I didn't even come close to providing support for your opinion. On the opposite, it's an OS that has supported critical systems for 17 years. It's lack of support for security updates after 2014 is the only reason a technology leader would not leave it connected to a live network.
I think the issue is that you lack industry knowledge which in turn has you making large assumptions. It also sounds like you don't know what the life expectancy of an OS is.
FACT. When an OS reaches a certain age, it's core structure needs to change to adapt to the new technological realities. This is true of all OSes. Windows XP for example was the most successful OS ever produced in regards to adaptation and length of use. It was launched in 2001 and still occupies a small segment of the desktop market (although I would advise against at this point). The product was supported until April 2014. That's 13 years for an OS. There is no other OS that has that kind of track record for Desktop computers while continue to support new hardware.
I think it would be interesting to do a historical analysis of the discussions on Slashdot to see when they tilted away from productive and constructive. Perhaps such discussions were never in the majority and my memory is merely playing tricks on me. So many trolls, so little time.
If your benchmark for how good/bad an OS was is Slashdot, then I question your judgement.
Anyway, if you don't understand my "considered opinions" (and want to), then you should feel free to ask for clarification.
Actually, why don't you back your claims with facts. I can and have. The numbers presented above are readily available online with a simple "windows xp" lookup on google.
Now Microsoft can start wrecking Windows 10 to create demand for a new and "improved" OS. I think the only reason they gave free upgrades to Windows 10 was because of the fiasco of Windows XP. At least that's how it looked to Microsoft's accountants when people were basically satisfied with the OS and had no desire to upgrade.
Opinion, not fact. We have Windows XP systems still kicking around. They aren't exposed to the internet for obvious reasons but they operate critical pieces of equipment. Runs on low spec hardware and doesn't crash. I can say the same of Windows 7 since we still have a number of workstations running here..
In reality the OSes and the hardware have already surpassed our normal human needs
That's a narrow view of the world and actually far from the truth. If all you do is youtube, spreadsheets and word then you're correct but otherwise you are simply WRONG. Virtualization and SSD are two very good reasons for advancements in OS. Windows 10 did good there. Additionally the OS was redesigned with multi device support in mind which if you ask developer, they'll tell you they love it (BTW, this reduces software cost and increase usability). There are also a number of significant changes for corporations running DCs so it's far from being a waste (If you don't know what a DC is then you clearly weren't in a position to comment on the OS).
You are clearly only speaking from your perspective which means it's just an uneducated opinion. Microsoft has already accepted it's lost the typical home user market to mobile devices which is why they focused their efforts on back-end and virtualization.
Legacy dev, stuck maintaining horrendous in-house custom apps that where designed before web apps were all the rage (I suspect that one day, the various VB, VB.Net etc will go the way of COBOL, skills that nobody with a sane mind would like to use but that are still in demand for business legacy reasons).
That's incorrect. First off, VB is just a language, not a compiler. Second, some of the most used engineering software in the world still use VB as their scripting language. AutoDesk products is just one example in case you ask.
I think you knowledge of the tech world is limited to your personal experience. It's not meant as an insult. Applications are not all designed as web apps. I dare you to automate printer processes with applications running through your browser (Not JAVA applets). Processes that do not require multi-platform support do not need to be developed for multi-platform. It's an overhead that isn't needed.
They are remaining strong in the virtualization server area with about 35% of the market. Note their market share of this was 0% until 2008 so 35% is not bad.
They still have the best office suite available for corporate use. Home use is a different story but that could be debated either way.
some of the logic going in the heads of microsoft is that wsl can be a bit of anti-gateway drug
Opinion more than fact. They actually believe in providing the tools required to do the job. As a multi platform developer I appreciate the ability to create Linux environments in my environment of choice.
the problem (for them, but advantage for us) is that it might end up the other way around:
You make it an "us versus them" argument. I don't understand why any tech professional would think that way. Maybe you're just a kid that hasn't been in the real world yet. If so, you've already closing your mind to a number of possibilities.
I don't see what the reply has to do with the quoted part, or with the whole comment for that matter.
Maybe, depends how you read the comment
What's fanboyish about pointing out that there's no need to port over the highly Windows-specific ersatz-instrumentation when the target OS already has it?
