All of medtech has hard "expiry date". At the very least, accounts for mechanical/etc wear. Device may not be deployed after the expiry date.
If it were only to prop up the sales, the manuf could have simply shortened the "expiration" of their devices. They could have even installed some cheaper non-critical elements to justify the shorter life cycle.
I'd guess they done that already, but now want to extract even more from system.
Never had been a fan of the tabs feature (present elsewhere for decades now). It's bit like the browser tabs: it adds one more level of nesting, making switch between two windows a non-singular action, thus harder. It's fine as long as I'm sitting in this one application - but as soon as I need to involve 1-2 other applications into the workflow, then it simply messes up everything for me/requires too much of concentration. (It might have been a different matter if I could tab-ifying everything arbitrarily a-la older KDEs.)
P.S.
P.P.S. This is a very easily discernible pattern in the Win11 UX: almost everything now is 1-2 more clicks away, compared to other OSs. It's just plainly bad UI/UX.
Search for settings and options IMO is fine. "Settings" are by definition not user-friendly, since every time you need to tweak them is a case of something not working like you need it to.
The main problem is that you can never find settings that are not there anymore. Or settings for "new features" that are not really configurable (and you notice that as if entirely delivered via web).
Settings aside, on a more basic level, Win11 became the first Windows where MSPaint and Notepad, after many upgrades, stopped being useful general-purpose applications.
Start menu, that was OK-ish in Win10, was made useless. To me personally: entirely dysfunctional compared to search. (And Search now is even more eager to send you to the web search results.)
The Win11's Taskbar remains by far the most counter-productive "upgrade" ever. Yes, you can still disable "grouping" and show titles, but. You can't move Taskbar to left/right/top. You can't disable overflow. You can't have two rows. If you need 10+ windows open, then you are out of luck. MS Office/etc alone take 5+ windows. Need to switch constantly between 3-5 reference manuals and 2-3 IDEs? Tough luck. (Even wider displays are of limited help.)
P.S. At least one could still change Alt-Tab to work in the old-style task switcher, without "previews"/with icons-only. Hurray! Something in Win11 is working! It's not complete failure!
Win11 sucks.
It's simple as that. So far I found many UX regressions - but not a single improvement.
Best argument for upgrade was always that it was an upgrade. Now this gone too.
Or more generally: Quality is a process, not outcome.
It's a well known axiom in all quality-oriented industries.
And even in software, there is the old saying: As soon as you introduce a benchmark for the metric, the metric becomes meaningless.
The old story is that Microsoft replaced test dept with Telemetry(tm).
Some softies recently noted that the buffers of quality that were there started now depleting, so the Win10/Win11 are riddled with system-wide bugs.
And then there is also change of mentality: Windows OS was a product before - but since Win10(?) it's officially a service, and not something customers own. Needless to remind, QA of a deliverable product and QA for providing a service are two distinct (often unrelated) categories.
They already don't. Got new Win11* corporate laptop.
The standard log-in configuration is only possible with passkey. Later can be changed - but first N reboots during setup/etc - only passkey. (IT had no idea if that could be changed or not.) So I had to promptly find another PostIt to write down one more password...
*With the brand new shittiest taskbar of all Windows OSs ever. After I've seen it and experienced it... No way I'm downgrading Win10 at home to Win11.
Are there any editors (beside VIM) that could consistently format code with Tabs?
A lot of people tried to copy me and use tabs, only to largely fail because their code editors/IDEs couldn't do it. Thus one ends up with a horrid mess of code that "melts" the moment tab size/indent is set wrong.
Being myself a veteran of formatting with Tabs, my suggestion to all: don't; simply enable automatic conversion of tabs to spaces in your editors, and forget that the tabs exist. (And as a VIM user, I can deal with it too, no problems.)
P.S. I didn't even know that the situation was so bad that they even formed "Team Tabs" and "Team Spaces"... Completely misguided dispute. Real dispute is "Team Tab Size 8" vs "Team Tab Size 4", with the freaky abomination "Team Tab Size 3" hiding in the corner.
Barely hours after launching the support for videos - with phased roll-out and harsh 60s limit - the BSky servers are already overloaded, and users report "capacity" errors for the video uploads. LOL.
The Chinese proverb you are looking for is:
The winner is a king, the loser - a bandit/outlaw.
The conflict with Chinese was baked in from the on-set: their culture has too many similarities to the Western one.
Yes, plenty. This kind of promises, if given, generally hold true only for the currently developed major version of Linux kernel. (And the promise is generally given only after a major overhaul - when people got tired waiting for the stability.) Next major version - everything is up in the air again.
It had always been explicit that the Linux kernel internal interfaces are not set in stone, and if needed, for whatever reason, they would be changed.
Recent example: I had to look into accessing block devices from kernel, and over past 15 years the way to do it had changed at least 3 times.
Another recent example: The most stable interface (kernel driver-wise) is the kernel memory/VM, and even it had also changed few times in 4.x-5.x, with high impact on many ARM drivers. Most notably the changes to the "ioremap()" & caching semantics. The in-kernel drivers were updated by community - but the out-of-kernel drivers had to be updated by people like me.
No. Just no.
Internal kernel interfaces change all the time. Their appearance might stay the same - but the nuts & bolts inside the headers might go through many iterations, while developers look for a better performance balance for functions/calls/args combination.
Now imagine that to keep Rust parts compile-able you'd have to repeat all the same development steps in interfaces not only in C, but also additionally in Rust.
Throwing ideas and patches around suddenly becomes twice as hard - and a major chore.
P.S. Last kernels I looked at were 5.10.y, so I really have no idea how Rust integration looks like. But when even kernel drivers sometimes are affected by the interface changes, the Rust part is exponentially more so affected.
People suddenly rediscover that in large projects it's not the core logic that is hard, it's the public/internal interfaces that are... nightmare-ish.
Adding interfaces for Rust doubles the nightmares.
P.S. If interfaces, their implementations, were easy, we would had had more (and better) programming languages than we have today. Alas.
Lazier coders are totally fine.
But ignorant people convinced - now with help of ChatGPT - that they are right...
History of security bugs is really the endless reiteration of the good old adage, as per RFC1925:
"Every old idea will be proposed again with a different name and a different presentation, regardless of whether it works."
(Win11 migration is ahead of me. Curious.)
If you disable BitLocker (could you?) would it decipher the data on disk too?
How can you work when the system's so crowded?
