Quote from: vertigo on January 13, 2023, 16:59:34Didn't even realize that was your site. If it is up-to-date, it doesn't appear so. The header says "2021-04-19 newest contents, 2021-04-19 last update"

For your pleasure (and after a fight with my provider), I have updated my page with the declaration "2023-01-13 newest confirmation of applicability [...]".

There is not even a hint of the security of financial transactions in any Linux distribution. They are full of holes, just like before. Error upon error. And the source codes, where they are, on the contrary, allow criminals to search for exploits much easier. And the ability to fix the sources of public distributions also allows you to quietly integrate Trojans directly into the distributions of the system. there is practically no control over how malicious code gets there on a public basis - there is an even greater mess than in closed commercial systems for developing software and OS.

LibreOffice was nowhere near MS Office. It does not have support for a bunch of commercial software that requires exchange at least for the banal DDE.

Why doesn't Windows support Linux file systems? Yes, for the same reason that Linux does not support NTFS - the GPL3 license requires you to provide the source codes of these modules as part of Windows, and this is a priori impossible for a closed commercial system.

Ordinary users who manage their finances have 100% nothing to do under Linux - there are 100 times more dangers waiting for them. And in terms of business, there is even nothing to do there - most of the high-quality commercial software is not under Linux and never will be.

Never will iron developers allow their intellectual property to be open source. So forget - Linux and other open systems will always drag out a miserable existence in the backyard of commercial software. As if the Linux sectarians would not like the opposite.

Quote from: NikoB on January 13, 2023, 18:27:16...

First of all, I don't disagree on the usability. As I said, there's a reason I'm not using Linux myself. But it has come a long way, and continues to progress, meanwhile, Windows is regressing in a lot of ways in this regard. So my hope is that eventually Linux will reach the point it's a suitable replacement for Windows for at least most, if not all, users. I doubt that time will come by 2025, but I'm hopeful, and even if it's close I plan to jump ship at that point, because I have zero intention of using W11.

Yes, it's absolutely more difficult to do certain things in Linux vs Windows, but, there are a couple things to consider. First of all, part of why it's more difficult is because people are so used to Windows. That, combined with some things being genuinely more difficult, but many things being the same or even easier, makes it hard to transition. It's the same as with Office vs Libre Office. Libre is generally just as easy, though some things are certainly more difficult, and those few things combined with the difference of it, rather than overall difficulty, are what cause me to not use it. If I were to force myself to use it, over time I would get used to it and it would no longer be foreign and would therefore become easier. Linux is the same, to an extent. And Windows has its fair share of things that are difficult and a pain to deal with and a massive waste of time. It's just that it's the devil I/you know.

As for the firewall issues, Linux has more power and flexibility than Windows does, at least by default, but yes, it is "harder" (again, how much of this is that it's actually harder vs just different from what we're used to has to be considered). For a corporate/government/military network, there will certainly be trained people setting it up, just like there are with Windows, so people that know how to do it will be handling those aspects, and the users simply need to use their computers, just like is the case with Windows. The main difference is software compatibility which, as I said, is getting better, but yes, it still has a long way to go. But most users, whether in a work setting or even at home, just need to be able to run a browser, office programs, and a handful of others (email, graphics, etc), and Linux is well-suited for such basic use, especially when set up properly by a professional. It's used for the vast majority of web servers for a reason. Even MS uses Linux for a lot of their backend stuff.

Yes, many distros have become larger and more resource-intensive. You can't really criticize it for not looking as nice as or having similar features to Windows then criticize it for bulking up, which is required to improve the UI and add in features. But IME it still runs better than Windows on similar hardware, and I had enough issues using Windows on my 16GB laptop (granted, I do more than most, and Windows itself was fine) and wouldn't dare even bother trying to run it on 4GB. Running it on 4GB, you're almost certainly using page file/swap space. In Windows, this is automatic, so it will work ok. In Linux, if you didn't set it up properly, then yeah, you're going to have performance issues. That's not because it can't do well with lower-end hardware, but because it's not properly configured. Set up properly, it can perform just as well, and in most cases better, than Windows, at least IME and in the experience of many others.

You also can't really criticize Linux for not supporting file systems that are proprietary. That's not its fault, it's MS's for making them proprietary. Furthermore, NTFS isn't the best file system, it's just the most widespread because it's what Windows uses. People shouldn't really care that Linux doesn't natively support an inferior file system, because they have various other ones to choose from which are superior to it. That's the whole reason for ReFS, because MS themselves acknowledged they needed to improve on NTFS, but that's gone basically nowhere. So yeah, Linux doesn't natively support it, but just because Windows does doesn't mean much, because last I saw it's basically dead in the water. Also, with Linux kernel 5.15, released about a year ago, NTFS support was added. I haven't yet tested it, but it's there now. As for FAT32, it's extremely antiquated and has little to no use anymore. And exFAT, FAT32's successor, was also proprietary, so again, not Linux's fault, but it was recently open-sourced and is being built into Linux. And enabling it before wasn't difficult at all, and Android, which is Linux, handles it just fine by default, but yes, not natively, though it works perfectly fine so not really an issue. You could, and should, just as readily criticize Windows for not natively supporting Linux file systems. In fact, that's even worse, since those are open-source and therefore they don't have that blocking them like Linux does with Windows file systems.

Regardless of anything else, the Linux philosophy and how they consider their users is much different and better than the MS/Windows philosophy and how they consider their product (i.e. the users and their data). Obviously not everyone feels the same, but I'd much rather use an OS that respects my privacy and my decision to do or not do something or to do it a certain way rather than one that harvests my data to use or sell it, tests the idea of placing ads in the OS, constantly forces me to do things I don't want to do and to do things when and/or how I don't want to do them, and constantly changes things to make it more and more difficult to work around their autocratic methods. The only reason I'm still using Windows instead of Linux is because, as you've pointed out, Linux isn't quite there yet for usability. But they've come a long way and are absolutely closing the gap.

Quote from: vertigo on January 13, 2023, 16:59:34...

I have been waiting 25 years for the same, when some version of Linux will at least approximately become similar to Windows in terms of ease of use, compatibility with hardware and compatibility in UI and Windows hotkeys. But 25 years have passed and Linux is still there.

To even install a banal Skype, I needed to find the right commands for the command line under the same Ubuntu. Does the consumer really need all this? And this is the simplest example. Then it will be 10 and 100 times more difficult.

Let's move on - by default, no matter how the Linux sectarians assured, security in various popular distributions is set up disgustingly. In the same ubunt - by default, all software can easily climb into the network! This is madness. Of course, in Windows, by default, the moronic firewall does the same thing, but at least the whole setting there comes down to setting one checkmark in WF to completely block anything from accessing the Internet and local network without explicitly configured rules. How to get data from the Internet.

Try, knowing nothing about Linux - do the same. And then it's easy to set up access rules to only what is allowed? It's pure Hell, even for a professional Windows developer.

Therefore, there are practically no people on the planet who want to sit under Linux, except for those for whom this is a working environment and they are paid for it, for all its conditional free. It is of interest only to beginner students and IT workers, to improve their status in the resume, in order to finally find a better paying job.

Until it is by default as light as possible for hardware, as safe as possible - "everything that is not allowed is prohibited from the point of view of network access" and until it has at least at the initial stage 100% compatibility with the usual UI/hotkeys and business -logic of Windows, still only a small number of people on the planet will, after the first try of several distributions, go back to paid or pirated Windows.

And by the way, as it was rightly noted above, almost all popular Linux distributions have long become so bulky and memory-hungry that they refuse to work normally on 4GB. Even Ubuntu 18 LTS already crashes when trying to start it from a flash drive in Read Only mode on 4GB laptops. Where even W10 works quietly. Well, who needs this at all?

And what's more, Linux still doesn't support NTFS/exFAT/FAT32/ReFS natively, and it's almost fatal in the world dominated by Windows...

So, I'm the guy below that hoarded 4 more brand spanking new Ivy Bridge mini-PCs from Aliexpress just to run Windows 7 indefinitely into the near future...

Linux sucks.  On My Huawei laptop with Win 11 license, I put Win 11 perm offline and use Deepin Linux to go online.  The fast CPU + SSD just masks how slow Linux is.

When u use Linux with outdated CPU and slow spinning hard drives, it becomes cumbersome to use.

I'm basically hanging onto Windows via version 7 until the industry matures enough and many players making OpenHarmony compatible systems then I will kick Microsoft to the curbside for good.  Linux doesn't cut it as a competitor to Windows because of performance and ease of use.

In fact, maker of Deepin Linux should just play it smart and port the Deepin DDE to OpenHarmony, but they are not smart enough to go that route yet...

But it works fast on hard drives. No antivirus and other stuff.

Quote from: Codrut Nistor on January 12, 2023, 21:25:12So, Hunter2020, why not go with a Linux flavor of your choice?

This system is even more full of holes. And the complexity is an order of magnitude higher. And it is incompatible with the banal business software that hundreds of millions of people need every day.

Therefore, all versions of Linux still occupy less than 3% of the market, as they did 20 years ago.

Nobody bears any responsibility for holes and problems, as well as their solutions in the case of Linux.

And code auditing is only possible for less than 0.00001% of the world's population. And even that is a very optimistic estimate.
So having sources (which is also a lie since most fast drivers with the latest features come in proprietary binaries or libraries) is completely meaningless from the point of view of 99.99999% of the population

This is enough to never choose Linux as the main business system and then through the financial transactions necessary for 99.999999% of the population. Yes, those who use Linux, denying the fact of using Windows, secretly still use it as the main OS for business and financial transactions, perfectly understanding the risks in Linux with its bunch of unclosed holes and which no one cares about for 20-25 years, because that all Linux code is done on the knee, for the sake of vanity or trying to improve your resume.

Responsible people among Linux developers are less than 1-2%. As always in any business.

When asked for the MS account to continue with installation: Shift + F10 ---> oobe/bypassnro. The setup process will restart and will give you an option to go with local account.

