For whatever faults MSFT has today, any sort of antipathy or guile towards OSS or Linux is not one among them. Credit where credit is due. Too many are stuck reliving past glories.
If you want an actual OSS bogeyman, you need only direct your attention to Oracle. Too many transferred their goodwill towards Sun to a company has, among other things, tried to claim Java’s APIs as their own intellectual property. That’s a company that still merits this kind of hand-wringing.
If you don't have the time, the most interesting part starts at 7:29  with a tour of the many ways Microsoft attacked Linux in the past, while from 13:55  on he goes into how he thinks Microsoft (and others) are hurting Linux today.
Seeing you present them as champions is kinda funny...
Microsoft got a bit smarter since their anti-trust days. They saw that giving away OSS kept everyone off Google's back and allowed them to focus on building an immense spying machine.
Now they're applying the same recipe with some success (software people are suckers for OSS trinkets), but they started from such a poor image that it will take a while for all the dirt to wash off.
I'd be really impressed if MS made Windows open source. Maybe that way someone could finally disable that pesky telemetry spyware.
Oracle is all about money and it's obvious to everyone that they're not good guys. The ones to watch out for are the insidious ones like Google or MS.
Reality is that the raw technical reality has forced MS to the open-source table. The fight played out and Windows lost -- Microsoft lives on.
Perhaps neither camp is happy with the situation, but if we're being honest, there's probably not anything that anyone can do about it.
And it's not like present day Microsoft is without issues. As a user as far as I'm concerned every new version of Windows is worst that the last for instance. Ads everywhere, dark patterns in the UI etc... There are reasons to be cautious when we see them setting foot in FLOSS world, there's history here and it's not like MS suddenly turned into a non-profit open-source advocacy organization.
"Embrace, extend, extinguish" was one of Microsoft's key strategies.
Also, Steve Ballmer left Microsoft just four years ago and Bill Gates still works there. No, he did not retire or leave.
That's a good thing, right?
That's not to say that their criticisms are unfounded. The main criticism today is around advertising and telemetry in Windows 10, and that's absolutely a problem for a professional device. There are many scummy practices still going on at Microsoft, and the disjointed nature between their divisions is plain to see.
I don't mind it, because I think criticism is required to keep people/companies honest, and to drive improvement, but at this point I think a lot of people in tech will always find something to complain about in regards to Microsoft.
Microsoft are a different company to the one that tried to damage FLOSS. Those people want an apology from a strong Microsoft, not one they refuse to acknowledge as a top-tier tech company in 2018.
IMO, it's not the attack on FLOSS that people hate. It's the impact on the tech landscape during their time in tech, and no apology will repair that history. All we can hope for is that Microsoft continue to fight the good fight, and focus on creating good products and services. As I said before, criticism keeps a company honest, and hopefully that hate will balance out the praise and make Microsoft into an honest voice in tech.
Sure, "the river is never the same" :) But it's also the same shop and should be up front about this type of change in attitude, right?
> IMO, it's not the attack on FLOSS that people hate. It's the impact on the tech landscape during their time in tech, and no apology will repair that history.
I do think they still suffer from their sneaky behavior. That kind of impact on tech is to be expected of any capitalist outfit. Fixing that would be gov't's job.
The person writing the press release for such an apology didn't do anything, so there's nothing for them to apologize for. The people responsible for Microsoft's anti-OSS stance are minimally involved in 2018, if at all.
There are plenty of people and companies who apologize without putting action behind it. Apologies are a nice gesture on a personal level, but they don't mean anything without action, and they don't mean anything at all at a company level. Microsoft is, at a minimum, showing it wants people to think it's changed. People unwilling to give them a chance are not going to be persuaded by a press release with apology in the title.
Who was involved in the decision to fund SCO in their lawsuit against IBM over copyrights in Linux? I could stand to start with those people.
Next, round up all the people who paid for (and probably ghost-wrote) articles, in all the trade press, to persuade corporate America that Linux was a copyright-absorbing cancer?
I'll believe Microsoft "LOVES LINUX" when they announce Office365 for Ubuntu, and not a day before.
Yes, I'm bitter. I was very active in trying to get Linux more-widely accepted at my Fortune 250 in the 90's, and a bad-faith manager used the lawsuit, and the coverage of it, to stifle my efforts.
Are you sure it was a lawsuit and not the state of the still very new Linux in the '90s? From what I recall, Linux didn't have a good reputation before 2.6.
I doubt they simply hope every one forgets, they probably hope every one forgives eventually.
I've never seen such PR, but I will trust you on it.
The people that oppose Microsoft aren't asking for one, they're asking for changes to other things so the apology is moot. Microsoft is far from perfect, but they're possibly the only one of the big 4 that is at least trending in the right direction.
Microsoft and Microsoft fans just can't let their actions speak for themselves and allow opinions to change naturally. They just have to force themselves on developers and say "wow you don't love me, OKAY, I'll just buy the platforms and services you love so you'll have to love me". I know why they do this though - it's because Microsoft's history is akin to Sauron, Darth Vader, or Lord Voldemort. Microsoft's history is just comically evil and the only reason they've changed is because the landscape shifted in such a manner where Microsoft was FORCED to change. They aren't doing this from to bottom of their hearts and they don't deeply believe in the open source idea and spirit; they are only doing it because, by the grace of God, the internet became the place to do business and not the desktop.
