Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Operating Systems' started by magda, Jan 29, 2019.
Are you an i3 or openbox man ? lol
Not true about not needing anymore to do anything ourtside GUI on Linux. If that was be true it would have been a miracle. Well, half.
About multiplatform. It depends on whether they use runtimes, as is with Java/JRE, QT, Electron (gaining popularity fast, which is freightening). With those you have pseudo-consistency in GUI and less-than-stellar GUI experience/snappiness. Sure with modern computers this is somehow less of a factor.
But in any case, if you use multiplatform APIs, inevitably there are layers above vs. pure native execution.
Filezilla, yes, it is very popular. Again, I don't give a *** if a program is multiplatform if it is good and suits my needs more or at least equal as another windows-only/shareware.
VLC... not sure whether it's the most popular among windows users. Maybe yes, maybe not, but that's not so important. Most people just tend to use some free program and players are mostly all free and/or open source. MPC-Home Cinema is (at least was) the most popular at some time. Now Potplayer in our part of the world, while for audio AIMP (Windows) and foobar2000 (also windows only). That, also, doesn't prove anything in particular. Linux gained some popularity lately, yes, noone is arguing. The other argument is mobile devices. If Windows lost some traction, it's because of Android. My mother haven't used her Windows computer for 2 years, she only uses her phone (for Facebook primarily).
Adobe - I hate everything Adobe. But I cannot find Anything that's better than Photoshop. Linux's most "adored" example is GIMP which is (was) crap. Now it's somewhat better.
I may not be using Linux full time but ocasionally I test it for few days every now and then - Ubuntu, Mint (mate, cinnamon), and less often Debian. All are the most popular distros among normal users. I just skip red hat / RHEL "movement".
"playing videos is not complicated in Linux"
- I never said that. I said it's reatively easy to begin browsing and playing stuff almost right after install. Linux can be Ok for basic home use IF you find all the drivers for the hardware, but not some crippled down drivers and most used have requirements, be it 5.1 positional audio/Surround or specific features of their video card or scanner/printer. One thing not working Ok and they go to Windwos for good. And I can understand them. And this is not so uncommon.
"My suggestion is install a modern Distro for yourself and come at it as a humble student."
- As I said I test Linuxes every now and then. I cannot tart using one for my work and there are many factors. Telling me I have no clue for Linux is ridiculous. I'm not an advanced user and to become one it would take months. Time is money, I repeat. If I have to, I would. When the time is right. I'll be Ok with any OS if I have MOTIVATION and need. Now I don't.
ChadD, you clearly follow some long-standing myths about "converts" and their hurdles. At least I'm not that type. I must admit the non-C/D/E drive letter assignment of file systems is somehow better. Not nearly true claiming "not how "real" computers designate drives". How a computer designate drives is irrelevant as long as it works for its use case and target. Most people don't need or use even a third of the available 26 drive letters. It was just one way to designate drives when computers opened for masses.
After all, such discussions are pointless because everyone can have their arguments and reasons behind any decision in a software.
The topic - upgrading to Win10. Why not. It has its problems, some are relatively serious (forcing feature updates every 6 months is the main one, and for me - the only hurdle). Most people don't have problems even with that. If he can, use Win10 LTSB. After a image backup, he can try. Recently I updated one Win10 1709 to the latest. No problems of any sort.
Today, drivers are very important because they are released faster and more bugs introduced than ever before. OSes highly depend on drivers and often they ruin one's experience and you can see many complaints about unstable or "buggy" Windows.
The chances of the OP having a legal avenue to Win10 LTSB is probably very close to zero. Its not a consumer option.
I like when someone claims there is spying based on what random internet people say without any kind of actual evidence that shows a malicious intent rather than something that can be reasonably determined to be the result of overzealous diagnostics collection. Microsoft even openly admits, via a link right in the Windows 10 settings, that this could potentially happen. It's not hidden and doesn't need to be implied. There's even an option in Windows 10 Pro to view the diagnostics data, and an option to delete it.
