The solution is for everyone to move to 5 GHz (802.11a/n/ac). It's happening, slowly. The biggest help for this was probably with Samsung and Apple adding the 5 GHz band to their phones this year. Eventually 2.4 GHz will be a relic, I hope.
And once 802.11ac is being used to its full potential, using up channels with a width of 80 or even a whopping 160 MHz (4x or 8x the width of a full channel), we'll be forced to move on to yet another frequency band. Until the cycle starts over again and we're all out of usable, legal channels. And then where do we go? Keep going up the spectrum until the wavelengths are so short we have to be in the same room without an object blocking the wall to be able to keep a connection?
Don't get me wrong--that extra bandwidth will be awesome. But only while it lasts, and it's only going to last if you live in an area out in the middle of nowhere. I'm not even in a very big city, but my router (WRT54GL with 7dBi antennas) regularly picks up around 16 other APs. There are always about five APs each on channels 1,6 and 11. Channel 11 usually seems to have one less AP, so I run on it. The problem? Some bastard runs on channel 9, delivering pure noise to my router, and another runs at channel 3, fucking up channel 1. Meanwhile, channel 6 is also caught in the crossfire of the guy running on channel 9.
It won't be fun trying to find a space in the 5 GHz band when 802.11ac begins crowding it every bit as much as 2.4 GHz is now. I'm seriously considering just moving out of the city. That way I can run all the equipment I want, however I want, and not have to deal with other people's interference.
Haiku has been making excellent progress over the last couple of years compared to another clone, ReactOS. Haiku is actually quite usable as it is and pretty stable. In fact, I'd say its stability gives Win9x and even most Windows XP installations I've seen a run for their money. I don't mess with Windows any more since XP, but I do know at least one person who kept getting program crashed and BSODs in Vista and he still gets them occasionally in 7. ReactOS, by comparison, feels like a pre-alpha at best, or an old Win9x release at the worst. As far as reaching R1 goes, I don't think there'll be anywhere near 10 years of waiting... the OS feels pretty good as it is already.
Sounds like deja vu with past Windows releases... this same exact thing has happened several times in the past.
Only now, Linux is catching up in big ways with the help of both Valve and nVidia, so how much longer will having the latest DirectX version even matter as a selling point for the the latest version of Windows?
Over 250,000 patents? That's probably more security than a medieval fortress with a thick, heavy steel fence and barbed wire, a surrounding moat and drawbridge, snipers, and dozens of guards operating turret guns and cannons. I'm sorry, but that's just uncalled for for something as simple as a god damn phone. If that's not stifling the fuck out of innovation, then I don't know what is. How the hell has this come to be without the government seeming to even give a fuck, even with the heavy lobbying of companies with their own interests? Corruption at its finest.
You go try that on a Windows 8 ARM-based machine and report back on how well that works. Or if you want to save yourself the time, trouble and money, just read this:
Mandatory. Enable/Disable Secure Boot. On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement the ability to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup. A physically present user must be allowed to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup without possession of PKpriv. A Windows Server may also disable Secure Boot remotely using a strongly authenticated (preferably public-key based) out-of-band management connection, such as to a baseboard management controller or service processor. Programmatic disabling of Secure Boot either during Boot Services or after exiting EFI Boot Services MUST NOT be possible. Disabling Secure Boot must not be possible on ARM systems.
Be sure to take special notice of the very last sentence in particular.
Windows has Windows Resource Protection (WRP). Unlike Linux/Unix, even if you run as an administrator (equivalent to root) you *do not* have permission to change operating system files. Only the TrustedInstaller account can change those files.
Oh, okay. So Windows' "root" account is actually "TrustedUser," not actually "Administrator." Gotcha. And that changes things in truly amazing, important ways... how?
Windows has Kernel Patch Protection (KPP). KPP encrypts and checksums certain OS tables of the running operating system to prevent tampering by rogue processes which somehow have gained kernel access (e.g. through a vulnerable driver).... Is guaranteed security? no - but it is unlike anything you'll find in Linux/Unix.
Anyone sticking with the default, trusted software repositories doesn't exactly need to worry about rogue processes taking control of the kernel, so in Linux it's really mostly a non-issue...
