5 Things Microsoft does not want you to know about Windows.

Microsoft, the Redmond giant and owner of the world’s most troublesome operating system, has over the years used its dominant market share to frustrate the development, use and adoption of other operating systems.
Today,I intend posting some very basic truths that MS would very much not want you to know.
Truth no 1
You are paying way more than you are getting. This is a simple truth that most users of Windows do not seem to appreciate. Why do you have to pay as much as  $100 to get a license to use an OS which is bare to the bones? An installation of Windows is just the first in a series of long processes to make your computer useful. Your computer can in virtually all cases not be used to do anything meaningful after a Windows installation until you have installed numerous third party drivers and other utilities most of which you would have to pay for separately. That is very much being short changed to me.
Truth no 2
You are never safe with Windows. The recent DDOS attacks on Twitter and Facebook makes it very clear that if anything at all, Windows is a very big threat to the future of the internet and  computing in general. A system that can be hijacked by teenagers with the requisite skills and cause a stir on an international scale is not a system you can feel safe with.
Truth no 3
You have no freedom when it comes to MS Windows. You either take what MS thinks they want to offer you or go. You cannot modify the OS to dance to your tunes. You rather dance to the tune of the OS after coughing up as much as  $100 to acquire it. I wonder how many of you would in real life would pay money to buy something only for the thing to become your master.
Truth no 4
You are always anxious and very apprehensive when using Windows because you virtually have to read every single letter you see on your screen so you would not accidentally download or open a virus infected file. You have to curtail your internet usage experience for fear of attracting hordes of rootkits, trojans and other nuisance to  your system. This is short does not make your computing experience smooth and worry free. Why pay for a system where you would have to keep lookiing over your neck. A good system should make you reasonable safe both online and offline. But not Windows.
Truth no 5 
With Windows, anytime there a new release such as the upcoming Windows 7, you would need to upgrade your hardware resources to be able to run it. This simply means that if MS releases Widows every other year, then too you would have to keep buying higher and higher computer power to be able to keep up with the latest. This no doubt will in the long term result in a significant drain on your pocket.
Why subject yourself to all these inconveniences and costs when you can get yourself the world’s most popular alternative to Microsoft Windows for a price that will blow your mind? Just head here and you will be amazed at what you find at the other side of the river.
Do you have any top Windows secret you believe Microsoft would not want us to know? Please share it in the comments.

42 Replies to “5 Things Microsoft does not want you to know about Windows.”

  1. Good article, but there is one thing that linux does (and bsd), just like MS Windows and that is as it progresses and gets better it also needs better hardware. I have an old toshiba laptop which I started with mepis and now have to run Puppy cos mepis is too slow! I not complaining, Puppy is a great distro and I am for Linux and open source, just an observation.

  2. Very accurate article, although "Truth no 3" isn't clear-enough for most non-Linux users. They have no idea what you mean when you say that a user "[has] no freedom", and when switching to Linux a new user is unlikely to learn the freedoms and flexibility of Linux, unless they're technically inclined to learn more about the system.

    It is a great Truth and selling point, but most non-techy people wouldn't get it I fear.

  3. … the DDoS came from hijacked Windoze machines. That's where the OS played a part. It wasn't the servers' fault. It was the fault of all those unsafe clients.

  4. Windows might have its problems but Linux is not ready for the average user.
    Linux is hard to use, you have to hack everything e.g the command line and modifying text files.
    Linux is not even usable thats why criminals dont create viruses for it.
    Nobody uses Linux (only 2% or less)

  5. What absolute nonsense! Fair enough, Windows may have its share of issues, but Linux's product is rubbish. I was a passionate user of it but gave up, it just become too hard! I may be in the minority, but I find Windows Vista fine, and I was running the beta of Windows 7, which is really good. Makes Linux look so yesterday…

  6. The last two posters are smoking something! Have you guys tried linux distros geared towards beginners? Linux Mint, PCLOS…. There are others! I use Mint, been on it for almost two years now, don't even touch Windows anymore. The whole thing about people not making viruses for it is a bunch of BS, it's because of the way Linux operates, much harder to get stuff to auto install as well as to hack into. With a windows machine, most people run with admin rights, i.e. viruses and the what not can install themselves without the user nowing. That can't happen in Linux.

  7. I have been using Linux Mint. Love it and love Linux. As much as I recommend it (or some other versions of Linux) to people, however, I can't tell someone with a low level of technical expertise to install it unless they have help on hand. So I agree that Linux still isn't quite newbie friendly. I've spent plenty of time in the terminal on friend's machines, or doing other tasks to keep them running.

    As for the MS Windows truths – not bad except the last one is complete nonsense. On my only non-linux computer I am now running Win 7 (and very well), and I used that same computer with Vista and XP. No hardware upgrade required.

    But I'm rarely in Windows these days.

  8. Five things car companies don't want you to know:

    Truth 1: You'll never get $30,000 out of that car you just bought. The normal person will never be able to modify the car to truly personalize it. At best they have to pay 3rd party groups to put in new stereos, new paint jobs, or other body work modifications.

    Truth 2: You are never safe in a car. With the fact there are drunk drivers, those on their cell phone, and the idiot day dreamers it's amazing all car drivers aren't dead yet. If they let teenagers drive cars with little prior experience you can never really feel safe.

    Truth 3: You have no freedom with a car you bought. There will always be some aspect of the car that you can't really change without risking endangering yourself or others. Why would you pay $30,000 for something that could be trashed if you make a mistake in modifying?

    Truth 4: You are always anxious and very apprehensive when driving the car. You never know when someone will side swipe you while eating a hamburger while talking on the phone. You have to curtail your driving for fear that someone will crash into you reducing your $30,000 car into $1,000 of junk.

    Truth 5: When a new car is released you always have to replace the whole thing. You can't selectively take any newer parts off of the newer car and put it on your own car.

    Why would you subject yourself to theses inconveniences and costs when you can get the most popular alternative to Cars by just walking! Just get off your chair and you're halfway to a new life.

    I'm sorry, but my Car vs Walk argument is just as valid as yours. Which makes your argument pretty bad. =)

    BTW, just to clarify things I'm linux/Solaris admin. So I'm not an anti-linux person. Just anti-stupid argument person.

    – Ben

  9. @James:

    Check the apps you're installing. I've run ubuntu on 6-8 yr old laptops quite comfortably. It may be that "heavier" distros such as ubuntu should be setup starting from a command line only system, and built up from there.

    To the (idiot) troll:

    I'm a religion major, and I learned linux fairly easily.

    The main roadblock I faced was my refusal to learn a new way of installing software (ie package managers). Beyond that, it's a matter of preference.

    The main thing a new user should do is explore ALL of the basic apps (including the Add/Remove Software utility, as you can actually install stuff using it).

    To each his own about how stuff looks. But I would agree with you on distros like DSL.

    As to the difficulty of linux, you sound like a troll. However, it could be you have unusual hardware that does require a lot of work, idk what setup you have.

    If it is, please do everyone a favor and file a bug report.

  10. malachi:

    people like you do a disservice to linux. I've switched quite a few people over from Windows to Linux, and most of them stay switched, though not all of them do. I tell them the truth up-front, which is that once they learn it they will be fine for most day to day tasks, but that they should have someone around to troubleshoot or be prepared to do some research. For instance, last Linux Mint install I did for a guy broke after he updated his system. I've had some who get corrupt packages for whatever reason, and they can't get it to download again instead of trying to reinstall the corrupt one, so I clean it out for them. Things that are simple for people who know what they are doing but can be baffling to a newbie who might not even be very computer literate.

    The people I've known who have switched over because they've been told by someone like you that its just as easy and a matter of preference have mostly switched back, because telling them that creates false expectations and they get more easily frustrated. Tell someone the truth and let them make an informed choice and they'll stick with it.

    So the linux community really needs less people like you. Do everyone a favor and be honest.

  11. @Mouring. A clever response. However the claim is that Linux is safer/better than Windows. Where is the alternative to the automobile in your comparison?

    A quibble: points 2 and 4 are really the same thing, or different aspects of the same problem.

  12. @Paul:

    I apologize if I came across as pissed off towards you, I'm not. I tend to lose patience easily with people, and you were right after the troll. I'm working on the patience thing.

    @R. Scott Kimsey:

    I think I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't referring to the Windows vs linux as a matter of preference, but more along the lines of GNOME vs KDE. On that note, I am sorry for not being clear.

    I know that there are issues with linux, but they are few and far between. Out of the multiple linux installs I've done for family and friends, I've only had one issue with corrupt packages, and that was in a development release. And this is through several system upgrades on various machines.

    Note also that I never said linux was perfect, but I can see how you can infer that from I said. On that, that is simply me addressing one point without balance, and I apologize for that.

    I noted when addressing Paul's concern that linux may be more work for him bc of his hardware.

    Not exactly something a dishonest person would bring up, now would it?

  13. > Truth no 1


    Almost all open source utilities are available for Windows. GIMP, OpenOffice, Firefox, etc.

    Moreover, for Windows there are open source software which is not available for Linux, such as Miranda or Far (File Manager).

    > Truth no 2

    a. If you are a moron (and most uneducated users are) you will run Linux as a root user, thus negating all security measures.

    b. Linux currently has just 1% of a userbase, that explains why malware authors haven't payed attention to Linux.

    c. In Windows you have strong sandbox software (now may AV solutions contain it), signed binaries, application lever firewall – none of this is in Linux. If you are an educated Windows user, you will be far more protected running Windows than running geeks OS.

    > Truth no 3

    a. 99.9% of Linux users have never modified a single line of code.

    b. Windows is usable out of the box and at least offers an unified user interface suitable for technicians where as in Linux you end up with KDE/Gnome DE and tens of WMs.

    > Truth no 4

    In Linux it's even worse. While in Windows binaries can be at least signed by Verisign and you can be sure that you aren't going to start malware, in Linux you have software repositories of your Linux distro, but beyond that – … it's nightmare. You cannot trust even software released as open source – as no one can guarantee it's safe.

    Besides Windows has a usable sandbox software.

    > Truth no 5
    That's true and false.

    First of all no one forces you to leave XP.

    Secondly Win7 runs just fine on three years hardware (1GB RAM).


    Please, stop spreading FUD and apparent lies about Windows.

    // Artem S. Tashkinov

  14. @Artem

    #!. Go to a Debian repository. List the packages. Remove from the list OS specific items like the kernel and hardware drivers. If you want, exclude the core Gnome and KDE packages, but not their respective applications. Take the remaining list and enter an X against each package that has a port to Windows. Place an O against those that do not. Total the X's and O's and compare the number. Come back here and publicly retract your first point against truth #1. Now go get a list of F/OSS Windows utilities Since you are the Windows expert, I'll leave it to you to produce the list. But don't answer the following challenge without making that list available. Count the F/OSS Windows applications that have no Linux port. Compare the number of these to the 'O' list above. Come back here and eat crow over your second objection to truth #1

  15. @Artem:

    Not gonna address every issue, just security:

    The whole security issue epic fails when you realize that Unix and its derivatives (linux and BSD) run about 70% of the internet. (Last year Ballmer claimed that 60% of servers ran linux.) Why aren't hackers all over those linux servers if security on them was so bad?

    I mean, there's bound to be credit card info there, as well as other personal info to be used for identity theft.

    Why does Google use linux for its servers to store our information, if linux is insecure?

  16. @Artem.

    If you are a moron and run Ubuntu with the default security settings, I agree with you. However other distros have far more sane default settings. It's a fact that users stick with default settings unless there's a really compelling reason to change. In Linux, there is no compelling reason to change those defaults if you are a naive user. (See my paper The Problem of PORCMOLSULB for how I see things stacking up for technical users.)

    Your point B is half true. Windows absolutely is a bigger target than Linux, and attracts more attention from slime mold system crackers and virus lowlifes. However that glosses over the main reasons that Windows is such an easy target: it is composed of rotting layers of software written purely to sell, with no regard whatsoever for security or most other engineering concerns. Bill Gates had his epiphany on security in – when was it – 2002? It took several years to completely root out the slapdash security culture there. Now they do some things right, and a few things very well indeed. But they are still saddled with that tottering maggot infested legacy.

