Windows XP Key blacklisted

[tommo123]

for linux it's a case of (was the case a few months ago anyway) having to go into terminal at random times and was a serious PITA getting handbrake. as for macs, 1 - you have to own their hardware and i like to build my own (unless you use a hackintosh), IMO the OS looks overly pretty and annoying (to me anyway and i had the same feelings when i tried an iphone). then there's just the plain fact that i absolutely despise the company and would rather use windown ME than a mac

i have no such aversion to linux but it's just not there yet for someone whos not willing to invest in the learning curve (majority of people)

 

[Nothinman]

for linux it's a case of (was the case a few months ago anyway) having to go into terminal at random times and was a serious PITA getting handbrake. as for macs, 1 - you have to own their hardware and i like to build my own (unless you use a hackintosh), IMO the OS looks overly pretty and annoying (to me anyway and i had the same feelings when i tried an iphone). then there's just the plain fact that i absolutely despise the company and would rather use windown ME than a mac

i have no such aversion to linux but it's just not there yet for someone whos not willing to invest in the learning curve (majority of people)

How is clicking the install option on handbrake-gtk package in Synaptic or typing 'aptitude install handbrake-gtk' a PITA? Seems a lot simpler than googling around and installing something manually from the Internet to me. I admit that I put the time into the learning curve a long time ago before it was as simple as it is now, but it's not as bad as you make it out to be. And in many cases it's light-years ahead of and easier than Windows.

 

[tommo123]

it wasn't like that last time. there was a 3 page guide to follow last time around which was retarded. anything involving going into terminal is too much honestly

here y'are. at the time i had to try this:
https://edge.launchpad.net/~stebbins/+archive/handbrake-releases

 

[Nothinman]

it wasn't like that last time. there was a 3 page guide to follow last time around which was retarded. anything involving going into terminal is too much honestly

here y'are. at the time i had to try this:
https://edge.launchpad.net/~stebbins/+archive/handbrake-releases

So? That's one extra step (sudo add-apt-repository ppa:user/ppa-name) before doing what I said above, not exactly the huge firestorm of complicated instructions that you implied.

 

[lxskllr]

Using the terminal isn't that bad. If I can do it, anyone can. I'm visually oriented, and have a hard time remembering syntax, and command order, but I hardly ever have to. I compiled a program from source the other week, and that was almost painless. The readme didn't say I needed a package of utilities(there's that remembering commands thing again :^D), but a quick Google got it for me, and it was easy as pie. After installing the package I needed, I think I typed two commands to compile it. Not as easy as double clicking setup.exe, but not much harder either.

 

[HeXen]

i never even used a terminal in linux. that is using kubuntu or ubuntu.
but U/Kubuntu is dead simple...actually there is a number of things that are easier than Windows, i also find the text easier to read... i guess the charcoal background as apposed to white.
i also love CompizFusion and how customizable the interface is in general. too bad most games are dx though but Windows does do somethings better or exclusively.
Like importing from camera you just pluged in, windows is way nicer, being able to use 32 bit apps in 64bit without performance hit..things like that.

 

[garyd]

Apologies in advance for this being quite opinionated, being my first post.

In MS' defence I had a problem with activation a while back where my XP suddenly became 'Not Genuine'.
I queried this quite vocifrously with MS uk support in that they had even activated over the phone after a re-install so how could it not be genuine.
They actually sent me a brand new XP disk with COA.
Superb and quite pleasantly surprising service!
But some of you seem to be assuming that everyone who re-installs does so for fun. Some of us middle-aged wanna be pc bods may do it 'cause it's the easiest way out of a problem.
We may not have the capacity (or time) to learn how to use Linux, resolve errors or we update some hardware etc.
So we re-install.
We paid a lot of money to be told you've overused an application that is flawed!
Sorry for the sass.

 

[tommo123]

So? That's one extra step (sudo add-apt-repository ppa:user/ppa-name) before doing what I said above, not exactly the huge firestorm of complicated instructions that you implied.

it's an unnecessary step and stops people using it. pretty much it. if i have to do anything like that, i won't use linux. it's a security risk. i'm not going to trust some random page i find on the net and copy/paste lines in and run them with superuser permissions. i won't have the time or inclination to read up on what the lines mean or do.

you don't need to do this in windows. this inability of linux dudes to understand this is why more people don't use it

 

[Nothinman]

it's an unnecessary step and stops people using it. pretty much it. if i have to do anything like that, i won't use linux. it's a security risk. i'm not going to trust some random page i find on the net and copy/paste lines in and run them with superuser permissions. i won't have the time or inclination to read up on what the lines mean or do.

you don't need to do this in windows. this inability of linux dudes to understand this is why more people don't use it

It's obviously necessary if you want to use that developer's PPAs, so calling it unnecessary is just wrong. And if that's all it takes for you to not use an app, then you're pretty much doomed anyway. Do you only use a stock Windows install too?

