okanat

I think TDF tries to push a wrong narrative here for their lack of engineering and funding.

Competitive products like Google Docs, WPS or Euro Office solve proprietary file format problem very nicely. Microsoft themselves had to solve that exact problem for Lotus 1-2-3.

Proprietary file formats are an industry standard. It is the lowest resistance way to deliver features and you cannot blame your competitor to have more features or hidden features in their formats. ALL strongly competitive software for the desktop workstations have proprietary formats: Autodesk, Altium, Adobe, Corel, Apple. All of them serialize their featureset on their own format since it is the easiest to do. FOSS won't get the marketshare pie by complaining about it.

LibreOffice has to provide feature parity before complaining here and TDF needs to find the funding source to hire the engineers to achieve that. They need to have convincing arguments and consistently delivered features. Otherwise it will not get adopted.

Microsoft hasn't actually selling their product on the premise of proprietary file format support. They sell it with the promise of total platform integration for every single software an office needs. You not only get an office suite but IT Admin tooling integrates with the computers and the office suite, e-mail management, SSO and licensing management software and Cloud storage all in once.

To compete with the Microsoft (or Google Workspace) you need to be selling all of that at a very competitive price. Otherwise all private companies and many government departments will continue to choose Microsoft. If a change is wanted in the government, governments need to start investing Microsoft levels of money in hiring engineers.

Indeed. My primary issue is requiring a Google or Apple blessed phone for the protocol that is supposed to replace the American alternative with the EU one. If they push strongly the American duopoly, I'd rather use the American monopoly that gives me the better ergonomics and less friction. Yes I do get a TOTP request every now and then, but I have options like authenticator apps, SMSes, passkeys with Paypal. With Wero that's more limited.

I simply do not believe that EU banks will actually invest in a truly independent system with its own trust network. Majority of the banks complain and block you in Germany, when you have a unGoogled phone. It is simply not in the culture of Germany to make risky investments, especially banks. They always choose the options that milk normal consumers. Then EU comes and regulates them into submission. We only got guaranteed free instant SEPA transfers in 2025, while it has been possible for decades. So I am more optimistic for ECB's digital Euro as a consumer than Wero.

In term of implementation, WeRo looks more like a response to mobile payments like WhatApp, WeChat, Alipay, ... than a response a provider like PayPal.

Wero is usually marketed as the alternative to PayPal: https://www.ndr.de/ratgeber/verbraucher/Paypal-Alternative-W... and I didn't know Whatsapp supported payments. I have never seen such an option.

You can use QRCode (Direct SEPA).

If they fixed the mobile phone problem and provided a way that's functionally equivalent to Paypal usernames, I'm in for person-to-person transfers.

Supporting merchants flow to pay is different from prioritizing their needs so I'm unsure where you're going from there. It's also completely separated from Person-to-Person payments. PayPal supports Person-To-Merchant and I wouldn't say they are great for merchant.

Indeed. I may have rephrased my sentence there. I don't trust payment providers that significantly prioritize the needs of merchants over persons. Yes Paypal may suck for the merchants, but its buyer protection is one of the significant reasons that I keep using Paypal for online payments. I do buy stuff from independent sellers in Germany and other EU countries and sometimes they behave less than ideal. Paypal keeps things fairer for the consumer. If Wero is targetting this market, they need to be competing with Paypal on equal footing.

I do have quite stringent non-tracking settings enabled in my browsers, and I do get occasional captcha or TOTP request.However, I never got completely denied a login with PayPal.

Many banks are equally employing the same "guessing whether it is you" techniques with their web UIs. Moreover many of them require Google Play Integrity when a phone is the TOTP. Definitely different ergonomics though.

I don't get why you pointed out that, to be honest. I'm not a merchant. I am a consumer.

As a consumer I would like to avoid Master Card / Visa as much as possible and also giving numbers out as much as possible. Paypal allows that and I don't need to use my phone to approve payments. Moreover payment systems that prioritize the needs of merchants usually are horrible for consumers. If Wero becomes such a platform, I will avoid it.

Paying with Paypal is as easy as logging in. With Wero/iDeal you always need a phone or a code. People trust PayPal more too.

Not because agents are worse at coding that[sic] humans.

And then the whole article shows tangible reasons where the agents are truly worse at code than humans. Code never is just the text. If intelligence you have is not truly general, you cannot expect things like clarifying wider context, hierarchically ordering knowledge based on criteria and producing consistent results despite transfer learning and retraining.

And no, we are not even close to the multimodal capabilities of human brain to hierarchy encode and reproduce knowledge. Otherwise the correct "reasonable" economic action would be genociding all humans, and I'm pretty sure that this is what billionaires effectively want out of AI.

If you're also happy getting paid for it, then the company will just stop paying you. If you rely on such income to have a visa, you'll 100% sure to accept that you're forced into this and you will give up coding, or else.

That's the last thing in the list and the looping phase of catch-22. Without providing the other earlier items, it simply doesn't make sense to make Windows a Linux distro. NT is still the better solution. Unless Linux kernel becomes very friendly to closed source drivers and gets better isolation and stable APIs, no consumer company will ever invest in Linux.

Providing a closed-source friendly ecosystem for both the OS and the application layer is what Google did for early Android and that's why it caught on.

The advantages of Win32 and the filesystem structure on top of NT's technical advantages guarantees Microsoft's monopoly will go unchallenged for consumer devices. Linux has to become more like NT, not NT become Linux for success in consumer space. Linux will never become more like NT, so it will never get a stronghold.

The question for Linux (or any kernel / system layer) is very simple: If an OEM can hire developers who will independently play a mediator role under an NDA, creating stable kernel internal APIs that live more than 5 years, making sure the kernel is ready before launch without leaking any hardware specifics, Linux is a viable platform for mass-scale consumer hardware. If not, it isn't. Linux fails on all stages of that.

Processor's software becomes no different than a switch, a transfer medium in the network when you use the smartcard capabilities of the EU ID card. Digital signatures and cryptography happens purely inside the RFID/smartcard chip of the card.

This is how payments work for chip-and-pin system of EMV and login and signing systems of many businesses in the EU already. There is no need for third party attestation already.

They do with DST.

Some architecture and some implementation details and sometimes purely economic reality:

1. NT is a hybrid kernel. Windows runs many drivers in userspace, if not in a limited kernel environment. This includes network drivers and GPU drivers. It can recover from crashes more gracefully than Linux and BSD kernels. Linux has similar drivers for specific use cases like FUSE, however, they are not as performant as NT.

2. NT has always been designed to drive a GUI-driven OS. So it has better default tunings than a vanilla Linux kernel to operate and stay reactive under memory pressure. When your system is under pressure you'd lose mouse movement on Linux, on NT this is rare. It is not impossible to do this under Linux, however, not many companies (except maybe Android manufacturers and Google/ChromeOS) actually invest in this.

3. NT provides a mostly stable API and ABI for drivers. It is not as strong as Win32 guarantees, however it retained mostly the same driver infrastructure since Vista. Many Win7 or Win8 drivers continue to work under Win11.

4. Bundled drivers for consumer systems in NT are often better quality. This could be the side effect of stable ABI. Unlike Linux, significant refactors changing big parts of the driver APIs are rare. I think this reflects in the quality of drivers like USB Host drivers. I deal with embedded Linux systems (x86, RPi), there is always some "rmmod and modprobe to fix USB" script somewhere in a deployed Linux embedded system. I have never seen anything similar in Windows Kiosk setups (TBH I have seen a lot of reinit of COM drivers but it is often manufacturer's faulty implementation).

5. There is simply more money invested to make consumer drivers work on NT. Linux is often an afterthought for many consumer device manufacturers. There is still not enough buy-in. Mainline Linux kernel team, being inferior marketshare-wise, requests more buy-in and more collaboration from device manufacturers. This works for servers since there is pressure from end customers who want to retain UNIX-like environments. Normal consumers cannot exert the same amount of pressure. Microsoft provides subsystems, APIs and ABIs to write the drivers to OEMs, often consulting the first manufacturers of a certain new device type and making compromises for them. Linux on the other hand, requires competitors to collaborate and create the subsystems and APIs. Competitor players themselves have to agree with the developers of their competitors to create a subsystem. On a capitalist economy competitors do not want to collaborate unless it significantly increases market size for everyone. Consumer electronics have very thin margins. They do not scale well with increased effort required by Linux. Only select few big tech or certain old-school consultancies send the significant system patches.

Macbook Neos are limited by whatever extra A-chips Apple has. They are okay for very simple office tasks. If you need something like Intel Core5 level performance though, PCs are still cheaper than equivalent M-series Apple chips. If they have both style users, it is cheaper to get a bulk discount from Lenovo/Dell/HP than splitting your users into camps. It is easier to administer too.

Businesses with volume licensing agreements and Kiosk manufacturers can get the licenses pretty easy. Then can even negotiate a lower cost per device.

NT is a better kernel for consumer systems compared to Linux unlike first generation Edge which was a worse browser compared to Chrome.

They do still force the volume licensors with their bullshit. However IT admins are used to dealing with Microsoft's bullshit and they can find ways to automate de-enshitification.

