Maybe now's the time to abandon the W3C - Maybe we can encourage the EFF to create a "Free Web Consortium." Sort of like "let's encrypt." I think this would better server a free and open web for the 21st Century and beyond. It appears, based on this information from the EFF & their exit from W3c, the W3C has become corrupted at some level.
This sounds like they are going to sell the water management, water rights to a for-profit company, once the taxes are in place. Guaranteed income & increases for years to come.
It's sad that most of our resources of necessity are in the hands of for-profit companies.
Regardless of where these jobs are going, H1-Bs are used for the cheap labor, not the best skills. This system has been abused especially by the financial services corporations.
First hand experience: If you have an open request to hire, you are required to first look to one of the few outsourcing firms we have a contract with. You cannot post the job for external until you have searched for the "best" person within their ranks. The "Best" being somebody super cheap & not qualified, but they assure us that person will learn on the job. I'd rather hire a full time College or High school graduate from the USA at a reasonable cost, train & maybe they will stay for the duration, but I know I'll get great work out of that person, better than the outsourced person.
America is being scammed by the our own American Corporations. I've seen too many people lose their jobs because of outsourcing & they didn't fall back on their feet.
I'd like to see the next Steve Jobs, Bill Gates come out of providing good paying jobs to US Citizens.
Agreed. The current system has been abused by Indian out-sourcing companies such as TCS, Infosys. The vast majority of highly skilled workers cannot get H-1B visas at all.
As abhorrent as the situation is, the body shops are only taking advantage of a legal windfall that American corporate greed has lobbied for. The system has been rigged. You can't completely blame the actors taking advantage of it.
Right, so you are driving along in the middle of now where and come to a red light. You know that the likelihood of a police officer being around is very slim. Do you wait for the light to turn green or do you just go through the red light?
These companies are going through the red light. They are intentional manipulating, gaming, and deceiving in order to make huge profits off their own country people by engaging in nothing more than 21st slavery.
The companies that hire these body shops have the old bait and switch pulled on them. The first initial consultation the A team developers are doing the work. These are ones that are paid on par or higher than their native counterparts. Then the company pulls out team A and sends in the 21st slaves. And you don't think the company that thought they were going to get the A Team developers for the duration of their project instead of just the first month, is because of their greed? That "greedy American corporation" is still paying the 5 million dollar contract. But the body shop, they just walked away with 4.5 million dollars. Who is greedy here?
We are just advocating reform and change. The loophole has been leaking for such a long time. Obama knew the problem a long time ago and did NOT fix it. The middle-class wages have been stagnating for many years. The middle-class families are shrinking. A recent research paper found that H-1B visas have kept down wages by up to 5.1% and employment of US workers by 10.8% between 1994 and 2001. Here is the paper: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23153
Technically they are legally (and arguably morally) obligated to act in the best interests of the business on behalf of the shareholders who own it. It's up to the govt. and the market to define what falls under "best interests."
I've heard, first hand that Citi is extremely toxic. People are mistreated, are abused (verbally) on a frequent basis. There's no accountability within the ranks and management doesn't care and encourages it
I almost accepted an offer to work in their NY offices. When I was being interviewed, the Manger of the group was divulging his dislike for the person I was going to report to.
It's a sick place & the IT guy in the article sounded like he was being abused. He shouldn't have done what he did, He should have documented the stuff he went through and maybe get a lawyer and sue for pain and suffering.
One might say that these things happening are the market telling Citi to stop being a dick. Unfortunately it seems like they're not really taking the hint.
Anything in that article should be open for discussion or debate. If the article didn't mention the education portion, then it would be in appropriate. However, it was mentioned in the article & I think it should be focused on equally for discussion and debate.
The discovery is amazing. What's even more impressive is that he received a free education in another country, with a home-schooled background.
My original comment was not an ideological battle. It was purely factual. Someone suggested it was too political (or had political motives), and I replied that I wouldn't pretend I'm not political or that the topic isn't political. Plain facts (in this case that Germany has free education and that it creates opportunities) can be highly politically charged, and I don't see that as a reason to shy away from them.
> My original comment was not an ideological battle. It was purely factual.
At a minimum it pointed thither, since government programs and payment for education are politically charged and your comment read as advocacy in that area. You also used ideologically charged language ("poor guy pulled himself up by the bootstraps") which is the opposite of "purely factual". That explains why a user responded with "political bullshit" (which was also bad, btw, since it's name-calling by HN guidelines' standard).
I agree with your statement. I wouldn't trust MS to run FreeBSD on their hardware at all. What if they throttle the performance of FreeBSD without you ever knowing it? Embrace and extinguish has always been their motto.
Microsoft has supported Linux on Azure for years now. Why would they treat FreeBSD worse than Linux?
The only "evil" that I've experience with Linux is that Microsoft has price parity between Windows & SUSE Linux on Azure, which is competitive for Windows but a premium price for SUSE Linux (and an extra premium price for RedHat Enterprise).
Linux without a support contract should always be cheaper than Windows because that's the reality with the license costs. Microsoft's competitors are far cheaper for Linux VMs, but if you're willing to pay the premium it runs fine on Azure, and performs better than Windows on the same hardware (although the gap is smaller if you run Windows headless, using Windows Core).
I mean, for SUSE or RHEL you can just build your own image and BYOL. There's no need to use the standard images. Anyway, if your infrastructure is static enough that the per hour licensing costs don't make sense then why are you even using Azure/AWS/whatever instead of running inside your own DC?
Every time our IT Director talks about Azure I want to cringe, our infrastructure is relatively static and only grows - so it's straight up MORE expensive to put anything there (and this factors in power and cooling to the datacenter).
MS has every incentive to ensure that their Operating systems get the best hardware and show they are the more stable and scalable.
I wouldn't trust an operating system company that runs a "server farm" where they have their own OS and competitors. Why would Microsoft run their competition on their own hardware & data centers? If Azure breaks off from MS and becomes an independent company, OS agnostic, then maybe they can win my trust back.
I like Azure & would only use it for MS based OS, DB etc. I would never run, nor would I recommend any other OS running on Azure, ever. There are other "server farm" vendors that I can choose from for non MS based cloud computing.
I don't think there's a single blue badge (old colloquialism for "Microsoft employee") that believes BSD and nix are "competitors". Why wouldn't Azure run other OSes? It's not a virtualized Windows hosting service, it's a virtualized OS hosting service.
Agreed on other points made on this thread regarding pricing, though.
Because it's a commoditized market. MS knows damn well that if Linux, etc were shown to be significantly slower on Hyper-V/Azure than on other platforms, they wouldn't get subscribers. Bang for the buck is an important factor in business decisions, and there are a ton of other providers out there to keep MS honest.
Pretty neat stuff. I think that MS should just create their own Linux Distribution & port all MS products. Get rid of the Windows NT Kernel. I believe it's outdated & doesn't have the same update cycle that the Linux Kernel has.
Why run a Linux Application/binary on a windows server OS? When you can just run it on Linux OS and get better performance & stability.
There are leaks galore. NT4, 2000, and more recently, the Windows Research Kit. Just google something like 'apcobj.c' and see. (Hah, first link was a github repo!)
Here are some, or maybe this is not part of the NT Kernel...
1. The use of drive letters A-Z for file system access.
2. Creating symbolic links to files and folders, like you can in Unix/Linux. You have to set a setting somewhere to enable this, but there's a security risk.
3. Standard functional/usable non-gui terminal application like Unix/Linux ssh. PowerShell doesn't come close.
4. Ability to SUDO or su Admin like Unix/Linux.
Maybe these are not kernel related above, but the OS specific layer.
1. The use of a multi-root hierarchy vs. a single root hierarchy is pretty arbitrary. Drive letters in turn are just an arbitrary way to define the multi-root hierarchy.
2. `mklink` [0] has existed since Windows Vista for NTFS file system. No settings toggling required.
3. What is your argument against PowerShell? In what ways does it fall short? I have been pretty successful with using it for various tasks.
4. This is about the only legit claim. Windows always requires full credentials to execute as another user. Windows does provide `runas.exe`, but you must provide the target user's full credentials.
> 3. What is your argument against PowerShell? In what ways does it fall short? I have been pretty successful with using it for various tasks.
Powershell is an acceptable scripting language. It's a horrible interactive shell. They shoudn't have made "shell" part of its name if they weren't going to at least include basic interactive features like readline compatibility and usable tab completion.
I'm not familiar with what you mean by readline compatibility. I see a GNU Readline library with history functions, but I'm not sure what that means being integrated into a shell, and what features you would expect to see.
My experience with tab completion in PowerShell is great. It completes file paths, command names, command parameter names, and even command parameter values if they're an enumeration. Could you describe what else you would expect to see?
Powershell's completion is worthless for the most common use case of saving keystrokes. Since it fills in the entire remaining command name and cycles through the possibilities in alphabetical order instead of completing just what's unambiguous and presenting a list of the possibilities from there, it doesn't help with typing out common prefixes and if you find yourself cycling through an unreasonably large number of possibilities you have to backspace get rid of the unwanted completion (often very long, given the naming conventions) before you can refine your search.
They took a code completion technique that works alright for an IDE and put it on the command line, losing some key usability in the process when they could have just implemented the paradigm that has been standard in the Unix world for decades.
