That GitHub comment makes my brain hurt and gives me Microsoft community forum advisor (run ChEcKDiSK tO mAYbe fIX tHe ProBLem) and “leave the multi-billion dollar company alone” vibes.
Also it’s not a single line - when looking at the source file - and a complete section instead.
GitHub Copilot, as used in the documentation here, is free and integrated into the IDE.
- It’s inside the dotnet Docs. dotnet has nothing to do with an IDE. You can code/run dotnet code in any editor or terminal if you like.
- This person assumes that Visual Studio is the only IDE for dotnet. Looks like they never heard of Rider or VS Code or anything else.
I do not think that you can call it an ad if it is for a free tool.
WTF is he defining as an ad? “Advertising is the practice and techniques employed to bring attention to a product or service”. The whole section is bascially “Hey you can use Copilot to do this” - that’s an ad right there.
Even if you interpret this as encouraging users to pay
Makes no sense. Does this person think ad = you have to pay for it???
it is hardly the first time that dotnet documentation guides users towards paid Microsoft products: are we going to start complaining about all pages with references to Azure next?
- A deployment target is not the same as “AI”
- If a page/section is not named like “How to deploy example app to Azure” then it shouldn’t contain any reference to Azure. And yes you should complain about such stuff if it exists.
The only part of this I actually object to is that I don’t think that what essentially amounts to ‘prompt an LLM’ belongs in documentation, although at the very least the page does disclose that the output may be erroneous.
That’s basically what the whole issue is about. WTF are you even talking about then? Just shut up and give an upvote.
Overall a totally useless comment.
Just keep using Remote Desktop Connection aka mstsc.exe?
It’s even recommended by Microsoft:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Remote_Desktop_Protocol_clients