First, they released it only 10 years ago, and second, Microsoft marketed it as the last windows version. So yes, this is a own goal)

They never did that. It was an offhand comment by a developer which was picked up by the media.

Picked up by the media and Microsoft did absolutely nothing to correct until they decided they wanted to create Windows 11. They were completely aware of what was in the press and if the media message was "Microsoft says switch to Linux" they absolutely would have corrected the message. That they let this misconception to become as widespread as it did shows they were happy for people to believe it. That makes them absolutely 100% responsible for it.

Why let facts in the conversation when we can have FUD dominate it?

Are… Are you pulling out the “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” trick?

I'm pretty sure Google can buy a femtocell to simulate local mobile network of their own.

Initial commit: Jun 24, 2025. Already has a migration path from 0.x to 1.x.

Why am I feeling so old now?

On a more serious note, do any models support this?

> Initial commit: Jun 24, 2025. Already has a migration path from 0.x to 1.x.

because that is perfectly reasonable to the llm that wrote that readme

we should have age verification to post on HN

Given that it’s going to be a part of “Microsoft CoreAI organization”, whatever that is, there will be even more AI stuff.

I don't mind more AI stuff even if I don't use it. The fact that they've been neglecting the core user experience is more of my complaint

Ah yes, because only Russians can be criminals. And also Russians cannot be born in Eastern Europe.

Usual arguments for "upgrading" are:

* We can't hire specialists for older frameworks.

* We can't generate positive hipe over older technologies.

* New technologies are better, so we will deliver features faster.

In reality, it's almost always resume-driven development.

> In reality, it's almost always resume-driven development

This is what drives me crazy. I’ve been at my company for a couple decades. I want stability and long term health of the company.

The resume driven development isn’t even from the engineers, it’s from the leadership. An IT leader gets hired from the outside, starts a big project that will look good on the resume, then midway through the project, they are just far enough to try and call it a success and leverage it into a new position. Now we have a leadership change in the middle of a giant foundational shift of the infrastructure. The new leader comes in and does the same thing. I don’t see how a company can survive this long term. It creates such fragility. People like me, with little interest in job hopping, aren’t looking to resume build. I’m looking to have the company’s operations run smoothly so customers have a reliable service, so we retain them as customers… and for a little peace and stability myself. These resume building leaders make that difficult and seem to actively work against the long term health of the company. They aren’t interested in the next 10-20 years, they are only worried about their next job in 3-4 years, with no concern for the mess they leave behind.

I hope this is just a trend and it dies soon. The needless stress it has brought into my once simple life has been rather unpleasant.

It may be resume-driven, but that's the state of the world. If you fail to keep your team members and attract new ones as the team needs to grow, you are fighting a losing battle.

Maybe all these needless technology shifts are the reason the team members are leaving.

I didn't see many needless ones, but I've seen many team members not wanting to hear about any change. It's hard enough to push a greatly needed change through management. Maybe there are places where they do it just for fun.

I’d just wait a bit. At current rate of progress winner will be apparent sooner rather than later.

My coworker uses thunderbird since time immemorial, and I don’t think it ever corrupted his mailbox.