Back in 2011, when Motorola released a phone that could do something similar, I was sure that was going to be the future. It’s been 15 years.
I still dream of the day when my computer lives on my wrist, and I just have a few dummy screens in different formats that can connect to it so I can consume media or be productive.
Samsung, Motorola and Huawei have had this for years. Samsung DeX is probably the most popular desktop environment of its type, and has been available for 9 years. Plenty of people use it (like myself), but it's too niche of a use case for the masses.
The 2011 Motorola Atrix came with a proprietary dock to connect to. Modern desktop environments can use the USB-C 3.2 DP ports on the phone to provide video out. Lapdock shells are widely available online.
The thing is, Samsung DEX works great but I've never met anyone who has heard of it even among people who have owned nothing but Samsung phones forever. Samsung just sucks at advertising the feature. They should sell a bundle of phone + portable USB-C screen + Bluetooth mouse and keyboard and the thing would sell pretty well I would imagine. But right now no one even knows this exists.
The product is perfectly fine as it is. The way I see it, if it's being advertised, it's being monetized behind the scenes. That changes incentives and usually makes the product experience worse. All it has to be is a window manager that supports standard desktop KB shortcuts (CTRL-C, ALT+Tab, etc.)
DeX is not a fork. It is a UI layer on the phone that activates when you connect to a USB-C display. There is no difference between doing something on your phone and on DeX.
I wonder what you consider serious work then, because as a developer I think Visual Studio is the most "serious" developer environment there is, and I'd take it over any linux or Mac based setup.
Think about it like this: Would you manage a fortune in crypto on Windows? I wouldn't, because I just wouldn't even trust my environment at first. And for Visual Studio, I would solely run it in a firewalled VM.
MS employees have access to a lot of your work/data/fingerprints which makes it insecure by default. There is also serious privacy concerns, basic one would be that telemetry sends all HWID of devices by default, so if you share a USB stick with a friend, you two are automatically correlated in MS database, not really my cup of tea.
Not a big fan of an OS asking for an ID indirectly (via mandatory phone number) as well, mandatory MS account at install time (except if you tamper with the ISO, yeah sure)
>Think about it like this: Would you manage a fortune in crypto on Windows? I wouldn't
Most banks on the planet manage trillions on Windows, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by dying on this hill. Just because you wouldn't do something doesn't make you knowledgeable or right about that.
>MS employees have access to a lot of your work/data/fingerprints.
I wonder how all those companies, banks and governments manage to keep MS workers out of their work data.
Any MS workers here that can answer what are you guys doing with all that customer data you look at all day instead of coding?
I doubt workers stealing data (which is more frequent than you might think) will just openly post about it...
Do you really believe it's normal that banks are on Windows? Do you want governments, military and such to be on Windows, really? It's not a popularity contest, we know that most corpos do terrible choice about IT stuff (at least back then and now they are doomed).
It breach basic every security principles, we should be relying on cryptography and not human trust? Would you let your ISP inject a CA in your OS and just rely on the trust of their employees to not look at your traffic? you're building your security model on the assumption that a private corporation's employees won't abuse access they structurally have, you rely on faith which imo is plain wrong. But even, the privacy factor has not been addressed, you are alright with MS correlating your entire life, many wouldn't accept that.
>>I doubt workers stealing data (which is more frequent than you might think) will just openly post about it.
Can you explain what mechanism is there for Microsoft workers to steal data off my Windows PC that doesn't upload anything to OneDrive? Like I'm genuienly curious - how do they do it?
It depends what you consider data, to me for example, all the devices I use in my home, who comes in my home and such are considered private (as it should, but we might disagree on this), but realize that the moment someone steps-in your home, then the typical correlation of SSIDs, BT devices (to simplify it) is sent as telemtry to MS servers (this is official, I'm not just speculating).
And about pure "data" as in filenames file content and such, then obviously typical Windows Defender, Smartscreen and such that would send file hashes, sometimes content, filenames, mod time and such, making Microsoft directly aware of your filesystem content.
