I based the script on the https://github.com/10se1ucgo/DisableWinTracking repository, but the code in that repository is Python and compiles to a Windows executable. I much prefer PowerShell so that the code can be more easily changed and deployed in automated environments. Additionally, that Python code doesn't undo changes, whereas my PowerShell script does.
I'd appreciate any feedback (probably as a GitHub issue).
This is really crudely put together, completely disregards recent findings from news articles proving you cannot completely disable W10 telemetrics, and the author acknowledges he doesn't want to support reversing destructive processes with it.
See my top-level comment. I was unhappy with the author's reply in the GitHub issue about undoing changes. I decided to write a PowerShell script to fix those problems.
This is much cleaner and preferable for deployment to enterprise environments. That all being said, I highly doubt anyone is fully aware of the information passed through the list of hostnames in any of these projects.
It's been claimed OS and app functionality breaks by blocking access to some of these domains, and I'm curious as to why.
Blasting a wall of hosts out of access is not a very refined way of going about this purging of telemetrics, but your project is a great example of OSS being improved upon. Good script!
Before I read your comment, I added more information in the README that says I have not personally tested the HOSTS entries. Since PowerShell is so accessible, it's my hope that those with more time than me can create an exhaustive, accurate list, and perhaps submit a pull request. My only intent with this project was to convert the original author's work into a more accessible, Windows-friendly tool.
Be careful with this! From the README under the "HOSTS" section:
"Append known tracking domains to the HOSTS file located in C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc"
However there are other articles which suggest changing the hosts file can cause instability[1]:
"Of course, the first thing that comes to mind is disabling communication with these servers (by introducing the server into the hosts file and settings to 127.0.0.1 localhost), but as I tried, after disabling the Windows 10 start acting suspiciously otherwise. Error messages pop up, sometimes the message of "service failure", there are problems with Skype, it is not possible to maintain a stable connection. The problem is with VPN connections that fall. But it is possible that this is just some incompatibilities and nevyladěnost new OS. Apparently, it is necessary not to prohibit certain sites and have available to make things work, but I had no time to analyze them one by one, what causes them off in the long run in Windows 10"
Of course, there are a whole bunch of other potentially dangerous things the tool does like change services and edit the registry. Take care!
What puzzles me is why they use some completely different domains than the ones most people would instinctively trust more, like msn.com and microsoft.com.
I mean, if you see Windows communicating with a domain that ends in *.microsoft.com, that tends to arouse less suspicion than flashtalking.com, adnexus.net, 2mdn.net, and a-msedge.net - as a long-time Internet user, I'd suspect an infection if I suddenly started seeing these show up without having done anything that could lead to such, like visiting sites with ads in the browser.
I recognise many of those domains, because I'd blocked them in my HOSTS file due to ads (this is long before Windows 10, or even 7, came out.) That makes it all the more unsettling, because it's as if they're not even trying to hide the fact that their OS contains adware and trackers.
flashtalking.com: "Flashtalking is an independent ad serving, tracking and technology company"
I'm not surprised that MS is making it harder to disable these things. It should be possible to patch them out completely, but then you also have to deal with signing, system file protection, and updates which could re-enable them again... MS is putting up a much stronger fight now than they did with the previous versions of Windows.
The problem with this is that unless you're doing deep packet inspection, they can patch the system to route every call through the same frontend IP -- including services you actually want to use. It'll work for the short term, but probably not long term -- doubly so if they just route everything over HTTP.
Windows 10 is not free. The cost is built-in to the hardware you buy. They threw their users a bone to get some goodwill and hopefully entice some of them off old OSes, but the OS is not free, and this canard needs to stop.
Linux is free. Do you mean to imply that Linux is nothing more than an advertising/tracking platform? I pay for cable TV, so I guess I'm not the product there right? Oh wait, even though I pay the real money comes from being able to direct my eyeballs at ads. The world is not that simple, and I keep seeing people parrot this exact line at everything. It is applicable in some cases and not in others, so don't whip it to death.
Yep, my restore disk set had a bad disk (and I paid for them too which sucks) so since it was the Home version and I thought I might need stuff that Windows 10 Pro has I went for pro, cost me $200 bucks. I got my license on Amazon. I thought about getting an MSDN subscription but not sure how the licensing works these days for the OS's it includes (it used to be fairly complicated years ago).
