Well, isn’t their whole sales pitch essentially that windows is super easy, everything has a GUI and you don’t have to use the sCaRy TerMiNal? If you then have to change some cryptic registry entries to disable behavior that shouldn’t be enabled in the first place, the argument for using it just collapses. It shouldn’t be hard to uninstall the default browser, but somehow microsoft manages to make it hard
It is super easy, if you stick within the boundaries of the absolute most basic use cases. If you’re a normal user, which is what Linux evangelists insist Linux is ready for despite persistent edge cases with hardware support.
If you think ripping out the default web browser (which is used behind the scenes as a system component for a ton of OS level shit) is a “normal user” action, then you’re already operating outside of their target demographic and well into the “you can figure it out yourself bucko” realm.
Even installing a different browser beside Edge is farther than 90% of users will ever consider going.
It’s very easy from a position of tech knowledge to assume that the average user is a hell of a lot more saavy than they are. Go spend some time working IT support and you’ll be violently stripped of that notion. Fucking professional coders, good coders, that can’t navigate basic settings menus. Who don’t use adblocking plugins. It’s crazy.
But anyway, replacing the browser (and still leaving Edge installed) is as simple as installing your browser of choice, then going to Default Apps and switching it off Edge to what you want to use. Yes, it gives you a completely un-needed “are you sure” prompt. No, I’ve never had it reset that setting on me after an update.
The only default app setting I’ve had issues with is Edge taking over as default PDF reader after some updates, and that stopped happening well over a year ago.
This is the type of shit I’m talking about. Yes, it’s some dumb as shit OS design to so tightly couple the web browser into the rest of the OS.
But the “gotcha” from Linux users is “Well if Windows is meant to be so easy to use for normal people, why can’t I rip out a critical OS component easily?”
Because it’s a critical OS compenent you dolt.
You aren’t asking about using Firefox here, you’re asking about something akin to changing the BT stack handler, the TCP/IP stack, or the CPU scheduler. All things you can do on Linux, but not normal end user shit.
Well, anything is easy if you stay within the boundaries of the OS as it is shipped. For arch, that means no desktop environment at all, just the TTY – which is super easy to use if that happens to be exactly your use case. IMO a reasonable test is not whether is it easy to use if you stay within the boundaries (as that is true for everything), but whether those boundaries are reasonable.
I completely agree that ripping out system components does not have to be easy. But not wanting Cortana, OneDrive, Edge or other microsoft programs to be preinstalled, hard to remove, and constantly nagging you to use them over other programs is not an unreasonable request.
Last time I installed Windows for a friend, you needed a workaround to be able to use the computer without a user account tied to some microsoft account. And that triggered the same response in me as in the meme – this is not some cloud service where I make an account and they provide the hardware. I want to use the computer that is sitting in front of me, in my house. Why should I need a microsoft account for that?
Ok, but now we’re changing the context, and we’re back to my original point: Making Windows work for you is possible, and roughly as hard as making the switch to Linux.
But complaining that power-user functioanlity isn’t easy is just… asinine. If you understand the underlying design, it becomes awfully obvious that Microsoft is far more lazy than malicious. Same end result, but it helps make the entire process of using and configuring Windows make a lot more sense.
Yeah, Linux is obviously the better choice long term. But “fixing” Windows isn’t impossible, and switiching to Linux isn’t a “it just works” experience. Simple shit like HDR support still isn’t as plug and play as it “should” be.
So seeing people wrongly claim that doing certain things with Windows is literally impossible while they talk about dealing with similarly complex shit in Linux is frustrating. If you can do X in Linux, you are more than capable of doing Y in Windows.
You’re not wrong. It shouldn’t be necessary to tell Microsoft to fuck off at all. It’s not an unreasonable desire to want Microsoft to fuck off with their anti-consumer bullshit.
All I’m saying is that the skills needed to make Windows work for you are roughly equivalent in difficulty to getting Linux to work for you.
Both take work, and knowledge about the underlying design to do properly. The asinine “hot takes” from both sides are largely fuelled by people spouting off without the background knowledge to understand why things are designed how they are.
It’s definitely possible to make windows suck less. But no matter how proficient you are with windows, I don’t think it is possible to recreate the look-and-feel of Linux.
Fundamentally, it is just not a modular system where you can switch out e.g. the bootloader, filesystems or the desktop environment. And even if you tried to, there is no source code, no mailing list, no comprehensive wiki, no Github issues where people already figured out the exact problem you’re facing, and it feels like the OS is fighting you every step of the way.
So what I’m saying is this: If you have very low knowledge about computers, windows kind-of works, but many things feel out of your control and you learn to hate your computer rather than like it (why does it want me to create an account, why does it update without me telling it to, why is all this crap preinstalled etc.).
And even if you were to learn more about the inner workings of windows, it’s way less accessible due to its closed source and you still don’t get the same customizability that Linux would give you.
Regular users just create a Microsoft Account and don’t bitch on how to circumvent that to force a local account instead. To them it doesn’t matter how hard it is, because they don’t use it.
Regular users see suggestions in the start menu and either right click to uninstall or they let them be and aren’t bothered. Their start menu already is a mess of accidentally added apps.
Regular users don’t even know OneDrive is enabled and automatically running, but they are damn glad it exists when their drive fails and don’t lose all their files.
Regular users will never use command line in their life, if they can’t find it easily in the settings, they will just say “that is life” and work around their problem.
Regular users will not update their OS on their own. When updates weren’t forced, you had tons of vulnerable machines that encountered all sorts of problems. So automating that makes it easier for them.
Regular users will not do anything obscure with their computer that requires the registry. If it doesn’t do something they want, rather than trying to fix it, they will work around it. Even if that means going back to pen and paper. We know a computer can do it, but they don’t.
To us tech people, we demand the computer to behave how we want. But a regular user does not. To them it is a Swiss army knife of which they only use the bottle opener.
Well, isn’t their whole sales pitch essentially that windows is super easy, everything has a GUI and you don’t have to use the sCaRy TerMiNal? If you then have to change some cryptic registry entries to disable behavior that shouldn’t be enabled in the first place, the argument for using it just collapses. It shouldn’t be hard to uninstall the default browser, but somehow microsoft manages to make it hard
It is super easy, if you stick within the boundaries of the absolute most basic use cases. If you’re a normal user, which is what Linux evangelists insist Linux is ready for despite persistent edge cases with hardware support.
If you think ripping out the default web browser (which is used behind the scenes as a system component for a ton of OS level shit) is a “normal user” action, then you’re already operating outside of their target demographic and well into the “you can figure it out yourself bucko” realm.
Even installing a different browser beside Edge is farther than 90% of users will ever consider going.
It’s very easy from a position of tech knowledge to assume that the average user is a hell of a lot more saavy than they are. Go spend some time working IT support and you’ll be violently stripped of that notion. Fucking professional coders, good coders, that can’t navigate basic settings menus. Who don’t use adblocking plugins. It’s crazy.
But anyway, replacing the browser (and still leaving Edge installed) is as simple as installing your browser of choice, then going to Default Apps and switching it off Edge to what you want to use. Yes, it gives you a completely un-needed “are you sure” prompt. No, I’ve never had it reset that setting on me after an update.
The only default app setting I’ve had issues with is Edge taking over as default PDF reader after some updates, and that stopped happening well over a year ago.
This is the type of shit I’m talking about. Yes, it’s some dumb as shit OS design to so tightly couple the web browser into the rest of the OS.
But the “gotcha” from Linux users is “Well if Windows is meant to be so easy to use for normal people, why can’t I rip out a critical OS component easily?”
Because it’s a critical OS compenent you dolt.
You aren’t asking about using Firefox here, you’re asking about something akin to changing the BT stack handler, the TCP/IP stack, or the CPU scheduler. All things you can do on Linux, but not normal end user shit.
Well, anything is easy if you stay within the boundaries of the OS as it is shipped. For arch, that means no desktop environment at all, just the TTY – which is super easy to use if that happens to be exactly your use case. IMO a reasonable test is not whether is it easy to use if you stay within the boundaries (as that is true for everything), but whether those boundaries are reasonable.
I completely agree that ripping out system components does not have to be easy. But not wanting Cortana, OneDrive, Edge or other microsoft programs to be preinstalled, hard to remove, and constantly nagging you to use them over other programs is not an unreasonable request. Last time I installed Windows for a friend, you needed a workaround to be able to use the computer without a user account tied to some microsoft account. And that triggered the same response in me as in the meme – this is not some cloud service where I make an account and they provide the hardware. I want to use the computer that is sitting in front of me, in my house. Why should I need a microsoft account for that?
Ok, but now we’re changing the context, and we’re back to my original point: Making Windows work for you is possible, and roughly as hard as making the switch to Linux.
But complaining that power-user functioanlity isn’t easy is just… asinine. If you understand the underlying design, it becomes awfully obvious that Microsoft is far more lazy than malicious. Same end result, but it helps make the entire process of using and configuring Windows make a lot more sense.
Yeah, Linux is obviously the better choice long term. But “fixing” Windows isn’t impossible, and switiching to Linux isn’t a “it just works” experience. Simple shit like HDR support still isn’t as plug and play as it “should” be.
So seeing people wrongly claim that doing certain things with Windows is literally impossible while they talk about dealing with similarly complex shit in Linux is frustrating. If you can do X in Linux, you are more than capable of doing Y in Windows.
You’re not wrong. It shouldn’t be necessary to tell Microsoft to fuck off at all. It’s not an unreasonable desire to want Microsoft to fuck off with their anti-consumer bullshit.
All I’m saying is that the skills needed to make Windows work for you are roughly equivalent in difficulty to getting Linux to work for you.
Both take work, and knowledge about the underlying design to do properly. The asinine “hot takes” from both sides are largely fuelled by people spouting off without the background knowledge to understand why things are designed how they are.
It’s definitely possible to make windows suck less. But no matter how proficient you are with windows, I don’t think it is possible to recreate the look-and-feel of Linux. Fundamentally, it is just not a modular system where you can switch out e.g. the bootloader, filesystems or the desktop environment. And even if you tried to, there is no source code, no mailing list, no comprehensive wiki, no Github issues where people already figured out the exact problem you’re facing, and it feels like the OS is fighting you every step of the way.
So what I’m saying is this: If you have very low knowledge about computers, windows kind-of works, but many things feel out of your control and you learn to hate your computer rather than like it (why does it want me to create an account, why does it update without me telling it to, why is all this crap preinstalled etc.). And even if you were to learn more about the inner workings of windows, it’s way less accessible due to its closed source and you still don’t get the same customizability that Linux would give you.
If you use it like a regular user, it is easy.
To us tech people, we demand the computer to behave how we want. But a regular user does not. To them it is a Swiss army knife of which they only use the bottle opener.