>I doubt workers stealing data (which is more frequent than you might think)
Can you post a source for this? I'm sure every newspaper on the planet would love to publish headlines reading "MS workers are stealing your data", but that would require some actual proof, not made up FUD.
>Do you really believe it's normal that banks are on Windows?
It doesn't matter what I believe, what matters are the facts and reality on the street which is what I'm arguing. You are free to believe whatever you want, that doesn't make you right.
I'm not dying on a hill. From a security standpoint, every "trust" step is a security assumption that you cannot verify (especially on a Samsung phone), I'm just not willing to bet my threat model on the "goodwill" of a corporation whose business model is built on data aggregation, there is no proofs needed (MS has had a ton of breaches the last decade btw), but you do you.
Let me ask you something and make an hypothetical and you must reply in good faith, this is because we don't agree on fundamental points on security:
If you were a wanted criminal that still needs to work online somehow to make money, would you feel safe using Windows?
I think we can agree that privacy and security are heavily intertwined. If your honest answer is no,then that alone tells you something about the OS trust model. And if your answer is "yes", then i'd genuinely like to hear why, because I can't think of a single compelling reason.
You first have to answer my challenges to your original statements, on how banks can use Windows without losing money to hackers, and how MS employees access your data, as per your claims.
I first want to see sources hat back up your claims. Otherwise how can we know you're arguing in good faith and not stringing us along with more FUD and tinfoil conspiracies.
> Back in 2011, when Motorola released a phone that could do something similar, I was sure that was going to be the future. It’s been 15 years.
the thing that annoys me is that pretty much everybody in the industry with a decent amount of understanding has known for more than a decade this was absolutely feasible.
and the most infuriating this is that i know for a fact it's not being done purely for a matter of product fragmentation.
the macbook neo is living proof that we could give people a single device (iphone 17 pro/pro max) and have that do pretty much everything. get in the office, hook your phone to a display via usb-c, start working. unplug your phone (which now is fully charged) and go home.
we could have dumb laptop-shaped terminals where we plug our phones, and get a larger display and a keyboard. or tablet-shaped "terminals". or desktop docks at home.
how cool would it be to leave for the office with just your company phone in your pocket ?
but we wouldn't need three separate devices: an iphone, an ipad and a macbook.
something similar would likely also apply to the android world, if android os developers could get their shit together and get a decent implementation working (android occasionally re-launches this, and it usually sucks again).
It's starting to realize now though, USB-C providing power and display, emulation allowing for x86 software. We're not far away from a Steam/Proton type scenario where you just run whatever you want on your phone's desktop mode, the most powerful Android phones are already doing this!
My Librem 5 phone runs desktop GNU/Linux and can be used with a screen and keyboard with no restrictions. Unlike Android, it doesn't run mobile apps on a big screen but full desktop apps. See: https://puri.sm/posts/my-first-year-of-librem-5-convergence/
No real person wants that. A bunch of hackers want it, so that they can try it a couple of times as a fun side project and then never use it again in their life.
Been also building this slowly, mostly assisting my kids.
What they built is Apple-only, since it's a native iOS/macOS app in Swift.
It's been a very interesting experience for me, as even capable frontier LLMs still can't write Apple SwiftUI/AppKit properly. They constantly get the bridges wrong, and any feature prompt puts your previous architectural efforts at risk :)
Its even more maddening for me because my whole team is paying direct API pricing for the privilege of this experience! Just charge me the cost and let me tune this thing, sheesh!
Anthropic in general is miles ahead in “getting work done”, and its not just me on the team. Theres a lot of paper cuts to work through to be truly generic in provider
I did try out codex before claude went to shit and it was good, even uniquely good in some ways, but wasnt good enough to choose it over claude. Absolutely when claude was bad again it would have been better, but thats hindsight that I should have moved over temporarily.
Once local models hit claude code + opus 4.5 levels that is the new normal. That is a good-enough baseline of intelligence to sustain productivity for the next 10 years or more. We are still so close to this line in the sand that theres not a lot of margin for regression in the SOTA models before they become "worse than no AI" for getting real work done day-to-day. But eventually the local models and harnesses will catch up and there will no longer be a need to use the SAAS versions and still reap the benefits of AI in general.
Well there can't be direct evidence, it's a private corporation and we don't know how big the model is. But you can look on Openrouter for hosters that offer free models with known sizes, where there's no brand and so no incentive to subsidize, and they don't look wildly bigger than OpenAI/Anthropic API prices.
edit: example: GLM 5.1, a 751B model, is offered for 0.6$/m in, 4.43$/m out. Scuttlebutt (ie. I asked Google's AI) seems to think that Opus 4 is a 1T/5T MoE model, so you can treat it (with some effort) as a 1T model for pricing purposes. Its API pricing is $1.55 in, $25 out, ie. 2x to 5x more than GLM. Idk what to say other than this sounds about right, probably with healthy margin.
Ok, side topic… but that little bastard cheerfully told me out of no where that I have a mall of without a null check AND a free inside a conditional that might not get called.
It didn’t give me a line number or file. I had to go investigate. Finally found what it was talking about.
It was wrong. It took me about 20 minutes start to finish.
I thought it just emitted tongue-in-cheek comments, not serious analysis. And I use the past tense because I had it enable explicitly and a few days ago it disappeared by itself, didn't touch anything.
The buddies were Anthropics April fools day stunt. Buddies were removed from a newer version of Claude code. By default Claude code updates automatically.
I wonder if the kind of personality that gets you on 30U30 correlates with being willing to engage in massive fraud, and being able to get away with it for a minute.
Holmes, SBF, Shkreli, Charlie Javice, Ishan Wahi...
When ambitious competitors who can't accept loss or normalcy enter into a field that's saturated with skilled rule-abiding players, they'll cheat.
Hypercompetitive fields will always surface cheaters given enough time. Then regulations pile on to fight the cheating, which makes it harder for honest people to do the good work.
We do not punish cheaters like these as much as we should.
You know, after all this time Lucas Duplan doesn't seem so bad. His hubristic sin was posing for a photo burning fake hundred dollar bills. That just seems like a random Tuesday now.
If I remember correctly, you need to be nominated by someone to be considered for the 30U30 list. Some of the people on those lists will literally run their own campaigns to get on the list, meaning that they'll pay people to nominate them, pay PR firms to run stories and campaigns. Other people do seemingly nothing, and just get nominated by legit people that admire them.
So, I'm fairly certain lists like that will attract some amount of unscrupulous narcissists.
I'd focus less on the U30 part, and more on the 30U, if that makes sense — the problem is with people who seek that sort of attention (and that 79 year old certainly qualifies as wanting that sort of attention). For those people, their businesses are a means to an end in the most cynical way possible.
Speak for yourself. I'm O18 and I don't want him in there like you claim to. Most of his base claimed to be anti-pedo until they saw the evidence in the unredacted subset of the Epstein files that Congress legally forced him to release, and now suddenly they're pro-pedo (and pro-war and pro-bombing-schoolchildren). But you be you, and make baseless evidence-free false equivalence accusations against other people to justify the rapes and legally adjudicated sexual assault and pussy grabbing by the guy you as an "O18" claim you want in there.
Yes, gitea (and originally gogs) are released under permissive licenses, so it's legally allowed to fork them.
But forking complete working projects with years of work, rebranding with a "good guys" attitude, and progressively erasing the name/history (mentioning a gitea fork has moved down the faq now) is not fair.
Edit: even worse, the word "fork" is not in the FAQ. It is "Comparison with Gitea" now (fork is mentioned on that page).
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software…
This is already a crazy take on its own, why would a fork have to describe their relation to the parent project front and center? Both the Readme and the comparison page link to the origin blog post [1] that describes the lineage clearly.
But even if there were some "ethical reason" to do this, I don't think Gitea is the right project to play up as a victim. Their homepage [2] doesn't mention that Gitea itself is a fork either. Their Readme does, but is this so much better?
iPhones need desktop mode. Your apps, your data. USB-C screen + Bluetooth keyboard/mouse. Running like iPadOS or even macOS.
reply