|
I'm far from a MS lover, but I'd like to think I'm pragmatic. Windows 10, in itself, is a good OS. It has some things in there I really like (like powershell window being able to go full screen). Its the stuff going on around it that I object to, namely the forced updates, the telemetry and the constant nagging question of showing ads on the lock screen. Personally, I intensely dislike it when someone says "This is how you shall use this!" (hence my feelings towards OSX). I stand by the statement that Windows 7 was an excellent OS and I have fond feelings towards 8.1 10 would be great if they could give us control over the dang OS and stop forcing updates down our throat.
I've had some MS hardware over the years: their sidewinder joysticks, a mouse or two and a few other odds and ends. I still use a Comfort 4000 keyboard. Their hardware is generally pretty good.
As for virus ridden, I think that a tad narrow minded. I believe it narrow minded for the simple reason that if you're a bad guy, what are you going to target? The 1% or the 90%? Windows is the dominant OS out there, its going to be the dominant target. I've seen Linux machines hacked (thanks PHP), I've seen some horrendous vulnerabilities in Mac OSX (what was that root access one recently? That was good fun). Is Windows more vulnerable than Mac or Linux? There are people who say it is, just as there are people who say the earth is flat (quieten down, easy with the pitchforks. I'm not comparing the two, merely saying there are people who say all sorts of things). I've also seen reports that Mac is more vulnerable in that they haven't had the experience that MS have had in dealing with this stuff.
The faults of Linux are real: On the pro side you have a 1000 ways of doing things. On the con side, you have 1000 ways of doing things. Not all work, a few cause more problems than they solve and one or two result in things catching fire in a rather embarrassing way. Documentation for some things isn't bad, for others its frankly terrible.
I've caught myself out a couple of times forgiving Linux for something that'd I'd be hurling insult upon curse for some other OS. An example would be my home router: I use a Ubiquiti EdgeRouter (... pro? lite? The $150 one, whichever that is) and have installed OpenWRT on it. I wanted to upgrade it. The upgrade process didn't work and I had to format the device and install OpenWRT from scratch and then reconfigure it. This was accepted as "Oh well, that's fine". If it was netgear or some other company, I'd be still swearing. But its double standards. Why is one acceptable and the other not? Why with Windows do I not accept a little crash now and again but with Linux I accept something like BTRFS in which half the features are marked "Don't use this in production!" (Truth to told, I didn't accept it as soon as I found the features missing page for BTRFS. I was rather horrified and immediately took steps not to use it at work. Mind you, with VMWare and a SAN there was no benefit).
|