3 ms·

Something seems a bit off about the combination of hype and disclaimers here. First it's "seamless integration". Then it warns me that I should "expect to occ

Something seems a bit off about the combination of hype and disclaimers here. First it's "seamless integration". Then it warns me that I should "expect to occasionally run into hiccups and bugs" and "should be comfortable with some level of troubleshooting". But then it's back to saying I can "enjoy the full range of Windows applications" "without any hassle". These just don't seem compatible to me. If it's seamless and hassle-free, that would mean there aren't hiccups and bugs. If there are hiccups and bugs, it's not seamless and hassle-free. It may be a good project, but I always get kind of annoyed when projects try to overhype how "easy" and "smooth" the experience will be. I guess in one sense this is better than that because it does have disclaimers, but that just makes it harder to know what the truth actually is about its abilities.

prmoustache 1y ago
I don't think one should ever expect a "true seamless integration" from this kind of project.
akimbostrawman 1y ago
I read it as being seamless and hassle free until it isn't because there can still be issues. Like a car until it breaks down.
- 1970-01-01 1y ago
  This is Linux in an nutshell. Great until it breaks, then it's a complete deep dive measured in days.
outadoc 1y ago
Sounds to me like this is similar to Coherence mode in Parallels. I'm sure it won't work 100% of the time, but could be good for basic use cases.
Turskarama 1y ago
Literally at the top of the docs it says it's in Beta. I don't think you have to think too hard to figure out that seamless integration is the goal but they aren't there yet.
- 1dom 1y ago
  That seems fair, but then it makes it all feel somewhat tautological: what sort of integration wouldn't aspire to be seamless, other than a beta integration. A different selection of words wouldn't have lead to this debate, which I think is the point being made.
  - gchamonlive 1y ago
    > what sort of integration wouldn't aspire to be seamless That doesn't make sense to me. Seamlessness isn't an essential feature of any integration, just those that would lend themselves to zero-config deployments. I think the vast majority would require some form of configuration, either sharing credentials, or configuring resource limitations, devices, files and folders...
    - 1dom 1y ago
      I was using the other definition of "seamless", meaning easy, no fuss, minimal difficulty etc.
  - snozolli 1y ago
    it makes it all feel somewhat tautological: what sort of integration wouldn't aspire to be seamless VMware or VirtualBox running within the VMware/Vbox window, as opposed to VMware Unity or VirtualBox Seamless mode. Those allow you to have a window from the guest VM appear on your desktop just like it's a native application running on the host. That's what seamless means in this context. It's a specific feature, not a general descriptor of your experience with the software as a whole. A different selection of words wouldn't have lead to this debate, which I think is the point being made. Seamless is a word with a specific meaning within the context of VMs.
    - 1dom 1y ago
      That's fair. I was aware of that, but I wasn't thinking of that use of the word when I read it, I thought of the other meaning of "seamless". > Seamless is a word with a specific meaning within the context of VMs. The problem is it also has another specific meaning in the context of integrations in general: it means low fuss, minimal setup, no troubleshooting. A different selection of words (windowless?) would have avoided this debate.
edave64 1y ago
"Seamless integration" in this case doesn't read as statement about how well it works to me. It means the applications from the windows appear on your Linux desktop without the "seam" of a full windows desktop around them.
globnomulous 1y ago
I blame npm and the entire JavaScript ecosystem for promulgating the awful, sleazy-used-car-saleman practice of writing your readme in the form of advertising copy.
- benoau 1y ago
  I would have thought this traces back to GitHub making your readme the defacto "landing page" for your project?
  - globnomulous 1y ago
    That may be right. I want to blame JavaScript though. :(
- BrenBarn 1y ago
  I suppose this is it. I just find it irritating when project descriptions don't clearly distinguish what they hope to eventually be from what they currently are.
JimmaDaRustla 1y ago
"seamless integration" is an intention of the project - that doesn't mean the software is free of bugs and issues. What an absolute asinine and nonsensical argument.

prmoustache 1y ago

I don't think one should ever expect a "true seamless integration" from this kind of project.

akimbostrawman 1y ago

I read it as being seamless and hassle free until it isn't because there can still be issues. Like a car until it breaks down.

1970-01-01 1y ago
This is Linux in an nutshell. Great until it breaks, then it's a complete deep dive measured in days.

outadoc 1y ago

Sounds to me like this is similar to Coherence mode in Parallels. I'm sure it won't work 100% of the time, but could be good for basic use cases.

Turskarama 1y ago

Literally at the top of the docs it says it's in Beta. I don't think you have to think too hard to figure out that seamless integration is the goal but they aren't there yet.

1dom 1y ago
That seems fair, but then it makes it all feel somewhat tautological: what sort of integration wouldn't aspire to be seamless, other than a beta integration. A different selection of words wouldn't have lead to this debate, which I think is the point being made.
- gchamonlive 1y ago
  > what sort of integration wouldn't aspire to be seamless That doesn't make sense to me. Seamlessness isn't an essential feature of any integration, just those that would lend themselves to zero-config deployments. I think the vast majority would require some form of configuration, either sharing credentials, or configuring resource limitations, devices, files and folders...
  - 1dom 1y ago
    I was using the other definition of "seamless", meaning easy, no fuss, minimal difficulty etc.
- snozolli 1y ago
  it makes it all feel somewhat tautological: what sort of integration wouldn't aspire to be seamless VMware or VirtualBox running within the VMware/Vbox window, as opposed to VMware Unity or VirtualBox Seamless mode. Those allow you to have a window from the guest VM appear on your desktop just like it's a native application running on the host. That's what seamless means in this context. It's a specific feature, not a general descriptor of your experience with the software as a whole. A different selection of words wouldn't have lead to this debate, which I think is the point being made. Seamless is a word with a specific meaning within the context of VMs.
  - 1dom 1y ago
    That's fair. I was aware of that, but I wasn't thinking of that use of the word when I read it, I thought of the other meaning of "seamless". > Seamless is a word with a specific meaning within the context of VMs. The problem is it also has another specific meaning in the context of integrations in general: it means low fuss, minimal setup, no troubleshooting. A different selection of words (windowless?) would have avoided this debate.

edave64 1y ago

"Seamless integration" in this case doesn't read as statement about how well it works to me. It means the applications from the windows appear on your Linux desktop without the "seam" of a full windows desktop around them.

globnomulous 1y ago

I blame npm and the entire JavaScript ecosystem for promulgating the awful, sleazy-used-car-saleman practice of writing your readme in the form of advertising copy.

benoau 1y ago
I would have thought this traces back to GitHub making your readme the defacto "landing page" for your project?
- globnomulous 1y ago
  That may be right. I want to blame JavaScript though. :(
BrenBarn 1y ago
I suppose this is it. I just find it irritating when project descriptions don't clearly distinguish what they hope to eventually be from what they currently are.

JimmaDaRustla 1y ago

"seamless integration" is an intention of the project - that doesn't mean the software is free of bugs and issues. What an absolute asinine and nonsensical argument.