Quote from: Invasiveness on January 13, 2023, 02:22:18The last time I tried it, it'd not let me finish the install without making / creating an online Microsoft account / email address.

I have read that it is still possible but well hidden. Before installtion, disconnect your network cables. During installation, choose some other option hidden by the least obvious link. I think there is also a more sophisticated way. The following I stored for the time I might need but I have not tried it myself:


W11 installation only with local account


Method 1


- disconnect ethernet cable
- When asked for MS account, SHIFT + F10.
- taskmgr
- Network Connection Flow, right-click
- End Process


Method 2


- Enter fake / random MS account credentials, where email must be formatted like an email address.
- repeat until W11 offers Local Account.



Method 3


If you do the setup with ethernet plugged in until the "Let's add your Microsoft account", unplug ethernet, and hit the back arrow on the add account screen, it then prompts you to create a local account.


Method 4

when I fresh installed Windows 11 on a new laptop was that it completely skipped the MS account login screen when it didn't recognize any network drivers installed.


Method 5

Windows 11 Pro has another workaround for this - when you're going through the setup choose the "domain join" option and it will immediately let you create a local account.

Quote from: vertigo on January 12, 2023, 22:38:30Problem is, it's been shown that even disabling stuff doesn't necessarily stop everything,

Right. The least state is Basic while Off is not offered except for some server or enterprise versions of Windows. However, I have watched actual network traffic with TcpView: since having applied all the settings, unwanted network traffic by Windows is very sparse. Hardly any time there is any at all, except for checks whether new Windows updates are available. I guess Wireshark experts would still log something though. The last occasional, obvious other traffic sometimes occurred shortly after starting Windows before having also set the mentioned firewall rules.

Quoteand they're also constantly changing things, so you can have it disabled only to either have it reenabled by a later update

That's why I have mentioned this on my webpage:) After every major Windows update, one must check whether the settings are untouched and correct those modified without user consent. I have done so every time. During early major Windows 10 updates, some important changes were made. During the latest major Windows 10 updates, only a very few minor changes were made; essentially only some of those few in the Task Manager, which are less important.

Quotethe fact it's closed-source code that can't be audited by a company with a long history of being anti-privacy.

Sure, if you want to be sure, use Linux (but not Ubuntu).

QuoteNot to mention jumping through hoops, regardless of how effective, should not even be necessary just to be able to use a product the user paid for without having it spy on them.

I am still waiting for somebody bringing Microsoft to the EU court for Windows's violation of the principles of opt-in and minimal necessary privacy violations according to GDPR.

QuoteBTW, that reference you linked that you follow to configure Windows is almost two years old, and I'd be surprised if it's adequate to do the job anymore.

I have kept this my webpage up to date. As you can see, W10 1909 differed. Afterwards, major W10 updates have been so "modest" that the same settings still apply and checking them after each major update will do. (You might check the few relevant keys in the taskmanager more regularly though.)

I really don't like how invasive win 11 is. The last time I tried it, it'd not let me finish the install without making / creating an online Microsoft account / email address. No other previous windows version I remember having to do this. On win 10, could just create a local account, which just asks for a username (no email address required).

Quote from: RobertJasiek on January 12, 2023, 22:24:33You might also minimise spying by configuring Windows properly, as I do:

home.snafu.de/jasiek/Windows10Telemetry.html

Problem is, it's been shown that even disabling stuff doesn't necessarily stop everything, and they're also constantly changing things, so you can have it disabled only to either have it reenabled by a later update or have them add additional stuff later. It comes down to the fact it's closed-source code that can't be audited by a company with a long history of being anti-privacy. Not to mention jumping through hoops, regardless of how effective, should not even be necessary just to be able to use a product the user paid for without having it spy on them. And most people don't have the knowledge and/or time to do so.

BTW, that reference you linked that you follow to configure Windows is almost two years old, and I'd be surprised if it's adequate to do the job anymore. I'd urge you to look at more recent sources.

You might also minimise spying by configuring Windows properly, as I do:

home.snafu.de/jasiek/Windows10Telemetry.html

The main problem I see with this is government and enterprises, which are typically slow to move to new OSes. Normally, it would make perfect sense for them to skip 10 if they're still on 7/8 or older and jump straight to 11, given 10's pending demise in a few years. But since MS insists on specific hardware requirements for it, many of the computers in these sectors won't be compatible, leaving these organizations with three options, none of which are very good: continue running an older, now completely discontinued OS; go through the headache of updating to 10 only to have to do another update in a couple years; or spend a significant amount of money, which is likely not within the budget, to upgrade hardware in order to be compatible with 11. MS forcing their hand like this is likely going to be very problematic, and I suspect there's going to be a lot of pushback.

I wonder if they'll end up repeating what they did with XP and decide to keep supporting it beyond the initial EOL date, or if they're going to just tell all these organizations to suck it up. Hopefully it will encourage at least a few percent of the market to finally give up on MS and move over to Linux. Frankly, based on all the spying 10/11 do, I'm surprised they can even be used in some corporate/government/military scenarios. Maybe if/when DARPA finishes their OS, that will replace MS for all gov/mil use.