Just read the article. That’s bad.

I don’t care that I can remove the repo, I’d still have to block MS to prevent an RPi update from re-adding a repo that can replace core files.

What kind of BS is that author peddling? The bottom line is “if it can be done, it’s a bad thing”, that goodwill argument is a bunch of whitewashing.

Plus, I don’t WANT VS on my Pi. The “help learning students” argument is also BS. VS is difficult to install because it’s not native, and this is a reality for tech users. Better approach would be clear documentation on how to install VS, explaining the how’s and why’s along the way. If it’s “too hard” to write such documentation or for students to follow it, then that person is clearly not qualified to write it.

I’ve written TONS of docs just like this for enterprise app deployment. It’s SOP there. If a test unit fails to successfully rebuild a system using my docs, it’s not the tester’s fault, it’s a fault of my docs not being complete or clear enough.

Every enterprise has teams that document everying to the extreme for disaster recovery - the idea being that anyone technical can walk in and rebuild an entire system from your docs.

Thanks for the link.