You don't need to do it in Windows because it's package management is utter shit so you're relegated to google searches and trusting random binary-only installer packages that probably bundle extra software like the Ask toolbar that you don't want. How is that a better situation? Your irrational views of all of this is more of a problem than the Linux software developer community.

 

[tommo123]

really? works for most people, and it's easy, doesn't require going into dos. did i mention it's quick and easy and just works?

if that's what you think is acceptable, then that explains why linux is doomed to relegation in the itty bitty numbers of people that use it.

 

[lxskllr]

really? works for most people, and it's easy, doesn't require going into dos. did i mention it's quick and easy and just works?

if that's what you think is acceptable, then that explains why linux is doomed to relegation in the itty bitty numbers of people that use it.

Linux isn't an operating system. The individual distributions are, and they each have software that's made for their O/S. That being the case, it's much easier installing "Linux" software because you can do it from the desktop either at the terminal, or through a graphical store.

The scenario you're talking about is like installing OSX software on FreeBSD. Pretty much impossible. They have a similar core, but through licensing restrictions, and architectural differences, it can't be done. In the operating system Ubuntu, you can install software from the operating system Fedora. Not a one button push install, but not particularly difficult either. It can be done via ppa, or from source. Neither is that hard, and you should consider it a small miracle that it can be done at all.

 

[Nothinman]

really? works for most people, and it's easy, doesn't require going into dos. did i mention it's quick and easy and just works?

if that's what you think is acceptable, then that explains why linux is doomed to relegation in the itty bitty numbers of people that use it.

It works for them because that's what they've been trained on and it's very far from quick or easy. Installing and updating things in Linux is so far ahead of Windows that it's just sad now. Everything I have installed minus VMware Workstation was installed via aptitude and as such I'll automatically get updates for everything on my mine within a single place. I don't have a dozen updaters in my notification are, it's all cohesive and well put together. I don't have serial numbers or activation to worry about and I know I can trust the packages because they're cryptographically signed by developers that I trust. How is googling an app name and running setup.exe from some random web host quick, easier or safer?

The fact that you don't like it is fine, but there's no way anyone could think the Windows method of application management is quicker and easier than pretty much any other method available.

Only OS X is simpler because there's no installation besides copying a file somewhere, but it makes management and updating of apps suck pretty bad so I think Linux still wins there too.

 

[spikespiegal]

How is clicking the install option on handbrake-gtk package in Synaptic or typing 'aptitude install handbrake-gtk' a PITA?

How about about clicking the option to install Adobe CS5 native on Linux? Oh wait...you don't have that option, along with 75% of the *professional* apps I run because it's not native on Linux. Or I can spend a weekend dicking around with time sucking vampires like Wine and having it consequently give me grief with every subsequent upgrade and installed option until you just say screw it and buy another copy of Windows. Or, wait from some geek-virgin to tell me that Gimp is just as good.

Windows OEM licensing is a pain given Microsoft wants to corral you into enterprise license modes or retail packs. Since they give such massive discounts to legitimate OEMs (NewEgg OEM's are a grey area because they aren't system vendors) they aren't going to give you a lot of rope. No surprise than a NewEgg OEM license went on the black list.

Apple is looser on this with OSX because their installed hardware base is much, much less than Microsoft. Also, unlike Microsoft, Apple makes their profit selling hardware. They don't give crap how you use their software..... unless it's on their platform. I've noted that the Linux boys give Apple a break on this point given OSX is a Unix deritive, but I find it totally effing hypocritical.

Most enterprise packages of non-Microsoft software I have to deploy have *worse* licensing restrictions and are more draconian. IBM, Unix, etc., but Microsoft is universally picked on by the Linux community for some stupid reason. I guess when you have to give your software away for free, or have it pimped by IBM's Red Hat division because you need attention you tend to miss this point.

Your irrational views of all of this is more of a problem than the Linux software developer community.

What a delusional, arrogant crock of shit, and a hypocritical comment - No wonder they have to give their software away for free and have delegated most Linux kernels to being run on Chinese appliances. On one hand you complain that Windows installers are inferiour, but then complain that's it too easy for malicious executables to be installed. Which is it?

Novell had no problem shoving down highly diverse packages of Windows apps seamlessly and without licensing issues and with brutal security, and this was ten years ago. So, the problem is clearly between keyboard and chair.

The 'Linux community' wants it's done their way because it's their way of getting back at somebody who makes more money than them. If Linux application management was technically superior than Windows then it would be the dominant corporate client. This of course will result in the scripted 'everybody is a Windows drone' response.

OP can roll back to Win2K SP4 server if he wants with no registration. Better effing kernel than XP ever was although you'll have to manually pop a few registry entries for game compatibility. XP is *somewhat* more secure online. Keep IE off it in any respect.

 

[Nothinman]

How about about clicking the option to install Adobe CS5 native on Linux? Oh wait...you don't have that option, along with 75% of the *professional* apps I run because it's not native on Linux.

So? My condolences to you for being locked into a single vendor like that at home, but that's not relevant here. His complaints were with usability of installing/removing apps, not your usage requirements.

Or I can spend a weekend dicking around with time sucking vampires like Wine and having it consequently give me grief with every subsequent upgrade and installed option until you just say screw it and buy another copy of Windows. Or, wait from some geek-virgin to tell me that Gimp is just as good.

WINE works for the few games I play in it and for me, GIMP is good enough. Just because they don't work for you doesn't mean anything except just that. If you don't like them, that's fine, move on.

Apple is looser on this with OSX because their installed hardware base is much, much less than Microsoft. Also, unlike Microsoft, Apple makes their profit selling hardware. They don't give crap how you use their software..... unless it's on their platform. I've noted that the Linux boys give Apple a break on this point given OSX is a Unix deritive, but I find it totally effing hypocritical.

Apple very much cares how you use their software, their EULAs and the very high walls around their garden are proof of that. They haven't gone as far as to require activation yet, but I think they're hoping to avoid that by moving everyone to completely locked devices like their phones and tablets.

And I don't give Apple a break on anything, I have them many orders of magnitude more than MS. I would rather use a VZW feature phone than an iPhone.

Most enterprise packages of non-Microsoft software I have to deploy have *worse* licensing restrictions and are more draconian. IBM, Unix, etc., but Microsoft is universally picked on by the Linux community for some stupid reason. I guess when you have to give your software away for free, or have it pimped by IBM's Red Hat division because you need attention you tend to miss this point.

I agree that MS is fairly light when it comes to licensing and I don't remember saying anything bad about MS' licensing restrictions in this thread.

What a delusional, arrogant crock of shit, and a hypocritical comment - No wonder they have to give their software away for free and have delegated most Linux kernels to being run on Chinese appliances. On one hand you complain that Windows installers are inferiour, but then complain that's it too easy for malicious executables to be installed. Which is it?

Wow, the amount of angry straw men in that statement is almost overwhelming. Windows installers are definitely inferior and it's too easy for malicious software to be installed, that's actually one of the reasons that they're inferior. When I install a package on Linux via my package manager I know that it's coming from a trusted source and that nothing but that single app is included in that package. Neither are true for Windows and it's more work because I don't have a central interface to installing/updating/removing software like I do on Linux. Windows fails so hard in this area that it's not funny and it probably won't ever truly be fixed because of legacy support. Hell, MS can't even get 3rd parties to develop with UAC in mind yet and that's been out for ~5 years now.

Novell had no problem shoving down highly diverse packages of Windows apps seamlessly and without licensing issues and with brutal security, and this was ten years ago. So, the problem is clearly between keyboard and chair.

And where is Novell now? Oh right, they're a Linux company now. NetWare, NDS, ZenWorks, etc were technically great pieces of software however MS killed them with AD and software pushes via GPO.

The 'Linux community' wants it's done their way because it's their way of getting back at somebody who makes more money than them. If Linux application management was technically superior than Windows then it would be the dominant corporate client. This of course will result in the scripted 'everybody is a Windows drone' response.

That's hardly true and you know it which is why you added that little quip at the end. Previously built up momentum and Windows-only software is why Windows is the dominant corporate client, nothing more.

