Microsoft really wants Local accounts gone after it erases its guide on how to create them
Microsoft really wants Local accounts gone after it erases its guide on how to create them
Microsoft really wants you to use a Microsoft account on Windows, to the point where it won't tell you how to make a Local one.
- Microsoft removes guide on converting Microsoft accounts to Local, pushing for Microsoft sign-ins.
- Instructions once available, now missing - likely due to company's preference for Microsoft accounts.
- People may resist switching to Microsoft accounts for privacy reasons, despite company's stance.
You're viewing a single thread.
The Microsoft cycle:
Microsoft does thing nobody likes -> people complain -> some people threaten to switch to Linux -> a few of those people do but most people don't -> They make some excuse and claim that once Linux reaches some arbitrary milestone they'll switch (Adobe support, better game support, better software support, etc) -> most of those people forget (they're a minority, the vast majority of people never cared) -> Microsoft notices and they became even more emboldened to make their products worse -> repeat
If you want change then you need to break the cycle
I did manage to switch to Linux. I can understand though why people are hesitant, there are still things that are tough in Linux, or near impossible in some cases. That's despite having used Linux on and off for years.
That's because what people need to understand is that fundamentally Linux is not a drop in replacement for Windows, its not some open source copy. It'll never have full software compatibility, it'll never run the same, it'll never look exactly the same, and it'll never be the same. The sooner people accept that the sooner people understand what their options are. For me that's an advantage, I like the UI on DEs like Cosmic, I love the Unix filesystem, I love the terminal and how powerful it is, I love package managers, and I love the customizability of it all.
I don't think something needs to be identical to Windows to be a good replacement for it. I think there should be a replacement for Windows, and distributions like Linux Mint are that replacement for some people.
I also think that parts of the Linux ecosystem have major problems. Not necessarily problems with the kernel itself, but problems with the surrounding software like programs and user interfaces. Wider application support would be a start. Some distributions and parts of modern Linux systems can be unnecessarily complex or downright esoteric. Some features like HDR have very poor support, and are difficult to enable/setup where they are supported. It's also difficult for developers to publish to Linux because of the wide variety of different Linux systems. Flatpaks and snaps help with this obviously but have divisive in the Linux community for one reason or another.
It’s also difficult for developers to publish to Linux because of the wide variety of different Linux systems.
I disagree there. The issue is that in Windows people bring over their own version of libraries they compiled on (the millions of .dll files) and you can even look in your Uninstall Apps settings where there's a bunch of MS specific runtime bundles to see that's even an issue in the MS ecosystem.
In Linux, developers have relied on the library versions just being there. It is, I'd argue, the most compelling reason package managers basically had to come into existence. On the flip-side this can cause issues where there is some version on the system by the package manager that replaces another version. And something not a part of that package management system isn't a part of those dependency checks and if they don't put the libraries with the binaries...well it is just luck if you have them all or if other versions can support those library calls in the same way still.
In Linux that is all those .so's in /var/lib and stuff.
You don't really see many proprietary things using package managers and those that do are packaged by someone else and are in some sort of repo that isn't part of the vanilla install because of legal caution.
Companies that made their money on porting games to Linux prior to Proton basically causing them to shutter Linux porting would put their .so's in with the game bundle themselves, just like you see happening in Windows when .dll's are inside the actual program's folders.
However, the more that this sort of dependency management has become abstracted by development suites that take care of this for the developers, the less they understand about it.
Flatpaks actually take care of this and it is one reason they are so popular. They figure out (well that's a simplification) those library dependencies, sandbox the apps with those dependencies so the library paths don't interfere with other flatpaks or the base system itself. People complain about this as a con because "the download is BIGGER" even though flatpak doesn't install the same runtimes over and over again, so once they are there, the download may still be bigger but the installed storage isn't.
Anyway, yes Linus Torvalds complained about the "Linux fragmentation" issue but it was about DE's not the state of the development ecosystem itself as I recall, though the rant is very old, so maybe I don't remember all of it.
Wider application support would be a start.
Sure, but that's not a Linux problem, that's a developer problem. Linux supports application development just fine. It is a kernel and the surrounding ecosystem is the operating system after all. It is developers that don't support it. That isn't really something Linux in and of itself can effectively solve. Users have to increase and developers supporting applications for Linux will also increase. The classic Linux Chicken and the Egg problem but it is capitalism and that's just going to be how it has to work.
I don't think something needs to be identical to Windows to be a good replacement for it.
I said drop in replacement
Wider application support would be a start.
No organization is willing to pay companies to support Linux
Some distributions and parts of modern Linux systems can be unnecessarily complex or downright esoteric. Some features like HDR have very poor support, and are difficult to enable/setup where they are supported.
That's because organizations like the Linux foundation primarily serve enterprise and server customers, they only need a good enough UI so that's what desktop users get. Nobody is paying money for Linux and few people donate.
It's also difficult for developers to publish to Linux because of the wide variety of different Linux systems. Flatpaks and snaps help with this obviously but have divisive in the Linux community for one reason or another.
That's because the current system allows distribution maintainers to decide if they want their distro to be bleeding edge or stable.
TLDR: Desktop Linux users get the scraps of enterprise and server Linux
No organization is willing to pay companies to support Linux
Well that's a lie. Lots of companies use Linux servers, Linux embedded devices, even Linux desktops for programmers or engineers. Android devices are everywhere too.
That's because organizations like the Linux foundation primarily serve enterprise and server customers, they only need a good enough UI so that's what desktop users get. Nobody is paying money for Linux and few people donate.
One of the most common uses of Linux is smartphones. Chromebooks are also fairly popular. It's more that the kind of people that use Linux desktops aren't happy with smartphone like functionality and customisation.
The better question is why aren't people supporting desktop Linux? We have increasing market share after all. My guess is a combination of fragmentation and the fact that the user base aren't the kind of people they want to sell too. It's hard to sell MS Office for Linux to your average Linux enthusiast who might even be an Open Source purist. They are also more likely to jailbreak or pirate your product.
Well that's a lie. Lots of companies use Linux servers, Linux embedded devices
I mentioned that
even Linux desktops for programmers or engineers. Android devices are everywhere too. One of the most common uses of Linux is smartphones.
They make money because they're proprietary, sell peoples info, and because of that they represent everything the free software movement fights against. I use Linux because it supports the free software movement, not the other way around.
The better question is why aren't people supporting desktop Linux?
It's a combination of a few factors, developers are pressured into not asking for donations (users need to actively find their website to donate), the vast majority of Linux software is free of price, and people don't want to pay money for their operating system.
It's a combination of a few factors, developers are pressured into not asking for donations (users need to actively find their website to donate), the vast majority of Linux software is free of price, and people don't want to pay money for their operating system.
I am talking about businesses supporting the Linux desktop with software, not about the OS devs themselves.
They make money because they're proprietary, sell peoples info, and because of that they represent everything the free software movement fights against. I use Linux because it supports the free software movement, not the other way around.
This is the reason why most businesses don't want to support Linux.
I am talking about businesses supporting the Linux desktop with software, not about the OS devs themselves.
What money is there in desktop Linux? Companies don't support things without expecting something in return.
Given there are quite a lot more people using Linux than there used to be I imagine a fair bit. That's only going to increase as Linux users keep increasing. Linux users still buy things like Video Games, Spotify subscriptions, and potentially other software products too like Jetbrains IDEs.
Fundamentally that doesn't make any sense, unlike Apple or Google Linux can't charge a percentage for subscriptions. Right now companies are getting away with not contributing any money to Linux, why would they magically start? Furthermore who would they pay? Not everyone uses flatpaks and adding paid apps/subscriptions would be highly controversial. Even if it did work the money made would be a tiny fraction of what android makes.
The most important part of this is:
the vast majority of people never cared
We make our happy little bubble here to be outraged in. The world at large carries on without caring. Just in the past few years, there's been the Reddit API change, the WhatsApp ToS change, the YouTube dislike button removal, etc etc. A small minority (like us) complains endlessly. The rest of the world shrugs and accepts enshitification.
People have accepted that they'll never have privacy, that they dont own the products they purchase (physical or digital), that not only do they not control their technology but fundamentally their technology controls them, that every few years they'll have to replace their devices or the manufacturer stops supporting them, people own nothing and are happy.
People don't know and don't care. Privacy isn't an issue on anyone's mind (just like climate wasn't 20 years ago). People don't know or care about digital media ownership issues.
People know, they see their digital media being removed from them and they know that their devices spy on them. Everyone talks about it yet nobody cares.
I disagree. I think it's more helplessness than apathy.
I don't approve of all the spying, but I don't "own" any congress critters, so what can I do? I can't even opt out of the spying by cancelling my Internet plan and smashing my phone -- there's still tracking through CCTV, face recognition, license plate scanners, etc. I'd have to move to some remote middle of nowhere and live as a subsistence farmer -- and even on the way there, I'd be thoroughly tracked. There's no escape, it's like we're all in a giant digital cage.
Accepted isn't the right word. I think consumers "voting with their feet" just isn't that relevant when it comes to these issues. This model of thinking works when it's about the product offering. Bad product? Too expensive? Demand dwindles.
But the issue doesn't directly impact the product offering, consumers won't "vote with their feet" in significant numbers. Worker exploitation? People will still buy cheaper clothes. Oil money dictatorships? Cheap luxury airlines. Privacy invasion? But all my friends are on there. I could go on.
The self-correcting market model is flawed. For these issues, strong government intervention is needed. It's possible that a competitor comes along and they're able to capture the market, but that will only happen with a superior product offering. But not because of different TOS or whatever people don't consider part of what they're buying.
Finally, someone gets my point. Capitalism inherently makes products worse and more expensive, the flaw in your argument is you think it can ever be contained.
Some of us manage to break the cycle, but despite how much I love Linux (ups and downs) I understand that it isn't for everyone currently.
What most people want is a stable system they can just use without understanding much if anything about how the underlying systems work. They don't care that wifi drivers can be fixed through a few terminal commands, they rail against the fact they have to do much of anything at all besides click [Next >]. And I can't blame them; that's what Microsoft has trained them for.
So many people with random toolbars and junk extensions in their browsers because the [Next >] button is how they get past whatever problem they have. The average user isn't very tech savvy, and it takes someone with a desire to learn to truly thrive in a Linux environment.
I've converted my mom to Kubuntu, and she does well, but she's also an outlier (she has an expired CCNA certification).
Linux suffers from a catch 22: there's not enough users because there's not a lot of commercial support because there's not enough users because... And the people who are donating their time to make it better are saints as far as I'm concerned, but there's only so much people can do for free. Things truly have gotten better, but until more typical user types can adopt Linux with little to no fuss, not much will change.
And that fact hurts my soul.
The problem is the average user won't use Linux unless it comes included with their PC.
I was at the make excuses stage until late last year when my excuses were fixed. Booted my windows install maybe four times since then, and that was mostly to grab files from it haha.
Some people like you and I actually switch to Linux, but we're the 4% and we need to remember that.
It used to be about 1%, so actually huge gains have been made
I acknowledge that, the rise has been absolutely incredible. However, I doubt it'll reach above 10% (on the desktop globally).