Microsoft is more than capable of doing stupid things, but the vast majority of it I tend to lump into the 'mistake' and 'poor executive judgement' categories rather than the 'malicious intent' category.
You don't understand the true value of mass metadata. Malicious is a subjective term. When you inform an already ignorant user base about practices they can't cmprehend, they remain ignorant and unable to make an informed decision. But the big tell about "malicious intent", is that disabled telemetry is enbled during updates without the users knowledge. User settings are not saved, proving MS wants control over your machine and your data, and is counting on ignorant or frustrated users to get it.
Using the group policy and/or firewall method you can delay all updates indefinitely until you decide that any critical bugs are fixed after a big feature update has rolled out. I do this on several Win10s Pro and I do wait more than a year sometimes because they are used that way that they don't get too exposed to the internet or used the normal way so updating asap everytime is not mandatory. Delaying a feature update for 2-3 months is relatively enough and safe to assume you can update safely. Of course making an image of the OS beforehand is more than advisable no matter what OS you use if you care about downtimes for your work.
I don't know about Home version but I guess the firewall method should work there too.I don't respect such Home editions at all in the first place.
Most people just use the defaults and update right away when the update is available. On the other hand you can find a lot of topics online of people who DO want to update ASAP and when an update happened to be delayed for them (updates roll up progressively and not for all 3billion users at the same day/hour) the rant begins.
Just for getting Office, that's cheap.
Tack in all the OS, service and dev material and it's almost a no-brainer.
Office suites are free, how is 475,- a year cheap? LOL! Almost brainless if you ask me.
Sure. If you want to dink with Google's web interface.
Or Open/Libre Office.
However, if you're using it in conjunction with plugins from other software, you don't really find a lot of those plugins for Google/Open/Libre Office, do you?
And good luck working someplace that takes it's infrastructure security (and accountability) seriously and trying to convince them your GMail account is "okay" and that you don't need to use Outlook and their Exchange servers...
Companies use corporate licenses and mostly they don't pay full retail licenses if they have multiple workplaces.
MS Office is not free but it's superior to the rest of the pack no matter it's MS and has its flaws. I used and tested every office suite there is (at least relatively popular), among kingsoft, open/libre, and others. Almost all are pure crap. Libre is Ok-ish for basic documents or letters and where the price tag is very crucial. I don't think I'm biased because i hate many MS products and don't use them, among browsers, mail clients, built-in tools in Windows etc.
I have a home lab with various installs of both WIn 7 and Win 10 (physical and VM's) and use both equally as much. I really dont have a preference tbh. I like how win10 handles my mutli monitor setup much much better than win7 though and seems to handle SLI better too. My main rig for gaming used to be win7 now upgraded to win10. been using it for a couple years now. i wont be going back to win 7 on that machine. One of my win7 builds is my HTPC. i have to keep it as it is used for TV with a SiliconDust HD HomeRun Prime (Cable Card). WMC was the best thing about Win7 in my opinion. its a shame that MS discontinued it.
Pretty much sums up my thoughts about Win10. I hate the fact that I constantly have to go back and check to see if my privacy settings have been rolled back, or roll back my graphics driver every time Windows decides to update it. MS thinks they know best, but they do not as I've been building PCs almost as long as Windows had a Start menu. Let me control my own damn machine.
I like when someone claims to trust big corporations; even giving them the benefit of the doubt. Gives me that warm fuzzy feeling inside.
I like when someone claims to trust (any) other random people on the internet. It's like comparing official TV channels news to mass-Facebook every-idiot-is-a-newsman . You never know which is "better".
If you're using office 'plugins' you're doing it wrong. What a horrible thought. Do you really think the world has only two choices, Gmail and Exchange? Really?
I haven't found anything I would need to do with Office that I couldn't do with Libreoffice.
Wow. Screw me for simply offering an alternative to buying at retail price.
But fine. Any spincter-pull solution YOU provide MUST automatically be superior in any and every situation.
I bow to your bottomless, godlike knowledge!
Or you know you can use one of the multiple very good pop3/imap mail clients and just use your own domain. Also ya you run whatever your company is using if you don't have a say or own the place.
MS office is entrenched sure... better haha not even close. Libre has the advantage of being open source and highly customizable. A great many people would be shocked if they knew how many larger corp have gotten rid of office the last handful of years. Its not as bullet proof entrenched forever as many people believe. Of course most places don't have the internal resources to be making tons of changes to open source projects for their own uses.
IME though ya Libre is as good and often better then office. Yes at one time there where issues with file formats cause MS plays dirty. But that has mostly been tied off now.
That isn't LTSB which requires a Volume enterprise licence.
Also contrary to popular belief around here... your employer having a licence DOES NOT entitle you to install enterprise anything at home.
Enterprise licences start much higher then 500 bucks... and LTSB is not a common MS solution. Last I heard they where pretty reluctant to even talk about it to people with 50+ licences.
So ya folks stop even talking about LTSB.... unless your advocating piracy.
Last time I tried to open a ~10MB document in Libre and it went to a crawl and almost impossible to work. MS Office opens everything instantly and never an issue. And this is just a small example why I got sick of many open source crap over the years. Some like Firefox or Thunderbird I use with pleasure of course.
I have many shareware WIndows software I contribute to their authors and most get things fixed in a matter of hours or days. With open source when we talk about smaller apps, you pray someone takes some free time after his job hours to try to fix something. And even in open source there are long-years standing bugs that are not fixed.
I haven't had any issues with large 700+ page documents... and massive multi sheet spreed sheets. When was the last time you used libre was it like 5+ years back. If it was recent I would check the memory settings in libres settings. I assume it was set lowish... or had a low number of objects open. In general if you know you use massive documents first thing you want to do is go into the settings and jack amount of memory libre will use and how much memory it will allow each object to use.
As for bugs being years old... that simply isn't true. Bugs get reported and fixed quickly as long as they can actually be reproduced. You will find year+ old bug reports on bugzilla.... but you will also notice if you look there is almost always a discussion with the filer where coders are unable to reproduce their bug. (that happens with every bit of software... the open source projects just tend to do it out in the open)
Anyway we can disagree on office solutions. You love MS office that's cool... I have never said anything bad about it. I just think its highly overrated. As far as I'm concerned Libre will take care of 99% of peoples needs. That isn't because I believe MS is 1% better... its just different. If its being used in a highly integrated MS setup... sure office makes sense. Libre offers all sorts of things that companies are starting to find very useful... such as Python scripting support.
Granted, using your employer's license to install LTSC on your home machine is technically a license violation.
This is why I have my OWN MAPS account.
So don't talk with Microsoft. Talk with a vendor like CDW.
I've always found them willing to at least look for an option to do what you want to do.
Actually yes. It MAPS DOES come with Enterprise LTSB.
This is a screenshot from my account.
If I wasn't entitled to use it on my own business machines, it wouldn't be offered to me.
Yes, my point was there are long-standing bugs in open source world too. It's not a no-brainer decision or choice (just because it's open or free). Everything has its uses and reasons and if someone finds OSS sufficient for their needs, I'm glad.
Granted, my experience with libre and the few documents that caused it to crawl (mildly said) is not recent. Anyway, from time to time (once every year or so) I do test it and I'm not impressed. Does it do Ok for everyday basic activities and documents, yes. It's just nowhere near as good overall as MS Office. It would be stupid to repudiate if a free/open product was better (or nearly as good) than a few hundred buck paid product.
At some level you have to.
If you drive a car, or walk near a road, you are putting an INSANE amount of trust in not only whoever made your car, but the makers of every car on the road. You are literally, not figuratively, LITERALLY saying "I trust this Chevy coming up behind me at way over the posted speed limit to properly operate and allow the driver to turn and go around me." This despite the amazingly high marks American car companies get for quality. This is a trust that won't "steal yer datas" but will put you and potentially your family into the ground if you are wrong. But you trust all of it.
Who made the chair you're sitting on? A small company? Will the piston fail and impale you? Can you be 100% certain? I remember a while back someone was pretty certain, and.. wonder if I can find that video again..
