VM machines are not simple

Virtual machine machines might not be simple, but virtual machines can be.

I think the grandparent has confused retail copies of Office 2013 with an Office 365 subscription. The latter requires an account (and I'm not sure how you'd facilitate a subscription without one).

I'm trialling Office 365 and I've seen the option to de-activate licenses. That was my first thought when I saw this story. But the article seems to suggest it's a different problem:

Of course, Microsoft has a solution to this in the form of Office 365. Instead of buying a retail copy tied to a single machine, you could instead subscribe to Office 365, which is tied to the user not the hardware, and can be used across 5 PCs or 4 Macs at any one time. But subscriptions aren’t for everyone, and eventually you end up paying more for the software.

Wait, what?

EDIT: Never realised I could do this.

I agree. I've noticed that /. summaries are getting less and less self-contained.

I think that this was the worst one in recent memory, with "WAF" going unexplained.

This one was also particularly bad.

Is the DRM stuff still applicable to the LGPL?

Parts of VLC are under LGPL now.

It sounds like you have more experience than myself, but after reading the below article I was of the opinion that C++ in a kernel is not a good idea right now.

C++ for Kernel Mode Drivers: Pros and Cons

The advice seems somewhat relevant for platforms other than Windows.

I think you've misread the comment, the GP isn't saying that the Raspberry Pi lacks HDMI.

My biggest usability gripe is the monochromatic icons. This does nothing to address that, there's an extension available that grafts in the icons on top of the VS2012 binaries but I can only imagine the fragility of that, across updates and hotfixes and the like.

I agree with this as well. I've gotten used to VS2012 but I fired up VS2010 the other day and did a double take when I saw colour again and menus without all caps (yes, I know about the registry change). For me the metro interface on Windows 8 isn't too bad, but applying it to an application as complex as Visual Studio is silly. I hope Microsoft uses Sinofsky's departure as an opportunity to refocus on traditional desktop applications so that desktop apps can complement the tablet ones.

Yes.

I went to purchase Diablo III from Blizzard's online store, and after signing in to my Australian (or SEA or whatever region) battle.net account the price went from US$Price to AU$(Price+20).

I tried to play devils advocate on this one, and what I came up with is that bandwidth and rackspace in Australia are much more expensive than other parts of the world.

But I get the feeling Blizzard don't have battle.net servers in Australia, and since most of their content delivery comes through Bittorrent (and who cares if they "seed" it themselves from the US with cheap bandwidth or AU), so I don't know why it costs so much more.

I hope "no direct technical power" means what I think it means: that the court sees that there's no reasonable technical to way to police BitTorrent.

I've been using Windows 8 as my primary desktop operating system for the past few weeks. You can pretty much avoid Metro after logging in, just hit WINKEY + D to take yourself to the desktop. From there it's pretty much Windows 7 with better multi-monitor support.

There's a handful of areas where it could be more polished, but you can't complain about them in the context (preview release).

You can't avoid seeing Metro entirely, but it's not something you have to work with. In Windows 7, if I have to launch something that's not pinned to my taskbar my workflow is WINKEY + Type the program name + ENTER. Windows 8 preserves this workflow. You'll be typing the program name into a Metro search bar, but at the end of the day the same program starts up on the Windows 8 desktop.

The application was originally written in 1993 and there's been various levels of pragmatism applied to new development and maintenance between then and now. There are "proper" ways of manipulating data in an RDBMS invariant manner, but the application was never designed for it.

As it stands we're looking to get rid of support for JET and use SQL Server. For our application SQL Server does everything we want it to, therefore interoperability with other database platforms isn't a high priority.

Perhaps when we've rewound our application to only support the one provider and get rid of all the JET crud (no pun intended) we'll more easily be able to add an abstraction layer.