kyub

Windows will continue to get more and more user-hostile as time goes on, and they want everyone to have a subscription to Microsoft's cloud services, so they can be in total control of what they deliver to the user and how the user is using their services/apps, and they also will be able to increase pricing regularly of course once the users are dependent enough ("got all my work-related data there, can't just leave").

The next big step that will follow after the whole M365 and Azure will be that businesses can only deploy their Windows clients by using MS Intune, which means MS will deploy your organization's Windows clients, not your organization. So they're always shifting more and more control away from you and into MS' hands. Privacy is always an obvious issue, at the very least since Nadella is CEO, but unfortunately the privacy-conscious people have kind of lost that war, because the common user (private AND business sector) doesn't care at all, so we will have to wait and see how those things will turn out in the future, they will start caring once they are being billed more due to their openly known behavior (driving, health, eating/drinking, psychology, ...) or once they are being legally threatened more (e.g. your vehicle automatically reports by itself when you've driven too fast, or some AI has concluded based on your gathered data that you're likely to cause some kind of problem), or once they are rejected at or before job interviews because of leaked health data or just some (maybe wrong) AI-created prognosis of your health. So I think there will be a point when the common user will start caring, we just haven't reached that point yet because while current data collection and profile building is problematic because it's the stepping stone to more dystopian follow-ups, it alone is still too abstract of an issue for most people to care about it. Media is also partly to blame here when they do reviews or news about new devices and then just go like "great camera and display, MUST BUY" and never mention the absurd amount of telemetry data the device sends home. MS is also partnering with Palantir and OpenAI which will probably give them even more opportunities to automatically surveil every single one of their business and private sector users. I think M365 also already gives good analytics tools to business owners to monitor what their employees are doing, how much time they spend in each application, how "efficient" they are, things like that. Plus they have this whole person and object recognition stuff going on using "smart" cameras and some Azure service which analyzes the video material constantly. Where the employees (mostly workers in that case) are constantly surveilled and if anything abnormal happens then an automatic alert is sent, and things like that. Probably a lot of businesses will love that, and no one cares enough about the common worker's rights. It can be sold as a security plus so it will be sold. So I think MS is heavily going into the direction of employee surveillance, since they are well-integrated into the business world anyway (especially small and medium businesses) and with Windows in particular I think they will move everything sloooowly into the cloud, maybe in 10-15 years you won't have a "personal" computer anymore, you're using Microsoft's hardware and software directly from Microsoft's servers and they will gain full, unlimited, 100% surveillance and control of every little detail you're doing on your computer, because once you hand away that control, they can do literally anything behind your back and also never tell you about it. Most of the surveillance stuff going on all the time already is heavily shrouded in secrecy and as long as that's the case there will be no justice system in the world being able to save you from it, because they'd first need concrete evidence. Guess why the western law enforcement and secret services hunted Snowden and Assange so heavily? Because they shone some light into what is otherwise a massive, constant cover-up that is also probably highly illegal in most countries. So it needs to be kept a secret. So the MS (and Apple, ...) route stands for total dependence and total loss of control. They just have to move slowly enough for the common user not to notice. Boil the frog slowly. Make sure businesses can adapt. Make sure commercial software vendors can adapt. Then slowly direct the train into cloud-only territory where MS rules over and can log everything you do on the computer.