Microsoft would still demand its pound of flesh from all of us if they could; and they'd still be a closed source firm that looked down upon people who believed that free, high quality open source tools were a win for society in general, and they sure as hell wouldn't have let go of Balmer. Microsoft and .NET developers with stockholm syndrome need to stop treating us as if we're dumb for not bending the knee before Redmond.
The company produces and ships spyware and adware.
For better or worse, that influences how all of their actions are seen.
(To be fair, I think Microsoft engineers are actually staying low-key and just release stuff, while the management, marketing and fan groups are talking about how great Microsoft has become for FLOSS)
Like what? I am not trying to be snarky here. I honestly would like your feedback. From my perspective Linux is way better than Microsoft in this regard, but maybe I am just looking at/using the wrong MS tools?
Not public: the best instrumented profiler I’ve ever used. Smaller things like Assert tags so you can uniquely ID them. A massive distributed test system (love hate with that one). Profiling and optimization tools to answer pretty much any question about how your product behaves.
I always thought MSVC’s dialect of C++ was a little more programmer friendly. E.g. you can construct an object inline and pass it by reference. The compiler doesn’t do ridiculous things once it finds out you sign overflowed - it’s designed to support applications not meet synthetic benchmarks. PDBs make a lot more sense to me than packing debug info directly in the binary.
For this use case on Linux, there's rr: https://github.com/mozilla/rr/
- Most of the tools by Sysinternals, eg. ProcessExplorer, ProcessMonitor
- Tools by Nirsoft, eg. TCPView, GDIView, HeapMemView etc.
- Microsoft's own tools eg. WinDbg, System Profiler, all the snap-ins for MMC
- Tools for looking at system components related to COM/OLE
That's just guessing, but I find I respect Windows more and more the more I learn about it.
I recommend reading the Windows Internals books because it shows the amount of work that has gone into things that are overlooked often eg. NTFS (which is miles better than Apple's new APFS, which seems to get a lot of praise for unknown reasons).
You can find out a lot of what is happening under the hood with Sysinternal's tools, including IPC which would be far harder to trace under Linux I believe.
I wish I was working in such an ecosystem. :(
Bazel, Google's build tool is a good example of this. Google actually open-sourced most of Bazel a few years ago, but as far as I know, it hasn't gotten much uptake. It requires doing a bunch of boring configuration work to use it. But as someone who used it internally I definitely prefer it to all the alternatives, due to its speed and reliability.
Although Bazel is still in beta, more and more companies are using it (e.g. Dropbox, Huawei, SpaceX, Pinterest, Stripe - see https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/wiki/Bazel-Users) or interested enough to attend the recent Bazel conference (see https://conf.bazel.build/about).
I can imagine there is some fear of espionage or sabotage but I'm just asking the boring stuff about deploying a (web) front end system.
My impression is that for local stuff their tooling is not much better than public. They have a lot more reliance on logging.
I’ve never worked there so this is just all second hand info.
There's an "explain vs gcore" issue on the github, which mentions among other things that they use gcore to generate the core dumps but want to move away from it: https://github.com/Microsoft/ProcDump-for-Linux/issues/13
I can see MS porting all their server apps(MSSQL, Exchange, etc) to run on linux since Linux is dominating the server market and it would be a significant opportunity for them.
1) An easy way to join a Windows domain. Being able to use AD user auth and Windows file sharing with AD groups that is as easy as it is on Windows server would remove a major scare factor for Windows admins trying Linux. I hope this could be implemented by contributing to SAMBA and being a wrapper for SAMBA rather than a reimplementation. I have had frustrating times with Linux unmounting Windows shares and having to reboot to get them to remount.
2) Training. MS have a well trodden path for learning to be an MS admin. Bringing it to Linux would surely help more people test-the-waters.
Red Hat's sssd already makes this trivial. You can join a Windows domain from the Fedora "first run wizard" or via a simple "realm join xyz.tld" command. It works pretty well mostly. You get AD integrated logins and SSH/sudo access and can use AD groups for access control just like normal groups. Kerberos SSO to Linux boxes works fine etc.
Linux has most of this in an ad-hoc fashion, but the key benefit comes from the centralization.
As for MS Windows, WTF? Not only the forced ads making it seem like in some kind of casino built for 4 year olds (assume it's some kind of play to suck the kiddies in?), it's an abortion of mismatched UI, half of it trying to look like a cheaply built web app, then on next screen dumping you back into some NT style select panel. It's just awful. To say nothing of invasive updates and general Windows unpleasantness. I can say without reservation I have no use for the OS at all, Linux is just so much more pleasant to use at this point.
Or "control [shortcut]" eg control fonts
Or can still use MMC, or blablabla.msc, eg. devmgmt.msc
and hardly have to interact with the snow-blindness Settings app.
Is there any advantage to running it on Linux (except maybe the cost of a Windows license which is probably trivial compared to the cost of Sql Server itself)
As the OP indicated, MS SQL has it's own facilities for managing memory and disk I/O. It basically asks for all the resources from the OS and then does everything itself internally. I'm exaggerating obviously but it does try to avoid costly calls to the OS whenever and however possible which is why it was so easily ported to Linux.
Azure is a cash cow. Windows brings in money but is increasingly difficult to monetize _and_ its increasingly difficult to keep bringing legacy app support forward and stay competitive.
PowerShell, .NET Core, and MS SQL are all happily running on Linux.
By all accounts WSL entered the market with little drama is pretty great to use (IMHO).
The idea of doing a native SSH from WSL into a Linux container on Azure running a bootstraped 'MS' version of *nix with official support for a discounted price compared to a Windows VM is certainly appealing.
I would run MS Linux as a dev environment in a heart beat. MS would do well to _not_ to brand a desktop and just run a very clean gnome or plasma default.
Then a dedicated app store can really push PWAs like Teams,Skype and fully manage the interop layer for other apps that need a little more hand holding (wine, mono, etc).
tl;dr - I'm into this.
If Microsoft buys Canonical it will be very interesting. Seeing that IBM bought Red Hat,
I wouldn't be surprised at all to see MS give up on WSL, acquire CodeWeavers, and reimplement "Windows" as a proprietary desktop environment for a nix-ish OS with a super-souped-up WINE doing much of the legwork. At this point such a contraption would be less painful than some of Apple's recent transitions (e.g. from PPC to x86).
Selling software, as a general business model, is on the ropes and this is a great indication of that. The victory of open-source here is both blatant and decisive.
Had it not been for every major software company deciding they can subsist on a combination of a) rental fees and b) advertising/demographic data, we'd probably have another RIAA v. The Internet-style showdown to confront over the next decade. In this respect, I suppose we should be grateful for the opportunity to pay 6x more to be in "the cloud".
As an observer, it's a weird situation to see, and still trying to orient my feelings and understand what to make of it.
I find that hard to believe. Apple only had to build emulators for their ISA changes, just translating instruction set into another. Doesn't sound painful at all. WINE on the other hand has good reasons for pointing out that it's not an emulator.
It is getting an appropriate amount of love though in the last year. I'm really hopeful that it will keep getting better.
it means they could eventually just adopt Linux as the platform for Microsoft applications. That would do away with a lot of historical reliability issues, and would mean that they would have less to support internally. They're making more and more money on things like Azure and Office365 etc, and none of that really depends on Windows.
I just did some googling, and it looks like Azure actually runs on Windows. It started out as a fork and then eventually merged back with server 2016.
The source for this is unfortunately a video, but here it is.
Azure can be a ~$30 billion sales business eventually, probably spitting off $6b or $7b in operating income. It's a dramatically better business than messing with smartphones again (other than building apps for Android & iOS). They should just keep focused on their booming cloud business.
I played with it this summer and some of it actually works!
I guess theoretically, if we agreed to support the main desktop and mobile/tablet OS’s and chip architectures, and then got everyone to use a standard compiler and IL format (LLVM maybe?) then you might get some of the way, but that would be a lot of work (cool if it happened though...)
The problem right now with warm
WASM is lack of features (e.g. you can't do threading), though those are getting sorted.
A WASM version of the local apps would be interesting though.
Linux is already massive on Azure so it makes a lot of sense from a support POV. Whether they go with their own version or just buy a distributor (Ubuntu for example) is an interesting question though.
Still, I don't think Microsoft would have a Linux distribution itself, for consumers, the cloud and related services is the current focus for Microsoft.
Short answer: Chrome OS (also Android).
Chrome OS is a Linux distribution being aggressively promoted by a large, well-funded competitor. It can already run Android apps (in release versions) and Linux applications (in beta). Ironically Visual Studio Code runs really well on Chrome OS, as do the Android versions of Word, Excel and Powerpoint -- full screen like a proper laptop application
Microsoft's applications already run on Linux; it's really up to Microsoft to decide whose Linux distributions they get to run on.
It would be very clever for Microsoft to start offering Office 365 for Linux but only support it on their own distro. And it's understandable; getting that bucket of ugly bolts to work on Linux would be an epic hack job and probably would never be particularly stable on random distros.
I don't know if they will keep that tendency (plus, it's more likely to lead to them sticking with Windows on servers)
However, if they do move towards Linux on servers they will naturally explore Linux for workstations too.
2019: Microsoft bought Ubuntu
It doesn't seem possible.
You buy Ubuntu, put a lot of money into it, slowly force more and more of your MS software on people, make more and more third party software depend on it and eventually the effort needed to fork away and maintain "clean" version is simply too huge to be worth it.
But of course in this case there are many other Linux distributions out there already so it shouldn't be a huge cause for concern.
Next stage after that would be to launch Azure Windows VMs that are competitive with a "real" Linux OS for running Linux binaries but with access to Microsoft GUI management tools.
Once you depend on the GUI tools you depend on Microsoft as OS provider.
Eg their compatability layer for their own apps Metro > Win32 is quite thin.
