folekaule

My guess is not just traditional developers, but anyone doing any amount of coding, like data scientists, business analysts, etc.

Especially if they're using AI, those tools work better on Linux, or as is the case most places, wsl2 inside Windows.

I believe Windows is kept because of the Office tools. However, Windows needs 12 layers of security tools that constantly get in your way, so the path of least resistance is to just stay in your wsl2 sandbox.

The knee jerk reaction to this from enterprise IT is often to restrict access to WSL. This solves the problem, but creates disgruntled users who will continue to try and work around it.

What they should consider, in my opinion, is giving these people real Linux workstations that can be enrolled in group policies, SSO, and all that good stuff. Commercial vendors of Linux will support these use cases.

Some places roll out Macs, which work almost as well, but the hardware is more expensive. Hardware and commercial software support may be better, though, I don't know.

I think either is a superior alternative to Windows.

You make some good points, but you're making the same mistake you're accusing your audience of making: you don't understand why people are on the platform they are on.

I can't speak for everyone, so I'll just speak for myself: I'm not on Lemmy and Mastodon because I want them to become the next Facebook--even if it were some kind of libre utopia free of commercial interests.

I'm here because these weirdos are my weirdos and they like the same weird things I like. It's a small enough sandbox that I can still recognize people here and there. These people have similar interests to me, and they post long, insightful rants about stuff that my family and other friends would not care about. The network effect is working in my favor.

The fediverse community feels more like home to me than the big social platforms. This feels more like it's my community. If Lemmy gets as big as Reddit, I'll probably go somewhere else.

I don't use Linux because I want it to dominate the world. I don't care if others use Linux or not. I use Linux because my computer finally feels like it's mine again. I do what I want with it and I don't have to worry about AI running or spying happening on it without my knowledge. As a bonus, it runs smoother.

The tradeoff is there are a few rough edges, and I have to learn some new things. But I enjoy learning. Lots of people don't enjoy having to learn new things to just veg out with IG or YouTube. I get that. So, then don't. Veg out with Windows, if that's your thing. We can all do our own thing at the same time.

Choice is a good thing. Small communites are good. Decentralized is good because then big bullies can't come in and take your community away. Small size and fragmentation are features, not bugs.

If Taylor Swift wants to set up her own Mastodon instance, she can. If she wants to cross-post between that and X, she can. I won't be seeking out her content and it will be trivial for me to stay in my bubble without Taylor algorithmically popping up inside of it like she is on IG, FB, and X.

Merriam-Webster says this:

"When cooking over a gas stove, avoid wearing loose, (flammable/inflammable) clothing that could catch fire easily." Which word is correct: flammable or inflammable?

It's a trick question. Both flammable and inflammable are correct, as they both mean "capable of being easily ignited and of burning quickly." This makes no sense to the Modern English speaker. In English, we think of in- as a prefix that means "not": inactive means "not active," inconclusive means "not conclusive," inconsiderate means "not considerate." Therefore, inflammable should mean "not flammable."

[...]

What do you do? If you want to keep things crystal clear, choose flammable when you are referring to something that catches fire and burns easily, and use the relatively recent nonflammable when referring to something that doesn't catch fire and burn easily. Inflammable is just likely to enflame confusion.

Personally I use "inflammable", but if I were writing warning posters I would have to reconsider that.

"flammable" actually has an interesting story:

Since 1980s use of the word, especially in safety warnings, has been sometimes discouraged lest it be misunderstood as "non-flammable" through confusion of the two prefixes in-.

Ref: inflammable on Etymonline

This already happens with TVs and streaming sticks.

Your comment led me down a bit of a rabbit hole and I found this on Wikipedia:

When writing in languages such as Danish and Norwegian, where the empty set character may be confused with the alphabetic letter Ø (as when using the symbol in linguistics), the Unicode character U+29B0 ⦰ REVERSED EMPTY SET may be used instead.

It also mentions what you are alluding to:

In the past, "0" (the numeral zero) was occasionally used as a symbol for the empty set, but this is now considered to be an improper use of notation.

And, as a programmer, don't get me started on nulls...or undefined...or truthyness.

As a Norwegian, I find it annoying that they "stole" Ø for that purpose. I put a backslash through my zeros instead, so it looks different. I usually pick a coding font with dotted zeros for the same reason.

I write plain text. I just happen to format it like markdown.

Yeah I'm not holding my breath. It will be around for a long time.

A couple of things I could see changing that would be a) Microsoft in financial trouble, b) AI both making it harder to keep up with security bugs, and making it easier to migrate away from legacy systems.

The chances of .net framework being among the first to go is slim though.

Good call. I'm getting mired in the k8s side right now and we have dozens of small web apps that need upgraded and a couple beefier framework apps that need essentially rewritten. Unfortunately I can't escape lol.

We an ecosystem I overall like .net core and I agree it will stick around. I just can't wait to get off IIS and into Linux even if that means complicating things with kubernetes.

Modern. Net is portable and fast, yes. But .NET framework is (mostly) not portable and it's tied to the version of Windows is on. We'll see when Microsoft decides to EOL it but so far it has not been announced. It's not getting more than security updates now, as far as I know.

We're converting everything we can (mostly web apps) to modern .Net (formerly core) so it can run on Linux. I may be stuck on Windows at work for the office apps, but my code runs on Linux.