With Windows 10, Microsoft Disregards User Choice and Privacy

Also AMD seemly releases some "Pro" features for workstation on Linux first.

The problem of Linux gaming is not the graphics drivers, in fact this part has been working "ok" for a while now.

The problem with Linux gaming is:

1. Audio is still a mess, the fastest audio library still is OSS4 (not 3), that won't ever get in the mainstream distributions (sometimes it is even explicitly banned and will get you banned from forums and irc servers if you ask about it), JACK still is finnicky to work with, PA is still buggy and slow, and ALSA although much better now, is also too slow and has terrible API (while coding for OSS, any version, is very easy).

2. Desktop is still a pain to setup, even the most "GUI-happy" distros still have problems here and there, when I asked some random people about it, I got outright hostile replies, people telling me they deliberately don't want to make Linux easier, because they don't want "dumb people using something they are not worth using", mind you, this wasn't once, or in one community, more than one person shared this view with me.

3. Some people in the community are outright hostile to games, and even sabotage efforts to make games work better, I saw a flamewar where one guy was claiming games were purely dumb entertainment, and that people that played games weren't not only inferior humans, but people that deserved Windows, as punishment. This guy was of the opinion that no GUI server should ever support exclusive fullscreen properly, that instead they should have all features focused on "Work" features always.

4. Lots of other random hardware is a pain to setup on Linux, even things that usually don't cross people minds, for example I couldn't figure how to make Linux properly support my motherboard Super I/O chip, that is even a common one, I even convinced the manufacturer to give me the chip datasheet, but I couldn't even figure to what project I would need to contribute code. (as for what the Super I/O chip does: control the motherboard sensors, fans and power distribution, including voltage values and regulation commands on my motherboard)

I want no updates or changes of any kind without my knowledge. Indeed, before any change, I want to backup the relevant boot partition so that I can restore it if any changes are harmful or doubtful.

For Cortana, when I looked at it, everything it has I have a lot better with just my favorite programmable text editor and a few simple macros.

Uh, to reply, I have to edit my post! So, here is my reply!

My now very old and crude understanding is that Active Directory is a standard part of Windows Server and plays the role of essentially the old MIT system Kerberos for authentication.

My concern is that ASAP I need to take my Web site software currently in alpha test and have it go live. For that, for maybe just a few, first users, I could use just my development computer running Windows 7 Professional. But, also on that computer I intend to have at least one bootable partition with Windows Server.

So, with Windows Server, I could be running Microsoft's Active Directory. Fine with me.

Then that means that somehow all my bootable partitions with Windows 7 or Windows Server will not get updates or changes without my explicit permission? Hope so.

Or maybe your point is just that the automatic updates don't apply to Windows Server? I would believe so.

I totally sympathize with Microsoft for wanting everyone to be on Windows 10, with continuous updates (security and otherwise). Better for them and long term probably better for users.

I don't use OS X anymore but when I did, I liked always being at the latest update.

Except for my iPad, I use Ubuntu Linux laptops and like keeping every device up to date.

Pardon a tangent, but: society as a whole really needs a "going to the moon" level global project to harden computing devices. As an end user of technology I am willing to keep my devices up to date and I try to be understanding of Apple, Microsft, and Ubuntu (and other Linud distros).

First off, companies do not have ethical or moral obligations at all. Corporations are purely amoral. It's up to customers to penalize them for unethical or immoral actions by refusing to support them. If the customers refuse to stop throwing money at them, it's the customers that are to blame.

Secondly, MS does not have a monopoly, except for having an OS that runs software designed to run on Windows, just like Apple has a monopoly for the market of "OSes that run software designed to run on iOS or OSX". Lots of people run Macs rather than Windows-based PCs, and some run Linux. If you're not happy with Windows, it's your job to look for alternatives, just like if you're not happy driving a Chevy, it's your job to look at Hondas and Subarus instead of whining that Chevy isn't living up to your expectations.

MS didn't have any legal trouble in the US, ever. They "lost" an antitrust trial in the 90s and the penalty was absolutely nothing, and that trial was all about their OS forcing the bundling of their browser. Their OS still forces the bundling of their browser, except these days, only clueless morons actually use IE/Edge, and everyone else uses either Firefox or Chrome or some variant (while some use Safari). In fact, last I heard, Chrome had the largest marketshare of all browsers.

The lesson here is that if you're hoping for the government to step in and save you, you're hopelessly naïve, as proven by history. The US government in particular is never, ever going to do anything to rein in MS, and really, why should they at this point? As I pointed out above, if you don't like Windows, there are viable alternatives now (the alternatives were much worse in the late 90s, now they're actually much better). If your 3rd-party software vendor doesn't support non-Windows platforms, then maybe you should find a better one.