Yes, it does a great job of identifying what the completion possibilities are in almost every context. That's good enough for an IDE, but only half the job when you're making an interactive command line shell.
As for other readline features: it's really annoying to only partially implement a well-known set of keyboard shortcuts.
See, and I personally dislike the system you mention. It bugs me to no end to have only a couple options, but the system will only fill in the common prefix. Now I have to look, figure out what's there already, figure out what the next letter is, hit it, then hit tab again. If I want to save key strokes, that what aliases and symlinks are for, not tab completion.
Also, at least in PowerShell 5, if you run the ISE instead of the cmd-based terminal, it shows an IDE-like overlay of completions while you're typing.
I am fairly certain that they use the same console system. For instance, right-clicking on the title bar gives the exact same options as in `cmd.exe`. I was perhaps a little overzealous in calling it cmd-based; that's a slip-up on my part simply because `cmd.exe` was the only program to use that system before. Thanks for keeping me honest.
Both use the Windows console host, effectively what a terminal emulator is on Unix-likes. It provides the window and a bunch of other functionality (character grid with attributes, history, aliases, selection, drag&drop of files into the window, etc.).
It's just that every console application on Windows uses that host. This includes cmd, PowerShell, Far Manager, or even vi. Sorry, I may have seen it conflated with cmd too often. It just nags me. For Linux users it's probably when everyone starts calling a terminal (emulator) "bash".
https://github.com/lzybkr/PSReadLine perhaps. Personally I find it nice, but it requires a bunch of tweaking to feel comfortable, but maybe less so to people who are used to readline.
Tab completion works nicely and you can even rotate through the different values a parameter can take. Also, ctrl+space lists all the options (parameters, values, files, folders) available at your cursor's position.
I would call it something more than acceptable scripting language. It is object oriented and it can easily use C# libraries, which is pretty neat.
You are confusing the win32 subsystem with the NT kernel. They are not the same, the win32 layer acts as a translation. Also symbolic and hard links are supported by NTFS, they are just not exposed in the UI. There are utilities to create them if you really want to.
The shell itself and the rest of userland has very little to do with the kernel. It seems its the userland you are upset with. Swapping out the kernel won't fix that.
For some values of well. If you logon interactively and start a powershell session, you do not have administrative powers and cannot get them without opening a new shell. If you logon via PS remoting, you have administrative powers by default and cannot lose them.
UAC is a GUI kludge, and is very grating especially in Powershell.
My biggest pet Peeve about Windows is the way it accesses files I'm not sure if this is a kernel or filesystem issue. But when a remote user has a file open as long as that file is open other users are prevented from updating or replacing the file. It happens all the time at my work and I know of no obvious way to work out who has the file open because as far as I can tell nothing like lsof exists.
This is probably the number one cause of me banging my head against the desk and wishing Windows behaved more like Linux.
What you can do while it's open is partially defined by the dwShareMode parameter in CreateFile. Unfortunately a lot of people look at the daunting documentation, shrug, and put 0 there, which is the least permissive mode. A lot of libraries do that too.
OTOH there are other limits that are not dictated by dwShareMode. Such as deleting files while handles are open - this blocks a new file with the same name from being created until all handles are closed. That's probably the worst one. There are some other crappy ones involving directory handles that I don't care to enumerate.
2. Filesystem feature, supported by NTFS for quite a while in differen styles. It has a security policy because a lot of userland software doesn't know about them. I use them all the time and they work, even if you move things like /Users/.
3. Userland issue. You can compile bash and an ssh server for Windows if you want. PowerShell is quite different, yes.
> 1. The use of drive letters A-Z for file system access.
Why is this a problem? As a user, I've always preferred to have drive letters - it makes it immediately clear if, for example, I'm moving files between different physical drives.
Considering mount points, reparse points, and things like subst, I doubt you can ever really know that. Granted, the deviations from the normal scheme are your own making as a user, but so are the places where you mount volumes from different physical drives in a single root hierarchy.
This is outrageous. The police can get away with this because they have a weapon, a gun, which can kill you if you resist. Or at the very least, call other cops, arrest you and throw you in jail and ruin your life while you have to prove your you are not guilty & try to get your money back.
This defies all logic and is a clear example of the corrupt state this country is in (USA).
> The police can get away with this because they have a weapon
I disagree. Police can do it because they have the power of the state behind them; the state can try you, imprison you, ruin your life, seize your other assets, etc. That policeman's gun is a minor detail and is rarely used.
Most importantly, they have the power of the state because voters permit it. Do you know if this is allowed in your state? Who are your state legislators? Are you going to contact them?
