Something seems a bit off about the combination of hype and disclaimers here. First it's "seamless integration". Then it warns me that I should "expect to occasionally run into hiccups and bugs" and "should be comfortable with some level of troubleshooting". But then it's back to saying I can "enjoy the full range of Windows applications" "without any hassle". These just don't seem compatible to me. If it's seamless and hassle-free, that would mean there aren't hiccups and bugs. If there are hiccups and bugs, it's not seamless and hassle-free.
It may be a good project, but I always get kind of annoyed when projects try to overhype how "easy" and "smooth" the experience will be. I guess in one sense this is better than that because it does have disclaimers, but that just makes it harder to know what the truth actually is about its abilities.
Literally at the top of the docs it says it's in Beta. I don't think you have to think too hard to figure out that seamless integration is the goal but they aren't there yet.
That seems fair, but then it makes it all feel somewhat tautological: what sort of integration wouldn't aspire to be seamless, other than a beta integration.
A different selection of words wouldn't have lead to this debate, which I think is the point being made.
it makes it all feel somewhat tautological: what sort of integration wouldn't aspire to be seamless
VMware or VirtualBox running within the VMware/Vbox window, as opposed to VMware Unity or VirtualBox Seamless mode. Those allow you to have a window from the guest VM appear on your desktop just like it's a native application running on the host.
That's what seamless means in this context. It's a specific feature, not a general descriptor of your experience with the software as a whole.
A different selection of words wouldn't have lead to this debate, which I think is the point being made.
Seamless is a word with a specific meaning within the context of VMs.
what sort of integration wouldn't aspire to be seamless
That doesn't make sense to me. Seamlessness isn't an essential feature of any integration, just those that would lend themselves to zero-config deployments. I think the vast majority would require some form of configuration, either sharing credentials, or configuring resource limitations, devices, files and folders...
Then why say that it is that? It makes much more sense to me to say "The project is a beta that does X Y and Z and we hope it will eventually become this amazing seamless hassle-free thing." I don't get why projects don't distinguish future aspirations from present accomplishments.
"Seamless integration" in this case doesn't read as statement about how well it works to me. It means the applications from the windows appear on your Linux desktop without the "seam" of a full windows desktop around them.
I blame npm and the entire JavaScript ecosystem for promulgating the awful, sleazy-used-car-saleman practice of writing your readme in the form of advertising copy.
I suppose this is it. I just find it irritating when project descriptions don't clearly distinguish what they hope to eventually be from what they currently are.
"seamless integration" is an intention of the project - that doesn't mean the software is free of bugs and issues. What an absolute asinine and nonsensical argument.
Comments
Something seems a bit off about the combination of hype and disclaimers here. First it's "seamless integration". Then it warns me that I should "expect to occasionally run into hiccups and bugs" and "should be comfortable with some level of troubleshooting". But then it's back to saying I can "enjoy the full range of Windows applications" "without any hassle". These just don't seem compatible to me. If it's seamless and hassle-free, that would mean there aren't hiccups and bugs. If there are hiccups and bugs, it's not seamless and hassle-free.
It may be a good project, but I always get kind of annoyed when projects try to overhype how "easy" and "smooth" the experience will be. I guess in one sense this is better than that because it does have disclaimers, but that just makes it harder to know what the truth actually is about its abilities.
Literally at the top of the docs it says it's in Beta. I don't think you have to think too hard to figure out that seamless integration is the goal but they aren't there yet.
That seems fair, but then it makes it all feel somewhat tautological: what sort of integration wouldn't aspire to be seamless, other than a beta integration.
A different selection of words wouldn't have lead to this debate, which I think is the point being made.
it makes it all feel somewhat tautological: what sort of integration wouldn't aspire to be seamless
VMware or VirtualBox running within the VMware/Vbox window, as opposed to VMware Unity or VirtualBox Seamless mode. Those allow you to have a window from the guest VM appear on your desktop just like it's a native application running on the host.
That's what seamless means in this context. It's a specific feature, not a general descriptor of your experience with the software as a whole.
A different selection of words wouldn't have lead to this debate, which I think is the point being made.
Seamless is a word with a specific meaning within the context of VMs.
That's fair. I was aware of that, but I wasn't thinking of that use of the word when I read it, I thought of the other meaning of "seamless".
The problem is it also has another specific meaning in the context of integrations in general: it means low fuss, minimal setup, no troubleshooting.
A different selection of words (windowless?) would have avoided this debate.
That doesn't make sense to me. Seamlessness isn't an essential feature of any integration, just those that would lend themselves to zero-config deployments. I think the vast majority would require some form of configuration, either sharing credentials, or configuring resource limitations, devices, files and folders...
I was using the other definition of "seamless", meaning easy, no fuss, minimal difficulty etc.
Then why say that it is that? It makes much more sense to me to say "The project is a beta that does X Y and Z and we hope it will eventually become this amazing seamless hassle-free thing." I don't get why projects don't distinguish future aspirations from present accomplishments.
"Seamless integration" in this case doesn't read as statement about how well it works to me. It means the applications from the windows appear on your Linux desktop without the "seam" of a full windows desktop around them.
Sounds to me like this is similar to Coherence mode in Parallels. I'm sure it won't work 100% of the time, but could be good for basic use cases.
I blame npm and the entire JavaScript ecosystem for promulgating the awful, sleazy-used-car-saleman practice of writing your readme in the form of advertising copy.
I would have thought this traces back to GitHub making your readme the defacto "landing page" for your project?
That may be right. I want to blame JavaScript though. :(
I suppose this is it. I just find it irritating when project descriptions don't clearly distinguish what they hope to eventually be from what they currently are.
I read it as being seamless and hassle free until it isn't because there can still be issues. Like a car until it breaks down.
This is Linux in an nutshell. Great until it breaks, then it's a complete deep dive measured in days.
I don't think one should ever expect a "true seamless integration" from this kind of project.
"seamless integration" is an intention of the project - that doesn't mean the software is free of bugs and issues. What an absolute asinine and nonsensical argument.