Edit: I used smile.amazon.com so money is contributed to my charity, the American Heart Association.
I wonder if Windows 7 support might last even longer than XP... no doubt there will be plenty of anger when MS decides to end support for 7/8 like they did with XP, but the best way to delay that is to vehemently refuse to "upgrade".
...and I am writing this on a machine running (a much customised version of) XP, which remains completely silent on the network and never produces any traffic unaccounted for.
Microsoft doesn't suddenly decide to end support for something: it has a well-established, pre-published software life-cycle where operating systems are supported for 10 years.
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-GB/windows/lifecycle
There's always a chance that a date will be extended, but it wouldn't be a good plan to bet on it.
Otherwise, I feel deeply sorry for you. Nobody should have to use inferior systems like Windows XP in this day and age. Presumably some badly-programmed bit of corporate junkware prevented you from upgraded to Windows 7 in 2009 .. ;-)
XP is a solid enough system for limited use cases. Keep it behind a firewall and don't ever touch a browser, it will run forever without a glitch. I wouldn't call it "inferior". There may be things it can't do but if you're not going to use those features, so what? Upgrading a system just for the sake of upgrading is a waste of money.
It's not just software tying a machine to XP but the hardware. A particular card may not have a 7 compatible driver. A penny-pinching executive will look at the very long number that is the cost of upgrading and decide to stay on XP and just replace parts (hard drive, monitor, etc.) as they break. Which may not be the smartest thing in the long run.
I can see 7 lasting longer than XP as it's the last OS built primarily for traditional Win32 (Desktop) applications. 8 and 10 are transitioning to an OS for managed code and virtualization. If you have a legacy application you'll get the best experience on 7 (or XP, or Server 200X). All of the improvements to Windows are meant to make C# based programs work better. There isn't much to gain by upgrading an older codebase to the new OS.
Of course people whose primary business is creating software think nothing of upgrading. To everyone else, writing new software is an expense. If the software you have does everything you need it to do, you're not going to rewrite it unless there is something to gain.
> stay on XP and just replace parts (hard drive, monitor, etc.) as they break. Which may not be the smartest thing in the long run.
Aye, there's the rub.
Based on enterprise-class calculations (staff time etc), the cost of keeping an old XP PC running is dramatically higher than replacing it. You can get a tiny desktop with 4GB and a 1TB drive for less than $300, and cut your electricity bill as well.
In accounting terms, you may also save money by reducing reboots and fast start-up times, esp with UEFI. Whether Gartner averages apply in a specific case is, of course, an entirely different matter.
And, of course, if you've got a hardware lock-in that's no help at all ;-)
I agree with your final paras. We can see where Microsoft is heading. Where the world will actually be in 2020-25 is another matter....
> Based on enterprise-class calculations (staff time etc), the cost of keeping an old XP PC running is dramatically higher than replacing it. You can get a tiny desktop with 4GB and a 1TB drive for less than $300, and cut your electricity bill as well.
Have you seen how extremely short-sighted and quarterly report oriented some executives can be. You say "only" $300 but I regularly replace $30 hard drives (that I charge $80 for) and they thank me for it because I'm "saving" them $200.
How not to use Windows 10? Well if you need to use Windows then stick with 7 or 8.1 (and disable installation of the recent telemetry updates pushed with Windows Update recently).
If you don't need Windows but want support options then OS X is a fantastic platform too.
Or if you are comfortable using an enterprise class OS but are ok with looking after yourself in terms of support then you have many excellent options with Linux such as Ubuntu and its spin-offs as well as Debian or Fedora both of which I have superb experiences with on modern desktops and laptops.
Yeah, so I've been using that since a few days ago along with DoNotSpy10, and disabled almost everything. Then I installed a traffic monitoring tool and I still found Cortana to be calling home, even though I checked and both web searches (search box) and Cortana were disabled.
I think this article is right - you can't fully stop Windows 10 from calling home, no matter what you do or how many thing you disable.
And according to this article, Microsoft has an OS-level keylogger that catches all of your typed characters (all passwords, all "secure" communications) even from the virtual keyboard, for "no good reason".
That OS-level keylogger would be extremely worrying, as would various other monitoring mentioned in your second link.
However, it's worth pointing out that the same link now starts with this warning:
Note: Some readers have commented that the original source for the article is of questionably validity. If anyone can confirm or refute the original author's finding with actual data, please let me know in the comments, and I'll update this post accordingly.