Why not have more than one option? We have multiple options for spreadsheet editing, document editing, CAD editing, dev IDE... What makes this different? You know a tool and if you can use it across multiple platforms it's a win for the user.
Don't the MS people realize that the only reason for using "sysinternals" is that their OS doesn't come with decent instrumentation by default?
Statements like this make it obvious that fanboys of any kind don't understand that there are different markets and business needs. I'm a software developer that has coded on most platforms using many different compilers and languages. I don't make money or meet objectives by troubleshooting OS issues if my specialty is application development. I buy an OS which includes a large team of people that support said product. With Linux it's different as it's an open system which is intended to be tailored to specific needs. It's a versatile and lean OS which offers endless possibility. The flip side is you need to become more of an expert or hire said experts to achieve your objectives.
I'm not ditching Linux or MS. Instead I'm just pointing out that there was a time where MS didn't have a need to provide said tools. Now they feel it matters and I see only benefits for the Linux community..
Not oil company FUD. Conservative voter thinking FUD. There are people out there that cling to old ways. Plenty of proof to go around and that way of thinking won the republicans the last election. Coal, de-regulation, closing free trade. These are old ways of thinking way past our current time but it still gets pushes by individuals that don't care to dig into issues and take guys like Tucker Carlson at face value.
You're very good at hiding your hatred for MS. Biased opinion anyone?
This bullshit press release, they are hurting, we know it, they know it and so the bullshit. Fuck you recalcitrant users you will be forced to use windows ten as commanded by M$ and here's proof numbers, we are dominating you and we will continue to dominate you, so fucking American.
You don't need to trust their press release, you can go look at it for yourself. Data collected from browsers alone point to their number being correct. Fact is, they do dominate the desktop OS world according to those numbers. If it's a workstation it has a 85% chance of being Windows and 42% chance of being Windows 10.
Nobody is forcing anybody to use anything. Instead, the current technology landscape makes it that for many types of businesses, Windows is the logical choice. The appearance of Android mitigates this issue but doesn't wash it away.
From a user's perspective, an OS is like a car. If it has a steering wheel, four wheels and brings you where you need to be then mission accomplished.
If you are a decision maker in the tech industry and you do not understand Microsoft's place in the industry then you have either been blinded by hatred or aren't as informed as you think you are.
Actually what we really need is a president that will try to remain impartial to the party and try to find a fine balance between socialism and capitalism. A good president would know how to surround himself with a strong set of skilled people coming from different backgrounds with a variety opinions that line up with the larger portion of the population. The idea of party over country is getting old and its not helping the little guy. I compare it to when a player on a hockey team intentionally hurts another player on the other team and his team goes on to defend him regardless of how wrong the player was. It's this same sheep mentality that the choke point of many issues in the United States.
The AC told you how it is and what he wrote is on the mark.
As for MS packaging tools within their OS, it's about providing a complete solution. MS is packaging an Anti-Virus to protect it's users and the image of its OS. Anti-virus isn't optional software in today's ecosystem, it's a necessity for most users.
Based on your reasoning, MS should NEVER have included Notepad, Calc, any image viewing tools, no file explorer, no zip support, no browser, no built-in drivers, no... the list goes on. Any other product you purchase suffers the same challenge yet you don't complain about those.
If you want a modular OS then go to Linux where you get to install a barebone version and then add what you want, but for the masses that isn't viable so MS, google and Apple do what they have to do.
"Windows" even though that name is used for several different OSes that are entirely different from each other).
It's part of their strategy. They are trying to head towards a "one framework for all devices". They've already someone accomplished this. From the DEV side it's almost seamless.
Different needs and tech. If Windows was as "closed" as OS X it wouldn't have these issues. It comes with the territory. MS has gone a long way in it's ability to tackle security.
For my last gig, I hauled around a Mini-ITX machine,
Exactly. At some point the requirements out-scale the intent of the laptop. The majority of users do not require the specifications he requested. Some of his specifications are already handled in the more expensive work books and some of his requirements are a matter of setting up software to do what he wants.
This is for Thin laptops which I'm personally ok with. And even if it was for all laptops, if there's a true demand for modular laptops to remain, someone can put out a product and hope to cash out on it. If they can't then that just means we are a minority and won't get our way.
Get used to it. It's all heading that way and it will make more and more sense as they continue to move in that direction.
RAM slots are only needed if the device doesn't ship with enough in the first place. Better to solve the problem at the source and simply include more RAM. It's less expensive to manufacture the hardware without the removable RAM and it shrinks the footprint.
In reality, user will lose trust once even a small wrong thing happens
I guarantee that isn't true. Credit cards are a great example. Many get defrauded yet many continue to use it.
simpler is not equal to more security or even easier maintenance because it could introduce more worse situations that would be more difficult to handle
Let me ask you this. Who's data security do you think will be better? A) Company who needs a credential validation for users to authenticate to access what they sell (services or goods) B) Company who's business is to be the best at user authentication, specializes in fraud detection and fraud counter measures
Considering that a majority of users use the same credentials for most of their accounts it's safe to say if there's a data breach they are screwed regardless of them being. With one tech does it all it's no only simper for the user but it's simpler to implement and have the ability to provide better all around security. The major challenges at the moment is that each service uses a different security mechanism and it's so overwhelming to users that they just ignore the issues. Its also more difficult for developers to implement credential validation and results in poor implementation which results in poor security.
Users will be more willing to deal with slightly more complicated authentication if the process is the same across the spectrum of accounts needed to be accessed. If the users don't understand the importance of protecting their data, both scenarios are doomed so for that reason better have the simpler system which has a chance of avoiding breaches and a better chance of being fully embraced by users.
Even though most people already have the same username and password, it does not mean all people do. Also, you exaggerate the number of "most people" by the way. If you said "more than half" then I could agree with,
I meant majority of people reuse the same username and password.
but it is still irrelevant. Because majority of people do not follow or understand security, does not mean we all have to adjust to their less secure way./quote> It's not irrelevant if even 30% of people do it. And yes we have to adjust if there is that much failure and the failure points are obvious.
Let say you have implemented an unhackable system. Let's say a mother gives her ID and password (and whatever your system requires) to her daughter to do some online shopping for her. Then later on, the daughter does the online shopping without the mother's permission. How could your unhackable system prevent that? I'm not talking about how to catch her misbehave, but I'm pointing directly to your argument about "strong security" perspective
If you give your username and password the problem is there regardless of solution you put in place I suspect the same user is the one that uses the same credentials for all his accounts. The current system is so convoluted and complicated that the non technical user just can't care to learn it. Click button and get moving. With a well rounded technology and processes we can simplify this to the point where grandma gets it. Remove the complications, then educate is what I think we need to do.
Please look back at #2. If someone could steal crucial information to log in, it is extremely difficult to distinguish who is who. Sometimes, you may be able to find out, but it is usually too late because all other information/asset have been stolen/sold already.
But that is true of all current account management systems and to top it off they don't usually have the expertise to do it right the first 15 times. With expertise in one place and a well rounded system it's less of an issue and easier to educate users on. With a centralize system you apply good password practices combined with "through device validation". These types of systems are known to be very strong.
Centralized data is good for convenience, but it goes opposite way of security
Simplicity to users has always resulted in lowered risk. Cars, tools... the list goes on. When you simplify use you reduce risk. This will be true of security as well.
Of course, that also means only one ID and password to hack for someone ELSE to get access to all of your online accounts
The advantages of centralizing credential validation far outweighs the disadvantages you mentioned: 1. Most people already use the same username and password for most of their accounts 2. Currently these 3rd parties are getting their databases hacked hence, accounts are hacked. With centralized account management we can apply very strong security to minimize such instances. 3. With only one service to cater to, devices can run anti logging software (such as what some banks have you install to avoid account theft via key logging)
Off course having your account stolen is going to be a huge problem but it already is for most as mentioned in #1.
Slashdot Mirror
I get it. You don't have counter arguments but you don't like MS so this is how you tangent from the comments you made.
At least now I know to ignore your comments as they unverified opinions and lack facts.
I didn't even come close to providing support for your opinion. On the opposite, it's an OS that has supported critical systems for 17 years. It's lack of support for security updates after 2014 is the only reason a technology leader would not leave it connected to a live network.
