You aren't at a subsidiary, obviously. As the tide shifts to pushing Azure, the sales people are going ballistic and circle customers like sharks, with insane targets.
I joined a short while ago and deeply regret it, since all we do is sales. Even OSS is treated as a pure sales play.
I actually think we are in the same roles (CSA) :).
I have seen the same thing you are talking about and it is certainly one of the shitty parts of the job. Luckily I've done enough with the sales group around me that they are starting to understand that you don't sell Azure like you would O365 or whatever. There are still days where I walk away thinking that I must be on a different planet but the time I get to spend working with customers and building cool shit makes up for all of the bs.
Hey! Thanks for the link. I don't really want a completely PC-like box (I have a mini, and want to upgrade that), but I do want something that can be expandable somehow.
I'm pretty sure I won't get it (or worse, that I'll have to pay through the nose for it at Mac Pro-grade prices), but I'd really like to get a more modular Mac.
I don't think that Apple will do it, though. Jony "VP of Narration" Ive has a thing about unbroken surfaces, and even though I like Apple's overall aesthetics, I don't think there's any way a modular system fits into the Mac "look".
Marco does iOS development, and there are a number of features that simply won't run on a Hackintosh. Anything involving crypto is dicey, and stuff that relies on (for instance) having an official serial number (like iMessage) will also fail.
I believe the iMessage issues have been resolved now.
Hackintoshes are getting better, but Marco is fundamentally right. Any OS update could break your system, which means you need to wait before installing an update, which opens you up to security and/or professional risks (for example, if it takes a couple of months for the newest MacOS to be made suitable for a hackintosh, that's a couple of months where you cannot update your iOS apps with the latest features, since XCode versions also tend to be tied to OS versions).
I'm curious about that, since iMessage and iTunes Match have been a constant source of trouble to one of my colleagues. He also mentions that the device is flagged as "Untrusted" in Find My Mac...
The idea is to generate a valid serial number (in form) that is not used by someone else. Not sure if things have changed, though, but I used this last year and it worked. It still shows up on my account as an iMac 2013.
Believe me, it's not. Even when the userland gets updated to 16.04, it's still heavily dependent on the Windows kernel, and the networking stack (for example) will not be the same.
The WSL will never replace a native Linux OS. Period. But it will be pretty useful for some lighter use cases. As a dev, I'm still not convinced it's good enough, given the recent issues with Ruby and Node.
What issues are you talking about? I was about able to run a full Rails installation with MongoDB, Redis and Sidekiq without issues.
But, I kind of agree actually, the only true issue was advanced socket issue with PhantomJS. Like for some reasons, Capybara/Poltergeist can't connect to it. It's the only reasons I am back to MacOS. But, I think I will switch as soon as it fixes. It should be soon.
I'm running current stable (full disclosure: MS FTE here), and there are still a few hang-ups that I know are being addressed (and some already fixed) in the Insider Previews.
I had to leave the Previews because I needed to pin down a few things, and mostly use Docker for Windows instead of WSL for work. WSL will not run Docker containers directly (for instance), but I managed to get the CLI to run in WSL to control them inside the Docker VM. Well, until the last Docker upgrade reset the configs... :)
Went ahead and downloaded Xamarin Studio for the Mac. Still has an "Enterprise Trial" button, and apparently I still have to login to activate it.
It annoys me to no end that I have to log in to Visual Studio as well (even Community) for it to even open a project, and I wish both Microsoft and Xamarin were more respectful of our privacy.
It's not about a crummy e-mail address, it's about privacy, trust and freedom, things which you get by default with libre software tools and things which Microsoft has not proven that they can deliver.
And that software is not really free, it comes with a nice lock-in in the form of .NET and C#, two technologies under Microsoft's control.
After MS has a track record of at least ten years of doing this open source stuff they will get a break.
This thread is proof that for many getting stuff for free is enough to forget a long corporate history and throw their caution to the wind.
On the other side, I wish app stores required submitting all source code and not binaries. Then, the store would build the app binaries on their end and keep the source code archive somewhere.
Also give the developer an option to make the source code publicly available. How great would that be!
I've been using Visual Studio for more than 10 years, it never required a login to work or sent any information to Microsoft without a clear permission.
Having said that, if you really feel that Visual Studio is disrespectful of your privacy, you shouldn't be compromising on that and simply not use the application. I don't understand people who whine about services while they are enjoying them for free.
It's always the same people you never hear complaining about having to create an Apple account to use their developer tools.
You need to login with your MS account if you want to use Azure, Github, and other services... don't comment about stuff you don't know lol "my precious data"
> I don't understand people who whine about services while they are enjoying them for free.
It's not hard to understand. Just because you call something a service doesn't make it valuable to your customers. In fact, it could very easily be a burden on them.
no mention of gevent, celery, etc. As someone who runs thousands of concurrent tasks in a mix of process/gevent (one UNIX process for each 100 greenlets across 48 cores on two boxes), I find the OP's toliling rather misguided.
The author's use case is clearly very different from yours. He is talking about CPU-bound processes which need to share a large amount of memory with each other. In this case, multiprocessing and message passing is not really the best fit. Multithreading or shared memory results in far less CPU usage and memory duplication.