Windows has a kernel mode signing policy [microsoft.com] which requires all software (drivers and more) which are to be loaded in kernel space to be digitally signed. If they are not signed they cannot be loaded. If a driver has been tampered with, the signature will be invalid and the kernel will refuse to load it. Ubuntu and Fedora now does have some signing protection, but they are incomplete in comparison, e.g. they only protect executable modules, not configuration files.
Again, the trusted software repositories minimize the need for this kind of primarily Windows-related protection. But like your previous point, yeah, it's great that Windows now has it... because it actually needs it.
Windows 8 introduced secure boot. The Windows 8 boot loader is signed with a key known to the UEFI bios. The boot loader will in turn check the integrity of the OS and configuration (using digital signatures) before the proceeds. This closes the vector where a bootkit takes control of the system and boots the OS in a virtualized environment through which it can patch the OS after boot.
I won't even touch this one. I'll just say that I have an extreme hatred toward the EFI-enabled "Secure Boot," and fast turtle (very) briefly went over why as far as the control of the owner and user of the computer goes, while being yet another source of money for Microsoft from those people who do not want to run their OS. And if you have an ARM processor... it cannot be turned off.
And the other 85% is viruses and other malware that Windows 8 is still vulnerable to, but the built-in anti-virus software"protects" it from actually proceeding to cause infections. Turn it off, and Windows 8 retains probably 100% backwards compatibility with all of those viruses that the article is talking about from the last six months...
Try a real beer, not that "lite" artificially carbonated piss water or the so-called "normal" beer offerings from the mega swill breweries (Anheuser-Busch, Molson Coors Brewing Company, SABMiller, etc.). The poor quality of the crap they sell is reflected by their all-encompassing target audience and massive marketing budgets.
What red flag? You mean the "Do you really want to do this? Yes/No" message? You know, the one that everyone is going to look at and say, "well fucking duh, yes I want to do this, or I wouldn't have told you to do it anyway," just like in the old DOS/Win9x days of "Yes/No/Retry/Fail"? Why no, Windows, I actually want the process to fail, and I don't actually want to install that program...
Or even a quick look to see if there are any flashes on the walls of TVs that are on. You might even see that without cars in the driveway... or knocking, actually. Some people might just not answer the door after a certain time, or after it gets dark.
Once it gets to a certain time that I expect absolutely no one to come knocking on the door, usually a cutoff time of somewhere between 10 and midnight depending on expectations, I do just that. If someone wants to come up later than that, they better have either let me know ahead of time, or call before they try knocking. There are some exceptions; I'll try sneaking to a window with a decent view and peeking outside, and if a car I recognize is parked outside then I'll grant entry. Then again, I tend to not restrain from using lights at those times, so a burgler wouldn't exactly need to sniff some meter's signal... they'd just have to take one quick glance at the house and realize that half of the windows are lit up.:)
So true.... Mozilla began their downward spiral and selling out years ago when they founded the Mozilla Corporation. After that, they started going down the shitter. Hey, anyone remember all the backlash caused when they thought it would be a brilliant idea to force-feed their EULA down our throats on first run, or that whole Mozilla branding situation that spawned Iceweasel? Of course you don't--Mozilla's too busy making the news seemingly every other week with pointless new version inflation releases of Firefox and implementing the latest controversial user interface design changes.
Hell, people probably already forgot that before there even was a "ESR" release of Firefox, everyone was complaining and Mr. Genius aka. Asa Dotzler was claiming that their users are wrong, no, you don't need long-term support. I don't remember if it was Asa or some other Mozilla nut that basically said that if you need stability and a longer release cycle, then you should be using another browser instead of Firefox.
Mozilla only gives a damn about what the Corporation wants. Not its users.
The article reads like it was written by the media industry. Theft, stealing, stolen property... come on people, it's fucking copyright infringement. Nothing was stolen... the girl was not left without her nude pictures. The guys didn't "take" them from her. Data was copied without permission. Simple as that. The only "property" in question is the phones and other computing devices mentioned in the article... and none of that was "stolen" either.
Why would distributions need to standardize on a desktop? Choice is good, though admittedly with the exceptionally crappy choices these days (Unity, GNOME 3...) the choices available tend to not be quite as good as they once were. Just pick the distribution that suits you and uses your favorite desktop environment and stick with it. Distributions don't usually switch their default desktop environment every other release. If you want to use another distribution but keep the same desktop environment, you could easily do it and lose none of your settings.