I think the issue is that you lack industry knowledge which in turn has you making large assumptions. It also sounds like you don't know what the life expectancy of an OS is.
FACT. When an OS reaches a certain age, it's core structure needs to change to adapt to the new technological realities. This is true of all OSes. Windows XP for example was the most successful OS ever produced in regards to adaptation and length of use. It was launched in 2001 and still occupies a small segment of the desktop market (although I would advise against at this point). The product was supported until April 2014. That's 13 years for an OS. There is no other OS that has that kind of track record for Desktop computers while continue to support new hardware.
I think it would be interesting to do a historical analysis of the discussions on Slashdot to see when they tilted away from productive and constructive. Perhaps such discussions were never in the majority and my memory is merely playing tricks on me. So many trolls, so little time.
If your benchmark for how good/bad an OS was is Slashdot, then I question your judgement.
Anyway, if you don't understand my "considered opinions" (and want to), then you should feel free to ask for clarification.
Actually, why don't you back your claims with facts. I can and have. The numbers presented above are readily available online with a simple "windows xp" lookup on google.
Now Microsoft can start wrecking Windows 10 to create demand for a new and "improved" OS. I think the only reason they gave free upgrades to Windows 10 was because of the fiasco of Windows XP. At least that's how it looked to Microsoft's accountants when people were basically satisfied with the OS and had no desire to upgrade.
Opinion, not fact. We have Windows XP systems still kicking around. They aren't exposed to the internet for obvious reasons but they operate critical pieces of equipment. Runs on low spec hardware and doesn't crash. I can say the same of Windows 7 since we still have a number of workstations running here..
In reality the OSes and the hardware have already surpassed our normal human needs
That's a narrow view of the world and actually far from the truth. If all you do is youtube, spreadsheets and word then you're correct but otherwise you are simply WRONG. Virtualization and SSD are two very good reasons for advancements in OS. Windows 10 did good there. Additionally the OS was redesigned with multi device support in mind which if you ask developer, they'll tell you they love it (BTW, this reduces software cost and increase usability). There are also a number of significant changes for corporations running DCs so it's far from being a waste (If you don't know what a DC is then you clearly weren't in a position to comment on the OS).
You are clearly only speaking from your perspective which means it's just an uneducated opinion. Microsoft has already accepted it's lost the typical home user market to mobile devices which is why they focused their efforts on back-end and virtualization.
On top of reducing cost of delivery and gallons spilled per year.
Can you define "a lot more" because I can't see how your Android phone does more or less.
That makes no sense. Us versus them is decided by the users, not the corporations or entities.
Legacy dev, stuck maintaining horrendous in-house custom apps that where designed before web apps were all the rage (I suspect that one day, the various VB, VB.Net etc will go the way of COBOL, skills that nobody with a sane mind would like to use but that are still in demand for business legacy reasons).
That's incorrect. First off, VB is just a language, not a compiler. Second, some of the most used engineering software in the world still use VB as their scripting language. AutoDesk products is just one example in case you ask.
I think you knowledge of the tech world is limited to your personal experience. It's not meant as an insult. Applications are not all designed as web apps. I dare you to automate printer processes with applications running through your browser (Not JAVA applets). Processes that do not require multi-platform support do not need to be developed for multi-platform. It's an overhead that isn't needed.
Technology can solve all problems, including the existence of humans... Reference: The Matrix, Terminator...
basically, desktop/workstation is the single niche that Microsoft is still holding)
Not true in north america at least.
They are still a major player for email servers through exchange server. https://www.quora.com/What-is-...
They still have one of the best on premise server OS with over 70% of the market cornered: https://www.computerprofile.co...
They are remaining strong in the virtualization server area with about 35% of the market. Note their market share of this was 0% until 2008 so 35% is not bad.
They still have the best office suite available for corporate use. Home use is a different story but that could be debated either way.
some of the logic going in the heads of microsoft is that wsl can be a bit of anti-gateway drug
Opinion more than fact. They actually believe in providing the tools required to do the job. As a multi platform developer I appreciate the ability to create Linux environments in my environment of choice.
the problem (for them, but advantage for us) is that it might end up the other way around:
You make it an "us versus them" argument. I don't understand why any tech professional would think that way. Maybe you're just a kid that hasn't been in the real world yet. If so, you've already closing your mind to a number of possibilities.
