Today in 2016, Linux is the superior platform for both user-friendliness and stability. It is easier to use and install on a wider variety of hardware. The old belief that Windows is "easier" is deprecated, and it is time to change the conversation to reflect that truth.
I think it should be considered that the vast majority of Windows systems are pre-installed and pre-configured out of the box. If this were the case with Linux, there might be an argument. Most Windows users couldn't easily install, configure and use, e.g. Server Enterprise Edition. Likewise, I doubt Gentoo would be a common candidate for ease of use. The various *buntus have really come a long way in regard to user friendliness, maybe far enough.
That was part of my reasoning. Installing Windows is a huge pain in the ass compared to installing Linux. If you need a service pack you have to go to their website, the download links are always difficult to find and buried under walls of text that nobody cares to read. And there's always a chance that the download link simply won't work for some stupid bureaucratic reason, such as "Use Windows Update". And if Windows Update fails, you're really SOL.
In Linux, if you're missing something it's a simple matter of "apt-get install something" and it almost always works. The rate of failure for Windows updates and installing proper drivers and software in windows is much higher.
And Linux is far more likely to work out of the box on most hardware. Windows installs never have more drivers available than what ships on the CD/DVD. With Linux Net Installs, as long as your Ethernet is supported, and it probably is supported, the rest of the system will be up-to-date.
I have recently installed Windows 7, Windows 10, and Linux, I've used each for a number of months. Linux was the easiest and friendliest. I've been using Windows for years so I'm not a newbie, it's a terrible operating system.
Microsoft has _repeatedly_ lost anti-trust lawsuits in the past 16 years for this exact sort of behavior. How is it that they have not learned their lesson?
Windows 10 is failing, and now they've taken actions which will surely incur billions of dollars in fines. I would not be at all surprised if the ruling judge in the inevitable lawsuit punishes them harshly for not learning their lesson the first several times.
Whatever executives are responsible for this should be drawn and quartered by the investors.
And hardly anyone is talking about Lenovo's liability. They are just as guilty as Microsoft and they're a much smaller company, will this destroy them?
> Microsoft has _repeatedly_ lost anti-trust lawsuits in the past 16 years for this exact sort of behavior. How is it that they have not learned their lesson?
Actually, the DMCA is evil. It was invented by evil men. It's been used countless times to terrorize people and maintain a corporate oligarchy. Nobody should utilize the DMCA, you should find a way to get the things you need without resorting to that particularly evil method.
There is some philosophical debate to be had regarding whether your code is deserving of copyright protections. Precisely what parts were duplicated? Just the CSS? Is there a better way to write those parts? If your way was the best way, copyright laws cannot prevent someone else from duplicating that method. This is known as reverse engineering, and is completely legal.
I'm a designer and developer myself so I understand your perspective, but you are not necessarily the righteous ones in a battle of good vs evil. It is definitely a blurry grey area.
Quite frankly, "code borrowing" happens everywhere in development. Most lessons on "How to learn to code" encourage people to explore other's code and adapt it for their own projects as a means to learn. The history of computing supports borrowing and adapting other people's code. You probably aren't aware of these things.
The Safe Harbor provision of the DMCA is extremely important to preserving the Internet as I think we all want it to be. It protects joesvideoshack.org as much as youtube.com. If you host a site to publish your own blog articles, I don't think you would want to be legally liable for the contents of someone's comment on a blog post.
First, the article is dumb, twitter is already a giant. Twitter is bigger in social media than facebook because it is open to the public, while facebook is a gated community.
Second, "the problem with twitter" as commentors have been saying, is that Twitter is a glorified instant messenger, and they have done everything wrong.
They're a giant corporation with too many employees. They have a huge overhead cost for servers and offices and electricity and so on. And their only product is social media, for free.
This is the era of ad-filtering. Substaining a company on advertising is a dead model, it will never work again. It's dying slower in some areas than in others, but rest assured it is dead. Furthermore, nobody using twitter wants to see ads. Users will aggressively persue means to eliminate ads from the "social" experience.
Twitter is the digital equivalent of opening a number of sports arenas and inviting everyone to come in to mingle, without ever charging admission fees. Eventually, the power bill and lease is going to shut them down.
This is a reality check. You cannot make money by giving things away for free. You can make money from free products, but you have to do things to monetize it, for example selling expert support for free software.
Commentors keep comparing Twitter to Facebook. Twitter and Facebook are exactly the same in one way, neither one makes any money from social media. Facebook is profitable because Facebook is not a social media product, it is a portal product that offers social media. Facebook makes money from selling "microtransaction" games, which are a huge ripoff, and using their enormous size to convince business owners that investing in advertising is somehow worthwhile. Again, nobody wants to see ads during their "social" time.
Social Media is not a business. Social media is a chat room with a slightly re-defined UX. You cannot make a profit from social media without charging admission. It is impossible.
In the post-advertising era the only way businesses will be successful is if they produce products or services of actual real-world value to their customers. Parasitic businesses, middle-men, advertisers, they are all going to die. And good riddance. Money should be earned by the creation of value, and nothing else.
"Substaining a company on advertising is a dead model"
A Deloitte report explained FB has created $40bn of economic value across the world. Let me explain to you how:
- People are selling shit on social all day everyday
- Every organisation markets themselves using social
- social media is where most attention on mobile is
- All social media platforms make ads
- Ads are charged on CPM (Cost per 1000)
- Trillions of impressions are served, therefore billions of ad dollars flow to the platform, billions with a b
- All these businesses have 100s of millions if not billions in cash on their balance sheets
For the record these ad products have kept 1000s of people in advertising jobs around the world and helped around 3 million advertisers spending billions collectively sell shit online.
Computers and the internet are relatively new, compared to advertising. The ad-blocking era is only about 5 years old.
Give it time, you will see that I am right.
Again, facebook is not a social product. Facebook is a portal product with a social feature. They're not competing with Twitter, they're competing with Google and Microsoft. It is apples and oranges.
this is proof that police officers in 2016 are meant to be nothing more than executioners. This is exactly what the current government wants America to be.
The insanity in our government and police departments is completely out of control. If they can't behave the way the people of the country want them to, then we have to get rid of them.
win10antitrust.us is available on namecheap.com for $0.88.