I used to be a Windows "power user" back before 2007 and to be honest, I couldn't accomplish a damn thing until I spent at least a couple hours tweaking the interface and system settings, installing programs and setting them all up. Don't get me wrong though, I did love the setup after a few days of tweaking it and getting everything "just right" after installation.
Linux? I'm able to get shit done right after the install. Minimal or no further configuration required. Even if some program does need installed, it's one quick command away and it's good to go.
For immediate productivity, I'd easily pick Linux.
You bring up a good point. I hear about Yahoo! occasionally when it makes the news, like now, but I haven't used their search engine since... forever? Hell, I don't even remember what search engine I used before I switched to Google (and I was late into the Google crowd), it may or may not have been Yahoo!. When I think the company these days, I think of their messenger program and protocol... as a search engine, I don't have too many memories of them, they're mostly forgotten history to me. And as a search engine, that is exactly what they are... history... because they don't even run their own engine any more. They use Bing.
I almost never even use my Yahoo! Messenger account these days, although my instant messaging client automatically logs into it. I plan on switching 100% to Google Talk and MSN Messenger... which shouldn't be too difficult, it might just take a while to get in contact with my friends and tell them of the change. One friend in particular may be a problem, he seems stubborn and has been a Yahoo! user for years... as from the way it sounds, he even uses Yahoo! as his primary e-mail service. Luckily I barely have any people in my Yahoo! Messenger contacts list; the only problem is the few I do have on there, I never get in contact, and in some cases it is extremely difficult to get in contact with them.
Disable third-party cookies and install the Do Not Track Plus and NoScript extensions. Then to really fuck with the assholes, set up AdBlock Plus and disable its bullshit "non-intrusive advertising" whitelist, and to make sure your point finally sinks in, go into your browser's preferences and enable Do Not Track. In this case, since the Do Not Track header is worse than worthless because it will always will fail miserably to actually do what it claims, the header itself will act as sort of a "fuck off" header instead.
Maybe we need to enhance the "standard" by allowing something like: DNT=FUCK_OFF...which would be used by people who have their own set of privacy tools. Would this proposed update to the standard pass? After all... dumber things have been approved. Like, say, the DNT standard itself. I would consider a FUCK_OFF flag a massive improvement to such a pathetic standard... at least it would allow you to not only express your desire not to be tracked, but also to tell them what you really think of their joke of a standard.
If my browser featured this, hell... I'd turn it on.
Oh right, because the browsers Linux / Unix use are more secure than Firefox and Chrome, and they dont have flash or java plugins to exploit.
Flash? Java? What's that? Seriously, I just use NoScript, and as soon as Flash is no longer required for many sites to work, that garbage plugin is getting deleted. As for Java itself? Sure, it's unfortunately installed as a result of having LibreOffice installed (I'd like to see that POS gutted and removed completely, I have absolutely no use for it). But the Java web browser plugin? I don't recall seeing that installed in any distros I've tried for a while, and if I find some obscure program that requires it I have to manually jump through hoops just to set it up.
The difference is that a properly-configured UNIX system has strong user/root separation that it was designed for in the beginning. Windows doesn't. You could argue that it does since Vista, but I would say that Windows users have been trained since the DOS days to just say "yes" when they want their computer to just do what they tell it to do. These days it's an impulse, done without even thinking. At least a halfway-decent UNIX system will ask you for the root password or your own password, requiring you to actually think for a second about what you're doing before you just hit "OK".
You realize that OSX (a Unix) has been the first to fall at every single Pwn2Own, with a single exception (last year)?
Yes, I realize that, and I also realize that Apple has the same mindset as Microsoft: Make the OS as easy to use as possible, fuck security if it makes it harder for the user. In that case, I guess Mac OS X is an exception to the rule. Notice the key modifier I added that must've whooshed past your head like the fall breeze: "sensibly-designed UNIX or UNIX-like system." I would have to say that Mac OS X is not sensibly designed. A solid foundation doesn't help much if the above layers are crap. Mac OS X is designed to hold users' hands like babies, its Apple-designed layers aren't exactly the strongest elements to have landed an official UNIX-certified OS.
