3 ms·

Windows change is welcoming, yet still not quality. As stated by someone below, sudo is https://www.sudo.ws/ https://www.sudo.ws/. Microsoft should give it a pr

Windows change is welcoming, yet still not quality. As stated by someone below, sudo is https://www.sudo.ws/ https://www.sudo.ws/. Microsoft should give it a proper distinctive name lie wsudo or psudo. Little thinks like is compounds the issues with Windows / Microsoft. Even continually sticking to old design patterns causes issues in development and deployment. Big name companies do not trust applications running on hosted Windows because of their current business practices. Microsoft does not even have a means to provided ease of deployment for air-gap system. This is the only way some big business will let products hosted on Windows to be in their facilities. Windows as become more problematic for me because of all the layers of security that need to be applied for companies to trust Windows. This causes issues such as having to stop typing because Visual Studios or VSCode cannot process key strokes in real time. Localization translation text standard still does not allow for containing singular and plural in the same key. Translations should be easily to update so the client can improve wording on the fly. Microsoft still recommends using resx and compiling a DLL. .....

coderenegade 3y ago
>Windows as become more problematic for me because of all the layers of security that need to be applied for companies to trust Windows. This causes issues such as having to stop typing because Visual Studios or VSCode cannot process key strokes in real time. This is a big issue for me. I'm stuck using Windows for work, and it runs like an absolute dog even on good hardware.
v1ne 3y ago
Is that really what companies have to do to "trust Windows"? From my experience, it's rather driven from the need to look compliant. Thus, managers without in-depth knowledge decide to buy "endpoint security solutions", the more the merrier, deploy them to your machine, and that brings things down to a crawl. Why to a crawl? Well, I've witnessed multiple antivirus products go bezerk on your dev folder if you compile C++. Turning them off for this folder increased performance by a factor, which is what's typically done and completely subverts the purpose of these products. Also, I witnessed a certain product with a bird of prey that would run for hours and then just crash on a directory with a few million files. This combination of sub-par quality of "security" products and performative deployment of endpoint security is a bane, at least for me as an enterprise software developer. I don't see Microsoft being primarily at fault there.
- progmetaldev 3y ago
  Most businesses that use Windows and/or Microsoft products do no go through all of that. The main benefit of using Microsoft is all of the integration between development products and DevOps. Most of the solutions for security are not provided by Microsoft, and often are looking to check off boxes to make auditors feel better, without actually enhancing anything. I've had to create some bizarre workarounds just to get past auditors, and in the end the solution was no more secure than doing nothing at all.

coderenegade 3y ago

>Windows as become more problematic for me because of all the layers of security that need to be applied for companies to trust Windows. This causes issues such as having to stop typing because Visual Studios or VSCode cannot process key strokes in real time. This is a big issue for me. I'm stuck using Windows for work, and it runs like an absolute dog even on good hardware.

v1ne 3y ago

Is that really what companies have to do to "trust Windows"? From my experience, it's rather driven from the need to look compliant. Thus, managers without in-depth knowledge decide to buy "endpoint security solutions", the more the merrier, deploy them to your machine, and that brings things down to a crawl. Why to a crawl? Well, I've witnessed multiple antivirus products go bezerk on your dev folder if you compile C++. Turning them off for this folder increased performance by a factor, which is what's typically done and completely subverts the purpose of these products. Also, I witnessed a certain product with a bird of prey that would run for hours and then just crash on a directory with a few million files. This combination of sub-par quality of "security" products and performative deployment of endpoint security is a bane, at least for me as an enterprise software developer. I don't see Microsoft being primarily at fault there.

progmetaldev 3y ago
Most businesses that use Windows and/or Microsoft products do no go through all of that. The main benefit of using Microsoft is all of the integration between development products and DevOps. Most of the solutions for security are not provided by Microsoft, and often are looking to check off boxes to make auditors feel better, without actually enhancing anything. I've had to create some bizarre workarounds just to get past auditors, and in the end the solution was no more secure than doing nothing at all.