Linux, on the other hand, stands for independence. It means you can pick and choose what components you want, run them whereever and however you want, build your own cloud, and so on. You can build your own distro or find one that fits your use case the most. You're in a lot of control as the user or administrator and this will not change considering the nature of open source / free software. If the project turns to sh!t, you're not forced to stick with it. You can fork it, develop an alternative. Or wait until someone else does. Or just write a patch that fixes the problematic behavior. This alone makes open source / free software inherently better than closed source where the users have no control over the project and always have to either use it as it is or stop using it altogether. There's no middle ground, no fixes possible, no alternatives that can be made from the same code base because the code base is the developer's secret. Also, open source software can be audited at will all the time. That alone makes it much more trustworthy. On the basis of trustworthiness and security alone, you should only use open source software. Linux on its own is "just" the kernel but it's a very good kernel powering a ton of highly diverse array of systems out there, from embedded to supercomputer. I think the Linux kernel can't be beaten and will become (or is already) the objective best operating system kernel there is out there. Now, as a desktop user, you don't care that much about the kernel you just expect it to work in the background, and it does. What you care more is UI/UX, consistency and application/game compatibility. We can say the Linux desktop ecosystem is still lacking in that regard, always behind super polished and user-friendly coherent UIs coming from especially Apple in that regard (maybe also a little bit by Microsoft but coherent and beautiful UIs aren't Microsoft's strong point either, I think that crown goes to Apple). That said, Apple is very much alike Microsoft in that they have a fully locked-down ecosystem, so it's similar to MS, maybe slightly less bad smelling still but it will probably also go in the same direction as MS does, just more slowly and with details being different. Apple's products also appeal to a different kind of audience and businesses than MS' products do. Apple is kind of smart in their marketing and general behavior that they always manage to kind of fly under the radar and dodge most of the shitstorms. Like they also violate the privacy of their users, but they do it slightly less than MS or Google do, so they're less of a target and they even use that to claim they're the privacy guys (in comparison), but they also aren't. You still shouldn't use Apple products/services. "Less bad than utterly terrible" doesn't equal "good". There's a lot of room between that. Still, back to Linux. It's also obviously a matter of quality code/projects and resources. Big projects like the Linux kernel itself or the major desktop environments or super important components like systemd or Mesa are well funded, have quality developers behind them and produce high quality output. Then you also have a lot of applications and components where just single community developers, not well funded at all, are hacking away in their free time, often delivering something usable but maybe less polished or less userfriendly or less good looking or maybe slightly more annoying to use but overall usable. Those applications/projects could use some help. Especially if they matter a lot on the desktop because there's little to no alternative available. On the server side, Linux is well established, software for that scenario is plentiful and powerful. Compared to the desktop, it's no wonder why it's successful on servers. Yes, having corporations fund developers and in turn open source projects is important and the more that do it, the more successful those projects become. It's no wonder that gaming for example took off so hugely after Valve poured resources and developers into every component related to it. Without that big push, it would have happened very slowly, if at all. So even the biggest corpo haters have to acknowledge that in capitalism, things can move very fast if enough money is being thrown at the problem, and very slowly if it isn't. But the great thing about the Linux ecosystem is that almost everything is open source, so when you fund open source projects, you accelerate their growth and quality but these projects still can't screw you over as a user, because once they do that, they can be forked and fixed. Proprietary closed-source software can always screw over the user, no one can prevent that, and it also has a tendency to do just that. In the open source software world, there are very few black sheep with anti-user features, invasive telemetry, things like that. In the corporate software world, it's often the other way around.

So by using Linux and (mostly) open source products, you as the user/admin remain in control, and it's rare that you get screwed over. If you use proprietary software from big tech (doesn't even matter which country) you lose control over your computing, it's highly likely that you get screwed over in various ways (with much more to come in the future) and you're also trusting those companies by running their software and they're not even showing the world what they put in their software.

code: camel or snake, depending on language

files/dirs: snake + kebab + dot mixture (trying to avoid caps and special chars here)

AFAIK, browser choice is still limited (as usual with Apple) because every browser on iOS needs to use Apple's WebKit engine. That means they only differ in UI.

"We", no. "Too many", yes. In general, hard dependencies on proprietary software or services are often overlooked or ignored as potential future problems. Recent examples of this are Microsoft and VMware. Once the vendor changes things so that you don't like anymore, or drives up prices like crazy, you'll quickly realize that you have a problem you can't solve other than switching, which you might not even be prepared to do short-term.

The Windows world now experiences this because Microsoft is no longer interested in maintaining a somewhat quality operating system, they are mostly interested in milking their user base for data, and don't hesitate to annoy or even disrupt their user base's workflows in a try to achieve that goal.

Many Windows users are currently looking at Linux because of this, but the more your whole workflow is based on dependencies to proprietary Windows-only software, the harder your time to switch will be. If you still use Windows today, you should at least start using more open source or cross platform software, which also will work on Linux, because you are on a sinking ship and there will probably be a time when you can't take MS' BS anymore and want to switch. Make it easier for you in the future by regarding Linux compatibility in the hard- and software you use today.

https://system76.com/laptops

https://www.tuxedocomputers.com/en/Linux-Hardware/Linux-Notebooks.tuxedo

Well, Linux is like a juggernaut that's inching ever closer in all sorts of areas (while already dominating in some areas). The time frame where it makes sense for Microsoft to spend increasing amounts of resources to maintain and further develop Windows is closing, and if you look closely, they've pretty much shown that Windows is not at all priority #1 anymore since at least Nadella became CEO. We also live in a world which is increasingly becoming OS agnostic, which is bad for Windows' dominance and great for Linux, MacOS, and others (because there's less and less relevant applications specifically requiring Windows). Of course, Linux on the desktop also grows stronger and more mature year after year, which further accelerates the change.

There will also be some points in time which hugely accelerate things, like Valve going all-in on Steam Deck and Proton and to make Steam a more independent store/community platform, and also Microsoft making Windows worse and more user-hostile over time. From a business perspective, it makes sense for MS - they want to go full cloud (= full control), almost full removal of control for the user, and full ingestion of as much data from the user as they can - to sell it, utilize it for own purposes, and train AIs with it. It's what increases profits in the short-term. A lot of companies are doing that kind of stuff. MS is just one of the more ruthless ones, which, again, makes sense, because they still have a big userbase to exploit. In the long-term, they're damaging, no, DESTROYING Windows' reputation as a half-decent OS (even among Windows fans) and driving more and more users to the alternatives. It's kind of inevitable. MS' striving for profit has doomed Windows, and soon, when no single company will be able to compete with the ever evolving Linux ecosystem anymore, Windows is also doomed. It's kind of a law of nature now. It's not a question of if, just when.

