NationStates

Supreme Pwnage wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:Press (x) to doubt. The Linux kernel diverges so hard from Microsoft's intentions as a company that to fork it into suiting their goals would be a) more work than fixing Windows and b) fucking it up exactly as much as the NT kernel.
Microsoft will absolutely not commit suicide as a company and just give up on making operating systems, either, so as much as the Linux fanatics may want that to happen, it won't.

I didn't say they would quit making operating systems, I said they would stop developing the NT kernel. In 2016, MS paid 500k to get on the Linux foundation and has consistently committed a lot of code to the kernel for years. Also, all code in the Linux kernel is required to be GPL-2 compatible, well within the bounds of what MS does as the GPL-2 is quite permissive. Also, more work than fixing Windows? Nothing short of a complete kernel rewrite a la OS X could save the pile of shit that is modern Windows.

The issue is not licensing. The issue is the target audience and software.
And as Tekania pointed out, you've overstated the issues with the NT kernel. It's not great, but it's not beyond reprieve.

Cekoviu wrote:

Supreme Pwnage wrote:
I didn't say they would quit making operating systems, I said they would stop developing the NT kernel. In 2016, MS paid 500k to get on the Linux foundation and has consistently committed a lot of code to the kernel for years. Also, all code in the Linux kernel is required to be GPL-2 compatible, well within the bounds of what MS does as the GPL-2 is quite permissive. Also, more work than fixing Windows? Nothing short of a complete kernel rewrite a la OS X could save the pile of shit that is modern Windows.

The issue is not licensing. The issue is the target audience and software.
And as Tekania pointed out, you've overstated the issues with the NT kernel. It's not great, but it's not beyond reprieve.

The target audience for the Linux kernel is literally anyone and anything. It's just a kernel. Certain companies or entities can create an operating system on top of it that is meant for enterprise use, consumer use, or embedded systems use which is precisely what MS does. I don't know what you mean by "software". If MS needs to port Windows-specific stuff to Linux, that is well within its capabilities. We can already see that MS is cutting costs by the fact that they fired most of their testing team and are relying upon the guinea pigs who use the insider build to test for them. Another great way to cut costs is to additionally fire a lot of the kernel developers because employees with an intimate knowledge of computer architecture and low-level development are not particularly cheap.

Okay I have managed to find two places stating this "2025" date for End of Life.

https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2418619/windows-10-end-of-life-date
https://www.windowscentral.com/windows-10-support-microsoft-confirmed-last-until-october-14-2025

As I suspected, they do not know what they were talking about. The specific dates they are putting relate only to Windows 10 Enterprise LTSB 2015. The dates are not reflective of Windows 10 in general. And in fact there are two other later builds of the LTSB/LTSC of Windows 10 Enterprise with EOL after that date. Though those versions would not have been there at the time as the articles in question are from 4 years ago months after the launch of Windows 10. So they did not grasp that what they were reading only applied to the specific builds out at that time and that later build versions would have their own EOL/EOS dates.

I think that much of the confusion comes from the fact that the first result in the lifecycle search just says “Windows 10” … which one? I think Microsoft should clarify which version is which.

Does Windows normally store BCD stuff on a non-boot drive when available? Because I wasn't aware that that is something that ever happens and I'm now stuck in a neverending recovery nightmare after replacing my secondary HDD.

Cekoviu wrote:Does Windows normally store BCD stuff on a non-boot drive when available? Because I wasn't aware that that is something that ever happens and I'm now stuck in a neverending recovery nightmare after replacing my secondary HDD.

BCD is stored on the boot partition. Are you sure your "Secondary" drive was not the one with the boot partition?

Tekania wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:Does Windows normally store BCD stuff on a non-boot drive when available? Because I wasn't aware that that is something that ever happens and I'm now stuck in a neverending recovery nightmare after replacing my secondary HDD.

BCD is stored on the boot partition. Are you sure your "Secondary" drive was not the one with the boot partition?

The C: drive (the BCD drive was D:) did and does have the boot attribute in diskmgmt.msc, and it stores the operating system, so that should be the case.
The only reason I can think of for it being on D: is me originally installing it there because of not having an SSD. But I don't think that's what happened - I fairly distinctly remember running Ubuntu MATE on it as a temporary measure while waiting to get an SSD, and not Windows. It was several years ago, though, so I might have the timeline wrong.
Anyway, I managed to (I think) fix it by using the command prompt on an install CD and doing some diskpart witchcraft, so it's probably beside the point.

Finally, Flickr is Yahoo!-free, but it is unlikely that I will rejoin until I bring my current personal issues under control. The archive is going to have to wait.

So I know for a fact I'm going to be having a job beyond my seasonal this time, so I'm thinking of building myself a new computer now. My budget is between like $1,500 and $2,000

What do you think is the best graphics card for the price? I have a 1060 so I don't absolutely need a new one at all, and I could just transfer this over to a new computer and save myself a good chunk of money, but around the maybe $500 price range, what do you think I could get?

Corrian wrote:What do you think is the best graphics card for the price? I have a 1060 so I don't absolutely need a new one at all, and I could just transfer this over to a new computer and save myself a good chunk of money, but around the maybe $500 price range, what do you think I could get?

1060 is okay, but if you are interested in upgrading you could get a RTX 2070 in the $500 range, dropping down to $400 you could get a RTX 2060. You can also sometimes find GTX 1080's (not 1080 TI) which is still a good card at about that price as well right now.

Tekania wrote:

Corrian wrote:What do you think is the best graphics card for the price? I have a 1060 so I don't absolutely need a new one at all, and I could just transfer this over to a new computer and save myself a good chunk of money, but around the maybe $500 price range, what do you think I could get?

1060 is okay, but if you are interested in upgrading you could get a RTX 2070 in the $500 range, dropping down to $400 you could get a RTX 2060. You can also sometimes find GTX 1080's (not 1080 TI) which is still a good card at about that price as well right now.

Wow, I didn't expect the 1080 to be that low. I was eyeing the RTX 2070 as well, since I noticed it was in that price range.

I might go for the RTX 2070 unless anyone else has any reason why I shouldn't. And then I can give my 1060 to my sister, who cares less about fancy stuff.

How beneficial is it to have a triple fan graphics card vs a double fan graphics card? Price changes like $80 between that.

Corrian wrote:

Tekania wrote:
1060 is okay, but if you are interested in upgrading you could get a RTX 2070 in the $500 range, dropping down to $400 you could get a RTX 2060. You can also sometimes find GTX 1080's (not 1080 TI) which is still a good card at about that price as well right now.

Wow, I didn't expect the 1080 to be that low. I was eyeing the RTX 2070 as well, since I noticed it was in that price range.

I might go for the RTX 2070 unless anyone else has any reason why I shouldn't. And then I can give my 1060 to my sister, who cares less about fancy stuff.

>tfw a 1060 is fancy stuff compared to my hardware

Corrian wrote:

Tekania wrote:
1060 is okay, but if you are interested in upgrading you could get a RTX 2070 in the $500 range, dropping down to $400 you could get a RTX 2060. You can also sometimes find GTX 1080's (not 1080 TI) which is still a good card at about that price as well right now.

Wow, I didn't expect the 1080 to be that low. I was eyeing the RTX 2070 as well, since I noticed it was in that price range.

I might go for the RTX 2070 unless anyone else has any reason why I shouldn't. And then I can give my 1060 to my sister, who cares less about fancy stuff.

Yeah, not all 1080TI's can be gotten for that price, but some can.

Corrian wrote:How beneficial is it to have a triple fan graphics card vs a double fan graphics card? Price changes like $80 between that.

Depends on manufacture. At minimum the cards run a bit cooler so you can get boost speeds for longer. Some manufacturers (such as EVGA) the triple fan cards tend to have higher factory overclocks.

Cekoviu wrote:

Corrian wrote:Wow, I didn't expect the 1080 to be that low. I was eyeing the RTX 2070 as well, since I noticed it was in that price range.

I might go for the RTX 2070 unless anyone else has any reason why I shouldn't. And then I can give my 1060 to my sister, who cares less about fancy stuff.

>tfw a 1060 is fancy stuff compared to my hardware

Oh, trust me, that's like the nicest thing in my computer for one, and for two, it was a major upgrade over the shit I had before.

Supreme Pwnage wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:Press (x) to doubt. The Linux kernel diverges so hard from Microsoft's intentions as a company that to fork it into suiting their goals would be a) more work than fixing Windows and b) fucking it up exactly as much as the NT kernel.
Microsoft will absolutely not commit suicide as a company and just give up on making operating systems, either, so as much as the Linux fanatics may want that to happen, it won't.

I didn't say they would quit making operating systems, I said they would stop developing the NT kernel. In 2016, MS paid 500k to get on the Linux foundation and has consistently committed a lot of code to the kernel for years. Also, all code in the Linux kernel is required to be GPL-2 compatible, well within the bounds of what MS does as the GPL-2 is quite permissive. Also, more work than fixing Windows? Nothing short of a complete kernel rewrite a la OS X could save the pile of shit that is modern Windows.

The problem isn't NT. Windows's primary problems derive from NTFS and Win32.

They have twice tried to replace Win32 completely - first with .NET in Longhorn, then with UWP in Windows 10. The former died due to problems with legacy software support and eventually was turned into just a Win32 wrapper. The latter died primarily due to widespread consumer rejection of the platform due to its DRM-ladden and anti-cross-platform nature. My prediction is that their continued focus on providing a native-esque Unix runtime experience in modern builds of Windows 10 is the most likely to succeed attempt at deprecating Win32 so far.

As for NTFS, it's basically impossible to address problems with it because so much legacy software relies upon its bad behavior. Windows cannot adopt breaking changes because the list of enterprise software that needs to run on Windows is almost limitless.

Microsoft is almost certain to eventually discontinue active development of the win32/NTFS/NT kernel ecosystem in favor of a Hyper-V based container host similar to Fedora CoreOS capable of running an older-yet-enterprise-safe Windows system as well as a Linux-based consumer focused system. The timeline of that happening is unclear, but probably very long - MS seems to be trying to adopt Rust more and more nowadays, and Rust just simply isn't mature enough to write an OS in that you expect 1 billion users of.

There is apparently some kind of issue with the crucial-to-everything package zlib1g on my Ubuntu installation. I need both the amd64 (architecture) and i386 (for support) versions, but the i386 version is not installed for some reason and apt really dislikes this. Results for sudo apt policy zlib1g zlib1g:i386After reading this, I thought "oh, just install the i386 version, that won't harm my system"... Results from aptitude when trying to do that (specific packages removed for brevity):So... yeah. All my 64-bit software is fine without having the i386 library, it's just that Steam needs 32-bit libraries to function and some of those rely on zlib1g:i386. Should I just reinstall the operating system or is there something I can do to fix this clusterfuck?

Cekoviu wrote:There is apparently some kind of issue with the crucial-to-everything package zlib1g on my Ubuntu installation. I need both the amd64 (architecture) and i386 (for support) versions, but the i386 version is not installed for some reason and apt really dislikes this. Results for sudo apt policy zlib1g zlib1g:i386

Code: Select all

zlib1g:
  Installed: 1:1.2.11.dfsg-1
  Candidate: 1:1.2.11.dfsg-1
  Version table:
 *** 1:1.2.11.dfsg-1 100
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
     1:1.2.11.dfsg-0ubuntu2 500
        500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu bionic/main amd64 Packages
zlib1g:i386:
  Installed: (none)
  Candidate: 1:1.2.11.dfsg-0ubuntu2
  Version table:
     1:1.2.11.dfsg-0ubuntu2 500
        500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu bionic/main i386 Packages

After reading this, I thought "oh, just install the i386 version, that won't harm my system"... Results from aptitude when trying to do that (specific packages removed for brevity):

Code: Select all

sudo apt install zlib1g:i386
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree       
Reading state information... Done
The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required:
{several hundred packages}
Use 'sudo apt autoremove' to remove them.
The following packages will be REMOVED:
{around a thousand packages of varying importance}
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  zlib1g:i386
WARNING: The following essential packages will be removed.
This should NOT be done unless you know exactly what you are doing!
  apt adduser (due to apt) gpgv (due to apt) libapt-pkg5.0 (due to apt)
  libgnutls30 (due to apt) dash dpkg (due to dash) zlib1g (due to dpkg) grep
  install-info (due to grep) gzip init systemd-sysv (due to init)
  init-system-helpers (due to init) perl-base (due to init-system-helpers)
  login libpam0g (due to login) libpam-runtime (due to login)
  libpam-modules (due to login) mount util-linux (due to mount) sysvinit-utils
0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 1576 to remove and 0 not upgraded.


So... yeah. All my 64-bit software is fine without having the i386 library, it's just that Steam needs 32-bit libraries to function and some of those rely on zlib1g:i386. Should I just reinstall the operating system or is there something I can do to fix this clusterfuck?

multiarch?

