We already pay the "Windows Tax" for Windows to be pre-installed on basically every computer you can find, whether you want it or not. So apparently the problem is that it isn't making them enough money. They're still getting paid.
Plus there must be people buying boxed copies of Windows. Only for some reason it sounds like they're going to stop selling those in favor of the subscriptions.
If you're a company with a business and data retention plan, fine. But as a home user, why is it so fucking hard for computer companies to understand lately that
A) once I buy it it's mine, B) I should have the right and ability to install whatever I'm physically capable of on it, and C) if I don't upgrade it, it will continue working in its current state until the hardware gives out.
(Potential) Violation of A) renting the OS so that if I stop paying in perpetuity presumably it will cripple the computer. And by then we're likely to have even more SecureBoot etc. up the ass. I assume they'll be taking away the option to just buy it straight-up because that's not as profitable. Violation of B) SecureBoot and hardware whitelists. Oh sure, SecureBoot is "just the tip" for now. Come back in 20 years and I guaranfuckingtee you it won't be disablable. Violation of C) anything that requires an active Internet connection to work, subscription fee, etc. C postscript) getting tricked into upgrading to an unusable state
If people want to rent this shit, fine. Just continue offering us the ability to buy it outright.
Computing used to be, you get the hardware, you draw up a table of ones and zeros, and you run the fucking ones and zeros on the hardware. Now it's all about control and what we are and aren't allowed to do with the hardware we bought and own ourselves. How far we've fallen.
$5 per machine per year might be reasonable, or perhaps $20 per user for up to 5 machines, or perhaps a family licence for $50 per year for 25 machines and 10 users...
I imagine they won't be that generous
Not sure which sickens me more, that you think this is reasonable, or that Microsoft probably does, too.
$20 per user per year for a thing you can have for free if not for the Microsoft lock-in. And Red Hat is busy doing its best to lock in the big free option as well. Sigh.
Listen, the real lesson here is that, like it or not, Stallman was right.
The world needs crazy idealists.
Because from time to time it turns out they're not as crazy as they first appear. But hopefully by that point you aren't already more or less screwed:-/
Also as admitted by the author, it's not actually a virus, but malware. Which I would assume means it doesn't spread, considering the infection vector is convincing the user to install it themselves.
This thing you linked only compromises one user and is trivial to kill off if you know where to look.
And every time they print one of those "OMG LINUX IS TEH TOTALLY HAXXED THIS TIME" articles it turns out "...assuming the user is dumb enough to run this script with root privileges, even though basically all distros don't give them to you by default unless you elevate." And if you download and run a random thing you get in an email as root, you really deserve what you get:P
The moral of the story is this...there is no such thing as a secure OS if the user has control of the system because the user is frankly the easiest part of any system to exploit.
Well I would still much rather have control than be locked out of everything a la SecureBoot, TPM, hardware whitelists, etc.
Oh, hi, hairyfeet. Almost didn't notice it was you.
But it doesn't happen, still any Windows story on here gets the same comments and the same furious people with the empty threat of saying they will move to other operating systems.
Or, y'know, they actually are moving to other OSs and it's different people posting that they're leaving this time.
- No cross compatibility between their Skype for Business (Lync) and Skype clients. If you are going to use the same product names, make them interoperable... it is too confusing otherwise...
To be fair, it sounds like one of the main reasons for the existence of Skype for Business is that you don't have access to everybody on the "normal" Skype network.
When Linux Torvalds first created Linux it wasn't designed to be a mass-market operating system. It was designed by geeks for geeks. A bunch of fucktarded neckbeards who don't give two shits about usability
Don't confuse "Linux Torvalds" with the GNOME devs. He does and has given various arrogant developers both barrels when they do something stupid. In fact he specifically called out GNOME3 for that exact thing.
A bunch of fucktarded neckbeards who don't give two shits about usability, only blind adherence to an Orwellian mindset of "the only way to be free is to do exactly what I say."
Or a more accurate way to say it, "if you don't like how I do it, fork it and do it your own way." I'd like to hear about how you think proprietary software is any more free than that.
When you put everything on a level playing field -- Linux is free and so is a pirated copy of Windows -- people always choose Windows.
Like the other replier said, not true. You kids and your silly absolute statements.
If you really want to make this into a dick-waving competition, how many bugs of comparable severity have closed-source ecosystems such as Windows and MacOS had in that same time period?
Nobody is saying open source makes things perfect. It makes things *better.*
Slashdot Mirror
We already pay the "Windows Tax" for Windows to be pre-installed on basically every computer you can find, whether you want it or not. So apparently the problem is that it isn't making them enough money. They're still getting paid.
Plus there must be people buying boxed copies of Windows. Only for some reason it sounds like they're going to stop selling those in favor of the subscriptions.
Home users being neither businesses nor owning big boxen, why are you bringing this up?
In the security context we were speaking in, the only thing worse than useless is insecure and useless. Apparently you're switching contexts.
Annoyance is also a very subjective thing.
If you're a company with a business and data retention plan, fine. But as a home user, why is it so fucking hard for computer companies to understand lately that
A) once I buy it it's mine,
B) I should have the right and ability to install whatever I'm physically capable of on it, and
C) if I don't upgrade it, it will continue working in its current state until the hardware gives out.