    I'll acknowledge your point c when viruses stop creating enormous botnets out of (most of the time) unpatched Windows desktops. The staggering number of systems roped into these evil distributed systems is eloquent testimony to the effectiveness of sandboxes, and every other security measure taken to protect Windows systems.

  17. @Artem:

    It's true most users don't alter the system source code in Linux. But you miss the point of having source available. Despite what you assert later in your comment, people actually do look at the source for most F/OSS applications. Companies like Red Hat, Novell and Canonical do QA on the things they distribute. Since the source is available, companies like the aforementioned can be more responsive to customer's desires for customization. They tend to pay more attention to bigger customers, but it's also possible to hire some engineers to do the design and implementation of a kernel change, assuming you really need it. When is the last time you got a custom version of Windows to scratch an itch you might have had? This goes double for most applications since they are simpler to hack on than the kernel.

    Your sneer at Gnome and KDE seems like a red herring to me. The point is, how much usable software is bundled with Windows? Let's see.. IE, debatable if that's useful, WordPad, CMD.EXE, Freecell… you get the idea.

  18. @Artem:

    My answer to you objection to truth #4 is the same as my last to your complaint about point #2. When advanced security solutions start to actually make a dent in the number of systems roped into botnets, I will acknowledge they are effective.

  19. @artem:

    Your objections to truth #5 are more reasonable. But let me mention some things you left out of your analysis. Corporate users staying with XP delight companies that want to promote Linux on the desktop. XP is a stationary target in a rapidly moving industry.

    You left Vista out of your discussion. I can well understand why. Vista was rejected by an unprecedented number of corporate IT departments, partly because of its increased hardware requirements.

    As to Win7, it's clear they've made an attempt to slim Vista down. I imagine they will have succeeded to some extent. How well remains to be seen. The judgment will be delivered by the marketplace.

    Finally, stepping back from Windows and looking at Linux, full blown Linux systems run very, very well on ARM based systems with limited resources. I think it's fair to say that Jaunty Desktop would probably have a problem on an old 486 computer, but a slimmed down respin would work just fine. How does XP run on hardware like that? Oh right. You can't respin XP, can you?

  20. @Mauring

    Actually, most of your arguments ARE why I commute by bicycle and walk most of the time. M wife makes me operate her automobile sometimes, but I don't really enjoy it like driving my bicycle.

    They're actually good argument for walking instead of operating a heavy vehicle propelled by flammable liquid and vapor.

    I've used Ubuntu Debian GNU/Linux since June 2006 and only go to Windows to help other people clean up their hard drives-using a live cd or usb of GNU/Linux. All the arguments hold water for my own personal case. Not true for everyone, of course. But I'm also not a computer geek and I picked it up just fine.

  21. 2Howard Owen:

    You are funny, but let's dissect your points:


    Debian repo's do not contain all available open source software.

    Debian repo's do not contain outdated not-supported, abandoned open source software.

    Debian repo's do not contain proprietary software (such as CrossOver office or old binary only ported Windows games by e.g. Loki).

    2) You don't know how many outdated compromised Linux and Unix boxes run the internet. I'd say at least 3% of the Internet servers are 'pown'ed by criminals. Running fully automatic Linux/Unix updates is a road to hell – trust me.

    3) Most users don't care about software they run and how they use it and where they get it. They just want it. And that means there are no safe and secure OSes in the known world, unless you lock down the user to never run binaries other than e.g. /usr and /usr/bin, with network interfaces down and no ability to use any external media. So far the only solution I've seen is Trusted Computing.

    4) the author of the original post said something about the users control. Now you are referring to the companies … which control the software users run. The end results is still pathetic. Linux/open source users still do not control the software they run.

    Simply put: in Windows world, Microsoft and ISV control the software, in Open Source world independent developers and companies control the software.

    I see almost no difference. In the latter case you can only see the source code (is there any use of it for end users?).

    5) We were talking about desktops, right? And you've digressed to ARM architecture. 🙂

    Besides when XP ceases to exist/be supported (circa 2014), most hardware will happily run Win7. No loss here at all.

