Discussion Forums > Technology
Windows 7 and general bitching about OSes
AceHigh:
--- Quote from: dankles on February 05, 2009, 10:52:15 PM ---Linux is a superior OS. I have freedom and am not bound by copyright restrictions and DRM
--- End quote ---
Too bad it's not usable for anyone who needs to use computer for something useful like work. Not sure if you noticed it, but most programs don't work on linux. Now correct me if I am wrong but isn't the whole point of an OS is to make other programs run and give you a nice interface while you do it? Linux fails the most important aspect right there.
--- Quote ---If you like the fact that Microsoft owns your PC system, then feel free to using it.
--- End quote ---
Yeah I like it just as much as the fact that I got it off Pirate Bay for free and it was stripped of bullshit. Actually it is so amusing that they use their server bandwith and people to give me my updates automatically and I didn't pay a dime for it? Who is screwing whom here actually?
--- Quote ---DRM gives power to Microsoft and big media.
--- End quote ---
SHIT!!! That means all my movies and music are gone!!! Oh wait, it is all still there. Exactly what power do they have again?
--- Quote --- * They decide which programs you can and can't use on your computer
--- End quote ---
False, they can't decide if I am to play BF2 or Dawn of War on my Windows and I do, you however can't do that.
--- Quote ---* They decide which features of your computer or software you can use at any given moment
--- End quote ---
False again, there is always a way to disable features and get new ones (without paying hehehehehe)
--- Quote ---* They force you to install new programs even when you don't want to (and, of course, pay for the privilege)
--- End quote ---
Give me one fucking example of that happening. I never looked at my account finding out that Microsoft drained it for money and forcefully installed something on my computer.
--- Quote ---* They restrict your access to certain programs and even to your own data files
--- End quote ---
Trust me, sometimes it is better that stupid rednecks don't get access to system32 folder.
--- Quote ---DRM is enforced by technological barriers. You try to do something, and your computer tells you that you can't. To make this effective, your computer has to be constantly monitoring what you are doing. This constant monitoring uses computing power and memory, and is a large part of the reason why Microsoft is telling you that you have to buy new and more powerful hardware in order to run Vista. They want you to buy new hardware not because you need it, but because your computer needs it in order to be more effective at restricting what you do.
--- End quote ---
Applies only if you use Windows Media Player. If you are not completely gay and use players like TCMP with CCCP codecs and VLC you will never notice any DRM.
--- Quote ---I know that all of this speaks against Vista, but it applies to Windows 7 as well.
--- End quote ---
Speculations, only time will tell.
In other words, unless you have some real arguments that carry any weight and are not just something that goes against your ideology you are welcome to try again. My arguments for Windows are: I can run most applications that are created, it is free if you know where to look, great support in terms of auto updates instead of a crappy forum where linux elitists will flame you for asking a question and it works great.
dankles:
@Dragoon AceHigh :
Look, I've already said:
--- Quote from: dankles ---priority one is to put money on the table, and if MS is required to do business then so be it. I have a job that lets me run Linux or what ever OS I want, but not everyone has that luxury...
--- End quote ---
So I don't know why you're flaming me about that. Though to say "Too bad it's not usable for anyone who needs to use computer for something useful like work" is irrational. Lots of people including myself use it every day for work.
Those thing I had in bullets are obviously not all implemented. But per license agreement and government law they would be able to do those things. And if you don't think it might happen, look at what history tells us:
--- Quote from: dankles ---Just remembered an excellent real life example of how malicious DRM can be:
Google Video robs customers of the videos they "own"
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Dragoon AceHigh on February 06, 2009, 04:05:30 PM ---
--- Quote ---DRM gives power to Microsoft and big media.
--- End quote ---
SHIT!!! That means all my movies and music are gone!!! Oh wait, it is all still there. Exactly what power do they have again?
--- End quote ---
Google Video robs customers of the videos they "own"
--- Quote from: Dragoon AceHigh on February 06, 2009, 04:05:30 PM ---Applies only if you use Windows Media Player.
--- End quote ---
It applies to all of the OS.
--- Quote from: Dragoon AceHigh on February 06, 2009, 04:05:30 PM ---Give me one fucking example of that happening. I never looked at my account finding out that Microsoft drained it for money and forcefully installed something on my computer.
--- End quote ---
It might not have anything to do with pro-actively draining your bank account but simply forcing a customer to submit to corporate will (A loss of freedom)
Here is a great example:
--- Quote from: FSF ---If you put Microsoft at the center of your home entertainment system, be prepared to hand them the remote control, literally.
Following reports that digital television viewers were blocked from recording the new season of NBC's "Gladiators", Microsoft confirmed that it is preventing users from recording the show. They claim they were acting on behalf of NBC, and are in line with regulations set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in disrupting computer usage based upon the so-called "broadcast flag" that was transmitted alongside the show.
A Microsoft spokesperson told CNET News, "...Windows Media Center fully adheres to the flags used by broadcasters and content owners to determine how their content is distributed and consumed."
What is the broadcast flag?
The broadcast flag is a sequence of information transmitted alongside television programs as a kind of digital order telling viewers to not do certain things, such as record the show or share it with a friend.
Many of the large media companies and the FCC tried to make obeying the broadcast flag a law. However, the Electronic Frontier Foundation took the FCC to court, and US Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC had exceeded its authority, and that no such law could exist. Despite this ruling, it appears that Microsoft has decided to work directly with media companies to implement these rules anyway, restricting how and when you watch television.
