>>52272859 normies 1.) tend to either not care about technology they use and what it's doing (it should just werk!!) or are reluctant to even look at it funny because they thing they'll break it. and 2.) are surprisingly tolerant of their rights being infringed or downright revoked, so long as the person doing it says it's necessary for some reason. Usually for "your own safety and security", but they'll accept much lesser rationales, too.
>>52271796 1: error handling won't be helpful unless you're a power user 2: Linux kernel crash dumps/logs are much more helpful for debugging than "Something happened", if you are such a user. It might not be as friendly as the Windows screens, but they're much more helpful
It's like mental retardedness has actually set in.
Do they actually think that either the hardware or software will never fail at some point? I just can't fathom some of the decisions they make. Do any technical people actually sit in on the meetings they have to check their stupidity?
The only thing from 10 I have enjoyed so far is the continuum UI concept. I wish Linux had a DE designed with convertible devices in mind. However it runs a lot slower than Windows 8 on tablets and other portable hardware I've tested.
>>52273932 I don't like how it removes the software for you, instead of simply informing you you're running incompatible software. I suppose I could understand that they're doing it maybe for convenience but even still if the person can install the software in the first place then they can also remove it and install a more recent version.
>>52273932 It is a big deal. That specific problem is not hard to solve, but it shows that MS is in control of your machine rather than you. Some people reported MUCH bigger problems that resulted in data loss or a system that would not boot, e.g. Windows uninstalling Intel RST software.
Being MS's bitch might not have hurt you yet, but it could utterly fuck you over at any time.
>>52274040 >completely ignoring that they've been fellating linux for YEARS for limiting program access No Linux system I've ever used has deleted my programs without my permission. Limiting program access is a good thing, but not if you have to do it by breaking user systems without permission.
You are not a very good shill.
And Windows doesn't even limit program access. The programs can easily be reinstalled and run without problems.
>>52274040 What? No, Linux handles how programs are run differently is all.
Windows has always tried to sandbox applications, but when they need higher privileges an admin prompt appears with a yes or no. The issue is that there are near-enough millions of ways that malicious software can circumvent access due to how the main user is also the admin.
On Linux there are two users by default: you and the Root. The root is an invisible account that anyone with the admin password (generally the main user) can manipulate through. However, since the Root is the admin, it is not as easy to circumvent user privileges.
Now, there is another user technically speaking on Windows but it's barely ever used, especially not in UAC. And while this is a very dumbed down explanation you seem like a rather uninformed person on this matter so this is the best I can do.
But in short Linux does not remove software you authorised to be installed. Also the fact Linux has trusted software repos to acquire software it's easier to install through there than downloading an installer for a program from the net and risking a virus.
>>52274079 >You can configure Windows to do the same, you do know that right? So what? Sane defaults are a good thing. You can partially fix Windows with hours of work, but I'm not some neckbeard who enjoys fighting with my computer. I want a system that Just Werks™.
I want a computer that has sane defaults. I want a computer that helps me use it however I want, not one that fights me every step of the way. Xubuntu (my current distro of choice) has sane defaults and easy customization. Windows has neither.
>>52274359 Yup! It worked fine for the vast majority of systems. And there is no reason to delete the program rather than just notifying users of potential problems or DISABLING the program while leaving the files.
>>52274410 >So you automatically trust anything if it's MUH OPEN SORES? No. I automatically DIStrust anything proprietary.
>So you think that a program causing conflicts with the OS should be allowed to just.. chill on the disk? Yup! There is NO reason to delete it. Just notify the user and, if absolutely necessary, disable execution. Deleting the program is unnecessary and unacceptable.
>>52269879 Reminder that windows is only going to keep getting worse because, unlike BSD and Linux, it's not modular and is one giant monolithic onion with layer after layer of bullshit added on top of it since the late 80's. It's so big that Microsoft doesn't even know what's inside it. The various components of GNU/ Linux and BSD get swapped out and updated over time, but Microsoft just keeps applying bandaid after bandaid.
>>52274173 >>52274112 >>52273997 >>52273967 >>52272263 2 scenarios scenario one: >windows doesn't delete speccy >you run speccy >system crashes and you have to start again in best case >worst case you lose data >you blame microsoft and microsoft only >you cry and flame over microsoft like a fucking retard in that situation don't deny that
other scenario >windows removes speccy to prevent harm to your machine and data >you cry and flame over microsoft anyways because you're some entitled autistic linuxtard
>>52275029 By trusted sources, such as big Linux distro creators that have developed a reputation for being trusted.
Debian is a good example. Its repo list is extremely locked down and updates to them are few and far between due to the amount of compatibility checking done, as well as make sure there are no dangerous features in an application.
I can't find any examples specifically for Debian at this moment in time, however this has a lot of information about how Ubuntu's software repo is moderated and just how much curation it goes under.
>>52274948 Only a Winfag would think a BSOD counts as working.
On Windows, you are prevented from using the computer how you want. Doing anything other than what MS wants requires fighting with the computer. On Linux, the computer helps you do whatever you want to do. Only a neckbeard would want a computer that fights them rather than helping them.
>>52275077 >delete a program because a number in the manifest file was 10.0 instead of 10.0.1 >use up a paid license install >not just providing a support library so the program can run anyway >protecting user experience :^)
>>52275211 >Scanario two: >>It warns you the software is outdated. >>It doesn't work, end of. four* but >it doesn't work, end of would result in the exact same situation >MICROSHAFT WON'T LET ME RUN MUH PROGRAMMS WHAT THE FUCK BILL you guys are not resonable you can't be discussed with it's not possible
>>52275148 >don't deny that I deny that. If MS had done this PROPERLY, they would do one the following (ranked in order of preference): 1. Inform me BEFORE THE UPDATE IS INSTALLED about compatibility problems. Let me choose whether or not to proceed with the update. Let me choose what to do with the problematic programs. 2. Inform me after the update is installed of potential problems and notify me of potential problems. Let me choose what to do with the programs. 3. Inform me after the update is installed. Automatically DISABLE the programs, but do not delete them.
Any of those would solve the problem. They would keep me informed and make it easy for me to undo the changes. Deleting the program with no user input is TOTALLY unjustified.
And we aren't just talking about Speccy. Some people reported the update uninstalling DRIVERS, resulting in a system that would not boot. That is a much bigger deal.
>>52275499 I would like you to wait a second on the implications you're making about me.
>We had this discussion about 1000 times before. Incorrect, you are assuming I am part of some sort of hive mind. This is a false assumption.
>you are never happy with a single thing microsoft does Also incorrect. In fact I use Windows 7 on one of my PC's.
One more thing, I'm no freetard. Not by any stretch of the imagination. However I'm not going to for a moment say I don't care about my freedom to use what I want to use. I have never once dictated to you what software you should and shouldn't use. You are free to make your own choices, as am I.
Perhaps you are becoming confused and agitated, as you seem to be generalising me and turning me into an amalgamation of what you appear to hate instead of seeing objectively.
>>52275499 >you are never happy with a single thing microsoft does Correct. They're a shitty company that makes shitty products. If they did the right thing I would praise them for it, but they never do the right thing.
>you self-proclaimed freedom fighters don't see clear if anything is not 100% under your control and open source Correct. Using proprietary software is ALWAYS against the user's best interests. I do use proprietary software, but only grudgingly.
Hating everything a company does does not prove I'm biased. It's also possible the company REALLY IS that bad.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.