(Potential) Violation of A) renting the OS so that if I stop paying in perpetuity presumably it will cripple the computer. And by then we're likely to have even more SecureBoot etc. up the ass. I assume they'll be taking away the option to just buy it straight-up because that's not as profitable.
Violation of B) SecureBoot and hardware whitelists. Oh sure, SecureBoot is "just the tip" for now. Come back in 20 years and I guaranfuckingtee you it won't be disablable.
Violation of C) anything that requires an active Internet connection to work, subscription fee, etc.
C postscript) getting tricked into upgrading to an unusable state
If people want to rent this shit, fine. Just continue offering us the ability to buy it outright.
Computing used to be, you get the hardware, you draw up a table of ones and zeros, and you run the fucking ones and zeros on the hardware. Now it's all about control and what we are and aren't allowed to do with the hardware we bought and own ourselves. How far we've fallen.
His point still stands. If you can't finish a single sentence without using one, it implies you can't formulate a complete thought.
$5 per machine per year might be reasonable, or perhaps $20 per user for up to 5 machines, or perhaps a family licence for $50 per year for 25 machines and 10 users...
I imagine they won't be that generous
Not sure which sickens me more, that you think this is reasonable, or that Microsoft probably does, too.
$20 per user per year for a thing you can have for free if not for the Microsoft lock-in.
And Red Hat is busy doing its best to lock in the big free option as well. Sigh.
Listen, the real lesson here is that, like it or not, Stallman was right.
The world needs crazy idealists.
Because from time to time it turns out they're not as crazy as they first appear. But hopefully by that point you aren't already more or less screwed :-/
Also as admitted by the author, it's not actually a virus, but malware. Which I would assume means it doesn't spread, considering the infection vector is convincing the user to install it themselves.
This thing you linked only compromises one user and is trivial to kill off if you know where to look.
And every time they print one of those "OMG LINUX IS TEH TOTALLY HAXXED THIS TIME" articles it turns out "...assuming the user is dumb enough to run this script with root privileges, even though basically all distros don't give them to you by default unless you elevate." And if you download and run a random thing you get in an email as root, you really deserve what you get :P
The moral of the story is this...there is no such thing as a secure OS if the user has control of the system because the user is frankly the easiest part of any system to exploit.
Well I would still much rather have control than be locked out of everything a la SecureBoot, TPM, hardware whitelists, etc.
Oh, hi, hairyfeet. Almost didn't notice it was you.
and the UAC is worse than useless because most people mindlessly click through it.
This is patently false. Even if they just mindlessly click through it, please demonstrate how it makes you *more* vulnerable than not having it.
But it doesn't happen, still any Windows story on here gets the same comments and the same furious people with the empty threat of saying they will move to other operating systems.
Or, y'know, they actually are moving to other OSs and it's different people posting that they're leaving this time.
My favorite: /* EHCI_HRTIMER_POLL_ASS */
What about "fuck me gently with a chainsaw"?
- No cross compatibility between their Skype for Business (Lync) and Skype clients. If you are going to use the same product names, make them interoperable... it is too confusing otherwise...
To be fair, it sounds like one of the main reasons for the existence of Skype for Business is that you don't have access to everybody on the "normal" Skype network.
Sounds to me like you're just to lazy to make the effort
Like for example to spell this sentence correctly...
No, it's a vote for who I vote for. I can't control how other people vote; stop acting like I can.
50 dollars OFF. Do they sell $100 Android phones?
People keep saying that the precedent is non-binding so they haven't really opened themselves up to lawsuits yet.
Conspicuously missing from your analysis was any benefits to upgrading...
When Linux Torvalds first created Linux it wasn't designed to be a mass-market operating system. It was designed by geeks for geeks. A bunch of fucktarded neckbeards who don't give two shits about usability
Don't confuse "Linux Torvalds" with the GNOME devs. He does and has given various arrogant developers both barrels when they do something stupid. In fact he specifically called out GNOME3 for that exact thing.
A bunch of fucktarded neckbeards who don't give two shits about usability, only blind adherence to an Orwellian mindset of "the only way to be free is to do exactly what I say."
Or a more accurate way to say it, "if you don't like how I do it, fork it and do it your own way." I'd like to hear about how you think proprietary software is any more free than that.
When you put everything on a level playing field -- Linux is free and so is a pirated copy of Windows -- people always choose Windows.
Like the other replier said, not true. You kids and your silly absolute statements.
Or they accurately concluded this was exactly as much as they could get away with. $10k to Microsoft is barely worth noting.
basic income
They don't send them for you during the day, dude. Middle of the night.
Okay, that explains what the old ones are being used for.
Now I'm just wondering why you needed the new one each time :)
but still have (and use) every iPad I've ever owned, a total of four ranging from the original iPad to the newest iPad Pro 9.7" model.
Why?? How can you possibly need and use four tablets?
If you really want to make this into a dick-waving competition, how many bugs of comparable severity have closed-source ecosystems such as Windows and MacOS had in that same time period?
Nobody is saying open source makes things perfect. It makes things *better.*