TBH many volume licensors do actually want to use Windows as a service and just pay a negotiated fee per license.

Not so good at reading comprehension, are we?

Forget about web development. All profession-specific software except web and app programming still runs best on Windows. Engineering, simulation, city planning, accounting, complex management, supply chain optimization, media production, statistics. If you're getting paid for some output where computers play an extra-boost tool role, simply being a means to the job, the software you'd use will be on Windows.

If a piece of software is specialized enough that people maintain it for decades, if it has nice detailed and complicated GUIs to handle complex tasks, it will be on Windows. It will rely on Windows' stable API. Those software goes back to 80s and 90s. They have organically grown. Linux kernel requires thousands of developers to keep alive. Linux kernel is much simpler than profession-specific software. Windows Stable ABI allows much fewer people (low 100s) to maintain much more complex software than the kernel.

Even without the stable ABI, Linux is hostile to the closed source software unless that software is served via a TCP socket.

Web can challenge this with Web Assembly and some combination of edge / datacenter computing now. Still quite the way out for demanding things like local simulation and CAD/CAM. There should also be strong economic reasons to throw actually trillions (unlike AI and other SV bullshit balloons) worth of software and entire systems out, not just to spite MS.

Yeah sorry I was using the wrong page and outdated numbers from the infographic I have saved. Here is the picture my numbers came from: https://www.allianz-pro-schiene.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/1...

No such contempt has one against another in Western culture as much as politicians have against their constituents, and trendsetter companies against the cultural heritage they helped to create.

I am a daily user of S-Bahn. I know 2 alternative routes from every single station from home to work. I even started to memorize their departure times. DB prepares you for the worst.

Look at how much Switzerland spends per capita vs Germany. €477 vs €115. And Swiss kept their infrastructure well unlike Germans.

source: https://www.allianz-pro-schiene.de/themen/infrastruktur/inve...

They need to spend at least 3x that and they need to bring redundant workforce to fix Germany. It is completely broken now.

I would get out and look for a hotel before all of them get sold out. Probably tomorrow too.

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be incompetence at this point.

Your target build environment often differs significantly from your server environment, so you end up needing a different toolchain and all of the problems that come with cross-compilation anyway. The toolchain and ABI settings that produce small, battery or instruction cache efficient are usually not you want on servers.

The problems building with Linux and GNU environments exist because they were terribly designed with assumptions like

- You're building on the same native system as GNU and Linux packages, you install them globally in the same places that servers and desktops use

- Your C, C++ compiler and entire toolchain and other binary utilities with the kernel is a one single unit that you can only change one part at a time

- You use the same up to date headers with glibc, gcc and Linux kernel

- You're building software in the same universe of all the other packages, especially gcc libraries (libgcc_s, libstdc++), glibc (especially bad since ld-linux.so is part of it)

- The build system only uses standard paths

The reason Yocto is so complicated is that developing in a Linux environment actually sucks when you're not writing web-oriented or server / VM software. Yocto fixes it. It introduces a good set of abstractions that work around terrible design decisions that were made in overall Linux ecosystem. There are a lot because the OS design is fundamentally broken, especially with C-based toolchains which is 99.999% of the ecosystem. Current C toolchains including MSVC strongly ties OS with the C's internal types and bad decisions of 70s.

As always all articles whose title asks a question are answered with NO, 99% time. By taking away the cross-compiling abilities and the workarounds doesn't fix the brokenness of Linux and overall FOSS ecosystem.

If you're looking for how a better embedded environment looks like, look at Rust toolchains. For Linux take a look at musl-libc based ones (you 100% need a systemd distro to get away from nss complexities that musl introduces). Or even better take a look at relibc. There are barely any assumptions about the target filesystem and tooling in Rust toolchains, unlike C/C++/Make toolchains. There is redox OS but it is still in slow development and they stuck with Make, which I think was a bad decision. Android uses its own build tooling but cannot run away from C/C++ tooling unless Google revives Fuschia.

Well you'll end up blocking all car ownership. Markets do not care about individuals.

You're proving the previous commenter's point. VW doesn't want liability. They do not care about "security" just liability.

When they leave the "security" to the platform they can blame them in a lawsuit.

I'm aware. However, it is quite possible that they will only sell Graphene phones in certain countries considering their past behavior.

Because average people are not just zealot crazies. Compromises and spectrums exist.

AOSP is still the best Linux-based environment for consumer use case from many aspects. It handles hardware better than GNU-based desktops, it is more secure, it supports things like HiDPI screens better and it has a stable API to write applications against and many people and organizations did so (you can still use Android 4 apps).

AOSP has strong Google influence but it is possible to use it without feeding data to Google.