5 ms·
This would sound like ChatGPT if I didn't know better... All of your arguments are "made up" arguments, they contradict themselves or each other or assume some
by crabbone 3y ago
This would sound like ChatGPT if I didn't know better...
All of your arguments are "made up" arguments, they contradict themselves or each other or assume some very unlikely situations, especially on behalf of what the post you replied to wanted to say, where it's clear it's not what it wanted to say.
Let's dive in!
> So are you suggesting that the most practicable alternative is to be a slave
Clearly, the post you replied to doesn't suggest that. (But you went on arguing as if it did).
> a trillion dollar technology vendor is a bit bananas to me.
Nobody's killing Microsoft. But even if they were, maybe that's the right thing? You make no arguments not to.
> If you are trying to run a business, I think you are completely fucking yourself over with this sort of attitude.
The company I work for runs on Linux. The company I worked for before this runs on Linux. The company I worked for before the last one also runs on Linux. And the one before those two -- yes, you guessed it, also runs on Linux. The operating system chosen to run a business was never a serious factor in terms of whether the company succeeded or failed. By and large, it's not important.
Are there specific technologies / products only available on Windows? -- You bet! What should be done about those? -- find a way asap to not make them exclusive to that platform. One of the most tragic situations in this respect is in medicine. Windows is ubiquitous in this field. To the point that I'd say that governments should step in and invest into the healthcare they control to change the situation. I.e. to do the complete opposite of what you are suggesting.
> Microsoft is a big place.
All under the same roof, with the same objectives and strategy, which are to screw you (the "Microsoft shop") in particular, but also, if possible even those who managed to stay away from them. The problems Microsoft creates for the world aren't somehow local to one or two departments of the company. The company, no matter how big is responsible for its policies.
- dcow 3y agoYou said it best yourself: The operating system chosen to run a business was never a serious factor in terms of whether the company succeeded or failed. While I don’t think that statement is universally true because for certain products OS matters, but generally, why would anybody migrate away from windows just because of a security incident? Linux has had its fair share of RCEs and 0-day exploits. Are you saying Linux is intrinsically better?
- horsewhales 3y agoYes. In every possible way, yes.
- icandoit 3y ago> Are you saying Linux is intrinsically better? Can we say that the market has spoken? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste... I look forward to the day that windows is mostly a UI over WSL and things like the regsitry become a distant memory.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago> Can we say that the market has spoken? Microsoft aggressively abused its monopoly position in order to make sure that Linux would never win in the desktop market, and then inertia took over, so no we can't say that the market has said anything useful
- rakoo 3y agoThe market is an illusion. Until recently I had no means to buy Linux, I was forced to buy Windows (and it is illegal here, but all you get for going to a trial is not even the price of a licence). Even today the options are very few. The idea of a market works if it costs ~0 to enter a market, consumers have an infinite access to knowledge and infinite time to make a decision BUT make it in 1s when at the store, and also enough money so as to not be a problem. Basically, consumers have all the power and vendors have none. Nothing is really a market, and operating systems definitely shows it.
- olivermuty 3y agoYou run your own mail?