Or I can just open multiple SSH sessions and not have to rely on Microsoft at all. I'm sorry, it's clear they have a substandard product, and if you're using this Ubuntu-on-Windows, by this bug alone, you're using an inferior technology. I have no idea what your complaints about drivers are about, since I haven't any of the issues you claim. My guess is you're just another MS shill, but now that the official message is "Ubuntu is good so long is it is running under Windows", your messaging has to adjust.
They don't have DNS where you work?
Pretty good shape for what? I can download Ubuntu and throw it on a box for, well, the cost of the machine (and I've got several lying around). If I want to move data around I've got everything from Samba to ssh copying, and even NFS. What is it exactly that running Ubuntu under Windows grants me? As it stands, at the moment, I'd be pretty buggered with this update. Microsoft's QA on their own products has gone down the crapper, why would I want the same level of incompetence responsible for my BASH session?
In the long term Microsoft is fearful that the whole computing world is shifting beneath their feet, and they need to try to stay relevant. I'm sure there some of the old the old Triple-E evilness here, but in reality they're watching the PC fading as a platform (no, it won't die quickly, but it is doomed), so trying to get more developers to use their platform, even if it means they're running a fucking BASH shell and developing with vi is better than them not using a Microsoft product at all.
For myself, I can't see any reason to use this Ubuntu-on-Windows. I have Linux test systems and I have Windows test systems. I can move data between them easily and don't have to deal with the idiosyncrasies of one fucking up the other when one is running under the other. I certainly no development advantage when I can run Linux for free.
If your companies top priority is to keep data secure, they how/why did you get hacked. They always say that, but clearly that is not the Top Priority
I see you're doing your part by not using dangerous apostrophes where they are needed!
Implicit in any company's statement that security is their top priority is the large bundle of compromises that don't go away whether or not that is your top priority. They could make the data perfectly secure by disconnecting the servers and putting them in a bank vault. They could make sure the data can't be breached by simply destroying all of it. See?
Security can be your Top Priority, but it has to be done in the context of things like still making it available to users across the internet. Doing it while not going bankrupt. Making the service competitively priced so that it can actually be afforded and put to work.
They could have said that the system could only be used on equipment they ship to their clients, connected to the back end through a hardware-based dedicated VPN with biometrics, dongles, and constant nagging by three-factor comms surrounding every time someone hits the enter key
They may very well put security at a higher priority than chipping away at a long list of UX updates, performance under load, documentation, multi-language support, and a thousand other things. Doesn't mean that doing so means they'll be perfect in their security results. Ever run a business like that? No? Give it a whirl. Make security your top priority, and then start paying attention to what that decision means in real life - including in your ability to get and retain customers during that balancing act.
Who knows what jobs will be available in twenty years, between AI and offshoring? Coding doesn't look like a sure thing at all.
If you are going to focus on a skill, focus on ones that serve in that kind of future environment: being able to pick up on human context and nuance; to decode, no just the literal level of communication, but implicit levels of communication. Because even if AI and foreigners take our coding jobs, somebody is going to have to lay out specifications, and that take imagination and subtlety.
And you know what would be really, really good for developing those kinds of skills? Reading and discussing books.
Well, you could allow ULA to have an (also ultimately government subsidized) monopoly. See if that saves you money.
yes India has terrible controls on their antibiotic use, but remember that US farmers are using large amounts of antibiotics too keep their overcrowded livestock from dying too soon.
India is a country with a median annual income of $616. With 1.2 billion people, well, a lot of things like providing medical care are going to be tough. We're headed that way too. While per capita GDP growth has recovered from the Great Recession, median income has declined.
Whatever, evolution is a lie. God made new kinds of viruses to punish the non beliebers.
You know, even if there weren't real people who actually think this way this comment still wouldn't be funny.
The problem is the 26 antibiotics all work the same way. Given that the gene in question encodes an enzyme which blocks that process, you don't have to administer all 26 to know that none of them will work.
All I'm seeing right now is Congress is going to start moving to claw back the Presidency's legislatively enabled executive powers. There's already some movement to strip the Executive of creating tariffs https://www.markettamer.com/bl... so I imagine one legacy of Trump may be a much weaker presidency for years to come.
Just an FYI, many Indians ARE Muslims.
It's *Herr Trump* get it right.
The fallacy to that is the initial costs are huge and the entire project is risky. No company in their right minds wants it no matter how much there is an overall economic argument for it. Only government can take these kinds of risks.
Money can't buy love, but it improves your bargaining position. -- Christopher Marlowe