Nope, this Windows is the first release that presumes/pre-empts that you, the user, will do your computing across multiple devices and that you don't want to have to worry about your data & user experience being tied to any one device.
It also makes the assumption that every single computer you own will be a puny little device with a tiny touchscreen and no physical mouse or keyboard, and that you will have access to the Internet on all of these "devices" at all times. And if you want to use it on the desktop? Well, they've left the traditional desktop GUI there just to as an attempt to ease people into Metro prevent everyone from saying "fuck off" and avoiding the OS like a diseased syphillis patient, but they've purposely castrated the desktop by making it work in such a way that is clunky to discourage people from using it. You know, a little nudge to get people onto Metro as soon as possible, to ease the pain after their eventual gutting of the traditional general-purpose desktop in a future release.
Want to see it in action? Log into Win8 with an MS account on any machine - your apps, data, settings, everything will magically appear (assuming you've allowed it) even if the machine has never heard of you before (and again, assuming this isn't locked down).
Now, try that without a fucking Internet connection. Good luck. That said, you described *exactly* the way my Android phone works. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Google was already there.
That's huge; it effectively eliminates the concept of local file-systems for user data. Everything is transparently in the cloud and just works, as it should be. This is the first Windows to be built from day 0 on this basis.
Sounds great! I sure would hate to find out what would happen if Microsoft's servers were down for a little while one day when I really needed access to all of my files. Or if someone were to perform a dictionary attack on a Windows 8/Microsoft Account user's password. Or an attacker were to somehow gain entry to the servers and gain access to user data (possibly crack the encryption).
Now, for people that don't like metro because they don't have touch? The answer is simple - don't use metro-style apps if you don't like them. Your old desktop works just as well (although it doesn't have the same level of cloud syncing) and all the apps you had on Win7 will work just the same way.
Except as I pointed out above... you're full of shit on this one. Sorry.
I honestly don't feel like reading any more of your Microsoft marketing. I'm out.
I haven't run Windows for a long time, but because I prefer to have a nice, clean desktop that doesn't have shit all over it (unlike my real-world counterpart), I tended to use the Start menu all the time. I would have the bare basics on the desktop (My Computer, Documents, Network Places, Recycle Bin, Firefox), five or six of my primary programs in the quick launch bar, and literally everything else I accessed from the Start menu. Including, of course, the Shutdown/Restart option...
Now that is a good idea and it's something I've been considering. I probably will eventually do it myself, actually. The only problem is, waiting for all computers currently in use to be replaced with Windows 8 machines. I say replaced, because "upgraded" seems to be absent from most people's vocabulary. I often use similar excuses when asked to deal with Windows 7/Vista machines, simply because I don't care to mess with them... but because the general layout of the GUI hasn't changed a whole lot, the claim doesn't really hold water. I've personally been Windows-free for about six years, when I left Windows (then XP) for good in favor of Linux. I provided relatively little help for Vista, and even less for 7. It's looking like the time is finally right to cut off all ties.
You're right. Just use some sensibly-designed UNIX or UNIX-like system, where the "anti-virus protection" is built-in in the form of a strong, more secure foundation to begin with.
All joking aside... no matter what anti-virus program you run, malware writers are always going to test against all major anti-virus programs, whether they're built into the OS or not. I would say that Microsoft probably has an advantage over all the other Windows anti-virus companies, simply because they *own* the operating system. They designed Windows, they maintain it, they are the only ones who have the complete source code to it.
Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if Windows is becoming such a monster that not even Microsoft has the resources to maintain its code. Maybe that's the reason for their intended obsolescence of the traditional desktop and the emergence of Metro? Of course, their desire to make something for an entire class of touchscreen devices that they can further lock down and rake in more money through their "app" store are probably their short-term primary objectives, but I wouldn't put it past them to want to "start fresh" because they've created what's become a monster that cannot be sustained by one company for the long term.
Slashdot Mirror
The solution is for everyone to move to 5 GHz (802.11a/n/ac). It's happening, slowly. The biggest help for this was probably with Samsung and Apple adding the 5 GHz band to their phones this year. Eventually 2.4 GHz will be a relic, I hope.
And once 802.11ac is being used to its full potential, using up channels with a width of 80 or even a whopping 160 MHz (4x or 8x the width of a full channel), we'll be forced to move on to yet another frequency band. Until the cycle starts over again and we're all out of usable, legal channels. And then where do we go? Keep going up the spectrum until the wavelengths are so short we have to be in the same room without an object blocking the wall to be able to keep a connection?
Don't get me wrong--that extra bandwidth will be awesome. But only while it lasts, and it's only going to last if you live in an area out in the middle of nowhere. I'm not even in a very big city, but my router (WRT54GL with 7dBi antennas) regularly picks up around 16 other APs. There are always about five APs each on channels 1,6 and 11. Channel 11 usually seems to have one less AP, so I run on it. The problem? Some bastard runs on channel 9, delivering pure noise to my router, and another runs at channel 3, fucking up channel 1. Meanwhile, channel 6 is also caught in the crossfire of the guy running on channel 9.
It won't be fun trying to find a space in the 5 GHz band when 802.11ac begins crowding it every bit as much as 2.4 GHz is now. I'm seriously considering just moving out of the city. That way I can run all the equipment I want, however I want, and not have to deal with other people's interference.
Haiku has been making excellent progress over the last couple of years compared to another clone, ReactOS. Haiku is actually quite usable as it is and pretty stable. In fact, I'd say its stability gives Win9x and even most Windows XP installations I've seen a run for their money. I don't mess with Windows any more since XP, but I do know at least one person who kept getting program crashed and BSODs in Vista and he still gets them occasionally in 7. ReactOS, by comparison, feels like a pre-alpha at best, or an old Win9x release at the worst. As far as reaching R1 goes, I don't think there'll be anywhere near 10 years of waiting... the OS feels pretty good as it is already.
Sounds like deja vu with past Windows releases... this same exact thing has happened several times in the past.
Only now, Linux is catching up in big ways with the help of both Valve and nVidia, so how much longer will having the latest DirectX version even matter as a selling point for the the latest version of Windows?
Enjoy it while you still can, Microsoft.
Over 250,000 patents? That's probably more security than a medieval fortress with a thick, heavy steel fence and barbed wire, a surrounding moat and drawbridge, snipers, and dozens of guards operating turret guns and cannons. I'm sorry, but that's just uncalled for for something as simple as a god damn phone. If that's not stifling the fuck out of innovation, then I don't know what is. How the hell has this come to be without the government seeming to even give a fuck, even with the heavy lobbying of companies with their own interests? Corruption at its finest.
You go try that on a Windows 8 ARM-based machine and report back on how well that works.
Or if you want to save yourself the time, trouble and money, just read this:
Mandatory. Enable/Disable Secure Boot. On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement
the ability to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup. A physically present user must be
allowed to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup without possession of PKpriv. A Windows
Server may also disable Secure Boot remotely using a strongly authenticated (preferably
public-key based) out-of-band management connection, such as to a baseboard
management controller or service processor. Programmatic disabling of Secure Boot either
during Boot Services or after exiting EFI Boot Services MUST NOT be possible. Disabling
Secure Boot must not be possible on ARM systems.
Be sure to take special notice of the very last sentence in particular.
Source? Official Microsoft Windows Hardware Certification documentation for Windows 8.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/windows/hardware/hh748188
Windows has Windows Resource Protection (WRP). Unlike Linux/Unix, even if you run as an administrator (equivalent to root) you *do not* have permission to change operating system files. Only the TrustedInstaller account can change those files.
Oh, okay. So Windows' "root" account is actually "TrustedUser," not actually "Administrator." Gotcha. And that changes things in truly amazing, important ways... how?
Windows has Kernel Patch Protection (KPP). KPP encrypts and checksums certain OS tables of the running operating system to prevent tampering by rogue processes which somehow have gained kernel access (e.g. through a vulnerable driver). ... Is guaranteed security? no - but it is unlike anything you'll find in Linux/Unix.
Anyone sticking with the default, trusted software repositories doesn't exactly need to worry about rogue processes taking control of the kernel, so in Linux it's really mostly a non-issue...
Windows has a kernel mode signing policy [microsoft.com] which requires all software (drivers and more) which are to be loaded in kernel space to be digitally signed. If they are not signed they cannot be loaded. If a driver has been tampered with, the signature will be invalid and the kernel will refuse to load it. Ubuntu and Fedora now does have some signing protection, but they are incomplete in comparison, e.g. they only protect executable modules, not configuration files.
Again, the trusted software repositories minimize the need for this kind of primarily Windows-related protection. But like your previous point, yeah, it's great that Windows now has it... because it actually needs it.
Windows 8 introduced secure boot. The Windows 8 boot loader is signed with a key known to the UEFI bios. The boot loader will in turn check the integrity of the OS and configuration (using digital signatures) before the proceeds. This closes the vector where a bootkit takes control of the system and boots the OS in a virtualized environment through which it can patch the OS after boot.
I won't even touch this one. I'll just say that I have an extreme hatred toward the EFI-enabled "Secure Boot," and fast turtle (very) briefly went over why as far as the control of the owner and user of the computer goes, while being yet another source of money for Microsoft from those people who do not want to run their OS. And if you have an ARM processor... it cannot be turned off.
And the other 85% is viruses and other malware that Windows 8 is still vulnerable to, but the built-in anti-virus software"protects" it from actually proceeding to cause infections. Turn it off, and Windows 8 retains probably 100% backwards compatibility with all of those viruses that the article is talking about from the last six months...
Try a real beer, not that "lite" artificially carbonated piss water or the so-called "normal" beer offerings from the mega swill breweries (Anheuser-Busch, Molson Coors Brewing Company, SABMiller, etc.). The poor quality of the crap they sell is reflected by their all-encompassing target audience and massive marketing budgets.
http://patto1ro.home.xs4all.nl/beertemp.htm
[The most relevant parts begin with the section titled "The real trouble starts", though the whole article is interesting...]
Not enough to make it news-worthy. Which is more than can be said of any Windows release during its lifespan.
What red flag? You mean the "Do you really want to do this? Yes/No" message? You know, the one that everyone is going to look at and say, "well fucking duh, yes I want to do this, or I wouldn't have told you to do it anyway," just like in the old DOS/Win9x days of "Yes/No/Retry/Fail"? Why no, Windows, I actually want the process to fail, and I don't actually want to install that program...
Or even a quick look to see if there are any flashes on the walls of TVs that are on. You might even see that without cars in the driveway... or knocking, actually. Some people might just not answer the door after a certain time, or after it gets dark.
Once it gets to a certain time that I expect absolutely no one to come knocking on the door, usually a cutoff time of somewhere between 10 and midnight depending on expectations, I do just that. If someone wants to come up later than that, they better have either let me know ahead of time, or call before they try knocking. There are some exceptions; I'll try sneaking to a window with a decent view and peeking outside, and if a car I recognize is parked outside then I'll grant entry. Then again, I tend to not restrain from using lights at those times, so a burgler wouldn't exactly need to sniff some meter's signal... they'd just have to take one quick glance at the house and realize that half of the windows are lit up. :)
So true.... Mozilla began their downward spiral and selling out years ago when they founded the Mozilla Corporation. After that, they started going down the shitter. Hey, anyone remember all the backlash caused when they thought it would be a brilliant idea to force-feed their EULA down our throats on first run, or that whole Mozilla branding situation that spawned Iceweasel? Of course you don't--Mozilla's too busy making the news seemingly every other week with pointless new version inflation releases of Firefox and implementing the latest controversial user interface design changes.
Hell, people probably already forgot that before there even was a "ESR" release of Firefox, everyone was complaining and Mr. Genius aka. Asa Dotzler was claiming that their users are wrong, no, you don't need long-term support. I don't remember if it was Asa or some other Mozilla nut that basically said that if you need stability and a longer release cycle, then you should be using another browser instead of Firefox.
Mozilla only gives a damn about what the Corporation wants. Not its users.
Exactly what I was thinking. So why bother? And who the hell cares anyway?
The article reads like it was written by the media industry. Theft, stealing, stolen property... come on people, it's fucking copyright infringement. Nothing was stolen... the girl was not left without her nude pictures. The guys didn't "take" them from her. Data was copied without permission. Simple as that. The only "property" in question is the phones and other computing devices mentioned in the article... and none of that was "stolen" either.
Why would distributions need to standardize on a desktop? Choice is good, though admittedly with the exceptionally crappy choices these days (Unity, GNOME 3...) the choices available tend to not be quite as good as they once were. Just pick the distribution that suits you and uses your favorite desktop environment and stick with it. Distributions don't usually switch their default desktop environment every other release. If you want to use another distribution but keep the same desktop environment, you could easily do it and lose none of your settings.
I used to be a Windows "power user" back before 2007 and to be honest, I couldn't accomplish a damn thing until I spent at least a couple hours tweaking the interface and system settings, installing programs and setting them all up. Don't get me wrong though, I did love the setup after a few days of tweaking it and getting everything "just right" after installation.
Linux? I'm able to get shit done right after the install. Minimal or no further configuration required. Even if some program does need installed, it's one quick command away and it's good to go.
For immediate productivity, I'd easily pick Linux.
You bring up a good point. I hear about Yahoo! occasionally when it makes the news, like now, but I haven't used their search engine since... forever? Hell, I don't even remember what search engine I used before I switched to Google (and I was late into the Google crowd), it may or may not have been Yahoo!. When I think the company these days, I think of their messenger program and protocol... as a search engine, I don't have too many memories of them, they're mostly forgotten history to me. And as a search engine, that is exactly what they are... history... because they don't even run their own engine any more. They use Bing.
I almost never even use my Yahoo! Messenger account these days, although my instant messaging client automatically logs into it. I plan on switching 100% to Google Talk and MSN Messenger... which shouldn't be too difficult, it might just take a while to get in contact with my friends and tell them of the change. One friend in particular may be a problem, he seems stubborn and has been a Yahoo! user for years... as from the way it sounds, he even uses Yahoo! as his primary e-mail service. Luckily I barely have any people in my Yahoo! Messenger contacts list; the only problem is the few I do have on there, I never get in contact, and in some cases it is extremely difficult to get in contact with them.
Disable third-party cookies and install the Do Not Track Plus and NoScript extensions. Then to really fuck with the assholes, set up AdBlock Plus and disable its bullshit "non-intrusive advertising" whitelist, and to make sure your point finally sinks in, go into your browser's preferences and enable Do Not Track. In this case, since the Do Not Track header is worse than worthless because it will always will fail miserably to actually do what it claims, the header itself will act as sort of a "fuck off" header instead.
Maybe we need to enhance the "standard" by allowing something like: DNT=FUCK_OFF ...which would be used by people who have their own set of privacy tools. Would this proposed update to the standard pass? After all... dumber things have been approved. Like, say, the DNT standard itself. I would consider a FUCK_OFF flag a massive improvement to such a pathetic standard... at least it would allow you to not only express your desire not to be tracked, but also to tell them what you really think of their joke of a standard.
If my browser featured this, hell... I'd turn it on.
Oh right, because the browsers Linux / Unix use are more secure than Firefox and Chrome, and they dont have flash or java plugins to exploit.
Flash? Java? What's that? Seriously, I just use NoScript, and as soon as Flash is no longer required for many sites to work, that garbage plugin is getting deleted. As for Java itself? Sure, it's unfortunately installed as a result of having LibreOffice installed (I'd like to see that POS gutted and removed completely, I have absolutely no use for it). But the Java web browser plugin? I don't recall seeing that installed in any distros I've tried for a while, and if I find some obscure program that requires it I have to manually jump through hoops just to set it up.
The difference is that a properly-configured UNIX system has strong user/root separation that it was designed for in the beginning. Windows doesn't. You could argue that it does since Vista, but I would say that Windows users have been trained since the DOS days to just say "yes" when they want their computer to just do what they tell it to do. These days it's an impulse, done without even thinking. At least a halfway-decent UNIX system will ask you for the root password or your own password, requiring you to actually think for a second about what you're doing before you just hit "OK".
You realize that OSX (a Unix) has been the first to fall at every single Pwn2Own, with a single exception (last year)?
Yes, I realize that, and I also realize that Apple has the same mindset as Microsoft: Make the OS as easy to use as possible, fuck security if it makes it harder for the user. In that case, I guess Mac OS X is an exception to the rule. Notice the key modifier I added that must've whooshed past your head like the fall breeze: "sensibly-designed UNIX or UNIX-like system." I would have to say that Mac OS X is not sensibly designed. A solid foundation doesn't help much if the above layers are crap. Mac OS X is designed to hold users' hands like babies, its Apple-designed layers aren't exactly the strongest elements to have landed an official UNIX-certified OS.
Nope, this Windows is the first release that presumes/pre-empts that you, the user, will do your computing across multiple devices and that you don't want to have to worry about your data & user experience being tied to any one device.
It also makes the assumption that every single computer you own will be a puny little device with a tiny touchscreen and no physical mouse or keyboard, and that you will have access to the Internet on all of these "devices" at all times. And if you want to use it on the desktop? Well, they've left the traditional desktop GUI there just to as an attempt to ease people into Metro prevent everyone from saying "fuck off" and avoiding the OS like a diseased syphillis patient, but they've purposely castrated the desktop by making it work in such a way that is clunky to discourage people from using it. You know, a little nudge to get people onto Metro as soon as possible, to ease the pain after their eventual gutting of the traditional general-purpose desktop in a future release.
Want to see it in action? Log into Win8 with an MS account on any machine - your apps, data, settings, everything will magically appear (assuming you've allowed it) even if the machine has never heard of you before (and again, assuming this isn't locked down).
Now, try that without a fucking Internet connection. Good luck. That said, you described *exactly* the way my Android phone works. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Google was already there.
That's huge; it effectively eliminates the concept of local file-systems for user data. Everything is transparently in the cloud and just works, as it should be. This is the first Windows to be built from day 0 on this basis.
Sounds great! I sure would hate to find out what would happen if Microsoft's servers were down for a little while one day when I really needed access to all of my files. Or if someone were to perform a dictionary attack on a Windows 8/Microsoft Account user's password. Or an attacker were to somehow gain entry to the servers and gain access to user data (possibly crack the encryption).
Now, for people that don't like metro because they don't have touch? The answer is simple - don't use metro-style apps if you don't like them. Your old desktop works just as well (although it doesn't have the same level of cloud syncing) and all the apps you had on Win7 will work just the same way.
Except as I pointed out above... you're full of shit on this one. Sorry.
I honestly don't feel like reading any more of your Microsoft marketing. I'm out.
I haven't run Windows for a long time, but because I prefer to have a nice, clean desktop that doesn't have shit all over it (unlike my real-world counterpart), I tended to use the Start menu all the time. I would have the bare basics on the desktop (My Computer, Documents, Network Places, Recycle Bin, Firefox), five or six of my primary programs in the quick launch bar, and literally everything else I accessed from the Start menu. Including, of course, the Shutdown/Restart option...
Now that is a good idea and it's something I've been considering. I probably will eventually do it myself, actually. The only problem is, waiting for all computers currently in use to be replaced with Windows 8 machines. I say replaced, because "upgraded" seems to be absent from most people's vocabulary. I often use similar excuses when asked to deal with Windows 7/Vista machines, simply because I don't care to mess with them... but because the general layout of the GUI hasn't changed a whole lot, the claim doesn't really hold water. I've personally been Windows-free for about six years, when I left Windows (then XP) for good in favor of Linux. I provided relatively little help for Vista, and even less for 7. It's looking like the time is finally right to cut off all ties.
You're right. Just use some sensibly-designed UNIX or UNIX-like system, where the "anti-virus protection" is built-in in the form of a strong, more secure foundation to begin with.
All joking aside... no matter what anti-virus program you run, malware writers are always going to test against all major anti-virus programs, whether they're built into the OS or not. I would say that Microsoft probably has an advantage over all the other Windows anti-virus companies, simply because they *own* the operating system. They designed Windows, they maintain it, they are the only ones who have the complete source code to it.
Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if Windows is becoming such a monster that not even Microsoft has the resources to maintain its code. Maybe that's the reason for their intended obsolescence of the traditional desktop and the emergence of Metro? Of course, their desire to make something for an entire class of touchscreen devices that they can further lock down and rake in more money through their "app" store are probably their short-term primary objectives, but I wouldn't put it past them to want to "start fresh" because they've created what's become a monster that cannot be sustained by one company for the long term.
In general many Linux distributions get faster with new releases, but not always. Just look at KDE4 and especially GNOME 3, for example...
Still, for all of the shit that Linux users talk about Windows, Windows has never had anything as serious as a file system corruption bug.
I take it you've never experienced Win9x and Microsoft's FAT family of filesystems. If that's the case, you got lucky.