And Windows NT was the result of the failed joint venture with IBM while developing OS/2. While IBM wanted stability and preferred to let the user wait at power up until the IS was sure everything checked out, MS wanted fast user satisfaction and if things fail, just let the user reboot.
I prefer to get a cup of coffee when the computer boot up at the start of the day, but no, ‘the market’ preferred a quick start and regular coffee breaks during the day. I’d almost suspect MS from having stocks in the coffee industry.
Which OS is better? The one that meets the user’s needs. I’m glad there is choice, my choice isn’t everybody’s choice. The Windows desktop at work comes with a helpdesk, which works fine for me. (when I need them, but I’ll deny any knowledge of Windows ;) )
When I bought my first (and only) smartphone, I figured that since it was using this partially open source linux-based OS, I’d be able to customise it, get rid of crapware, and remove google’s hooks from it. But I was wrong. I wasn’t able to do any of those things. Because of that, I don’t have a particularly favourable view towards Android.
That’s the error. The word “are” isn’t even a part of their comment. They don’t want people finding the one, singular, that is above the rest. They proposed flipping the competition. Finding the worst. That leaves no top-most judgement for the rest, no hypocrisy with that.
I interpreted their comment as “There are at least two tiers of things: things that are Microsoft Windows and those that aren’t, and the tier that includes Microsoft Windows is not the most superior tier”. I don’t think that’s hypocritical.
Windows users? I mean the reason why Linux users proclaim the superiority of Linux is because Windows users always say that they want to leave Windows but XYZ doesn’t work or Linux, making Linux look like it’s feature poor which isn’t the case.
But they continue to complain instead of learn to adapt. I have a friend who needs help every week and I told him I am charging for windows help from here on because this is stupid.
Linux, as an OS, is much more feature rich. What it lacks is applications. There are many applications out there that are only available for Windows or OSX and there is no Linux app to do the same thing (or the Linux app is very far behind in quality). The inverse (a Linux only app) is rarely true, except for applications that are niche or heavily rely on an OS feature that does not have a close equivalent on Windows.
Plus, just about every piece of (consumer) hardware that can be connected to a computer has a Windows driver.
And another thing you can add to that fact is that Windows users gets to enjoy the best of the Linux apps. VLC, Gimp, Audacity, OBS, etc. That’s a big reason why Windows is even usable for an average user.
Around half my applications on Windows were FOSS even before I moved to Linux and I used them for a long time. The proprietary apps I did use, I don’t really miss. I also doubt anybody actually likes having to install drivers on Windows or browse the web for apps. It’s just extra bullshit.
I think we should stop trying to figure out what operating system is superior, and just focus on shitting on Microsoft windows.
I think both macOS and Android are inherently superior to anything I’ve ever used that was created by Microsoft.
Multiple versions of macOS are UNIX® Certified Products according to the institution that publishes the POSIX standards: https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3688.htm https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3673.htm
“Android is a mobile operating system based on a modified version of the Linux kernel” so it is surely easier to liberate yourself by using Android than by using Microsoft Windows.
Windows NT had a lot of UNIX code in it and was fully POSIX compatible. But then came the Win32 code, and XP became what it is.
And Windows NT was the result of the failed joint venture with IBM while developing OS/2. While IBM wanted stability and preferred to let the user wait at power up until the IS was sure everything checked out, MS wanted fast user satisfaction and if things fail, just let the user reboot.
I prefer to get a cup of coffee when the computer boot up at the start of the day, but no, ‘the market’ preferred a quick start and regular coffee breaks during the day. I’d almost suspect MS from having stocks in the coffee industry.
Which OS is better? The one that meets the user’s needs. I’m glad there is choice, my choice isn’t everybody’s choice. The Windows desktop at work comes with a helpdesk, which works fine for me. (when I need them, but I’ll deny any knowledge of Windows ;) )
When I bought my first (and only) smartphone, I figured that since it was using this partially open source linux-based OS, I’d be able to customise it, get rid of crapware, and remove google’s hooks from it. But I was wrong. I wasn’t able to do any of those things. Because of that, I don’t have a particularly favourable view towards Android.
Actual, vanilla AOSP is a pretty good system. But as soon as a manufacturer takes it and puts their own stuff on top, things get annoying.
By shitting on Windows you’re saying anything that isn’t Windows is superior. Now you’re just being a hypocrite.
A hypocrite, but right.
How is it hypocritical to say that things that aren’t Microsoft Windows are better than Microsoft Windows?
Crow doesn’t want us to classify which operating systems are superior, yet, believes that every operating system that isn’t Windows is superior.
That’s the error. The word “are” isn’t even a part of their comment. They don’t want people finding the one, singular, that is above the rest. They proposed flipping the competition. Finding the worst. That leaves no top-most judgement for the rest, no hypocrisy with that.
I interpreted their comment as “There are at least two tiers of things: things that are Microsoft Windows and those that aren’t, and the tier that includes Microsoft Windows is not the most superior tier”. I don’t think that’s hypocritical.
What is really clear is which users are most obnoxious, and it’s not Apple.
Windows users? I mean the reason why Linux users proclaim the superiority of Linux is because Windows users always say that they want to leave Windows but XYZ doesn’t work or Linux, making Linux look like it’s feature poor which isn’t the case.
They aren’t saying that Linux is feature poor. They’re just saying that Linux doesn’t fit their use case.
Big difference.
But they continue to complain instead of learn to adapt. I have a friend who needs help every week and I told him I am charging for windows help from here on because this is stupid.
I’ve heard more Linux users complain about Windows than Windows users, and there are plenty more of em.
Usually also using arguments that have either aren’t relevant anymore, or are just plainly false like the one in the post.
Linux, as an OS, is much more feature rich. What it lacks is applications. There are many applications out there that are only available for Windows or OSX and there is no Linux app to do the same thing (or the Linux app is very far behind in quality). The inverse (a Linux only app) is rarely true, except for applications that are niche or heavily rely on an OS feature that does not have a close equivalent on Windows.
Plus, just about every piece of (consumer) hardware that can be connected to a computer has a Windows driver.
And another thing you can add to that fact is that Windows users gets to enjoy the best of the Linux apps. VLC, Gimp, Audacity, OBS, etc. That’s a big reason why Windows is even usable for an average user.
Around half my applications on Windows were FOSS even before I moved to Linux and I used them for a long time. The proprietary apps I did use, I don’t really miss. I also doubt anybody actually likes having to install drivers on Windows or browse the web for apps. It’s just extra bullshit.