Tekania wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:There is apparently some kind of issue with the crucial-to-everything package zlib1g on my Ubuntu installation. I need both the amd64 (architecture) and i386 (for support) versions, but the i386 version is not installed for some reason and apt really dislikes this. Results for sudo apt policy zlib1g zlib1g:i386

Code: Select all

zlib1g:
  Installed: 1:1.2.11.dfsg-1
  Candidate: 1:1.2.11.dfsg-1
  Version table:
 *** 1:1.2.11.dfsg-1 100
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
     1:1.2.11.dfsg-0ubuntu2 500
        500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu bionic/main amd64 Packages
zlib1g:i386:
  Installed: (none)
  Candidate: 1:1.2.11.dfsg-0ubuntu2
  Version table:
     1:1.2.11.dfsg-0ubuntu2 500
        500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu bionic/main i386 Packages

After reading this, I thought "oh, just install the i386 version, that won't harm my system"... Results from aptitude when trying to do that (specific packages removed for brevity):

Code: Select all

sudo apt install zlib1g:i386
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree       
Reading state information... Done
The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required:
{several hundred packages}
Use 'sudo apt autoremove' to remove them.
The following packages will be REMOVED:
{around a thousand packages of varying importance}
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  zlib1g:i386
WARNING: The following essential packages will be removed.
This should NOT be done unless you know exactly what you are doing!
  apt adduser (due to apt) gpgv (due to apt) libapt-pkg5.0 (due to apt)
  libgnutls30 (due to apt) dash dpkg (due to dash) zlib1g (due to dpkg) grep
  install-info (due to grep) gzip init systemd-sysv (due to init)
  init-system-helpers (due to init) perl-base (due to init-system-helpers)
  login libpam0g (due to login) libpam-runtime (due to login)
  libpam-modules (due to login) mount util-linux (due to mount) sysvinit-utils
0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 1576 to remove and 0 not upgraded.


So... yeah. All my 64-bit software is fine without having the i386 library, it's just that Steam needs 32-bit libraries to function and some of those rely on zlib1g:i386. Should I just reinstall the operating system or is there something I can do to fix this clusterfuck?

multiarch?

Enabled.

Cekoviu wrote:

Tekania wrote:
multiarch?

Enabled.

Code: Select all

user@ubuntud:~$ dpkg --print-architecture
amd64
user@ubuntud:~$ dpkg --print-foreign-architectures
i386

That sad thing is when I've looked into this you are not the only one with the issue, and some people have reported getting it again even after fresh installing. I imagine this may be a Canonical fuckup as far as dependencies. I don't seem to be any issue running steam under my Ubuntu install, and based upon this I don't think I'm keen to uninstalling it and trying it out a reinstall.

Tekania wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:Enabled.

Code: Select all

user@ubuntud:~$ dpkg --print-architecture
amd64
user@ubuntud:~$ dpkg --print-foreign-architectures
i386

That sad thing is when I've looked into this you are not the only one with the issue, and some people have reported getting it again even after fresh installing. I imagine this may be a Canonical fuckup as far as dependencies. I don't seem to be any issue running steam under my Ubuntu install, and based upon this I don't think I'm keen to uninstalling it and trying it out a reinstall.

I read through a bunch of those issues, yeah. It's certainly possible that Canonical fucked up - it definitely isn't the first time they have. I'm running 18.04 right now, but I could try upgrading to 19.04 and see if that helps.

edit: If somebody from the future finds this and needs to know how I fixed it, I was indeed able to resolve this issue by upgrading the system to 19.04. That caused further problems, but this particular problem was resolved.

Ubuntu 17.10 switched to Wayland, but made a U-turn back to X.Org with 18.04 LTS, because Wayland didn't play well with sharing, remote desktop, and if I recall correctly, apt-get.

Minoa wrote:Ubuntu 17.10 switched to Wayland, but made a U-turn back to X.Org with 18.04 LTS, because Wayland didn't play well with sharing, remote desktop, and if I recall correctly, apt-get.

Doesn't surprise me, Wayland is not very good software.

EDIT: Although I have heard recently that Canonical has transitioned Mir development to be a Wayland library similar to wlroots. Time will tell if that can save the ecosystem.

Source: https://www.howtogeek.com/434851/four-y ... rovements/

Two improvements I want to see before considering the Pro version: no ads and automatic app downloads, and no telemetry beyond the bare minimum needed for operating system updates.