    And trust me in year 2014, KDE 3.5.x will not be supported as well, and many other open source projects will perish.


    Ha, you've raised one interesting point. Windows XP will be supported for … 13 years! where as there's no Linux distro which can boast about that. Even famous RHEL has only 7 years support 🙂

    It seems like WinXP users have won over pity Linux users who have to upgrade their distros every 1,5 years (or even 9 months in case of Fedora or Ubuntu). All Windows versions are supported at least for seven years after GA.


    The pity thing is that the author of this article doesn't really see Windows pitfalls and problems, which are

    a) registry as a trash can for all applications

    b) no unified software update

    c) broken software which can break Windows (due to Mircrosoft inability to protect core OS parts from being broken down)

    d) mandatory activation

    e) activation tied to the hardware

    f) Windows tied to the hardware

    and dozens of others. And that's why I quit this discussion as the real Windows problems are omitted.

    Good luck!

    // Artem S. Tashkinov

  22. LOL. Yep, like the arguments for using GNU/Linux, the arguments for ditching cars are actually pretty valid. Problem is, people don't give a toss about whether their actions are reasonable or not. They just want stuff to be easy. People will happily pay a fortune and get fat and risk fatal accidents rather than having to make a physical effort and move their legs. Similarly, people will happily pay a fortune and use crap software and risk getting cracked rather than having to make a mental effort and learn to use their computers. When it's easier to do stupid stuff, people are going to do it, whether it's stupid or not. So valid arguments are irrelevant. The only thing that's really going to make a difference to usage is distros like Ubuntu that focus on making stuff easier.

  23. @artem

    You said

    Almost all open source utilities are available for Windows. GIMP, OpenOffice, Firefox, etc.

    The point about the Debian repository is that it's the largest of its kind. And in the largest Linux repository, there reside multiple hundreds of apps that are not ported to Windows.

    I don't think you are suggesting that there are enough F/OSS apps outside the Debian repo, but ported to Windows, to offset the massive number of entries on the 'O' list?

    Regarding compromised Linux and Unix servers on the Internet, obviously there are some. I think your percent number is absurdly high, however. Where did you get it? And I'll compare percent numbers of Pwned *nix systems vs. Windows any day. The botnets are my trump card once again. Their numbers are truly terrifying.

    Granted the average user will install any old application he wants, regardless of what OS he is are running. But your punchline: And that means there are no safe and secure OSes in the known world while true, is misleading. It's like they guy who just robbed the bank pointing at petty shoplifter. "He's just as much of a thief as me!" That's strictly true but absurdly skewed.

    Regardless of the original author's opinion, I know most end users don't modify the code. But those same users benefit from the ability of others to access the source. If "companies" and "developers" control software in Linux, please note the plural at the end of both those nouns. There is no comparable single power in the F/OSS world to Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't share the code to Windows. How could there be a plural? Since there are many sources of source code derived knowledge in the F/OSS world, business users of Linux (how are corporations not users?) have far greater flexibility when trying to fix something that is broken, or squashing a misfeature that doesn't quite fit. The home user benefits too. Particularly for the important applications, the software she runs has survived a winnowing process that simply can't be matched with cathedral-style development. I could go on about the benefits F/OSS confers on all users, but you probably get the general idea.

    Regarding ARM, the point is that Linux with a more or less standard kernel runs in small environments better than Windows XP. I had full blown Debian desktop running on my Zaurus clamshell once upon a time. It worked really well with 64MB of RAM, a 200 Mhz processor and limited flash storage. Show me Windows XP running in it's full desktop glory on something twice as powerful. And don't tell me about Windows CE. It's not a desktop OS, and if you've ever had to support it, and I suspect you have, you'll know what a pile it is.

    As to support over time. I expect to be running an up to date operating system that I got for free (like in beer) on my PIII/600 firewall in 2014. I just think you are ducking the performance issue. I can understand that.

    Finally, the "real Windows problems" you list are all in a subset of the tottering pile of layered rotting fish I spoke about earlier. And if you don't think botnets are a real problem, all I can say is you ought to reconsider that judgment.

  24. On the toshiba I had installed and running mandrake 7, redhat 7.1 and suse 8 with no problems. the problem I have now is that it is a P3 with 192Meg ram (non-expandble) so it is impossable to install ubuntu, suse, mandriva and others because of the ram. Hence I use puppylinux. May be I should of been clearer in my first post. I enjoy Linux and intend to put it on my macbook soon too.
    A comment about cars: cars generally dont come with 65000 bugs as did windows xp when first released. If you bought a car with as many bugs, you'd take it back. Most people are ignorant to the bugs and accept windows crashing or grinding to a halt as a normality of computing. They don't know there is something better out there.
    Linux users: 2% is not a true representation and about 45% of internet servers run on linux. And a report out recently suggested taht linux usage was up to 20%.

  25. The only good argument is:
    Truth no 3

    A computer at home is a business idea. It takes place at home.
    Who many people want to have more that one computer at home?

    Every user needs a Operating System
    Every user needs a Anti-Virus
    Every user needs a Office Suite

    Considering Multi-Boot?

    People thinks that a computer is a thing or device that not needs service.

    People thinks that compuetrs are magic devices; that all hardware and software vendors are brothers and systers of the same church.

    People thinks they do not need to understand what they are doing
    in their computers.

    The hardware is your but the software not. You have a license to use it.

    People do not understand that secrete (software + hardware) code is the root to all the security problems.

    MS Windows comes in one language
    (the language you choice when you buy it's license)
    Probablily the most forgotten
    thing about Open Source Software.







  26. 1) US$ 100 allows me to install any software and hardware I want. Linux and Mac can´t beat it.

    2) FUD. Linux servers are much more easily hacked than Windows boxes.

    3) Windows IS freeedom. I can install and run any game I want. Linux can´t.

    4) FUD. Windows has UAC and antivirus (many of them free) if you want to keep safe.

    5) Wrong. You can run Windows 7 in a netbook with 1GB RAM and it´s faaaaast.

    You should not lie just to attract readers.

  27. There are some real stupa windos3 ashwholes on this blog.

    Windows is freedom – hahahahahh
    I want to continue to run xp – fscked!

    m$ your master has decided directx10 is only for xp purchase 2 aka vista. So you have freedom? Can't play the games.

    hello there are firewalls on
    linux yah ||0o85.

    antivirus what's an antivirus?
    The fact that windos3 has to run scanners continuously is draining the world's power and adding to global heating.

    what about how windos3 couldnt handle running the london stock exchange – if it sucks why are u still bending over for it?

    Can you read and understand that you don't own windos3 – you're only renting?

    The best for people that don't want to learn computers is a live linux dvd then the os can't be screwed up just power cycle and it's all good. Can windows do that?

    Didn't think so.

  28. Truth??? 1) Really? Windows 7 out of the retail box with modern hardware. Almost all drivers are found and usable for 99% of hardware (if not more). Useless? Lets see, you can connect to the internet (which opens a huge number of net applications), print, wordpad editing, listen to music, watch a movie, edit/view/manage photos, record/playback audio, record/edit video, play solitaire. Yes, all these applications can be 'better', but you're certainly not left with nothing to do from a bare install. Other than excell/spreadsheet, what does the average home user need?

  29. 1) US$100 allows you to install Windows, along with Internet Explorer and a few trivial applications (applets?). If you want an office suite you can either install OpenOffice or fork over more $$$ for MS Office. Oh, and BTW, OpenOffice Calc is superior to MS Excel any day.

    2) Really? Sixty to 70% of the Internet runs on Linux, as does Google's servers. Now, Google can afford an OS they want, so why aren't they converting from Linux to Windows? Hmmm…..

    3) Wow, you can install games on Windows. Here's a reality check, pal- games are trivial on a good day. The real world runs on databases, spread sheets, word processors, HTML, PHP, C++ and I could go on. You get the idea. If all games disappeared tomorrow the only thing it would mean is that a lot of people would have to find a different way to entertain themselves- nothing more.

    4) UAC = PITA. Anti-virus? Don't you find it ironic that you have to install a second application to make sure that your first application (the supposedly finest OS on the planet that set you back US$100) doesn't take a complete dump in your first hour of surfing the Net?