(I've used both Windows and Linux extensively, Windows since MSDOS/Win3.x, Linux since 1998. About 10 years ago, I've switched exclusively to Linux and banned Windows into a VM only that gets booted less and less [I think it's been off for 2 years already]). I, for one, welcome our new old Linux overlords.

Now that you know better, make sure to keep an eye on Windows or MacOS only dependencies in the future, and avoid those.

• Closed source (has always been bad for an OS, a 1-US-company controlled blackbox at the heart of your "personal" computer)
• Privacy nightmares (and getting worse)
• Forced cloud integrations (and getting worse)
• Forced AI integrations (and getting worse)
• More bloat and ads (and getting worse)
• More restrictions (e.g. local user accounts) (and getting worse)
• More dark patterns to try to annoy the user and get him/her to accept something that MS wants (and getting worse)
• More opt-out, on-by-default bad stuff being added (and getting worse)
• There's probably more...

The question is wrong: it's not why do you "still" hate Windows. I did like Windows 7. It was the last Windows I liked. After that, it's just a downhill enshittification spiral. The only real question is: at which point will it be too oppressive for the common user that even the most common user will try to avoid it entirely. And I fear that there's still more than enough room for MS to make Windows worse before enough people migrate away from it.

The "opposite" was just referring to those 2 aspects - Mullvad has stronger anti-fingerprinting which leads to more breakage. Librewolf has that aspect reversed. Of course, both browsers are similar overall. That's just one detail where they prioritize differently.

Both are good. Librewolf is more like vanilla Firefox, just configured way better by default. Mullvad Browser is like a port of the Tor Browser (also based on Firefox) for the clear web (or for use with Mullvad's VPN, or whatever). Also configured very well by default. Mullvad Browser has better anti fingerprinting stuff built-in but as a result of its unusual configuration some sites might be broken. Librewolf is kind of the opposite in that regard - sites won't be broken but you'll be easier to fingerprint. In any case, they both are at the top of the best Firefox variants I'd say.

That doesn't surprise me, and yes it was always because of anti-competitive practices, so I'm all for more neutrality, I'll just add 2 shower thoughts:

1. Seeing that Brave is at the top of the browser list, I wonder how many selected Brave just because it's at the top of the list and thought that this must be a good choice then, not because they actually like Brave.
2. It's nice to have such a thing for browsers, but it would have to be expanded to other apps as well, e.g. mail client. Oh well, maybe in another 10 years or so.

Discord has a nice UI and lots of neat features, and it's popular among gamers especially, but it can hardly be recommended. See https://www.messenger-matrix.de/messenger-matrix-en.html for a comparison with other communication programs. Yes, Discord has approximately the most red flags there can be. Discord is essentially spyware, it supports the least amount of encryption, security and privacy techniques out of them all, and everything you type, write, say and show on it is being processed and analyzed by the Discord server and probably in turn sold to 3rd parties. Discord can't make a living from selling paid features only, they have to sell tons of user data, and since all data is basically unencrypted, everything's free for the taking. Discord doesn't even try to hide it in the terms of service or so. They just plainly state they're collecting everything. Well, at least they're honest about it. It's a minor plus. If I had to use Discord, I'd only ever use the web browser version, and I'd at least block its API endpoints for collecting random telemetry and typing data (it doesn't only collect what you sent, it also collects what you started typing).

Matrix, on the other hand, is a protocol. Element is a well-known Matrix client implementing the protocol. On Matrix, everything is encrypted using quite state of the art encryption. It's technologically much more advanced than Discord is. It's also similar, but it won't reach feature parity with Discord. Discord is a much faster moving target, and it's much easier for the Discord devs because they need to, oh, take care of exactly nothing while developing it further. While adding a new feature to Matrix is much more complicated because almost everything has to be encrypted and still work for the users inside the chat channels.

This is just broadly written for context. The two are similar, and you should prefer Matrix whenever possible, but I do get that Discord is popular and as is the case with popular social media or communication tools, at some point you have to bite the bullet when you don't want to be left out of something. I'm just urging everyone to keep their communication and usage on Discord to an absolute minimum, never install any locally running software from them (maybe using sandboxing), and when you're chatting or talking on Discord, try to restrict yourself to the topics at hand (probably gaming) and don't discuss anything else there. Discord is, by all measurements I know, the worst privacy offender I can think about. Even worse than Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp and such stuff, because they at least have some form of data protection implemented, even if they also collect a lot of stuff, especially all metadata.