I am completely ok with people disagreeing with me. Their naivety keeps me employed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah, blame the user(s). You are correct, most of the people are not tech savvy and don't backup, but Windows was marketed as the best, most secure OS, and never did they say "oh, but you should totally backup your data, we might fuck up sometime in the future".
Imagine if someone sold a hammer which works well, but around 100th hit it just shatters, but it was marketed as the best one and the shattering part was never mentioned. People like construction workers or hobbyists would know to buy something more trustworthy, but most people, who don't use hammers daily, would buy it and forget about it. Then on a 100th hit or so, it shatters. Would we still blame the users or would we call the hammer company a scam and proceed with legal actions? Why give software companies special treatment?
This is the how technology is evolving, people. You can keep fighting it, but you're are just delaying the inevitable.
If Linux went corporate mainstream, like Windows did, it would follow the same path. Even an OS that tries to do both, like Ubuntu, is not exempt. Go to almost any site in regards to Ubuntu (or any variation of Linux really) and updating it, and the message "backup your data" is plastered everywhere.
Pure nonsense. There is absolutely nothing in the way "technology is advancing" that requires this sort of updating behavior.
The thing is, the Windows vs Linux aspect is a red herring in this debate. When you get right down to it, they are both monolithic kernel operating systems, comprised of a complex kernel that handles the fundamentals, and a stack of binaries that perform all the other functions of the OS. You could update both of them in essentially the same way if you wanted to; there's nothing about either of them that mandates a particular approach. The whole matter comes down to how the different companies choose to go about things.
The other misleading idea is that forced updates have something to do with being in the "corporate mainstream". The complete opposite is true. It's the Enterprise versions of Windows that give complete control of updates - enterprises set the group policies as they see fit, and test significant updates before deciding when and how to roll them out. That's the way it's always been done in the enterprise, and the way corporate Linux systems do it, too.
The only difference is in Microsoft's decision to take the choice and control in updates away from home users.
Again bullshit. Linux is configurable. It might have a default configuration but you can change it. The latest ubuntu will install patches but you can trivially turn it off.
Well I know I won’t make the move to windows 10 in 2020 (currently using 7).
It is either Linux or an iMac.
I know little of an iMac. I have an iPad and iPhone though.
Can anybody enlighten me perhaps?
That wasn't even the argument. Keep up!
Well I know I won’t make the move to windows 10 in 2020 (currently using 7).
It is either Linux or an iMac.
I know little of an iMac. I have an iPad and iPhone though.
Can anybody enlighten me perhaps?
@Caddy;
The introduction of an abstract, simple economic equation does not establish one's assertions any more strongly, or indeed tell us very much at all. You could call that a "quantifiable figure" in the abstract, but only by assigning your chosen values to fundamentally non-quantifiable things. What for example would be the quantity of risk, or the quantity of benefit - 6 litres of risk, 20 tonnes of efficiency? These concepts have no countable measure - only the numbers you choose to assign to them. This is simply a tool for proceduralising a decision making process, but it is entirely derived from the subjective judgment of the values for those concepts that you plug into it.
It's a very common way that suits try to sell the idea what they're trying to convince you of is simple science. It’s not. Who decides what the risk vs benefit of changes to one's personal computer ought to be, and what those values are? These are not scientific questions.
Here is Ripper's Microsoft Animosity Coefficient :
Dislike of having things forced on me x Importance of control of personal computer = Contempt for Microsoft (measured in standard candles)
The answer is 42, but it's not terribly useful.
With regard to your actual arguments, for which the coefficient is just a distracting accessory, you seem to be confusing the idea of current trends with that which is unavoidable through technological advancement, and simply asserting that Linux would end up doing the same things as Microsoft if it got big enough.
I am completely ok with people disagreeing with me. Their naivety keeps me employed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