I don't see what the reply has to do with the quoted part, or with the whole comment for that matter.
Maybe, depends how you read the comment
What's fanboyish about pointing out that there's no need to port over the highly Windows-specific ersatz-instrumentation when the target OS already has it?
Why not have more than one option? We have multiple options for spreadsheet editing, document editing, CAD editing, dev IDE... What makes this different? You know a tool and if you can use it across multiple platforms it's a win for the user.
Don't the MS people realize that the only reason for using "sysinternals" is that their OS doesn't come with decent instrumentation by default?
Statements like this make it obvious that fanboys of any kind don't understand that there are different markets and business needs. I'm a software developer that has coded on most platforms using many different compilers and languages. I don't make money or meet objectives by troubleshooting OS issues if my specialty is application development. I buy an OS which includes a large team of people that support said product. With Linux it's different as it's an open system which is intended to be tailored to specific needs. It's a versatile and lean OS which offers endless possibility. The flip side is you need to become more of an expert or hire said experts to achieve your objectives.
I'm not ditching Linux or MS. Instead I'm just pointing out that there was a time where MS didn't have a need to provide said tools. Now they feel it matters and I see only benefits for the Linux community..
Not oil company FUD. Conservative voter thinking FUD. There are people out there that cling to old ways. Plenty of proof to go around and that way of thinking won the republicans the last election. Coal, de-regulation, closing free trade. These are old ways of thinking way past our current time but it still gets pushes by individuals that don't care to dig into issues and take guys like Tucker Carlson at face value.
You're very good at hiding your hatred for MS. Biased opinion anyone?
This bullshit press release, they are hurting, we know it, they know it and so the bullshit. Fuck you recalcitrant users you will be forced to use windows ten as commanded by M$ and here's proof numbers, we are dominating you and we will continue to dominate you, so fucking American.
You don't need to trust their press release, you can go look at it for yourself. Data collected from browsers alone point to their number being correct. Fact is, they do dominate the desktop OS world according to those numbers. If it's a workstation it has a 85% chance of being Windows and 42% chance of being Windows 10.
Nobody is forcing anybody to use anything. Instead, the current technology landscape makes it that for many types of businesses, Windows is the logical choice. The appearance of Android mitigates this issue but doesn't wash it away.
From a user's perspective, an OS is like a car. If it has a steering wheel, four wheels and brings you where you need to be then mission accomplished.
If you are a decision maker in the tech industry and you do not understand Microsoft's place in the industry then you have either been blinded by hatred or aren't as informed as you think you are.
Actually what we really need is a president that will try to remain impartial to the party and try to find a fine balance between socialism and capitalism. A good president would know how to surround himself with a strong set of skilled people coming from different backgrounds with a variety opinions that line up with the larger portion of the population. The idea of party over country is getting old and its not helping the little guy. I compare it to when a player on a hockey team intentionally hurts another player on the other team and his team goes on to defend him regardless of how wrong the player was. It's this same sheep mentality that the choke point of many issues in the United States.
The AC told you how it is and what he wrote is on the mark.
As for MS packaging tools within their OS, it's about providing a complete solution. MS is packaging an Anti-Virus to protect it's users and the image of its OS. Anti-virus isn't optional software in today's ecosystem, it's a necessity for most users.
Based on your reasoning, MS should NEVER have included Notepad, Calc, any image viewing tools, no file explorer, no zip support, no browser, no built-in drivers, no... the list goes on. Any other product you purchase suffers the same challenge yet you don't complain about those.
If you want a modular OS then go to Linux where you get to install a barebone version and then add what you want, but for the masses that isn't viable so MS, google and Apple do what they have to do.
"Windows" even though that name is used for several different OSes that are entirely different from each other).
It's part of their strategy. They are trying to head towards a "one framework for all devices". They've already someone accomplished this. From the DEV side it's almost seamless.
Windows IS still a security mess compared to OS X
Different needs and tech. If Windows was as "closed" as OS X it wouldn't have these issues. It comes with the territory. MS has gone a long way in it's ability to tackle security.
