The End of Windows

[Kellemora]

The reason why Windows 10 will be the last version released does not mean it is the end of Windows.

Like many things Windows has added to their system, was initially borne in the Linux community.

Windows has used the Occasional Standard Release method of providing their OS, just as most Linux Distributions.

If you wanted the latest and greatest upgrades:
In Windows you had to wait until the next release came out.
Same with most Linux Distributions, unless you used 3rd party PPAs or Backports.
UNTIL some Linux Distro's began using a Rolling Release, such as Arch Linux.
So, rather than waiting for the next Standard Release to roll around, your OS continually updated.

This is what Windows 10 is all about. Besides offering cloud computing, Windows 10 will be a rolling release, so will always remain current. Each time a new package is tested and determined stable, it will be available, or in some cases, be installed automatically if part of the OS.

It doesn't mean the end of Windows, it merely means they are using another Linux feature they found beneficial.
One other thing which is supposed to come later on in Windows 10 are optional desktops which are prevalent in Linux.

I said once before, every time I turn around Windows is getting to be more and more like Linux, except they charge for it, while Linux is free and open source.

TTUL
Gary

[yogi]

No, I don't work for Microsoft, and I'm not all that enamored with their Windows operating system. In fact I was so disgruntled that I made a huge effort (for me) to find a replacement. The proponents of Linux were and are very vocal about their offering and that was a natural place for me to look. Being the technical guy that I am I looked into a few things that you might not even care about. My conclusion was that all the variations of Linux that I tested can do everything that Windows does. From a functional point of view, it's a wash. However, if you want simplicity, ease of use, and superior support, any version of Windows leaves Linux in the dust. The proof of that is the number of PC users that have Linux installed verses the number of PC users who have some version of Windows installed. Linux never exceeded the 2% usage mark in all the years of it's existence. Recently, some people have used Linux to emulate Windows functionality, which the dedicated old timers (Gary?) have been critical of since its inception. We are in a transition period and in the not too distant future all computer devices will merge into a common look and feel.

My discussion of Windows 10 here does indeed seem like a sales pitch. That is one reason why Microsoft changed its strategy to allow public access to it's beta version software. Once people get involved with it, they can speak directly of it's good and bad points. Microsoft knows that word of mouth advertising far exceeds the benefits of any paid promotions, and thus they are using the evaluation copies of Windows 10 as a subliminal form of advertising.

Rest assured that for all it's faults, Microsoft is a very professional, capable, and competent business. It would be unethical and likely illegal for them to share any personal information that you did not give them explicit consent to share. This is true of any legitimate corporation. Cloud computing has become a necessity in order to synchronize the various computer devices most of us own and use daily. I've not mentioned much about what I don't like about Windows 10 but relying on "the cloud" is a major stumbling block for me. All that cloud storage cannot be turned off, but most of it can. In Windows 10 you still have a choice of where you want to store your personal data. There is a lot of speculation and misinformation going around regarding what is happening with all the personal data being collected, and I'm not going to defend or propagate it here. It's up to you to decide how much exposure you want to have on the public network. Windows 10 is not increasing the risks or vulnerability. The bad news stories you hear and rumors that fly about are more protests against change than they are representations of reality. Again, let me advise you not to toss the baby out with the bath water.

[Icey]

I was joking about you working for Microsoft Yogi, but you'd make a good sales person!

I'll certainly consider joining the ranks early, but whether I'll be able to fathom it remain to be seen.

[Kellemora]

Yogi is of course referring only to home desktop computers as being the 2% user share for Linux.
And 99% of those 98% of Windows users have never installed an OS in their life.
They take whatever OS comes in the device they buy.

Most PCs come with Windows, almost all other devices are Linux based.
92% of all websites are Linux. 81% of all small corporations with an IT department are Linux.
Most mainframe computers run UNIX and Linux, but use Windows workstations on the floor.
Something like 8 of the top 10 supercomputers use Linux.

Ironically, most PCs running Windows as the OS, are using Linux to drive the motherboard, graphics cards, and most of the internal peripherals, etc.

What computing device do you use most often? Probably your cell phone. Welcome to Linux! It's what's inside 94% of small mobile computing devices in use today!

Windows wouldn't work if it were not for the millions of Linux computers out there supporting it, hi hi...

Had to get that in Yogi, hi hi...