I'm sorry but I just don't believe that Microsoft is good for Linux. Although Linux has only a tiny fraction of the market, it's still one of the few competitors to Windows. They are competitors. MS does not try to help Linux out of the goodness of it's heart. They do it despite themselves or for PR or in an effort to try to mitigate Linux in some way. If possible they would like to eat Linux up, incorporate a version into Windows. This is not because they want to help Linux adoption. It's to try to keep developers, who would otherwise run Linux, inside of Windows.
I tried this tool.
It was extremely useful.
I read its source code. I didn't find anything compromising.
I added this tool to my toolbox. Excellent work by Microsoft.
You see how I can have a personal opinion yet use a great tool that helps me?
It has a significantly larger install-base than Windows. Which market are you referring to? My DVR runs Linux, my TV runs Linux, my phone runs Linux, heck even my car's infotainment unit runs Linux. Windows is only on PCs and Laptops these days.
> They are competitors. MS does not try to help Linux out of the goodness of it's heart.
Microsoft no longer views Linux as a competitor but an opportunity. They're making plenty of money off of Linux's back via Azure and SQL Server licensing.
Microsoft views its future as largely in digital services. The advantage to that for them is that it isn't tied to the Windows platform, so they continue to profit when people have a mobile device or a Chromebook.
> If possible they would like to eat Linux up, incorporate a version into Windows.
They already have that via Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) which aside from being the worst name ever, is a full Ubuntu running in the user's context that interoperates (kinda) with Windows.
A few more thoughts. Microsoft doesn't view Linux as a competitor. Why would it? It has less than 1% of the global desktop share. You could maybe argue that Linux is a competitor to Windows Server, but then again, I'd counter with the claim that people who user Server are probably going to use Azure, which runs on Linux and offers users the ability to spin up Linux vm's. Microsoft views Linux as a tool. Their competitors are Google, Apple, IBM, and Oracle.
Also, your last 2 statements just make no sense. They have incorporated Linux into Windows via the WSL with Suse, Ubuntu, Kali, and Debian. They have done so pretty much to entice people to use Windows over Linux. I'm not sure how this is bad? They can't force developers to use Windows. Going back to what I said, a company is improving it's product to attract new users. Why should they care about Linux adoption? That's not their business model.
Seriously, grow up. Microsoft is a publicly traded for profit organization. They're not embracing Linux and free software out of the "goodness of their heart" but because there's compelling reasons to. Russinovich literally said they transition because of "practical business reasons". They're not out to get your desktop or your phone. Their aim is Azure. They want people building stuff on Azure. Would they like you to build on Windows? Of course they would that means more money. However, they ported VS to macOS, released a multiplatform code editor, and pushed SQL server onto linux. They're realized the OS is nothing but a tool.
No, MS does not "try to help Linux out of the goodness of it's heart."
(a) its a corporate - corporates don't have hearts
(b) even individuals usually have an ulterior motive for their actions. Perhaps by helping Linux, we get some personal ego boost from seeing our own name on the contributor's wall. Or perhaps when Linux wins, the market for our Linux skills grows.
Whatever, no-one does anything much out of the pure goodness of their hearts.
They needed some grip on developers to promote Azure. So they hand out VSCode and .NET Core.
Microsoft needs to earn money. The simplest ways to keep or acquire customers is with good toys.
But I don't want to be tracked when I paid for their stuff. I want control over my system. And from a developer perspective, I'm still 1000% more productive on any nix based system where the tooling is (and has generally always been) years ahead.
There are very few areas where I need to use windows, and it's only due to vendor lock-in. Embedded development tools and professional RE tools are stronger on windows, sadly.
Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type `warranty'.
(interrupt) Exiting bc.
I don't know but is there no equivalent tool in the entire Linux history?
You could set a trigger based on CPU or memory load so e.g. the next spike will capture a few dumps over a set period of time. You don’t have to deal with a ton of data from a simple periodic trigger or having to try to time an irregular event — nothing world-changing but a nice time-saver.
So I go and check out a new Windows 10 laptop and the first thing I see, even on Microsoft's own Surface devices running a 'clean' Windows install, is a bunch of adverts on the start menu and sigh.
Why do you do so many great things then ruin your most popular brand with crap like Candy Crush and Twitter on your clean Windows install on your £3000+ premium laptop running Windows 10 Professional?
Not to mention how you conveniently always reset my settings to your defaults including reinstalling all your ad-crap every 6 months with a new Windows release. So I have to go find that damn PowerShell script again to wipe them out because a normal uninstall option is just too much to ask for isn't it!
Honestly it does my head in. Windows 10 is a solid OS but they trash it with these awful little pointless decisions. Fine stick your Candy crap in the Home edition but leave Professional alone, especially as you offer me no alternative as an independent development as I can't meet your Enterprise level requirements.
Do you see Apple loading up third-party apps into macOS? No? I wonder why.
Solving a lot of the complaints about Windows 10 isn't some super hard development problem. All they have to do is provide an actual clean version of Windows 10 with no third-party crap and cut out a few of the MS apps as well like 3D Paint (really?), 'Get Office' (again really? In your Professional version?), stop nagging me about changing from your own products, remove all 'suggestions' and tips, allow me to properly disable Cortana and OneDrive with a single option and they be actually gone for good, and maybe have an option to fully disable telemetry (not that I would as I know it is beneficial to you and I but it will shut up some noisy people online and makes everyone happy).
See not that hard is it? Also please go to a one release per year. The fact you have screwed up the last two consecutive updates shows you are pushing to do too much too quickly. Who are you in a race with anyway? Just take your time and do a nice solid update every Spring and everyone will be much happier.
Imagine your favourite burger place packing a credit-card sized piece of plastic in the middle of the bun.
You can remove it. It's fairly trivial. You know it's there, it's too big to swallow, you pull it out, chuck it in the bin, and get on your way.
That's what advertising in Windows feels like.
It's just not polite.
I'm trying to do a thing and you've put this colorful flashy box in front of it.
Imagine if people tried to "monetize" their conversations. They might claim that otherwise they couldn't afford to talk to anyone (rent ain't gonna pay itself, right).
You'd be talking about football or whatever and suddenly a different tone of voice would emanate from your conversational partner for 10 seconds whilst they talk about some Super New Product.
As far as I can tell the whole industry is impolite, rude, gauche, just a bit icky, really.
I live in a city that has a characteristic mountain. So, naturally, advertisers are placing their towering billboards so that they constantly block the view when you're driving on the avenue that would have the best unimpeded line of sight.
What do you think the cost would be for these free things without advertising?
The biggest downside I can think of is while I would happily pay for Google search (per search, subscription, whatever) in an ad free world, there's lots of people who simply wouldn't bother to search and learn new things.
Really though I think they have a good model for their search page, it's unobtrusive and not rude, and it made them the most powerful tech company in silicon valley, so clearly it works. Wonder why other adtechs had to get so much shittier about it.
I just know that I do in fact have these things today because of advertising.
But free tshirts are pretty nifty.
It was (maybe still is) particularly annoying on Bitcoin forums for example, where signatures can contain images.
People do try to monetize their conversations. That's why "networking" is a different word than "socializing".
This holds true for a lot of things related to sales & advertising - if you tried to repeat the same practices in person to your family or friend, you'd get distaste or a punch in the face.
The Product people understand what makes a great product, but Marketing / Business people need short term fix in order to reach their KPIs, which pressures them to do what they do to the product, fill it up with advertisement. Otherwise marketing people will be out of a job.
There is a disconnect between Product and Business from within Microsoft. This is where Apple still has an edge, I'm not saying apple doesn't have internal conflicts they do, but they resolve it and when they speak they all speak the same message, this IMO is Apple's true strength.
Making the 2 teams work in a cohesive manner will take a lot of effort from the management, having understanding and patience to make Marketing and Product work together in harmony.
Just my $0.02
Either he must be using a Mac or Linux, or he's approved these shenanigans himself.
Gonna need a source on that one. Not the "telemetry" part, the "spyware" part.
Edit: Because it's possible now to see all telemetry sent and even delete it from Microsoft's servers.
I seriously do not see the harm in usage telemetry...
What I hate are all the dark-patterns, registry keys and obscure processes that you have to locate to perform the opt-out (and even don't clearly know they are disabled). I'm a bit sick of fighting the OS that I purchased to make my life easier.
Even published Group Policy seems like an arms race, every time a new Windows 10 release there are a crap-ton of new telemetry settings.
And why-oh-why does Windows Server have the XBox client installed?
Windows is becoming the weakest part of the Microsoft stack.
I remain unconcerned.
Honestly a lot of you must just have piles of questionable stuff you aren't proud of but also somehow can't stop collecting/creating, and you don't want anyone to ever see, because no one else will ever understand or something.
Not even my employer, the most risk-averse place I have ever worked, worries about the security telemetry.
You're not "making something available" and they're not asking you for permission. They taking it if they want it and you can't do anything about it.
I think that's what people object to most, the loss of freedom to say no, this is mine, it's private and I control who has access to it.
If you don't use Windows, or are forced to, then just admit that you want/need something to complain about.
It's easy then - You simply don't work in very risk-averse environment. None of my employers in last 8 years would ever put anything like current Win10 on any computer in the company, precisely because of that.
My current employer is more risk-averse than State Farm, a very large insurance company, whose livelihood requires a strong aversion to risk. I worked there for 3.5 years.
I know risk-averse when I see it.
Paranoia and risk-aversion are very different things.
I could at least somehow understand if this was a home edition, but imho totally unacceptable to have it on an Enterprise version.
Not to mention after installing Office 365 I was still greeted with a 'helpful' prompt to 'Get Office'. Sigh.
My Nexus Android phones were clean. And yes, Sony etc phones are adware, but so are Sony Windows computers.
Samsung is more like the eMachines or Packard Bell of the Android world as far as bundled crapware is concerned.
I heavily disagree. The main reason google was fined by the EU was their anti-competitive monopoly abuse, forcing manufacturers to bundle all their apps.