For my last gig, I hauled around a Mini-ITX machine,
Exactly. At some point the requirements out-scale the intent of the laptop. The majority of users do not require the specifications he requested. Some of his specifications are already handled in the more expensive work books and some of his requirements are a matter of setting up software to do what he wants.
Sounds like you need a desktop.
This is for Thin laptops which I'm personally ok with. And even if it was for all laptops, if there's a true demand for modular laptops to remain, someone can put out a product and hope to cash out on it. If they can't then that just means we are a minority and won't get our way.
Get used to it. It's all heading that way and it will make more and more sense as they continue to move in that direction.
RAM slots are only needed if the device doesn't ship with enough in the first place. Better to solve the problem at the source and simply include more RAM. It's less expensive to manufacture the hardware without the removable RAM and it shrinks the footprint.
In reality, user will lose trust once even a small wrong thing happens
I guarantee that isn't true. Credit cards are a great example. Many get defrauded yet many continue to use it.
simpler is not equal to more security or even easier maintenance because it could introduce more worse situations that would be more difficult to handle
Let me ask you this. Who's data security do you think will be better?
A) Company who needs a credential validation for users to authenticate to access what they sell (services or goods)
B) Company who's business is to be the best at user authentication, specializes in fraud detection and fraud counter measures
Considering that a majority of users use the same credentials for most of their accounts it's safe to say if there's a data breach they are screwed regardless of them being. With one tech does it all it's no only simper for the user but it's simpler to implement and have the ability to provide better all around security. The major challenges at the moment is that each service uses a different security mechanism and it's so overwhelming to users that they just ignore the issues. Its also more difficult for developers to implement credential validation and results in poor implementation which results in poor security.
Users will be more willing to deal with slightly more complicated authentication if the process is the same across the spectrum of accounts needed to be accessed. If the users don't understand the importance of protecting their data, both scenarios are doomed so for that reason better have the simpler system which has a chance of avoiding breaches and a better chance of being fully embraced by users.
Even though most people already have the same username and password, it does not mean all people do. Also, you exaggerate the number of "most people" by the way. If you said "more than half" then I could agree with,
I meant majority of people reuse the same username and password.
but it is still irrelevant. Because majority of people do not follow or understand security, does not mean we all have to adjust to their less secure way./quote>
It's not irrelevant if even 30% of people do it. And yes we have to adjust if there is that much failure and the failure points are obvious.
Let say you have implemented an unhackable system. Let's say a mother gives her ID and password (and whatever your system requires) to her daughter to do some online shopping for her. Then later on, the daughter does the online shopping without the mother's permission. How could your unhackable system prevent that? I'm not talking about how to catch her misbehave, but I'm pointing directly to your argument about "strong security" perspective
If you give your username and password the problem is there regardless of solution you put in place I suspect the same user is the one that uses the same credentials for all his accounts. The current system is so convoluted and complicated that the non technical user just can't care to learn it. Click button and get moving. With a well rounded technology and processes we can simplify this to the point where grandma gets it. Remove the complications, then educate is what I think we need to do.
Please look back at #2. If someone could steal crucial information to log in, it is extremely difficult to distinguish who is who. Sometimes, you may be able to find out, but it is usually too late because all other information/asset have been stolen/sold already.
But that is true of all current account management systems and to top it off they don't usually have the expertise to do it right the first 15 times. With expertise in one place and a well rounded system it's less of an issue and easier to educate users on. With a centralize system you apply good password practices combined with "through device validation". These types of systems are known to be very strong.
Centralized data is good for convenience, but it goes opposite way of security
Simplicity to users has always resulted in lowered risk. Cars, tools... the list goes on. When you simplify use you reduce risk. This will be true of security as well.
Of course, that also means only one ID and password to hack for someone ELSE to get access to all of your online accounts
The advantages of centralizing credential validation far outweighs the disadvantages you mentioned:
1. Most people already use the same username and password for most of their accounts
2. Currently these 3rd parties are getting their databases hacked hence, accounts are hacked. With centralized account management we can apply very strong security to minimize such instances.
3. With only one service to cater to, devices can run anti logging software (such as what some banks have you install to avoid account theft via key logging)
Off course having your account stolen is going to be a huge problem but it already is for most as mentioned in #1.