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

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.

Fine you can do that. You can have it do updates and install them if you
wish, (in Ubuntu this is only for *security* updates), other updates
must be manually approved.


| 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?

Call home really isn't exactly how it works. Not really like MS's
telemetry. The software repositories have an index listing of all the
packages within. It also lists the current versions for each so as
developers update their projects the maintainers update the indexes with
the current version numbers. All the Linux system software updater does
is compare the repositories' list versions with the versions of your
system's installed package managers list version. In Ubuntu a Debian distro

sudo apt update

just downloads package versions as a list. No software downloaded at
this stage

sudo apt upgrade or dist-upgrade

downloads the actual packages and installs them if you wish.

You can upgrade a specific package

sudo apt install foo.package

Even if it is a kernel update it will not reboot on you. You decide when
to reboot. Of course this can all be done with a GUI frontend and not
just by command line.

You have absolute control over what, when, or whether you update or not.
Complete control if you wish.

My point is if you say

"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?"

which kind of implies in Linux you cannot, which is not true. In
Windows--not so much. Capiche?

--
Take care,

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

Ant wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Mayayana wrote:
"Anonymous" wrote

....
Is it me? I see a lot of responses from you where you
don't seem to have written anything.

It's a troll to annoy us.

Honestly, you guys haven't figured out what that is yet ?
I'm shocked.

Somebody in "alt.privacy.anon-server" doesn't like the crossposting
of this thread to their group. If they engage in a conversation,
by adding text to the body of the message, this only
"amplifies" the problem, not quiets it down.

In some of the posts, they "reply" to the post, with no body
text added, as a signal they'd like you to remove the group
from the groups list. This is not a standard protocol by
any means on USENET. You could use f'up if you're annoyed,
even if you don't want to add body text.

In other messages, they remove the "alt.privacy.anon-server"
item and replace it with "alt.test".

I have modified this message so the Newsgroup list now
only has three items. Capiche ?

Don't you guys occasionally look at the Newsgroup list ?
I have header view turned on, so I see the Newsgroup list
as I'm composing.

So it's not a troll, OK ? It's a guy sending Morse Code.
At a very low data rate :-/

Paul

On 8/2/2018 7:02 PM, Paul wrote:
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
mike 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. If you install an application from the distro's
respective software repository it will setup the respective shortcuts
for the desktop environment. That's true for all the main DEs, GNOME,
Unity, KDE, LXDE, Xfce...

In Synaptic, if you locate the package, there is a Properties
thing that lists all the files installed. Maybe you
spot a /usr/bin/programname. It then doesn't matter if
the package isn't integrated with the menu system,
or the icon isn't visible or... whatever. This is just
one of the reasons I keep installing Synaptic, rather
than rely on any other craptastic replacements/distractions.

Paul


The issue isn't whether you can go on a treasure hunt to find
the damn thing. It's about making a system that is easy to use.
The developer can do it once, or users can do it millions of times...
well, it's linux so probably don't have millions of ordinary
non-guru desktop users who survived the humongous speed-bump
at the start of the learning curve to get their system to do what they
wanted.

The primary reason that linux didn't take over the desktop decades
ago is that they don't give a flying @#(+ about ordinary users
AKA windows refugees.

Desktop linux needs a radical trimming and consolidation.
And that will never happen with the current developer mindset.

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?

--
Take care,

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

On 2018-08-03, Mayayana wrote:
"William Unruh" wrote

I thought I explained it several times. Yes, I have
to go online to download updates, service packs, etc.
But I don't have to enable Windows Update or "web
installers". In other words, there's no reason I should
need to allow anything to call out. There's no reason
I should have to trust Microsoft, Google, or a Linux
"package manager" to communicate between my
machine and a remote location.
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.

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.


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.


system. I don't regard auto-updating as a reasonable
design idea and never enable it for any software.

Fine. It is certainly possible to do that.

There's a difference between me running Firefox
and allowing it to go out to port 80, as opposed to
having an unknown, non-transparent process going
out and communicating data that I'm not aware of
or in control of.

If your only experience on computers is using a
networked computer then I suppose it may be hard
to understand the idea of a fully stand-alone system.

Not hard at all.

People working for companies on an intranet are
generally lackey users who only have control over
their own personal folder. In that scenario, the network
is trusted while the user is not.
But for a SOHo user the reverse is true: There's little
reason for networking functionality and lots of security

AGain you are overstating. You use browsers , ftp, ssh,... That is network
functionality. You keep contradicting yourself and then wonder why people are
confused.

reasons to disable it. The user is trusted while the
network is not.

The network is just a pipe. I would hope you trust the pipe since if you do
not you cannot trust anything you bring down on the network.