As I write this, no-one has in fact provided any additional sources for confirmation.
Don't mind that a few comments down on the HN thread there's a clear quote of the W10 privacy policy where MS says it sends your text and voice back home.
I'm well aware of what the privacy policy says, and personally I don't like it and don't use Windows 10. On the other hand, clearly other people do find some of these convenience features useful, and to provide those features some data is going to get sent from their computers to Microsoft that I personally wouldn't be happy to share in that way. Reasonable people can differ on what they are willing to accept in this respect.
However, I think the issue we're talking about here is what Windows 10 is actually doing right now. If Windows 10 is in fact hoovering up huge amounts of potentially sensitive data and sending it home without the user being aware of and agreeing to it, that is of concern whatever the privacy policy says and deserves to be publicised.
Well, so let's talk about what W10 is doing right now.
You are dismissing what somebody claimed to see W10 doing, because you don't think the source is trustworthy. Fair enough, but the privacy policy claims the exact same thing.
Now you are claiming that the privacy policy is just some fictitious document where MS writes every kind of stuff their client won't like to read, but they also won't bother practicing? Despite evidence (weak that it may be) that they are practicing it right now?
I'm not dismissing anything. I just pointed out that the exact source someone was citing itself leads with a warning that the original source is currently unverified and has been repeatedly challenged, which I thought was worthwhile since the HN poster citing it didn't mention that significant detail.
I'm also making no claims about the privacy policy being fictional or any of the other stuff you just made up.
Please stop putting words into my fingers that weren't even remotely there. It makes intelligent discussion impossible.
I dunno, I thought the same when I wiped after the windows 10 announcements. But then I installed steam and was pleasantly surprised to find titles like BioShock Infinite, X, Pillars of Eternity, Torchlight II and so on.
More and more games are showing up on Linux. I'd say its becoming more of a gaming platform each day.
Whoops, I forgot to mention that I'm aware of Steam.
Yes, thanks to Steam, gaming experience on Linux is better than before. That's said... my favourite games like Grand Theft Auto, Devil May Cry, Resident Evil, Wolfenstein are unfortunately Windows (and consoles only) games.
Maybe one day Square Enix/Bethesda/Rockstar/etc will port their games to Linux, and untill that day happen, I'll stick with Windows for gaming :D
Like 15% of my Steam library is playable on Linux, do you really understand what does FUD mean? or you just repeat it blindly when you read something you don't like about Linux?
Linux is not a good platform for games. Steam does a good job at improving the current state, but it's far from ideal. For many people it matters, and expressing their sentiment is far from being FUD.
Steam's Linux game library is quite un-impressive when you count in how poorly many of them including most AAA titles actually work on SteamOS and other Linux distro's.
Allot of them aren't natively ported by rather use middle ware like the one offered by Transgaming which is no more than an optimized version of Wine.
Not to mention that many of the "AAA" titles will have either a much higher system requirement for Linux or outright just not support hardware which is supported on Winodws.
For example Borderlands The Pre-Sequel doesn't supports AMD cards at all on Linux and has double the minimum requirements of the Windows version.
So sorry while Linux gaming has come a long long way it's still not something that you can call viable for "Gamers".
If you only play old titles and indie games you are probably fine tho...
For those who have familiarity with previous Windows versions your "best way" is farthest thing from Practical.
Heck, if I leave Windows, why settle for Linux, I will go spartan with OpenBSD.
I wonder how WINE or even ReactOS is coming along... then again, the new features of Win10 that some application might eventually require are unlikely to make it into those alternatives in a timely manner.
I know, it was disabled almost as soon as it was discovered, which would not happen with proprietary software. But, we learned again that it can happen, even when you use FOSS.
> 2) "GNU/Linux" sucks at providing a rich and stable API/ABI on which proprietary software can be built and supported, and
Care to elaborate on this one? I don't see what sucks about it. You can build proprietary software and run it on Linux. See also: Steam games.
> 3) Usability of what does exist generally sucks, because unsurprisingly, not charging for your work makes it very hard to hire artists and designers.
I've personally found the latest editions of Debian-based OSes (such as Linux Mint) to be very intuitive and beautiful.
> Care to elaborate on this one? I don't see what sucks about it. You can build proprietary software and run it on Linux. See also: Steam games.
