With DaaS Windows Coming, Say Goodbye To Your PC As You Know It

On 08/03/2018 12:40 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
mike wrote:
The issue isn't whether you can go on a treasure hunt to find
the damn thing.

Except that you don't have to.


It's about making a system that is easy to use.

Because it does. If you installed it from the repository it will be put
in whatever menu/launcher system the DE uses.

Dare I has what distro and what app?


Just like the other Windows trolls I doubt very seriously that he has
used Linux or at least in the last two decades.

--
Caver1

"Caver1" wrote

| Whereas Linux is a good classic car. You can easily use it and modify it
| to your hearts content.
|

Indeed. I love that new dual scoop you put on
your front hood. And the glass packs should
sound great. And is that a custom fuzzy dice
holder? Cool! When do you suppose you might get
it off your front lawn and actually drive it?

On 08/02/2018 10:43 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Jonathan N. Little" wrote

| Okay? Who told you that with Linux updates are somehow "forced" upon
| you?

No one. You're not listening because your shrill
reactiveness gets in the way. Someone said that
Linux is handy because one can have it handle
installs and updates with no fuss. I said I don't
want that. I want to manage things for myself and
I don't want it to be feasible for anything to go
online that I didn't instigate. Capiche? I never
said I thought Linux was spyware or that it
forces updates.

| Updates do fix *security* issues as well as bugs
| and add feature enhancements.

Yes. And I often install them when I think
it's appropriate. You allow all of your software
to call home and update itself, willy nilly? And you
assume those updates are improvements?


Doesn't happen in Linux. Yes there are a couple but you can stop them
from calling home easily.


To my mind that's an unstable design and an
indefensible way to build software. The idea
is that it's not supposed to be beta when it's
released, so it doesn't have to be fixed on a regular
basis. I use a number of programs that are
rarely if ever updated. And I don't install Windows
patches until they've been time-tested, if at all.


Being it's OSS the beta's are put out there for other people help find
major bugs before the app is released. Betas always state that thy are
not for production machines.
Being the it is OSS many people can help with the building of an app or
an OS.
With Window this can't be done because Windows app builders and MS
itself don't want you to help. Being so many major bugs are only found
after release.


I'm still using a lot of things that are 20 years old.
Paint Shop Pro 5. Visual Studio 6. Other things may
be 10 years old. Some things update more frequently,
but rarely with noticeable changes. Some things
arguably get worse with updates, like Firefox and
Internet Explorer.

But I expect your view is that of the majority.
The public has generally been trained to think
that if they turn off the dripfeed they'll be infested
with malware "before sundown". That's part of the
marketing of the service model.




--
Caver1

"Caver1" wrote

| What you don't get is that Windows doesn't engender
| the kind of vehement loyalty that happens with Macs
| and Linux. Windows is the Ford Taurus of cars. Mac is
| a sports car -- pretty but limited. Linux is a custom
| build. But Windows is just a Taurus. People don't start
| Ford Taurus fan clubs. No one's trying to beat your team.
| We don't have a team.

|
| If you don't think Windows has a fan club go over to the Windows
| newsgroups, they'll prove you wrong.
|

I've been in Windows groups for many years.
Groups for specific OSs as well as programming
groups. Windows fanatics are rare. Insults tend
to be mild. There's the occasional Microsoft MVP
who thinks they need to be a cheerleader. And
sometimes there are shills that seem to be
Microsoft plants. But for the most part it's just
people sharing tips.

Windows groups are the most
civilized I've been in. I dropped out of home repair
and webmaster groups because nasty power
struggles made them unusable. I dropped out of
a photo group because it was too undisciplined,
with people endlessly chatting or bickering. And
I learned early to avoid Linux groups. For every
helpful, patient person there were 5 anti-social
experts and each expert seemed to have 5-10
teenage devotees. It was a kind of brutal peer
pressure.
But Windows groups have been consistently
interesting and helpful. I'm in 5 now. Two for
programming and 3 for Windows.

Mayayana wrote:
"Dan Purgert" wrote

| I explored a similar option with WINE. It was
| interesting how much worked in WINE. But the winos
| were not willing to share anything like an API list.
| They wanted me to register as a bug hunter for
| my software and herd the bug until it was resolved.
| I was surprised and taken aback by the paramilitary
| pecking order of the whole thing. All the more so
| because I was assigned to be a lowest-level lackey.
| So the upshot was that there was no way for me
| to write to WINE and thus no reason to deal with it
| at all.
|
| Because one does not write *for WINE*. It is a compatibility layer
| between Windows-only programs (e.g. those games you seem to dislike
| strongly), and Linux-based computers.
|
| Essentially, it provides the Microsoft ABIs that these programs need to
| run - although not perfectly; and not all of them.
|

Exactly. If they were willing to share the details
then Windows people could write to WINE. API

I think you misunderstood. WINE doesn't have an API in the sense that
it's a target you write for (ala Windows or Linux or Mac or whatever).

I haven't tried it in at least 7 years, and things may have changed --
but one of the things that you NEEDED back then was valid Windows
installation media, so that WINE could get ahold of those DLLs and so
on.


[...] And they're probably mostly 19-22 y.o. They
want to get the latest version of GTA working in
WINE for the weekend.

Doesn't this pretty much entirely just contradict what you're claiming?
I mean GTA isn't written "for WINE" at all ...


| As for the "churn" of updated libraries (etc.) - Microsoft does the same
| thing with Windows Updates.

Not so much. Their customer is business. Business
writes in-house software. That needs backward
compatibility. Not that Microsoft are generous or
considerate. But business won't update Windows if
their in-house software won't run. So lib xyz might
get updated, but Win98 software can still depend
on getting the same functions from it. Most software
can be written to run on all Windows versions unless
it really needs something new, like games needing
DirectX.
In my admittedly limited experience with Linux
it seemed that updating Acme Editor v. 1.23.456
to v. 1.23.478 would require similar incremental
updates of numerous support libraries. What kind
of nut is using brand new API functions with every
update?

Realistically, I think what it comes down to is that, in general, Linux
updates / installations are more verbose about what it is they're doing
than the same on Windows. I mean, from what I remember of Windows, you
usually have something like

- Basic Install (Upgrade) - "Install the base program, and commonly
used addons"
- Custom Install (Upgrade) - "Select what you want to install".

And if you choose "Custom", you get a menu of what bits you want to
install (some of which are forced on you) -- which is the equivalent of
the Linux updater showing you "Acme Editor" and "AcmeEditor-Dictionary"
and whatever other "support libraries".


--
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

On 08/03/2018 10:06 AM, Mayayana wrote:
"Caver1" wrote

| Whereas Linux is a good classic car. You can easily use it and modify it
| to your hearts content.
|

Indeed. I love that new dual scoop you put on
your front hood. And the glass packs should
sound great. And is that a custom fuzzy dice
holder? Cool! When do you suppose you might get
it off your front lawn and actually drive it?



You can switch engines or increase an engines horse power, not by addons
necessarily but by modifications to the inside of the engine, i.e.
porting the heads, different pistons, a different cam shaft, etc.
Try doing the above with Windows.
Everything that you mention doesn't do any modification but you can do
that also. Different themes, DEs, cute programs, etc.


--
Caver1

On 08/03/2018 10:15 AM, Mayayana wrote:
"Caver1" wrote

| What you don't get is that Windows doesn't engender
| the kind of vehement loyalty that happens with Macs
| and Linux. Windows is the Ford Taurus of cars. Mac is
| a sports car -- pretty but limited. Linux is a custom
| build. But Windows is just a Taurus. People don't start
| Ford Taurus fan clubs. No one's trying to beat your team.
| We don't have a team.

|
| If you don't think Windows has a fan club go over to the Windows
| newsgroups, they'll prove you wrong.
|

I've been in Windows groups for many years.
Groups for specific OSs as well as programming
groups. Windows fanatics are rare. Insults tend
to be mild. There's the occasional Microsoft MVP
who thinks they need to be a cheerleader. And
sometimes there are shills that seem to be
Microsoft plants. But for the most part it's just
people sharing tips.

Windows groups are the most
civilized I've been in. I dropped out of home repair
and webmaster groups because nasty power
struggles made them unusable. I dropped out of
a photo group because it was too undisciplined,
with people endlessly chatting or bickering. And
I learned early to avoid Linux groups. For every
helpful, patient person there were 5 anti-social
experts and each expert seemed to have 5-10
teenage devotees. It was a kind of brutal peer
pressure.
But Windows groups have been consistently
interesting and helpful. I'm in 5 now. Two for
programming and 3 for Windows.



I have found the opposite to be true.
The fanatics cross over to Linux newsgroups to troll and spread falsehoods.
Just try bashing Windows on a Windows newsgroup and see what you get.
The same as Windows trolls bashing Linux in a Linux group.

--
Caver1

On 08/03/2018 06:22 AM, Caver1 wrote:
On 08/02/2018 10:21 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Jonathan N. Little" wrote

Trolls!


snip
If you don't think Windows has a fan club go over to the Windows
newsgroups, they'll prove you wrong.

Look at the cross-posting! The troll is trying to
start fights between alt.os.linux, comp.os.linux.misc and
alt.comp.os.windows-10 from .

He is abusing alt.privacy.anon-server.

bliss

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

Mayayana wrote:
"Dan Purgert" wrote

| I should have to trust Microsoft, Google, or a Linux
| "package manager" to communicate between my
| machine and a remote location.
|
| Then don't. Install everything manually from *deb (for Debian or
| Debian-derived distributions, such as Ubuntu, Mint, MX_Linux, etc.) or
| *rpm (RedHat or RedHat-derived distributions, such as Fedora, etc.).
|
| The package manager is merely the equivalent of "the app store" on
| iOS/Android/Win10 (Dunno if Mac has one of those).
|

Thanks. I get that. I was only saying that I didn't
think of the package manager (can I call it PacMan?
as an improvement in Linux, from my own personal point

No, well, unless you mean the specific one 'pacman', but I think that's
for Arch.

of view. And while this kind of thing can be worked
around, that usually requires extra effort.
Example: Some time ago I installed Suse, I think it was,
using Lilo. The designers had "improved" Lilo so that I
wouldn't have to understand it. Lilo picked a partition
for the install and asked for my approval. Nice and
convenient. Except that it wasn't. In the older
Lilo I had to know which partition was which. In the
newer Lilo, I needed more expertise to prevent Lilo
from overwriting Windows, which was the partition
it was suggesting to use.

Lilo is, to my understanding, a bootloader rather than an installer --
so you're kind of blaming IE (Edge?) for that *doc file on your CD being
corrupted (or something similar -- it's the first thing I could think
of).

But I also don't use Suse, so perhaps they call their installer "lilo".

[...] What I see in Windows is an attempt to take over full control
from the end user. What I see in Linux is something like
Firefox: Developers have endless options that require
extensive expertise, while everyone else gets an increasing
number of dummy UIs.

Help make the "dummy UIs" better then .

I don't think it's *quite* as cut-and-dry as you've stated, although
you're not exactly that far off either.


| I run XP SP3 and Win7 SP1. Neither has ever had
| Windows Update enabled. Neither has any networking
| services running. Neither has anything running that
| needs to, or is allowed to, go online -- aside from the
| obvious things like browser, email, FTP, etc that go online
| because I acted to make them do that.
|
| That's kind of unsafe, what with the machines being connected to the
| internet. I mean, all it takes is one website having something
| malicious that can exploit your unpatched boxes.
|
| Unless you mean that you download the KBxxxx patch files direct from MS,
| rather than using Windows Update to grab / install them automatically?
|

I rarely install new patches. And XP, of course,
is no longer getting them. This topic has been
discussed here a lot. In a nutshell, I don't think of
security that way. I think it's a corporate way of
thinking. In corporate, the network is mostly trusted
while the user is not. For a standalone machine it's
the opposite. On an intranet, the front door is wide
open while every office and cabinet is locked. You
need authorization to do things. On a SOHo computer
the most efficient setup is to keep the front door
locked while locking nothing inside. Anyone inside
is trusted. In most cases there's only one user per
computer. So all that hassle of file restrictions
becomes unnecessary. (Unless you don't trust
yourself not to delete important files.)

But working like that also means that once your "front door" is gotten
through, it's game over.

It's not so much that I don't trust myself to not delete important
files, but more that I have a ... hmm ... what's the right word ...
"respect", I suppose ... for the fact that "mistakes happen" - either
mine, or a developer's, or even malice.

I mean, I kind of think of it like the "safety" on my stove - I have to
push down on the knob before I can turn the gas on. Sure, not having to
press the knob inward first would be "easier(tm)", but I also don't want
to accidentally turn it on, and make the hosue reek (or blow it up )

[...]
Unfortunately, the Internet is now adopting the
intranet model. Many webpages now are not webpages
at all. They're 3-4 MB software programs, written in
javascript, with barely any HTML that's not dynamically
generated, and they're loaded from a variety of domains.
The people using the corporate model deal with that by
running as a lackey-mode user, loading up with AV and anti-
malware programs, and allowing a dripfeed of security
updates. But a lot of attacks are 0-day. That model
simply doesn't work. Running executable code remotely
cannot be made safe.

Yeah, I miss the days of (mostly static) HTML, or maybe a bit of CSS
thrown in, if you were using a graphical browser. Database-driven things
(if done well) are also acceptable.

a 4MB page because you need 3.9 MB of javascript to show me 100KB of
actual information ... yeah, no.


--
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

Mayayana wrote:
"Caver1" wrote

| Whereas Linux is a good classic car. You can easily use it and modify it
| to your hearts content.
|

Indeed. I love that new dual scoop you put on
your front hood. And the glass packs should
sound great. And is that a custom fuzzy dice
holder? Cool! When do you suppose you might get
it off your front lawn and actually drive it?

Drive it? This is a '69 Mustang! You'd have to be mad to drive it on
*these* roads!

(IDK about you, but great lord cthulhu are the roads around here
godawful)


--
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

On 08/03/2018 06:49 AM, Caver1 wrote:
On 08/03/2018 12:15 AM, mike wrote:
On 8/2/2018 7:02 PM, Paul wrote:
Jonathan N. Little, The Troll, wrote:

Nothing and you guys hurried to feed the Troll.


And yes this is one of the Windows fan club.

Perhaps but Troll will do.


--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

In article
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 03/08/18 12:44, Nomen Nescio wrote:
In article
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 01/08/18 11:02, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2018-08-01 09:04, Chris wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article , Anssi Saari
wrote:


MS underestimated Android in the phone market.
They might fail again with the desktop.

Here's hoping (for Microsoft's demise). But I think it's more like a
paradigm shift happened. Absolutely nothing threatens Microsoft on the
PC desktop,

quite a bit does. chromebooks are very strong in education and web apps
(mainly google) are winning out over ms office.

Not in the UK. Schools and universities are wall to wall MS. Which is
particularly depressing given the lack of money in schools.

I was in a classroom a few years back here (Spain), and the funny thing
was that the school officially embraced free software; yet the teachers
wrote their pieces on Word instead of LibreOffice, so the students did
the same (without licenses). Someone really using LO had a bit of a
problem because the formatting often is not accurately converted.

I have found thats generally NOT an issue if the same fonts are installed


Most of the people I saw used Windows and Office without licenses, so MS
was getting nothing - except that the people got familiar with MS and
demand MS products later.


Mmm.

But companies are just rubbish really. I mean would you believe a
company that prints from WORD onto letterhead PAPER, scans the result
and emails it as a PDF?

Yes because some people aren't swift enough to construct a
document template, or "It's always been done that way here".

Scan the letterhead first, make a template, then type on it Luke.

Wh uyou calling luke?

Of course that is what they should do. Do they wabt to listen?


--
“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

- Bertrand Russell

In article
"Mayayana" wrote:

"William Unruh" wrote

|
| AGain, you overstate yourself and then have to backtrack. If you canuse a
| browser then you are connected to the net and have networking services
| running.
|

I meant Windows networking services. There are
various services (daemons?) on Windows that are enabled
by default because the default configuration is for
corporate workstations. I disable anything that might
need to go online through the services "shepherd",
svchost.exe. I then can block svchost at the firewall.

If I use a browser then, yes, I'm going online. I think
we agree there.

|
| What's so hard to understand? I want to manage the
| system myself. I don't want to enable some unknown
| quantity to make unilateral decisions that change the
|
| That is fine. On Mageia the update tells you that there are updates
available,
| but it is up to you to actually initiate them.
|

And how did the updater figure that out? Did it
call online? That's what I don't want. This is not a
Linux issue. It's a privacy/security preference. If
you give someone a key to your house then you
have to trust that that person is honest and
competent.
This is just my personal preference. It has
nothing to do with Linux. I only brought it up
in the context of saying that I don't consider
Linux "for dummies" features to be an improvement.
But I think I've explained that a few times now.
I'm not going to keep arguing the same point.

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

| My issue with that is that it's not always a complete installation.
| The gui says it's installed. OK, where the hell is it? How to I
| envoke it. Why isn't there an icon on the desktop, or in the start
| menu-adjacent list? Well, depends on the program and the distro
| and...and. You shouldn't have to remember and type in a command
| line to bring up a GUI configuration tool.
|
| That is pure BS.

You're very good at insulting people.
that's not an insult.

Oh yes, it.

oh no it's not.

there is a very clear difference between criticizing what someone said
versus criticizing the person saying it.

in this case, someone claimed the above is bs.
nowhere did he insult the person by calling him an idiot, stupid, etc.

of course, there needs to be proof one way or the other. simply saying
bs is insufficient.

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Dare I has what distro and what app?

Too late last night:

Dare I ask what distro and what app

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com