Did the creators update last night - ouch!

[NoOther]

I was talking about client side applications. Virtually all of the interesting ones are available for Windows and macOS. I bet many of then have more Windows users than Linux users, like LibreOffice.

Look, let's just put this debate to bed right here. You install Windows, then you install just about any popular Linux Desktop system. You open up their package managers, how many readily available free open source programs do you see for each? How easy does each system make it to find, download and update that software? Many distros, like Debian based systems already have ties to the open source software and track updates for you all in the same system, no need to constantly go online checking for those updates. Also, Linux comes with many easy to find compilers to do your own code on the system. In fact it takes me far less time to install and configure a ready to go development system with all the compilers, editors, configuration management, etc in Linux than it does for Windows. Again, Linux was designed for open source compatibility. That is its purpose. Windows is not.

Please well me where is all of the VR for desktop Linux? There are exactly four game title in Steam that show up for Linux support. There are 1173 for Windows.

Spending that kind of money on a setup to run full time under Linux with four games? That's beyond silly.

It might be niche but it is attracting developers as well as conventional desktop Linux games on Steam.

Again, you are talking about an extremely niche market. There really is no point continuing down that rabbit hole for the discussion we were having. What is funny is how you immediately try to discount the mobile market which is the largest and then try to argue the VR market which is the smallest.

 

[BulletDust]

No, you keep confusing the issue by putting words in my mouth. Your point isn't that valid, it's only valid in your delusions. You make it seem like Microsoft controls the entire industry, or is trying to control the entire industry, and that couldn't be further from the truth. Control is about limiting options, about taking away choice. And yet today we have more choice and more options than ever before. So my point is extremely relevant to the discussion. Because you cannot understand it, does not make it invalid.

What is even funnier though, is how you try to make me out to be an MS shill, when I am clearly citing that there are more options than ever to use besides Microsoft and for free.

I claimed that Microsoft have, in the past, have worked with manufacturers to make ranges of products, not just surface products, that lack any ability whatsoever in UEFI to disable secure boot in order to limit such products to Windows only - This is a fact, this cannot be argued.

I also claimed that as a user I want full control over my PC, I should be able to install any x86/64 based OS I want on a fairly open platform, whether that OS be Windows, Linux, MorphOS, AEROS, whatever. Yes, control and associated options are related, however I am specifically talking about overall control of a product I own, a product I bought. Furthermore, I am highlighting that as a technician secure boot is making my job of repairing PC's harder - How is more choice in relation to products available in the marketplace going to help anyone in my position when I come across products that clients bought with their own money, that they own, that I cannot disable secure boot on in order to do my work? Is this all part of out 'chuck away society'? Should I just tell them to buy a new laptop?

On purchasing a laptop, with our ever expanding range of options, more than ever before, are we supposed to go into the UEFI and ensure secure boot can be disabled and ensure that disabling it actually does what it's supposed to do before purchace?! Come off it!

You seem like a fairly intelligent person, but your notion of options in the marketplace is doing nothing more than trying to distract my argument that secure boot is flawed and unnessecary unless it is outlined in the specification that it must be able to be disabled and disabling it must work! Why else do you think the specification doesn't outline these two, very obvious and necessary rulings?

Microsoft were part of the standardisation of .docx, an open ISO standard that many other consortium's were also involved in - Microsoft manipulated the situation at the last minute to suit themselves and their monopoly on the marketplace by splitting the standard into two. Microsoft are not wholesome and good, they have shareholders to look after and there should be no option for manufacturers to fail to implement full control over secure boot in their UEFI - If the option exists in the standard for them to do so, than I ask why?

I do not believe you are a MS shill, if I gave that impression I apologise. There's only two shills here, they communicate via PM and you're currently arguing with both of them. One of them craps on about Windows and it's support, Windows and it's ecosystem, most of which is irrelevant to probably 80% of the computing population, yet he keeps on claiming that popular is good when it's no more than a measurement of marketing! The other snidely attacks individuals and provides no real body to any argument whatever but is quick to complain to the mods that anyone that challenges him is a troll. Once again, despite Microsoft's apparent ecosystem and support I switched from Windows to Linux full time and to anyone that's interested and doesn't need Adobe products as a professional - It's entirely possible with none of the many issues surrounding Windows 10.

If anyone wants to discuss switching from Windows to Linux, as an individual that actually did so, feel free to PM me.

 

[BulletDust]

Look, let's just put this debate to bed right here. You install Windows, then you install just about any popular Linux Desktop system. You open up their package managers, how many readily available free open source programs do you see for each? How easy does each system make it to find, download and update that software? Many distros, like Debian based systems already have ties to the open source software and track updates for you all in the same system, no need to constantly go online checking for those updates. Also, Linux comes with many easy to find compilers to do your own code on the system. In fact it takes me far less time to install and configure a ready to go development system with all the compilers, editors, configuration management, etc in Linux than it does for Windows. Again, Linux was designed for open source compatibility. That is its purpose. Windows is not.