OP can roll back to Win2K SP4 server if he wants with no registration. Better effing kernel than XP ever was although you'll have to manually pop a few registry entries for game compatibility. XP is *somewhat* more secure online. Keep IE off it in any respect

Better kernel? Please, it's the same one just with less functionality and drivers. And I think you mean activation, not registration.

 

[tommo123]

UAC is a crock of shit since MS don't put any thought into it. it creates an "always click yes" mentality which is not secure. the rest is crap. sorry, but it is. you may not think of yourself as a linux fanboy, but you are.

although to be fair, that installation thing i mentioned above is over the top and unnecessary (as when i wanted opera, i found a single file i ran and installed just like in windows) was the only thing (this time) that stopped my trying to stick with ubuntu.

 

[lord_emperor]

You're a real trooper, I went to a pirated version after the first time I had to call M$ to activate my legit license.

 

[Nothinman]

UAC is a crock of shit since MS don't put any thought into it. it creates an "always click yes" mentality which is not secure. the rest is crap. sorry, but it is. you may not think of yourself as a linux fanboy, but you are.

although to be fair, that installation thing i mentioned above is over the top and unnecessary (as when i wanted opera, i found a single file i ran and installed just like in windows) was the only thing (this time) that stopped my trying to stick with ubuntu.

People have always had the "always click yes" mentality, UAC didn't create that. Even usually intelligent engineers will just click something at random to dismiss a dialog they don't think is important without reading it. It's most entertaining when the dialog expects the opposite answer by asking a question like when Java asks "Would you like to run only the signed files" and you say Yes and the applet fails. It usually takes 2-3 tries before they stop and read the dialog and finally realize they need to click No to actually have it run.

That's not a technical problem that MS or any other developer can fix without AI that just knows what the user wants to do and we're not there yet.

I never said I wasn't a fanboi, but the technical arguments are true and you're not seeing it because you've got the exact opposite mentality. You think that it must be hard and obtuse just because it's Linux, when that hasn't been true for at least 10 years now. This isn't 1996, you should try opening your eyes a little bit.

How is 1 command over the top and unnecessary? I still say it's simpler than Windows, hell I've seen Windows MSI packages say effectively "I need this package, go find it and try again" with no help at all. How is that easier than just downloading the dependencies for you like apt on Linux? The fact that you're even arguing that it's simpler to install and update things in Windows shows that you're completely unwilling to even consider alternatives.

Commercial programs, like Opera, like to give you a single file to run to install their software because they know you're conditioned to do that. Even Google Chrome does that, although it adds itself to your apt sources so that you still get updates with the rest of the system as it should be.

 

[lxskllr]

I've never gotten a good feel for UAC on Windows. Sometimes it pops up unexpectedly. On Linux, I can petty much always predict when I'll need to raise my rights. My one complaint with Linux, is it doesn't always say why an operation failed when it was expecting administrator rights. It just won't work, and won't say why it failed. One program I use asks "got root?" if you try to start it without rights. I like that, and would like to see more programs take that approach.

 

[alkemyst]

UAC is common in almost all modern OSes. Windows 7 does a much better implementation and you can deactivate it.

MacOS has one for any system modifications.

Almost all the current Linux devs can have it too.

 

[HeXen]

Preference of how you accomplish tasks in a particular OS is based on habit. Windows use is a hard habit to break. Some of which has resulted in bad habits. It just depends what you let yourself get acustomed to. Same with the apps. Theres an alternative application for most everything out there.

"supposedly" some of UAC's current functions will start to diminish in W8 as they are running all first time clicked software in sand box. When it determines the software is "safe"...however it does that. then it runs as normal.
Apparently as a way to get off UAC which MS admitted that its not very effective for most users who just click yes regardless.

 

[Nothinman]

I've never gotten a good feel for UAC on Windows. Sometimes it pops up unexpectedly. On Linux, I can petty much always predict when I'll need to raise my rights. My one complaint with Linux, is it doesn't always say why an operation failed when it was expecting administrator rights. It just won't work, and won't say why it failed. One program I use asks "got root?" if you try to start it without rights. I like that, and would like to see more programs take that approach.

In Vista it happens way too often, but with Win7 it's pretty predictable to me and that's largely helped by the little shield icon on buttons that will trigger it. I don't know if Vista had them, but IME it's pretty much just those and installs/updates that trigger UAC in Win7.