Not nearly as much as the haters assert.

If you are moving directly away, a solar sail would be more efficient.

So you are buying into the Cupertino philosophy here...

The problem with Windows was not the users. The problem with Windows and the stupid shit they did. The recent remote exploit on Android is a classic example of the kind of nonsense they pulled. It's something that everyone should have known to avoid in 1990 just as it is today.

Microsoft turned the idea of an email virus from an absurdity into a reality.

You can't just blame the users.

The reason that Windows has a cult of constant patches is because it's a piece of crap that the market should have killed 20 years ago.

As a long time Unix user, I am fascinated that there are any significant differences between the various SKUs of Windows products at ALL.

What's the point of putting up with monopolyware if can't be assured that you will get a good experience with robust vendor support? That is kind of the whole point of using Windows.

It doesn't really matter who you try to shift the blame to.

The whole cabal and the whole platform is on the hook for problems.

Windows is the gatekeeper and the curator and the entity providing the driver to the user. Their "gatekeeper settings" make it difficult to avoid the problems that they refuse to take any steps to avoid.

Why would you want the Pro version except for the privelege of paying more for it?

Also, the idea that you need to run the "Pro" version of anything just to have some measure of control over your consumer goods is just assinine.

The main thing you seem to be getting here is the same interface that existed for updates in the previous "consumer" release.

That's one of the reasons I don't use sudo on internet facing machines or have a KVM exposed to the internet, but that's another story.
To sum up I just have the opinion that one step root access from out on the internet is an accident waiting to happen - especially if you are likely to log on from anywhere and not a known trusted address.

Make a good policy, no passwords, only keys, and every employee has one.

And that laptop thief that is going to get an employees machine eventually is going to have one click access to root on your server - now that's a major fuckup isn't it?

However if an employee has to do "sudo" all the time, they just start turning their brain off while doing it.

I prefer "su" so as to keep things entirely separate although others swear by "sudo" for user tracking - either way if they can't keep track of context they should lay off the drugs.

Only about 3% of what other countries call "nuclear waste" gets turned into actual waste. The rest is converted back into more fuel.

Clearly a major error which I addressed and you embraced as propaganda with a disgusting little goalpost shift trick. If you want to be taken seriously I suggest less deliberate dishonesty.

But corporations are not people.

See my post, above, pointing out that corporations are groups of people, with all the rights guaranteed to people, who don't lose those rights just because they're acting together for a common purpose.

The legal system DOES, in some situations, treat corporations as pseudo-people. But that's just a convenient way to interact with the corporation's members/stockholders/what-have-you when they're acting together to advance the common purpose that the corporation was chartered to handle.

fuck off you right-wing scum.

In the immortal words of Red Skelton and Mel Blank: "He don't know me very well, do he?"

corporations aren't people.

Au contraire: Though they DO exhibit most of the characteristics of independent lifeforms, corporations are GROUPS of people, working together for a defined purpose. This is true whether they're businesses, schools, labor unions, churches, political parties, special-interest group, or whatever.

I assume we're agreed that people working together as a corporation shouldn't have any extra rights beyond the pooled rights of the individual members. But should these people LOSE any of their rights, just because they're working together?

Should spokesmen for a corporation with ten thousand stockholders, when speaking on issues related to the corporation's purpose, interaction with laws, and its stockholders' interests, have any less access to the ear of a legislator than the ten thousand stockholders themselves? A corporate lobbyist is just a representative of those ten thousand people when they're acting on this particular common interest.

The legal system treats corporations as pseudo-people because it's a convenient way to interact with the people making up the corporation when they're acting as a group.

That only applies to the poor. Trump has (or used to have, no idea what he uses now) a hotel room as his "permanent" address. Many other politicians have had the same. And they were allowed to vote for themselves. It's only the poor and minorities that the system targets.

That's quite disappointing for a Miele product. For what it's worth, none of my colleagues who have Miele appliances, had them break (yet).

I am sad to see that my comment was modded "Funny" when I was in fact quite serious about my statement. There are such pieces of shit that are disruptive to society, like corrupt politicians and self-serving CEOs and bankers, and yet we most people somehow attribute to "whore" a worse meaning than the professions I mentioned above.

I did. You suggested UK, and I accepted that. My complaint about the UK was your lies that I was somehow personally vested in that system, as yet another of you ad hominem attacks.

I don't know why you bother to lie. I can look it up in the replies and see your lies. Plain as day.