keenmaster486 wrote:

Wow, I didn't expect this thread to get so big 🤣

I should clarify that yes, I was focusing on the average consumer user like me.

keenmaster486 wrote:

However, I am what most people would describe as a "power user". If something goes wrong with my Linux-based machine I usually know what fancy-dancy commands to use in the terminal to fix it, which most people would not... in fact I'm honestly not sure how useful Linux would be to me if I had no idea what to do with the terminal.

So which one are you? Average consumer or power user? Linux has very little traction for average consumer (I mean desktop Linux). Windows and OSX are kings there.

https://netmarketshare.com/operating-system-m … A%22-1000%22%7D

keenmaster486 wrote:

I think perhaps when or if a Linux distro comes along which is "foolproof", i.e. just works 99% of the time without needing special knowledge to fix it, that might sound the very beginning of a death knoll for non-free OS's.

Because that's what the average consumer user wants, is for their computer to just work.

Except such Linux distro is the proverbial "unicorn". Might it come some day? Sure, but I won't hold my breath for it. Meanwhile non-free OS's providers spend billions anualy to make sure their OSes are exactly what you request: they just work.

not to mention the very vocal minority that screes at the thought of anyone doing business with selling proprietary software on their platform, "repent evil steam" etc. So much irony about the supposed freedoms without the freedom of choice.

My biggest issue with proprietary software on Linux is the way the development process can tend to silo. For instance, nobody has trouble with webcams and video devices on Linux like Skype. They've had literally years to resolve the problem yet it still persists. What special requirement do they have that others do not? Also, see Adobe's trouble with Flash and audio.

vladstamate wrote:

keenmaster486 wrote:

I think perhaps when or if a Linux distro comes along which is "foolproof", i.e. just works 99% of the time without needing special knowledge to fix it, that might sound the very beginning of a death knoll for non-free OS's.

Except such Linux distro is the proverbial "unicorn". Might it come some day? Sure, but I won't hold my breath for it. Meanwhile non-free OS's providers spend billions anualy to make sure their OSes are exactly what you request: they just work.

Name me a general purpose os whose user operation requires no prior knowledge of that system 99% of the time.

Jo22 wrote:

For normal PC users with security concerns, there are essentially just two options:

a) Stay with pre-Win10 Windows a little bit longer
b) Bite the apple and use macOS

You're confusing 'security concerns' with 'rabid paranoia'.

gdjacobs wrote:

For instance, nobody has trouble with webcams and video devices on Linux like Skype. They've had literally years to resolve the problem yet it still persists. What special requirement do they have that others do not? Also, see Adobe's trouble with Flash and audio.

These examples are unsurprising; these programs have issues on Windows as well, probably more so.

Skype is the absolute worst piece of software in mass-use, by a wide margin. It's been broken since version 4, and when Microsoft acquired it, they did nothing to fix the brokenness and just superimposed it with the standard approach of large corporations to development and customer support, which made things even worse.

Adobe's consumer products (Flash and PDF Reader) are at a rather distant second place behind Skype.

If they want to spy on you, they will spy on you, regardless of your hardware or software configuration, unless you have no internet access at all, and Windows 10 would be far more secure against ordinary threats. "Security concerns" are not worth being a dead-ender.

Well, Flash is dying soon. Better start scavenging all those SWF flash games and videos on Newgrounds.

^Maybe, maybe not. Neither indifference nor resignation is a solution, though.
You don't require things to hide to end up beeing in an at the wrong time in the wrong place situation.

You're confusing 'security concerns' with 'rabid paranoia'.

I'm not sure about that. Sure, these concerns were around since XP,
but Win10 is of a completely different kind of OS.

It is nolonger a software product as it was before.
Its sole purpose is to collect data and promote services.
Which makes sense, because data is the foundation of our information society.
The old saying "knowledge is power" had never been more accurate.

In case of Win10, there have been reports that it ignores hosts file when it
comes to IP adresses that it needs to connect to if it wants to call home.

Also, it was reported an user did an experiment and disabled all telemetry.
In a single night, the firewall still logged 4000 connects to about 50 different MS IPs.
And that's not the end of the story, even.

Other cons of Win10: The new security settings don't prohibit telemetry completely.
Their function is rather a sedation to the user and/or for cosmetics.

Updates in W10 and W10 Pro can't be disabled, just delayed (in Pro).
It requires an Enterprise version to do that. I think that's a nightmare for admins.
Just recently an update broke support for matrix printers.
Imagine what happens at the doctor's office, if it takes days until a fix gets released.

Windows 10 reserves its right to uninstall software that it
considers to be a threat to a good "Windows10 Experience" or
otherwise inappropriate.

That beeing said, I have never been the paranoid type of user.
Though because of all the negative press I've become, among many other users,
more sceptical ans sensible when it comes to Windows and software-as-a-service in general.

The fact, that Microsoft doesn't put the cards on the table.
doesn't make it any better. If they allowed a group of data privacy specialists unrestricted
access to the content of their telemetry data or if they made the security settings fully funtional,
this discussion would have ended years ago.

Well for better or worse this will finally put an end to piracy.

If the OS finds you using a piece of pirate software, or watching a pirate video, it can automatically disable it and notify the copyright owner to invoice you the designated cost. (Or automatically deduct the amount from your credit card account.)

Jo22 wrote:

It is nolonger a software product as it was before. Its sole purpose is to collect data and promote services. Which makes sense, […]
Show full quote

It is nolonger a software product as it was before.
Its sole purpose is to collect data and promote services.
Which makes sense, because data is the foundation of our information society.
The old saying "knowledge is power" had never been more accurate.

In case of Win10, there have been reports that it ignores hosts file when it
comes to IP adresses that it needs to connect to if it wants to call home.

Also, it was reported an user did an experiment and disabled all telemetry.
In a single night, the firewall still logged 4000 connects to about 50 different MS IPs.
And that's not the end of the story, even.

Other cons of Win10: The new security settings don't prohibit telemetry completely.
Their function is rather a sedation to the user and/or for cosmetics.

Well, first of all, all these things you mentioned may be related to 'privacy', not 'security'. These are different things which people sometimes fail to distinguish.

In terms of security, as long as you have some trust in Microsoft (which I hope you do, otherwise why would you run their closed-source products), Win10 is probably better than any Windows OS before that.

Privacy is a different thing, of course, but even then, people often confuse 'privacy' with 'telemetry'. Telemetry is generally anonymous and does not collect personal data, merely usage patterns.

They do, of course, collect personal data as well, so they can target you with ads and service offers. But in that case most of the opt-outs may work.

Jo22 wrote:

Updates in W10 and W10 Pro can't be disabled, just delayed (in Pro). It requires an Enterprise version to do that. I think that' […]
Show full quote

Updates in W10 and W10 Pro can't be disabled, just delayed (in Pro).
It requires an Enterprise version to do that. I think that's a nightmare for admins.
Just recently an update broke support for matrix printers.
Imagine what happens at the doctor's office, if it takes days until a fix gets released.

Pro does sort-of allow you to disable updates indefinitely; it just becomes progressively more annoying if you delay too much, but I never had a forced install. Come to think of it, in the past month it also hasn't been pushy as much as it used to be; maybe they changed the policy?

Also, you still can just disable Windows Update service altogether, even in the non-Pro version, and never have updates pushed on you, the downside being that you cannot update manually either.

Errius wrote:

If the OS finds you using a piece of pirate software, or watching a pirate video, it can automatically disable it and notify the copyright owner to invoice you the designated cost. (Or automatically deduct the amount from your credit card account.)

Good one.

Errius wrote:

Well for better or worse this will finally put an end to piracy.

If the OS finds you using a piece of pirate software, or watching a pirate video, it can automatically disable it and notify the copyright owner to invoice you the designated cost. (Or automatically deduct the amount from your credit card account.)

Or, the Windows 10 OS can help realizing the goal of DRM, which is forcing the user to pay multiple times for the same content. Perhaps Windows 10 should stop me from playing non-DRM media, like, say, my legally-purchased audio CD, and should force me to purchase lossy DRM music instead. After all, DRM is the future, isn't it? Better yet, Windows 10 should support forced obsolescence. Imagine this scenario: I'm editing family photos using my legally-purchased Adobe CC 2014, a three years-old software that still works fine for my purpose despite its age. But then Windows 10 telemetry decides I have committed profit infringement by using such old software for too long. Of course, new money psychos in Armani suit always need huge bonus and shiny new car, so we the humble consumers must be forced to upgrade to increase sales figures. So Windows 10 conveniently uninstalls my perfectly working Adobe CC 2014, automatically installs Adobe CC 2018, and automatically deducts the amount from my credit card account.

