61–70 of 112 posts
Whilst it's preaching to the choir, I would attribute 50% of the blame to Microsoft. Loading any old thing and running it is not very responsible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft doesn't police IHVs -> Geeks: " MS is negligent! " Microsoft does police IHVs -> Geeks: " MS is an evil monopolist! "
Or they could bundle a basic driver or police the driver they're curating while allowing people to download and install drivers directly from the vendor website with no policing, no signature checks, etc. Distributing malware is negligent or malicious, yes. Not stopping users from seeking out their own malware is neither. Nothing stops you from running malware on Linux. The curated repos are simply good enough that t…
Whilst it's preaching to the choir, I would attribute 50% of the blame to Microsoft. Loading any old thing and running it is not very responsible.
No, this is LG making a choice to abuse an OS feature in order to shove ads down people's throats and spy on them. What a dirty, scummy move. Never buying an LG product again. (Also a Linux user, so this doesn't affect me, but this is gross.) I have an LG TV that I've never allowed to connect to a network, and I'm definitely keeping it that way.
Meh, give a company something they can feasibly abuse for money, and they'll probably do that. I'm not sure that this is practically feasible on Mac or Linux; Macs enable fairly constrained but powerful userspace drivers that generally need approval, and I've never seen a piece of hardware automatically download anything that can run in the background, but that could be an anecdotal experience. Maybe printers would be the exception.
The tradeoff is that even software like Zoom doesn't completely work by default
LG monitors are not behaving idiotically on Linux. Just saying.
I decided I would never buy an LG monitor after mine broke and I had it shipped back three times for diag and repair. Each time it broke again soon after. They finally agreed to RMA it, but that didn’t mean a new replacement, it meant a refund, and not even for the whole price I had paid. Unfortunately the price had gone up a few hundred dollars since then, so I couldn’t even buy a replacement. This basically means t…
It was super annoying because their support was useless.
It put me off LG but as they do make panels for others they are hard to avoid.
Whilst it's preaching to the choir, I would attribute 50% of the blame to Microsoft. Loading any old thing and running it is not very responsible.
Microsoft doesn't police IHVs -> Geeks: " MS is negligent! " Microsoft does police IHVs -> Geeks: " MS is an evil monopolist! "
- Display drivers don't need access to the network
- Display drivers don't need to write to the window manager
- Display drivers just need to display the data that needs displayed
- If you sign a driver, you take responsibility for it. Else just leave people run any driver they see fit
Whilst it's preaching to the choir, I would attribute 50% of the blame to Microsoft. Loading any old thing and running it is not very responsible.
No, this is LG making a choice to abuse an OS feature in order to shove ads down people's throats and spy on them. What a dirty, scummy move. Never buying an LG product again. (Also a Linux user, so this doesn't affect me, but this is gross.) I have an LG TV that I've never allowed to connect to a network, and I'm definitely keeping it that way.
I'm starting to think that is what I need to do with my computers.
Whilst it's preaching to the choir, I would attribute 50% of the blame to Microsoft. Loading any old thing and running it is not very responsible.
Microsoft doesn't police IHVs -> Geeks: " MS is negligent! " Microsoft does police IHVs -> Geeks: " MS is an evil monopolist! "
The fault here is definitely LG's, though.