On Windows 10 that's even more relevant because
the things calling home are spyware and an auto-update
system that is using SOHo customers as unpaid beta
testers for new changes, which corporate customers
are then allowed to put off until the kinks have been
worked out. Can you see that there's a fundamental
difference between me downloading and installing Windows
patch XYZ vs Microsoft coming onto my system and
installing it without asking?

Sure, but you insist on not saying that.

In article
(Ant) wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-10 Mayayana wrote:
"Anonymous" wrote

....
Is it me? I see a lot of responses from you where you
don't seem to have written anything.

It's a troll to annoy us.

Just quit crossposting to the privacy group.

On 2018-08-03, 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

You are not listening because your shrill reactiveness gets in the way

Linux is handy because one can have it handle
installs and updates with no fuss. I said I don't

That is up to you. You can do what you want. Why is that
such a difficult concept for you to grasp.

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?

He never said that. You are erecting straw men and then furiously
attacking them.



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

That may be true, but it is almost impossible to actually
impliment. There are simply too many corner cases to all have been
tested.

In article
nospam wrote:

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

"Jonathan N. Little" wrote
| mike 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.

Do you really
think he's making that up just to annoy you? This is
an example of another big Linux problem: Identifying
with the product. A misplaced, emotional sense of
loyalty. You think he's making up criticism. You think
I'm a "Windows fanboy". You feel under attack because
you identify with Linux. That's your trip. It's not ours.
We just want to use computers. It's not a religious
issue for us.

What you don't get is that Windows doesn't engender
the kind of vehement loyalty that happens with Macs
and Linux.

yet you keep defending windows and bashing everything else, mostly out
of ignorance.

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.

what do you call these:
http://performance.ford.com/enthusia...al-owners-club.
html
https://www.taurusclub.com
https://www.taurusowners.com
https://www.fordtaurus.net
https://twitter.com/FordTaurus6ever

there's plenty more.

No one's trying to beat your team.
We don't have a team.

you don't have a clue.

oh, there's also this:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/mi...dows-10-s-prev
iew/9nsv22gv8q6n

On 08/02/2018 09:15 PM, mike wrote:
On 8/2/2018 7:02 PM, Paul wrote:
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
mike wrote:
My issue with that is that it's not always a complete installation.
The gui says it's installed.Â* OK, where the hell is it?Â* How to I
envoke it.Â* Why isn't there an icon on the desktop, or in the start
menu-adjacent list?Â* Well, depends on the program and the distro
and...and.Â* You shouldn't have to remember and type in a command
line to bring up a GUI configuration tool.

That is pure BS. If you install an application from the distro's
respective software repository it will setup the respective shortcuts
for the desktop environment. That's true for all the main DEs, GNOME,
Unity, KDE, LXDE, Xfce...

In Synaptic, if you locate the package, there is a Properties
thing that lists all the files installed. Maybe you
spot a /usr/bin/programname. It then doesn't matter if
the package isn't integrated with the menu system,
or the icon isn't visible or... whatever. This is just
one of the reasons I keep installing Synaptic, rather
than rely on any other craptastic replacements/distractions.

Â*Â*Â* Paul


The issue isn't whether you can go on a treasure hunt to find
the damn thing.Â* It's about making a system that is easy to use.
The developer can do it once, or users can do it millions of times...
well, it's linux so probably don't have millions of ordinary
non-guru desktop users who survived the humongous speed-bump
at the start of the learning curve to get their system to do what they
wanted.

I was an AmigaOS user and had no Speed-bump when I switched
to XP. It reminded me of the disk-bound GEOS but Mandriva 2006 was
easy to use. It was the tools like Thunderbird and Firefox that
gave me problems 15 years back. It was not having Textra at hand
and having to use Kate and Kwrite that complicated my time at
the screen.


The primary reason that linux didn't take over the desktop decades
ago is that they don't give a flying @#(+ about ordinary users
AKA windows refugees.

I am not a refugee from Windows but from the high
prices users are charged in order to share their private
data with Microsoft.

Desktop linux needs a radical trimming and consolidation.
And that will never happen with the current developer mindset.

Desktop Linux or rather more accurately Desktop GNU/Linux
had multiple developer mindsets. There are a lot of distributions
rather too many for me to keep track of them all. Take a look
at the Statistics on www.distrowatch.com and you will see that
distributions rise and fall like the tides.

I started with Mandriva and use forks of it presently
using KDE's Plasma 5 Desktop Environment which is nearly back
to the perfection it enjoyed a couple of years back under the
the Plasma 4.14.18.
Mandrake, Mandriva, Mageia and PCLinuxOS solved
the problems of ease of use for the new comer years ago.
https://www.operating-system.org/betriebssystem/_english/bs-mandrake.htm
Canonical's Ubuntu developed in Europe and UK and named
after an African word for Freedom does not do things
as well as 20 year old Mandrake managed to do. Mandriva
was only a slight improvement. Mageia and Open Mandriva
took over after the Mandriva company failed. PCLinuxOS
forked from Mandrake but took images from some versions
of Mandriva. PCLinuxOS does not use systemd but may not
be as easy for new users to install without advice.
But new users and prospective users can join the Forum
or just read it to get clues.
http://www.pclinuxos.com/forum/index.php

bliss

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

In article
"Carlos E.R." wrote:

On 2018-08-01 12:11, 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

That's one of the issues. Others are complicated pages with tables and
figures. Pages in which just one tiny change would produce one more
page. Differences in margin interpretation.

Even different versions of M. Office produce different results. What's
more, different computers with the same Office software produce
different results; in many cases I found out it was differences in the
default printer.


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?

LOL. I have not seen that lately, except for one reason: the letter had
to carry the handwritten signature of somebody. The alternative I have
seen was to have the signature scanned and saved as a picture, then
inserted on the document.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article
"Mayayana" wrote:

"mike" wrote

| Gambas was to enable my transition to linux.
| I'd hoped to convert my VB6 programs to Gambas.
| Learning C was out of the question.
| What I found was a lot of, "this feature not yet implemented."
| Over the years it didn't get much better. Not enough
| of what I needed.

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.

| I remember the days when you could just type a command.
| In this week's linux install/configure attempts,
| the majority of my keystrokes have been "sudo" and typing
| my password, only to find that the command no longer exists
| in this version of that distro with the other desktop.

That's the other glaring problem with Linux. Win98 is
still a viable OS if one wants to write to it. Most software
still works on XP. Yet when I tried Suse I think the support
cycle was either 12 or 18 months. Constant churn of
updated libraries and kernel.

In article
"Mayayana" wrote:

"Jonathan N. Little" wrote

| mike 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. Do you really
think he's making that up just to annoy you? This is
an example of another big Linux problem: Identifying
with the product. A misplaced, emotional sense of
loyalty. You think he's making up criticism. You think
I'm a "Windows fanboy". You feel under attack because
you identify with Linux. That's your trip. It's not ours.
We just want to use computers. It's not a religious
issue for us.

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.

In article
"Jonathan N. Little" wrote:

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.

Fine you can do that. You can have it do updates and install them if you
wish, (in Ubuntu this is only for *security* updates), other updates
must be manually approved.


| 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?

Call home really isn't exactly how it works. Not really like MS's
telemetry. The software repositories have an index listing of all the
packages within. It also lists the current versions for each so as
developers update their projects the maintainers update the indexes with
the current version numbers. All the Linux system software updater does
is compare the repositories' list versions with the versions of your
system's installed package managers list version. In Ubuntu a Debian distro

sudo apt update

just downloads package versions as a list. No software downloaded at
this stage

sudo apt upgrade or dist-upgrade

downloads the actual packages and installs them if you wish.

You can upgrade a specific package

sudo apt install foo.package

Even if it is a kernel update it will not reboot on you. You decide when
to reboot. Of course this can all be done with a GUI frontend and not
just by command line.

You have absolute control over what, when, or whether you update or not.
Complete control if you wish.

My point is if you say

"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?"

which kind of implies in Linux you cannot, which is not true. In
Windows--not so much. Capiche?

--
Take care,

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

On 03/08/18 03:20, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Okay? Who told you that with Linux updates are somehow "forced" upon
you? It is not Windows... You can install from a full DVD and uncheck
download updates during setup and then set Software & Updates to check
for update to *never*.

Updates do fix *security* issues as well as bugs and add feature
enhancements. If you don't want to update, not the wisest choice in my
opinion, but more power to you.


Exactly. I have a server out there that hasnt had an update since debian
stopped supporting that release.

It still runs fine



--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

In article
=?UTF-8?B?8J+YiSBHb29kIEd1eSDwn5iJ?= wrote:

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020502090006060701030504
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 03/08/2018 03:47, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

Just calling it what it is. Me specifically? No, but awfully tired of
"Linux issues" that are just patently false. Just as false as when
Linux users say you can delete C:\Windows while running Windows and
trash your system.


Can you just take your crap to some Linux Newsgroup. We use Windows and
we have no plans to use your wonderful Linux system.

Just get the hell out of Windows newsgroups and take all the junkies
with you. We don't need them here.


Cross-posted newsgroup to Windows10 removed.



And while you're at it, quit crossposting to the privacy group.