simbalion

That was part of my reasoning. Installing Windows is a huge pain in the ass compared to installing Linux. If you need a service pack you have to go to their website, the download links are always difficult to find and buried under walls of text that nobody cares to read. And there's always a chance that the download link simply won't work for some stupid bureaucratic reason, such as "Use Windows Update". And if Windows Update fails, you're really SOL.

In Linux, if you're missing something it's a simple matter of "apt-get install something" and it almost always works. The rate of failure for Windows updates and installing proper drivers and software in windows is much higher.

And Linux is far more likely to work out of the box on most hardware. Windows installs never have more drivers available than what ships on the CD/DVD. With Linux Net Installs, as long as your Ethernet is supported, and it probably is supported, the rest of the system will be up-to-date.

I have recently installed Windows 7, Windows 10, and Linux, I've used each for a number of months. Linux was the easiest and friendliest. I've been using Windows for years so I'm not a newbie, it's a terrible operating system.

The website is down, this story deserves it's own website behind a CDN so people can be adequately warned.

win10antitrust.us is available on namecheap.com for $0.88.

The year of linux is behind us.

Today in 2016, Linux is the superior platform for both user-friendliness and stability. It is easier to use and install on a wider variety of hardware. The old belief that Windows is "easier" is deprecated, and it is time to change the conversation to reflect that truth.

Blatant anti-trust violation in several nations.

Microsoft has _repeatedly_ lost anti-trust lawsuits in the past 16 years for this exact sort of behavior. How is it that they have not learned their lesson?

Windows 10 is failing, and now they've taken actions which will surely incur billions of dollars in fines. I would not be at all surprised if the ruling judge in the inevitable lawsuit punishes them harshly for not learning their lesson the first several times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation

Whatever executives are responsible for this should be drawn and quartered by the investors.

And hardly anyone is talking about Lenovo's liability. They are just as guilty as Microsoft and they're a much smaller company, will this destroy them?

Is anyone else bothered by the mis-use of the term "zero-day" in the media?

You suggestion implies we can't have one without the other.

Tacking on small concessions is how the most evil people in American politics are able to pass insane and crooked laws.

Actually, the DMCA is evil. It was invented by evil men. It's been used countless times to terrorize people and maintain a corporate oligarchy. Nobody should utilize the DMCA, you should find a way to get the things you need without resorting to that particularly evil method.

There is some philosophical debate to be had regarding whether your code is deserving of copyright protections. Precisely what parts were duplicated? Just the CSS? Is there a better way to write those parts? If your way was the best way, copyright laws cannot prevent someone else from duplicating that method. This is known as reverse engineering, and is completely legal.

I'm a designer and developer myself so I understand your perspective, but you are not necessarily the righteous ones in a battle of good vs evil. It is definitely a blurry grey area.

Quite frankly, "code borrowing" happens everywhere in development. Most lessons on "How to learn to code" encourage people to explore other's code and adapt it for their own projects as a means to learn. The history of computing supports borrowing and adapting other people's code. You probably aren't aware of these things.

Let's Encrypt is a cure for all SSL woes.

Computers and the internet are relatively new, compared to advertising. The ad-blocking era is only about 5 years old.

Give it time, you will see that I am right.

Again, facebook is not a social product. Facebook is a portal product with a social feature. They're not competing with Twitter, they're competing with Google and Microsoft. It is apples and oranges.

First, the article is dumb, twitter is already a giant. Twitter is bigger in social media than facebook because it is open to the public, while facebook is a gated community.

Second, "the problem with twitter" as commentors have been saying, is that Twitter is a glorified instant messenger, and they have done everything wrong.

They're a giant corporation with too many employees. They have a huge overhead cost for servers and offices and electricity and so on. And their only product is social media, for free.

This is the era of ad-filtering. Substaining a company on advertising is a dead model, it will never work again. It's dying slower in some areas than in others, but rest assured it is dead. Furthermore, nobody using twitter wants to see ads. Users will aggressively persue means to eliminate ads from the "social" experience.

Twitter is the digital equivalent of opening a number of sports arenas and inviting everyone to come in to mingle, without ever charging admission fees. Eventually, the power bill and lease is going to shut them down.

This is a reality check. You cannot make money by giving things away for free. You can make money from free products, but you have to do things to monetize it, for example selling expert support for free software.

Commentors keep comparing Twitter to Facebook. Twitter and Facebook are exactly the same in one way, neither one makes any money from social media. Facebook is profitable because Facebook is not a social media product, it is a portal product that offers social media. Facebook makes money from selling "microtransaction" games, which are a huge ripoff, and using their enormous size to convince business owners that investing in advertising is somehow worthwhile. Again, nobody wants to see ads during their "social" time.

Social Media is not a business. Social media is a chat room with a slightly re-defined UX. You cannot make a profit from social media without charging admission. It is impossible.

In the post-advertising era the only way businesses will be successful is if they produce products or services of actual real-world value to their customers. Parasitic businesses, middle-men, advertisers, they are all going to die. And good riddance. Money should be earned by the creation of value, and nothing else.