If you have no trust at all in any "big corporations" and you work for one, that's even more hypocritical.
At some point it's a mix of trust and faith, and the understanding that companies are not singular entities with one driving purpose, regardless of company mottos. Board members will make bad decisions. Senior managers will make bad decisions. Engineers will decide to make the 'close' button do something it's not supposed to. It's ironic that people flail and scream about companies getting away with the concept of "corporate personhood" letting companies get away with insane stuff but in the same breath will make assertions that companies always make decisions as singular entities.
Meh - OP - do what real men do. Install all the operating systems and dual/triple boot them.
Win 7 is and always has been fine. Some spyware is sneaking its way in so it's not far from 10 these days. Also the OS will eventually go out of support. But it'll work fine for a while.
Win10 is a newer version of 7 that's perfectly functional, but it's got it's flaws. Settings fragmentation is stupid but not the end of the world - just bush league for someone as big as MS. The spying is a thing, but you're probably doing worse already. Updates can be deferred, so you don't have to get hit with the bad QC. The only thing that W10 simply will not stop doing is that damn blue pop up "you have updates to install" that steals the focus from your games. Just stop stealing the damn focus for a notification and we'd be cool. But you can't make decisions about W10 from a bunch of neckbeards like myself on the internet - install it for yourself and see if you like it.
Install a version of linux. Mint is and always has been a "work right out of the box" OS. If you've got O365, you can run microsoft word from a browser. Or you can use that W7 disk and run it in a VM. Many games run fine in steam, but let's be honest - gaming is still best in a version of windows. So ya - dual boot.
Me personally, I had all three going. I boot exclusively into linux these days, I only switch to W10 to game. I've abandoned my W7 install in favor of linux. Your future is probably W10 or a linux distro - not W7. But you still have plenty of time to make that move...
Windows isn't perfectly functional because it won't let folks like me with slow internet turn updates off. Functionality that was present in older versions.
98se, XP, 7, 10. Have hardware running them all. I like 10 more than 7 now that I'm used to it. Far better start menu and seems a bit more stable than 7. With my software anyway.
That isn't an upgrade from a home version of windows. That is an upgrade for an enterprise copy of windows.
I'm not denying that LTSB sounds fantastic and what most people seem to want out of windows 10. Its just almost silly to suggest to regular type users that it is a great option. Even from a vendor 280 bucks for an upgrade.... and a clean Enteprise licence is going to cost first. There is no magic pay 400 or 500 dollar price for regular consumers that gets them into a legal copy of LTSB there just isn't So its really not an option for people that are still using upgrades off their now years old legal win 7 licence.
If you have 500-2500 bucks to spend on your OS... then sure LTSB is windows 10 pro the way it should have always been... if MS wasn't making 10x more money on advertising then selling operating systems these days.
The claim that you are unable to turn off updates in win 10 (as a whole) is just taking over everywhere. It's wrong and I don't understand why people continue repeating this.
If it's anything Pro or above, stopping automatic updates is trivial, even if not a simple checkbox in Control panel. And updates, even feature 6-months ones don't change the settings that make this possible.
What do you do to make that happen, specifically?
I would like to know too since as of 1709 Microsoft has limited Pro and higher versions to delay updates. Minor ones for 30 days and major feature updates to 365 days. Both using group policy, not a "simple checkbox in control panel".
This (group policy - Windows Update) should be enough.
I also usually use Windows Firewall in default Block for Outbound but on this machine I reverted to default Allow as a recent test because even if I tested this before, many people still insist group policy didn't stop auto updates only on its own. Well, still no update checks and annoyances. If I revert this group policy to default and turn off firewall blocking of svchost, Windows will check and annoy for updates just few minutes after boot.
Yeah, I will have to mess with this just to play around at home this evening, thanks.
To cut to the core of your question (and not get sucked into the black-hole of MS vs Linux AGAIN);
CAD programs: Which ones? Pro level will require you to upgrade eventually, so move to 10 now (no Linux option). Home enthusiast level: Stay on 7 for a while if you want.
Internet browsing: 10 not required, 7 if you want, Linux if you want.
Gaming: 10 not required; DX12 has yet to be fully utilized. 7 is fine, Linux is ok but limited.
Wrong. While not a checkbox, it's a dropdown menu in the advanced update settings menu on Pro and higher. Would you like a screenshot?
Now, to the topic at hand. To answer the OPs question, you really don't have a choice if you want to stick with Windows. Windows 7 loses support early next year, so you can delay going to 10 or 8.1 only until that point. So, if you want to stick with Windows, you might as well as do it now.
Personally, I switched to Linux and relegated Windows to a secondary boot drive for the odd occasion that I need to boot into it. Those occasions are further and further apart to the point that I'm considering just pulling that drive out. While I did switch due to privacy concerns initially, the reality is now that I just don't like using Windows anymore. I always considered myself a power user, but I never realized just how restrictive Windows is to a power user. For me, the appeal of LInux now is the flexibility and absolute control it affords the end user. I can do whatever I want with it. Even so far as spinning up my own distribution if I was so inclined. The other thing keeping me off of Windows is Microsoft's utter inability to properly update their OS without breaking shit. It's ridiculous at this point. Every month now I see more news about XX update breaking something in Windows. I mean, the October update was pulled because it was arbitrarily deleting users files in their user directories. Seriously? How the hell does that get through? My belief is that an earlier post about MS' testing practices is spot on. Instead of extensive internal testing like MS used to do, it would seem that MS is relying on the user base to do QA for them. This is a horribly flawed approach considering most users don't know why something crashed and probably don't bother to even file bug reports. It's a horrible model. It's almost like they looked at how things are done in the FOSS world and tried to adopt it. The problem is that most users of Linux/BSD are savvy enough to understand why something isn't working, or are developers themselves. They know how to file a bug report, and often times probably do a pull request and submit a fix for approval.
As far as this ongoing discussion about Windows vs Linux, chill out already. I mean really. What the hell does it matter? To those bringing up applications for "most" users. Hate to break it to you, but these days most users use a web browser. That's it. Period. Why do you think Chromebooks are so popular now? People are using native applications less and less. Those of us in these forums are an insignificant minority in the grand scheme of things. So all of this argument over office suites and whatnot is frankly nonsense because the vast majority of consumers don't use this stuff anymore. Don't believe me, ask any of your non techy friends and family what they do on their computer, assuming they even use one at home anymore. Perfect example, I work at an engineering company. You would assume everyone would have computers at home. You would assume wrong. One of the guys I work with asked my recommendation for a replacement for the tablet he and his wife use as their only computing device at home. This is a software engineer I'm talking about, and they ended up getting an iPad and love it. I personally don't like using tablets, but if it's what they want/need, then it's the best option. He told me today that it was the right choice for them. So, can we stop splitting hairs already and just accept that people will use whatever they want and it doesn't really matter whether we agree with them or not?
EDIT: Decided to upload the screenshot anyway. Show the maximum delay for each option.
Just a few points.
Yes, we all know home people now use mostly their smarts or tablets for browsing... if that's all they do "at home". All those people go to work somewhere. It's unlikely most of them work on their phones at work.
Also those people if they like to game, they have a desktop or laptop. This I would assume. Period.
Office suites and "whatnot" may not be home uasge, but it's office usage "at work". And not on a smartphone.
A "power user" at least in my opinion is not the user that keeps messing around with his OS all day long - it's not what the OS was designed to do after all. It was designed to do work (most linux addicts fail to understand that) and work is done with tools and software and how you make use of them.
I think I'm a... power windows user (not so much anyway) - I have multitude of tools that help everydays tasks and some things are harder to implement in Linux the way I got used to. And I made them the way I LIKE, as opposed to most who will say "you are the Windows-way". Wrong.
