>AntennaPod doesn’t need a lot of money. Our (annual) costs are already covered by our existing donation funds. Therefore, we’d much prefer it if you
donate to your favorite podcast(er), orhelp us with a non-monetary contribution.
It's been a while since I tried it, but I remember this roughly being my experience as well.
I'm usually all for up to date software, but on my networking equipment??? I don't really want to beta test that stuff, but that's what they seem to want to make me do.
It is not really beta software though. If you don't want to go into the trouble of building your own ISO, then, yes, you are a beta tester because the only thing they make available pre-built is the ISO from the 1.4 branch which is in flux.
You can build the ISO from the LTS branch though and that branch doesn't move much. Though, I don't know how you can tell which commit was used to release, say v1.3.2. For the moment, I simply build an LTS ISO using the latest commit of the LTS branch. That strategy has been rock solid for years now.
It's not part of the content area, but above it. The browser decides what it paints in its window. And apparently Microsoft thinks pushing an ad above a competitors page is a good idea.
To the people who care, it's another reminder on why they don't trust Microsoft. For the rest, it's just another ad. Disregarded.
Edit: I find the term "inject" in the article's title to be misleading, because it sounds like doing HTML injection. It's more shoving than injecting.
Interesting. Presumably, LAPSUS had access to Windows source code but still decided to go after comparatively low-fruit like Bing and Cortana instead of the digital gold that is Windows.
Wasn't Windows' source code leaked a number of times already?
I think Bing and Cortana will have some "algorithms" that might be worth a lot more for the right buyer. I mean Google's search algorithm is one of the best kept secrets in the industry.
> I know they've made it available to some universities and large customers also can get access.
And, IIRC, infamously the Chinese government too, because they made it a pre-condition of them purchasing Microsoft licenses that they must have source code visibility.
Well, there is for sure a lot to criticize about the CN government, but this precondition seems to me very natural (the OS is a very natural place for possible backdoors, otherwise...)
Windows source code is fairly widely available, as in government agencies, universities and others already have access. I'm sure this means anyone motivated enough could get it if they really wanted to. Of course even looking at it is problematic if you want to work on open source operating systems later, so I'm not sure why you'd voluntarily choose to do this.
It can be useful even if you're not directly incorporating it into your code. For example you might want stronger guarantees than the API documentation offers (e.g. "this function will only ever return values between this and that in this particular version of Windows"), and being able to read the code to check if your assumptions are valid is very useful. I've worked in function hooking before and ReactOS has been a very useful resource on occasion.
When public documentation for the Hyper-V APIs sucks the way that it does, I'd be willing to risk not being able to write a operating system later if I could figure out a side project now ;)
I'm thinking of the HCS docs (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/virtualization/api/hcs/over...). There's very poor documentation of the different types of VMs/Containers you can launch and how to launch them, I'm not sure how much of this is intentional or due to the newer container APIs being too new, but it's super frustrating when you're trying to understand how WSL2 or Windows Sandbox work (or honestly, how to use Windows containers without Docker).
I think you misspelled "dumpster fire". Microsoft is known for going to extreme lengths to maintain backward compatibility, but for Windows in particular this means code that's been hacked on for decades.
