121–130 of 134 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if it is governmently mandated that it is, it might become, at least the user facing distros.
The nature of Linux makes this pretty much impossible. Say Ubuntu ships with some package for identity validation bullshit. What stops anyone from repackaging it and offering it without those packages?
If they installed Linux, we would still have our 12 yo PC until now. The year of Linux desktop will never come due to this reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was it. It involved dismantling the machine, removing a screw, and some other maneuvers.
Depends on the Chromebook. Some use a screw as a write protect jumper, some do not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's been awful compared to any competitor it's ever had. TBH, Windows 3.1 was reasonably nice compared to macOS 7, and much faster than OS/2 or Solaris 2.1 on the same hardware.
Faster than OS/2, sure. Now try to download a file in the background while doing work in the foreground. You would be lucky if your Windows 3.1 communications application could complete it without multiple retries. The two operating systems were trying to solve different problems, and had different system requirements because of that. Windows 3.1 was fine for running multiple interactive applications since neither ap…
VB and Windows 3.11 paid for my first home. I wouldn’t enjoy programming in C in Windows though, and, IIRC, it was a while before Microsoft’s C tooling got a Windows version.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's been awful compared to any competitor it's ever had. TBH, Windows 3.1 was reasonably nice compared to macOS 7, and much faster than OS/2 or Solaris 2.1 on the same hardware.
Didn't MS also do OS/2 early on? Didn't they bill IBM by line of code? I can't say much about Solaris, I used it - much later - on sparc and amd64. I can say that I was writing 16 bit windows apps in '95, including drivers and VxDs, and Win 3.1 was a piece of garbage inside and out.
Also, Windows 3 would run on 286 computers (as would OS/2), which made the barrier of entry very low. I started running it on a 286 with a Hercules adapter.
I strongly prefer my Linux machine but use Windows mostly so that I can run Quicken. I feel doubly trapped: can't get off Quicken and thus can't get off Windows. I'm only very slightly less reluctant to get an Apple machine (though the M* chips tempt me) and there will probably be incompatibilities between the versions of Quicken. I think I should probably rip off the band-aid and migrate to: + spreadsheets (more con…
Do you need to run Quicken locally on your PC? Can you just use the cloud version of Quicken?
The principal limitation of qbe is lack of multi-location support. The main advantage of cloud is the ability to provide direct access (though the role/permission models I’ve experienced have other downsides).
It’s a mixed bag, but the advantages of qbe outweigh the aggravations of windows—for now.
Pretty sure it's just that Windows is horribly broken, privacy-invading, ad-ridden malware disguised as an operating system. I swear it seems like nobody at Microsoft not even once have asked the actual users for what they would like to see in the OS.
Nah. I think the problem is that windows and macOS did everything users wanted them to do about 10-15 years ago. Everything since then has been lipstick on a pig. If windows were a building, they need to stop tacking on more rooms like it’s a gaudy McMansion. If they really wanna keep working on it, work to make what’s already there more beautiful. Optimise. Reduce the install size. Clean up some of the decades of te…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if it is governmently mandated that it is, it might become, at least the user facing distros.
The nature of Linux makes this pretty much impossible. Say Ubuntu ships with some package for identity validation bullshit. What stops anyone from repackaging it and offering it without those packages?
What would stop it is a combination of not being able to buy new hardware that will even boot the modified kernel, and not being able to get vintage hardware to connect to any public ISP etc. due to being unable to attest its validated boot chain information, signed by a required modern hardware OEM key.
So you would be stuck in some kind of underworld of vintage folks attempting mesh networking between themselves. Then, because of basic market forces/economics, there will be a dwindling amount of software that is able to run in such environments. It will become the esoteric realm of old-school hobbyists who don't need to run any commercial apps which require ABI/API features of the modern commercial OSs which require this boot chain of the modern commercial hardware, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Faster than OS/2, sure. Now try to download a file in the background while doing work in the foreground. You would be lucky if your Windows 3.1 communications application could complete it without multiple retries. The two operating systems were trying to solve different problems, and had different system requirements because of that. Windows 3.1 was fine for running multiple interactive applications since neither ap…
> No one bothered to try programming under Windows 3.1! VB and Windows 3.11 paid for my first home. I wouldn’t enjoy programming in C in Windows though, and, IIRC, it was a while before Microsoft’s C tooling got a Windows version.
I'm not sure what the C situation was like for Windows 3.1. I did have Borland C++ and fiddled around with the Windows IDE a bit, but never recalled making any progress.
Pretty sure it's just that Windows is horribly broken, privacy-invading, ad-ridden malware disguised as an operating system. I swear it seems like nobody at Microsoft not even once have asked the actual users for what they would like to see in the OS.
Users want a one time payment of $150, for a 50 million LoC software product, and then get 10 years of support. Everyone here slinging mud, while getting paid out of the SaaS pot. Would windows be a better product if it was user focused but cost $40/mo? From Microsoft's POV it would probably kill numbers.