Let's make a list of why Windows sucks

[_kill__bill]

Easier list: The good parts of Windows:

Runs most new games better and easier than Linux
People (translation: morons) trust it, and cry when they can't find it
It encourages people to switch to Linux.

That's it.

[worker201]

Originally Posted by deusexaethera             I installed Ubuntu a couple of times. It was infuriating having to "sudo" all of the commands that I needed to execute under the Root account. They shouldn't have blocked that account from being used directly.

It also would have been nice if my Postscript printer driver had worked. Not worked properly, worked at all.

Well, I kinda have to agree with the guy.  Ubuntu's default protection of the root account is kinda stupid.  However, most other Linuxes don't act like this.  They require you to set up a root account and a user account.  Which is much safer.

"PostScript printer driver" sounds like something this guy found on a forWindows install disc.  Which would explain why it didn't work.  Linux should be able to speak PostScript all by itself.  Connecting a PostScript printer to a usable port is pretty much the only step required.

[piratePenguin]

Well, I kinda have to agree with the guy.  Ubuntu's default protection of the root account is kinda stupid.  However, most other Linuxes don't act like this.  They require you to set up a root account and a user account.  Which is much safer.

I don't think that's safer. Users would just try to login as root then. There's no need to login as root ever with sudo.

I know that guy reckons non-free software is all the rage with their usability experts and OMG PAID programmers, that's why I went with the long-winded reply btw.

[H_TeXMeX_H]

the easiest way I think is to just log in as regular user and if you need root access for something open a terminal and su into root

[piratePenguin]

the easiest way I think is to just log in as regular user and if you need root access for something open a terminal and su into root

In Ubuntu then you can run 'sudo -s' to start a root session.

[worker201]

the easiest way I think is to just log in as regular user and if you need root access for something open a terminal and su into root

That's what I do.  The only time I have ever logged in as root was when gdm died and the session manager wouldn't let me login as anything else.

 

I don't think that's safer. Users would just try to login as root then.

If having a root account somehow forces people to log in as root on a regular basis, then these people are fucktards and shouldn't be allowed to leave their padded cells.

[piratePenguin]

If having a root account somehow forces people to log in as root on a regular basis, then these people are fucktards and shouldn't be allowed to leave their padded cells.

Ugh, that's usability 101 that users are fucktards and shouldn't be allowed to leave their padded cells

It doesn't force them to login as root but some would do it, even though there's basically no reason to start a graphical session as root (certainly, some people would start graphical sessions as root more than necessary, like everytime they get a permission denied error). For non-graphical sessions there's 'sudo -s'.

What's wrong with sudo?

It's probably easier for noobs to grasp that for administrative tasks, you have to reenter your password, rather than having to enter an admin password (why isn't the user already admin?), and that's probably why they went with it.

Plus, it's as easy as 'sudo passwd' to set up a root password for those who for whatever reason want it..

[worker201]

I asked Void Main about this once, and I never got a clear answer.  I guess the only real difference is that one method is intuitive to the winn00bs, and the other method is more intuitive to the established Linux paradigm of the classic server and client model.  As long as there is absolutely no other effect on the security of the system as a whole, I suppose you can use which every way you like.

[H_TeXMeX_H]

I think the difference is you can limit the power of a sudo user. (am I right ?)

[piratePenguin]

I think the difference is you can limit the power of a sudo user. (am I right ?)

Yep, sudo is kinda cool like that. But by default on Ubuntu nobody has their power limited - the default user has permission to run any command as root as long as they enter their password (you can remove the password requirement too, but then you may as well be running as root).

[davidnix71]

One more for the list-

With one of the latest updates, M$ now has hard coded backdoors in your dns resolver dll that you can't edit or XP won't boot because the dll is now a protected image file.

Open dnsapi.dll (system32 folder) in notepad and you can see go.microsoft.com and other ip's that override your HOST file settings.

When you open ceratin apps, they call home and check for updates whether you want them to or not. The only way to block them is with a non-winblows external firewall.

[Pathos]

* XP home requires you to restart in safe mode and log in as an administrator to change file permissions.

* can't enable user switching and screen locking at the same time.

* Business decisions take priority over security decisions. (default administrative access, administrator password not set on install, programs execute unverified code without double checking).

* Parts of the OS are never upgraded unless there is public outcry.

* Inconsistent gui (eg XP theme vs classic dialogs all over the place).

* You need third party software to hack the damn thing to change its appearance properly.

* Built in flaws to ensure need to upgrade

* poor text only interface

* messy codec handling

* f*cking obtuse registry

* poor driver standards and consistency.

* poor security on initially released products (got to make money before you fix it)

[piratePenguin]

+ you can't install the piece of shit to a slave harddrive. I've been trying to install this fucking thing over a number of weeks and it's just TOO FUCKING MUCH!

[Refalm]

Open dnsapi.dll (system32 folder) in notepad and you can see go.microsoft.com and other ip's that override your HOST file settings.

That's fucked up.
Too bad for Microsoft I've got a NAT box.

127.0.0.1 microsoft.com
in your face!

[_LiquidOxygen]

Here's some more.
 
1. often hard to use
2. very prone to viruses
3. compatibility
4. reliability
5. poorly constructed regarding the layout
6. programs that come with it often play up
7. hard to save files
8. irritating sound effects
9. hardware support is a dog
10. software support is just as bad
11. very expensive to use
12. support lasts for a short time.
13. very selfish and uncaring manufacturers
14. very poor graphics which are hard on the eyes
15. very prone to spyware
16. very prone to hackers
17. very toxic to other computers
18. poor at solving drive errors
19. rubbish at maintaining drives (defragmentation)
20. purchase price is a stealth tax
21. some sites only use Windows to run
22. game compatibility is fixed towards that series of OSs!
23. tracks what programs you use
24. tracks what you do on the internet
25. comes with new computers, and you don't get to choose the blasted operating system that comes with it!
26. shows the name "Microsoft" over and over again
27. uses a very bad method to partition hard drives
28. unfriendly user interface which treats the user like an idiot
29. help and support does not solve problems
30. some file types are not recognisable
31. each new system in the series requires a more powerful machine
32. installation and uninstallation is troublesome
33. uninstallation leaves unusable files on your machine
 
:mad:
 
No wonder I hate using it. I will soon quit using it altogether when I get a new computer (although I need it to access the gaming site I play on).
 
Gimme gimme a product that isn't Microsoft.
 
By the way, Refalm, what is a NAT box?