Yeah, call me paranoid, but who would guarantee such crap described above won't be our future?

https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list … tive-Cloud.html

Windows 10 is already enforcing obsolence by pushing UWP. Considering all the vulnerable applications out there which is where most of the security risk comes from probably not a bad idea. Hopefully they figure out ways to sandbox non UWP applications inside the OS. I know with the newer versions of Windows server they have container support so mabye that will filter down to the Desktop in an easy to use manner. This is similar to other solutions line Vmware Thinapp or Altiris SVS but I'm sure if not enforced people will be content to run vulnerable applications on their machines "because no one would hack me because I'm not special" excuse.

Minimizing vulnerability is a good thing per se, but an OS that enforces forced obsolescence is always prone to corporate abuse. Today the OS may uninstall your old software and force you to update in a genuine attempt to fix vulnerability problems, but after the next update the OS might do the same thing for a very different reason --because it decides you don't spend enough money on software, and need to spend more.

If the future that Kreshna describes ever comes to fruition, there will be a massive outcry and some other company will see an opportunity to corner the market by offering non-controlling software.

A situation in which an evil company takes control of people's lives is inherently unstable, for two reasons:

1. People don't want that
2. The company is not the government, thus they can't legally force people to do anything they didn't agree to

Therefore there will always be money to be made in offering an alternative.

I think this will happen to Microsoft eventually. I can see them becoming more and more controlling as time goes on, but this will result in their automatic Death By Customer Dissatisfaction.

keenmaster486 wrote:

I think this will happen to Microsoft eventually. I can see them becoming more and more controlling as time goes on, but this will result in their automatic Death By Customer Dissatisfaction.

I'm pretty sure that will never happen.
After all, Microsoft's goal is to make money, not to control their userbase.
So they will never push the level of control beyond a commercially viable level. That just doesn't make any business sense.

Scali wrote:

That just doesn't make any business sense.

You're right, of course... I'm just not entirely sure how much long-term business sense Microsoft really does have, regardless of their obvious success so far.

Scali wrote:

I'm pretty sure that will never happen.
After all, Microsoft's goal is to make money, not to control their userbase.
So they will never push the level of control beyond a commercially viable level. That just doesn't make any business sense.

The business world is rife with corporate leadership making choices that are stupid in terms of long term business viability. Hard to predict what will happen in the future.

keenmaster486 wrote:

I'm just not entirely sure how much long-term business sense Microsoft really does have, regardless of their obvious success so far.

Hyperbole.

Microsoft knows just as well as any software company that SaaS is where the money is today. An educated guess is that Azure, Office 365, and Xbox Live are their new bread and butter.

The tools that target/support/compliment these platforms (Hyper-V, Exchange Server, SQL Server, Visual Studio, etc) would be lucrative as well. I'm yet to encounter a FOSS toolchain that comes close to Visual Studio with TFS.

I'd wager that Windows for the desktop is a loss-leader like Xbox hardware, or sold at/near cost at best. Normal people don't buy Windows, they buy a computer that does the macroscopic tasks they require of it.

@dr_st My bad. I'm no native English speaker, so I probably should have used another term.
Speaking of telemetry, yes, that's how it should be. Unfortunately, IPv6 and MAC addresses make it quite possible to identify a person's device.
Now if a person uses several different accounts, by different services -which quite normal nowadays (facebook, amazon, etc)- on that device,
from which only one is registered to a name, then it is quite possible that over time this person get nasty personalized ads with the person's name in them.
Ads related to interests he/she was allegedly looking for in other services.This may sound like paranoia, I admit. But we're in the year 2018 now and the
advertising industry and market analysts haven't stopped extending their business fields (rather they just began). Lots of statistics information gets stored in commercial databases
which companies can have access to for a little fee. Anonymous data. But including IPs, which make it possible to relate that data to places/markets on the globe (GeoIPs).
Not that this an entirely bad thing per se, but I among many other users belive that at least someone's Personal Computer should stay a personal thing.
And that a user should be allowed to decide him-/herself how much or less service he needs (prior Windows releases sent less telemetry by far).
It's already enough that Android with GPS disabled can conclude a device's location via WiFi, bluetooth and radio cells.
And by logging other users' devices when passing by (a bit like Nintendo's 3DS feature Streetpass). If location and time of user A is know when they met,
then the location of user B is, too.
Edit: Sorry for this long reply. I tried to be more precise this time. Also sorry for the many replies so far. This should be about my last to this topic (I hope so, 😊).

I bought a physical copy of Office 2007, back when it was new, which was in daily use nearly a decade. Great value for money.

I'm now subscribed to Office 365 and can see it's going to cost me much, much more over the long run. I can see why Microsoft likes this new business model.