I'm not familiar with patent legalese, but from my layman skimming of the patent application, I think you're right.

Instead, the patent would cover running object detection/classification ML models — optionally on remote servers — on screen and audio output and user input of specific applications (particularly videogames), without requiring cooperation from the application, to target ads based on what's happening in the application and to decide when to interrupt the application with an ad.

To hazard a guess: Microsoft or part of Microsoft is planning to include pervasive targeted advertising in the next Xbox console OS, including during gameplay of any game.

I’m experience windows 11 which is my first windows experience since maybe NT 2 or 4.

I can tell it’s still windows but I’m shocked how many things I have to turn off to stop live data from the internet appearing in my GUI. Also my profile settings, saved passwords, and other data seems to reset unexpectedly cause some or all settings to disappear. Finding stored passwords is also surprisingly difficult or impossible depending on I don’t know what.

Adding such overt spying to this mess of an OS achieves a new low in user experience.

I love the absolute fever dream that is looking at the pictures of patents. The out of context fig 9 is amazing

Yes you're right, that's my bad. I interpreted the "audiovisual" wrong. They are actually just monitoring the screen and system audio.

I refuse to use 'teams', it's a pile of garbage and spyware to boot.

Yeah, although, the word “just” is doing a lot of work here.

Well of course I wouldn't expect corporations to know what ethics or human decency is even if it stared them straight into the eyes, but I would expect governments to establish laws and regulations such that the psychopaths wouldn't be able to abuse people to no end.

But why? Why do so many companies choose garbage?

I am sorry, but that can't be the only reason. At my job we are free to choose. Some have MacOS, almost everyone else has Windows, I am the only one using linux. But the joke is that Windows users are heavy users of WSL and RStudio. We are not forced, or even suggested to use Teams, Office or whatever tooling Microsoft has, and in fact meetings were I am invited had to be done in Zoom instead of Teams only because of me.

I believe that it is more a familiarity issue, and seeing Linux/Mac as an obscure tool only usable by gurus.

I hope you're aware AI vendors are running the exact same playbook these days. Don't want AI? Fuck you here's some AI on your toothbrush

> The choice was made from someone else, and you just accepted it as normal

That behaviour in itself is believed to be morally wrong, and dystopian. That still doesn't answer the question why people just accept this. How can "we" deem ourself more moral than the Nazis, and literally do this.

[dead]

A lot of that has to do with the fact that the people who decide to use it fall into two camps:

1. People who do not have to use it themselves (political decides, bosses, ..), but get lobbied to the max

2. People who have to administer it and know nothing else and endure the lasting pain over the perceived infinite hurdle of changing the system

I gladly can use Linux at work, so I have had a stable, reliable and unchanging system since the past 6 years, but others have to go through major pains for each version of enshittification of their OS update. In my case the OS just got better slowly and incrementally.

3) That half of HN works at these companies and loves to whitewash their conscience by commenting "look at how awful they are" on any company that's interpreted as 1% worse. You have MS devs who comment on Amazon who comment on Meta who comment on Palantir comment on Flock comment on NSO Group, as this is roughly the "perceived hierarchy".

If you're in US big tech you're working directly for the regime and fully complicit, end of.

That is true. We see that with Trump, where he tries to force the EU to open markets to the US corporations who will just steal data from EU citizens.

Why can't the EU learn more from Canada? Canada realised that with Trump there is no way to make a deal. So cut things down where possible, diversify - the EU still has to learn this lesson. In particular Germany is totally US-addicted - no idea why, other than, of course, the obvious answer ("we need to export into the USA", aka selfish greed from Germany here).

I'm more interested in the cases where you buy your phone, for example, and after purchase you are asked to agree with terms and conditions. Money is paid already. If you do not agree, you cannot use the device. Worse still, if 2 days after thre is mandatory update that forces you to agree to new version. If you don't like them, you should be compensated for it, as it is hidden information from you as a buyer.

> My pet peeve is changes in 'user agreements' for paid services that add increasing amounts of adverts and tracking, but if you decline, you can't use the service, but the service continues to charge you. For the service they're no longer supplying.