Again, you are talking about an extremely niche market. There really is no point continuing down that rabbit hole for the discussion we were having. What is funny is how you immediately try to discount the mobile market which is the largest and then try to argue the VR market which is the smallest.

Love this comment. Totally agreed and so true.

 

[NoOther]

I claimed that Microsoft have, in the past, have worked with manufacturers to make ranges of products, not just surface products, that lack any ability whatsoever in UEFI to disable secure boot in order to limit such products to Windows only - This is a fact, this cannot be argued.

No you argued that Microsoft basically controls UEFI and tried to insinuate that they still do. They do not, nor have they ever. Then you tried to expand that to say Microsoft in the past worked with developers to specifically exclude other OS's, that is also not true. Windows worked with vendors to use Secure Boot to help protect systems meant for Windows from being hijacked. You are making assumptions that aren't based on any real facts. Windows holds the CA store for UEFI, in that store are tons of other OS's and products. You try and take early development and hold it against the people who are at the forefront of it, simply because they were working with what they had at the time. There are always growing pains. But notice once Microsoft learned people wanted to boot other OS's on their devices, they gave them that option. They even updated for their older equipment. So I still do not see your point here.

I also claimed that as a user I want full control over my PC, I should be able to install any x86/64 based OS I want on a fairly open platform, whether that OS be Windows, Linux, MorphOS, AEROS, whatever. Yes, control and associated options are related, however I am specifically talking about overall control of a product I own, a product I bought. Furthermore, I am highlighting that as a technician secure boot is making my job of repairing PC's harder - How is more choice in relation to products available in the marketplace going to help anyone in my position when I come across products that clients bought with their own money, that they own, that I cannot disable secure boot on in order to do my work? Is this all part of out 'chuck away society'? Should I just tell them to buy a new laptop?

So buy hardware that allows you to do that. Simple. What you are arguing is that you want to be able to whatever you want to anything whenever you want. That has never been an option. If you are smart, you can find relatively cheap solutions to the problems you supposedly face. Your the one on a crusade to change all their software from Microsoft to Linux, sometimes that includes a cost.

On purchasing a laptop, with our ever expanding range of options, more than ever before, are we supposed to go into the UEFI and ensure secure boot can be disabled and ensure that disabling it actually does what it's supposed to do?! Come off it!

Yes, that is part of research, something I do for work when I have to make these choices.

You seem like a fairly intelligent person, but your notion of options in the marketplace is doing nothing more than trying to distract my argument that secure boot is flawed and unnessecary unless it is outlined in the specification that it must be able to be disabled and disabling it must work! Why else do you think the specification doesn't outline these two, very obvious and necessary rulings?

I am not distracting anything. Your argument is flawed and unnecessary. Secure Boot isn't the problem. It is how manufacturers are implementing it. I have said this over and over, you just don't listen. You keep associating the problem as inherent in UEFI or Secure Boot, that is patently false. The problem is how manufacturers implement their configuration of it.

Microsoft were part of the standardisation of .docx, an open ISO standard that many other consortium's were also involved in - Microsoft manipulated the situation at the last minute to suit themselves and their monopoly on the marketplace by splitting the standard into two. Microsoft are not wholesome and good, they have shareholders to look after and there should be no option for manufacturers to fail to implement full control over secure boot in their UEFI - If the option exists for them to do so, than I ask why?

Okay, I have never claimed Microsoft are wholesome and good, but neither are many corporations, including ones involved in Linux. Or do you truly believe that RedHat, Ubunut, Mint are all wholesome and good?

I do not believe you are a MS shill, if I gave that impression I apologise. There's only two shills here, they communicate via PM and you're currently arguing with both of them. One of them craps on about Windows and it's support, Windows and it's ecosystem, most of which is irrelevant to probably 80% of the computing population, yet he keeps on claiming that popular is good when it's no more than a measurement of marketing! Once again, despite Microsoft's apparent ecosystem and support I switched from Windows to Linux full time and to anyone that's interested and doesn't need Adobe products as a professional - It's entirely possible with none of the many issues surrounding Windows 10.

Yet you keep telling me I am advertising to Microsoft. You keep insinuating that I prefer all things Microsoft. Even in your paragraph above you insinuate that I believe all things Microsoft are wholesome and good. I have not once made that statement anywhere in here. In fact, I really wasn't making any original comments in regards to Microsoft other than they responding that they aren't the only driving force behind UEFI, nor are they responsible for every poor implementation of it.

 

[BulletDust]

I was going to quote your whole post and pick it apart, but I'm really not interested in arguing with you and a number of your points are odd?

You argue that MS is not trying to manipulate secure boot to benefit themselves but then you read my point about .docx and agree that MS are not wholesome and good?! The .docx scenario is literally identical to secure boot. I make my point once again, if MS are not trying to manipulate secure boot to suit themselves, then why doesn't the standard mandate that secure boot should not only be able to be disabled, but that disabling it should actually work on every machine that implements it? This issue is far more common than you believe it to be.

