|
|
Maybe half a decade ago. Now, for anything that's supported, Linux is far easier than Windows.
Buy a device for windows, (screen, printer, wifi key, whatever), plug it in, works.
Sometimes, but most times you ahve to track down and install a driver along with a gigabyte or two of annoying bloatware to get a device which works, but constantly nags you with crap you don't want to have to deal with.
When Ubuntu introduced Unity, I switched to Cinnamon. It's a shame that a DE has divided the biggest desktop Linux community
Why?
That's the the whole benefit of open source right there in one sentence. They did something you didn't like, you weren't locked in.
Yes I did read it, and it yes does. In fact the EFF goes beyond straight comparisons in the text:
In the category of protecting user privacy in the courts, Google deserves special recognition this year for challenging a National Security Letter.
I'm glad this is a field where companies are competing to outdo each other. Microsoft's efforts to present a rival in unwarranted poor light does us all a disservice.
I'll get my axe!
...that you'll know about. You're not allowed to check.
So does every other company in the world with an advertising department.
Some are better than others.
And according to the EFF, Google is better at protecting your privacy than Microsoft..
https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013
Microsoft are hypocrites as well as liars? Who'd have thought...
Excel, Powerpoint, Silverlight, Outlook, Visio, Vista, Blue...
The facts don't support your claim.
Traditionally, it's been common to view price as a motivating factor, since open source software is often free. Last year, freedom from vendor lock-in was cited as the the primary goal.
This year, however, freedom from lock-in dropped to No. 2, while quality, which was in third place last year, was named the most important factor behind open source adoption. The availability of vendor support, meanwhile, is now a point of much less concern than it used to be.
FWIW, I have an Asus HD 7850 working fine.
Sometimes it's helpful to know that others are successfully using the same hardware. That way you know it's only your particular machine/config to investigate, not that you just have an unusable incompatible component.
What about real human?
Would that be either legal or ethical?
Moreover It's margins are also vastly higher. So in terms of profit it has a majority of the market.
Consequences aren't always immediate.
How long do you think they can keep overcharging without providing a better product?
"Apple's share of the global smartphone market fell from 23% last year to 17% share this year, the largest year-over-year decline in the iPhone's history." According to Sanford Bernstein's Toni Sacconaghi, "if Apple does not introduce a new iPhone or lower-priced phone in CQ3 [Apple's fiscal Q4], it is quite possible that iPhone's smartphone market share could drop into the single digits."
Select unfamiliar word, right-click and select "Search Google for unfamiliar word" from the context menu.
I've been watching YouTube videos forever as an unregistered visitor and never seen a TOS.
So you're suggesting, based on your experiences, that the Microsoft Phone development team and their legal advisers can ignore any TOS that they choose not to read?
Fascinating...
it seems like MS is shooting themselves in the foot yet again.
They did that long ago when they refused to participate in other software ecosystems, and concentrated on locking competitors out by locking customers in.
Now their locked-in market is failing, and the world is bypassing their restrictions. They don't have time to develop good, competitive software, all they can do is assault competitors with any tools they have at hand.
It's an ugly, desperate thing we're seeing here.
When it is incorrect, it is, at least *authoritatively* incorrect. -- Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy