Windows Subsystem for Linux

[glauxosdever]

Hi,

Wouldn't it be nice to get back to the original topic of this thread! Unfortunately I can't see the anti-Windows propagandists allowing that to happen.

Happily.

I really don't like responding here every 2 minutes, but I feel that since someone replied with different views I need to discuss it with him.


Regards,
glauxosdever

[iansjack]

Hi,

You just buy computers that don't come with Windows pre-installed. It's really not too difficult.

Even my mum wanted a computer without an installed OS, so she could install Windows 7. All computers had Windows 8.1 or Windows 10.


Regards,
glauxosdever

Even Dell, of all people, will sell you a computer without Windows pre-installed: http://www.dell.com/content/learnmore/l ... ries=dimen . The only computers I own that came with a pre-installed OS are my two Macs. (And no, I didn't build my PCs - although it's a useful way of getting a bare PC - I bought them retail, fully assembled.)

[zdz]

Which is illegal.

If you keep your code for youself it is not...

It's still illegal to reverse-enginner/disassemble the software and modify it, even if you keep the modifications to yourself. Practically every proprietary software licence agreement prohibits disassembly, and whether you're using a tool to perform the disassembly or disassembling it in your head as you read the hex codes makes no difference because you're still disassembling it (and using the disassembly to produce a modified version).

On a personal level, I don't have any problem with people reverse-engineering/disassembling proprietary software, because usually the proprietary software's crap and the people modifying it make it a lot better, but it's still an illegal activity which shouldn't be necessary (and which shouldn't be used in an argument that "we can change the behaviour of Windows").

That's not true. Windows' own debugging tools will show you dissasembled code without limits. It is illegal to do this in order to gain an advantage (i.e, use it for profit, or hacking, or etc). And actually things are a bit more complex than that, and the law isn't the same everywhere (note that there is a difference between what the law forbids you to do and what your license forbids you to do). This is actually a course in some universities, but who pays attention to those?

I have a problem with people that say "proprietary software is crap". Let's discuss this for a moment. As someone who is a system programmer for a company that has mostly closed-source products I take offense in that. If I screw up and some client is in turn screwed up I am responsable for that. I (and my collegues) can't just go and deliver low quality / buggy products, like you can't add a buggy patch to a open-source project. The difference is that I can actually suffer some serious consequences if I'm lazy / plain stupid at my job.
So, on a personal level, stop insulting other programmers.

It's still coming preinstalled on new machines, unless you are actively looking for alternatives. While I would make an argument of using Linux being easier than using Windows, installing Linux is not as easy as just using the Windows that's already installed.

You have to wonder why. If Linux is better and free why do PC vendors give you Windows?

Sometimes you need help, with any system. Windows is what most people are using, right? So it's easier to get help when your Windows acts up, right? (Wrong, but that's what people are thinking.)

If you have a Windows license you are entitled to support. You can't go easier than that.

(Just this weekend I repaired a faulty Windows installation. A sticker on the laptop read, "you may not be able to use all features unless you are using Windows". FUD added at the assembly line. You can't really fight that crap.)

Go ahead and use my GTX 960m on any Linux you want. I'm not talking about gaming, I'm talking about actually having a driver that works for it. So that _might_ actually be true.

Even if my main OS is Windows, when I'm buying a PC I'm looking for something that has Linux pre-installed or at least Free DOS and that is as easy as going to the vendor and picking what you like.

[Solar]

I really get tired of all this whining that Windows is forced upon you. It isn't. Most computers come with Windows pre-installed, but it's not a given...

Please.

I am not whining at all, and I would ask you to leave the flame warrior rhetorics sheathed.

I am not talking about my personal experience either; I went from AmigaOS to Windows-as-platform-for-WinUAE to Windows-as-platform-for-Cygwin to Linux. (And boy would I have preferred to stay on AmigaOS in the first place, since I consider Linux to be better than Windows, but still pretty bad.)

What I am talking about is why Microsoft is (still) so widespread generally speaking, and why, for example, my mother-in-law and my sister are using it as well as everyone in any company I ever worked in. And that I don't see Windows as being technologically superior in any place the general customer would actually recognize, with one or two marginal exceptions (DirectX).

[iansjack]

I would ask you to leave the flame warrior rhetorics

I'd rather not take lessons in flame-warrior rhetorics from those who took this thread off-topic to have a go at Windows. It started as a perfectly good question but has been spoilt by drama queens who take every opportunity to put the boot into Microsoft.

As I've said before, if you don't like Windows then don't use it. But please don't disrupt a perfectly good discussion amongst those who are interested with a pack of irrelevant untruth and FUD.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, the wreckers have had their way and this thread is of no further interest.

[onlyonemac]

But you can't get around the fact that more hardware works, out of the box, with Windows than with any other OS.

So I went to dabs.com, bought a regular motherboard from a common manufacturer, bought the cheapest optical drive that met my requirements, added a standard Intel CPU, popped some RAM in, plugged in a hard drive from one of the top two hard drive manufacturers, and according to what you're saying I should expect Linux to work out-of-the-box with all of my hardware? Well, it does.

I have a problem with people that say "proprietary software is crap". Let's discuss this for a moment. As someone who is a system programmer for a company that has mostly closed-source products I take offense in that. If I screw up and some client is in turn screwed up I am responsable for that. I (and my collegues) can't just go and deliver low quality / buggy products, like you can't add a buggy patch to a open-source project. The difference is that I can actually suffer some serious consequences if I'm lazy / plain stupid at my job.
So, on a personal level, stop insulting other programmers.

But the company that tells you what to write still has money, not user satisfaction, at the back of their mind, and those two usually aren't the same thing.

It's still coming preinstalled on new machines, unless you are actively looking for alternatives. While I would make an argument of using Linux being easier than using Windows, installing Linux is not as easy as just using the Windows that's already installed.

You have to wonder why. If Linux is better and free why do PC vendors give you Windows?

That has to be the most ignorant thing I've heard in a long time. PC vendors give you Windows because that's what everyone uses, and the reason why everyone uses it is because PC vendors gave users Windows back in the day when Microsoft subsidised it.

(Just this weekend I repaired a faulty Windows installation. A sticker on the laptop read, "you may not be able to use all features unless you are using Windows". FUD added at the assembly line. You can't really fight that crap.)

Go ahead and use my GTX 960m on any Linux you want. I'm not talking about gaming, I'm talking about actually having a driver that works for it. So that _might_ actually be true.

If Linux was more widely-used then hardware manufacturers would make more effort to produce hardware that works with Linux and/or produce drivers for that hardware that work (properly) on Linux. The "Linux doesn't support as much hardware as Windows does" argument is futile because a) Linux supports almost as much hardware as Windows, with graphics cards (from certain manufacturers) being the exception rather than the rule and b) the only reason why Linux doesn't support more hardware is because Linux doesn't have more users.

[Combuster]

Windows vs linux and programming language battles (...)

... tend to descend into the domain of religion, rather than proper argument.