I'm arguing this from the perspective of a tech and the issues a system that I deem to be unnessecary presents to me, the masses purchasing these products don't know the difference between an i3 and an i7 let alone the issues surrounding secure boot or what it even does - The number of options available in the marketplace is not going to resolve secure boot issues for these people. Naturally, if it was a system I was purchacing for myself I would research my options first, especially being a predominantly Linux user.

There was one instance that I claimed you were trying to make out that MS were wholesome and good, I apologised for that. I went through the posts, and unless I'm missing something, I was talking very generally in relation to large corporations as a whole and was not even directly referencing Microsoft - In fact I believe you were the first one to mention Microsoft.

I do not want to argue with you, hence why I claimed in a prior post that I had made my point and I was over discussing it, contrary to what ManOfGod may like to claim.

Respect, be done with it.

 

[heatlesssun]

Look, let's just put this debate to bed right here. You install Windows, then you install just about any popular Linux Desktop system. You open up their package managers, how many readily available free open source programs do you see for each? How easy does each system make it to find, download and update that software?

Funny thing about some of the stuff Windows 10 critics bash like Cortana. "Hey Cortana, What are some free alternatives to Microsoft Office?" Boom, five options highlighted in the search, including a favorite around here, LibreOffice. You just literally ASK the PC for options and there they are. I know, just a web search but a very effective discovery method. Of course I get the issues with malware and such. And while repositories are great, even in Linux Steam does that management for you.

Again, Linux was designed for open source compatibility. That is its purpose. Windows is not.

Ok, but there's still thousands of open source and free apps available for Windows that are easy to obtain.

Again, you are talking about an extremely niche market. There really is no point continuing down that rabbit hole for the discussion we were having. What is funny is how you immediately try to discount the mobile market which is the largest and then try to argue the VR market which is the smallest.

It's always niche for some folks when it's not well supported under desktop Linux. Niche though it is, VR is a HOT item in PC gaming right now. Much more so than desktop Linux gaming.

 

[BulletDust]

It's always niche for some folks when it's not well supported under desktop Linux. Niche though it is, VR is a HOT item in PC gaming right now. Much more so than desktop Linux gaming.

I've posted evidence that it's sitting at around 0.20% usage under Steam, furthermore the most popular GPU under Steam is Intel HD4000 graphics, I doubt that's going to provide a great VR experience!

I'm going to go a step further and claim that VR is a niche market of a niche market. It's been supported under Linux for around 2 months now and I'm sure if popularity does actually grow, support for VR under Linux will grow proportionally.

 

[heatlesssun]

I've posted evidence that it's sitting at around 0.20% usage under Steam, furthermore the most popular GPU under Steam is Intel HD4000 graphics, I doubt that's going to provide a great VR experience!

I'm going to go a step further and claim that VR is a niche market of a niche market. It's been supported under Linux for around 2 months now and I'm sure if popularity does actually grow support for VR under Linux will grow proportionally.

The Steam Survey, which I know you think is crap, is still numbers from a better source than anything else because, Valve has the exact numbers for their service, period, regardless of the survey. VR owners show up at currently at .39%, about half as many as desktop Linux users at .77% in only a year. So if Linux gaming is growing because Steam and PC gaming is growing, so is VR gaming and doing pretty well if in one year it's half as many users as Linux on Steam, which has been around 4 years now.

 

[BulletDust]

The Steam Survey, which I know you think is crap, is still numbers from a better source than anything else because, Valve has the exact numbers for their service, period, regardless of the survey. VR owners show up at currently at .39%, about half as many as desktop Linux users at .77% in only a year. So if Linux gaming is growing because Steam and PC gaming is growing, so is VR gaming and doing pretty well if in one year it's half as many users as Linux on Steam, which has been around 4 years now.

I don't think it's crap, I think it's rough and greatly questionable, but i don't think it's crap. I use results from the survey as you appear to believe it's gospel, even if overall growth and it's relationship to percentages does seem to confuse you.

I'm not too sure where you're pulling your figures from, but I'm showing VR at 0.24% for march 2017 under the Steam hardware survey. Furthermore, my argument still stands that the very same Steam hardware survey highlights that very few users run hardware that's even remotely capable of VR.

 

[ChadD]

I've posted evidence that it's sitting at around 0.20% usage under Steam, furthermore the most popular GPU under Steam is Intel HD4000 graphics, I doubt that's going to provide a great VR experience!

I'm going to go a step further and claim that VR is a niche market of a niche market. It's been supported under Linux for around 2 months now and I'm sure if popularity does actually grow, support for VR under Linux will grow proportionally.

I can't count the number of threads we have been going back and forth in with heatle now about VR... but VR VR VR.

LInux has no need to rush VR support for the following reasons heatle... so please stop mentioning it everytime someone says anything about MS.

1) Install base of capable computers. 30% of the people on steam right now aren't even running DX 12 capable cards never mind the 5-6 cards on the market that can provide a half decent experience. Only a little over 3% of all steam users have a 1070 (the current sweet spot according to HardOCP) You can add a total of around 6% more users if you add ALL the other GPUs that are capable of VR without making you want to puke.
Over 20% of all the windows users on Steam are on machines running under 2.6ghz. Less then 4% have CPUs over 3.6ghz.
Bottom line is the potential market of users that wouldn't need completely new machines is extremely low right now... its just the way it is, the masses aren't getting into VR without buying new machines first.

2) There is NO accepted standard right now. Recently Khronos have published the OpenXR standard. So things are starting to look more interesting... but until manufacturers and developers all get on the same page, VR is DOA. That is simply the way it is... the masses don't buy don't drop all their milk money on things they aren't 100% sure of anymore.

3) As others have pointed out again... Linux now has VR support via steam. And development is starting to pick up. The games that have hit linux so far are not the typical ported Android VR game that you find on the windows side of things. Of course after being in beta for 6 weeks no one is arguing Linux has more games yet... simply stating the platform is there. Seeing as VR software tends to be published using the latest game engines... Linux will most likely build support faster then it has been in regards to non-VR games. As many are built on vulcan, using the latest version of Unity which is fully Linux compatible.

I have said it a few times... IF VR ever becomes a major mainstream selling Technology, Linux will be there no issues. As I see it Mainstream VR if it is going to happen is still 2-3 years off at least. Cause best case for the VR companies that is how long it will take for the performance required to find its way into actual mainstream GPUs and reaolly I sort of believe they will have to hit integrated performance for it to really go main stream. The situation right now on the costs front make the idea of VR ever hitting more then a few percent of the market pretty much impossible. (VR companies current solution to the issue... offering loans, is laughable)

The issue with getting a lot of windows games on Linux the last few years has been the fact that most of those games are developed for the PS4 platform... so in a world where even the Windows version is a port, it has made Linux support from the smaller big houses hard to come by. That as well will be changing over the next few years.... the idea of cross platform coding has been taking hold the last few years. That move will start hitting the gaming industry over the next few years. You have to remember that most games are in development for 3-4 years... Full Linux support started getting baked into the major game engines a few years back. The pace of games being published on Linux via steam will pick up even more.

 

[heatlesssun]

I don't think it's crap, I think it's rough and greatly questionable, but i don't think it's crap. I use results from the survey as you appear to believe it's gospel, even if overall growth and it's relationship to percentages does seem to confuse you.

I'm not too sure where you're pulling your figures from, but I'm showing VR at 0.24% for march 2017 under the Steam hardware survey. Furthermore, my argument still stands that the very same Steam hardware survey highlights that very few users run hardware that's even remotely capable of VR.

That's only the Vive number, the Rift adds another .15%

 

[heatlesssun]

LInux has no need to rush VR support for the following reasons heatle... so please stop mentioning it everytime someone says anything about MS.

Some of the pro-desktop Linux folks just aren't being honest about the state of Linux gaming. It's utter crap compared to Windows, period. Yeah, no need to rush where there's like no titles while Windows is building a large library of titles. LOL!

 

[bigdogchris]

Others are now experiencing the Firefox Black screen issue. It's possibly not creators update related, but I was on Firefox 52 for almost 4 weeks without having the problem, then the night I did the upgrade it started happening. I rolled back to a much older version of Nvidia graphics and it still happens. Clearing hardware acceleration is the only way to stop it from happening. Just updated to Firefox 53 and it still happens.

 

[B00nie]

Please well me where is all of the VR for desktop Linux? There are exactly four game title in Steam that show up for Linux support. There are 1173 for Windows.

Spending that kind of money on a setup to run full time under Linux with four games? That's beyond silly.

Spending that kind of money to play games is beyond silly, period.

 

[heatlesssun]

Spending that kind of money to play games is beyond silly, period.

This is a place were a lot of the folks do it however because we enjoy it.

 

[B00nie]

This is a place were a lot of the folks do it however because we enjoy it.

So perhaps some are hard enough to use them on linux (probably for something a bit more productive like developing AR solutions).

 

[heatlesssun]

So perhaps some are hard enough to use them on linux (probably for something a bit more productive like developing AR solutions).

Considering almost all PCVR development to date has been done under Windows this doesn't make a lot of sense. To get started all a Windows Vive or Rift owner has to do is download Unity and Visual Studio, there's free versions of both. Here's a nice getting started video:

 

[B00nie]

Considering almost all PCVR development to date has been done under Windows this doesn't make a lot of sense. To get started all a Windows Vive or Rift owner has to do is download Unity and Visual Studio, there's free versions of both. Here's a nice getting started video:

Using Windows is not an option for many people.

 

[heatlesssun]

Using Windows is not an option for many people.

And desktop Linux isn't an option for many people as well. I've said it countless times, if desktop Linux has all the advantages that people like you say and it had an ecosystem that was at least in the ballpark of Windows, we'd all be using Linux on the desktop.

