Originally posted by mrugiero
View Post
Personally, I think the worst aspects of it are the really sketchy ones... like how it reports back to ms every software you install on the computer (I hear this can be turned off, but that doesn't excuse it), the DRM, adware in the default apps... and the fact that the entire OS is closed-source and microsoft reports every vulnerability to NSA first, before patching them... of course, these probably aren't concerns for the average consumer.
I tried win8 briefly at a store computer and I didn't find it usable at all. It's so ugly and unintuitive, I got nauseous just trying it out.
The only thing I have to add is that users relate it also to ease of use. That's why, while being awareness of the existence of Linux, few people on the desktop switches (even when Ubuntu is not really harder to use than Windows, most people still have the idea Linux is for geeks only). On the smartphones ground there's no such advantage for MS, since Android already proved easy to use.
Not sure why you specify Ubuntu there though, there are actually many distros that are just as easy to use. Ubuntu just has that kind of reputation of being "a noob-friendly distro".
And I don't think it's really the ease of use that people relate to in windows. It's the familiarity - people perceive it easier to use because it's what they're used to (the so-called baby duck syndrome). But since windows 8 breaks that familiarity, the advantage is lost, and in comparison, moving to any "noob-friendly" Linux distro probably isn't any more difficult than moving to, say, from xp to 8.
I thought Win32 was available, my bad. Yes, most desktop apps depends on Win32, and I hope they still do. I don't buy Modern at all for the desktop.
I didn't mean they are few with niche, but that there is a relatively well defined target, instead of being general use. I'm aware you can browse the web (and even install Linux, actually turning it into something you can use as a PC) in most modern consoles, but if you buy one, chances are you want it for games, mostly. Anyway, I'm basing mostly in my biased environment, not in real numbers, so chances are high I'm wrong. Keep this in mind in my next answers, because I really wouldn't like to copy paste this comment as if it were a license on my answers.
I didn't mean few people is concerned, but pissed. I think a lot of people, including myself, believe that from the very basics a state can't hide laws (the congress approved such thing, wtf?) from their people, since this wouldn't be a real representation: "how can I know I share someone's views in a subject if that person doesn't talk about it and I'm not even aware of the issue?", and also the whole spying on their citizens and non citizens thing (which is a layer up this) is too much, is kind of one of the arguments USA gave to be against communism: you are not free, and there is a police state that knows your every move (which isn't really true for the theory, but for the implementations we've seen). It's at least hypocrisy to then use the same methods "to protect us" (well, not actually "us", I'm from another country). But I interpret being pissed off as actually trying to do something against it. Not necessarily protesting, but for example migrating from Windows, or plainly quitting computers for the sake of privacy. This, I didn't see one around.
I think, even if the only effect of the NSA scandal is that more people are aware of the issue, if just the political atmosphere shifts so that privacy becomes a more mainstream issue - which is already happening, to an extent, then that can already have a positive influence on things in the future. We might have hope of avoiding a total surveillance society still. If enough people care about something and make enough noise, it can actually change the outcome of things.
Leave a comment: