Well, there is a "late stage monopoly effect". It is when the product gets so bad that you cannot base your business on it anymore. I guess MS is close to that point now.

Are they cheap and do not talk back? Dream employee!

Just as a reminder, LLMs get randomized to better resemble a person. People are not deterministic in any way (unless you are a quasi-religious physicalist fuckup that mistakes religion for Science), and hence LLMs are made to not be either.

Not in Europe. They could do it, but then their executives should probably never visit the EU again and they should close all dependencies here.

Gnome? What's that? I do remember throwing off systemd because it gave me problems in the first hour of having it on a system. If it looks like crap and smells like crap ...

So far I have noticed zero disadvantages of my approach.

Indeed. This is about average users behaving in reasonable ways not being able to be reliably secure anymore.

The whole point of dark energy is to explain why the cosmos is expanding more than it theoretically should be. If it isn't, then you don't need dark energy, or if it isn't expanding as much as formerly believed then you don't need as much of it.

With these disclaimers? Doubtful.

Well, MS made sure to live up to everybody's expectations by not only making this a security mess, but also a reliability mess! So much quality. So much winning. So much improvement.

Au contraire! For attackers, this is an exciting new feature that will offer endless new functionality and may finally prevent users from sabotaging their efforts by actually having a clue and being careful.

While I understand your requirements and they do make sense, they are not realistic at this time. The technology is not mature enough for it and will remain not mature enough for quite some time. Hence something has to give. With Linux, you will need to do more system administration and occasionally fix some things manually. The good thing is that things generally stay fixed on Linux. With Windows you will get lack of security, reliability and, more and more, lack of usability. It will also break in new and unexpected ways from time to time.

Pick your poison.

Can you comment a bit more on the things you would want to change?

True. But cars are strongly regulated, even if often reactively, see, for example, the Tesla "autopilot" kills. A new car has to be fit for use by design or else the maker will get problems. There is no such requirement for Operating Systems and office software and I would argue that Microsoft has stopped being "fit for use" a while ago at least for non-experts.

And dangerous for dumb people. Remember that "malware installation" usually means lateral movement and then compromise of the whole organization these days, because AD security sucks and then it is often misconfigured on top of that.

I would not trust this on a hardened Linux with network access. Windows? Do you want to get hacked?

Also note that they only put that in there because the lawyers told them they had to. This means this technology represents a fundamental and systematic novel risk they do NOT have under control. The usual limitations of warranty are not enough. Providing or using this feature will likely fall under gross negligence. Microsoft can get out of the resulting liability by explicitly warning its users that this is not a feature you can use securely and that result quality is very much not ensured. Or in other words, this is a very dangerous toy, not a professional product.

That they feel they need to add a warning with this uncommon level of clarity is very telling. I am sure all the MS fans and all the nil wits will still ignore it. So let me add this, because it will be relevant: We told you so.

Keep projecting. I am sure it will help.