"it would seem that MS is relying on the user base to do QA for them"
- Good Morning! It's something the Linux world is doing from nearly its inception. Do you think, you using Linux, are not another tester for big corporations using the enterprise versions of this? This is a public secret. Yet, now you "discover" something that is even normal. No testing could possibly uncover all things that millions of user base could in just a matter of days, WHEN your user base is billions. Yes, lately the quality of updates deteriorated, for sure. But I always waited for few weeks before even think to update important machines, from Windows 2000 times up to now! Nothing too dramatic and new.
"How the hell does that get through"
- Seriously?! You seem to never have written and publicized a line of code, what about some more complex one. Serious bugs happen, not so often though. The bug in question affected very small number of users and was fast pulled back. I was annoyed by this fact too, but let's not be so final.
Lunar, your screenshot is about deferring some types of updates for some time. It has nothing to do with stopping updates at all "forever" until the user decides to check and update by hand whenever s/he is ready.
Lunar was echoing my point about windows development. You don't seem to understand exactly how software is developed.
The point is simple. Yes windows has millions of users. They have far less using their "fast" development cycle reporting issues. They have more but still not millions in their slower development ring. This is a "Linux" open source setup... for sure. Yes they indeed lifted their current development layout from the open source community.
Here is the issue. Windows users DO NOT see the code >.< Windows is closed source. So lets say I'm a super engineer working for a company I helped found making millions a year... and I have people worship my code. (ok not me lol) If I'm in the windows fast cycle and I see something broken... I create a bug report but I can only guess at what exactly the issue is. Now as a rockstar perhaps my report will likely be great... but someone at MS is still going to have to read it and understand wth I'm trying to explain happened to my machine. Problem is the number of code Rockstars in either of the MS development rings that would be able to guess where the issue may be... is small. Most people reporting issues are reporting vague my machine crashed... I have no idea I was doing this at the time. The VAST majority of windows bug reports I have zero doubt are a nightmare to decipher. That is clear or show stoppers like the October update deleting files out users directories would be impossible.
Linux and other open source software has a massive advantage in terms of quality control that MS can never hope to match unless they either...
1) go back to paying proper testers who work in the same building as the coders investigating and fixing bugs.
2) open source windows.
I am sure they will do neither... so Windows updates will remain a dice roll until the day MS breaks down and releases Windows 11 with its Linux kernel and base running a MS Windows DE.
Linux rockstar coders as Lunar says don't bother with bug reports... they submit pull requests to fix the issues they find. The rest of us that submit bug reports... can often find the offending code and point to it, or use Linux far superior logging to point smarter minds to the exact issue. There is far less interpretation of reports to be done. I would imagine 1 Linux bug report is worth 10 windows reports... cause 90% of windows reports are likely next to useless. If anything having 10s of thousands of fast cycle users reporting bugs probably hinders MS. That is a lot of BS to sift through to find actual real issues they can fix.
MS has adopted an open source development framework while not providing users the same quality tools open source projects have to squash bugs. It doesn't surprise me that MS is trying to gather more and more telemetry... and doing strange things like creating hidden partitions on drives to store telemetry data. I know everyone assumes they are tracking what your shopping for or searching ect... but there are easier more effective ways to gather that data. I believe they really are trying to better automate their OS data collection so they can better their testing. Cause what they have been doing since Win10 launch hasn't been working very well. (even the strongest MS booster has to admit that... delaying or turning off updates is all anyone talks about)
Lunar's screenshot was about how you can affect automatic updates (defer them). That's what I commented upon and it was on-topic.
Other thoughts were just my points and comments after his post.
Yes, but if they (MS) have less in their fast/slow development rings then you imply Linux is just using more people "at large" as their testers which is I guess... in line with my points.
Your describing of how WIndows takes reports and fixes things and makes possible the October bug... is oversimplified and details are evil (or the opposite) as you know. Some users (SOME, a very small percent who have chosen to undertake a specific 'moving' of some system directories elsewhere without deleting the original) reported they ended up with deleted documents. MS could investigate and fixed it. This reporting-fix cycle happens daily with millions of softwares successfully and world still spins. I report problems with tens of shareware (and freeware) programs almost daily and in 99% fixes are successfull in matter of hours or days. If not so fast, at least the authors find the problem in the code. I'm not a full-time C/C++/Java.. dev or anything and cannot contribute with code to fix problems. So are 99% of users. Users have the choice not to use the shareware/closed programs. Yet they use them, pay for them, because they can do their work without hassles (mostly).
You come here and say something along the lines: "Ditch windows, ditch closed softwware, they are evil in and out. Install Linux, use open source.". I don't care open or closed as long as OVERALL the software works as intended, annoying bugs are fixed in time and I'm happy using it. If the closed soft is not that, I'll try and use open source and/or free. In fact I first try free/open source. For some light uses it's Ok, but for more and work-oriented, I cannot swallow the problems and opt for shareware. Not that hard to comprehend.
And for the OS, whether Windows or Linux, not a big drama. When Linux is Ok enough for me for work, I'll switch. Not now. For me. And for many. Both have their strenghts and weaknesses. It's the final result that matters, and not a pointless (black-hole as someone said) OS flame war. I acnkowledge many people just got used with Windows and the switch for them would be pain not worth the time. I can understand them. Some people seems to not be able to.
Yes, the strategy of reporting and fixing problems (not only bugs, I emphasize) in open and closed software is different by nature, of course. But both approaches proved to work in this (non-ideal) world. Being open or closed is mostly irrelevant to most users, given the software works and users get work done and they get their wage and their standard of living is good and getting better. Everything else is implementation detail. Closed (and shareware) source proved to be working, and you can do equal damage with open source if you/they want. That's how it works and worked.
Still, I think all those (long walls) posts in the thread are useful. Now I have time for this much only .
I question whether you actually read my post, or just picked a couple of things out. My point about power users being afforded more control and power was a general statement. For me it really comes down to how much more efficiently I can manage my various servers and services running on those servers by using tools like SSH, service management via systemd, etc. It's a personal preference thing, that mainly is a jab at how needlessly GUI oriented Windows is. Sure, I like a GUI, but the CLI gives me so much more flexibility when it comes to making tasks automated and more efficient to execute. This one is really just personal preference.
Where I really draw issue is with your misrepresentation of my position on MS updates and QA. I specifically referenced how MS tried to copy the FOSS approach to development, but as ChadD stated, the inherent problem is the closed source nature of the code. You can't shift to an "end user QA" model if the end users can't audit the code. That's why it works for Linux and BSD. That and the fact that the user base tends to be more experienced and skilled on the FOSS side. Yes, bugs happen. All the time. But bugs like this tend to be caught in PROPER QA testing like MS used to do. We aren't talking about some issue in a network protocol somewhere that doesn't handle improperly formatted network frames allowing for arbitrary code execution here. We're talking about the deletion of users files through installation of an update. Kind of easy to catch if they'd done any internal testing, and if they'd actually paid attention to community feedback, because it was reported that testers did actually report this bug. So yeah, I reiterate, HOW THE HELL DOES THAT GET THROUGH?
EDIT: Not to mention, that since the October update, MS has pushed multiple updates with major bugs. This has become the norm for Windows 10, and I firmly believe it is largely due to the shift in their testing methodology. The insider ring testing model is a good supplement to traditional QA testing, but not as a replacement when you are talking about closed source software. Even in the open source world, do you honestly think that Red Hat and Canonical don't do extensive QA testing in house? I'd put money on it that they do. Sure, smaller distros may not be able to do that, but that's why most distros are based on larger ones. Manjaro is based on Arch, yet they hold packages back just a bit to do stability testing. Canonical based Ubuntu on Debian, which means that along with their in house testing, they also benefit from the upstream testing on the Debian project. MS on the other hand, has reportedly scaled down internal testing dramatically in favor of ring testing in the community. Not a great plan in my opinion.
As for the screenshot, I misread the post I quoted. I took it to mean that they were stating you couldn't select delay updates via the settings menu. I do think that was implied in the third sentence, but I did miss the bit about "limited to delay". I think we're both addressing two different parts of the statement.