This works if you:
- Ship all your dependencies yourself (the distribution-provided dependencies can't be relied upon to stay compatible)
- Spend a lot of effort keeping your app and its dependencies working with the surrounding desktop environment (even when shipping your own libraries, IPC protocols, configuration mechanisms, and interoperability behavior are all unstable)
- Expect that your users will be technically proficient enough to deal with the inevitable breakage, and
- Can afford to spend the extra resources to use the inconsistent and often poorly documented/implemented/designed OSS application libraries that are available.
Care to elaborate on this one? I don't see what sucks about it. You can build proprietary software and run it on Linux. See also: Steam games.
I've run into this before many times. Binaries for proprietary apps, from 20 years ago, will probably still work today on Windows 10 if they didn't do anything too crazy or need low-level system functions (e.g. disk defragmenters). I don't think the same can be said of proprietary apps on Linux; there, the vast amount of diversity is also its greatest weakness and apps tend to have these massive (version-locked) dependency chains attached to them.
> Binaries for proprietary apps, from 20 years ago, will probably still work today on Windows 10
Do you really want to run 20 year-old software?
> I don't think the same can be said of proprietary apps on Linux
So, you don't know then.
-------------
In my experience, getting something to run on Linux is easier than getting it to run on Windows. The only reason that more software isn't built on Linux is the network effect.
"All of our paying customers use Windows, why would we want to build on Linux? Only free software hippies use that!" - Caricature of the average IT manager
Steam for Linux is going to gradually be a... game-changer. B)
Games? Line of business applications? Other applications that still work for me and I have no reason to upgrade?
Yes. Yes I do.
<post type="rant" intensity="105%">
Windows is literally the only OS out there right now that gives a toss about backwards compatibility.
Try compiling old code on a new linux - prepare to be stuck in dependency hell for hours as you try to find libraries that the distro maintainers ever-so-helpfully deleted outright or renamed with no pointer.
Apple shamelessly breaks things every time there's a point release to iOS or OSX. Killing this API, turning on that "security" feature which breaks your addons, etc etc.
People do want to do this. Go and look at those who are already doing it.
Your experience is quite obviously very limited if you've got problems installing software that's built for Windows, on Windows. And Steam for Linux has been out for a couple of years now yet the majority of game devs aren't building games for Linux since next to nobody is running Linux for games or buying the lackluster Steam Machine - http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/5/8733139/valve-steam-machine...
Am I some superhuman that I am actually capable of getting work done on GNU/Linux? That, in fact, all of the software I need is there? That the kernel, libc and other APIs are actually quite stable (indeed, breaking userspace is the ultimate sin in the kernel, akin to blaspheming the Holy Spirit) and that usability is greatly enhanced by being able to configure my system the way that best suits my workflow and without OS features that think they're holding my hand and helping me but only get in my way of doing actual work?
> Am I some superhuman that I am actually capable of getting work done on GNU/Linux? That, in fact, all of the software I need is there?
You're a software developer in a particular, small segment of the industry for which tooling is available, not "most people".
> That the kernel, libc and other APIs are actually quite stable
The kernel and libc are not enough to meet application developer requirements, not by miles.
This is why any usable Linux desktop relies on a massive set of fragile packages that have to be managed via a package manager in lock-step to maintain compatibility across the entire dependency graph.
That, in turn, assumes that everything participating in that dependency graph can be rebuilt (and patched) by the package maintainers, at-will, to maintain compatibility across the entirety of the graph.
If that doesn't work for your software, your only choice to is to ship your own large set of incompatible dependencies, and spend a lot of effort keeping those working with the surrounding distribution-managed dependency graph.
> ... usability is greatly enhanced by being able to configure my system the way that best suits my workflow and without OS features that think they're holding my hand and helping me but only get in my way of doing actual work?
That's a different metric of "usability" than the metric most people apply (and benefit from).
Of course, the kernel and libc are not enough. There are de facto standard libraries for all other subsystems, with variations and granularity in different areas (e.g. that of the largely one display server to the many types of widget toolkits), not unlike any other OS.
The package manager is simply an effective way of controlling software installations with fine-grained control from curated repositories with dependency resolution and querying capabilities. Just about all systems have package management in some way, but not the full picture. Windows had the Windows Installer, which was the equivalent to dpkg, without the advanced frontend dependency resolver and other mechanisms. I understand there is now a Windows Store.
