6 ms·

This sucks, of course. Yet all the comments on this thread saying the solution is to simply switch platforms ignore something very fundamental. I like to say

This sucks, of course. Yet all the comments on this thread saying the solution is to simply switch platforms ignore something very fundamental. I like to say "Nobody goes to Home Depot to buy a drill bit; what they want to buy is a hole." I don't use Windows because I want to use Windows. I use it because there are things I need to do that can only be done with it. The "just switch to Linux" reaction is an understandable engineering reaction. And, frankly, if your world is limited to web development and some forms of embedded development it might make a ton of sense. Yet, from a business perspective it makes no sense outside of scenarios that fit Linux well. For others it isn't that simple. What would the Linux proponents suggest we do with hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in software not available on any other platform? Solidworks, Siemens NX, Altium Designer, FEA and other simulation tools, CAM and other manufacturing tools, an myriad other applications ranging from business to medicine to engineering that depend on this platform. The goal of a business is to deliver goods and services, not to play with operating systems. The operating system is irrelevant. It's all about the software that runs on it and the utility it provides to users. As an aside, this, I believe, is exactly where Apple has gone wrong. By insisting on having totalitarian control over everything on their platforms they have effectively limited the utility of their devices. At the same time, this is what makes them so good for a certain range of utilization scenarios. We use Windows because it is the only way to buy a hole. We could not care less what OS is under the hood. All we care about is the hole we need to drill. And, frankly, Microsoft has been making a better product with time. I've been using MS products since DOS on the original IBM PC (I bought one when they came out for $3,200). Save missteps here and there, MS software has always improved with time. What they need is our feedback in order to make it even better. The criticism is fair, of course.

cm2187 10y ago
I wonder how many of these industrial applications will want to remain on a platform that pushes unblockable updates that keep adding more telemetry and leakage of data. I am not even convinced windows 10 is usable in a sensitive environment like a law firm, a bank or in healthcare. Big companies will use enterprise versions and pay IT people full time to block all that shit. Smaller and medium companies just use the pro version and don't have the resources to configure it properly.
- rebootthesystem 10y ago
  That's a valid question. Forget law firms, ITAR (part of our work) is a big question. I can't say I've looked into it but would be surprised if MS didn't have a path forward. Most of the large aerospace companies use Windows and they are all under ITAR. For now I think everyone is staying put with Windows 7 until 10 can be understood further.
zanny 10y ago
We have technical debt in software. Investing in holistically proprietary and locked down ecosystems in enterprise, where you are talking millions in software and more in labor training, you are incurring your own form of technical debt. The enterprise does not want to hear this. To learn in hindsight their early decisions to take easy paths with well advertised and pressured products would end up stabbing them in the back over the long term can quickly bring your decisions into question and make you emotionally defensive. But the solution is to acknowledge mistakes and work towards fixing them, rather than just kicking the can down the road and ignoring the problem. Every year the sectors that consistently say they cannot switch to Linux continue to pay for the Windows-only closed ecosystems they depend on directly sabotage their future potential success by funding their own antagonists. But they are not technically minded, or maybe just not informed enough, to know that the solution is not that complicated. Keep self-sabotaging on proprietary ecosystems that rob your freedoms, but also dedicate funds to correct your accrued technical debt by funding (if not using) the FOSS competition in that domain - and if none exists, start funding it yourself. > We could not care less what OS is under the hood. The whole point of this discussion - from the OP on - is that people, on Windows, do care when Microsoft behaves against their interests and forces those decisions upon them. They have no say because that is what they signed up for, but this is exactly the ignorance to the technical debt of business I speak of.
- rebootthesystem 10y ago
  > We have technical debt in software. Investing in holistically proprietary and locked down ecosystems in enterprise, where you are talking millions in software and more in labor training, you are incurring your own form of technical debt. I understand, yet the challenge is exactly the same every time. Say, for example, you launch a brand new electric car company and need a bunch of integrated software and automation tools to help you do everything, from running the business to designing the cars, manufacturing, supply chain management, document processing, etc. You have two choices: You can be an operating system, FOSS, free beer, free speech, pink unicorns for everyone zealot. Or you can go buy shit that works and get on with the business of getting shit done. The difference is this: A business should only be concerned with delivering it's products and services and doing so on a timely manner while staying ahead of the competition. A business should not waste one microsecond on "technology jihad". That is not their job. It is up to entrepreneurs who are "believers" to identify opportunities --if and where they exist-- and work hard to create solutions that appeal to the businesses who need them. It's a tall task, because success might require replacement solutions across a wide range of disciplines. This guarantees that multiple solution providers would have to engage in this "holy war" (sorry, sticking to a bad analogy at this point) in order for the car manufacturer to be able to even consider making a switch. And then there's the other factor: Even if you could switch to an alternative universe and make it seamless within your organization it could still be a terrible business decisions. Why? Because if the vendors and suppliers you have to work with depend on communicating across company demarcation lines by using files produced by specific types of software you are almost assured a great deal of friction if you don't use the same tools. Don't believe me, call-up 100 machine shops and ask them if they accept Siemens NX or SolidWorks files and see what you learn. And both of those platforms run on Windows. > people, on Windows, do care when Microsoft behaves against their interests and forces those decisions upon them. Any professional is very careful about OS and software version transitions. Microsoft has had glitches here and there but they have always been nothing but rock-solid-reliable in their support of the needs of their business customers. We might be looking at another glitch, I don't know, but I don't really care, they'll do the right thing. Not saying this because I love MS. It's just a matter of historical fact. Thinking back over 36 years, I can't remember the last time MS boned anyone. I can remember multiple times where both Apple and various Linux issues did.
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
Everybody knows what you're saying. There are many people who only use Windows because they need software that only runs on Windows. Switching to something else requires you to replace that software. That's a cost. But having an OS that you first pay money for and then have it show you ads is also a cost. Every time they do something like this, it increases the number of people for which the second cost now outweighs the first. It also provides an opportunity for people who don't use any Windows-locked software to consider that there is nothing standing between them and a viable alternative. And even if you don't switch today, you can still contact your software vendors and ask them for a Linux version. The more people do that the more likely they are to produce it, and once they do then you don't have to weigh one cost against the other anymore.
- rebootthesystem 10y ago
  > Switching to something else requires you to replace that software. That's a cost. My point is that this is impossible. You can't buy the software you need at any cost. It does not exist. You can't even consider other platforms for this reason. > you can still contact your software vendors and ask them for a Linux version. Zero interest in that for on simple reason: There's nothing wrong with deploying and using the software on Windows. Why would a company bifurcate their development effort to support multiple platforms when it isn't necessary. Programs like Solidworks, for example are highly particular about drivers and, in addition to that, need tools such as MS Office. CAMWorks, which is an integrated CAM programming tool for manufacturing uses an MS Access database for tool and operations parameters. Coming back to the ads in Explorer. I lack context because we are switching all of our workstations to Windows 10 and I have yet to see any such ads. Do they exist in the higher level editions or just in Home edition? Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea at all. But, frankly, we probably spend significantly less than 1% of our time fiddling around with files in Explorer. When I am spending 12 hours a day on SolidWorks I couldn't care less what happens with explorer. This is no different from visiting StackOverflow and ignoring the ads. Yes, I know one is paid and the other isn't. Yet, in the context of a workstation with $30K to $50K of software installed, the cost of the OS is a rounding error, it might as well be free. Now, if ads start to pop-up in the middle of an 18 hour FEA run it's war.
pdkl95 10y ago
> an understandable engineering reaction The point about switching to an alternative isn't an engineering reaction, it's a political suggestion that is based on sending the right message. When MS does something you find objectionable, the way to signal that you strongly disagree in a capitalist system is to vote with your wallet. Continuing to use Window only sends the message that the recent changes are acceptable. > For others it isn't that simple. I'm sure it isn't, but that was one of the risks in building a business that depends critically on a product you have zero control over. MS has a very long history of doing things their own way, and usually in their own interest. > What would the Linux proponents suggest we do with hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in software not available on any other platform? Accept that you may have made hundreds of thousands of dollars in bad investments? You invested in tools that depends fundamentally on a risky platform. Investing in new tools and/or rebuilding your business to not depends on tools that are risky or unavailable will probably be time consuming and expensive. Do you want to start paying those costs now? Or do you want to continue using Windows, encourage MS to abuse their product even more, and generally throw more time and money at your current situation? I suggest paying for past mistakes now, because problems tend to get more expensive when you ignore them. -- Note that none of the above comments mentioned Linux. I do recommend moving to a Free (as in speech) platform, but the point about switching is to leave MS. Often there isn't any alternative; fortunately Linux/BSD and a lot of really good does exist, so you have an alternative, even if it isn't perfect.
- H4CK3RM4N 10y ago
  Free as in speech is the only point where Windows is still ok, it's free as in beer and free as in freedom where it falls down.
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    Windows is not Free Software, and this entire discussion is about Microsoft's decisions that ignore the wishes of the actual owner of the computer. Microsoft is forcing changes onto other people's property. If this was a physical product you bought, the manufacturer forcing changes onto your property would be considered vandalism. Of course, apologists will try to shift the blame to the victim - the users lacking technical training - by pointing to dark patterns in the setup or "EULA". Microsoft isn't the worst offender re: platform freedom, but calling windows "free" ignores decades of bad behavior, the current moves to lock down Windows while adding spyware and other miss-features, and the simple fact that proprietary software outside your control is by definition "not free".

