Users don't necessarily prefer MS Office as much as they are locked into it.
I know people who, when having a look at screenshots of both Office 2010 and LibreOffice 3.5, decide that they prefer Office 2012 because, in their words, "it's prettier". If this is all it takes then I'm not surprised at all when people say they prefer MS Office.
Beside, even if we argue that they only "prefer" it because they're locked into using it, isn't that still a preference? My wife is a teacher. She could use LibreOffice if necessary but I threw Office 2010 on her machine for the following reasons:
(1) She, like everyone who's been at a school, knows how to use Office and hence is very familiar with where everything is. (2) She, like everyone in working life, is surrounded by a Microsoft ecosystem and as such it's just plain less work to stick with using what everyone else is using. You suffer less stress because of it (no issues with file format compatibilities for a start) (3) If LibreOffice causes problems when trying to deal with documents used by other staff members as well as those sent to/from students, SHE WILL BLAME ME and for good reason, since Office was working perfectly for her anyway.
So yes, there's a legitimate reason why people would prefer using MS Office to anything else. I can get away with LibreOffice but only because I don't require the same level of format comparability that she does.
PowerPoint is only one example though. I think the issue is that this "sour grapes" issue is rampant in the Linux/open source world. Heck, I fully understand why certain functionality might be missing in a FOSS program compared to its proprietary equivalent (it might simply be difficult to implement, lack of resources/time, etc), but I can also completely understand why someone might prefer to just throw money at a solution that DOES provide the functionality they want.
Most people are more interested in results and will deal with a bit of financial pain if the free alternatives are too stressful to use for whatever reason. It's better to accept this as an inherent limitation with the nature of open source rather than suggest that the user is at fault. Otherwise you're just setting up a case of the user never bothering with open source again if it's failed them too many times.
To be honest it embarrasses me to want to associate myself with any "side" when it comes to operating systems and hardware. If I try to say why Windows is better at Linux than something (and make my statement completely without any emotional inflection or attachment), I'm gonna get piled on pretty quickly by a lot of hate posts that don't legitimately counter my points (posts that I would appreciate reading, since I don't know everything). If I go to say, Neowin.net, and try to make a comment about how I feel Windows 8 sucks for my workflow or how I like a particular feature in Linux that Windows doesn't have, I'll be piled on pretty quickly there too.
There are a LOT of seasoned, battle-hardened vets of the operating system wars out there on the net who have nothing better to do than fight against those who don't have the same viewpoint as they do. The mere fact that people can't discuss things and see both sides of an issue without getting into an emotional wreck reminds me how fucking annoying and stupid humans really are.
Besides which, Steam has been running for 9 years and is making money hand over fist, I doubt it's going to disappear anytime soon.
Never say never. Plus, having all your games locked to a single account means that if the account is marked as bad (stolen/hacked, or otherwise considered damaged) you could lose access to all your games you basically rented, should Steam Support not solve things. Why invest in a platform where you can't easily walk away and keep your games if things go sour?
I would much prefer using Steam if Valve completely removed their own DRM from the platform, such that I could back up and archive my downloaded games no matter what happens. I can do this with GOG, why not Steam? If Valve are concerned publishers won't want to use Steam without DRM, then they can elect to have DRM if they must. But most games I've played seem to require the Steam DRM at the very least, and that isn't palatable to me when you're putting down your money to buy something.
Linux distros are way too fluid, Ubuntu in particular. I know people like to talk about Linux being under constant, rapid development and what not, and that things are always changing and improving. This is considered a pro rather than a con when compared to the mostly static Windows platform which only has a new revision every few years.
People like stability. People like the fact that they don't have to relearn how to use Windows again for another 3-4 years, or whenever the next version comes out. But they hate it when they DO eventually need to - oh how they hate it, as Microsoft will no doubt discover with Windows 8. So why do people get surprised if people don't want to complicate matters by using distros where the front and back-ends tend to change even MORE rapidly?
No. This "new age" only exists because a lot of people have becomes tired and fed up with Linux continually being talking about on Slashdot as some sort of "savior" operating system that's somehow superior to Windows, despite its many many flaws that don't seem to get acknowledged. Now there's push-back, and the traditional Linux gurus don't like the fact not everyone is listening to their bullshit anymore.
I'm enjoying this critical analysis of Linux period we're going through. It's the only way we'll be able to analyze the legitimate reasons why it's failing to secure any mainstream share, rather than just the usual "Microsoft monopoly" BS. It's a lot more complicated than that.
Every time I've installed Windows it's been a battle with drivers.
Big fucking deal. At least with Windows you know you'll HAVE drivers that work to support 100% of the functionality of whatever hardware you connect to your computer. Might need some searching, but they'll be out there. If I was only running Linux I'd be concerned about buying any new printer, scanner, webcam, specialized peripheral or whatever, because I know from experience that even after research is performed on the hardware's Linux compatibility, actual real-world comparability is a lot less guaranteed. I know there's guys out there who say "Linux has detected everything I've got", but that's not gonna help me if I need to buy something which no-one's hacked support for, and even if they have, it probably doesn't have equivalent functionality (e.g. a printer I had only showed the ink levels in the Windows status application - no such thing existed in Linux).
When Linux supports your hardware it's great. When it doesn't, you're fucked unless you enjoy compiling modules and adding them during bootup. Windows might not have the drivers as part of the installation, but at least you can find them and Next Next your way to victory. I prefer knowing whatever I buy will work on my computer, guaranteed.*
*Note: grantee does not include bloated HP drivers. Linux wins there.
You seem to misunderstand Slashdot. There's no "journalism" here. Almost all of the content is user submitted, including most of the summaries. And with the "firehose," the "editors" take a step even further back in letting users select which submissions get posted.
The users might be the ones selecting the submissions, but the editors have the final say as to what stories to run exactly how the summary should be worded. I've seen submissions turned completely on their head by the editors for shock/anger value, knowing that it'll bring in more clicks. The editors also are supposed to proof-read the summaries for errors, and if they don't then it's the editors who are blamed. Editing is a part of journalism, and so a tacky approach to editing is to me an example of shitty journalism.
If the editors didn't have this kind of input, well they wouldn't be editors would they? No-one would be running this place, and you'd have anarchy like it is on reddit.
The people running Slashdot are trolls, examples of the worst characteristics of journalism that we see many times elsewhere but can't understand why such behavior exists on a site supposedly for geeks (who we've been conditioned to believe are smarter than everyone else). They know that a Linux vs multinational corporation story (no matter how baselesss and inaccurate it is) will pull the emotional strings of people who see the existence of Linux as a fight against the "man".
Why do you think those multiple "Linux desktop is dead" stories which were posted here in the last few weeks garnered so many comments? I find it interesting that ArsTechnica has not posted a SINGLE story regarding this supposedly controversial issue. Maybe because they already know the Linux desktop is dead and don't see the point in beating a dead horse, I dunno. But Slashdot is ripe with people believing that phantom possibility so it gets posted here. And people eat it all up. So the folks running this place keep posting such stories because we're all idiots.:)
The sad truth is today whether you buy a disc or a digital download, both are going to be considered rentals by the company. You don't own the game by their contract and they have the right to remove your legal access to the product at any time. In fact some companies only give you a limited number of installs/activations even if you buy the disc. Once they are used up if they say "no" your disc is legally just a coaster now. At least with Steam I'm getting a good discount and not paying a full $60 for my rental.
Yes I am aware I don't technically "own" the game as far as letter of the law is concerned, but at least in the "old days" you had a disc that didn't need authentication, and hence no matter what happened to the company/publisher, you could ALWAYS install and play that game, so long as you had a platform to run it on. There was no possible way to revoke access or block access due to local Internet troubles, or troubles on THEIR servers (which isn't funny, since it does happen - look at the initial Diablo 3 troubles). No-one can break down my door and take my purchased software away from me, but tying all my games to a single account creates a single point of failure, and I am NOT able to give all that trust to a single company no matter how many fanboys it's got.
My God, you can get games from GOG (now with some great really modern titles like ArmA 2 and Alan Wake) and yet no-one every considers it when discussing the issues of modern-day PC gaming. I really GOG took over from Steam, but again... everyone seems to feel like they must pander to the big publishers and buy their bullshit./rant mode, off
OK, fair enough. However I grew up with pirated content so obtaining an ISO, grabbing the latest patch and version-matched crack from GameCopyWorld is trivial for me since I've done it since God-knows how long. You don't forget skills like that and the benefits of Steam don't always outweight the advantages of doing it yourself.
I bought a copy of TimeShift a while back (a good, not great FPS). I also have a downloaded ISO of it - no-one's gonna scratch an ISO so there's no threat there. It's patched to version 1.2 and cracked appropriately. I had a look on Steam - they've got TimeShift available, but after reading forum comments it seems they forgot to apply any patches to it; it's still at version 1.0 which misses out on a fair number of performance and bug fixes. You can't just easily patch Steam games using a patch not designed for them (you can, sorta, but it's more effort than the retail version since the patch might look for a regkey to show the game is installed, etc).
Now this isn't an issue for games which are specifically designed only for Steam distribution or which use Steamworks, and since we seem to be running out of big-title PC games that DON'T require some form of linking to an online account, whether that be Steam or Origin or Battle.net, this problem will be less likely to happen in the future. But I still like having total control over the stuff I buy. GOG is probably the closest digital vendor for games which matches my preferences for this. I just wish people viewed non-DRM content higher than they do, but that's just me.
Would you stop that, please? I don't use Steam because I've been conditioned by Slashdot to disregard all forms of DRM (and no-one can deny that Steam is one of them). If Valve dies, Steam dies, and the resultant consequences of it for your 100+ game library.
But when I read comments like yours, I get frustrated, because it's means I get conflicted. I don't want DRM, but how much pressure can one person have before they go "fuck it", and relent?
I love the new name Files...its a meaningful name. Now "Cheese" "Tomboy Notes" and "Gimp" need to be changed to "Cam", "Notes" and "Image Manipulator"
I can understand and agree with that. Program names like "Word" and "Writer" are good because they associate clearly with the function of the program. "Nautilus" does not.
Using Niggles as an excuse when Microsoft itself is plagued with Niggles...its constant maintenance alone which is incredibly stressful. I don't think Microsoft Spyware/DRM will ever be acceptable issue especially when the functionality of simply swopping my hardware and carrying on working is so precious a commodity to me If hardware fails on an OEM machine its not pleasant, as for the spywhere. Microsoft has sold out too many times. But even without that their behaviour is simply too awful for any ethical person to accept.
Most software has niggles, it's just a matter of what you find more annoying. If you've spent more time in Windows than Linux (like I have), the Linux niggles will likely be more grating and vice versa. As for the DRM (I assume you're referring to the Window Activation stuff), I have a small program which can activate any version of Windows 7, including the re-activation of a previously activated system. It's great and ensures I never have to deal with these problems. I could move to Linux and not have to deal with it at all, sure, but then I lose the benefits of the Windows ecosystem.
That last bit though, "their behaviour is simply too awful for any ethical person to accept" - you'll need to clarify that. By your logic, the 90%+ people who are computer users and use Windows, they are unethical? Most of them wouldn't even know of Microsoft's business dealings. Even those who do and continue to use it, maybe they realize it's an imperfect world and when everyone else is using Windows and Microsoft products, it's easier just to go along with the flow? I'm aware of Microsoft's behavior - I just don't think about it continuously when I'm using my computer, particularly when there are far, far worse companies out there. If Linux is stressing me out by being difficult, I'm not able to motivate myself by thinking about Microsoft's abuses - it's not enough to outweigh my issues with Linux, sorry.
No-one drinks mud. 90%+ of computer users use Windows. There are enormous benefits to staying within the Windows ecosystem, at least for my stress levels. I don't understand your analogy at all (but will listen if you wish to expand on it).
As for my reasons against two panels and why I think its bizarre. I can open more than one instance of "Files". Two panels made sense in DOS.
Ah yes, "Files". I hate that new name for Nautilus. I think I'll keep using the old name to spite them.:) As for opening another instance, sure you can do that. But that was the same argument that some people used against tabbed browsing when it first appeared. Now everyone uses tabs in a single browser instance simply because it's more convenient.
I got driven to Linux by Windows by the abuses by the company and the Spyware/DRM in their [not your] OS Windows 8 is not where I want to be:)
It's hard to care about such abuses by Microsoft when the alternatives have too many niggling issues to use (for me anyway). I'll accept the Devil if he makes my life less stressful. As for spyware/DRM, unless there's a tangible issue that it brings I'll live with it. Linux is just now too painful to use on the desktop, and I'm too old to care about switching anymore.
