Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 21:39 UTC
Windows The Windows 8 blog has a post about the improvements in Windows 8's installation process. "For Windows 8, our goal was to continue to improve reliability while also improving the installation experience and raw performance. Not only did we want it to be rock solid, but also faster and easier to use." Thankfully, the features us geeks like are still there.
Thread beginning with comment 498062
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: "us geeks?"
by ngaio on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 23:58 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: "us geeks?""
ngaio
Member since:
2005-10-06

Why are you ultra-defensive? Do you actually write a commercial OS for a living? Probably not. In that case try to broaden your perspective and understand the needs of others.

Let's go with the Red Hat vs. Microsoft example. Supposing a relatively impoverished state government in let's say India wants to run a bunch of servers. With Red Hat / Linux they can poke under the hood. They can modify the code. They can go with a Red Hat solution and pay for it, or they can go with another Linux solution and roll their own. They can educate their university students in how to run it and pull it apart and innovate. That's the value of freedom. It means they can spend money on stuff that matters instead of lining the pockets of Gates, Allen and other obscenely rich folks.

Do you honestly have a problem with that? Do you understand how far $100,000 can go in a place like India, or most of the rest of the world for that matter? Have you seen the budget constraints facing small businesses and state and national governments that serve the vast majority of the world's population?

As a thought experiment, try to think what the world would be like if there was no free software, no GPL, and the only way anyone could legally use any software is to license it at terms grossly advantageous to some of the wealthiest people in the entire history of humanity.

That's what we're talking about.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: "us geeks?"
by ilovebeer on Thu 24th Nov 2011 05:13 in reply to "RE[6]: "us geeks?""
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

So basically ngaio, you don't believe in paying for an OS. You view it as only lining someones pockets. Ironic that you suggest people be open-minded when your view is very close-minded.

Do you have any clue what type of deal governments get from Microsoft? Seemingly not. Do you have any clue how many copies of their software is given away at no charge to places and people in need? Seemingly not. Do you have any clue how important Microsoft is to the American economy, and thus the world economy as well? Seemingly not. Did you know that Bill Gates and Paul Allen both have committed vast amounts of their wealth to help others via The Giving Pledge?

You really come off as one of those 'Microsoft is the Empire and Bill Gates is the Emporer from Star Wars' types. It's really unfortunate when a person is so horny for -fill in OS name here- that it blocks their view of reality for -fill in other OS name, or company here-.

I've said this before, ... I'm a daily user of both Windows and Linux. Each is great at certain things and not-great at others. Each caters to a different set of needs. The idea that a user _shouldn't_ select an OS based on their own personal needs, as you've suggested, is absurd at best. Windows isn't flawless and neither is Linux. Linux has it's own mess of problems like most other OS'es. The sooner you can come to terms with that fact, the sooner you'll realize you're trying to have an argument that can't be won by either side. And what's left? Just each users individual needs, ...exactly where it started and should have stayed in the first place.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: "us geeks?"
by ngaio on Thu 24th Nov 2011 05:43 in reply to "RE[7]: "us geeks?""
ngaio Member since:
2005-10-06

So basically ngaio, you don't believe in paying for an OS. You view it as only lining someones pockets. Ironic that you suggest people be open-minded when your view is very close-minded.


I've never said that to anyone. And I don't actually know anyone who has said that.

Do you have any clue what type of deal governments get from Microsoft?


Actually I do. I've had conversations with Microsoft managers before FOSS software became the the force that it is today, and I can tell you they could easily come up with reasons why all governments should pay the same price. Times have changed.

Do you have any clue how many copies of their software is given away at no charge to places and people in need?


You seem so confident that the competitive threat of FOSS has nothing at all to do with that. It seems we'll have to disagree there.

Do you have any clue how important Microsoft is to the American economy, and thus the world economy as well?


Now you're getting into economics. That's fine. If you want to construct an economic proof that concentrating vast wealth in the hands of a few mega-companies makes all people on Earth better off, go for it. I look forward to reading it.