The author is really late to this particular party.

https://replacethessn.xyz/

You are right. It's wrong. Those responsible are completely insane.

this is proof that police officers in 2016 are meant to be nothing more than executioners. This is exactly what the current government wants America to be.

The insanity in our government and police departments is completely out of control. If they can't behave the way the people of the country want them to, then we have to get rid of them.

Welcome to 1984.

The article is very ignorant. The internet remains primarily a P2P technology, and will probably continue to be that way forever. The amount of valuable resources on the internet which are utilizing P2P methods are 10000000 to 1 compared to the number of Facebooks.

Also consider that Facebook's #1 product, social blogging, is not profitable, and can never ever be profitable. 100% of their profits are made in other businesses which they've connected to their brand name, which is the only reason for their success. For example, microtransaction-scam "video games".

This is a typical article by someone who does not really understand the internet and has not been using it for very long.

Keeping in mind that you can get a VPS for as low as $3.50 per month, I don't see that there is ever a reason to use shared hosting, and several reasons not to, performance is only one of them.

If you're website is that unimportant, then you could probably get by with any free hosting services where your page would be yourpage.serviceprovider.tld

That might be true, but web-search is an absolutely vital service for cultural health in the information age, like the telephone system used to be.

Every search engine does sell ads, which seems to be working for them all so far. If that ever stops working, we might see web-search become a public utility funded by tax dollars.

I'm not saying a VPS is not appropriate for a static HTML web-page, but there are perfectly capable VPSes avaible for $3.50 to $5.

I'm not in agreement with many of the commenters regarding CDNs. I don't believe in a free lunch. Free software is one thing, but CDNs require infrastructure, which incur costs. Somewhere, the people offering those services expect to make those costs back. You'll either pay for it directly, or you'll pay for leeching off someone else's bill in karma. For a very tiny, low-traffic, low-bandwidth website, I think not using a CDN is perfectly reasonable.

My expertise is not marketing so I don't feel I could adequately answer that question but there are plenty of focus group studies which show what sort of UX works best. It's a safe bet that most of the big corporations who are already focus-grouping everything they publish, such as Disney for example, are also using focus groups to design their websites.

That's because all those other sites are poorly built. It's not because the article's site is a brilliant example of "doing it right".

Putting bare text on the web is always going to be fast. So what. If he presented a real full-featured website with the bells and whistles that people expect today, and made it operate that fast, he'd have something to show. Instead he presents polished garbage.

the guy says he's not an idiot then brags about spending $30 per month on a VPS (idiot), for a single-page static HTML website with all inline-code (idiot+1).

It's not being negative to point out the glaring flaws in a person's statements. My assumption is the entire thing is an advertisement for that hosting service.

Removal of the headphone jack on the iphone is an idiot test. Idiots will buy apple products no matter how functional or not functional they are, simply because they're named iProduct.

Anyone with any sense will see this as a good opportunity to give Android a spin.

No you are right. It will be Google's continued inching toward a revised "do evil whenever it's profitable" business model that is going to unseat google. I mentioned DuckDuckGo because it seems it would be most likely to take the top search spot if Google were to die today.

The 7 step process shows us how the majority of people are "dumb". And by dumb, I mean they lack the creative ability to look forward and imagine how a technology can change the world.

Those of us who are not suffering that disability should not feel guilty for our capabilities, but we should recognize that we are intellectually superior, because we should be ruling the world from every corner, not them. Sadly, many of them are the ones running governments and giant corporations.

All men may be created equal, but through different educational and parental environments, all men do not arrive at adulthood as equals.

It's probably worth pointing out that if anyone has an idea for how to improve on search, they're not going to share it in this thread, they're going to complete it quietly and publish their product.

I agree with what you've said but I wanted to add that there is room for improvement on Google's model. For example, selling page 1 results is unfair, but that is something google does.

I think DuckDuckGo is an example of how Google's methodology can be refined and improved upon, specifically by not spying on users. It's a subtle improvement, but I find the results I receive are actually superior and more relevant than Google's, plus I don't have to worry about who is watching my traffic.

philosophy and moderation.

You might want to raise a stink, show this article to their support staff: http://arstechnica.com/security/2012/12/25-gpu-cluster-crack...

Raise the point that forcing insecure practices on government operated financial sites might be a case of illegal negligence.

And we'll never need more than 64kb of RAM too.

It was not many years ago when strong 8 character passwords were completely suitable. So respectfully I think your statements are false.

One of the reasons the guide recommends Keepass is that it eliminates the need to type in passwords completely. Even in the rare case of poorly designed apps that block pasting, the auto-type capability works around that.

Diceware is not suitable for general use, because it is important to have a unique password on every service. That practice isolates you from the damage of sites like LinkedIn and Dropbox being compromised.

If you use diceware for everything you've got to remember all of those unique passphrases which defeats the whole point of diceware.

Where diceware shines is in creating a master password, which is explained in the guide.