Windows 10 for Raspberry Pi 2 - <AUTHOR> http://dev.windows.com/en-us/featured/raspberrypi2support <comment><USER3> I am usually not the one to blow the free software horn (being a staunch believer of non-copyleft licenses such as the Apache License) and the geek in me likes this announcement. I also don't hold a grudge against Windows, I think it is a fine system for most people.

However, Windows seems very much contrary to the goal of the Raspberry Pi: providing a device for children to tinker with and educate themselves. Although .NET is slowly opening up, Windows is closed as ever. So, it does not actually let you check out how stuff works: looking up that function in the Python standard library, seeing how it calls libc, and then diving into libc to see how it is actually implemented.

It's in Microsoft interest to keep kids in their ecosystem, which has been pretty much unproblematic in the nineties and before the smart phone revolution. As the RPi becomes more popular in education, it would be bad for them when kids see that there is something else that not only works well, but also allows them to do more.

My fear is that teachers will now choose for Windows on the RPi, since that is what they know. And we are back to where we started: a fundamentally unhackable system.

Now, if Microsoft would open up the core of Windows. I would be impressed. Now? Not so.

<comment><USER4> "Windows seems very much contrary to the goal of the Raspberry Pi: providing a device for children to tinker with and educate themselves"

"Windows is closed as ever"

Are these kids hacking on the Linux kernel or something? Of course not. They will be using some app/language running on the OS. They don't need access to the OS source to do that. Seems to me Windows is a perfectly open enough OS to act as a platform for tinkering and learning about computers.

<comment><USER3> _Are these kids hacking on the Linux kernel or something? Of course not. They will be using some app /language running on the OS. They don't need access to the OS source to do that. _

I _even_ mentioned libc. There is more to an operating system than a kernel.

In fact, this was an important part of my early computer education: when I was 12 (1994) I bought a copy of Slackware Linux because it had a free compiler (even Turbo Pascal was expensive for a 12 year-old).

At the beginning I just typed some small C snippets that I could find in books in the library. Then I started reading shell scripts and found out that a lot of the system is controlled through shell scripts and started writing my own. Then I started reading through the source code of libraries to find out how things were implemented.

At some point I got a Minix book (I was probably 16) at a discount at a book store. I started comparing the theory I read there and tried to find out how e.g. the Linux VMM differed from Minix.

Don't underestimate how important it is for a kid to have access to such information. Only a small subset dive deeply into the system, but they will be the hackers of the future. But you have to awaken the interest by making easy to dive in.

 _They will be using some app /language running on the OS. They don't need access to the OS source to do that._

I think you underestimate how important access to the OS (in the widest sense) has been to the success of everyone from Google, Dropbox, and Facebook to the newest of startups.

<comment><USER5> I think you overestimate the need for access to the OS for learning things. The cracking scene, demoscene and games industry was almost exclusively built on Windows. A lot of that was just as, if not more, advanced as what a Linux programmer does.

I do think the trend of iOS, Android and similar Windows environments is troubling. But if they ship Windows 10 on the RPi with something like QBasic and Visual Studio it's probably just as good a learning tool as Linux. Or even a better one considering the rest of the application ecosystem.

<comment><USER6> I don't think Win 10 is about teaching kids to code.

But then I don't think the Pi is really about teaching kids to code either.

The Pi Foundation has done a good job of persuading everyone otherwise, but I'm left with a nagging suspicion that a computer designed for kids from the ground up would look very different. It's just too damn complicated for most kids. The nerds get it, but expecting the average ten year old to learn Linux shell scripting or the fine points of Apache installation seems unrealistic to me.

Win 10 on the Pi is about two things. The first is about edging Linux out of the education market. Teachers will indeed prefer Win 10 to Linux, for reasons that others have mentioned - especially if it comes with a basic dev toolchain. Even if that toolchain is very easy to use.

The second is - I guess - selling Office 365 subscriptions on super-cheap hardware, and creating a whole new sub-PC market for Windows and Office.

If I'm right, it's a clever move. It will give Windows and Office access to many new markets worldwide.

Where MS hardware failed on price, the Pi version wins on price. It could be a _very_ strong combination.

<comment><USER7> But is Linux about teaching kids to code? I don't think it is. I spent more time on RH6.2 attempting to learn how the system worked and how the heck to make my rubbish graphics card run X than running egcs or g++ back in the day. There was terse documentation for all the GTK stuff, and it was particularly daunting if you had not written any advanced C or C++ (like me). I did manage to write some rubbish programs under Qt thanks to the excellent documentation and through sheer perseverance under KDE2 but today installing Visual Studio is incredibly easy.

I ran Linux for years and still use it today for my Pi only but I think the INITIAL learning curve to use a system is less steep with Windows than Linux, particularly if you are presented with a CLI Linux login. If you are presented with a GUI then it may be different for a 6 year old but I wouldn't say that the Linux vs Windows discussion really takes into account how easy it is to get into programming on the platforms.

(I know you can install gcc and get writing C/C++ really quickly but you can do the same with Visual Studio without understanding a package management system).

<comment><USER8> It sounds like you were running Linux on hardware that wasn't Ubuntu certified.

This is like complaining about how hard it is to get OS X up and running when installing on a Dell, but I see where you're coming from and realize this wasn't you whole point.

Anywho.. I would say it's easier to take skills learned from using Linux and apply them to the Windows OS than the other way around.

<comment><USER7> Yep, it wasn't Ubuntu certified because it was the year 2000 and Ubuntu and Mark Shuttleworth weren't around yet. My old 486 had a rubbish VESA compliant card in it that was a pain to get XConfigurator to use.

Admittedly, I did learn many skills with the command line but this DIDN'T translate to me being a wizard with the DOS prompt on Windows 98 back then - <USER2> didn't use the DOS prompt. Task manager didn't show a hierarchy of processes like pstree does now, and pstree didn't come (or even exist?) with RedHat 5.0 or 6.0. This was RedHat, not RHEL.

I got OSX up and running on my Acer Aspire :-)

You're right though, that was difficult.

I think the skills for the different OSes are only mainly applicable to their OS, despite how we think and how easily you and I can use the different platforms.

Using a keyboard and a mouse translates, but nothing else does really. Getting my wife to use OSX is frustrating for her, my brother gets angry using OSX too, my brother is lost under Linux, my mum gets lost under Windows (she's fine with iOS mostly now) and my dad is fine with Windows 7 and before but hates Windows 8. My wife gets lost under Android after using iOS for years.

Don't even think about programming for any of them on any of the platforms!

<comment><USER9> I always love guys like you... I tried something 15 years ago so I know everything about the current project because nothing ever changes...

Jesus, Linux Circa 2000 is very very very different from linux 2015...

<comment><USER7> I'm not Jesus. You got my name wrong. I get the feeling in reality that you DON'T love "guys like me". You manage to judge a lot about me from two comments!

Seriously though, I use Linux every other day and my last job involved maintaining racks and racks of Linux servers. I also use a few Raspberry Pi s at home, and I appreciate that things change. The ditching of the normal windowing paradigm is the biggest recent change that made me use Linux less as a desktop OS. I didn't say that things don't change - where did you read that?

But it still stands that giving my mum a Raspberry Pi and an SD card, and she'll be none the wiser about runlevels, CLI, or the main point of the discussion, programming. She'll instead spend more time learning how to use Linux, surely?

Or are you saying that my mum will suddenly be able to start development or something?

Or are you just offended that I had some experiences in the past or something?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Note: Windows 10 on Pi 2 will be an IoT platform, not a desktop OS.

You'll develop your app in Visual Studio on a Windows PC and deploy it to the Pi.

Raspbian will continue to be the main supported OS.

\- Ben from Raspberry Pi

<comment><USER11> > IoT

What is that? "Internet of Things"? "Installs on Tablets"?

<comment><USER12> Internet of Things: [https://dev.windows.com/featured/Windows-Developer- Program-f...](https://dev.windows.com/featured/Windows-Developer-Program-for- IoT)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> There's nothing wrong with learning to first code on Windows. If it is easy for a kid to get going and start making stuff, they have a much better chance of sticking with it long enough to actually be interested in it as a hobby or career. My first programming experience was VB6 on Windows 98. I went from there to C in Visual C++. Fast forward to today and I write Java on OSX that is deployed to Linux machines. Most of this stuff is pretty transferable. Starting on Windows by no means stops you from exploring Linux later.

CS fundamentals can be taught on any system. Most kids don't have really technical people in their lives to get them past some of the hurdles of even getting started. I think we sometimes forget that the whole world doesn't want to be Linux gurus -- they want to be able to watch their cat videos and check their Facebook accounts. Most people don't care about the technical parts. If we can try to make the more technical parts accessible to a wider audience, I think that's moving the needle in the right direction.

<comment><USER14> >> CS fundamentals can be taught on any system

This.

I don't know why a lot of people just assume that having Windows means you'll learn using Microsoft's development tools. Nothing's preventing you from choosing Apache over IIS, or Postgresql/MySQL over SQL Server Express.

Most major web app development platforms run on Windows, and there are plenty of good, free text editors too.

<comment><USER15> Because professors are teaching those tools, which means students are more comfortable with them / know what they are.

This isn't CS fundamentals, but, at least for a good portion of CS 1 classes taught at my school, and all of the CS 2 and data structures, Visual Studio is what people are taught, with the OS X users typically using XCode.

I don't know if it's better to start with IDEs or just basic text editors and compilers, but I know a lot of CS majors are going to be coming out of my school without knowing how to compile and run almost any program without clicking on the green run button in their IDE.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> While most people don't hack kernel code themselves, there is still value in promoting open source operating systems. A future in which Windows becomes popular on mobile/embedded devices is likely a future with more binary blobs, more OS-locked hardware, and fewer opportunities for those people who do want to hack on kernel code.

<comment><USER17> > A future in which Windows becomes popular on mobile/embedded devices is > likely a future with more binary blobs, more OS-locked hardware, and fewer > opportunities for those people who do want to hack on kernel code.

I just can't agree with that. F/OSS fan that I am, I still think the same opportunities will exist whether Windows runs on a particular piece of hardware or not. After all, GNU/Linux and BSD have flourished despite Windows running on the same hardware for the past 30 years. How is this any different? I see it as opening up new channels for learning, not closing them off.

To look at it another way, this is similar to Microsoft being late to the party on modern smartphones. The existence of Windows Phone 7 and 8 has done absolutely nothing to slow down the explosion of popularity in Android and iOS phones.

I don't foresee a huge percentage of Raspberry Pi owners jumping ship to Windows 10; maybe dabbling with it but that's it. As far as we know, GNU/Linux will continue to offer a superior learning experience.

<comment><USER18> FreeBSD has "flourished"? I seem to remember only two years ago before Christmas they were begging for donations or they will close shop.

Linux and FreeBSD/OpenBSD certainly hasn't "flourished" on users' PCs either, which is the above commenter's point.

<comment><USER17> I didn't see anything in the parent's comment about GNU/Linux or FreeBSD on desktop PCs, nor was I talking about it on desktop PCs. The Raspberry Pi has always been meant as a learning device, a maker's toolkit, a base for building something other than a boring desktop PC. The fact that it now has the power to be a desktop PC doesn't mean that's all it will ever be.

One definition (the one I was using) of "flourish" is "to develop rapidly and successfully". I stand by that description; GNU/Linux and the BSDs have seen steady improvement and rapid development surges over the past few decades. If you're claiming otherwise, I'd say look at the server statistics across the Internet. Look at mobile phone operating systems. Look anywhere but the desktop, and you'll see Free and Open Source solutions far outstripping any offering from Microsoft.

I say, welcome to the party Microsoft. Again, one more channel for learning should be welcomed, not shunned because of old prejudices.

<comment><USER19> What? These are not "old prejudices", Windows is still proprietary software and that's still harmful to user freedom. This is not just "one more channel for learning", it's a dying proprietary platform trying to piggyback on the success of a popular open-source platform.

<comment><USER17> Given that Microsoft is steadily becoming more open-source friendly and I'm seeing them being ridiculed for it across the web, I'd say a lot of old prejudice is at play.

Besides, Google's version of Android is also proprietary software that is not only harmful to user freedom, it's also more and more privacy hostile every day. Yet Google is still held as the pinnacle of open source friendly companies in some circles. Old prejudices, again.

<comment><USER16> I distinguish between proprietary apps and proprietary kernel. The open source world can build its own apps. Mostly. However, it can't build its own kernel if the hardware is undocumented and/or only supported by OS-specific binary blobs. Drivers are key to a lot of things.

MS is a lot more open-source friendly, and smarter, but it's pretty clear that this is a strategy to get more people tied into ecosystems which favor proprietary Windows. MS is behind, so they're playing catch-up.

<comment><USER17> I don't disagree, and I'll add that the Raspberry Pi is still encumbered by a binary blob that is required to boot, no matter the actual OS that is loaded after. I for one would absolutely love to see a 100% fully documented, Free and Open Source development board, from the board layout, to the CPU/GPU design, the boot code, and all kernel and userland software.

Unfortunately there is no real market interest for such a device, so I'll take what I can get.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Out of all of the exciting news coming from Redmond this past year, this has somehow taken the cake for me. In 2013, even suggesting Windows on Raspberry Pi could be a possibility would've gotten you laughed out of the room, and for it now to be actually happening made me take more than a few double-takes.

<comment><USER21> It's not that surprising news. NT has supported ARM for a few years now and the Raspberry Pi 2 is a pretty beefy board - all things considered.

<comment><USER22> Actually Microsoft seemed to be backing away from ARM support. They have abandoned Windows 10 for existing Windows RT devices, for instance.

<comment><USER23> That is probably because Surface RT has pretty much been rejected by the market. There is no business in beating a dead horse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I think this is awesome. For all the people that are complaining about not being open source and not friendly to hackers, the truth is probably most people that program Raspberry are not even using a native compiled language but are using Python. The people that want to hack on a kernel, can install Linux.

I am really excited about the prospect of Microsoft enabling writing and debugging for the Pi using Visual Studio. They already have the feature for android in the Visual Studio 2015 Preview[1] and making it work for Raspberry Pi on running Windows should be easy. With an excellent development environment and debugger, I think interest in C/C++ programming for the Pi will be increased as it will be more accessible.

[1] [http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2014/12/05/developing...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2014/12/05/developing- native-activity-applications-for-the-android-platform.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER25> I wonder what the redistribution license will look like. Most stuff I've used a pi for have been "copy image to flash card, install flash card, boot and run" not running apt-get or make install type commands from the console. (I'm installing an octoprint box this week, sometime, bye bye repetier-host) Historically microsoft has been a little displeased with people redistributing their software.

Another issue little discussed is the intense PR campaign that it's only useful for education despite it being a pretty good generic appliance. I've never used one for education and have zero contact with that small subculture. Most pi users are using it as a low power small solid state replacement for "pull that old used desktop and slap linux on it" I wonder how the PR campaign that its an educational device will be enforced at the OS level, perhaps a watchdog timer will reboot it every hour or it'll be DRMed to heck and back requiring signatures for all executable software or who knows what could be implemented to ruin it for hobbyists without significantly impacting the edu market.

<comment><USER26> When you read the terms of the program, you only get one single copy of prerelease software, and the license is only good for 60 days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I think there's too much arguing for things that kids don't give a shit about. The argument can't be, "think about the children!"

The argument must be, "preserve the children's rights to think for themselves." It is on us as adults - parents, teachers, trusted elders, whatever - to instill in the kids the information needed to make decisions, and the fundamental skills to objectively utilize that information in a rational decision making process. In my humble opinion - reflected in my own choices as a parent - that means Linux (a term I use in its colloquial form, please do not nit pick on that word) on the Pi. My kids see Windows at school and at friends' homes, OS X and iOS at home, and as of today I'm taking my RPi off duty and showing it to my kids. It's a snow day, they're a captive audience!

It isn't about a six year old compiling a new kernel or a teen getting a Minecraft server to run a mod, it's about creating a spirit of curiosity and experimentation.

<comment><USER28> And nothing kills curiosity more than NT system calls that are undebuggable and the bureaucracy around setting up a .net development environment or even worse trying to use any other language on Windows than the .net stuff.

<comment><USER27> And how, exactly, will a child be faced with debugging NT internals while making a game in Scratch?

The educators that want to foster an interest in _computing_ will do so in a way that's least burdensome to a child's limited attention span and desire for instant gratification. Those that want to foster an interest in writing software simply won't put Windows on the thing unless they're teaching it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Nicely played. I'm a bit surprised at the amount of people in this thread equating Windows 10 for RPi with a desktop environment, though -- I'd be _very_ surprised if it had a desktop environment at all, considering that they're targeting it as an embedded system.

You _might_ have graphics, but not a DE.

Edited to add: based on this video, [http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2014/2-511](http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2014/2-511), this will probably be considered as a "micro" system without any UI.

<comment><USER30> Which makes sense, considering this is part of their IoT program. Microsoft isn't porting Windows 10 to the Raspberry Pi so that kids can use it. They're doing it for developers who want something cheaper and more powerful than an Intel Edison.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I would love to here the inside story here.

Based on my experience with Win7 and Win8, I expect that Win10 would have crawled (or not at all worked) with the slower CPU and smaller memory.

My guess would be that the Raspberry Pi 2 is, in fact, a Microsoft initiative rather than an RPi Foundation initiative - and that Microsoft have actually contributed significant funds to make this possible. Either way, that is good for the community - I don't have a problem with Microsoft financing my stuff as long as it does not come with any strings attached (which, I trust the RPi foundation to have insisted on).

Pure speculation, of course - but I'm sure we'll hear a lot more about this deal.

<comment><USER32> That makes sense. After all, they were not going to release an RPi 2 until 2017, and now - suddenly - they have a new version with Windows ( _version_ ) support from the get go! [http://www.extremetech.com/computing/186263-raspberry- pi-2-t...](http://www.extremetech.com/computing/186263-raspberry- pi-2-targeted-for-2017-current-model-gets-upgrade)

<comment><USER33> Seems more likely Broadcom have been helpful than MS from what the RPi folk have said. I'd guess that they weren't originally expecting it to be feasible to get what appears to be a custom SoC made.

Note that when the B+ board was designed, they already knew the pinout of the new chip and were leaving space for it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I personally want a trimmed down version of .NET (perhaps the new Core CLR which is just 10 MB) so I can run F#.

Mono is too heavy and have millions other dependencies I dont want to grab.

Running a modern & practical functional language on RB Pi will be extremely joyful for me.

<comment><USER35> Does .Net micro framework fit the bill?

[http://www.netmf.com/](http://www.netmf.com/)

<comment><USER36> Last I checked, Micro is too small and lacks crucial things you want for everyday development, and that is for a normal developer, not a language runtime-designer.

It was targeted mostly towards very low-specced hardware, closer to a Arduino than a Pi.

I'm guessing things like F# relies on too much things which are not included here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The devil is in the details of the licensing terms. Just like the "Windows 10 upgrades done in the first year will be free for the supported lifetime of your device" leaves a lot of wiggle room around who gets to decide what constitutes the lifetime of a device (you can be sure if you upgrade more than a few components you will get thrown out of the land of "free"), the terms of this program are not necessarily what you might expect from the PR: you get to install one single license and it is only good for 60 days!

</comment><comment><USER37> I want this to be a good thing. I probably still have some Ballmer-induced "PTSD", so I approach these things with extra skepticism (even though I like the recent changes seen at MS). More choices often means a better ecosystem. More kids hacking is a good thing.

One problem that I see is that Broadcomm and peripheral makers will continue to release binary-only blobs/drivers, and the MSVS based toolchain could start to be the only way to do some of the really cool things. ie a few "killer" apps will done up and those will only be accessible on the Win/MSVS (free-as- in-bait) platform. Linux will again be relegated to the kind of blind-reverse- engineering, playing catchup, and being a second place late finisher; which we have all seen, and continue to see today.

Another is that educators at the lower level will take the "easy/safe/familiar" route and teach Windows exclusively, as is the case today even into college.

</comment><comment><USER38> Okay, come on! Who are you? And what did you do to Microsoft?

</comment><comment><USER39> Next step, Microsoft announces FX!32 for Win10 ARM.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FX!32](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FX!32)

FX!32 is a software emulator program that allows Win32 programs built for the Intel x86 instruction set to execute on DEC Alpha-based systems running Windows NT.

<comment><USER40> Hey, I could put Windows 10 on my DEC^WHP^WCompaq ES40!

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> IoT devices running Windows 10. So I guess my coffee machine will also have the blue screen of death (BSOD) now.

Jokes aside, strategic move by Microsoft. The new CEO has some interesting stuff in mind indeed. Can't wait for the build conference where they open the HoloLens dev tools.

<comment><USER42> That's not a joke: quite a few coffee machines around the Microsoft campus run embedded Windows, including one in the recruiting building's reception lounge.

<comment><USER43> Have these windows coffee machines ever produced the bad coffee of death though?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> OK, Microsoft somehow got its sh*t together. I've been seeing them on local programming conferences (in Poland!), they started caring about open source, this company may still have a bright future.

</comment><comment><USER45> I have been using the Windows 10 preview to play around with Powershell 5. Up until the 9926 build it was a big improvement.

The 9926 build is the first I've noticed that the started Windows 7 "Search Program and Files" has been replaced with "Search the computer and web". Apparently you can't turn it off. I could not find a group policy or regedit tweak to turn it off. A Microsoft support article said you cannot, period. Everything you do is a search. This default behaviour, even in Ubuntu, was what helped me switch distros.

The problem with this default behaviour is that it won't fly in corporate and government environments. Any place that does a security audit will have to redo a security audit every single time a new system is placed onto their network.

Microsoft seems to be moving towards the trend of easy use rather than productivity.

Trying to make a child's first impression of computing being tied to Windows makes sense. But aren't there going to be issues with blatantly monitoring kids like this?

<comment> mark-r Argh! It's bad enough that the Help systems do this. If I'm going to Help, I want help the program I installed on my computer and I want it fast - don't search the entire internet for something that should be instantly available already. I really hate to see this philosophy extending to everything. I already know how to use Google to search the web.

<comment><USER33> I noticed libreoffice doing this yesterday. Very disappointing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I hope it will support the .net framework. That would make it really accessible to unsophisticated hobbyists like me! There are very few things one can't do with a USB port!

<comment><USER47> Mono runs on existing raspis right now. So this looks very possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> It's nice to see Microsoft cares. OTOH part of the attraction of the RPi for me is that people freely share their knowledge, code and cool hacks.

Adding a humongous blob of unmodifiable software doesn't really align with any of that. In the best case people will shun this, in the worst case it could harm the culture.

<comment><USER49> I'm fairly sure that most RPi users neither modify the OS that their device is running or even look at the source code. The community-led innovation mainly happens higher up the stack, and in the hardware add-on space, and I don't see how Windows on RPi would change that. Windows on RPi is unlikely to ever be mainstream, so anyone using Windows-specific features on software would have to accept that their code would be interesting to only a small minority of other RPi users.

Meta: Why all the anti-MS cynicism on the threads for this topic? Isn't it kind of old now?

(Edit: Added "...unlikely to ever be mainstream...")

<comment><USER50> Because Embrace, Extend, Extinguish is older than dirt. Microsoft had a long habit of adopting public standards, adding proprietary extensions, and then smothering the standard by making their extensions intentionally obtuse and hard to interoperate with. I don't honestly see how they could do such with the Pi, but I'm honestly not awful enough to see all the nasty possibilities.

From a different perspective: As someone who until recently lived in Washington, Microsoft's management stack hasn't changed. It is still a very Sales-driven organization, with very little leeway given to Engineering to drive things that are useful, interesting, or innovative. How this fits into a Microsoft sales plan, I don't see; It might be somebody's pet project based on their child's interest in a Pi (As was basically the origin of the Zune and Kinect; I know the sales guys who responsible for allowing those to be engineered). Regardless, I expect it to be a redheaded stepchild, because it's sales potential is not proven.

<comment><USER51> > From a different perspective: As someone who until recently lived in > Washington, Microsoft's management stack hasn't changed. It is still a very > Sales-driven organization, with very little leeway given to Engineering to > drive things that are useful, interesting, or innovative.

You say you lived in Washington, are you implying you were a Microsoft employee? Seems from everyone I'm hearing from that they've been making major structure changes for a while now and a lot of the old management has been shuffled or removed (especially with those huge rounds of layoffs) so I'm curious as to why I'm hearing something different from what you're saying.

<comment><USER50> No, my reasons for leaving WA are completely unrelated to Microsoft's layoffs. And, despite being in the Seattle area for nearly 10 years, I never did work for them. I just knew a bunch of people who did. Sure, it's getting stirred up there, but most of the layoffs were low-level, contract, vendor, and new-hire employees. From what I have heard, the management structure has had a power struggle, but it was between two camps of the good old boys, and the new boss is the same as the old boss.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Does anyone know what they mean when they say "grounded in trust"? (Seems odd to imply that other OSes are not trustworthy.) Referring to code signing, perhaps?

<comment><USER53> New Breakfast Flakes - Asbestos Free

[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AsbestosFreeCerea...](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AsbestosFreeCereal)

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Apparently "IoT" means "Internet of Things" ("Windows Developer Program for IoT").

Is this a wildly recognized acronym so that it doesn't even need a footnote? (In a Sans Serif font you can't even tell if the first letter is an i or an l; it's really bad).

<comment><USER55> Yes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I hope they get rid of the stupid code-signing requirement that's currently in RT which prevents all third-party apps from running in RT desktop mode! I'd love to be able run Chrome on a Windows ARM device...

<comment><USER57> If they didn't it would defeat the sole purpose of the Raspberry Pi IMHO. (Hacking software + hardware)

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Is Windows/Pi still an astonishing pain in the ass to talk to the local hardware? Linux (Unix) /dev is the best part. I don't have to search for obscure GUIDs to talk to a USB device.

<comment><USER59> What GUI? Windows 10 IoT comes without a GUI.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I can't see this working, hence windows is not exactly a lean OS. Coinincidently I'm stuck in an update/reboot cycle at the moment after a fresh install. Also i need to extend my partion of 60GB after just installing the OS (8.1) to get Visual Studio installed (which will also take at least 10GB).

I like the new direction of MS, but i wonder if it's possible to succeed with so much old baggage to carry...

<comment><USER61> Their current running WindowsOnDevices program showcases Microsoft's developer preview of a new, tiny version of Windows that runs on small CPU-based devices like the Intel Galileo dev board. I'm sure they are aiming for something similar for RPi2 (it's obviosly impractical to run full scale Windows 10 on such underpowered devices)

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I don't think Microsoft is doing it for the Open-Source spirit, as many seem to believe. They have a long history of attacking/smearing open source and displaying a "I heart Linux" slide is not sufficient to erase all the FUD and their questionable software patent licensing schemes (which are completely anti-open). They called Linux a cancer, even.

I think they're approaching this from a redundancy point of view, if person X already has Windows on his desktop (on which they have the market cornered), provide them with subsidized Windows platforms on other hardware where the monopoly is not yet in place. This then would cause the interest in other platforms to dwindle, as people would flock to what they know. Here also the EET mantra could come into play again, by offering features not available to other platforms.

They need a foothold in other hardware, most likely for the coming of Internet Of Things.

It makes business sense for them to increase their reach, but don't think that equals Microsoft being fond of Open-Source.

<comment><USER63> Can we stop with this argument? Every time a business makes a business- oriented decision someone will pop out to call them out for being acting for their own benefit, as if it's somehow bad.

Like every human exchange, you don't have to be an altruist for your deed to be good. It's alright to do "good" even if it derives some sort of benefit for yourself or your company.

<comment><USER18> Except this move only really benefits Microsoft. And it's certainly not for the "love of open source".

<comment><USER64> How? It benefits me as a consumer, I'm excited to put Windows 10 on a Pi. It benefits the RPi foundation (assuming their sales go up).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Even though its Windows 10, the fact its ARM means you won't be able to run most desktop Windows software. Unlike Linux where most things have already been ported to ARM (thanks to open source!).

People will discover the limitations very quickly, especially compared to Raspbian/Ubuntu/OpenSUSE/etc...

</comment><comment><USER66> So I guess windows RT will be continued? I first thought that they're going x86-only, including the phones.

<comment><USER59> There has no announcement been made to discontinue Windows on the ARM platform.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> I was waiting for a long time for something like that. Now I will be able to make a very cheap parents' pc

</comment><comment><USER68> Anyone have a screenshot of Windows 10 running on the Raspberry Pi 2??? Does it actually have a GUI?

</comment><comment><USER69> Fantastic news. Just as positive as that time Microsoft decided to "help out" with OLPC .....

All of WinRT and Metro you would NEVER want, without that pesky Windows applications (x86) compatibility every statistical user associates with Windows brand.

</comment><comment><USER70> Cool news indeed. What is the main selling point of running windows over linux? Given that the CLR can (or will soon) run in a core version also on raspbian, what will be the main reason to choose Win10 as a base for an IoT project? Normally the case for windows over linux involves a desktop, but not in this case.

Could it be that microsofts API's for IoT/Smart homes will not be part of the cross platform (core) .NET package? If so then at least this move makes sense: "use a windows IoT device and you get all these handy microsoft IoT API's".

</comment><comment><USER71> If the windows source is not open, and we can't verify the builds we run, then how are we to know if the kernel and drivers, and userland apps are not tainted with NSA backdoors?

</comment><comment><USER72> Could somebody explain how this is possible, given RAM and CPU constraints? Like, does W10 actually run with that small of a footprint it works on a Raspberry Pi 2?

<comment><USER73> Conceptually, it's just like Windows 8 can run both on a desktop as well as a Lumia phone. I'm not sure whether they actually share parts of the codebase (like the linux kernel does), or it's just some common UI elements like tiles + shared brand name on top of wildly different kernels.

<comment><USER59> In fact they use the NT-Kernel for Windows Phone as well. [1] [http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsofts-windows- phone-8-fina...](http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsofts-windows- phone-8-finally-gets-a-real-windows-core/)

<comment><USER73> That is indeed very informative, thanks!

"...the Windows Phone OS will include the same file system (NTFS), same networking stack, same security elements, graphics engine (DirectX), device driver framework and hardware abstraction layer (HAL) as big Windows."

I hadn't realized they share so much. If this statement holds true for the upcoming Windows 10, then it's probably the very first time DirectX is running on any SBC. I wonder if Broadcom have made some changes to VideoCore GPU to support DirectX.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> I think this is great, everyone should learn the Win32 API as an example of how not to design an API for wanting to build applications on top of the OS.

</comment><comment><USER75> The raspberry pi is supposed to be an educational tool. You cannot learn anything about the inner workings of an operating system when it is closed source. There isn't much of an argument to be made really for Microsoft on Raspberry Pi. Programming in c# can be done on Linux these days. Why one would want to use Microsoft is really beyond me.

<comment><USER76> Operating system education isnt the only objective, Windows is a robust platform to learn programming and any number of other uses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> It's kind of weird Microsoft courting developers again. It's like an ex- girlfriend wants to rekindle the relationship.

</comment><comment><USER78> Interesting quotes from the CEO Eben Upton. [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/02/windows_10_raspberry...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/02/windows_10_raspberry_pi_2_eben_upton_interview/)

</comment><comment><USER79> I had (optimistically) predicted the way to to ARM desktops was with Steam and gamers coming over to Linux and the majority of code bases being more portable they could cross-compile games to Linux on ARM.

But this could work too!

</comment><comment><USER80> This is very smart of Microsoft and good for the Raspberry PI. All the alternative OSs for Raspberry Pi are still there, and now there is another with a huge library of software.

</comment><comment><USER32> Has there been 'a version of Windows' (how is this one called, by the way?) that works on ARM, before? Does this _version_ support any other ARM board?

<comment><USER81> Windows RT. It was normal W8, except the W32 api could be accessed only by MS signed software so developers could use only metro.

<comment><USER82> Going back a bit you could include Windows CE alongside Windows RT if you liked. Windows Mobile as well. Is Windows Phone a version of RT?

<comment><USER83> Windows Phone is some shared core components from Windows desktop (which RT is basically just an ARM build of) + its own stuff on top. The shared core has been growing with each release.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> This is great. Especially for the developing world where the Pi has great potential but people only really want to use and learn in a Windows environment.

</comment><comment><USER85> This is one way for Microsoft to get into the IoT game. It'll be interesting to see if their ARM port is useable on the new Raspberry Pi.

</comment><comment><USER86> Awesome news to hear. But I am not sure how far it will be compatible with the low resources on a Raspberry Pi.

<comment><USER26> The just announced supercharged pi model should handle it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> This is awesome.

Actually, I wonder if I could get ReactOS running on a Pi, might be the perfect testing platform. Hmm.

</comment><comment><USER88> I can't be the only person who first found out about the new Raspberry Pi here!

Just ordered 2 of them!

</comment><comment><USER89> hah good old MS - no single link to Rasp project - still afraid of L word.

<comment><USER37> Be brave. You can do it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> Microsoft is playing a solid game of chess with their competitors.

</comment><comment><USER91> Wasn't the goal of windows 10 to run on any system??

</comment><comment><USER92> OT, but why did they took so long to go to ARMv7?

</comment><comment><USER93> Well I see a lot of people already moving away from Linux due to the systemd fiasco. This gives people options so that;'s good.

</comment><comment><USER94> wow. Microsoft is pulling out all the stops.

</comment><comment><USER95> Shot over the bridge in some spat with intel?

<comment><USER96> Not just Intel, I think Microsoft is aggressively interested in getting exciting hardware to consumers, and isn't going to wait for their existing big brands to deliver.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Somewhat surprised that there are around 20 comments and all of the seem to be from more or less a consumer perspective. The Raspberry Pi is one of the few embedded devices with aspires to be used as a desktop computer and on top of that as a way to learn computers. Embedded systems is also one of the few threats to Windows, but this hasn't really materialized yet since most devices only comes with android drivers. All in all it's a great strategic move for Microsoft and confirms my suspicion that Linux is losing the second round of the desktop wars.

<comment><USER97> Once you consider that the version for the Rpi2 is an 'IoT' system, and not a desktop OS, this comment becomes irrelevant.

<comment><USER5> Considering that what you consider 'IoT' and what Microsoft considers 'IoT' isn't the same thing it might be your comment that is irrelevant.

[http://image.slidesharecdn.com/iot- whatisit-140607104402-php...](http://image.slidesharecdn.com/iot- whatisit-140607104402-phpapp01/95/iot-what-is-it-18-638.jpg)</comment></comment></comment>


After defying tariffs, Harley-Davidson kicks off birthday bash in Europe - <AUTHOR> https://news.alphastreet.com/after-defying-tariffs-harley-davidson-kicks-off-birthday-bash-in-europe/ <comment><USER2> They didn't "defy" tariffs. They have multiple factories around the world like every other company.

The US is now a SPOF.</comment>


The idea of a 'robot tax' is gaining steam - <AUTHOR> https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/robot-tax-gains-steam-job-killing-automation-work-economy-2020-1-1028807242 <comment><USER2> What are the goals here? Is it to maximize the production of the stuff of our lives so that it is available at the highest quality and lowest price possible, requiring the least amount of human toil? (It helps to think about where shoes, houses, food, entertainment, clothing, medicine and all the rest comes from.)

Or is the goal to _inhibit_ change, so that people don't have to apply their minds to figure out how and where they fit into a rapidly changing (improving?) world?

Let's leave aside issues of class and envy, because I think that's a related, but secondary issue that is (at least in part) resolved by the answer to the above.

<comment><USER3> One of the big goals is to provide time for workers to either retire or retrain for different careers. Right now, a company can buy a robot (capital expense that they depreciate) and the worker is out of job with the possibility of a little severance pay and some unemployment for a short time. A tax that targeted jobs that have been automated away could be used to fund retraining programs and help those displaced workers find new careers.

<comment><USER2> Why not go the other way and encourage changes in society that reduce the cost of living?

For example, here in California there is a severe housing shortage, and it is widely agreed that the difference between us cheaper places are the restrictions placed by our own laws. Supply is therefore artificially limited.

This is on my mind because I am unemployed and living off of my savings. I don't want to be told what to do all day, and I don't want handouts either. I just want to have the option of going my own way, and to get a square deal on the things I buy.

<comment><USER4> The only way we have for limiting population influx into "preferable" regions is cost.

At the moment we pretty much let people duke it out economically. If you're productive enough (yes, I'm aware of the flaws there) then you get to live in X area.

Without that I'm not sure how any sort ot UBI can work unless you want to have arbitrary barriers around regions. What's the path for a younger version of me to move from my hometown to London in this world in which my work is valueless?

<comment><USER5> I don't think cost is the main limit on population density in preferable regions. I would think zoning plays a larger role and likely drives cost. I also don't think we necessarily have a real limit on the number of preferable regions other than land area. Most of what makes a location desirable are the amenities that it has access to, we know how to build schools, hospitals, libraries, parks, and other public services. Rather than making people duke it out for access to such things, maybe we should consider making more of those things available to people?

<comment><USER4> You can build more, but there will still be competition for what's there. Look at Manhattan as an example.

I'm not sure it's even possible to overbuild in an area that's not economically depressed. If London had three times the indoor residential area, a very possible case would be that it's still expensive, but that people previously living in small flats end up with larger ones or terraced houses etc.

It's hard to imagine how the poor are ever going to be able to meaningfully compete with people who have (at a minimum) hundreds of thousands of pounds of capital. The bottom tier of worker will be bid to their limit at almost any size of dwelling I would think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> An interesting aspect of this is that the definition of both "robot" and "automated" is terrifically fluid.

There are all sorts of productivity advancing tools that tread the line.

If I told you I'd built a machine that halved the number of people/time that it took to unload a truck full of boxes you might think that it pretty clearly would fall under this but take a look at the device:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzxiXYJqLn4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzxiXYJqLn4)

I'm still pitching Buckbee's law: "A robot's utility is inversely proportional to how much it looks like a robot." and in practice, I think you'd find that almost every real gain in productivity doesn't actually look like a "robot".

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm surprised by the reaction here. It seems fairly intuitive to me. People used to capture part of the value creation with their wages and they are being replaced by robots. That value that used to circulate in the economy now just goes to owners (wealthiest section of society) instead of circulating. This just takes that same value back.

I don't know the best way to implement it, but I think it is necessary if you want to prevent wealth inequality from getting worse, faster over time.

<comment><USER8> Generally, the most efficient thing to tax is the thing you don't want.

What you are proposing is a good thing (greater efficiency) with a negative side effect (tilting economies towards the rich) but rather than tax the bad thing, you're taxing the good thing in order to reduce its negative side effect.

For whatever reason it seems like taxing robots is more socially acceptable than taxing the wealthy.

<comment><USER9> You _really_ don't want a couple million unemployed and unemployable citizens at your doorstep one day angry for why they suddenly can't afford to live. You don't want it as a government and you don't want it as a company/corporation.

<comment><USER10> Back in the 60s, there was the joke that it'd be less expensive to just bribe the Vietnamese instead of fighting them.

<comment><USER5> Instead of dropping bombs they should have just dropped cigarettes, whiskey, magazines, food, clothing and a variety of American consumer goods.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A robot tax is the most ridiculously luddite political action I can think of. How about instead of taxing technological progress we fix the tax system so it actually profits and wealth accumulation.

<comment><USER12> The only way I can make sense of this is that the robots provide a surrogate buffer for the wealthy to feel "less attacked". Sadly wealthy people are not interested in the greatness of their planet or society anymore. Somehow they think their private enterprises that serve ads are making society great or leaving a legacy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I imagine this will be circumvented in similar novel ways much like the UK's window tax [0] was centuries ago.

Multiple robots will be attached to one robot "brain" and argued that they are all the same robot.

Or perhaps they will go the Volkswagen route and lie to government regulators. Whenever the government bot taxers walk in the room, all of the bots stop moving and act like smart compacting garbage cans.

Or perhaps costs of robots will dwindle so much that they will become disposable. Come bot check day, the majority of the workforce will be unrepairable and destined for the bin.

Or perhaps they're making high end CPUs with high margins that sell for $500 apiece, but the government thinks you're making plastic bags with low margins that sell for $500/pallet.

This will never work imho... or rather, it will never be "fair".

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax)

<comment><USER14> > At that time, many people in Britain opposed income tax, on principle, > because the disclosure of personal income represented an unacceptable > governmental intrusion into private matters, and a potential threat to > personal liberty.[3] In fact the first permanent British income tax was not > introduced until 1842, and the issue remained intensely controversial well > into the 20th century.[4]

Oh, how times has changed...

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> A robot is just another part of capital. Why not just tax capital directly?

<comment><USER16> Because there's a profoundly negative impact on investment and economic growth. Maybe the 99% don't see as much direct impact from said growth, but it stopping would still hurt them greatly.

As an aside, what you're describing is not a tax. There's neither a transaction nor any exchange of good or service involved. It's a direct confiscation of wealth, currently unconstitutional, and I'd call it theft. It's not skimming off the top of a transaction, it's literally the feds reaching into your pocket and calling that money theirs because enough other people said it was okay. It doesn't magically become not theft because the thief has a badge or a "democratic mandate" (enough others saying that yes, they do indeed want your money).

<comment><USER15> I'm not sure that the argument about disincentive is any different from taxing income. We want to encourage both wealth and income, and taxing them does discourage them. But the fact that taxing income discourages people from getting income isn't a strong argument against income taxation altogether.

I'm not American, so the unconstitutional argument doesn't mean much to me. But doesn't the USA have property taxation for land? Wouldn't your arguments apply to the property tax in most states? It's nothing more than the government saying you owe money because you own wealth (in the form of land). Are property taxes theft? Unconstitutional?

<comment><USER16> Absolutely it's different from taxing income; it demands liquidity. I.e. an entrepreneur with a billion dollars in stock has a net worth made mostly of "paper gains". Very little of that is likely liquid. By letting the money continue to work as an investment, it can keep growing and producing returns. Effectively adding liquidity requirements for private investment would be devastating.

> doesn't the USA have property taxation for land

That's state-level, not federal; the constitution gives the feds no power to confiscate capital. More importantly, it's a direct fifth amendment violation:

> nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just > compensation.

Not only is there no enumerated power (enough to make it unconstitutional), there's a specific prohibition.

That said, I'm not a huge property tax fan, either. I'd rather the gov't just bill each citizen for services used as an average, at least at the federal level.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Would a washing machine count as a robot?

<comment><USER18> Depending on how defined, it could easily include: a self-service elevator, 3D printers, CNC mills and lathes, a farm combine, automobile service lifts, farm irrigation, power tools, construction equipment, pneumatic tools, power screwdrivers, a dishwasher, an automated telephone exchange, internal combustion engines [or even steam engines for that matter], intermodal container systems, an IVR, spreadsheets, word processors, microwave ovens, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, hedge trimmers, automated boilers, sous vide circulators, any web-based order lookup system, automated parcel sortation machines, possibly all of e-commerce...

It seems _insane_ to me that we'd seek to tax productivity improvements in order to encourage maximizing the amount of human labor required to accomplish a given outcome.

"Spoons Not Shovels!" [https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/10/spoons- shovels/](https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/10/spoons-shovels/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> We need this. And computer tax. And car tax. And refrigerator tax.

But not just a one off tax. A recurring tax to capture all the efficiency and job loss the horse and buggy industry , secretaries, ice delivery industry, etc. have incurred.

</comment><comment><USER10> Maybe fund guaranteed minimum income with taxes on automation.

</comment><comment><USER20> And doom us to low wage low productivity feudalism. No thanks.

<comment><USER21> Surely doom us to a life where the robots do the work and we lead interesting lives of leisure

<comment><USER16> > and we lead interesting lives of leisure

We'd like to think this, and maybe some would do "interesting" things, but the fact is that most people turn into couch potatoes. People who retire early tend to die early; stop working and so will your body.

<comment><USER22> > but the fact is that most people turn into couch potatoes

> stop working and so will your body

Citation badly needed here.

I can tell you that before my peers joined the workforce, everyone was part of sports and clubs and community activities. After they joined the workforce, that stuff largely dropped away, because work is too time consuming.

<comment><USER16> > Citation badly needed here

Fair enough.

[https://www.nber.org/papers/w24127](https://www.nber.org/papers/w24127)

[https://jech.bmj.com/content/70/9/917.full](https://jech.bmj.com/content/70/9/917.full)

[https://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6089](https://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6089)

<comment><USER22> Well, sure, if you consider 55 as early retirement, I could see how people would be ready to check out and do nothing. These are people that have likely worked full time for the last 30+ years.

What I want to know is what happens at scale if people retire at 30 or 40, or maybe if they never work at all. The idea is that automation might free up people from work entirely. I don't think it's fair to extrapolate data from people who have been working for 30+ years and then had an "early" retirement.

<comment><USER16> You're right that it's a loose extrapolation at best, but it's rather the best data we have, or at least the best data of which I'm aware. You asked for citations for my claims, and I provided them; I'm showing what happens when people _stop_ working early, not when people never really start or don't for long.

That aside, a society in which no one supports himself but rather is dependent on the noblesse oblige of the state to survive is a dystopia I hope never to see.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> > a so-called "robot tax" faces significant hurdles in design and > implementation.

To put it mildly.

I want to make litter-bots: Imagine a ladybug about the size of half a beachball. It crawls around and collects litter. It's _mostly_ autonomous, but to really do a good job it needs a minder, a human "oracle" for navigation and trash?y/N queries, etc. (The minders do not necessarily have to be physically nearby to the 'bots.) ML advancements have drastically reduced the amount of human oversight needed but _not_ eliminated it entirely.

In that context, what should the _economic_ relationship be between the minders, the clients, and the robot factory? (Consider that the robot factory is likely very automated, a robot robot-factory.)

FWIW, I had originally thought I would set up a kind of volunteer distributed remote workforce with a UI that folks would play like a game.

Another possibility would be to sell or lease 'bots to operators, who are then responsible for finding their own contracts. The litter-bots would be akin to landscaper's tools (like an AI leaf-blower or chainsaw.) "Let the robots do the work and we'll take their pay."

I do NOT think it would be useful to for the government to tax my litter-bot- company's robots and then somehow redistribute that to... whom, exactly?

I am in favor of Universal Basic Income, but only when the robots are good enough to seriously impact the average person's ability to compete in the job market and get work. (Like, me. If I wasn't good at computers I'd probably be homeless!) A given economic regime must provide jobs or bread or "you're gonna have a bad time."

I think we're at the tipping point: the hardware is COTS (Common Off-The- Shelf) the software is coming together nicely. There are already robot vacuum cleaners and lawnmowers that work pretty well, etc.

So, yeah, what's the _economic_ program for the automation revolution? Lords and serfs? Or some sort of Marxist distributed ownership of the "means of production"? (Probably not: even the communists didn't actually go through with that in the end, eh?)

Why is Daiso so much more popular than RepRaps?

<comment><USER24> > _I do NOT think it would be useful to for the government to tax my litter- > bot-company 's robots and then somehow redistribute that to... whom, > exactly?_

As much as I think a robot tax looks to be one of very few possible ways to improve current situation, I also agree with you that the whole thing isn't well-explained or argued for. It does sound like this: "government vacuums even more money but 10 years later, people still live under bridges or in slums". Sadly, knowing the average politician's thought process, the odds of us ending with an economic inequality shifted from corporations to governments is extremely likely. We the people are greedy no matter what positions we occupy...

> _" Let the robots do the work and we'll take their pay."_

I like that a lot, actually. It's a much better idea. Robot goes to work in my name sake, I get money wired in my account and I get the final say in what does the robot do and when. The reliability of the transaction hinges on economical interest (I want the robot to work with a stable schedule N hours a day because that makes me money).

Really neat idea.

<comment><USER23> Cheers! I can't take credit tho. I believe it was Dr. Philo Drummond or the NENSLO who said it first.</comment></comment></comment>


Immersive Light Field Video with a Layered Mesh Representation - <AUTHOR> https://augmentedperception.github.io/deepviewvideo/ <comment><USER2> the google lightfield display app for steamvr was absolutely mindblowing, and i remember at the time thinking how awesome it would be if somehow they managed to do it with video, and if maybe someday the rendering algorithm/bandwidth available would allow it to be livestreamed. Turns out that day is... now lol.

Honestly, if you have a VR rig give their demo a shot. I can honestly say this is the one project I've seen where I would hands down quit my job immediately to become involved with it somehow if I had the option. It is abundantly clear to me that the future of media consumption and production will go in this direction. Insanely cool.

<comment><USER3> 20-60x bandwidth requirements to be able to move your head around a little? Is it worth it?

<comment><USER4> Bandwidth is getting cheaper over time. Couple of years ago I got a 56K modem, and now 1gbps connections are getting mainstream.

<comment><USER5> What you mean is, a couple of decades ago you got a 56k modem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Where's the downloadable viewer that works with Vive / Rift? :)

</comment><comment><USER7> Impressive. I'm guessing it's not long until this is used for live sporting events and concerts with virtual tickets available for those with VR headsets.

<comment><USER8> It even adds a whole new meaning to "interactive movie".

<comment><USER4> Postproduction on this would be a nightmare though, so I wouldnt bet this being used on movies soon.

<comment><USER9> It would still be possible though - it would be more like older movies, where you had to nail a shot in the take, post production was mostly cutting.

Cutting would still be more resource intensive anyways for this new tech, because you would have to evaluate if the scene works from all plausible angles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There's something weird about the video, I can't quite put my finger on it.

It almost feels like there's an eyelash in my eye...

<comment><USER11> If you look closely, there are some blurry artifacts in the video. Still, it's very impressive.

<comment><USER12> They did mention that they are compression the image data with H.265, so depending on the quality level, low-contrast areas might get smeared out. Also, there are some depth resolving errors here and there, which might be solved by using better algorithms. Or this might be an artifact from compressing the layer geometry (they used the Draco library, but did not specify in the paper what parameters they used). The paper mentions some of the limitations they encountered.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This would be great for cooking shows, fine repair work or surgical training to see "behind objects".

</comment><comment><USER14> This is astonishingly cool. Can't wait for this to become commonly available!</comment>


Meerkat is a little app that's turning live video into a big deal again - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/9/8164893/meerkat-live-video-streaming-twitter-yevvo-periscope

<comment><USER2> One of the features Meerkat should also add is "screen sharing" .. So, I can potentially start a conversation (a video stream) sharing my screen and streaming it.

Opens up more possibilities for communication and sharing.

</comment><comment><USER3> I found this app over the weekend and tried. It really good way to start a video chat in just a sec. Really simplifying for brands but I think it would be great for quick demo to potential customers at once.

</comment><comment><USER4> And the sooner it withers up and dies so people stop spamming Twitter with it, the better.</comment>


True 3D Mandlebrot-type fractal (2007) - <AUTHOR> http://www.fractalforums.com/3d-fractal-generation/true-3d-mandlebrot-type-fractal/ <comment><USER2> This is the thread where early research into the Mandelbulb happened. It's historically interesting, but as the final post says: "This topic has been locked because the main thread theme has reached some kind of a result, and is simply far to big now"

For those who are more interested in the Mandelbulb in general than the history of its discovery, the Wikipedia page is a better starting point: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbulb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbulb)

</comment><comment><USER3> You can apply the Mandelbrot iteration (or any similar scheme) to quaternions to get 4d fractals, and although they are 'true' 4d, it doesn't add anything interesting. As I recall from doing this in high school 20+ years ago, you just get the normal set swept around two of the axes, so no new information.

It could be different with other fractals, I guess it's time to try again now that computers are fast and I can actually program!

<comment><USER4> Quaternion julia sets look pretty neat.

<comment><USER5> Especially when animated by varying over time the 3D hyperplane on which the object is projected. POV-Ray, the venerable open-source raytracer, has had a 4D Julia primitive for ages and with current processors is a pretty good way to explore the Julia space.

But the 4D versions don't exhibit the sort of dizzying complexity you can endlessly zoom into like the original Mandelbrot/Julia set. This is mentioned by the starter of the thread.

<comment><USER6> Oh wow, POV-Ray was finally open-sourced. I remember playing around with it maybe 15 years ago now. The Internet Ray Tracing Competition[1] was still a going concern, and one of the rules was that post-processing was disallowed. So people got motion blur by recompiling the program to average several frames together, which didn't count as post-processing since it was still a ray- tracer that did it.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Ray_Tracing_Competiti...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Ray_Tracing_Competition)

<comment><USER5> Wasn't the source "always" available but just under a custom non-FOSS compatible license? I used to use POV-Ray quite a bit and participated in the IRTC a few times as well. Even 15 years ago the reason for keeping the legacy license was IIRC mostly that it would have been a huge task to get in touch with all the contributors or alternatively to rewrite all the parts that could not have been relicensed.

<comment><USER6> Yeah the source was available for as long as I used it (hence people being able to hack on it for the motion blur), but always under the no- redistribution license. I wasn't yet very familiar with FOSS but I remember understanding that the source being available was a big deal, and the no- redistribution clause was also a big deal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There is a program to visualize 3D Mandelbrot:

[http://www.mandelbulber.com](http://www.mandelbulber.com)</comment>


Branchless Conditionals (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://www.blueraja.com/blog/285/branchless-conditionals-compiler-optimization-technique

<comment><USER2> It's interesting that ARM32 has conditional execution and I like them a lot for writing readable assembly code. Short jumps that result from a simple if can be encoded in three successive instructions, no branches.

However, it's now falling out of favor (mostly gone from ARM 64) and apparently it's due to the relative cost of putting conditional execution on the die vs. relying on smarter compilers.

<comment><USER3> Nice! How do you do this on ARM exactly?

<comment> nezza-_- The first 4 bit of each (32 bit long..) instruction can be used to check for conditions: [http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc....](http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.dui0068b/Chdehgih.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> One simple branchless optimization form I've used is collision detection across an array of values: instead of testing each one, i add their value to a counter(perhaps with some mapping of data to collision value). After iterating over a lot of them, I can do just one test. This is very cpu-friendly as the pipeline gets to crunch all the numbers in one go.

<comment><USER5> Sounds interesting, can you provide a code example?

<comment><USER4> The example I was going to provide [0] it turns out was reduced into a memory comparison.

I wrote a little C program for you instead: [1]

[0] [https://github.com/triplefox/three- packer/blob/master/packer...](https://github.com/triplefox/three- packer/blob/master/packer/packer/pack.nim#L375)

[1] [https://gist.github.com/triplefox/47d620fc556e3f7da9bb](https://gist.github.com/triplefox/47d620fc556e3f7da9bb)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One example seems a bit odd.

      if(LocalVariable & 0x00001000)
          return 1;
      else
          return 0;

      mov eax, [ebp - 10]
      and eax, 0x00001000
      neg eax
      sbb eax, eax
      neg eax
      ret

Hmm... wouldn't this be faster? Two instructions less:

      mov eax, [ebp - 10]
      and eax, 0x00001000
      shr eax, 12
      ret

Well, who knows. Didn't bother to analyze this case. Maybe the article's example is faster somehow?

<comment><USER7> The neg/sbb/neg operation is 'x = x != 0' or 'x = !!x', I think.

You're right that yours should work too, because after the and the value can only have 1 bit set. But it only works for this particular and mask.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nice article. It inspired me to look around for some more straightforward way of optimizing, and I found the setcc class of instructions: [http://www.nynaeve.net/?p=178](http://www.nynaeve.net/?p=178)

I'm thinking that this combined with some CAS (CMPXCHG8B) could acheive the same, right?

Something like (pseudo):

Comparewith(4)

Ifequalstore(54)

Ifnotequalstore(2)

Return

<comment><USER5> Aren't setcc/cmov* instructions effectively similar to a branch? To compute the result you need to execute the previous instruction.

I suppose that these instructions do not cause the instruction pipeline to be flushed, compared to an incorrectly predicted jump, but they still stall until the previous instruction has been executed.

jmp < setcc/cmov* < branchless conditionals

<comment><USER8> Conditional moves have data dependencies on their input arguments, but so do the "branchless" versions presented in the article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I know that gcc and clang both have __builtin_expect(). If you tell the compiler the more likely path, wouldn't that make the branching version faster?

Actually, I've always wondered how __builtin_expect translates to something the CPU's branch prediction engine can use...

<comment><USER10> I think in general, most CPU architectures pick branch not taken for forward branches and branch taken for backwards branches on the first try. So I feel like builtin_expect gives weighting to let the compiler shuffle code around to make it fit that pattern.

There are ways of doing it in hardware, I remember a supervisor discussing it with respect to MIPS. I also remember them saying they went through the entire code generation stage of GCC and found that every single point at which GCC would try to use it was somewhere where it would be actively unhelpful.

<comment><USER7> __builtin_expect is good for error handling code, because gcc can avoid size- increasing optimizations in that path, and it can even move all the unlikely code out into another section so it won't take up space in your caches.

But its code generation is better for a 99%/1% case than a 60%/40% case, because Intel doesn't listen to branch hints anymore nor really give advice on how to tune for them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> x86 branch predictors are not 60% correct... Any decent branch predictor is over 90% correct and I believe modern ones are over 96% correct.

<comment><USER12> That's completely dependent on your algorithms.

Branch prediction in some search in a hash will fail 50% of the time, however it's done. Branch prediction on a long for loop was more than 99% correct by the end of the 90's already.

Intel claims their prediction algorithms are over 96% correct on an average program, whatever that beast is. (To be fair, you'll find a definition for it at their papers. That's a perfectly legit claim, it just does not mean what you think it means.)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Bootstrapper on the brink, what to do? - <AUTHOR> I have a small bootstrapped business. Have been working on it for about a year in my spare time. It started out as 5 hours a week, then 10, then 20.  Right now it is demanding 30-40 hours of work per week.
The problem? I have a fulltime job. I cannot do awesome at both. Burnout is a very real possibility. My choices are:
1) Continue to fight the bootstrap fight. My calculations show that in 6 months I will reach the point where I can pay all business expenses plus my salary full time, so I can quit my dayjob. If I make it through to this other side, I have my dream. 100% of a business, and full control of my destiny.
2) Go raise a seed round. On a few 100k, I could hire a few employees + quit my day job, and really kickstart the entire thing. I could add 2-3x the features in the next year of what I could in #1 above.
3) Compromise. Somewhere between choices 1 and 2.  My projections say that for 50k I could quit my day job and make the plunge (hiring no extra staff). Then in 6-9 months, I could start to hire. It would be less stressful than #1, but slower growth than #2.  I have a few options for funding. I can pull it out of house equity, I can borrow from friends and family, or similar.
For a brief summary of where the project is at.. it is a b2b SAAS app. Currently bringing in $1500 per month, and has grown roughly 100% for the last 3 months ($350 -> $700 -> $1500). Not expecting quite that pace to continue, but I have a pretty big backlog of customers I cannot fully get going with my limited time.
Smart people tell me #1 is sweet. To come out on the other side of a new and growing business with no debt and a profitable business. But if a seed round is going to cost me a few % of my ownership, I am right now (in the pile of work I have in front of me) having a hard time caring about 5-30% of my company. I mean 95-70% of a lot of money is still a lot of money. <comment><USER2> So, some things you do not seem to have considered:

Increase your price. This may reduce the number of customers but increase the profit margin, thereby cutting back on the hours required of you and making the transition from job to business owner more manageable.

Find ways to somehow free up time. This does not necessarily need to be in the form of business automation, though finding some ways to automate pieces of the business to lighten your load would be good. You could also look at your overall life and either do things like hire a person to mow your lawn or just simplify things in some way.

Take better care of yourself. Eat better. Improve sleep hygiene. Join a gym or fit more walking into your life. If you have more to give physically, this pace becomes more sustainable.

You seem to feel a bit trapped, like the business has a life of its own and you cannot corral it. Try to reframe the problem as one of you needing to get this dog on a leash and teach it some discipline. That approach has the potential to give you the breathing room you need to grow it on your own terms.

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome thanks. Let me look one by one.

> Increase your price. This may reduce the number of customers but increase > the profit margin, thereby cutting back on the hours required of you and > making the transition from job to business owner more manageable.

For sure, I am not entirely sure what the right pricing move is. I could likely do a 25-50% bump and end up better for it.

> Find ways to somehow free up time. This does not necessarily need to be in > the form of business automation, though finding some ways to automate pieces > of the business to lighten your load would be good. You could also look at > your overall life and either do things like hire a person to mow your lawn > or just simplify things in some way.

For sure. Today we just figured out "order groceries from the internet". Going to be a process,but every extra hour helps a BUNCH right now

> Take better care of yourself. Eat better. Improve sleep hygiene. Join a gym > or fit more walking into your life. If you have more to give physically, > this pace becomes more sustainable.

My running has gone from 30 MPW to 5 MPW. Thanks for the reminder, I shall go for a run in a bit.

> You seem to feel a bit trapped, like the business has a life of its own and > you cannot corral it. Try to reframe the problem as one of you needing to > get this dog on a leash and teach it some discipline. That approach has the > potential to give you the breathing room you need to grow it on your own > terms.

This is genius

<comment><USER2> :-)

Would love to hear a follow-up at some point, even if just privately by email.

Best.

<comment><AUTHOR> You guys are great, wish I didn't have to write in stealth mode so I could blog.

<comment><USER3> Perhaps you can do it some months after this :) it would be great to hear back with the results, so please don't lose the password ;) or safer yet, add an email to the profile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Can you get more up-front commitments from current clients, prepay for a year for a discount? This could let you pull the plug now on the day job and focus fully on your own project. The idea of that part of the class was that businesses often both customer and even suppliers to fund themselves, and that alternative and creative financing solutions can be negotiated.

Also, as others said, you might be able to find a small business loan since you already have cash flow, via traditional or other methods (online lending).

<comment><AUTHOR> I actually have a yearly discount advertised but not have not spent the 10 minutes to code it. Stupid of me, I bet I could get several people to commit to paying a year for 2 months free.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Congratulations on your SaaS Success . . . hang in there.

Doubling MRR each month + reaching your day job exit in 6 months, keep at it bootstrapping.

Use some of your SaaS revenue to hire a support person/developer, what ever is taking the most of your time. Start delegating, even if it costs some of your income. Basically you're self funding and getting things setup to run without so much of your time. You could even push out quitting your day job beyond your target goal amount (SaaS expenses + salary) once you have some contract employees to free up some of your time.

Spending some money to buy back some of your time sounds like what you need. So start hiring some contract employees/freelancers to handle what you can delegate to free up some of your time.

Congrats, go with option 1, do NOT take funding, do NOT hire full time employees, focus on growth/marketing, delegating and only features users really need.

Good luck, circle back around and let us know how it works out.

<comment><AUTHOR> Any more tips on why you feel so strongly 1, or strongly against 2-3?

I do have a part time support person I am paying with "profits" (I am profitable as long as I keep working for free). So yes this is 100% where I am putting my money for a while, not for development.

<comment><USER5> You won't regret bootstrapping as long as you can and owning 100% of your SaaS not sharing your profits with others.

Reading your other comments it does sound like you could use cash/credit to increase your google ad spend and onboarding more customers faster that would be a good use of funds. Could you hire another contract employee to speed up getting people on board?

If you can get signups from your adwords spend who sign up as paid in less than 30 days you could increase your spend in adwords on a credit card paying the balance each month to avoid interest charges. Stream line your on-boarding process to get customers on board.

Adwords can go from printing money to shredding money pretty quick so use caution of course. But I think funding extra adwords with a credit card would be a nice way to grow signups if you can speed up your onboarding process.

On bootstrapping . . .

Being able to set your own pace, call your own shots, don't give that up.

Inspiration: DHH Startup School Talk [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CDXJ6bMkMY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CDXJ6bMkMY)

He also talks about limiting your work hours each week, give yourself blocks of time to work on your SaaS so you make the most of your time when it's available.

Feel free to email me if you want to bounce ideas around through email . . . HNusername at gmail.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> First off congrats!! would love to see another post of how you were able to achieve this: '$1500 per month, and has grown roughly 100% for the last 3 months ($350 -> $700 -> $1500).' imho #1 brings you quite close to the dream. i'd make a calendar to remind yourself that each day you're closer to it ie 6 months of 'X' for each until you hit your goal of 50k to quit your job. should push you thru the tough times you're going thru now. Whichever you choose, just keep a positive mindset because your progress is amazing thus far. kudos.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the support! I don't think I need 50k to quit my day job, depending on how much staff I have I should be able to quit closer to 10-15k MRR. If I can get people to prepay yearly as others have suggested, would be even sooner.

Has been an interesting journey for sure. Have not really planned it to happen, just did my best at each phase, and it has always been "enough". We will see how long this baby goes...

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Congrats.

Hard to say which to go with but I think it's worth taking a deep look how feasible each is.

#1 sounds good, it seems to be less risk with highest reward. And you say this is the one option that is a dream. But if choose this how likely is burnout? If it truly is very likely, then take that under consideration. Burnout is real.

#2 The appeal of #2 depends on your background. Do you know a few investors you can relatively quickly and easily meet with that could give this business/you flying solo a few 100k seed? If yes, maybe just take a coffee or two and see what they say. No harm in that and you will get feedback and know the cost of this option. If you don't know investors, then raising a seed round will take some time and energy. You would have to put other things on hold while you spend time doing this and without knowing what the outcome will be.

#3 Could you hang on 3 months and go with #3? You say 6 months to get to cover expenses. Is keeping the current pace going for 3 more months, evaluate again, then borrowing a small amount just for the final few weeks possible?

Best of luck.

</comment><comment><USER8> First, I just want to compliment you on getting this far with customer acquisition. And, getting some customer traction before considering talking to investors is great!

I have personally been an early employee at a venture funded start-up that ultimately didn't succeed soon enough at paying customer acquisition and ended up selling intellectual property for only a bit more than it cost to develop it. And, then I took a go at the solo bootstrapped thing like you have been doing. I developed an enterprise type web app for a particular industry and have had potential customers tell me that is really cool and premium but their felt need wasn't sharp enough to make room in the budget and spend meaningful money. So I know what it is to build something and not get to a good market fit with paying customers.

In looking at your situation it would seem critical to understand the backlog of customers that you mention.

Are these customers who have already committed money/signed contracts? Or, would these be considered more like warm prospects?

How long are they having to wait between decision and implementation? Do customers in this backlog know what kind of wait time they are facing under your current solo part-time commitment? Are they willing to wait? Or, are you losing customers to other competitors or internal solutions because of the wait time?

What is the dollar value of your current backlog? If for example it was another $2000 in monthly revenue that is committed but at risk if you don't deliver fast - I would encourage you toward greater commitment try for a small business loan or take on your more personal sources of investment that you mention in option 3. On the other hand if the backlog is something more like $500 in monthly revenue I might suggest that you continue with #1 because your growth curve might already be slowing down.

<comment><AUTHOR> These are good questions. Let me hit them up in order.

> Are these customers who have already committed money/signed contracts? Or, > would these be considered more like warm prospects?

Say a customer I have talked to on the phone or otherwise convinced to sell. Need to do a little discussion and a little work, and get them set up. I vetted them as a real customer, and they vetted me as sounding interesting. Historically at least a 75% chance to pay at this time.

> How long are they having to wait between decision and implementation? Do > customers in this backlog know what kind of wait time they are facing under > your current solo part-time commitment? Are they willing to wait? Or, are > you losing customers to other competitors or internal solutions because of > the wait time?

1-3 week range. I don't think I am losing a ton.

> What is the dollar value of your current backlog? If for example it was > another $2000 in monthly revenue that is committed but at risk if you don't > deliver fast - I would encourage you toward greater commitment try for a > small business loan or take on your more personal sources of investment that > you mention in option 3. On the other hand if the backlog is something more > like $500 in monthly revenue I might suggest that you continue with #1 > because your growth curve might already be slowing down.

Closer to $500 in backlog. Here is the part of the story that perhaps I did not express fully.

1) I am spending like $20 a month on google adwords. I have some very hot words. I could up it to $20 a day, and probably get 2-3x the new customer flow I do now. I do not, because my backlog would go insane. Perhaps I should do it anyway though :)

2) I have some complex customers I am turning away. They would be good for pretty good money (perhaps $500 MRR each), but I cannot yet deal with them. I know part of a young business is turning away things that are too much work, but if I scaled up and had money - I totally know I could deal with them.

So I think more than the raw backlog leaving money on the table, is #1 and #2 above leaving money on the table.

<comment><USER8> If you really have a 75% conversion rate once you start talking to people that is outstanding.

Next you should validate your intuition that spending relatively modest amounts of money on adwords will double or triple your flow of customer leads. If that hypothesis holds up under real world testing then you have a business and need to transition as quickly as possible! Even if that means taking on an investor.

In most b2b environments I have been exposed to a 1 to 3 week wait time is not a deal killer if you have something they want/need.

I think I might deal with customers in the wait time transparently. I would tell them something like the following.

We are growing like crazy and our backlog for setting up and training new customers is about 2 to 3 weeks. Please be patient with us. We believe each new customer needs some personal attention up front to make everything go smoothly and ensure that we are set up to serve you well over the longer term. Obviously we won't start billing you until you are completely set up. If for some reason it takes longer than 3 weeks to get you set up we will give you a free month of service at the end of your first year.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am not a sales guy, but I guess I say the right stuff? Not sure.. I am not having to force people to use my product, they are generally beating down the door to find ME. One guy last week found me on page 17 of google. I didn't know google had 17 pages....

<comment><USER8> Clearly you have built something that has some product market fit. Hope you find your path through the next few months without falling hard into burnout.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think your expectations of a seed round might be a bit optimistic. It's realistic to take funding so you can quit your day job --- especially if you're growing reliably month-over-month. It's a little less reasonable to think that you'll be able to hire multiple people with a small seed round _and_ execute on your business so well that you'll be off the funding treadmill after that seed round.

Unless you have pretty exceptional circumstances, I think you're also pretty optimistic in assuming that a few hundred thousand dollars will only cost you a few % of your company.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well what kind of seed rounds have you seen for companies that are small but have some traction? I have been involved in a few ( not as owner though), and for example a company with 0 market fit or customers or tech got 250k convertible debt for about 10% of the company (obviously depending how the next funding round went). Using that as my mark with a fairly conservative growth rate, 250k should fund me + 1 full time dev (+ current support staff) until we get to profitability.

<comment><USER9> What's "traction"? What's your month-over-month growth and how long have you had it?

One word of caution would be that a lot of the numbers we see for seed financing apply to companies that have gone through high-profile accelerators like YC, or that have founders who have previously made money for investors.

The bigger concern is that if you hire, the profitability number you need to hit can change radically. Raising to hire is a very easy way to put your company on a funding treadmill.

<comment><AUTHOR> Growth is in the OP. 3 months, but have a good sales pipeline (i.e. Dec will be month 4 and no slowing down, if anything it is speeding up).

The funding example I gave was for a non-incubated startup. But it is my n=1, so not totally sure that is out there.

100% agree on the hire and funding treadmill. I would only take funding if it is reasonably sustainable. If I would end up hiring 2 people and in 6 months we have had less than projected growth, I would lay them off to keep the company alive. Sucks for the hires, but part of the risk of startups I think. I would not hire 14 people that I need funding to employ.

<comment><USER9> That is _not_ part of the risk of startups. If you can't pay someone indefinitely, don't hire them. The word for people who risk a reasonably assured salary to participate in a startup is "cofounder".

<comment><AUTHOR> This sounds very good in theory, but if I got to the point I have 3 months runway at current staffing level with no funding in site, or 6-12 months at staffing level N - X, I would lay people off to improve the success of launching the company. My job is to get the company to take off. I think it would be absurd to say "Whelp guys that depend on me for a job.. I don't want to lay off 2 people to save the rest of your jobs because you are employees and not founders, so we are gonna likely go under in 2 months"

This is totally a valid thing you should bring up in an interview though. I would pass over you, but I can totally see many others agreeing with you.

<comment><USER10> I think his point is that anyone applying for and accepting regular, full-time employment does it with the assumption that the job will continue to exist into the foreseeable future. That's kinda the definition of "employee" in our society.

And he's saying the alternative in this scenario is "cofounder", in which the would-be employee takes on a job that may disappear and is compensated for that fact by getting significant equity in the company.

<comment><AUTHOR> I mean, I understand what he is saying... but if you join a startup (even as an employee), you should be aware that your risk of your job going away is higher.

If you want a really safe job for 20 years you would join the government or a fortune 100 type company. Does the 2nd and 3rd employee ever think his job is as secure as working for a fortune 100?

<comment><USER9> Good startup managers don't hire people they're not sure they can pay indefinitely. It's _not_ the case that people applying to startups for jobs are aware of the risks that they're taking, and if your risk set includes "entirely possible this job is gone in 3 months", the word for the person who takes that job really is "cofounder".

Either way, I think you're going to find that outside funding on the scale you're contemplating is much less magical than you think it is. It's going to be harder to close than you think, and it's going to do less for your business --- at least, if you really do mean to do all the things you need to do to stay off the funding treadmill!

There's no reason you can't get on the funding treadmill and sell enough of your company to get a "runway" to the next round of funding. Lots of successful businesses are built that way. It's harder, however, to think of bootstrapped businesses that have leveraged small seed rounds tactically the way you're thinking of.

You may also find that it's difficult to raise funding when one of your "use of proceeds" bullets is "enables me to quit full time job". People who invest in startups are largely driven by signals, and a pretty important one is "founder believes in the business enough to have dedicated themselves to it full time for some time".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't have any specific advice, but this part stood out to me:

> I have a pretty big backlog of customers I cannot fully get going with my > limited time.

What is it that they need that demands so much attention? Is there any way you can automate that so you can be more hands-off?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sadly that is partially my competitive edge. I am making it BETTER with code changes when I can find the time, but I never want to be a "sign up and never talk to a human" app ala Google Docs or something. I have 10 or 15 products in my space that already do that. Many of my current customers quit those products to come to me.</comment></comment>


HTML is a sexually-transmitted disease, say many Americans - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/05/html_is_a_sexuallytransmitted_disease_say_many_americans/

<comment><USER2> It was a multiple choice. People are probably going to answer with the funniest answer. Also see

      >Blu-Ray was held to be a marine animal by 18 per cent of respondents, while software was defined as comfortable clothes by 15 per cent.

So, I doubt these Americans were answering truthfully.</comment>


UX Best Practices for Feature Phone Apps - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/worldcover-insurance/ux-best-practices-for-feature-phone-apps-c14d1cda18c3 <comment><AUTHOR> Hey all, I wrote this article to bring some more awareness to the USSD technologies being used by millions of people that are outside the usual stack developed on by most of us in the HN community. Happy to answer any questions here!</comment>


25 Essentials Tools for ECommerce Developers and Designers - <AUTHOR> http://blog.lemonstand.com/27-essentials-tools-ecommerce-developers-designers/

<comment><USER2> I was hoping for a few more ecommerce specific tools. We've been putting together a list on [http://www.ecommerce-toolkit.com](http://www.ecommerce- toolkit.com)</comment>