Because Shiny Things Are Fun - The New New Windows v Linux Thread

Originally Posted by rokytnji But BSD won't boot on my Chromebook.

See, even you prefer Closed Source.

Originally Posted by YesItsMe See, even you prefer Closed Source.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses

https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.IS...l/article.html

My chromebook is open source NOW. Closed source shut my default operating down.

What I prefer is pragmatism. If it is cheap and works. That is fine by me.

I don't think market shares should ever come into any technical argument (not that this thread is a technical argument at this stage).

From a personal perspective only, as someone who has used computers since the 80's, various GNU/Linux since around 2002/2003 and various *BSDs since 2012 - Linux and *BSD are never going to knock macOS and Windows off the top spot for desktops. I've seen the "progress" and it's still well short of the mark (in terms of what "consumers" expect).

It doesn't really matter how avid a fan we have become of our chosen OS - we can't really compare it to those proprietary offerings when it comes to desktops. We must like/use it for other reasons or presumably we wouldn't be here...?

I've seen free desktops, mostly freedesktop.org projects or KDE, evolve and "progress" pretty much continually, but never to the same standard as the Windows or macOS GUI. Yes, even the latter ones have problems, but it is not a continually moving development target, with numerous flaws, shortcomings and bugs like gnome.

Windows has often been criticised for taking the power away from the user - yet gnome strives to do just that and many simply accept it. KDE is too bloated, overweight, fiddly and complex to be that useful, it might be great for screenshot threads at Linux forums. Both of these projects are just as self indulgent as the Windows 10 UI and equally qualify as "shiny new sh*t". In my opinion they are the result of navel gazing from a self important cliche who believe they are somehow re-landscaping the software landscape - but really only involved in a "hobby project".

The rebuke directed at Windows and MS is often valid (e.g. patent trolling, etc), yet the slurs directed at Windows users by Linux fans, is very off target and just contributes to the reputation of Linux users as uninformed "fan" types who are not in possession of any of the facts. Many use Windows by choice, or because it's part of their occupation. Many use it and find it to be OK, tolerable, easy to get on with, etc - but there's usually no real "love" as such - in that there are very few "fans" who will take to a forum and argue incessantly on it's supposed merits. This is also, almost always the case with macOS and particularly *BSD users.

Thank you, cynwulf.

Originally Posted by cynwulf I don't think market shares should ever come into any technical argument (not that this thread is a technical argument at this stage).

Yes and no, it's an important indicator but no, it's not a technical agrument per say, as in: M$ doesn't have most of the desktop market because of market share, but instead because yes, they were very clever with making agreements early on, when the PC industry was still evolving. They also have complete control over their OS and therefore don't have the same issues as Linux, as well as the BSD's on the desktop front.

...It doesn't really matter how avid a fan we have become of our chosen OS - we can't really compare it to those proprietary offerings when it comes to desktops. We must like/use it for other reasons or presumably we wouldn't be here...?

Pretty much the (one of) the points I tried to make to a certain other member that they seem to dispute and now seem to agree with, in terms of trying to compare two open-source company's with M$. And yes, I agree totally with you about the rest of what you said above.

I've seen free desktops, mostly freedesktop.org projects or KDE, evolve and "progress" pretty much continually, but never to the same standard as the Windows or macOS GUI. Yes, even the latter ones have problems, but it is not a continually moving development target, with numerous flaws, shortcomings and bugs like gnome.

Not sure I'd necessary agree there. Yes, like with anything else there has been some pretty buggy versions come out, yes, but as far as quality is concerned, I'm not really too sure what your talking about there?

Windows has often been criticised for taking the power away from the user - yet gnome strives to do just that and many simply accept it. KDE is too bloated, overweight, fiddly and complex to be that useful, it might be great for screenshot threads at Linux forums. Both of these projects are just as self indulgent as the Windows 10 UI and equally qualify as "shiny new sh*t". In my opinion they are the result of navel gazing from a self important cliche who believe they are somehow re-landscaping the software landscape - but really only involved in a "hobby project".

I'm not sure why you say that? I use KDE myself and it always does the job with no issue, in fact, it's very useful and I'm glad I discovered it. I don't use GNOME so I don't know about that, but yes, the whole idea behind KDE was, because nothing worked in the same way in the good old days, so KDE's main developer/founder wrote KDE so that there would be things in common.

The rebuke directed at Windows and MS is often valid (e.g. patent trolling, etc), yet the slurs directed at Windows users by Linux fans, is very off target and just contributes to the reputation of Linux users as uninformed "fan" types who are not in possession of any of the facts. Many use Windows by choice, or because it's part of their occupation. Many use it and find it to be OK, tolerable, easy to get on with, etc - but there's usually no real "love" as such - in that there are very few "fans" who will take to a forum and argue incessantly on it's supposed merits. This is also, almost always the case with macOS and particularly *BSD users.

While I don't know who you're referring to when you say "slurs directed at Windows users...", if I'm one those that it is directed at; as I stated before in this very same thread, my insults at directed at M$ & WINDOWS, and NOT at the users of those systems. Don't know how else to say it. Yes, many do use it by choice and some because their work does, yes, once again I agree with you - but of course I haven't seen anyone blame them for that either (including myself). And yes, many don't give a rats ass what system it is, true again.

I think with all respect that you should also remember that one person can't argue with themselves - it takes more than one. Also, I was only responding to what one OTHER member was posting (not yourself).

Originally Posted by Mill J Linux is so extremely insecure, why it only runs 90+% of the internet vs Windows less than 2% https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/art...without-linux/

The Linux kernel also has a bigger advantage over windows in the biggest industry today, the smartphone market and other embedded devices. And microsoft will be using a linux kernel for there azure sphere IoT operating system. And they emphasize security from the video keynote I saw.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux-powered_device

&c...

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 Yes and no, it's an important indicator but no, it's not a technical agrument per say, as in: M$ doesn't have most of the desktop market because of market share, but instead because yes, they were very clever with making agreements early on, when the PC industry was still evolving. They also have complete control over their OS and therefore don't have the same issues as Linux, as well as the BSD's on the desktop front.

This doesn't make sense - they have the largest desktop market share by far. They are dominant in both home and business, desktop and laptops. What deals they have with OEMs and what tactics they have used are irrelevant. They have the vast majority of the desktop market share.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 While I don't know who you're referring to when you say "slurs directed at Windows users...", if I'm one those that it is directed at; as I stated before in this very same thread, my insults at directed at M$ & WINDOWS, and NOT at the users of those systems. Don't know how else to say it.

Well just to give one example:

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 And Winblow$ morons need UAC because M$ couldn't design a secure system from the start ? Oh, yes, that's right, they well... couldn't... ouch! Almost forgot, and Winblow$ losers need a GUI because they can't use a command-line ? Sad, isn't it?

I would define those as "slurs directed at Windows users", but am very much open to correction.

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 I think with all respect that you should also remember that one person can't argue with themselves - it takes more than one. Also, I was only responding to what one OTHER member was posting (not yourself).

This thread has long since descended into tit-for-tat personal insults. I have read enough to discern when the insults started. It's now gone beyond even that and long since become a point scoring exercise, both actors taking to the extremes. The provocative insulting posts are now off the dial when it comes to "good taste". I don't however disagree with many of YesItsMe's viewpoints...

To get back on topic (if that's possible - or even worthwhile), it is a proven fact that the NT kernel has had those documented security features (and others) long before Linux. It's also well known that many security features for the NT kernel and Linux are not "opt out" - i.e. they are not "on by default" as they are with an OS such as OpenBSD, or even FreeBSD, for example.

I've set up quite a lot of Windows 10 boxes and the sole admin class user is still there from the off. The only barrier is UAC, if the user disables those "annoyances", security is still somewhat compromised. But by default, Windows user accounts automatically drop privilege, irrespective of the user level - there is even a "virtual store" where programmes write their configs, etc if the user has insufficient privilege (confusing and nasty as hell, but it's not UNIX after all...). I'm not sure I like this model - to me they have it backwards, but at least it's a lot more secure than the XP days (WinNT configured to be like Win9x).

It's also well known by now that Torvalds does not regard security flaws as any more important than any other bug. And has been very dismissive of "security people" in the past - to the point where it's gotten insulting. All of this is searchable, for those who want to find it, research it and inform themselves.

It's correct that grsec/pax (Spengler) did a lot of work on "kernel hardening" and this was mostly dismissed out of hand by Torvalds (but there is a lot more to that...).

The Linux "market share", if you value it or care about it, is very much in the embedded sector - i.e. the sector where no one really cares that it's Linux. so it is a "Linux market share" and not a "GNU/Linux [distribution] market share". It "just works" (and it's free), in the sense that MS Windows "just works" for the people who want/have to use it.

and the sole admin class user is still there from the off. The only barrier is UAC, if the user disables those "annoyances", security is still somewhat compromised.

Not quite true since Windows Admin authority is NOT the same as it is under Linux. There are at least two higher security levels that require different logins. I believe that one of those is only available during W10 recovery in recovery mode.

I am obviously not going to publish any details on a public forum.

Originally Posted by cynwulf This doesn't make sense - they have the largest desktop market share by far. They are dominant in both home and business, desktop and laptops. What deals they have with OEMs and what tactics they have used are irrelevant. They have the vast majority of the desktop market share.

I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying; I wasn't saying that M$ doesn't have the most market share in the desktop market or that they were not "dominant in both home and business, desktop and laptops". So not sure why you're saying that - where did I say anything that conflicts with that ?

I think deals done by M$ - particularly in the early days of the PC/computer market (as I was saying before) - are actually very relevant. So I would respectfully disagree with you there.

...I would define those as "slurs directed at Windows users", but am very much open to correction.

While I'm not sure there needs to be a correction per say (at least what "defines" an insult), but I would draw your attention to the quote below;

Originally Posted by YesItsMe ...Starting with Windows NT: By design. Unlike the Lin$ux losers called "kernel developers", Microsoft is fine with dropping backwards compatibility if it improves security. How come the Lin$ux n00bs need third-party patches (SELinux, AppArmor, grsecurity, PaX and whatever) to achieve a remotely similar security level to what Windows brings you out of the box? Even with a nice GUI!

Are you telling me the above are not insults ??

Sorry cynwulf, but I beg to disagree - quite strongly in fact! The problem with you're post was that it fails to mention anything about any other insults that started and lead to the ones you're referring to above. You post imply's that the only insults exchanged were ones supposedly "directed" at all Windows users, this is clearly incorrect. Also and once again, my posts were in response to YesItsMe's posts - who also started this very round (and the previous one) of discussion, but once again... no mention of that either. I suggest you put all facts on the table, not just the ones you like.

This thread has long since descended into tit-for-tat personal insults. I have read enough to discern when the insults started. It's now gone beyond even that and long since become a point scoring exercise, both actors taking to the extremes. The provocative insulting posts are now off the dial when it comes to "good taste". I don't however disagree with many of YesItsMe's viewpoints...

Once again, it takes more than one, and I was just responding to YesItsMe - who I might add, clearly made post #2824 to start a debate. Which he had also done before I replied to the current round of discussion here. If you've "read enough" then you should see exactly what I'm talking about then. Also remember any insults I may have made towards any Windows users have been in response to YesItsMe's posts. Also remember that there's nothing in the OP that says all posts to this thread must be of technical nature.

I'm not sure what you "not disagreeing" with YesItsMe's viewpoints has to do with anything? Unless you're saying that if others (like myself) don't agree then you and YesItsMe are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. If you're not saying that well then, others including myself are entitled to our "viewpoints" too.

To get back on topic (if that's possible - or even worthwhile), it is a proven fact that the NT kernel has had those documented security features (and others) long before Linux. It's also well known that many security features for the NT kernel and Linux are not "opt out" - i.e. they are not "on by default" as they are with an OS such as OpenBSD, or even FreeBSD, for example.

And where have I said otherwise ?

I've set up quite a lot of Windows 10 boxes and the sole admin class user is still there from the off. The only barrier is UAC, if the user disables those "annoyances", security is still somewhat compromised. But by default, Windows user accounts automatically drop privilege, irrespective of the user level - there is even a "virtual store" where programmes write their configs, etc if the user has insufficient privilege (confusing and nasty as hell, but it's not UNIX after all...). I'm not sure I like this model - to me they have it backwards, but at least it's a lot more secure than the XP days (WinNT configured to be like Win9x).

All I was basically trying to say to YesItsMe all along was the fact that based on what he said and claimed as "evidence", did not (and still does not) convince me that he's right. So if you've "read enough" then surely you would see how difficult that was. But of course I'm still the bad guy !?

It's also well known by now that Torvalds does not regard security flaws as any more important than any other bug. And has been very dismissive of "security people" in the past - to the point where it's gotten insulting. All of this is searchable, for those who want to find it, research it and inform themselves. It's correct that grsec/pax (Spengler) did a lot of work on "kernel hardening" and this was mostly dismissed out of hand by Torvalds (but there is a lot more to that...).

So I guess there was no reason why developers at the Linux Foundation decided to stay up god only knows how long and write the Meltdown and Spectre patches ?

The fact is that he doesn't just "dismiss security flaws out of hand", he regards them (as you say) as software problems that are bugs as much as any other bug - that doesn't mean he dismisses security issues all together. At the end of the day, they are problems in the code - he's right about that. The fact alone that he clearly cares about what he's doing says a lot. And I never disputed that grsec/pax (Spengler) "did a lot of work on kernel harderning", just for the record.

The Linux "market share", if you value it or care about it, is very much in the embedded sector - i.e. the sector where no one really cares that it's Linux. so it is a "Linux market share" and not a "GNU/Linux [distribution] market share". It "just works" (and it's free), in the sense that MS Windows "just works" for the people who want/have to use it.

I was more or less agreeing with you're point about market share - I was only adding the point that it wasn't just good luck and/or market share that was the reason for M$ having desktop dominance.

Me: Windows is more secure.
You: whine.
cynwulf: Windows is, in fact, more secure.
You: I NEVER SAID OTHERWISE.

Well...

My computer doesn't feel secure right now it's just letting all your words in... oops that's me.


After 20 some years I trust Linux more than Windows but damn sure more than paying someone else to do it!

My grandmother has me to do her internet* security. Who do you have? ...slave master you only get 2 weeks vacation after 5 years of work sucker.

Linux is hip, cool, secure and today.

Windows is 90's old school technology. Yesterday's news. HAHAHA

Seriously, it all boils down to the first saying in my signature. It's like complaining that your grass is long when you could easily now it.

How many of you appreciate being able to build a whole operating system from source? How about building a kernel? You as an individual are in control of the security of your system. Not a HUGE company, who spys on you by default.

How many of you have compiled a custom Windows kernel? legally? Ever see a 10mb Windows? How about a different desktop or WM?

And trust me. I have used much more Windows(started on 8 ) than Linux. And yet after using Linux, It feels as though I had some fingers missing, so to speak.

It seems a certain someone ignored a certain section in my previous post.

What good does it do to have the world's most secure OS, when the company behind it keeps track of everything you do? One plus, doesn't need third-party backdoors to do it either.