TTUL
Gary

[yogi]

Thanks for the interesting statistics Gary. To my way of thinking, as well as Google's and Apple Computer's to name just two giant corporations, Android is not Linux, nor is OSX. Using a generic kernel inside a custom operating system does not make it Linux. This thread is about a Universal Windows Platform which will go under the name of Windows 10. Call it what you may, but it will not be recognized by anyone as a derivative of Linux.

[Icey]

Thank you gentlemen. I shall no doubt be back here if I need any help with Windows 10, whether it's soon or later. The only thing I'm 99% sure of, is that I WILL need some help! : )

[Kellemora]

Hi Yogi
I'm not the one who created the standard usage of the word Linux to define ANY Operating System which uses the Linux Kernel.
I do agree on one point, it is a DUMB WAY for the classification of computers.
Hundreds of Operating Systems use the Linux kernel, and are NOT compatible with each other.

However, I learned something new to me since the last time this came up.
You cannot blame the Linux world for creating the standard of using the kernel name as the type of system, regardless of the Operating System.

It all began with IBM-PCs and DOS. For over a decade, every computer ran some form of DOS, which was basically a command line operating systems. As you well know, the name DOS means Disk Operating System.

Apple computers used 6502 microprocessors so developed their own system.

But for the 8080, 8080a, and Zilog Z80 based microcomputers, 86-DOS (similar to CP/M), IBM PC DOS and mainly MS-DOS, is who kicked off calling the computers operating system by the name of the kernel.

Xenix was Mickey$ofts variant of Unix, and the basis for MS-DOS.

Long before Linux, the family of PCs were using DOS to fit them all, regardless of the actual OS in use.
With everyone using the name DOS, it was a much bigger mess than the Linux world is currently experiencing, DOS was not compatible with DOS, and to help clarify exactly what OS you were running they began appending a few more letters to DOS, such as MS-DOS, PC DOS, DR-DOS, FreeDOS, ROM-DOS, PTS-DOS, etc.
Even this was still too confusing so they began adding more names. AmigaDOS, AMSDOS, ANDOS, Apple DOS, Atari DOS, Commodore DOS, CSI-DOS, ProDOS, and TRS-DOS, etc.

Micro$oft is who set the world standard in using the kernel name for the OS and system name, not Linux!

Even when they came out with Windows, it still ran on DOS, and up until they developed the NT kernel.

Today, we normally refer to computers by the OS, not the kernel, but the major category they fall under has not changed much.
In the Linux world we have Ubuntu, Arch, BSD, Red Hat, Mint, Android, Debian, etc., etc. etc. Each is it's own OS and are not interchangeable with each other.
The SAME holds true for all the DOS systems of their day. What ran on AppleDOS would not run on AmigaDOS or Atari Dos, etc., etc., etc.

Regardless of what Operating System a device is running, whether it be Debian, BSD, Android or RedHat based, because of the kernel they chose for their system, their major classification is it is a Linux based system.
Again, I did not set the Standard, Mickey$oft did, and although they moved away from it when they began using the term Windows, they did not drift all that much away from the standard they set. Every Micro$oft system after DOS was called WINDOWS something. Windows 3.0/DOS, Windows 3.11/DOS, Windows 95/DOS, Windows 98/DOS, Windows NT/NT, Windows XP/NT, Windows XP-Pro/NT, Windows XP-Pro-MCE/NT, Windows 7/NT, Windows 8/NT, and Windows 10, probably still NT.

Is using WINDOWS any different than using LInux Ubuntu, Linux Debian, Linux Mint, Linux Arch, Linux BSD, Linux Android, Linux Red Hat, etc.

Android is just as much a part of the Linux family as any other OS using the Linux kernel. MIckey$oft set the naming standards, not Linux!

TTUL
Gary

[yogi]

My objections in the past, and in this thread, are to the underlying arrogance within the Linux community. They seem to be desperate to justify their existence by attaching the Linux label to everything that did not come out of Redmond. These kind of wild claims try to lump into one category all operating systems with a Linux kernel and ignore the fact that the kernel is absolutely useless without the software components added to it. Propagating the notion that Android, for example, is really Linux in disguise is nothing less than a false statement. Android is Android because of what its developers put into it above and beyond the kernel. If they happened to use a Linux kernel, they did it because it is free and open source - meaning they don't have to pay Microsoft to use it. Being free is its only redeeming value.

There is no denying that Linux/Unix operating systems have a necessary place in the computer landscape. It happens NOT to be in the realm of personal computers. Linux is well suited for use in servers that require highly skilled administrators to maintain them. It also fits well into gadgets where it is totally transparent and needs no interaction by the end user. When it comes to personal computing, workstations, and game boxes, Windows still dominates. Trying to claim as Linux the grossly modified kernel that is isolated deeply below the operator interface in some of today's mobile devices is pure self-delusion. At the moment the dominance of Microsoft Windows is in question. Windows 10 is Microsoft's effort to make a comeback. Calling it Linux will not fool anyone.

[Kellemora]

There are just as many Operating Systems going under the name Windows out of Redmond, as their are main Distro's using Linux.
Although, truth be known, the top Linux Distro's do not incorporate Linux in their name. Such as:
Ubuntu, Lubuntu, Kubuntu, Edubuntu, BSD, Debian6, Debian7, Debian8, Gentoo.
Some still do though, such as Arch Linux, Linux Mint, Red Hat Linux, and even they normally just use Red Hat.
And let's not forget Android, who normally does not append Linux to their name.

Ask 100 Windows users what the name of the Kernel their flavor of OS is using, and 99 Windows users probably couldn't tell you.
Ask 100 Distro users what the name of the Kernel their OS is using, and all 100 Distro users will say Linux of course.
Why don't Windows users know what they are using? And how many could reinstall their OS from scratch?
If you could find even 10% of Windows users who could reinstall their OS, I would be mighty surprised.
Vastly different intelligence level between the three main computer users groups.

[yogi]

Gary - your last paragraph eloquently explains the situation. Microsoft has gone out of its way to make it's brand of operating system simple enough so that it's users do not have to even know what a kernel is. This approach has become so widely accepted that there is no need to install Windows from scratch unless you are geeky as I am. Windows is a brand that has been consistently and logically improved ever since the first version was released. It's growth has been linear and predictable, all of which accounts for it's popularity among average computer users. Linux, on the other hand, is a component of widely diverse niche operating systems. The fact that it has so many distros to choose from attests to its lack of consistency and ease of use. That's not to say Linux is inferior, but it goes a long way to explain why it is not popular with the general public.

Microsoft's change in it's business model is significant because, as you pointed out earlier in this thread, it represents their attempt to become a standard upon which many diverse operating systems can be built. This looks like what Linux has been trying to do for nearly twenty years now. Hopefully Microsoft will not make the same mistakes.

[Kellemora]

I have to agree, they have made it virtually idiot proof, and made it more simplified on the user end each and every year.

On the other, they have also contributed greatly to the dumbing down of all people everywhere.

Same with cars and many other things. People don't want to know how they work, or why they work, and are GLAD to pay the BIG BUCKS so they don't have to. They will also settle for something whether they really like it or not, simply because they don't know how to fend for themselves anymore.

I no longer work on my own cars, they've made doing so almost impossible now.
Almost all appliances are sealed, nor could you get parts to fix them if you wanted to.
Nobody replaces a ten cent capacitor on a circuit board, they replace the whole thing, because unless you can do it yourself, the labor to have someone else do it is more than the circuit board costs.

If you are happy with cookie cutter houses, cars, and computers, and can afford to pay for the simplified versions of everything, that's grand.

Henry Ford used the same approach. You can have any color car you want, so long as it's black.

I grew up in the era where we could get our cars made any way we wanted them. We ordered the size engine, type of transmission, the gear ratio of the rear end, etc. In other words, we had control over what we bought, and could get it the way we wanted it.
Today, when you go to buy a car, you have almost no choice other than color. Most have been so dumbed down and the components made so cheaply, they could sell them for a thousand bucks and still make a profit. Cars are considered disposable these days, even at 36 grand a pop for a thousand dollar car.

I use Linux because it gives ME the choice of what desktop I want, and even then the options are most limited.
90% of what I do would be painfully hard on a Windoze computer, and also cost a whole lot more than I make to attempt to use one. Even if they gave the OS away for free, I couldn't afford the proprietary software I would need. I calculated the cost not to long ago and for what I do each day, I would need over 3 grand worth of software, and that didn't include the occasional things I use other software for, like the occasional use of CAD/CAM.

I may not know much about what goes on under the hood of my computer, but I sure can figure out how to install software to get it to do what I want it to do, provided the software is available of course. Even in the Linux world, they are scrapping some of the best software ever written on the new OSs for Toys...

Have a great evening Yogi!