151–160 of 196 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> If you turn the complexity curve of debloating and custom Windows ROMs about 90 degrees, it's the same as the backwards bend Windows users are doing to avoid jumping to something easier like Linux Mint. Let me know when Linux is running games that have Easy Anti Cheat or stuff from Blizzard. It's the day I will ditch my windows gaming rig. Until then, kindly STFU.
It's a Blizzard problem, not a Linux problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> times one of those registry changes/app removal actually broke Windows update. If there is an option in Registry, it's clearly an acceptable use-case. The truth is that Microsoft developers are lazy (like most devs) and just fail to test their updates properly - or even intentionally ship broken software, in order to force this or that option back to its (typically privacy-invasive) default.
That's not true at all. The contents of the registry are not a documented public API. They have no support guarantee. Some keys are documented, but those are not what these tools modify and are not the ones that cause problems. "I deleted a whole bunch of stuff in xorg.conf and my graphics started flickering" is not the fault of Xorg needing more tests.
If the problem is that Windows Update cannot work unless all patches apply flawlessly, then that's a failure of design.
If the problem is that the patches themselves assume that things they provide as options might not be set how they wish them to be set, then that's a failure of testing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>it's the same as the backwards bend Windows users are doing to avoid jumping to something easier like Linux Mint No need to be snarky for a cheap shot at windows users who never bothered you with anything, not everyone is trying to avoid jumping or trying to jump. Get out of your (tech) bubble and touch some grass, plenty of Average Joe users are contempt using what's familiar and works for them out of the box with…
It's telling that MS Windows users react so defensively to what was a very reasonable comment.
Humbly submitting Chris Titus' Debloat tool as well for comparison. I've enjoyed using Chris' tool, as the GUI design makes it easy to a-la-carte select which you want removed and not, along with recommendations. Makes it very clear to see what's being removed. https://github.com/ChrisTitusTech/winutil
It looks neat, but running off of his site directly via an administrator elevated powershell is an awful security practice.
At the very least, he could've hosted the script on github.com, which is far less likely to be hijacked than his personal domain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correction: most Linux distros come with 12 video players out of the box (and at least 7 calculator apps)...... the philosophy of "we can't decide so just include them all" is pretty strong.
There may be 12 video players in the package repositories but I can't think of any distro that installs with 2 video players.
My question to this is "why go through the trouble of doing this when there's operating systems where you don't need to do a debloat step" I realize the answer is that people use Windows because the software they use requires Windows, but it just irks me that this is the solution to not wanting a "bloated" OS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not true at all. The contents of the registry are not a documented public API. They have no support guarantee. Some keys are documented, but those are not what these tools modify and are not the ones that cause problems. "I deleted a whole bunch of stuff in xorg.conf and my graphics started flickering" is not the fault of Xorg needing more tests.
These options are more like "I deleted a whole bunch of stuff in xorg.conf and my apt-get can't apply patches to KMail". An update-delivery mechanism shouldn't break because the user doesn't want to see ads or run Teams at startup. If the problem is that Windows Update cannot work unless all patches apply flawlessly, then that's a failure of design. If the problem is that the patches themselves assume that things the…
Not at all, it's better for an update to just immediately fail due to unsupported changes made to the OS than potentially leave the system in a unstable state.
Windows was going to move to an image-based OS where updates would be atomic, but sadly that never happened (Windows 10X)