Did you know that Bill Gates and Paul Allen both have committed vast amounts of their wealth to help others via The Giving Pledge?


Have you seen kind of lifestyle that Allen leads, e.g. the astronomically big boats? Gates seems much more like a normal person. I have a lot of respect for Gates. He's done some excellent work.

However I will never support an economic system in which men like of any character -- good or bad -- have the opportunity to amass vast sums of incredibly concentrated wealth (it seems you do). It flies in the face of democracy and equality. I'd much rather have a country's development directed by governments and civil society through democratic means. I believe in democracy. Do you?

You really come off as one of those 'Microsoft is the Empire and Bill Gates is the Emporer from Star Wars' types.


That's just silly, and frankly disappointing. I started out by saying I have Windows on my computer. I never said anything about Microsoft being evil at any time in this discussion.

It's really unfortunate when a person is so horny for -fill in OS name here- that it blocks their view of reality for -fill in other OS name, or company here-.


Is it is it possible to engage in a reasoned discussion without resorting to sexual metaphors?

I've said this before, ... I'm a daily user of both Windows and Linux. Each is great at certain things and not-great at others. Each caters to a different set of needs. The idea that a user _shouldn't_ select an OS based on their own personal needs, as you've suggested, is absurd at best.


Are you reading what I'm saying? I never said that. I said that choices around operating systems inevitably and inescapably have moral consequences. Do you understand that? Does that need to be spelled out any clearer? How many different ways of saying it out there? People can deny it all they want, but their choice of operating system is never purely technical. It is part technical, part moral, but habitual, part emotional, part convenience, etc. etc. etc.

Windows isn't flawless and neither is Linux. Linux has it's own mess of problems like most other OS'es.

Finally, something we agree on!

The sooner you can come to terms with that fact, the sooner you'll realize you're trying to have an argument that can't be won by either side. And what's left? Just each users individual needs, ...exactly where it started and should have stayed in the first place.


No! It is never about solely individual needs. People are social beings. We depend on each other for our survival. We always take each other's needs into account. Our software choices are meant to meet both individual and social needs. That's the point. Why is it so hard for you (and others) to agree to something this elementary and basic? None of this is rocket science.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: "us geeks?"
by BluenoseJake on Thu 24th Nov 2011 13:50 in reply to "RE[6]: "us geeks?""
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I am not ultra defensive, I am offended by your statements, you don't know me, but you feel free to judge me by the fact that I buy some of the software I use?

I am offended by the fact that you somehow believe that proprietary software can be compared to owning slaves.

I don't care what India uses to run it's servers, either way, it's their choice. I don't have a say, and don't pretend to.

I don't have a problem with OSS, I use OSS software. I also don't have a problem with Closed Software, people have the right to choose how they distribute their products.

As a thought experiment, try to think what the world would be like if everyone could eat 3 squares a day, and had a roof over their head, and everyone could read.

Perspective. Get some.

Edited 2011-11-24 13:57 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: "us geeks?"
by arpan on Fri 25th Nov 2011 13:18 in reply to "RE[6]: "us geeks?""
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

Let's go with the Red Hat vs. Microsoft example. Supposing a relatively impoverished state government in let's say India wants to run a bunch of servers. With Red Hat / Linux they can poke under the hood. They can modify the code. They can go with a Red Hat solution and pay for it, or they can go with another Linux solution and roll their own. They can educate their university students in how to run it and pull it apart and innovate. That's the value of freedom. It means they can spend money on stuff that matters instead of lining the pockets of Gates, Allen and other obscenely rich folks.


See that's the thing, there is a choice. As an Indian and a computer user, I have the choice to purchase an OS from MS or Redhat, or of using the numerous freely available choices. I can purchase an iPhone, or an Android device, or I can get a cheap low-end device. I have that choice!

If someone tries to prevent you have having that choice, then that is wrong. In the same way, you saying that I should only use a free OS is also wrong. We both have the choice and based on the choices we make, companies will thrive or fail.

Reply Parent Score: 2