10 ms·
It may be funny, but at the same time it's great to see this kind of feedback directly from the customers to the company. If someone listens up there, sooner o
by dvfjsdhgfv 10y ago
It may be funny, but at the same time it's great to see this kind of feedback directly from the customers to the company.
If someone listens up there, sooner or later they'll realize there is more money in the subscription business than in one-time OS purchases, and they will put the money where the mouth is.
- emodendroket 10y agoI'm guessing (especially when you consider that OS X is in there) that it has more to do with the support burden and small number of people using Linux as a desktop OS than trying to get people to buy Windows.
- pbhjpbhj 10y agoSo they make it run buggy in order to reduce the support burden??? Surely that makes for more support calls. I'd have much more respect for them if they just came clean and said "we hate linux users, if you want to use that OS don't use our products because we try our best to make them not work on linux". Look at what they did with Skype for example. At least then we'd know not to try their stuff.
- skybrian 10y agoAlmost always, nobody has any intention to "make it run buggy." It's about making it run well on platforms you care about (and officially support), and ignoring the others. Complicated software is usually fragile enough that it will have similar results.
- jacquesm 10y agoIf a user agent change makes the software slower for a platform then that's not exactly an accident so somebody must have had the intention to make it run buggy. This has nothing to do with 'making it run well on platforms you care about' but it is 'making it run bad on platforms you don't care about'. It takes more code for the software to act in this way (this is what proves this is intentional and not accidental), and more support to boot.
- erikpukinskis 10y ago> If a user agent change makes the software slower for a platform then that's not exactly an accident so somebody must have had the intention to make it run buggy That's not necessarily true. For example they might be doing polyfills that are slower than the native windows implementation. I feel like I'm seeing a lot of this kind of thinking everywhere. The canonical example for me is lately is "he voted for Trump/Hillary therefore he must support groping/war/whatever". I wish people would ease up on these kinds of deduction-based motivation attribution. It's my view that there enough self-professed unethical motivations for us to work against, without speculating. The speculation just muddies the waters.
- Lievelingsduif 10y agoI'm guessing you don't really understand what he's saying. He's saying that by pretending to be Windows instead of Linux the webapplication runs better. There's nothing native about it. The same exact website/piece of software runs better by saying "Hi I'm on windows". This obviously means foul play.
- JshWright 10y ago> This obviously means foul play. No, it really doesn't. It could just as likely mean they load a bunch of slow polyfills and workarounds when the browser is not part of a whitelist (assuming it won't have support for various APIs that it actually does support).
- pbhjpbhj 10y agoI struggle to consider that Microsoft is really that inept as to only be able to design it that well. I mean, do they do any testing at all? Across the browsers and platforms accessing their sites? Seriously, white-listing?? I don't buy it.
- emodendroket 10y ago
- AsyncAwait 10y agoSimple solution, do not do preferential treatment based on one's OS.
- lighthazard 10y agoWhile it's a solution, it's not a simple one. Developers don't have this luxury. Choosing an OS to support means supporting all the APIs and possible ecosystem that comes with it.
- AsyncAwait 10y agoBut they're not supporting an OS, but a browser here. If it works in Firefox on Windows, there's no technical reason for it not to work the same way in Firefox on Linux.
- emodendroket 10y agoYeah there's no reason at all that anything would work differently in one browser or another, signed, a guy who has never done Web development.
- minitech 10y agoAgain: operating system, not browser.
- allannienhuis 10y agoThere are differences in supported features on different OS's with the same browser. They don't ship identical bits on each platform. The differences are pretty minor OS integration things usually, but there are differences.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- bubblethink 10y ago>Almost always, nobody has any intention to "make it run buggy." Well, Microsoft has a long history of "making things buggy" everywhere else to create lock-ins. This instance may not be strictly related, but people's attitude has been shaped by years of anti-competitive stuff that MS has pulled.
- skybrian 10y agoThey do have a reputation, but it's decades old, and things have changed quite a bit. I don't think we should base our conclusions on stale data.
- Piskvorrr 10y agoDecades old. The GWX consent brouhaha is decades old? Edge (not IE) becoming the default browser all by itself is decades old? Riiiiiiiight. Decades of consistent data, methinks.
- gkya 10y agoI really don't get why they can't put the browser they like as the defaultone into their OS. Not that I'm an MS apologetic (I don't really use anything MS since time immemorial) but it seems silly to me, frankly.
- bubblethink 10y agoI think it has a habit of changing itself to default even after the user sets something else as the default. Minor annoyance though compared to the overall pain of using a windows machine.
- Piskvorrr 10y ago"Minor" depends on whom you ask: each time this happens, MS generates n angry support tickets...for me, not for themselves, of course: "the computer is broken again and I have lost all bookmarks and sign-in data, why did you break it again?!?" (The good news is, of course, that nothing is "lost" except for the default browser flag: resetting to FF fixes it...until next time)
- cortesoft 10y agoAs an end user, it is sometimes hard to distinguish between 'made to run buggy' and 'put no effort in to make it not buggy'. They are most likely doing the 'put no effort in to make it not buggy' action, and it just appears that they are doing it on purpose.
- c3534l 10y agoBut the only time it is buggy if you SAY it's Linux. If you say it's Windows, it works fine. That's not having the software passively become buggy, that's CHANGING the way the software works if and only if the OS is Linux, but working correctly if it's told (but isn't actually) Windows. I don't think this is a conspiracy, but I don't think the characterization that users think that because OneDrive works on Windows better than Linux, buggy by inaction is assumed to be buggy by action: this situation is far more damning than that.
- emodendroket 10y agoIt seems entirely plausible that there are optimizations that are only applied on certain platforms or something with the idea that any platform should fall back to the slower but better-supported behavior.
- jacquesm 10y agoExcept that we're talking - as far as is visible to me at the moment - about server side behavior, something that need not change at all depending on the user's client.
- eridius 10y agoNo we're not. The bug report says 100% CPU. It's very clearly doing something client-side.
- jacquesm 10y agoThat is speculative. Yes, the client side is the one where the problem shows up but it's when the user agent is changed that the problem appears and the client side does not do anything with that user agent, it gets sent to the server. So something in the response from the server or some interaction with the server than causes the 100% CPU load.
- recursive 10y agoSoftware is naturally buggy. It only becomes non-buggy through pro-active effort.
- giancarlostoro 10y agoSkype was messed up for ages, they actually have a really cleaned up Linux client, it's based around Electron so it actually works a lot better than the older one. Skype is an example that they do care about Linux too.
- debaserab2 10y agoYikes, Skype is electron based? That explains why it hogs so much memory.
- Nullabillity 10y agoThe new Skype client is crap compared to the old one. 99% of all settings are gone. Video calls are gone.
- orbitingpluto 10y agoI've said this before, but the last time Skype worked reliably for me was on the Nokia n800, circa 2008. I had a subscription for several years 2012-2015ish and didn't have an acceptable quality call once.
- tzakrajs 10y agoMicrosoft doesn't need to spend money making the Linux desktop-experience suck, it has done so on its own for well over a decade.
- nmstoker 10y agoTreating Linux as a "best efforts" might be a reasonable middle ground. No expensive support commitment, but then they needn't hobble it in scenarios like this where the experience/support burden is not related to the OS (since it's in the browser)
- emodendroket 10y agoYeah but if nothing else you've got to have the environment for someone to test it with, right?
- spinlock 10y agoIf you're writing apps that work in i.e. And not chrome you're not going for a big user base. I.e. Is 2% of our traffic and 50% of my time.
- spinlock 10y agoIf you're writing apps that work in i.e. And not chrome you're not going for a big user base. I.e. Is 2% of our traffic and 50% of my time.
- flukus 10y ago> If someone listens up there, sooner or later they'll realize there is more money in the subscription business than in one-time OS purchases, and they will put the money where the mouth is. I think MS is nearly a decade ahead of you there.
- foxylad 10y agoMore money - and mindshare (=future money). Chromebooks run linux, and if this issue affects those, then O365 is looking terrible against Gsuite for huge numbers of school students. In five years, those students will be starting their working lives demanding Gsuite.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]