The kernel team doesn't use either version, they use release monikers internally (ie. Threshold, RS1-RS5, 19h1-22h2, Sun Valley 1, SV2 etc.)
But also, internal interfaces and external interfaces are rev'd so teams tend to talk about the different interfaces they work with (ie. dxgi 1.2, dx12_3, wddm 3.2, UMDF 2.1) or the different internal versions of apisets.
> Wasn't windows 10 supposed to be the "last windows ever"
Microsoft has never said that.
Edit: since people are still confused.
1. What was said was "...and because Windows 10 is the last version of Windows, we’re all still working on Windows 10".
This was said by a Microsoft developer evangelist, never it was an official corporate position or an announcement. And most certainly no one said "ever".
2. You could argue "the last version" meant "the most recent".
3. When Microsoft has been reached for a comment, they produced a usual corporate speech about how Windows 10 is going to be "reflective of the way Windows will be delivered as a service" (whatever this means) but they never confirmed there won't be the next version.
Your article largely agrees with the parent comment. A developer evangelist mentioned it once, Microsoft didn't immediately deny it, loads of people made assumptions of what that meant. Your article even mentions 11 and 12 were still a possibility.
And to an extent the basic idea they did agree to has been true. 11 was a free upgrade for machines that were eligible to run it. I didn't need to go out and purchase a new Windows version.
I had both friends and family working in Microsoft when Windows 10 was released, and it definitely was sold as the last OS that would just get free updates forever. And that they would run it as a loss-leader.
I believe it was heavily implied, but either way, it was clearly something they didn't handle well if tons and tons of people believe they said it when that wasn't their intention.
This is probably related to them getting in trouble for scanning networks while mapping. If I remember correctly they were doing a bit of port scanning and looking for share drives in an attempt to id which SSID was attached to which address. This is probably part of the wrist slap they got from FCC. "Oh well you can totally opt out now so it's ok"
It’s better than fax -barely.
I worked for a company that builds HR software for gov customers including digital versions of forms with encryption etc. Day one I was faxing all of my own HR forms to HQ in another state.
I automated my deployments and test analysis, which were the most time consuming tasks (sequential process, with few quirks along the way) as a developer. This gave me reliably 30-40 minute forced breaks.
Soon I got notices that there were complaints that I do not conform to the office norms, and that apparently I "sleep instead of working", and people "ask if they can work like I do" (never got any further explanation). I got passed the slip and I'm moving on to a different job next week.
If you automate your job, DONT show it. Use it and hide it, unless your job is explicitly automation engineer or thereabouts.
Most places don't value the work you saved via automation. It's the company's gain; it shouldn't be yours!
And shame on you for not cranking the gear next to your computer keeping it working! /s Remember, the appearance of work matters more than actual work for almost every employee.
This. It's cheap and upper management doesn't care because they still get an office. Has there been any proper research on productivity loss / gains beyond the anecdotal? I have no idea and management doesn't read books anyway so we are stuck with open plans.
FWIW most of the large companies I've worked at in tech don't give offices to anyone. I realize it's not universal, and some companies have execs in dedicated conference rooms that might as well be an office, but that mostly seems like an efficiency win from the perspective of someone who's in back to back 30 minute meetings all day long.
Still, a lot of places at least are consistent about it all the way up to the CEO.
Cons: Not seeing any advantage over JSON. If you want a type for objects just add a type field and have your code read it. Then you can use any of the existing parsers.
That line worked for me, but do note the first command listed in the answer you linked to is NOT reliable and is not always consistent with the next two commands.
> Some “enterprise” distributions did not backport the changes for this reporting, so if you are running one of those types of kernels, go bug the vendor to fix that, you really want a unified way of knowing the state of your system.
Just to follow up, looks like Spectre fixes are now available but only for Variant 1. The following is on a 16.04 VM running HWE 4.13.0-31. Additionally, reptoline patches are not available.
CVE-2017-5753 [bounds check bypass] aka 'Spectre Variant 1'
* Checking count of LFENCE opcodes in kernel: YES
> STATUS: NOT VULNERABLE (114 opcodes found, which is >= 70, heuristic to be improved when official patches become available)
CVE-2017-5715 [branch target injection] aka 'Spectre Variant 2'
* Mitigation 1
* Hardware (CPU microcode) support for mitigation
* The SPEC_CTRL MSR is available: YES
* The SPEC_CTRL CPUID feature bit is set: NO
* Kernel support for IBRS: YES
* IBRS enabled for Kernel space: NO
* IBRS enabled for User space: NO
* Mitigation 2
* Kernel compiled with retpoline option: NO
* Kernel compiled with a retpoline-aware compiler: NO
> STATUS: VULNERABLE (IBRS hardware + kernel support OR kernel with retpoline are needed to mitigate the vulnerability)
CVE-2017-5754 [rogue data cache load] aka 'Meltdown' aka 'Variant 3'
* Kernel supports Page Table Isolation (PTI): YES
* PTI enabled and active: YES
* Checking if we're running under Xen PV (64 bits): NO
> STATUS: NOT VULNERABLE (PTI mitigates the vulnerability)