    5) To be honest, I can't comment here, as I've never worked with this combination.

    I do a wide range of IT work, concentrating in developing database-driven intranet web-based solutions for firms in my area. I've worked with Windows since 3.1 (and DOS before that, starting about 1981) and have worked with Linux (Slackware) since 2002. There is no perfect OS and no perfect piece of software. That said, on the whole, as a business OS solution Linux is simply superior to Windows.

    Here's a challenge for you- talk to any IT person with at least 25 years experience. The odds are overwhelming that they despise Microsoft. Why, you ask, do they continue to work with MS products? As one IT guy with 30 years experience put it to me, 'Windows is job security'. I'll let you figure that one out.

  30. I have to say I am impressed. I have never seen such bullshit all in one place before.

    It really sucks that you are too computer illiterate to not be able to use Windows safely…but HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people are able to do just that every day. Never getting a virus, never downloading malware. Nothing. Yes somehow THEY are stupid? Let me ask this quetion…two people use hte same product. One can't figure out how to use it properly, the other can. And the one that CAN is stupid?

    HAte to break it to you…but more people used Windows in the time it took me to write this comment than have ever, or WILL ever use Linux ever in your entire life. It HAS to suck knowing that.

  31. I read your post via google reader. I came here to figure out why you said what you said and why you worded it that way.
    I then became frustrated at your lack of understanding and research. You are biased. Plane and simply biased.
    But you are writing your opinions. Which is fine. But you need to phrase them as opinions and not as facts or statements. This leads people to believe you are just flat out lying instead of being misinformed or just stating your belief.
    I won't repeat all the corrections again but you might want to do more research on the subject.
    And in the future try and make it clear what it your opinion and what you are stating as fact. If it's a fact make damn sure your right.
    Keep up the blogging.

  32. @John:

    It really sucks that you are too computer illiterate to not be able to use Windows safely…but HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people are able to do just that every day. Never getting a virus, never downloading malware. Nothing. Yes somehow THEY are stupid?

    Explain this, genius.

  33. From "The Free Software Movement and the Future of Freedom; March 9th 2006 – By Richard Stallman":

    Malicious features go beyond spying. For instance, there is the functionality of refusing to function. Where the program says "I don't want to show you this file, I don't want to let you copy some lines from this file, I'm not going to print this file for you, because I don't like you enough". This is also known as DRM – Digital Restrictions Management, the intentional feature of refusing to function.

    And then there are back doors. There was a non-free program that was liberated a few years ago, and when the users then could see the source code they discovered that it had had a back door for years.

    They couldn't tell while the program was proprietary. They couldn't tell there was a back door. Only when it was free could they see that there was a back door, and, of course, they took it out.

    One proprietary program that you might know of by name that has a back door is called Windows XP. When Windows XP asks for an upgrade, Microsoft knows the identity of the user, so Microsoft can provide that user with an upgrade designed specifically for him. And what does that mean? It means that that user is completely at Microsoft's mercy, Microsoft can do anything whatsoever to him.

    There is a piece of Microsoft server software which in 1999 was discovered to contain a back door installed for the US National Security Agency. You can't trust non-Free Software. Non-Free Software gives the developer power over the users and with this power comes the possibility of using it in many specific ways against those users.

  34. While in general I agree to your post and your "facts" You are biassed, uninformed and imprecise, no to mention that some of your details are completely wrong.

    I have use Linux 95%+ of the time for about 10 years and very happy with it.

  35. Don't get this wrong, i'm for open software. I hate the fact that m$ doesn't comply to the standards dressed by osi, ieee etc etc etc, but make their own modifications in it. (mail, html, xml, dhcp, etc and doc isn't a standard at all)

    But i have to admit that 95% of the computer users are morons. They don't know anything about computers, they THINK they do. And this is what m$ uses. Anyone can install it and can install apps and games on it, without su, sudo, wine or whatever.

    So if you want linux to be embraced by this Anyone, develope games, apps etc, for it that can be installed simpel, (either in a change root env.) without the use of the workarounds

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *