MX Linux Forum

Arnox wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 1:59 am Except user safety is not something Microsoft should decide and force upon its users.

You're arguing "user safety is not the responsibility of the operating system." That's not a serious opinion. As I said earlier, when a company has a billion users, things are a little different than you or me as home hobbyists or as an experienced sysadmin of a few dozen machines. Ransomware attacks, rootkits, and botnets are quickly becoming a normal aspect of the modern online ecosystem, so taking proactive measures to secure individual machines at scale isn't just a good idea, it's a necessity.

Arnox wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 8:13 pmAnd even in non-tech spheres, I see rage. And as people are gradually forced to update to WIndows 11 at least, that rage is only going to grow.

I've been seeing that since at least Windows XP. It was also like that for Windows 95 when there was a huge change in the GUI. Yet, people still upgraded, because they were locked into it and couldn't find a reasonable alternative.

Arnox wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 8:13 pmWhat are you talking about? You don't have to run any commands. https://help.brother-usa.com/app/answer ... an---linux That was the first result when I searched it.

That was just an example. Have you seen the support forums just around here? Many simple tasks require quite a lot of configuration before they get working. My audio still doesn't work 100%, I have to run "alsaunmute" every time I start the system up. I'm sure I'll figure it out eventually but for now I can tolerate this. Most users won't tolerate this kind of loss in functionality.

Sure the situation is getting better and better, but will it be in time for the end of life for Windows 10? I'm not sure, but I'd rather not be disappointed by being overly optimistic.

Arnox wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 8:13 pmNot necessarily, but yes, you're right. It is generally a bad idea. With that said, many popular programs have a Flatpak version that can be easily downloaded and installed, or at very least a .deb install package. For those that do not, it's very likely some proprietary crap that is still stuck on Windows like the Adobe suite.

This proves my point. So software that people need to do some work is just "proprietary crap" and is a "bad idea" to install? For Windows, I can run an EXE or Windows Installer package and it will work on multiple versions of Windows. This is all but impossible in Linux. You can download package files, but they often only work on a specific version of a specific distro. Flatpak improves things slightly, but having to download hundreds (if not thousands) of megabytes just for a simple program is the epitome of bloat.

Honestly, if Linux could fix this (or if Microsoft or Apple manage to screw this advantage up in their next release), and find a way to make compatibility between versions and distros a thing, the market share could go up to 40% rather than 4%. Not having to support and cater for a plethora of different and incompatible ways of initialising the OS and managing services would be a start.

Arnox wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 8:13 pmAgain, I never said transitioning to Linux was easy, but it's not a gargantuan task.

For me, it was a gargantuan task to switch, this was in 2018/2019 when I took Linux seriously. Linux behaves very differently to Windows that I was familiar with, the way programs and drivers work and are installed on Linux is wildly different. I spent months distro-hopping and trying to work out which desktop environment would work for me before settling on a combination I could tolerate the most.
And even back then I wasn't entirely unfamiliar with Linux, and by then had years of experience dealing with BSD systems. Imagine a user with no such prior experience, in many cases it will be a real culture shock.

Arnox wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 8:13 pmExcept allow users to own and control parts of the OS and stopping the flow of unwanted updates and advertising without downloading and installing third-party programs. And even those third-party programs need to be updated in order to be able to counter the latest nonsense Microsoft has pushed out this month. I swear, it seems Microsoft can't go a single freaking month without screwing with Windows in some unwanted way.

I concur. Although my point is that it can do what they want, or rather, what they have to do, with little configuration, straight out of the box. Convenience at its finest (which as you just pointed out, comes at a cost).

artytux wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 8:34 pm Would or could that be too many cooks in the kitchen and no higher up to keep an eye on what the collective is doing ?

Honestly, while some of Windows' quality control problems as of late could be blamed on that or mismanagement, its most egregious problems arise from just straight up greed on the part of execs.

DukeComposed wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 8:39 pm You're arguing "user safety is not the responsibility of the operating system." That's not a serious opinion. As I said earlier, when a company has a billion users, things are a little different than you or me as home hobbyists or as an experienced sysadmin of a few dozen machines. Ransomware attacks, rootkits, and botnets are quickly becoming a normal aspect of the modern online ecosystem, so taking proactive measures to secure individual machines at scale isn't just a good idea, it's a necessity.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying at all that Windows shouldn't be secure or even that it shouldn't be taking advantage of TPM hardware. What I am saying is that Microsoft should be giving us a choice instead of forcing that decision upon its users. Windows has billions of users, yes, which is actually why it's even MORE important that users are allowed to configure their systems as they want. Everyone's use case for an operating system is different, even if just slightly. Therefore, giving users choice is incredibly important.

AK-47 wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 8:46 pm It was also like that for Windows 95 when there was a huge change in the GUI. Yet, people still upgraded, because they were locked into it and couldn't find a reasonable alternative.

They weren't locked into Windows 95 because Windows 3.1 was still supported. Also consider that back then, the internet wasn't really a big thing at all, so security was much less of an issue to worry about, so having to update was much less of a thing. Furthermore, the Windows 95 interface was a MAJOR step forward. In fact, even today, you still see pillars of Windows 95's UI design in interfaces today. This is because Microsoft actually put in some major man-hours and testing to see how best to make a 2D interface for an OS. The development of the 95 UI is actually very fascinating and I highly recommend reading about it when you can.

AK-47 wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 8:46 pm That was just an example. Have you seen the support forums just around here? Many simple tasks require quite a lot of configuration before they get working. My audio still doesn't work 100%, I have to run "alsaunmute" every time I start the system up. I'm sure I'll figure it out eventually but for now I can tolerate this. Most users won't tolerate this kind of loss in functionality.

I have seen them. Most of the problems are actually caused by hardware and older drivers. That or people messing up their systems with PPAs. Of course there are issues that aren't caused by those two, but they're rare. Hell, one of the big reasons why I'm even here in the first place is because MX has an INCREDIBLE track record for raw stability and ensuring that things just work right out of the box. Do not discount your own OS here. You guys have done a really damn good job, and I also love that you guys are in the trenches, so to speak, as in, on the support forums solving problems users have. It ensures even better quality control and also helps you guys know if there might be something majorly amiss with the OS. And also, let's not forget that Windows 10 and 11 aren't exactly bastions of stability here. Very far from it. Windows sometimes also requires the command line to use some of its features. Pinging a website to test your internet connection for example requires opening the command line, just off the top of my head. And finally, when you do get an issue on Windows, it's utterly infuriating to try and fix because of how ridiculously vague the errors are. On Linux, at very least I'm given something to search with. (By the way, you should open up a thread about your issue. That is a really weird bug.)

AK-47 wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 8:46 pm Sure the situation is getting better and better, but will it be in time for the end of life for Windows 10? I'm not sure, but I'd rather not be disappointed by being overly optimistic.

Fair enough I guess.

AK-47 wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 8:46 pm This proves my point. So software that people need to do some work is just "proprietary crap" and is a "bad idea" to install? For Windows, I can run an EXE or Windows Installer package and it will work on multiple versions of Windows. This is all but impossible in Linux. You can download package files, but they often only work on a specific version of a specific distro. Flatpak improves things slightly, but having to download hundreds (if not thousands) of megabytes just for a simple program is the epitome of bloat.

That's definitely not impossible on Linux. Just not recommended. Again, sometimes you can get away with installing something via a .deb package. I've personally done it a few times in risk of voiding any chance of official MX support and I haven't had any issues. Besides, there's problems with Windows' own system as well. If you install something out of the Debian Stable repo and it doesn't work, that's an official problem, and with an MX OS, you have multiple people on two different dev teams you can turn to for support on that. On the other hand, if something doesn't work on Windows? lol Too bad. Contact the software maker for support who may or may not give it. And hell, even if there's something wrong with Windows itself, unless you're a VL customer, you're also going to get xxxxxxx for support. They're not going to care unless it's a major system-breaking issue affecting a ton of people. But yeah, my point is that this isn't as cut-and-dried in Windows' favor as you'd think.

AK-47 wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 8:46 pm Flatpak improves things slightly, but having to download hundreds (if not thousands) of megabytes just for a simple program is the epitome of bloat.

Flatpak is definitely not the ideal way to install something, but it's also not the major issue you're making it out to be either. Once you download the large amounts of dependencies, you don't need to download them again, and install sizes get much more reasonable for future programs you install.

AK-47 wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 8:46 pm Not having to support and cater for a plethora of different and incompatible ways of initialising the OS and managing services would be a start.

In my opinion, this is technically already a fixed issue. Debian is the perfect OS to standardize around, and anytime you see a Linux version of a program, it always comes in .deb format. That is, assuming that they didn't make a flatpak version of the program, which they probably have. You can also convert an install package between different formats and there's also tools like Distrobox.

Arnox wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 9:53 pm You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying at all that Windows shouldn't be secure or even that it shouldn't be taking advantage of TPM hardware. What I am saying is that Microsoft should be giving us a choice instead of forcing that decision upon its users. Windows has billions of users, yes, which is actually why it's even MORE important that users are allowed to configure their systems as they want.

Your exact words "user safety is not something Microsoft should decide" are unambiguous. If you know a better way to get a billion users to all agree on the most secure way to run their machines, I'd love to hear it. What you aren't appreciating is that if the company wasn't making security choices on behalf of its users, those choices would never be made. The overwhelming majority of Windows users don't mess with their settings too much, and fewer still really understand the intricacies of asymmetric key-signing algorithms or how they protect the startup process. A compromised machine these days is a threat to more than just its owner, so companies like Microsoft and Apple have more of an obligation than ever to protect their users to avoid creating a compound online threat. Cars come with seat belts. Firearms come with safeties. You're welcome to tamper with your car and your guns if you want, but the manufacturers have an obligation to add those safety features and make them the default. Expecting a billion drivers to knit their own seat belts in the name of personal freedom is just ridiculous.

I just want to say, it's kind of weird that I have to defend Linux on a Linux forum.

DukeComposed wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 10:23 pm Your exact words "user safety is not something Microsoft should decide" are unambiguous.

Those aren't my exact words actually. My exact words are:

Arnox wrote:Except user safety is not something Microsoft should decide and force upon its users. They can have solid defaults, yes, but outright forcing TPM was a very bad idea, even if the move might maybe possibly have been born of good will.

A good example of what I'm talking about here is one of Windows XP Service Pack 2's features. As a part of the effort to combat the massive spread of malware and cover holes on the system, Microsoft put in an in-built firewall. That firewall, though, wasn't something that Microsoft forced on its users. You could still turn it off if you really wanted to, and you could also customize it for more granular control. It was a sensible thing to put in that both increased security and gave users more control over their systems.

Arnox wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 10:58 pm A good example of what I'm talking about here is one of Windows XP Service Pack 2's features. As a part of the effort to combat the massive spread of malware and cover holes on the system, Microsoft put in an in-built firewall. That firewall, though, wasn't something that Microsoft forced on its users. You could still turn it off if you really wanted to, and you could also customize it for more granular control. It was a sensible thing to put in that both increased security and gave users more control over their systems.

I beta tested that service pack before it was released. I understand how important packet filtering was for the Windows platform to eliminate entire classes of attacks to which it was, until then, highly vulnerable. Pushing TPM has been a project years in the making and again will eliminate a number of different attack vectors. If you don't want to use your TPM chip, you can turn it off. Same as the firewall. There's no difference between disabling one security feature and another. You sound like you're complaining that making a security feature a requirement offends you. You can still turn it off, but most people won't, and that's the whole point.

DukeComposed wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2024 12:21 am

Arnox wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 10:58 pm A good example of what I'm talking about here is one of Windows XP Service Pack 2's features. As a part of the effort to combat the massive spread of malware and cover holes on the system, Microsoft put in an in-built firewall. That firewall, though, wasn't something that Microsoft forced on its users. You could still turn it off if you really wanted to, and you could also customize it for more granular control. It was a sensible thing to put in that both increased security and gave users more control over their systems.

I beta tested that service pack before it was released. I understand how important packet filtering was for the Windows platform to eliminate entire classes of attacks to which it was, until then, highly vulnerable. Pushing TPM has been a project years in the making and again will eliminate a number of different attack vectors. If you don't want to use your TPM chip, you can turn it off. Same as the firewall. There's no difference between disabling one security feature and another. You sound like you're complaining that making a security feature a requirement offends you. You can still turn it off, but most people won't, and that's the whole point.

I think you're missing the fact that you can't even install Windows 11 without having it. Anyone could use or not use the Windows Firewall.

Arnox wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2024 12:31 am I think you're missing the fact that you can't even install Windows 11 without having it. Anyone could use or not use the Windows Firewall.

Windows 11 can be installed on hardware without the requisite TPM chip. You would need to actively perform this install, as it is difficult to bypass in the standard install wizard.

DukeComposed wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2024 12:57 am Windows 11 can be installed on hardware without the requisite TPM chip. You would need to actively perform this install, as it is difficult to bypass in the standard install wizard.

Which is a barrier to a lot of tech illiterate people. Further, Microsoft plans to remove offline installs in the future, and it wouldn't surprise me if they removed the ability to install Windows without a TPM chip.

Arnox wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2024 1:05 am Which is a barrier to a lot of tech illiterate people.

You have to make up your mind. Either Windows is bad because new versions force people to accept new security features, or Windows is bad because sidestepping those new security features is possible but not simple enough for unskilled people who probably shouldn't be turning them off in the first place. Which is it?