I'm not necessarily sure regular people understand bitrot. Some of the largest botnets in the world were created from XP machines where users could install major updates but it wasn't done automatically.
Automatically installing security updates is fine. Upgrading users to a new major release that deprecates a shitton of working hardware and software for no reason but to make life for MS easier, is not fine.
- ads in the OS (FFS!)
- spywares
- an app store to control the channel of user installs
It's not about the customers at all. In no way it's for their own good. And fact you paid for it has no importance, you'll be forced to give more.
Spyware? The telemetry enabled them to have faster feedback and the quality of Win10 improved before my very eyes. If you have developed an app and used a telemetry framework, you should know that it is not spying. If they were to spy they'd do it differently, not by asking you to please provide us some data for QoS.
App store is bad? Is it not bad for the other major OS-es? It is good if it is called apt-get? The App store provides sandboxing and isolation, security to the users, where a single install of a software cannot break others. When the containerization arrives (as new features come to Win10 continously) this will be even cooler, as legacy apps can be packaged and spread through the app store. No more problems with installing stuff unattended, or having to accept EULAs, as those can be stored on an account level in the Store. No more installshield madness.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-disable-windows-10-start...
> The telemetry enabled them to have faster feedback
I know the commercial pitch.
telemetry is a polite name for spywares. The fact one of the goal is the OS improvement doesn't change that. If I kick you in the face to scratch my hand, I still kick you in the face.
> App store is bad
I never said app store were bad. I just said MS was pushing 10 so they can get the app store in so they can improve their sales. Not because they wanted to help anybody. I like stores. Altough comparing app stores to package repo is like comparing a group of libraries and book clubs to the only book shops available in the city.
Should an OS that I have paid for (the Windows tax, never mind that it's not listed as a separate item on the invoice) be ad-supported on top of that? I'll leave that one open, as I don't see The One Correct Answer.
Because neither iOS nor Android contain ads in the core OS. This is a different issue than ad-enabled third party apps.
> I have not met much ads, apart from the install office stuff.
And the Tomb Raider lock screen, and all that crap in the start menu, and…
> If you have developed an app and used a telemetry framework, you should know that it is not spying
The EULA states that they're selling your telemetry data to third parties. Sometimes opt-out, sometimes hardcoded (try to make the start menu search not connect to the internet). That's a tad different from just using opt-in (or even fully opt-out) telemetry for internal debugging purposes (which Microsoft has been doing since at least XP times, and which I don't mind).
> Is it not bad for the other major OS-es?
It is, which is why I don't use them, or don't use their app store.
> It is good if it is called apt-get?
A decentralized package manager and a centralized, heavily censored, tithed app store are two completely different concepts.
> The App store provides sandboxing and isolation, security to the users, where a single install of a software cannot break others
All features that are not inherently tied to the concept of an app store.
Here's what I get if I press the logo key. (Just now it's advertising "Sonic Dash".)
The ads in iOS are a problem. But those ads are in the app store, they're not on my home screen.
(The behaviour of a web page in chrome being able to switch me from chrome to the app store to show me an ad is baffling and terrible. If you're talking about sucky ads that's a great example of piss-poor experience on iOS.)
Also note: when people say they moved to Ubuntu, they do the same whining about systemd and every innovation they perceive as "breaking change". Ordinary people are the greatest burden of progress, because usually they cannot (or do not wish to put effort into) understand the greater picture and the benefits to them.
Sidenote: GWX is broken. I had to do my update with manually downloaded installer media as windows update on win7 and GWX didn't work.
Boohoo. Maybe Microsoft should have priced that into the product before they sold it, instead of using borderline illegal methods to scam people out of providing the service they expect?
That's totally true, but some things blur the lines:
- XP SP2 introduced an inbuilt, on by default firewall. It was a major new feature but necessary.
- XP user accounts were admin by default, Vista added UAC: another major new feature but also necessary.