bitwarden is a popular password manager. About 50% of the world uses Android, which is nominally free software with some proprietary components. Blender is the world’s most successful free software project. A surprising amount of mainstream artists use Krita. People who download torrents are probably using a free software BitTorrent client like qbittorrent, Deluge, or Transmission, rather than uTorrent. A lot of people use the uBlock Origin extension, which is a free software content blocker.

And hey, everyone who has played DOOM was playing a game released under the GPLv2 in 1999, minus the game data.

File hosting isn’t really an issue of free software, because very few people will host their own cloud storage server. It’s more about relying on servers to provide a service rather than software, which is a good and bad thing.

This is kind of a neutral point, but a lot of software has become services accessed through a web client (browser). This means anyone on any operating system can access the service so long as they have a browser, which evens the playing field for us SerenityOS and Haiku users :^).

Yeah, uhh…it’s pretty stupid. The more I think about it, the more shocked I am that BMW is so aware of this that they need two separate warnings for it in the handbook, but make it the owner’s responsibility not to put themselves in that situation…?

Car is on some sort of lease program where you trade it in for the next model after a few years. There would need to be some way of installing a manual release without causing damage to the car…or preventing BMW from taking it back.

TIL Teslas are better designed than this BMW model 🤷‍♀️

The previous generation BMW car my friend owned worked fine. This is a new regression, and if you look further up the thread, you’ll see I’ve posted a photo of page 86 of the BMW handbook where BMW acknowledges their own bad design and pushes the responsibility onto the owner to not lock people inside the car. While also having an auto-lock feature which is on by default.

It would be good to find out if this design was intentional or somehow just not tested until they had produced these models. The wording makes it seem that way.

BMW thinks so too!

330i