cm2187 10y ago

I wonder how many of these industrial applications will want to remain on a platform that pushes unblockable updates that keep adding more telemetry and leakage of data. I am not even convinced windows 10 is usable in a sensitive environment like a law firm, a bank or in healthcare. Big companies will use enterprise versions and pay IT people full time to block all that shit. Smaller and medium companies just use the pro version and don't have the resources to configure it properly.

rebootthesystem 10y ago
That's a valid question. Forget law firms, ITAR (part of our work) is a big question. I can't say I've looked into it but would be surprised if MS didn't have a path forward. Most of the large aerospace companies use Windows and they are all under ITAR. For now I think everyone is staying put with Windows 7 until 10 can be understood further.

zanny 10y ago

We have technical debt in software. Investing in holistically proprietary and locked down ecosystems in enterprise, where you are talking millions in software and more in labor training, you are incurring your own form of technical debt. The enterprise does not want to hear this. To learn in hindsight their early decisions to take easy paths with well advertised and pressured products would end up stabbing them in the back over the long term can quickly bring your decisions into question and make you emotionally defensive. But the solution is to acknowledge mistakes and work towards fixing them, rather than just kicking the can down the road and ignoring the problem. Every year the sectors that consistently say they cannot switch to Linux continue to pay for the Windows-only closed ecosystems they depend on directly sabotage their future potential success by funding their own antagonists. But they are not technically minded, or maybe just not informed enough, to know that the solution is not that complicated. Keep self-sabotaging on proprietary ecosystems that rob your freedoms, but also dedicate funds to correct your accrued technical debt by funding (if not using) the FOSS competition in that domain - and if none exists, start funding it yourself. > We could not care less what OS is under the hood. The whole point of this discussion - from the OP on - is that people, on Windows, do care when Microsoft behaves against their interests and forces those decisions upon them. They have no say because that is what they signed up for, but this is exactly the ignorance to the technical debt of business I speak of.

rebootthesystem 10y ago
> We have technical debt in software. Investing in holistically proprietary and locked down ecosystems in enterprise, where you are talking millions in software and more in labor training, you are incurring your own form of technical debt. I understand, yet the challenge is exactly the same every time. Say, for example, you launch a brand new electric car company and need a bunch of integrated software and automation tools to help you do everything, from running the business to designing the cars, manufacturing, supply chain management, document processing, etc. You have two choices: You can be an operating system, FOSS, free beer, free speech, pink unicorns for everyone zealot. Or you can go buy shit that works and get on with the business of getting shit done. The difference is this: A business should only be concerned with delivering it's products and services and doing so on a timely manner while staying ahead of the competition. A business should not waste one microsecond on "technology jihad". That is not their job. It is up to entrepreneurs who are "believers" to identify opportunities --if and where they exist-- and work hard to create solutions that appeal to the businesses who need them. It's a tall task, because success might require replacement solutions across a wide range of disciplines. This guarantees that multiple solution providers would have to engage in this "holy war" (sorry, sticking to a bad analogy at this point) in order for the car manufacturer to be able to even consider making a switch. And then there's the other factor: Even if you could switch to an alternative universe and make it seamless within your organization it could still be a terrible business decisions. Why? Because if the vendors and suppliers you have to work with depend on communicating across company demarcation lines by using files produced by specific types of software you are almost assured a great deal of friction if you don't use the same tools. Don't believe me, call-up 100 machine shops and ask them if they accept Siemens NX or SolidWorks files and see what you learn. And both of those platforms run on Windows. > people, on Windows, do care when Microsoft behaves against their interests and forces those decisions upon them. Any professional is very careful about OS and software version transitions. Microsoft has had glitches here and there but they have always been nothing but rock-solid-reliable in their support of the needs of their business customers. We might be looking at another glitch, I don't know, but I don't really care, they'll do the right thing. Not saying this because I love MS. It's just a matter of historical fact. Thinking back over 36 years, I can't remember the last time MS boned anyone. I can remember multiple times where both Apple and various Linux issues did.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

Everybody knows what you're saying. There are many people who only use Windows because they need software that only runs on Windows. Switching to something else requires you to replace that software. That's a cost. But having an OS that you first pay money for and then have it show you ads is also a cost. Every time they do something like this, it increases the number of people for which the second cost now outweighs the first. It also provides an opportunity for people who don't use any Windows-locked software to consider that there is nothing standing between them and a viable alternative. And even if you don't switch today, you can still contact your software vendors and ask them for a Linux version. The more people do that the more likely they are to produce it, and once they do then you don't have to weigh one cost against the other anymore.

rebootthesystem 10y ago
> Switching to something else requires you to replace that software. That's a cost. My point is that this is impossible. You can't buy the software you need at any cost. It does not exist. You can't even consider other platforms for this reason. > you can still contact your software vendors and ask them for a Linux version. Zero interest in that for on simple reason: There's nothing wrong with deploying and using the software on Windows. Why would a company bifurcate their development effort to support multiple platforms when it isn't necessary. Programs like Solidworks, for example are highly particular about drivers and, in addition to that, need tools such as MS Office. CAMWorks, which is an integrated CAM programming tool for manufacturing uses an MS Access database for tool and operations parameters. Coming back to the ads in Explorer. I lack context because we are switching all of our workstations to Windows 10 and I have yet to see any such ads. Do they exist in the higher level editions or just in Home edition? Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea at all. But, frankly, we probably spend significantly less than 1% of our time fiddling around with files in Explorer. When I am spending 12 hours a day on SolidWorks I couldn't care less what happens with explorer. This is no different from visiting StackOverflow and ignoring the ads. Yes, I know one is paid and the other isn't. Yet, in the context of a workstation with $30K to $50K of software installed, the cost of the OS is a rounding error, it might as well be free. Now, if ads start to pop-up in the middle of an 18 hour FEA run it's war.

pdkl95 10y ago

> an understandable engineering reaction The point about switching to an alternative isn't an engineering reaction, it's a political suggestion that is based on sending the right message. When MS does something you find objectionable, the way to signal that you strongly disagree in a capitalist system is to vote with your wallet. Continuing to use Window only sends the message that the recent changes are acceptable. > For others it isn't that simple. I'm sure it isn't, but that was one of the risks in building a business that depends critically on a product you have zero control over. MS has a very long history of doing things their own way, and usually in their own interest. > What would the Linux proponents suggest we do with hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in software not available on any other platform? Accept that you may have made hundreds of thousands of dollars in bad investments? You invested in tools that depends fundamentally on a risky platform. Investing in new tools and/or rebuilding your business to not depends on tools that are risky or unavailable will probably be time consuming and expensive. Do you want to start paying those costs now? Or do you want to continue using Windows, encourage MS to abuse their product even more, and generally throw more time and money at your current situation? I suggest paying for past mistakes now, because problems tend to get more expensive when you ignore them. -- Note that none of the above comments mentioned Linux. I do recommend moving to a Free (as in speech) platform, but the point about switching is to leave MS. Often there isn't any alternative; fortunately Linux/BSD and a lot of really good does exist, so you have an alternative, even if it isn't perfect.

H4CK3RM4N 10y ago
Free as in speech is the only point where Windows is still ok, it's free as in beer and free as in freedom where it falls down.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  Windows is not Free Software, and this entire discussion is about Microsoft's decisions that ignore the wishes of the actual owner of the computer. Microsoft is forcing changes onto other people's property. If this was a physical product you bought, the manufacturer forcing changes onto your property would be considered vandalism. Of course, apologists will try to shift the blame to the victim - the users lacking technical training - by pointing to dark patterns in the setup or "EULA". Microsoft isn't the worst offender re: platform freedom, but calling windows "free" ignores decades of bad behavior, the current moves to lock down Windows while adding spyware and other miss-features, and the simple fact that proprietary software outside your control is by definition "not free".