3 ms·

Stop trying to suggest that Windows applications - indeed, Windows itself - always work perfectly and never need support. The idea is laughable. Companies make

by phaemon 12y ago

Stop trying to suggest that Windows applications - indeed, Windows itself - always work perfectly and never need support. The idea is laughable. Companies make a lot of money as Microsoft Consultants you know.

brudgers 12y ago
I used Windows for the first time in 1988, briefly. From 1992 I've had an installation continuously. However, over the past three years or so, I've been increasingly using Linux and since the first of the year, but for TurboTax season and a few brief sessions, I have entirely transitioned. The quality of Windows self-support is vastly superior to that of Linux. The quality of free support for Windows programs is vastly superior to that of FOSS when the problem is immediate and my level of expertise with the software is not high. Yes, the answers to all questions about Emacs are in the manual, but it's six hundred fucking pages plus another twelve hundred on Lisp. Which isn't so much the problem as that googling for answers tends to return, RTFM. That's the same for Wine. If you have 114 frequently asked questions, it suggests that maybe the product could be improved. Or at least the documentation. I'm not picking on Wine. But using Wine for most people is an ideological statement. It's going to church and professing their faith. It's jumping through hoops if what matters is running Windows applications - you can buy a used computer running Windows for $150 plus shipping allday anyday everyday. The only viable FOSS business model is providing support. RedHat's yearly per user charge is almost the retail cost of Windows. And that's as mainstream as FOSS gets. Consultants for both Windows and FOSS make their money B2B. Wine is marketed to end users as a solution to ordinary problems. But there's no infrastructure to support such users. That's the problem MicroSoft solved. They focus on B2B level support and provide it in the consumer sector. It's what allowed them to scale. Don't misunderstand me. I deeply respect Stallman's philosophy and admire his accomplishments. But that doesn't require me to hate Gates or MicroSoft. He and the company he founded did more to put a computer on every desk and in every home than anyone else. I wouldn't be running Linux or using Emacs but for the commercial success of Windows.
- phaemon 12y ago
  I first used Windows around 1992 - Versions 3.0 and 3.1 - and I've used and supported (or at least, helped people with) every version since. I've also been using Linux since 1994. > The quality of Windows self-support is vastly superior to that of Linux. No, it really isn't. I've had a much better response to requests for information on FOSS than I've had on proprietary software. > Yes, the answers to all questions about Emacs ... So you'd have exactly the same problems running Emacs on Windows. You may not have seen thousand page manuals for proprietary Windows software, but I certainly have. Worse, it's usually that terrible documentation that tells you "You can do X to perform Y" but without any indication how to do X. > That's the same for Wine. If you have 114 frequently asked questions, it suggests that maybe the product could be improved. They're providing an implementation of Windows. If you think there aren't more than 114 questions about Windows, you've not been paying attention! > you can buy a used computer running Windows for $150 plus shipping allday anyday everyday. At which point you've switched from having an up-to-date, solid, repeatable installation to having a buggy, out-of-date version running on failing hardware. > RedHat's yearly per user charge is almost the retail cost of Windows. Support with a MS Partner is far more than the retail cost of Windows. > He and the company he founded did more to put a computer on every desk and in every home than anyone else So Microsoft PR keeps claiming, but I remember people using computers in the home well before the Windows/PC monoculture took over. It was a massive step backwards when it did. I also haven't forgotten Microsoft's attempts to destroy FOSS (see the Halloween Documents for more) nor have I forgotten that Microsoft attempted their FUD tactics on the Internet itself, in an attempt to push their Microsoft Network. Thankfully they failed in that, otherwise we'd all be using Microsoft approved Pages today instead of the WWW and I'd have people telling me how we should be thankful that Microsoft put global communication in every home!
  - brudgers 12y ago
    Back in the UseNet of the late 1990's, I always thought of this technique as "the pick-apart", and I found it a great technique for winning a battle of rhetoric. Fragmenting the discussion into 'sound bites' reduces coherence and allows for a series of disconnected snarky rebuttals. Snarky rebuttals being much cheaper to produce than a reasoned and thoughtful reply. Of course the objective is to devolve a conversation - for the pick-apart is a form of trolling for flame wars. It's power stems from the frustration it instills in one's opponents via low quality arguments based on deliberate misinterpretation across many fronts and the fact that the number of fronts multiplies with a thoughtful response - i.e. when trolling the pick-apart is applied recursively. [1] One can identify troll sign in the pick-apart because there is no priority to the counterpoints. The perfect pick-apart disputes each sentence rather than the overall ideas. Even at the micro-level, there's nothing but contradiction - just unsupported assertions of whatever happens to be opposite the most convenient reading of each sentence in isolation. Now in fairness, the pick-apart is often a high quality post on most of the internet, because it at least entails some effort at writing [I forgot to mention one of the ways it wins arguments is simply by leveraging one's ability to out-type their opponent] and produces a maximum of snark. Snark being the primary coin of internet chat as entertainment. Anyway, here on HN pick-aparts are pretty much noise due to the generally higher standard of quality found in the comments and the general distaste for trolling. Consider this editorial feedback, with the honest intent of improving your writing technique. Good luck. [1] The classic insurgent strategy in a Blotto Game is to open up additional fronts against any opponent with superior resources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blotto_games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blotto_games

by phaemon 12y ago

brudgers 12y ago

I used Windows for the first time in 1988, briefly. From 1992 I've had an installation continuously. However, over the past three years or so, I've been increasingly using Linux and since the first of the year, but for TurboTax season and a few brief sessions, I have entirely transitioned. The quality of Windows self-support is vastly superior to that of Linux. The quality of free support for Windows programs is vastly superior to that of FOSS when the problem is immediate and my level of expertise with the software is not high. Yes, the answers to all questions about Emacs are in the manual, but it's six hundred fucking pages plus another twelve hundred on Lisp. Which isn't so much the problem as that googling for answers tends to return, RTFM. That's the same for Wine. If you have 114 frequently asked questions, it suggests that maybe the product could be improved. Or at least the documentation. I'm not picking on Wine. But using Wine for most people is an ideological statement. It's going to church and professing their faith. It's jumping through hoops if what matters is running Windows applications - you can buy a used computer running Windows for $150 plus shipping allday anyday everyday. The only viable FOSS business model is providing support. RedHat's yearly per user charge is almost the retail cost of Windows. And that's as mainstream as FOSS gets. Consultants for both Windows and FOSS make their money B2B. Wine is marketed to end users as a solution to ordinary problems. But there's no infrastructure to support such users. That's the problem MicroSoft solved. They focus on B2B level support and provide it in the consumer sector. It's what allowed them to scale. Don't misunderstand me. I deeply respect Stallman's philosophy and admire his accomplishments. But that doesn't require me to hate Gates or MicroSoft. He and the company he founded did more to put a computer on every desk and in every home than anyone else. I wouldn't be running Linux or using Emacs but for the commercial success of Windows.

phaemon 12y ago
I first used Windows around 1992 - Versions 3.0 and 3.1 - and I've used and supported (or at least, helped people with) every version since. I've also been using Linux since 1994. > The quality of Windows self-support is vastly superior to that of Linux. No, it really isn't. I've had a much better response to requests for information on FOSS than I've had on proprietary software. > Yes, the answers to all questions about Emacs ... So you'd have exactly the same problems running Emacs on Windows. You may not have seen thousand page manuals for proprietary Windows software, but I certainly have. Worse, it's usually that terrible documentation that tells you "You can do X to perform Y" but without any indication how to do X. > That's the same for Wine. If you have 114 frequently asked questions, it suggests that maybe the product could be improved. They're providing an implementation of Windows. If you think there aren't more than 114 questions about Windows, you've not been paying attention! > you can buy a used computer running Windows for $150 plus shipping allday anyday everyday. At which point you've switched from having an up-to-date, solid, repeatable installation to having a buggy, out-of-date version running on failing hardware. > RedHat's yearly per user charge is almost the retail cost of Windows. Support with a MS Partner is far more than the retail cost of Windows. > He and the company he founded did more to put a computer on every desk and in every home than anyone else So Microsoft PR keeps claiming, but I remember people using computers in the home well before the Windows/PC monoculture took over. It was a massive step backwards when it did. I also haven't forgotten Microsoft's attempts to destroy FOSS (see the Halloween Documents for more) nor have I forgotten that Microsoft attempted their FUD tactics on the Internet itself, in an attempt to push their Microsoft Network. Thankfully they failed in that, otherwise we'd all be using Microsoft approved Pages today instead of the WWW and I'd have people telling me how we should be thankful that Microsoft put global communication in every home!
- brudgers 12y ago
  Back in the UseNet of the late 1990's, I always thought of this technique as "the pick-apart", and I found it a great technique for winning a battle of rhetoric. Fragmenting the discussion into 'sound bites' reduces coherence and allows for a series of disconnected snarky rebuttals. Snarky rebuttals being much cheaper to produce than a reasoned and thoughtful reply. Of course the objective is to devolve a conversation - for the pick-apart is a form of trolling for flame wars. It's power stems from the frustration it instills in one's opponents via low quality arguments based on deliberate misinterpretation across many fronts and the fact that the number of fronts multiplies with a thoughtful response - i.e. when trolling the pick-apart is applied recursively. [1] One can identify troll sign in the pick-apart because there is no priority to the counterpoints. The perfect pick-apart disputes each sentence rather than the overall ideas. Even at the micro-level, there's nothing but contradiction - just unsupported assertions of whatever happens to be opposite the most convenient reading of each sentence in isolation. Now in fairness, the pick-apart is often a high quality post on most of the internet, because it at least entails some effort at writing [I forgot to mention one of the ways it wins arguments is simply by leveraging one's ability to out-type their opponent] and produces a maximum of snark. Snark being the primary coin of internet chat as entertainment. Anyway, here on HN pick-aparts are pretty much noise due to the generally higher standard of quality found in the comments and the general distaste for trolling. Consider this editorial feedback, with the honest intent of improving your writing technique. Good luck. [1] The classic insurgent strategy in a Blotto Game is to open up additional fronts against any opponent with superior resources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blotto_games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blotto_games