 

[Ranma_Sao]

So I know some might call me biased, but I actually worked on Secure boot. Nowhere was a discussion of messing with or vendor lock in, the whole goal with UEFI Secure Boot was to secure the Boot chain from being compromised...

https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/mmpc/2010/08/27/alureon-evolves-to-64-bit/

Alureon was infecting the boot process before Windows came up. There was a discussion on how to prevent that.

EFI and UEFI have been around a long time...
https://access.redhat.com/documenta...tion_Guide_x8664/s1-ia64-intro-efi-shell.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface

UEFI was going to come around, BIOS was never designed to handle 10TB hard drives, with 64GB of memory, and having video cards address 12GB of memory for example. Secure boot is part of that process to secure the boot chain from compromise, and make it that much harder to compromise machines.


This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

 

[Chuklr]

Ranma_Sao, thank you for your post. For me it is a breath of fresh air.

 

[ChadD]

And desktop Linux isn't an option for many people as well. I've said it countless times, if desktop Linux has all the advantages that people like you say and it had an ecosystem that was at least in the ballpark of Windows, we'd all be using Linux on the desktop.

heatle you need to acknowledge the truth. Linux is a small subset of the PC market as a whole... and yes its a small part of the hardcore gaming community. However [H] is not your average user PC forum.

Your on a hardware tech site. Which means there is a good chance that you have to take those numbers and mulitple them by 100x around here. If 2-3% of all computer users are on linux... on a hardware site like [H] 20-30% of the people around here have a Linux machine. Perhaps not their game machine, and many people have a second or dual boot Linux machine. I bet you would be surprised if you asked people what their "Main" machine ran. Many are going to say the same thing I say... Linux on my main, with a windows game drive, many just keep a second gaming machine.

This is a poll from slashdot.... my guess would be if Kyle did polls around these parts the numbers may not be quite as heavy on the Linux but they my bet would be 20-30%.
https://slashdot.org/poll/2999/my-main-computer-runs-the-following-operating-system

So anyway keep it in mind... your likely arguing no one can use linux cause reasons all the time to a group that is likely running linux all the time cause reasons. lol

 

[ChadD]

Considering almost all PCVR development to date has been done under Windows this doesn't make a lot of sense.

Unity yes great software... powering a few thousand android vr apps at this point. Yes windows is the system used for the developing... but PC VR is hardly the target of most of the commercial VR ventures.
Anyway VR should start to see improvements for all platforms over the next few years... right now its still extremely early days. https://www.khronos.org/openxr/ Seems like all the major players are on board at least to some degree with openxr. Hopefully a handful of semi established companies don't screw things up by not doing their part. It would be a shame if they continue to play the exclusive deal games with developers. Creating a console style exclusives war hasn't helped VR with the PC gaming crowd so far.

 

[heatlesssun]

heatle you need to acknowledge the truth. Linux is a small subset of the PC market as a whole... and yes its a small part of the hardcore gaming community. However [H] is not your average user PC forum.

Your on a hardware tech site. Which means there is a good chance that you have to take those numbers and mulitple them by 100x around here. If 2-3% of all computer users are on linux... on a hardware site like [H] 20-30% of the people around here have a Linux machine. Perhaps not their game machine, and many people have a second or dual boot Linux machine. I bet you would be surprised if you asked people what their "Main" machine ran. Many are going to say the same thing I say... Linux on my main, with a windows game drive, many just keep a second gaming machine.

This is a poll from slashdot.... my guess would be if Kyle did polls around these parts the numbers may not be quite as heavy on the Linux but they my bet would be 20-30%.
https://slashdot.org/poll/2999/my-main-computer-runs-the-following-operating-system

So anyway keep it in mind... your likely arguing no one can use linux cause reasons all the time to a group that is likely running linux all the time cause reasons. lol

I generally agree. What's surprising to me about your post is that survey. Slashdot which is well known Microsoft bashing forum has Windows at 33%? I'd have guessed a lot lower than that coming from them.

 

[heatlesssun]

Unity yes great software... powering a few thousand android vr apps at this point. Yes windows is the system used for the developing... but PC VR is hardly the target of most of the commercial VR ventures.

The point I was making is that a Windows PC with a VR headset is a VR development platform with the downloading of some free tools. And I never said that the PC was the main target of VR, but Windows PCs are use a lot in VR development across platforms. You can target Android with Unity & VS on Windows.

Creating a console style exclusives war hasn't helped VR with the PC gaming crowd so far.

Yeah, but exclusivity also exists on the PC and specifically Windows with Oculus. There's no official support for Oculus on Linux at the moment. Even in the phone space VR is niche. But whatever the platform, VR is critical to it. Whatever the size of the PC VR market, that's the one that's pushing boundaries the most at the consumer level because it's the most powerful hardware.

 

[ChadD]

I generally agree. What's surprising to me about your post is that survey. Slashdot which is well known Microsoft bashing forum has Windows at 33%? I'd have guessed a lot lower than that coming from them.

Well known as a windows bashing forum ? Wheres this the MS water cooler ? lmao

 

[SuperSubZero]

Hey look, another thread where someone had a Win10 issue, it immediately spiraled into a slugfest among the usual parties, and the OP is long gone.

 

[ManofGod]

Hey look, another thread where someone had a Win10 issue, it immediately spiraled into a slugfest among the usual parties, and the OP is long gone.

LOL! Thanks, I needed that.

 

[BulletDust]

Some of the pro-desktop Linux folks just aren't being honest about the state of Linux gaming. It's utter crap compared to Windows, period. Yeah, no need to rush where there's like no titles while Windows is building a large library of titles. LOL!

People are posting their experiences gaming under Linux.

In direct comparison you have no experience whatsoever when it comes to gaming under Linux, yet you're one of the most vocal opponents to it (and you are opposing Linux adoption, you don't like the idea of people switching from Windows to Linux at all). You're opinion is based on hearsay and therefore means very little.

i game under Linux, ~90% of the games I played under Windows are available under Linux and they run great using Nvidia hardware/drivers. Furthermore, titles are continuing to grow under Steam. There's not really anything you can debate regarding my claims, as you don't run desktop Linux and have very little to no experience with it.

 

[B00nie]

And desktop Linux isn't an option for many people as well. I've said it countless times, if desktop Linux has all the advantages that people like you say and it had an ecosystem that was at least in the ballpark of Windows, we'd all be using Linux on the desktop.

Wrong. For example most people I've met still believe that they MUST pay to Microsoft to get an office suite. Even though free and fully working alternatives are simply a download away.

 

[BulletDust]

And desktop Linux isn't an option for many people as well. I've said it countless times, if desktop Linux has all the advantages that people like you say and it had an ecosystem that was at least in the ballpark of Windows, we'd all be using Linux on the desktop.

Windows is forced on consumers, it's not a choice. Windows 10 is a perfect example of this! I'm going to hammer it home again, popularity is not a measurement of best and the McDonalds of operating systems is marketed, heavily.

In comparison, Linux is not marketed - At all. Nor is it forced on the consumer.

I had a client only recently that wanted a brand name laptop pre installed with Ubuntu, in the end I had to refer him to System76 as even the Dell developer editions pre installed with Ubuntu aren't available in Australia, even though they're selling like hotcakes in the rest of the world.

When you get right down to basics, the usage statistics of Windows have everything to do with ruthless marketing literally forcing a product onto the consumer and nothing to do with some ecosystem.

 

[BulletDust]

So I know some might call me biased, but I actually worked on Secure boot. Nowhere was a discussion of messing with or vendor lock in, the whole goal with UEFI Secure Boot was to secure the Boot chain from being compromised...

https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/mmpc/2010/08/27/alureon-evolves-to-64-bit/

Alureon was infecting the boot process before Windows came up. There was a discussion on how to prevent that.

EFI and UEFI have been around a long time...
https://access.redhat.com/documenta...tion_Guide_x8664/s1-ia64-intro-efi-shell.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface

UEFI was going to come around, BIOS was never designed to handle 10TB hard drives, with 64GB of memory, and having video cards address 12GB of memory for example. Secure boot is part of that process to secure the boot chain from compromise, and make it that much harder to compromise machines.


This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

So where was the discussion in relation to enforcing an option to disable secure boot considering not all operating systems play well with it and in many cases disabling secure boot is necessary when working on PC's? I would have thought that an enforced option to disable secure boot completely would have been the first point to be implemented in the standard? After all, it is the end users PC?

We all know about UEFI, no one gives a crap about UEFI - The issue evolves purely around secure boot and the fact that there are many devices out there where secure boot cannot be disabled in UEFI, or UEFI provides the option but it simply does not work and refuses to disable secure boot. Furthermore, if a manufacturer want's to place a Windows 8 or Windows 10 sticker on their device Microsoft mandate that secure boot must be enabled and the manufacturer has to follow some guidelines. What guidelines I wonder?

The concept of secure boot is a good idea, it's implementation due to shithouse guidelines resulting in a poorly implemented standard allowing for UEFI to be shipped without the ability to disable it completely is where the problem lies. Once again, the end user is being treated like an idiot and I question for what reason.

 

[ewb302]

Others are now experiencing the Firefox Black screen issue. It's possibly not creators update related, but I was on Firefox 52 for almost 4 weeks without having the problem, then the night I did the upgrade it started happening. I rolled back to a much older version of Nvidia graphics and it still happens. Clearing hardware acceleration is the only way to stop it from happening. Just updated to Firefox 53 and it still happens.

This has happened to me, Firefox 52 and 53. Also after I did the Creators update. I'm sort of glad to see it's a known issue. I have been playing with my overclock and thought I had some instability. Rather, it looks like some new software issue.

 

[heatlesssun]

Windows is forced on consumers, it's not a choice. Windows 10 is a perfect example of this! I'm going to hammer it home again, popularity is not a measurement of best and the McDonalds of operating systems is marketed, heavily.

Outside of groups like this or those with specific technical requirements, who thinks about desktop operating systems? Consumers don't buy operating systems anymore, they buy devices. Does the device cost fit the budget and needs of the buyer? Does it run Office or LoL or a specific business app or whatever.

In comparison, Linux is not marketed - At all. Nor is it forced on the consumer.

And really neither is Windows so much directly. It's tied to hardware, like an Android phone, Android isn't being market so much as the particular devices that people buy.

When you get right down to basics, the usage statistics of Windows have everything to do with ruthless marketing literally forcing a product onto the consumer and nothing to do with some ecosystem.

It has a great deal to do with the ecosystem. At least for the non-McDonald's Windows user like myself. And operating system is USELESS without hardware and software to actually do things. For whatever reason, desktop a lot of desktop Linux folks are so focused on the OS that they forget that the things most people need and are concerned about have little to do with any particular OS. I'd be happy to use Linux if it's all that AND supported the things I do.

 

[BulletDust]

Outside of groups like this or those with specific technical requirements, who thinks about desktop operating systems? Consumers don't buy operating systems anymore, they buy devices. Does the device cost fit the budget and needs of the buyer? Does it run Office or LoL or a specific business app or whatever.

So the consumer is stupid? Is that what you're trying to imply Heatlesssun? They can't make their own informed decisions, they need their decisions made for them without any form of choice whatsoever?

Windows is an operating system targeted at the masses, you claim this is a good thing, that this is a strength of Windows. The issue is that to target an OS at the masses you sacrifice things like security for simplicity, you make the OS a target for malware and viruses.

No, what the consumer needs is choice. Yes there are many that would choose Windows, but I see no reason whatsoever that if Linux was offered as an option when selecting brand name boxed PC's or laptop's that there are people that would take advantage of the offering: Especially when considering that installing Linux on a boxed Machine sold with Windows pre installed voids any warranty on the device itself and usually results in the device costing slightly more, which is just wasted $$ if the OS is to be wiped and replaced anyway - Windows on an OEM machine is bundled into the price of the device, it is by no means free.

Not everyone fits the description of the stupid masses and not everyone wants to piece together a workstation - Given half a chance Linux would suit such people perfectly.

As more and more software applications move to web based products, the reliance on Windows as an OS is becoming less and less important. Since MS fixed their 'mistake' with Office Online and considering the number of advantages regarding online accounting packages the dependence on Windows is dwindling.

And really neither is Windows so much directly. It's tied to hardware, like an Android phone, Android isn't being market so much as the particular devices that people buy.

Windows is being marketed to the manufacturers of these products Heatlesssun, it's well known that Microsoft offer install bonuses to manufacturers for packaging and selling their products with Windows installed. Hence Windows is forced on the consumer via a platform capable of running any code compatible with x86/64.

Unlike yourself, I in no way compare the PC platform to handheld devices, the PC is far more versatile: Therefore I see no valid reason to compare Windows to Android. I fight to keep the PC as a platform separate to mobile devices.

It has a great deal to do with the ecosystem. At least for the non-McDonald's Windows user like myself. And operating system is USELESS without hardware and software to actually do things. For whatever reason, desktop a lot of desktop Linux folks are so focused on the OS that they forget that the things most people need and are concerned about have little to do with any particular OS. I'd be happy to use Linux if it's all that AND supported the things I do

People like choice and not everyone likes Windows 10 Heatlesssun. As I've stated before, the OS is the interface between the user and their machine, it's what they literally see - And for that reason it is not invisible to the user and a very conscious decision on behalf of the consumer. It's difficult to make such decisions when Windows is the only choice offered.

I use Linux, it does everything I want a PC to do and more. I provide examples of this for anyone considering switching from an OS that I consider to be going backwards and moving to Linux. The things people need and are concerned about in relation to PC usage are most definately available under Linux unless you're a professional that requires Adobe products. I'm tired of you implying that I'm a liar and that I am exaggerating the capabilities of Linux in comparison to Windows. As a well above average PC user that uses Linux everyday in the running of my business it's ecosystem is just fine with a magnitude of software applications available, some cross platform, some alternative, but most are great.

As an individual that only runs Windows I fail to see how you can in any way offer an opinion on this as anything you quote is based purely on hearsay, mostly immaculate crap regurtated off the internet

 

[heatlesssun]

So the consumer is stupid? Is that what you're trying to imply Heatlesssun? They can't make their own informed decisions, they need their decisions made for them without any form of choice whatsoever?

People buy hardware. The OS is largely irrelevant as long as that OS supports the users needs and fits their budget. That's called smart buying.

Windows is an operating system targeted at the masses, you claim this is a good thing, that this is a strength of Windows. The issue is that to target an OS at the masses you sacrifice things like security for simplicity, you make the OS a target for malware and viruses.

Strenghts can be weaknesses as well. A strength of Linux is its configurability. It can also be a weakness because there's how many different distros and DEs, etc? And yeah, that can be confusing to folks that aren't Linux gurus. And I always find is interesting that you say Windows is for the masses but something like PC VR, that's niche. But on a PC you need that McDonald's OS if one actually wants to use VR and have access to content.

No, what the consumer needs is choice.

Sure. But you're not championing the concept of choice in general, you're advocating for desktop Linux. An OS is but one of a mydrid of choices when it comes to PCs. And the OS is only as strong as the support it provides for those other choices.

Yes there are many that would choose Windows, but I see no reason whatsoever that if Linux was offered as an option when selecting brand name boxed PC's or laptop's that there are people that would take advantage of the offering: Especially when considering that installing Linux on a boxed Machine sold with Windows pre installed voids any warranty on the device itself and usually results in the device costing slightly more, which is just wasted $$ if the OS is to be wiped and replaced anyway - Windows on an OEM machine is bundled into the price of the device, it is by no means free.

But who really cares about the OS when what they are looking for is a 2 in 1 or a gaming machine or something with lots of battery life. If you go into a Best Buy in the states, that's what you see being promoted.

Not everyone fits the description of the stupid masses and not everyone wants to piece together a workstation - Given half a chance Linux would suit such people perfectly.

As more and more software applications move to web based products, the reliance on Windows as an OS is becoming less and less important. Since MS fixed their 'mistake' with Office Online and considering the number of advantages regarding online accounting packages the dependence on Windows is dwindling.

Yes and no. Web clients can be great but they are often lacking certain capabilities. And sure there's thin clients and cloud services, but people who don't have the connection strength to download Windows updates, and there's tons of complaints about that, well good luck with thin clients.

Windows is being marketed to the manufacturers of these products Heatlesssun, it's well known that Microsoft offer install bonuses to manufacturers for packaging and selling their products with Windows installed. Hence Windows is forced on the consumer via a platform capable of running any code compatible with x86/64.

I believe that direct payments like you're describing were prohibited long ago by various governments. Microsoft will do marketing partnerships and really, until there's a lot of folks out there demanding Windows OS alternatives in retail, why are OEMs going to worry about it?

Unlike yourself, I in no way compare the PC platform to handheld devices, the PC is far more versatile: Therefore I see no valid reason to compare Windows to Android. I fight to keep the PC as a platform separate to mobile devices.

With the kind of kinds of PCs I use I understand their capabilities compared to smartphones. That said they clearly do many of the same things.

People like choice and not everyone likes Windows 10 Heatlesssun.

There have been people through the years that have never liked any version of Windows. Nothing's different in that regard. It simply doesn't matter that much outside of circles like this. Once again, how it's long been.

As I've stated before, the OS is the interface between the user and their machine, it's what they literally see - And for that reason it is not invisible to the user and a very conscious decision on behalf of the consumer. It's difficult to make such decisions when Windows is the only choice offered.

Just a minute ago though you were talking about how everything is web based? When I'm playing a game using my Vive what OS do I see? It's irrelevant.

I use Linux, it does everything I want a PC to do and more. I provide examples of this for anyone considering switching from an OS that I consider to be going backwards and moving to Linux. The things people need and are concerned about in relation to PC usage are most definately available under Linux unless you're a professional that requires Adobe products. I'm tired of you implying that I'm a liar and that I am exaggerating the capabilities of Linux in comparison to Windows. As a well above average PC user that uses Linux everyday in the Running of my business it's ecosystem is just fine.

I use Windows as the host client on all of my x86 devices and they do all I want as more. Yes, you provide examples and for people where that works for them that's great. Your examples don't work for me. Otherwise I'd be using Linux.

 

[heatlesssun]

Wrong. For example most people I've met still believe that they MUST pay to Microsoft to get an office suite. Even though free and fully working alternatives are simply a download away.

I bet more people use LibreOffice under Windows than Linux. I have it installed on multiple devices. But I still use Office because, I'm sorry, I've used Libre a LOT and Office is just way better, at least for what I need and use. So even when given the option, many who really need office applications because it means money, a lot more than the cost of Microsoft Office, will spend the money.

 

[ob1]

You guys are obviously changing each others opinions, so keep going.... On a side note, I would say this thread has wandered off the OT, and turned into a climate change debate, errr, windows 10 bad!! debate. To each his own, you can't change climate deniers any more than you can change Windows or Linux users.

 

[LurkerLito]

The biggest fail of secure boot is not that it exists or cannot be disabled, it is the simple fact that the certificate that is required for approval of what can and cannot be installed is not from the purchaser of the hardware. I want a secure boot system for the OSes I approve, NOT ones that MS approves because they have their certificate embedded into the UEFI as an artificial requirement for a Windows license. As the owner of the hardware in question it should be my right to approve or disapprove what gets installed period.

 

[B00nie]

I bet more people use LibreOffice under Windows than Linux. I have it installed on multiple devices. But I still use Office because, I'm sorry, I've used Libre a LOT and Office is just way better, at least for what I need and use. So even when given the option, many who really need office applications because it means money, a lot more than the cost of Microsoft Office, will spend the money.

Well duh, there are a few million more windows users so obviously more people use LO on Windows. For me paid MS office is not worth the money. I've never met anyone who truly would need MS Office. Sure, some have built some home brew monstrosities over excel and access but they're a liability to any company.