After my recent (and dismayingly poor) experience with a new PC on Windows 11, I wonder: Windows 11 installer did not recognize my wifi card (integrated in asus motherboard), so my installation was purely offline. I had to install manufacturer's drivers via usb key to get the PC online.
How is this possible in a world where MS wants installations to be online?
Meanwhile, Linux installer recognized the wifi right away and worked perfectly fine at full speed.
For me it's been on and off, sometimes a windows installer manages to detect network cards and sometimes it doesn't.
I think I've been blocked from continuing an installation once, so I assume you'll just have to plug something in that it can detect or grab an install image which has the drivers.
I swapped over to primarily use linux a while ago, but was surprised that they've made windows 10 look like (what I think is) windows 11. When did that happen?
I had this happen in both of the past two machines I have built but both were installing windows 10 so I was ultimately able to just finish offline and then grab the drivers on a usb stick to get the internet up and running. The Intel NICs are notorious for not working without the intel drivers.
I still think Rufus is perfectly sufficient for avoiding these issues and/or using autounattend. Ultimately you just need to get past first install and nothing else will be an issue using a local account on Windows 11.
I recently bought a big new desktop and before putting Windows 11 on it I decided to check out Linux (Mint, can't even remember why that one). The experience was amazing, everything worked out of the box and every Windows game I tried ran perfectly thanks to Steam's Proton.
I still went ahead and reinstalled Windows 11 on it. Suffice to say if I knew what it was going to be like, I'd have stayed on Linux.
I've been a windows user at home and professionally since 2.0 (as a bit of a toy) and 3.0+, never felt comfortable on macos, etc, so as close to a fanboy as it gets. But the love story is over.
> high expectations with minimal empowerment to achieve those expectations
One of the things that I've done multiple times over my career is, to be completely open and clarify expectations on the other side / higher ups. One of the ways this manifests is that I never put my signature on something I don't believe in; I can sign up to get as far as possible, but will be explicit on not guaranteeing a destination that I'm not empowered to reach. Another is to make it clear that my execution decisions are aimed not at doing what you ask me, but doing what future you will be happy I did.
Naturally, things like that limit quite a lot the range of responsibilities that I could potentially reach, but also prevent me from going to places where I will not want to be.
I tend to do that as well. Usually starting with a clarification of the expectations.
Then I ask what budget they are prepared to allocate to meet said expectations. If the answer is "none", I ask them which other expectation shall be lowered. This may seem confrontational, but it isn't really. If you want me to do more stuff without giving me the means and time to do it, something will suffer, and that needs to be made explicit by me, because I am the person facing the consequences when this something else can't be done adequately.
I was once asked to become the responsible electrical engineer for my institution. For them this was just a position they had to fill for legal reasons (otherwise they are liable in case of damages) and I have the qualifications, so they asked me. Then I explained to them that legally my role is only seen as valid if I am given the time and the means (equipment, room, powers to stop failings, etc) to do the job properly. Otherwise they would still be liable. I then asked them if they were prepared to dedicate that amount of my work time and an extra budget to that role. Surprise, they were not. So I declined. As of now I am still not sure where that liability went.
Too often management wants to have their cake and eat it too, and pointing that out isn't rude. It is one thing to ask someone who is idling have the time to take on tasks that are close to their job. But it is a totally different thing to ask someone who is already at 110% capacity and doing the job of three people to take on yet another job.
This is bad management. It is flattering that I am apparently good enough at my job to be constantly offered new responsibilities and asked advice at projects, but that is how you lose people like me.
I recall that handling disc eject was an explicit part of the Tech Requirements Doc (things the console manufacturer requires you to comply with). They'd typically check while playing, while loading and while streaming.
> As they say, the best way to ruin something you love doing is by making it your job.
As someone who made a job and career out of what I always loved, it's far from ruined. Your relationship with the thing changes, and like anything that changes, sometimes it will go well and sometimes it will go bad, often both in succession like a rollercoaster.
> IMO people who chase some higher purpose and meaning are destined to be forever unhappy at their job.
I can 100% agree about people like that being forever emotional and passionate at their job. But to label it as unhappy is terribly reductive. "Unhappy" is a part of it, but there are plenty of other emotions you will go through: happy, scared, hopeful, dubious, frustrated, satisfied, elated, etc. Much like emotions that play out for us in "real" life events and relationships.
First and foremost, good for you! Its a guess, but it seems you have a lot of control over your work, schedule, terms, etc than most people, or are in a very high position where you're in the drivers seat, creatively. We all would like greater agency, but that ain't the case for the overwhelming majority of working professionals.
Would that be solved by having several clones of your repo, each with a IDE and a Claude working on each problem? Much like how multiple people work in parallel.
I went to check when the bug had been patched, and was left wanting. I however lack the expertise to really appreciate how much danger exists in practice, or for whom. I just know I do have Win11 24H2 and "This leak primitive is particularly useful for Windows versions 24H2 or later"
The information leak in this bug is particularly useful for Windows 24H2 and later only because _prior_ to 24H2, there were immensely simpler methods that made the protection this bypasses (KASLR) completely useless anyway. And KASLR is still mostly useless due to the prefetch exploit linked elsewhere in the thread.
So, it's not that this bug is a _bigger_ problem on Win11 24H2, it's that there were so many _other_ problems prior to Win11 24H2 that nobody would bother with this bug in the first place. You have nothing to worry about from being on Win11 24H2 specifically when it comes to this bug.
And:
This is an information leak bug. No danger exists in practice for anyone from this bug alone. It erodes one very weak layer to a defense-in-depth strategy. It could have been used as part of a chain of exploits to provide the attacker with information (the kernel slide) that they needed, but it just provides a meaningless memory address on its own.
Wow thanks! I didn't even realize that was a link, it looks like just any other bold text in the page. It's weird this page would be published in Sept (if I understand correctly) and not mention the patch, but in any case that's good.
Specifically, it leaks a kernel address inside a security-sensitive structure, which is supposed to be unpredictable / unknowable because the layout of kernel memory is randomized.
If you have another exploit that will write bytes under the attacker’s control to an attacker-supplied kernel address, you will be able to do the Windows equivalent of escalate to root.
I'm ok with individual pioneers taking high but informed risks in the name of progress. But this sounds like companies putting millions of users in wing suits instead.
Was just coming here to say that. Anyone who's familiar with the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions wouldn't characterize it as a technological evolution that left mountains of bodies in its wake. Yes, there were casualties (Apollo 1) but they were relatively minimal.
How is this possible in a world where MS wants installations to be online?
Meanwhile, Linux installer recognized the wifi right away and worked perfectly fine at full speed.
reply