Windows 11 is dying....

[Cyclotron]

That was back when Munich famously decided to move to Open and away from MS. That whole debacle failed and cost a fortune, only to go back to MS a few years later.

They returned to MS because of a new mayor and successful lobbying by MS. But this is not the end of the story. Schleswig-Holstein (state) goes Linux (25k PCs) and Frankfurt/Main too (13k PCs and 2.5k servers), for example.

I don't think anyone has any doubt that politics had a play in either change. As politics is the reason for the other migrations you mentioned. I mentioned the same political reasons, and there are others.

But the data shows there were massive problems with the Munich migration to Linux. Half or more of specialized government applications wouldn't run on Linux.
The big one was user dissatisfaction and massive hits to productivity.

It will be interesting to see if these new migrations have learned anything from the science experiment that Munich ran; I doubt it. I suspect, like Munich it will just be a giant waste of public funds.

[peter-h]

The malware attack vectors are not the OS. It is infected emails (together with the virus magnet called Outlook) and browsing dodgy (p0rn etc) websites Even winXP will never get infected just by being internet-connected.

Win2000 would get infected if not behind a standard NAT router, due to some vulnerability to a particular packet which was transmitted 24/7 to every IP. Many years ago now...

[Karel]

When a document, made in Libreoffice, doesn't look correct in ms-office, it's the fault of Libreoffice.

When a document, made in ms-office, doesn't look correct in Libreoffice, it's the fault of Libreoffice.

When a document, made in ms-office version x, doesn't look correct in ms-office version y, that's normal!

[nctnico]

The malware attack vectors are not the OS. It is infected emails (together with the virus magnet called Outlook) and browsing dodgy (p0rn etc) websites Even winXP will never get infected just by being internet-connected.

I'm not so sure about WinXP. If memory serves me well, at some point I tried to install WinXP on a computer with a direct internet connection and it got infected faster than I could download the updates. Nowadays it is crazy to think that at one point most PCs (even the ones in offices!) had direct internet connections with public IP addresses.

[Cyclotron]

Cyclotron, "Linux did not implement support for MS protocol/standard willingly. They had to be forced into it." This actually shows up a major difference between M$'s philosophy and Linux. Linux software often does try, though not always achieve, compatibility with Windows file formats, because they know this will make the software more useful to people. M$ prefers to simply ignore the competition, user experience be damned. Linux tries to support common standards because they know than not everyone can be a purist. Windows occasionally tries to sound sympathetic to common standards, but would very much like to have everyone back in to a walled garden.

Let's put my statement back into context. "Both Linux and M$ respond to the market."

Now, I'm going to state things that I feel are self-evident and factual. These aren't meant to ding Linux or M$, though I'm using your implied "greed" reference to Microsoft.

The Linux Desktop application development community doesn't just "often try"; it "always tries" to emulate and provide a M$-compatible environment. The Linux Desktop environment is defined by this attribute as much as it is defined by the Microsoft standards. M$ defines the standards as products and formats. They do not look to make their product compatible with others.

Stop for a minute and consider that M$ is a public company. They are governed by many laws and oversight, but in the US, the primary law that could put their executives in prison is failure to uphold their fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders. This isn't a political reason; it's a legal reason. M$ invests large sums of money in Linux where it makes sense. That is primarily around Azure and the Cloud, but also their developer and IDE stuff. You can run your Linux directly in Microsoft Windows, and that's there because the market (developers) wanted it.

M$ has the dominant Office product, the dominant Desktop product, and by a large margin the largest IDE share. Most of the Linux developers I work with each day use VS Code and Visual Studio. M$ defined that as a standard because the end users picked it.

If the market has significant demand for M$ to develop open standards, it will comply. Linux Desktops do not generally define standards, they adopt those of others and this is due to the same market forces.
This is why its always the fault of the copying product when things don't work right for interoperability. 

[Cyclotron]

When a document, made in Libreoffice, doesn't look correct in ms-office, it's the fault of Libreoffice.

When a document, made in ms-office, doesn't look correct in Libreoffice, it's the fault of Libreoffice.

When a document, made in ms-office version x, doesn't look correct in ms-office version y, that's normal!

As I pointed out in an above post. The fidelity and compatibility of the copy are the responsibility of the product performing the copying.

Microsoft's response:
We sell a product with support. Call support; you have that option.

The "Open" response:
If you believe it can be improved, write it yourself.  Buy a support service from us, and we will help.

Apple's response:
The user is at fault; don't use it incorrectly.

[SteveThackery]

When a document, made in ms-office version x, doesn't look correct in ms-office version y, that's normal!

