mgreenleaf

Highly recommend fly.io as well; I started an elixir app for a client and decided to use fly.io and very impressed with how easy it is with the feature set so far.

I did hear this week that Autodesk Construction Cloud is currently banned from military projects (was in use and is not currently permitted) because of something to do with security policies; but I didn't find out what exactly was in violation, does anyone happen to know what the issue is/was?

I use it for servers because of the stability. For me, that's the key differentiating factor. I set a server up and it will keep running indefinitely, with easy sysupgrade, syspatch, and updates. I haven't had that same experience with Linux servers. Rock solid foundation with ease of use and administration is great.

I work with the KDE virtual desktops grid with a 3x2 arrangement and wrap around on a 32" curved screen. I've found it very useful to put the same windows in the same grid squares and have hotkeys to easily go between. I know exactly the keystrokes ahead of time to get to the window I want and don't have to move my neck to get there. I can tile them, since I've got plenty of space on the one large screen, but usually the 6 virtual desktops are good enough. I've tried multiple monitors before, but couldn't get into it.

I triple boot; there are things I can only really do on Windows with full support (commercial art programs, Unreal Engine), but for software development and general usage Linux wins hands down; even the ability to switch out a wm and have it customized for my workflow is a major win, and the command line utilities and environment aren't even comparable. My third is OpenBSD, since I run that on my servers.

Use the best tool for the job.

I second this. When I saw that they were moving to subscription I was suspicious, but with the fall-back license and discounts for subsequent years' updates, I'm very happy with it. I have the All Products Pack and love it.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but even if equipment isn't producing cutting edge chips, why can't they just produce slightly less performant chips and sell those for other purposes or at a discount? The article seems to imply that anything less than the best is useless.