> Just the kind of thing that the EU could regulate if it chose

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...:

“Where the contract provides that the digital content or digital service is to be supplied or made accessible to the consumer over a period of time, the trader may modify the digital content or digital service beyond what is necessary to maintain the digital content or digital service in conformity in accordance with Articles 7 and 8, if the following conditions are met:

[…]

2. The consumer shall be entitled to terminate the contract if the modification negatively impacts the consumer's access to or use of the digital content or digital service, unless such negative impact is only minor. In that case, the consumer shall be entitled to terminate the contract free of charge within 30 days of the receipt of the information or of the time when the digital content or digital service has been modified by the trader, whichever is later.”

Does that need new law? The problem we have in the UK is that Trading Standards has been starved of funding for the last 16 years so they can't do their job. If they had funding I'm pretty sure they have the power to tackle this.

I expect this is already covered by existing regulations but the only enforcement avenue is a lawsuit. They know you won't sue them for $20.

This is why it would be so nice to have an EU that actually made law, instead of just handing over the right to oversee things to the commission.

Imagine if we actually had real regulations, instead of these negotiated things. Then we could just sue and normal courts could handle it.

>As further proof, the patent you’re thinking of where cameras monitor the user is actually from 2009 and was patented by Sony. US8246454B2

I'm not OP, but I'm really not sure how you came to that assumption. A cursory Google search for "Microsoft monitor patent" brought up a bunch of articles that actually linked to filings like what OP talked about from this year.

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/26/6f/30/238c9d7...

https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloa...

https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/microsoft-patents-s...

Well I'd like to think Charlie Brooker, like many of us, could clearly say where humanity was heading. Some of the episodes that were considered far fetched 15 years ago are probably considered plausible at best and likely at worst now.

Too many people seem to have taken it as a todo list instead of a warning...

Seems like many films and books have been taken as inspiration for making "hypothetical futures" true. E.g. Her - take AI as your girlfriend... was creepy then, still is now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteen_Million_Merits

Sometimes good people are able to think like villains and predict their next moves, sometimes villains themselves declare their intentions via proxies.

[flagged]

"Drink verification can to continue"

Normally one practical solution would be to cover the front-facing camera on a phone.

Of course with face identification for unlocking, there is now a power incentive to not do so…

But it's still bad as fuck, deplorable, despicable and many others adjectives. And it doesn't change GP point, even if the patent sucks at being a patent.

It's just a delousing room

> Looking at the 13 which rank higher than Microsoft - how many would you describe as treating their users/customers well?

Almost all of them.

> just because they take a patent on something doesn't mean they will actually use it.

That's true, of course, but the fact that there are people in the company thinking like that to begin with, enough to think it's worth patenting such anti-human stuff, is plenty enough for me to never want anything to do with them.

Hi (Sécurix developer), we wrote our documentation in English and in French: https://cloud-gouv.github.io/securix.

Maintaining both languages is hard but we will do our best.

> The problem though is that there’s always a strong push by French companies and organizations to reject English at any cost

Interestingly, a French-speaking Canadian who has spent some time in France told me that his right to use the French language is better protected in Canada than it is in France. He thinks that this is a consequence of the reciprocality implied by having more than one official language: French speakers in Canada get the same rights as English speakers, so people are happy to grant rights in return for getting them, whereas in France everyone gets screwed and you end up with a situation in which a French person wanting to do a PhD on French history at a French university has to write their grant application in English.

Frenchman here. French companies and organization, in my experience actually really like the English language (at OVH for example, most official docs are in English), but I do think it makes sense for a government funded by people who speak mostly French (ie the French taxpayers) to do stuff in French, the language most of its citizens will be most familiar with.

Putting stuff in English will tend to exclude the less educated, or people who struggle to learn foreign languages.

EDIT: and actually, from looking at the README of https://github.com/cloud-gouv/securix

> Ce README est en français mais le reste du code, les issuers et les PR sont en anglais.

The README is in French but the rest of the code, the issues (they wrote issuers, but that is a typo I suspect) and the PRs are in English.

So. :P

> Yes, I get that this is a way to preserve the French language and they have all the rights to do that (in the end, they’re the ones putting the effort in these initiatives) but imagine how faster these ideas could be shared and diffuse in Europe if French understood this.

Isnt this just baked into the idea? The French are building an OS for internal use for their own interests.

If we then try to extend that or the Dutch OS to other countries we have the original problem of dependence.

> the latest gendarmerie transition into open source OS from windows

That was 18 years ago: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/GendBuntu

‘United and solid EU’ doesn’t have to involve forcing everyone to use a someone’s native language. Ideally we’d have a common language that’s neutral and used for international communication only. In fact, we already have a working solution; Esperanto has existed for well over 100 years at this point, and continues to be a healthy, living language. People just don’t seem to care that much. It always seems to be either practicality or national heritage, never both at the same time. Yet the common ground has been there all along.

I guess we could do with more weird third-path stuff with the Linux world, even if the reason for said weird stuff existing is the French having (le) NIH syndrome.

It's also great when an actual commercial organization with requirements gets into the Linux game, as they don't really yield to 'we could make that printer work but it would be against everything we stand for' style arguments that have cemented problems in Linux userland for decades.

Does it? The EU isn't a single country like the US - it's a partnership of 27 separate countries.

If one country in the UN adopted some new OS, we wouldn't expect every other country (incl the US) to adopt it too.

> it says a lot about the EU that every government tries to reinvent the same operating system

Yeah what could possibly go wrong

[flagged]

I've been thinking for years now that most distros could be replaced by a system config for NixOS or Guix System. I wonder if we'll ever see things go in that direction.

one can use direnv, nix-direnv and flake.nix to get an immutable and reproducible build toolchain protected from nix garbage collection, while keeping the llama.cpp branches and/or compiled binaries mutable on the local filesystem. https://github.com/nix-community/nix-direnv

for agentic execution sandboxing, preventing 'rm -rf /home' nix or nix-direnv doesn't help, podman could be used next to nix. https://discourse.nixos.org/t/what-is-sandboxing-and-what-do...

llama.cpp has a flake in-repo that I often use for trying out different branches and patches. I also have yet to have an issue just replacing the src and build number attribute in the nixpkgs build (in one cases I wanted to add an additional CMake flag but that was also easy).

IMHO this is way easier than without Nix in many cases as figuring out the upstream build process and getting it running can often be quite the chore. With Nix it is all set up for you.

> The issue I have run into is that for running llama.cpp, which is a very actively developed bleeding-edge software, it seems like experimenting with different versions/configs/patches etc. was fighting with the Nix philosophy of immutable software

May be. I'd guess it probably does it in a high-friction way compared to what you expect.

e.g. in a typical linux distro, you can just replace the (globally installed) version of the package and use that.

With Nix, you've got a declaration of how to build a package, including its dependencies; and each of those dependencies is also a declaration of how to build that package, and so on. -- And so, "just change this version" results in rebuilding the full chain of dependencies.

If you want multiple readily-available versions of llama.cpp each with different configs/patches, then using Nix would make this easier I'd think. But for "I just wanna try this, then try that", it's going to add overhead.

When I just want to make something work and there isn't a nix package that can instantly give me what I want with `nix-shell -p $PACKAGE` then I use containers. That's what I've done when playing around with llama.

Is this just the old 'Government is stupid' or 'EU is too bureaucratic' trope, or did you have a particular point?

Isn't it counterproductive for every European country with a bit of extra money to develop its own open source software stack?

Don't the stakeholders perceive this as a problem, too?

Or is it inevitable, given how differently these bureaucracies are structured?

[flagged]

They have "migrated to codeberg" which is written in the repo itself.

However Codeberg actual "fuzzy" policy is less strict than "no LLM used ever".

They block some user-agents, maybe that's it?

From [1]

> We must regularly implement temporary security measures to ensure the availability of Codeberg's resources and prevent abuse.

> The 403 you have received is expected based on the UA.

From [2]

> What is the version of your chromium? AFAICT <=137 gets 403 Forbidden: [...] while >= 138 works ok: [...]

[1] https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/3084

[2] https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/3078

Had that issue with HTTP accessed repo, switching to SSH solved it for me.

They use both. https://code.overheid.nl/MinBZK?q=dawo&sort=alphabetically as the official source, and https://codeberg.org/DAWO for the community parts.

clearly shows the need for federated forges, where you get to decide on your own rules but you still benefit from interacting with a broader set of collaborators.

We can insist everyone self-hosts everything, but is it worth it? Do you have your own email? It's quite normal for a government agency to contract a third party to supply e.g. furniture, instead of chopping its own wood.

The specific language is:

> projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools

And "mostly" here seems egregiously undefined to me

https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/commit/96fac426a32d1ba91ff...

I've seen so much commentary on the apparent strictness & extreme nature of Codeberg's approach & no actual examples of it.

They have a strict policy (which many have rightly pointed out is impossible to fully enforce), & their "enforcement" has mostly relied on good faith contributions to date. They're also accounting for the fact the ToS change came without advance notice for many of their users who were already making active use of agents, hence there remains many AI repos (I have yet to hear of any removals).

To me that seems like the best approach one can hope for - a lax policy is a slippery slope (presuming dissuading AI contrib is your goal), & wouldn't satisfy their legal concerns (hosting code of questionable copyright status), & strict enforcement isn't viable in any case (especially at their scale), so this seems to me to be the best compromise.

I don't think they're banning all AI generated code, just projects that are primarily AI-generated. They'll probably also object to PRs that are entirely AI generated. Or at least they will when they become a problem.

AI generated code is allowed on Codeberg, but not if it's mostly ai generated

It may be more a measure against explosive growth than being anti-AI in principle.

People who act out of ideology very very rarely change their opinions.

This is less about the code and more about load. It's community funded so allowing agents to willy nilly push and pull will be very expensive.

> I predict that Codeberg will soon realize that they have no choice but to loosen and allow AI generated code.

I predict that eventually people will read the linked blog post and realize Codeberg already allows AI generated code. But this requires reading and nuance of course, which is hard to come by sometimes, so I guess we'll continue see misinformed comments like this until eventually the web is only autonomous agents.

Banning AI generated content works just fine, and arguing otherwise is nothing short of FOMO.

As a random example, AI generated content is banned from the /r/ProgrammingLanguages subreddit and any regular visitor that _isn't_ suffering from AI psychosis/FOMO will tell you it's for the better. In general it's not that difficult to moderate for it either as AI built projects consistently contain the same patterns _over and over_ such that 98% is easily detected.

Did you read the actual policy? It isn't extreme in the slightest.

Point taken, trimmed that. I do take issue with their position but not the place to start a new discussion.

Quoting from the post:

    > If you see yourself on this list, you don't need to move right away, but
    there might be other places that better fit your needs:

    - Projects written and maintained with heavy use of LLMs

Personally, the refusal on "Projects heavily tied to the LLM ecosystem, e.g. LLM-written tools to ease LLM usage" is enough reason, as that's a good chunk of what I've been working on.

Not OP, but I stand corrected. Thought it was 100% no generated code. Now I know better, thanks! Looks like codeberg aren't as mad as I thought.

https://code.overheid.nl/MinBZK/DAWO-NixOS says:

> DAWO Core has moved from https://code.overheid.nl to Codeberg to facilitate community collaboration.

I like Codeberg's solution (hard written policy, light good-faith based enforcement), what would you suggest as a better solution?

>but not to achieve anything of merit

Educating oneself to provide better quality of work still requires writing code by hand, and by extend is an achievement of merit.

Assuming writing code by hand is slower (which I agree with), why can't it still have merit compared to code written via llm harness?

Policies are enacted for current reality, not fantasy futures. If your magical fantasy becomes reality (it won't), they can just... change their policy. Of course, you aren't thinking about practical effects of policies on platforms, only on how it's an insult to your LLM-bro way of life.

The challenge is engaging with external orgs. They will send you office docs and it creates friction when they cannot be reliably edited and returned. Even just opening them can be unreliable.

Where would you say the gaps are? As someone who has been in an environment of excel power users for several years, the quality of that program has declined YoY due to all the excess bloat that MS stuffs into that thing. The plugin/macro ecosystem is one aspect that comes to my mind.

I kicked Excel to the kerb in 2005 or something like that and have been a happy Apple Numbers and Wolfram Mathematica (and SPSS, PSPP, and R, and Python) user ever since.

We really need investments from large public institutions in LibreOffice Sheets.

What version of Excel does your Nix Flake package out of interest? Is it current?

This video sums it up pretty nicely imo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mqVnyOTeN8

TLDW:

- Nix needs weird tricks to make its packaging scheme work

- The main repo is uncurated and hosted on Github

- The functional nature of packages means a low level update can either trigger a huge wave of updates or you end up with out of date deps. Usually both happen at the same time

What it used to be:

1. The rigidness of it all, which after a while is the main point ofc. Takes getting used to, but awesomeness for servers

2. The highly specialized filesystem layout requires some tinkering when trying to “just get things to work” that is not already packaged/wrapped for nixos

3. The language is… special. An acquired taste perhaps.

4. Flakes, home-manager, experimental flags galore.

LLM’s makes short work of it all, and having a devenv.sh setup of all your projects is :chefs-kiss:

My machines are essentially solid-state devices, and it all just becomes extremely predictable and stable.

Give it a go, I don't know anyone who has converted back (n=3). Agents/LLMs make things much easier these days.

If you have a single machine and only use stuff from the official nixpkgs, there are no more struggles than any other linux distro, this is a very happy path (imo).

Going outside of that you will, practically, need to convert to using flakes. The conversion is easy, but its another learning curve and there are conflicting docs. Agents make short work of this.

Packaging things yourself can get quite hairy. For simple projects in a single well supported language its easy and just a couple lines of code. For a rust+wasm+solidjs+vite+julia+more monorepo, it was a couple of weeks on a steep learning curve. Agents are pretty okay at packaging in general, I've been able to oneshot a number of difficult-for-me packaging problems, other times it can be an unmitigated mess.

For remote deploys, secrets management, and other devops-like tasks, things get harder, but most people don't need/want this and if you make it this far the remaining learning curve is totally worth it.

With the hypothetical providerless NixOS you'd get new config settings the moment the source code changes, without resorting to extraConfig escape hatches.

You could use multiple shares and limit each configuration to the software required. In this case you would share common configs through modules on the build server. The build server would output updated configs to the proper share paths.

A monolithic configuration may be adequate if each machine role only exposes the software that’s needed in its config. Other software that’s in the store could be hidden in some way, like overlay paths, perhaps. There may be other methods too. There’s a similar discussion here although this is about restricting paths via bubblewrap: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/restricting-nix-store-in-a-mou...

Most licensed software wouldn’t be an issue as long as the user doesn’t have license access, I’m assuming the license server would grant or deny access based on the user/user role. Depends on the software I guess.

I wonder if it’s possible to run a bubblewrapped (or similarly restricted) Wayland client and restrict access to store paths that way?

That’s where flakes come in.

Flakehub is one attempt at solving the discovery problem. For example: https://flakehub.com/flake/nix-community/disko?view=usage.

https://codeberg.org/pastor/fearware

The first, second and fourth items can be provided for NixOS.

As for the third item - that's not answering my question, it's a homunculus answer: What could the Netherlands have regulated that requires making changes to NixOS? Which NixOS maintainers themselves could not oblige?

FleetDM (https://github.com/fleetdm/fleet) is also mentioned.

The hard part is finding enough people working for the public sector salary who know those two extra lines and where to put them, and then making sure they are not getting bored or disillusioned enough.

I’m not talking about software install/updates, that is easy and straightforward on every major enterprise distro. I’m talking about Group Policy specifically, that is, the ability to enforce many settings across the whole OS/DE.

Minimum password lengths, maximum screen saver delay, screen saver password requirement, disk crypto enforcement, a million other little things. All of them can be done by customizing linux sure but organizations won’t want to maintain a separate distro for each business unit that needs different policies.

No, Sweden.

Guix users can just add the Fearware Guix channel which is just the nonfree firmware and blobbed vanilla Linux kernel, no propietary software it's added, just the necessary firmware to run your hardware (3D Radeon support, Nouveau+reclocking, some audio chipsets, and most of non-ant9k WiFi cards). That's it.

Declarative reproducible configuration is probably the main draw.

Europeans are absolutely delusional, but I hope they're serious about dropping Microsoft this time. European governments have been pretending to do this for about 20 years at this point, though.

Microsoft isn't what it used to be. Maybe soon it will be called Microsoft/OpenAI, then OpenAI/Microsoft, then just OpenAI.

It's a bad sign that they chose NixOS instead of something boring like Debian, though (and it seems France, too.) Makes me suspect that this is being driven by a single strong personality who will eventually lose interest or even rugpull support, leaving the project in disarray and a poster child for criticizing doing anything but buying Microsoft as European flakiness. On the other hand, I'm happy that it will involve money being put into NixOS.

Well what I wrote was not on the homepage of nixos.com, or obvious after a few clicks. Claude summarised it very nicely. I now know I don't need NixOS.

Perhaps the real meatheads are the ones who spam threads with anti-ai memes, rather than looking at the utility of what the ai provided?

The history of the Netherlands is all about making things unnecessarily complicated.

When lesser nations rally around the flag and elect dictators we have meetings and consultations.

That's the nice part, as an admin you are familiar with the complexity and use it for good. As a user, you never have to see it. (And you can even have some freedom for installing apps using flatpack/snap if needed.)

How would you role out the same config to thousands of Arch systems? Sure Valve does it, but I still think that is a "bolted on top" solution. Bootc could be another option though, but Nix solves reproducibility more elegantly, imho. Nix went back and asked "how can this be done better", where many modern solutions took what was already there.

Each nixos rebuild creates a snapshot. While I also eventually moved off of nixos, I've yet to get a system that was as stable as it.

The problem with Arch is that configuration is by hand so you have to do it every time. With Nix you configure it once and then you can deploy it anywhere. Also it's pretty much impossible to break since the system is immutable and you can boot to a different revision any time.

So far I have broken every Linux distro I used except NixOS.

And if I were to break it, i could just reboot into the previous system snapshot.

And I haven't read 1000 pages of docs - from my experience id doubt it even has that many docs.

I would image in corporate / government deployment, declarative configuration is more efficient.

When you have that many users, you don't really configure individual system, you deploy up some per-configured module or setup.

Repeatable builds also make troubleshooting lots easier - and you can hand those task to front-tier helpdesk staffs.

I can imagine. Those are often the sort of projects that struggle to put a one line description of what they are on their homepage. I inferred it was an OS, inferred it was Unix adjacent...but no answer on the rest. It could have been BSD or open Solaris based for all I could tell.

Windows also is unnecessary complicated for a singular install but works kinda well for a network and central administration by someone who likes to read the docs (or whatever you read for windows)

Sounds like a good replacement

Yeah I also wonder about going for NixOS for this. For servers maybe, but for user focussed desktops? The support requirements will be complicated.

Arch is easier to start of with, NixOS is easier to maintain, especially at scale

It looks like a lot of nothing. All the READMEs are empty. What is being contributed here?

It's a mechanism to legally force web browser vendors to install government issues root certificates (which they already did btw). And EU pinky-promises that not a single independent EU member won't use them to do MITM attacks on their political opposition and journalists. Like Orban 2.0 or Fico won't use Hungarian or Slovak root cert for nefarious purposes, no-no-no. It's only to protect the children, see, and definitely not to help murder journalists investigating drug smuggling cover-up. :)

As usual, it's federated*1 login*2 between countries*4*5 in EU*6*7*8

eIDAS 2.0 is 2 years old. An intentional dark pattern to confuse people.

Excellent point and I understand that, but then they should start working on building their own computers, and OS, and ecosystem, just like Huawei is doing for the past decade. It will take time, long years ahead but they should start now

I definitely like that future, but it should be built now

And yet Apple is doing well in the far East Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China, and Vietnam. They are competitive in some of the toughest markets to sell electronic devices into.

Doing well in Australia and New Zealand too. Aside from Taco the only big headwind is memory.

In my experience, the corporate world that uses mac has moved to Okta and other providers, not MS Active Directory. They may still use MS AD in some areas, but you can now federate to have that as an island - say you have some legacy accounting software that needs to run in AD environment.

IME, Okta is almost as popular as MS AD now, I think they have 30% market share compared to 40% for AD, with IBM and others taking up the rest.

I hear you, I am not an Apple pundit, just a developer always looking for the path to optimization and thought Apple was it, it is not, and to be honest they don't make it easy either. I've been in the waiting list to become an Apple developer for a month now and the road has been tortuous as a Venezuelan developer. But if Huawei offered a simpler path to developing on their ecosystem I'd give it a try in an instant. I am loyal to no one except to those who make my life easier

What tablet is better in the world today software and hardware wise?

2x-5x the price is not a like-for-like comparison then. TCO is lower for Macs in the enterprise over the lifespan of the device.

https://www.jamf.com/blog/debate-over-ibm-confirms-that-macs...