While I like chrome, its market dominance in particular on android is worrisome. Since Samsung can not offer another browser instead of chrome, but only in addition, this is the best they can do in this situation.
Instead of complaining about "duplication", I applaud them for their efforts.
My favorite is I have 6 new contacts for AT&T, like "Pay My Bill".
Any large enough company can get away with customer-hostile behaviour without the market correcting it.
Do you see Apple loading up third-party apps into macOS? No? I wonder why.
While that's true, a browser pretty much needs a default search engine, and Google is widely regarded as the best. I'm not sure that Apple could make a more customer-centric choice.
They couldn't default to the least intrusive? Or rotate randomly amongst the options?
Remember, we're talking about people that Google "Facebook" to go to Facebook.
Yes Safari includes Google, Bing, Yahoo and DuckDuckGo as built-in search providers.
That is not the same thing as bundling Candy Crush Soda in the Dock. Hell Apple don't even include the free iWorks apps such as Pages and Numbers in a clean macOS install you have to go and get them via the Mac App Store.
Mac OS does come with a fairly deep iCloud Drive integration, and iOS defaults to backing up photos and files then tries to upsell to a higher package when space runs out. It's only fairly recently that iOS shipped with a dedicated file manager, instead making you store any documents you have either in individual apps or on iCloud Drive.
Well, yes, people DO in fact want candy crush.
If you meant that as a question, end it with a question mark (?).
If you meant it as a statement, you're wrong. Uninstalled apps do not reappear upon upgrade to newer Windows 10 version.
The ads can be turned off. That setting is persisted via your Microsoft account, if you use one.
The ads stay off when upgrading. I haven't seen any ads in the start menu (or anywhere else in Win10 except a browser) for many, many months; at least 2 years, and probably more.
If you log in with a Microsoft account instead of a local user account, all those settings persist across devices, even fresh installs where you also log in using the same MS account. It takes a bit of time for everything to sync up, and most of those things get applied to all machines when you make a change on one. The things that aren't take less than a minute, and only need to be done once. (I am unsure here, I haven't set up a new Windows 10 install in over a year, and I can't recall doing anything other than uninstalling a few apps, less than 5, on a new install. It literally takes 15 seconds, so forgive me if I don't have precise infallible memory on this one point.)
The thing that really gets my goat about people that complain on the internet is that their complaints are never updated when the situation changes. Some of those complainers think they are making valid complaints, when in the eyes of someone who has actually followed up on things, they appear to be completely ignorant and baseless complaints.
I see a lot of people spending more energy ranting about this, a problem that doesn't necessarily exist in the way that people might think, than doing a quick investigation to find that the apps aren't there in the first place.
Sorry, but Citation required.
I've installed more than my fair share of Windows 10 Home and Pro versions, had both shipped on new devices and nowhere was I offered any options which controlled installing this shit.
> a problem that doesn't necessarily exist in the way that people might think
Even if it was a shortcut to the Windows Store, but it still there eating up space on the start screen... But even still it doesn't help.
I have to go uninstall it (because yes, it's actually installed goddamn Candy Crush and other shit for me)
I'll open up my laptop and find it's decided that it'll install Windows Update right now and fuck whatever I wanted to do with the machine.
Worse, once it's completed it's screwing with my machine, it's gone and re-installed shit, and now bugs me (again) about "Hey, instead of using Chrome, how about you use Edge!" and has reset a bunch of other system options to be the way MS wants them.
I'm hardly alone in this experience - I saw at least half a dozen presenters at NDC Oslo last year bitching about this happening to them the morning of/right before presentations, and I've had it happen to me during meetings/conference calls/etc - where it's fucked off with work that I'm in the middle of.
Windows 10 is why I'm on a full-on effort to move my primary machines over to Linux after decades of Windows use.
Please be specific, and/or link to any relevant documentation.
'cause I hit Advanced any time there was an option, and switched every privacy setting/tracking option off. Yet it still installs ads for Office, various other Bing shit, Installs Candy Crush, etc.
How do I avoid those using settings in the OOBE?
Candy crush does get installed on fresh Win10 installs, and the person responsible for that deal was drummed out of Microsoft, I believe, and once that agreement expires, that'll stop. In the meantime it takes literally 5 seconds to right-click the icon and choose "uninstall" then click the confirmation, and it wont ever come back.
Removed applications do not get reinstalled on a patch or OS upgrade.
Turning off advertisements turns off advertisements, and it will never switch back on by itself.
I don't understand what you mean by updated situation? Have things changed in the last month or two? From a commenter above, that's apparently not the case.
> once that agreement expires, that'll stop
Microsoft is large enough and profitable enough that if they actually cared, they'd pay out the agreement's terms and stop it. They could actually use it as a "We're sorry, we've stopped doing this" marketing to the folks who're pissed off about it.
> Removed applications do not get reinstalled on a patch or OS upgrade.
This isn't true, I've uninstalled various Xbox, Bing, Skype, "Get Office" and other stuff a few times now on the one machine.
> it takes literally 5 seconds to right-click the icon and choose "uninstall" then click the confirmation
And to repeat that again for eeevery damn ad/preload application. It takes a damn sight longer than 5 seconds to remove the ones you can actually remove. But there's still other preloaded apps like OneDrive that I can't remove or even hide.
Things have changed since Windows 10 was released, yes. The last 3-4 releases have honored your uninstallations; if you remove candy crush, upgrades to newer versions of Windows 10 will not replace it, UNLESS the image used to upgrade marks it for installation. The stock Windows 10 media from Microsoft does not, so stock media from Microsoft will not reinstall anything you uninstalled before you began the upgrade.
Other commenters agree with me, as well. Something situational to you is putting them back, I suspect.
>> it takes literally 5 seconds to right-click the icon and choose "uninstall" then click the confirmation
> And to repeat that again for eeevery damn ad/preload application. It takes a damn sight longer than 5 seconds to remove the ones you can actually remove. But there's still other preloaded apps like OneDrive that I can't remove or even hide.
It only takes me 5 seconds, but maybe my computer performs better than yours. If you're not on an SSD I can see why you say it takes longer than 5 seconds, certainly. You only need to uninstall the one time before upgrading to one of the last 3-4 releases of Windows. I forget exactly which one implemented the change. If you are using Windows 10 versions prescribed to you by your IT department, then all bets are off, because a lot of things tend to get customized in those scenarios and I can't know about those customizations and/or limitations.
If you use a Microsoft account, your settings for ads and other personalization preferences will persist across all devices you use that account on. You don't even need to associate your login details with your MSA, simply logging into that MSA on the account in question is enough to sync up those things.
It's just vaguely schizophrenic. You have all this genuinely cool, nicely done engineering, then the initial impression is ruined by a load of slapped-on garbage. It's like selling a BMW with a bunch of McDonnalds special-offer vouchers stuck to the steering wheel.
Or, to take the laptop analogy, like having unnecessarily-difficult-to-remove stickers showing off the processor, graphics, and chipset inside… we're all oddly desensitised to devalued products and apply different standards depending on what strikes us as more outrageous.
> I don't want to spend 3 hours reading articles about how to get rid of adverts
Sure, so just be sure to disable ads during the OOBE session when you first turn the computer on. It's a checkbox or switch or whatever Windows has decided to use now.
Of course, I do take the point. Especially when it comes to regular people, whose apprehension at seeing the words 'advanced' and 'setup' in the same place make the prospect of choosing anything other than the Express Setup out of the question. I'm just saying it's not the drama that some people make it out to be, not for the technically minded I assume this site's audience to be.
I'm not outraged by it. I just feel bad for the talented people at microsoft who sweat over the OS, only to have somebody glue-gun a bunch of trash to the front at the last minute.
You are correct in that they are stubs however the moment Windows finds internet access it begins downloading them. This is obviously their preferred solution to ensure the user gets the latest and greatest version of the appvert.
Some can be removed easily and some not. I know Microsoft are working on making it easier to remove more of their own apps which they should have done in the first place IMHO.
Yes I am spending energy ranting about this because it is a problem to me. I shouldn't have to spend any time on removing such crap from an OS that I paid around £200 for (Pro license remember not some free upgrade from Windows 7 back in 2015) that is baked into the £3000+ price of my Surface Book 2.
It isn't that it is too difficult just that it shouldn't be required. It would be like buying a Mercedes and having to remove advertising stickers from the back Windows.
On the one hand, it would get an Enterprise copy running.
On the other hand... this is old (may 2017) and the URL shortner hiding the "followup article" is down, but there's this: https://twitter.com/m8urnett/status/866353982217699328 / https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14389441
Why do you think the average person wouldn't want these popular apps a click away?
Making a default in a mainstream OS where many people would not know how nor would care to put in the effort is basically making it forced.
I think the main issue in this thread though is that it is just not worth the hit to brand and UX compared to the trivial money it might make.
It exists in exactly the way it manifests. It's obnoxious. I paid (I _paid_ for this!) for an OS, not to be a node in an ad delivery network.
There's nothing "fair" about that. I shouldn't have to.
I tend to wonder about that - is it done on purpose or it's because the half-year releases of these semi-annual updates are essentially being applied in upgrade process and not the old service pack way.
Also a "funny" thing from last few days: SO logged onto parents laptop with Microsoft Account credentials and surprise: OS didn't fetch a single piece of data already synchronized into their cloud but uploaded all recent changes made on that device and pushed them onto desktop.
While those are definitely irritations I would like to add something a little (IMO) more important: file path limits.
I can fudge around it in various ways, but it is infuriating:
Everyone: update your complaints when the situation changes, please.
Summary: this is a real, current problem experienced in the enterprise which disrupts work. It's all very well being a lone Dev upgrading to Harvest Festival Cutename at your whim.... but the reality of enterprise updates are that Windows is cumbersome compared to Linux.
The 250-character path limit is gone. It's fixed. You not adopting it is a wholly separate issue.
It depends a lot on your modem manufacturer though.
"Get Office" is nothing but an advert, and an annoying one at that considering it continues to appear after MS Office is installed. Paint 3D on the other hand is a supplemental tool to regular Paint that is actually extremely powerful once you get used to it.
I myself actually started out ignoring it, and it hasn't replaced regular Paint for many things, but I find myself going into it on purpose now and for the things it is good at it is VERY good.
People have dismissed it out of hand because of the "3D." The 3D actually refers to Photoshop style layering but you can manipulate the Z axis to generate different 2D image views, which can be output.
The main output of Paint 3D is the same as Paint 2D image files e.g. PNGs, BMPs, and JPG. Sure, you can save a project file, but that is just your source images and Z axis layering information (akin to a Photoshop's PSD).
PS - It also supports PNG transparency layers which is a welcome addition.
For starters, there's that "3D Objects" item underneath "This PC" in the Explorer treeview. It's not relevant to me, and I'm skeptical that it's relevant to the average user.
If I recall, there was a registry key that could be modified to remove this item, but after I applied this modification, a subsequent update undid this. I find this incredibly frustrating.
(Below, I'm speaking to this point more broadly)
It's my computer and I should be able to use it the way that I want to. I have my own user account because others may use this machine differently, and each user deserves the ability to customize their experience based on their preferences.
I honestly don't understand how Microsoft gets to make these decisions on behalf of users. They shouldn't even have a say in the matter at all for anything a user has explicitly configured. Feel free to change the defaults, but at no point should it be considered acceptable to override an explicit configuration of the user.
> So I go and check out a new Windows 10 laptop and the first thing I see, ..., is a bunch of adverts on the start menu and sigh.
Microsoft is not a single team. They have different products, different division owners, different managers, etc. At a company of this size you'll always find people making cool stuff and marketing trying to squeeze in as much content as possible. (and many other teams) This shouldn't be surprising that they coexist.
I'm not saying this is a good state and they do overall good work. Just that releasing procdump and embedding ads are two different worlds visible under one name outside.
This is Nadella's strategy: stop copying Apple and copy Google. TBH, I liked their previous one a lot more.
I have not bought from that seller, but they have sold 765 of them, with 100% positive feedback.
Selling licenses invalid in the US that happen to pass the automated checks since ... Whenever.
Its NEVER been rebuilt. With Windows I simply had a process of expecting to do a complete clean reinstall every year or two.
Another of the many big reasons I ditched Windows for OSX.
That said, we probably articulate our issues better than some, so we're probably still worth listening to.
Well, they used to, around the turn of the century. Not any more.
Explicit instructions for purchasing a Windows 10 LTSC license? https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2167558-explicit-inst...
"Have now upgraded to Window 10 LTSB build 1607 and Hyper V is fully working." https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/1690823-windows-10-en...
"I just installed WSL on LTSC and it worked great." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18271829
A random Joe says it works <--> Supported and stable configuration.
But you are right HyperV seems to be working as of 1607.
WSL is also supported in LTSC and can be installed with these instructions from Microsoft: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/install-manual
(with apologies to Walt Whitman)
It has literally nothing to do with the linked post.
That’s why I don’t care about candy crush or twitter. As far as I remember it took me 10 minutes to remove them, and despite I always update my PC, they never came back.
It’s rather disappointing. In fact; I have not used this system since (mostly due to unrelated logistics).
Maybe you clicked "use defaults" on some setup messages?
When a software or a web site asks me anything related to privacy, advertisements, tracking, etc., I usually pick best settings for me. The defaults are likely to be the best ones for the developers of software/web site.
Either way; I state my experience with the platform.
Uninstalled apps don't reinstall on upgrade (or at any other time) unless you have something in place that manually does it. This was a major complaint for a long time and MS fixed it 18 months ago or so.
I, manually; removed candy crush. (Months And months prior)
Candy crush was automatically reinstalled, with a notification, without me initialising it. There was no manual action taken by me except that to close the notification (from notification centre) that it had been reinstalled.
This reinstallation happened within the last 6 months.
Happy to try review audit logs when I am, once again; logistically able.
As noted; I have barely touched this asset since (for unrelated logistical reasons - I’m about 150kms away from it, and it is powered down).. so confident the logs would exist.
I would appreciate you not suggesting it happened otherwise.
The fact that the stuff is even there to begin with leaves a bad taste in my mouth still, but glad to see the OS is now properly respecting the opt-out at the very least
That was a while ago, so admittedly it may have changed since then.
Regardless, when you have Windows set up, they then scatter those settings throughout various menus instead of having one centralized place where you can turn off all the advertising / some of the telemetry.
They also seem to be adding more of this as time goes on, which your one time disabling won't apply for. I turned off everything I could find, only to have more advertisements appear in my start menu months later due to what I believe was them adding in more advertisements in an update. I then had to go and toggle off.
I want to like Microsoft, I really do, but they don't make it easy. Advertisements in the operating system that I paid for is entirely galling to me.
I upgraded back when they were doing the free upgrade, laundering a slightly questionable license in the process. Are the pre-loaded bits and pieces fairly new? Was there no opt-out on first run?
I'm not doubting they are there - it is Microsoft after all - just confused why they would choose to spam paying customers when people with keys from, hypothetically, long expired MSDN packs are still chugging along with no interference...