Solve that and I may be a convert.
Solve that and I may be a convert.
I think this is a trend of MS breaking the tools we use to get some control back over Windows, because they've broken some of my others recently also, such as Windows defender flagging Spybot S&D's immunization as a hosts hijack. And of course there's no easy way to work around that, pressing ignore didn't work it produce the same result as quarantine .. I'm so angry at MS for all the shit they push, but there's just not a better alternative they closely walk the line of costs/benefits .. which is why I fear that as their position on the desktop strengthens with things like wide WSL adoption, we will see more of their anti-features and domineering breakages of the tools people write to resist them.
I don't need to smoke crack to know that I don't want anything to do with it.
As a Linux desktop user, I've only ever been able to tolerate LTSC releases of Windows 10, and those still have telemetry features. They also lag behind Windows 10 releases so that things like WSL2 are still unsupported.
I tried running Windows as my daily driver because I was somewhat sold on WSL and WSL 2, however using non-LTSC releases of Windows is a frustrating experience, and there were too many incompatibilities between enterprise Windows and the desktop/development environment I was trying to use it as.
My solution is to have an LTSC virtual machine set up so that I can dip into Windows when I need to, and just use a sane Linux environment as the host OS.
- don't use online account, but offline (local) one
- use WPD to uncheck absolutely everything related to windows telemetry / sending info. I keep only updates and those set to manual.
- and can't stress this enough - get a PiHole, either on RPi or re-purpose a crappy old laptop. This one is also good for your smartcrap you usually get to your spouse/kids
The bigger problem, though, is all the legacy that's holding it back in the name of backwards compatibility. The WinAPI is older than myself. You can still run Windows 95 programs on your new Windows 10 PC. While useful to some, I'll never understand why exactly is it done this way. Apple keeps dropping old APIs to make their OSes better and simpler internally. I've never used anything that came before OS X, but I did read a lot that it was terrible and unstable, just like Windows at the time. Except modern macOS is stable and robust, while Windows still feels extremely fragile and unreliable after all these years.
Yes, I understand that Microsoft is hellbent that modern Windows versions need to be able to run 25-year-old binaries unmodified. But they could've achieved the exact same thing by putting genuine Windows 95 into a VM and seamlessly integrating it with the desktop.
Because they make a lot of money on enterprise customers. The only way to convince them to upgrade is to guarantee the new OS version won't break their legacy software. But even on consumer market, in the 90s and 2000s it was important old videogames work on new versions of Windows, or otherwise people would not upgrade.
This comes from before the days of web applications and everything as a Service. Software vendors had to work hard to get people to pay them again.
So Microsoft has always had to work hard to convince people to upgrade. New features were the natural way of doing that. But not maintaining backward compatibility, in a world where almost all software was an one-time purchase, would be a deal breaker. Why upgrade if it's going to cost $20M to make our ERP suite compatible with the new Windows? Why upgrade if all the software I spent $1000 on over the past few years will no longer work? Hence backwards compatibility with existing software was a top priority (to the point that Windows has a lot of fixes to badly coded third-party software built in).
Hand on heart, do you really feel OS X/macOS is improving much?
Apparently, when they run out of technical things to improve and stupid code signing policies to enforce, they redesign the UI because it's a law that if you're making a popular OS it absolutely has to have a major update once a year, no matter what.
I used to go this route. I used WABI (Windows Application Binary Interface) on Solaris in the 1990s, sort of like a very early WINE. However as time has gone on, I found that the Linux Office Suites (LibreOffice, more recently) have become more and more sufficient for my needs.
I realised recently that I haven't really booted Windows itself more than half a dozen times over the last few years. I got my first Windows 10 a month or two ago with a new laptop. I then proceeded to squeeze it down to under 100 gig on a 1 terabyte hard drive. On my main desktop, Windows 8 is relegated to a mere 50 gig out of 12 terabytes of storage.
I have used Windows 7 on VirtualBox more often for running my HP Scanner's MultiFeed software, just because I can. Though normally, I just run a single-sheet scan most of the time under Linux.
In summary, Windows could completely disappear and it would not affect me adversely at all.
Also, the author of this article seems ignorant of the fact that Windows' kernel internals are one of its strongest features - Cutler's NT Kernel incorporated many things he learned from building VMS, and while the shell and outer parts of Windows have often left a lot to desire, the NT (not DOS/Win9X) kernel is and always has been excellent. I don't see Windows evolving to run on a Linux kernel - that would be only viable with vast improvements/changes to the Linux kernel.
I would not be surprised at all if he's ignorant of Windows' kernel internals or, really, much else about Windows.
> [...] ESR, is an American software developer, open-source software advocate, and author of the 1997 essay and 1999 book The Cathedral and the Bazaar. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond
In fact, this article likely would have gained little attention were it written by anyone else.
And how!