Building such a system is no trivial task. To do this, Microsoft has gone to great lengths to restrict users from saving a television program to their computers, we call this kind of functionality an "antifeature," because it takes more work for Microsoft to prevent the user from saving the program, than if they were to leave just the default behavior alone. So instead of letting you record programs as you normally would, it locks you out and deletes the show before you can save it.
However, Microsoft hasn't just made a little tweak to their software to do this -- they have compiled an entire system built upon antifeatures. This antifeature platform is integrated into their Windows Media software and forms the basis of their Windows Vista operating system, and they are working hard to convince companies like NBC, that Microsoft can be in control of how and when you get to watch television. As creepy and as ridiculous as it may sound, this is their business strategy, and by getting this control, both the television and movie industry and computer users will be tied to Microsoft software.
Don't be fooled into their claims that they are following regulations by the FCC -- the court ruled that the FCC has no power to make such regulations. This is also claimed as a measure just to stop unauthorized file sharing, yet what Microsoft is doing is trying to make sure that they are on every end of the market, from how it is delivered, to how you watch it. As Ars Technica reporter Jacqui Cheng puts it, this is not about Microsoft preventing people from sharing files without permission, "t's about the ability to strictly control how we consume content"[2].
Microsoft wants to have that control, and this software is the way they are trying to get it. Software that is designed in this way is known as 'DRM', which stands for 'Digital Rights Management', and yet it is really just another way to restriction how consumers interact with things on their own computers and devices. Because of this restriction, we refer to DRM as 'Digital Restrictions Management'.
[2]: It should be noted that this writer refers to a person that shares files as a "pirate," we think this is a bit of an extreme description that should be avoided. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080514-nbc-vista-copy-protection-snafu-reminds-us-why-drm-stinks.html
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Dragoon AceHigh on February 06, 2009, 04:05:30 PM ---Speculations, only time will tell.
In other words, unless you have some real arguments that carry any weight and are not just something that goes against your ideology you are welcome to try again. My arguments for Windows are: I can run most applications that are created, it is free if you know where to look, great support in terms of auto updates instead of a crappy forum where linux elitists will flame you for asking a question and it works great.
--- End quote ---
-Win7 and Vista *are* built off the same base, and slated to ship with DRM, though Microsoft refuses to comment on this. (if by some miracle they don't include DRM, then I'll retract my comments applying to win7)
-I think my arguments DO have real weight to them. I've given real life examples in this post and previous.
-You only have a free/gratis OS. Not a free/libre OS.
-Linux "elitists" *never* flamed me when I asked questions.
AceHigh:
First of all, what a hell does Google has to do with Windows 7?
Second:
--- Quote ---It might not have anything to do with pro-actively draining your bank account but simply forcing a customer to submit to corporate will (A loss of freedom)
--- End quote ---
There is still nobody forcing me into anything at all. Especially economically. They wanted me to upgrade from XP to Vista, I didn't. That is called freedom of choice and it seems I still have it.
--- Quote ----You only have a free/gratis OS. Not a free/libre OS.
--- End quote ---
Exactly how is it different from a practical view? I mean ideologically it is different, but for a piratebay junkie it makes absolutely no difference at all.
--- Quote ----Linux "elitists" *never* flamed me when I asked questions.
--- End quote ---
Maybe they sense on of their own.
My question is: how is linux a superior OS from a practical point of view? Let's take this quote from Wiki:
--- Quote ---An operating system (commonly abbreviated OS and O/S) is an interface between hardware and applications; it is responsible for the management and coordination of activities and the sharing of the limited resources of the computer. The operating system acts as a host for applications that are run on the machine.
--- End quote ---
So this is the primary function of an OS. So tell me, which OS is compatible with the majority of programs out there?
I am not arguing that Linux has the potential of becoming a superior OS, however it has still a long way there. You know it's biggest weakness? Freedom. Everybody thinks they have a better version so there are like 100 distros out there. How the hell are the software developers supposed to make applications for that?
dankles:
I merely gave examples of how DRM is bad, which is related to Vista/Win7 (What *could* happen to them).
The freedom I speak of is the ability to do what ever I want with my OS, which I think is necessary especially at an OS level over application level. Because bugs would be *much* easier to fix, security would be better (lots of people think that hiding code is security, but thats simply not true), and user flexability would be greater because so many more people/companies could easily contribute.
Richard Stallman explains it like this:
--- Quote ---Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.
--- End quote ---
here is a link to that article
Now from a practical point of view, I'll say that I use Linux for nearly every thing I do (email,docs,programing,internet,server,etc). yes, there are way to many distros, but only a few main stream ones. And its not as hard as you think to make software for them. It's actually easier IMO to make Linux software than windows, even if you include the great "Visual Studio" suite.
I'll say that windows *does* do some things better simply because it has better software in some areas (video editing,easy codec conversion tools,games,i cant think of anything else). For those things I do actually use windows sometimes, but only WinXP because it lacks the DRM "features" of its children.
Also, Linux lacks some of the driver support that windows has because companies refuse to open their driver specifications to the Linux developers.
Again, if business requires windows, then use windows. Because money on the table it priority one.
anyways... I've rambled too much...
sdedalus83:
--- Quote from: Dragoon AceHigh on February 06, 2009, 06:24:05 PM ---I am not arguing that Linux has the potential of becoming a superior OS, however it has still a long way there. You know it's biggest weakness? Freedom. Everybody thinks they have a better version so there are like 100 distros out there. How the hell are the software developers supposed to make applications for that?
--- End quote ---
You're at least an order of magnitude too small there.
They don't even think about the number and variety of distributions, since it doesn't matter. Linux applications are built on, for the most part, platform and distribution independent libraries. Whomever packages the application for the distribution ensures that dependency issues are checked for and resolved during installation.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version