It's not normal, it's bullshit. I've used every version of MS Office since version 2.0c. The one thing Microsoft has managed really well is compatibility across the versions. If there are any speedbumps it's not in the layout, but in things like the macro language (now retired).

Personally I'm glad to see the back of MS Office - I'm hoping that SoftMaker Office will continue to be satisfactory for me.

[TizianoHV]

When a document, made in Libreoffice, doesn't look correct in ms-office, it's the fault of Libreoffice.
When a document, made in ms-office, doesn't look correct in Libreoffice, it's the fault of Libreoffice.
When a document, made in ms-office version x, doesn't look correct in ms-office version y, that's normal!

When you try basic stuff with LO and you go crazy it is your fault?
The interface is delayed to your actions. So if you need to quickly format some text you'll go crazy.
Adding images I guess it is an advanced feature not well supported yet

BTW I hate the ribbon, in particular when it is laggy and I go in a unstable loop where I continue to click stuff while it is still rendering and random things happens like you can see at the beginning of the video 

[peter-h]

When a document, made in ms-office version x, doesn't look correct in ms-office version y, that's normal!

I don't recall ever seeing that, although I think the graphics drawing in M$ Orifice was buggy 25+ years ago.

I'm not so sure about WinXP. If memory serves me well, at some point I tried to install WinXP on a computer with a direct internet connection and it got infected faster than I could download the updates. Nowadays it is crazy to think that at one point most PCs (even the ones in offices!) had direct internet connections with public IP addresses.

You may be right. Certainly win2000 did that. But nobody with a brain would run directly like that today I think when I was running with a Cisco 803 ISDN router maybe 25 years ago, there was no NAT as such but there was a firewall in the IOS config... of course Cisco made sure nobody could understand IOS

WinXP is 100% solid. I have machines running 24/7/365 for years. Internet connected, behind NAT, polling a POP box and doing "specific stuff" and sending out automated emails. The main issue with XP is that it 100% destroys an SSD after 1 year of that It trashes the start of the HD. Win7 is OK.

I know we did the "NAT attack" thing here in the past but really it is so contrived... you might be able to do it on a very specific individual whose equipment and habits are known.

I am 100% convinced that "business" could still be on win7-64 perfectly fine, if not forced by

- due diligence M$ support box ticking (an absolute override of everything in big organisations)
- some apps forcing it; mostly browsers (not Orifice; 2007 does everything needed) and in turn many websites

There is a reason why apparently many corporates keep win7-64 and M$ support it with updates (accessible to use via Simplix ). Simplix brings win7-64 up to win10 sort of patch level. Some oddball things which stopped working on win7 (some videos, curiously) but worked on win10, worked fine on Simplix-updated win7.

[SteveThackery]

I am 100% convinced that "business" could still be on win7-64 perfectly fine.....

I completely agree. Versions 8, 8.1, 10 and 11 have bought nothing of value to desktop/workstation users (in fact they are worse than W7). Only touch-enabled devices benefit from a later OS than W7.

[SteveThackery]

BTW I hate the ribbon, in particular when it is laggy and I go in a unstable loop where I continue to click stuff while it is still rendering and random things happens like you can see at the beginning of the video.....

I actually really like the ribbon. I think it's a great improvement over the old toolbars and menus. I've never experienced it going laggy. Did the hardware meet the recommended spec?

[soldar]

BTW I hate the ribbon, in particular when it is laggy and I go in a unstable loop where I continue to click stuff while it is still rendering and random things happens like you can see at the beginning of the video 

One important reason I stuck with Win XP and Office Word 2003 was that I refused to use that ribbon nonsense. I hated it and it gave me the vibe that MS was changing things frequently and unnecessarily just so they could keep selling "newer and better" things. I did not want to have to keep learning new crap every year. I still use Word 2003 when I need to be productive.

[TizianoHV]

I actually really like the ribbon. I think it's a great improvement over the old toolbars and menus. I've never experienced it going laggy. Did the hardware meet the recommended spec?

Ummm, I'm on I5-8350u. It is only libreOffice laggy.
The ribbon interface, when works well (only office, ms office...), it is fine. But I don't like having to continuously change panel when doing basic stuff (adds one click to every action).
I would like to have a panel with all the basic tools (maybe a custom one where you add what you need) a bit like on old ms office.

[SteveThackery]

One important reason I stuck with Win XP and Office Word 2003 was that I refused to use that ribbon nonsense.

How interesting that two people could have such very different opinions of the same thing! I haven't seen any other WIMP UI elements attract such controversy.

[peter-h]

You can just install Classic Shell and end of debate

[soldar]

WinXP is 100% solid. I have machines running 24/7/365 for years. Internet connected, behind NAT, polling a POP box and doing "specific stuff" and sending out automated emails. The main issue with XP is that it 100% destroys an SSD after 1 year of that It trashes the start of the HD. Win7 is OK.

I have been using Win XP continuously since it came out, on many computers, with a standard configuration, No IPV6, only IPV4 behind NAT, Zonealarm free firewall, NO antivirus and I have never ever had a virus.

I do not use a browser on XP any more but when I did I restricted addons etc.

[peter-h]

Exactly. How could the machine get infected? It is impossible!

[soldar]

How to tinker with Windows settings by making it think it is in Europe. It opens possibilities that are not available in the US.

[peter-h]

I hate videos... the info could be summarised in a one page article.

[paulca]

WinXP is 100% solid. I have machines running 24/7/365 for years. Internet connected, behind NAT, polling a POP box and doing "specific stuff" and sending out automated emails. The main issue with XP is that it 100% destroys an SSD after 1 year of that It trashes the start of the HD. Win7 is OK.

I have been using Win XP continuously since it came out, on many computers, with a standard configuration, No IPV6, only IPV4 behind NAT, Zonealarm free firewall, NO antivirus and I have never ever had a virus.

How did you know that?  You think viruses tell you they installed themselves or added a botnet backdoor?

[soldar]

I have been using Win XP continuously since it came out, on many computers, with a standard configuration, No IPV6, only IPV4 behind NAT, Zonealarm free firewall, NO antivirus and I have never ever had a virus.

How did you know that?  You think viruses tell you they installed themselves or added a botnet backdoor?

Well, let's say I have never noticed anything, any effects, no processes, no traffic, no slowdown, no symptoms. Once in a while I would run an online AV test and never found anything.

Antivirus software OTOH I saw slowed down computers a lot and sometimes created problems so I never installed any AV software in my computers.

I suppose there is a tiny possibility that I had some malware that was never detected but if it was not detected in two and a half decades then I don't care. If I installed AV software it would immediately slow the computer to a crawl, sometimes give false positives and always cause problems with other software. No thanks.

And, frankly, if one of my Win XP computers gets infected tomorrow I can just restore from a backup. I am not a national bank and have nothing of great value in my computer. Everything is backed up many times so no loss of information.

[Cyclotron]

How did you know that?  You think viruses tell you they installed themselves or added a botnet backdoor?

 

I asked that exact question to some Linux folks earlier in this thread. Maybe I'm the paranoid one, but I don't trust OS manufacturers to have secure systems, and I don't even trust the additional security software I install.  I build a level of trust combining several good security practices. Separate systems for important things, separate browsers for various needs, etc.

I really do wish the "Evil bit" were real:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit

[SteveThackery]

You can just install Classic Shell and end of debate

I've already said: Start11 for me.

[SteveThackery]

How did you know that?  You think viruses tell you they installed themselves or added a botnet backdoor?

 

I asked that exact question to some Linux folks earlier in this thread.

The last time I used an antivirus other than Windows' built-in one was probably 20 years ago. What I did for many years was go to whichever antivirus vendor was offering a free scan and use that. Roughly every six months. I can't remember which vendor it was, now. Kaspersky, I think? Their free scanner was functionally identical to the scanning module in the full suite, so I trusted it.  Some of the other antivirus vendors offered the same thing. Intended to boost sales, I expect.

Anyway, after maybe 10 years of never, ever finding anything of concern I got bored and stopped bothering.

I can't imagine what people must do to get a virus infection, but I think the most basic online hygiene, combined with Windows' own security suite, is absolutely fine and all that's necessary.

[SteveThackery]

If I installed AV software it would immediately slow the computer to a crawl, sometimes give false positives and always cause problems with other software. No thanks.

Slow to a crawl? Sometimes give false positives? Always cause problems with other software?

Where on earth did you get all that from? Something you read? Because it's certainly not from experience. Antivirus products have a low single-digit extra CPU load. Usually the only way to notice it is to run a benchmark program.

The last time I had a false positive was back in the DOS days, when viruses and antivirus programs, were in their infancy.

And especially "always causes problems with other software"? I call bullshit! I've never experienced it and never read about it in all the years of reading antivirus reviews. NEVER. If it does happen it must be extraordinarily rare, and emphatically NOT "always".

Honestly, I don't know why people can't just speak truthfully and unemotionally about this stuff instead of all this exaggeration.