You are an idiot if you switch to OSX or Windows over this.
Guess I'm an idiot. I've run out of patience in all this infighting and tension in the Linux community. I just want some stability in desktop environments. I know everyone hates Windows 8 but Windows 7 is going to be around for quite a while still, so I'm sticking with it.
I personally will not miss 2 panes, because I have always found that a bizarre concept in a Desktop environment.
It's amusing you suggest that two panes is a bizarre concept, considering the whole of GNOME 3's shell is ultimately a bizarre concept anyway (compared to most other desktop environments), so it's not like keeping dual panes would be out of place in GNOME 3.:)
I didn't use dual panes much, but occasionally they were useful. Just like the Windows "start" menu - occasionally useful, and it's annoying to have it removed when it wasn't hurting anyone. It's reduction in functionality which made me look into using MATE (which lasted for a while, until I cracked and went back to Windows 7 for reasons of tension with the Linux ecosystem.)
My complaint is still valid - I can't simply set a default audio output; all I can do is disable the unused output to force only one audio output. It only makes it a default by... well, default, since nothing else is available to be selected at random during startup. In Windows, I can set a default and it'll stick, but I can keep other outputs available and redirect various programs to use them if necessary without fiddling.
Fucking hell mate. I've been dabbling with Linux since early last decade - config files are not an issue. What is an issue is that I'm getting older and am less inclined to deal with workarounds that shouldn't exist, such as race conditions. Do you understand this?
Nice of you to dismiss my issue. You really think I'd waste my time posting about a non-existent issue just to mess with ya?
Of course you can select the output. The problem is that select it doesn't KEEP it selected when you reboot, as in, you can't set it as a default that will be assigned upon startup. Now what I discovered after making my original post is that you can disable an output on a different tab, so I disabled the HDMI output and this does end up achieving my objective, even if it's a workaround of sorts (if I want to use HDMI audio in the future I have to remember to re-enable it manually).
But still, it's as if Linux users are desperate to hold onto their little OS so much that they'll attempt to reduce the credibility of someone's complaint. I WANT Linux to succeed - why the fuck would I make stuff up? I'm this close to giving up trying if this is how the fabled Linux community treats each other.
Sounds like it works well for you. For better or worse though, I'd rather have an ecosystem which was comprised of elements from different vendors and open platforms rather than surrendering all my tech to only one proprietary vendor (in your case, Microsoft). Probably wouldn't work as seamlessly, but it would mean less trouble later down the track should I feel that vendor is being a dick, I can swap out components for something else.
Other than GOG.com (which tends to have more older games rather than new releases)
That's hardly a bad thing though. I grantee you GOG have plenty of good/great games you've never played, and since you'll never have enough time to play everything they've got, it's not like you'll run out of "new" (to you anyway) stuff.
They added ARMA 2 to GOG a couple of weeks ago. They aren't all 90's adventure games anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
My condolences. :)
I know people who, when having a look at screenshots of both Office 2010 and LibreOffice 3.5, decide that they prefer Office 2012 because, in their words, "it's prettier". If this is all it takes then I'm not surprised at all when people say they prefer MS Office.
Beside, even if we argue that they only "prefer" it because they're locked into using it, isn't that still a preference? My wife is a teacher. She could use LibreOffice if necessary but I threw Office 2010 on her machine for the following reasons:
(1) She, like everyone who's been at a school, knows how to use Office and hence is very familiar with where everything is.
(2) She, like everyone in working life, is surrounded by a Microsoft ecosystem and as such it's just plain less work to stick with using what everyone else is using. You suffer less stress because of it (no issues with file format compatibilities for a start)
(3) If LibreOffice causes problems when trying to deal with documents used by other staff members as well as those sent to/from students, SHE WILL BLAME ME and for good reason, since Office was working perfectly for her anyway.
So yes, there's a legitimate reason why people would prefer using MS Office to anything else. I can get away with LibreOffice but only because I don't require the same level of format comparability that she does.
This is just how the world works.
PowerPoint is only one example though. I think the issue is that this "sour grapes" issue is rampant in the Linux/open source world. Heck, I fully understand why certain functionality might be missing in a FOSS program compared to its proprietary equivalent (it might simply be difficult to implement, lack of resources/time, etc), but I can also completely understand why someone might prefer to just throw money at a solution that DOES provide the functionality they want.
Most people are more interested in results and will deal with a bit of financial pain if the free alternatives are too stressful to use for whatever reason. It's better to accept this as an inherent limitation with the nature of open source rather than suggest that the user is at fault. Otherwise you're just setting up a case of the user never bothering with open source again if it's failed them too many times.
Prof. Farnsworth: "Yeees. I see. Something involving that many big words could easily destabilize liner tubes themselves."
To be honest it embarrasses me to want to associate myself with any "side" when it comes to operating systems and hardware. If I try to say why Windows is better at Linux than something (and make my statement completely without any emotional inflection or attachment), I'm gonna get piled on pretty quickly by a lot of hate posts that don't legitimately counter my points (posts that I would appreciate reading, since I don't know everything). If I go to say, Neowin.net, and try to make a comment about how I feel Windows 8 sucks for my workflow or how I like a particular feature in Linux that Windows doesn't have, I'll be piled on pretty quickly there too.
There are a LOT of seasoned, battle-hardened vets of the operating system wars out there on the net who have nothing better to do than fight against those who don't have the same viewpoint as they do. The mere fact that people can't discuss things and see both sides of an issue without getting into an emotional wreck reminds me how fucking annoying and stupid humans really are.
Never say never. Plus, having all your games locked to a single account means that if the account is marked as bad (stolen/hacked, or otherwise considered damaged) you could lose access to all your games you basically rented, should Steam Support not solve things. Why invest in a platform where you can't easily walk away and keep your games if things go sour?
I would much prefer using Steam if Valve completely removed their own DRM from the platform, such that I could back up and archive my downloaded games no matter what happens. I can do this with GOG, why not Steam? If Valve are concerned publishers won't want to use Steam without DRM, then they can elect to have DRM if they must. But most games I've played seem to require the Steam DRM at the very least, and that isn't palatable to me when you're putting down your money to buy something.
Do you have synaptic open by any chance? Are updates being downloaded/installed?
Yes I know, whoosh. :)
Linux distros are way too fluid, Ubuntu in particular. I know people like to talk about Linux being under constant, rapid development and what not, and that things are always changing and improving. This is considered a pro rather than a con when compared to the mostly static Windows platform which only has a new revision every few years.
People like stability. People like the fact that they don't have to relearn how to use Windows again for another 3-4 years, or whenever the next version comes out. But they hate it when they DO eventually need to - oh how they hate it, as Microsoft will no doubt discover with Windows 8. So why do people get surprised if people don't want to complicate matters by using distros where the front and back-ends tend to change even MORE rapidly?
No. This "new age" only exists because a lot of people have becomes tired and fed up with Linux continually being talking about on Slashdot as some sort of "savior" operating system that's somehow superior to Windows, despite its many many flaws that don't seem to get acknowledged. Now there's push-back, and the traditional Linux gurus don't like the fact not everyone is listening to their bullshit anymore.
I'm enjoying this critical analysis of Linux period we're going through. It's the only way we'll be able to analyze the legitimate reasons why it's failing to secure any mainstream share, rather than just the usual "Microsoft monopoly" BS. It's a lot more complicated than that.
Big fucking deal. At least with Windows you know you'll HAVE drivers that work to support 100% of the functionality of whatever hardware you connect to your computer. Might need some searching, but they'll be out there. If I was only running Linux I'd be concerned about buying any new printer, scanner, webcam, specialized peripheral or whatever, because I know from experience that even after research is performed on the hardware's Linux compatibility, actual real-world comparability is a lot less guaranteed. I know there's guys out there who say "Linux has detected everything I've got", but that's not gonna help me if I need to buy something which no-one's hacked support for, and even if they have, it probably doesn't have equivalent functionality (e.g. a printer I had only showed the ink levels in the Windows status application - no such thing existed in Linux).
When Linux supports your hardware it's great. When it doesn't, you're fucked unless you enjoy compiling modules and adding them during bootup. Windows might not have the drivers as part of the installation, but at least you can find them and Next Next your way to victory. I prefer knowing whatever I buy will work on my computer, guaranteed.*
*Note: grantee does not include bloated HP drivers. Linux wins there.
The users might be the ones selecting the submissions, but the editors have the final say as to what stories to run exactly how the summary should be worded. I've seen submissions turned completely on their head by the editors for shock/anger value, knowing that it'll bring in more clicks. The editors also are supposed to proof-read the summaries for errors, and if they don't then it's the editors who are blamed. Editing is a part of journalism, and so a tacky approach to editing is to me an example of shitty journalism.
If the editors didn't have this kind of input, well they wouldn't be editors would they? No-one would be running this place, and you'd have anarchy like it is on reddit.
The people running Slashdot are trolls, examples of the worst characteristics of journalism that we see many times elsewhere but can't understand why such behavior exists on a site supposedly for geeks (who we've been conditioned to believe are smarter than everyone else). They know that a Linux vs multinational corporation story (no matter how baselesss and inaccurate it is) will pull the emotional strings of people who see the existence of Linux as a fight against the "man".
Why do you think those multiple "Linux desktop is dead" stories which were posted here in the last few weeks garnered so many comments? I find it interesting that ArsTechnica has not posted a SINGLE story regarding this supposedly controversial issue. Maybe because they already know the Linux desktop is dead and don't see the point in beating a dead horse, I dunno. But Slashdot is ripe with people believing that phantom possibility so it gets posted here. And people eat it all up. So the folks running this place keep posting such stories because we're all idiots. :)
Yes I am aware I don't technically "own" the game as far as letter of the law is concerned, but at least in the "old days" you had a disc that didn't need authentication, and hence no matter what happened to the company/publisher, you could ALWAYS install and play that game, so long as you had a platform to run it on. There was no possible way to revoke access or block access due to local Internet troubles, or troubles on THEIR servers (which isn't funny, since it does happen - look at the initial Diablo 3 troubles). No-one can break down my door and take my purchased software away from me, but tying all my games to a single account creates a single point of failure, and I am NOT able to give all that trust to a single company no matter how many fanboys it's got.
My God, you can get games from GOG (now with some great really modern titles like ArmA 2 and Alan Wake) and yet no-one every considers it when discussing the issues of modern-day PC gaming. I really GOG took over from Steam, but again... everyone seems to feel like they must pander to the big publishers and buy their bullshit. /rant mode, off
OK, fair enough. However I grew up with pirated content so obtaining an ISO, grabbing the latest patch and version-matched crack from GameCopyWorld is trivial for me since I've done it since God-knows how long. You don't forget skills like that and the benefits of Steam don't always outweight the advantages of doing it yourself.
I bought a copy of TimeShift a while back (a good, not great FPS). I also have a downloaded ISO of it - no-one's gonna scratch an ISO so there's no threat there. It's patched to version 1.2 and cracked appropriately. I had a look on Steam - they've got TimeShift available, but after reading forum comments it seems they forgot to apply any patches to it; it's still at version 1.0 which misses out on a fair number of performance and bug fixes. You can't just easily patch Steam games using a patch not designed for them (you can, sorta, but it's more effort than the retail version since the patch might look for a regkey to show the game is installed, etc).
Now this isn't an issue for games which are specifically designed only for Steam distribution or which use Steamworks, and since we seem to be running out of big-title PC games that DON'T require some form of linking to an online account, whether that be Steam or Origin or Battle.net, this problem will be less likely to happen in the future. But I still like having total control over the stuff I buy. GOG is probably the closest digital vendor for games which matches my preferences for this. I just wish people viewed non-DRM content higher than they do, but that's just me.
Would you stop that, please? I don't use Steam because I've been conditioned by Slashdot to disregard all forms of DRM (and no-one can deny that Steam is one of them). If Valve dies, Steam dies, and the resultant consequences of it for your 100+ game library.
But when I read comments like yours, I get frustrated, because it's means I get conflicted. I don't want DRM, but how much pressure can one person have before they go "fuck it", and relent?
I can understand and agree with that. Program names like "Word" and "Writer" are good because they associate clearly with the function of the program. "Nautilus" does not.
Most software has niggles, it's just a matter of what you find more annoying. If you've spent more time in Windows than Linux (like I have), the Linux niggles will likely be more grating and vice versa. As for the DRM (I assume you're referring to the Window Activation stuff), I have a small program which can activate any version of Windows 7, including the re-activation of a previously activated system. It's great and ensures I never have to deal with these problems. I could move to Linux and not have to deal with it at all, sure, but then I lose the benefits of the Windows ecosystem.
That last bit though, "their behaviour is simply too awful for any ethical person to accept" - you'll need to clarify that. By your logic, the 90%+ people who are computer users and use Windows, they are unethical? Most of them wouldn't even know of Microsoft's business dealings. Even those who do and continue to use it, maybe they realize it's an imperfect world and when everyone else is using Windows and Microsoft products, it's easier just to go along with the flow? I'm aware of Microsoft's behavior - I just don't think about it continuously when I'm using my computer, particularly when there are far, far worse companies out there. If Linux is stressing me out by being difficult, I'm not able to motivate myself by thinking about Microsoft's abuses - it's not enough to outweigh my issues with Linux, sorry.
No-one drinks mud. 90%+ of computer users use Windows. There are enormous benefits to staying within the Windows ecosystem, at least for my stress levels. I don't understand your analogy at all (but will listen if you wish to expand on it).
Ah yes, "Files". I hate that new name for Nautilus. I think I'll keep using the old name to spite them. :) As for opening another instance, sure you can do that. But that was the same argument that some people used against tabbed browsing when it first appeared. Now everyone uses tabs in a single browser instance simply because it's more convenient.
It's hard to care about such abuses by Microsoft when the alternatives have too many niggling issues to use (for me anyway). I'll accept the Devil if he makes my life less stressful. As for spyware/DRM, unless there's a tangible issue that it brings I'll live with it. Linux is just now too painful to use on the desktop, and I'm too old to care about switching anymore.
Guess I'm an idiot. I've run out of patience in all this infighting and tension in the Linux community. I just want some stability in desktop environments. I know everyone hates Windows 8 but Windows 7 is going to be around for quite a while still, so I'm sticking with it.
It's amusing you suggest that two panes is a bizarre concept, considering the whole of GNOME 3's shell is ultimately a bizarre concept anyway (compared to most other desktop environments), so it's not like keeping dual panes would be out of place in GNOME 3. :)
I didn't use dual panes much, but occasionally they were useful. Just like the Windows "start" menu - occasionally useful, and it's annoying to have it removed when it wasn't hurting anyone. It's reduction in functionality which made me look into using MATE (which lasted for a while, until I cracked and went back to Windows 7 for reasons of tension with the Linux ecosystem.)
My complaint is still valid - I can't simply set a default audio output; all I can do is disable the unused output to force only one audio output. It only makes it a default by... well, default, since nothing else is available to be selected at random during startup. In Windows, I can set a default and it'll stick, but I can keep other outputs available and redirect various programs to use them if necessary without fiddling.
Fucking hell mate. I've been dabbling with Linux since early last decade - config files are not an issue. What is an issue is that I'm getting older and am less inclined to deal with workarounds that shouldn't exist, such as race conditions. Do you understand this?
Nice of you to dismiss my issue. You really think I'd waste my time posting about a non-existent issue just to mess with ya?
Of course you can select the output. The problem is that select it doesn't KEEP it selected when you reboot, as in, you can't set it as a default that will be assigned upon startup. Now what I discovered after making my original post is that you can disable an output on a different tab, so I disabled the HDMI output and this does end up achieving my objective, even if it's a workaround of sorts (if I want to use HDMI audio in the future I have to remember to re-enable it manually).
But still, it's as if Linux users are desperate to hold onto their little OS so much that they'll attempt to reduce the credibility of someone's complaint. I WANT Linux to succeed - why the fuck would I make stuff up? I'm this close to giving up trying if this is how the fabled Linux community treats each other.
Sounds like it works well for you. For better or worse though, I'd rather have an ecosystem which was comprised of elements from different vendors and open platforms rather than surrendering all my tech to only one proprietary vendor (in your case, Microsoft). Probably wouldn't work as seamlessly, but it would mean less trouble later down the track should I feel that vendor is being a dick, I can swap out components for something else.
For some reason whenever I see the name "Stephen Elop" my brain subconsciously sees the word "Flop" instead. Maybe it's trying to tell me something...
That's hardly a bad thing though. I grantee you GOG have plenty of good/great games you've never played, and since you'll never have enough time to play everything they've got, it's not like you'll run out of "new" (to you anyway) stuff.
They added ARMA 2 to GOG a couple of weeks ago. They aren't all 90's adventure games anymore.