Yes, there are issues, largely intrinsic to shared library versioning and maintenance. Windows has them and it too had to supply hideous workarounds (WinSxS, etc.), with privately shipped DLLs still being a standard practice to get around it.
Concerning usability, you already do have environments that are fully compliant with the "standard" metric that most people "benefit" from -- there are highly sophisticated DEs such as GNOME 3 and Unity that are perfectly usable by average end users, and I have personally installed and attested the results to this from several friends and acquaintances who are non-technical. At least a couple are even fine with using Cinnamon.
Not sure why your comment was downvoted since what you said is taken as a given for me and I've been a Linux user (out of principle) for 3 years now. Many things are lacking for a good user experience, simply put. The way a Linux system is built out of very different small programs (and ideals) leaks to the UX, leading to many situations of "why can't I do this simple thing X I can easily do on Windows?".
Still, depending on your area, you can use Linux to get your job done, but it does not come without nuisances.
1) "Most" people nowadays just need a web browser. It may not fit your particular situation though.
2) It's a difficult situation for drivers, but for most software you can just package the shared libraries you need (or statically link). This is what most people do on Windows / OS X anyway...
3) This is often a matter of personal preference and experience, but I find Gnome 3 perfectly usable....
In my opinion life's too short to use free tools over high-quality tools. I'd rather spend a small amount of time fixing problems with Windows than spend a huge amount of time trying to make Linux a usable desktop.
I am already using Linux on servers and smart phones (but I won't call it GNU/Linux, sorry). If there is ever a decent desktop GUI for Linux, I'll try that out but if I still like Windows better then I'll continue using that.
I'm positive that most people here would agree if my post said "OS X" instead of "Windows".
There's no shortage of choice for desktop environments on Linux. If you're looking for a system that's completely user-friendly from the top down, look at Elementary OS. I personally use KDE on Debian, Gnome on Arch, etc. and I haven't had any problems making them usable desktops.
This has to be the most pretentious crap I've read in a long time.
My grandmother could use Ubuntu, and wine makes cross platforming with windows stuff (mostly) seamless. Unless all you use is enterprisey crap or play AAA titles from bad companies then chances are with a week of practice you will be right at home with Linux. No one is asking you install slackware with xmonad on your first go.
Even if you do play AAA titles like battlefield 4, Wine and/or a well emulated windows machine will do you wonders.
Windows is objectively worse than both OSX and Linux in more ways that I care to enumerate here. Unless you have a specific reason to be on it, you're missing out on better security and performance.
P.S. No one calls it GNU/Linux except RMS fanboys. Quit your pretentious holier-than-thou mocking.
>>Windows is objectively worse than both OSX and Linux in more ways that I care to enumerate here
Well, you can't put "objectively" in front of your opinion and call it a day. That's not how this works.
I make my living writing software in C++ and there's nothing,absolutely nothing that gets close to performance ,comfort and tools of Visual Studio. I would also subscribe to the idea that Windows "just works" and any linux installation I had so far also just works, if you disable automatic updates - my only bad experience was always with updates breaking stuff, sometimes leaving me with a terminal input because the gpu driver wouldn't start anymore. But hey, YMMV and I wouldn't want to call one or the other "better".
P.S. No one calls it GNU/Linux except RMS fanboys. Quit your pretentious holier-than-thou mocking.
The distinction actually makes sense when talking about, e.g. Android versus GNU/Linux. Android uses the Linux kernel, but it doesn't use GNU tooling. Contrast to what are typically referred to as "Linux distributions", which do use GNU and are thus usefully distinguished as GNU/Linux. The GNU part actually makes a practical difference if you're a hacker.
At the end of the day, the User Experience is always terminal.
Dont know about your grandmother- could be grace hopper, so the granny scale doesent say much.
The reasons why users are there is they sub-conciously disagree with the core philosophy of linux. Not everyone wants to become a comp sience major and learn.
Microsoft is making simple to use software for a society of specialists that accepts that not everyone has to learn everything and still should have the ability to delete his systes-core files. Windows is not here to stay because M$ is good , but because open source never challenged them.
I tried using Eclipse on Ubuntu Linux and some how Ubuntu stuck in gimpy scrollbars that almost worked.
I was really impressed with the first betas of KDE, like wow, a good desktop was possible on Linux. However, since then things have just gotten worse. What you expect to have happen on Linux is that the font metrics are all screwed up and there are just zillions of things wrong with the UI that never get fixed or get substituted with other problems.
Confront Linuxers with this, and they sound like Scientologists, they completely deny there is a problem... And that is the problem. If Linux hardcores would admit the GUI sucks, maybe somebody ould try to fix it.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted for sharing your experience.
My experience (as a 10+ year Linux user) is similar. As a workstation/desktop OS, it's unbearable how many things break on a regular basis. My Ubuntu 14.04 (LTS, mind you) installation has constant issues with the update manager crashing. This is on a pretty lightly-tweaked 3-month old setup. In order to get dual monitors to work, I had to plug in one to the motherboard's DVI input, and the other to the dedicated GPU's (AMD) DisplayPort input. And I can't for the life of me get the color profiles to match on both displays, nor to fix issues with screen tearing (also inconsistent on both displays). There are many more issues like this that pile on and on, but these are just two I remember from very recent experience. The fact that this happens on what is supposed to be the best Linux has to offer to the mainstream consumer (I'm judging by Ubuntu's mainstream popularity here) is just terrible.
However, you can't beat Linux as far as the developer environment goes. I live in zsh, Git, Vim/Emacs, Python, Docker, and friends. I'm countless times more productive and trouble-free as a developer in Linux than I would be by using native Windows tools (unless I was a .NET developer I guess). In fact, the times I've tried to replicate my workflow on Windows, it's usually with MSYS2 and installing everything I use in Linux.
Anyways, just my experience. The fact is every OS has its pros and cons. Windows offers by far the better consumer experience, while Linux does the same for developers.
(1) The downvoting is close to the root of the problem here.
A long time ago there were a lot of people in the U.S. that would never buy a foreign car. As a result, American cars did not have to compete on price and quality and the carmakers grew fat. Slowly the customers died off or got sick of the abuse, and even before the 2008 crisis even the rental car companies were starting to buy ricers. Police departments are the one institution that still buys American cars, but our local sheriffs department did trial Hondas for undercover work because after 2008 it seemed possible American cars would disappear from the market.
Today there are lots of people who would never buy an American car so that's how it goes.
By lathering vitriol over anyone who says the emperor's clothes aren't there for the linux desktop, the Linux community continues to fall behind. If you look at Windows and Linux in 1995 vs 2015, you see that Windows has come far ahead and Linux has stayed still or even gone backwards.
(2) So far as a dev environment goes I used to run Linux under Virtualbox all the time, but these days I use Vagrant and for various reasons I am more likely to fire up a Linux box in AWS. If you are working in Java the experience on Windows is not too different from what it is to use Visual Studio and you have the ability to deploy on Linux, which is what I do.
I mean, this site is called "Hacker News". Are you suggesting that a Windows desktop makes for a better development environment than a Linux one? Unless you're targeting specifically Microsoft technologies, and using Microsoft tools to do it, that's not really the case. And I don't know what year you think it is, but in 2015 there are several Linux distros that make for very useable desktop OSes. Also, don't be sorry for not calling Android "GNU/Linux". No one calls it that, because it's not GNU/Linux.
At any rate, even if I have to spend extra time making a Linux box useable when compared to protecting myself on Windows from the prying eyes of Microsoft and god knows who else - and even then just hoping I didn't miss something - I consider it time better spent.
> Are you suggesting that a Windows desktop makes for a better development environment than a Linux one?
I've used Windows and Linux since 2006.
I've yet to understand what makes Linux a better development environment. When I have a choice (or barring other factors, like the portably-sized Linux VM I'm using for a personal project, which would probably be much bigger if a WIndows VM), I use Windows for development.
Can you elaborate on what makes Linux a better development environment? Most Linux tools run fine on Windows (though I believe Git is perpetually behind on Windows; I personally prefer Mercurial, for other reasons, which doesn't have that problem), and I think Ruby is also usually behind as well, but I can't really think of anything else. On the other hand, Windows has Visual Studio exclusively. If it's about the command line, Powershell has so far sufficed for development purposes(and sometimes pleased), though I'm much better in bash.
- Visual Studio.
- Faster than OS X on same exact hardware.
- Less bugs than any Linux desktop.
- Not tied into one brand of overpriced hardware.
- Runs the majority of popular web browsers.
- More extendable GUI than OS X.
- Better window management than OS X.
- Better keyboard acceleration than OS X.
- More high-quality dev tools that are free than OS X such as Paint.NET.
Keep in mind that Windows filters the contents of etc/hosts and basically ignores (some) entries for its own domains. For example, you cannot null-route Windows Update servers this way.
Checked my parents PC on a visit this morning to find the latest Patch Tuesday set of updates hadn't installed automatically because Windows Update was too busy advertising Windows 10. I was also greeted with a balloon popup rather than just the subtle GWX icon in the tray nagging me to install it.
Microsoft are pushing this OS fervently and, given their aggressive service integration, I've recently been musing about whether the Microsoft of today are really 'better' just because they've become more open with their software, or whether they're actually just a different, possibly nastier, kind monopolistic threat.
We could look back in 5 years and see the majority using Bing (via the Start Menu), Cortana, IE, OneDrive, and syncing all their devices through MS servers and cringe. Microsoft can't win on the strength of their brand when it comes to consumer facing services (except for Xbox), so maybe integration will see them break through and muscle out the likes of Chrome, Google, Gmail, Android, and Dropbox.... if W10 on mobile takes off that is.
Oddly, despite not owning and having never owned any Apple product, I find myself comforted these days that they are there with an almost bottomless pile of money.
>updates hadn't installed automatically because Windows Update was too busy advertising Windows 10
That does not make much sense, if any.
>We could look back in 5 years and see the majority using Bing (via the Start Menu), Cortana, IE, OneDrive, and syncing all their devices through MS servers and cringe
And you aren't cringing at Google Now/Google Drive/Chrome? Why?
All I can say is they hadn't been installed. When I went to WU, 'Windows 10 Pro' was ticked under optional updates and all the critical updates for W7 were unticked. The machine has always updated automatically just fine in previous months.
> And you aren't cringing at Google Now/Google Drive/Chrome? Why?
Well, it's just what I see, but I think Googles strongholds are still search, Gmail and Maps. If all the Google apps (Play Services etc) disappeared on Android overnight I honestly think most people I know would only miss Maps. I've never seen a friend use Drive, occasionally Docs (but never for serious work) and certainly not Now.
Also, I'd say it's 50/50 between my friends whether they use FF or Chrome... but everyone I know uses Windows. Windows 10 of course resets your default browser.
Plus the fact, Google are terrible at pushing and supporting consumer facing products. Imho they haven't really had Joe Public feverishly interested in anything since their Chrome launch campaign in 2008 and, before that, Gmail in 2004. They're not a software or hardware company and, save for flirting with Motorola, have never made any persistent indications that they intend to be.
>> updates hadn't installed automatically because Windows Update was too busy advertising Windows 10
> That does not make much sense, if any.
I saw exactly the same thing. The entire updates to install section in the Windows update(s) app was covered over by a big green update to Windows 10, and that was after I cancelled my Windows 10 reservation. I eventually just downloaded the damn thing, but haven't installed it yet.
What about rules like the below on Android? (or Chromebooks where you cannot even install alternative native applications)
> Devices may only be distributed if all Google Applications [listed elsewhere in the agreement] ... are pre-installed on the Device."
>The phone manufacturer must "preload all Google Applications approved in the applicable Territory ... on each device."
>The phone manufacturer must place "Google's Search and the Android Market Client icon [Google Play] ... at least on the panel immediately adjacent to the Default Home Screen," with "all other Google Applications ... no more than one level below the Phone Top."
>The phone manufacturer must set "Google Search ... as the default search provider for all Web search access points."
>If device owners hold down the physical “Home” button or “swipe up” from a digital home button or navigation bar, such actions should trigger Google Search.
>must provide access to a “collection” of 13 Google apps (Google Chrome, Google Maps, Google Drive, YouTube, Gmail, Google+, Google Play Music, Google Play Movies, Google Play Books, Google Play Newsstand, Google Play Games, Google+ Photos and Google+ Hangouts).
How is that not "rammed down your throat" ?
Or do you really think Android users are "voluntarily installing" Google Play Newsstand?
Last I heard you can ship Android without any Google components, you just can't call it Android.
The real issue is popular apps like Snapchat and Maps that require Play Services. So manufacturers are never going to abandon the Goog for fear of their customers not being able to run the latest fad.
You mean AOSP, Android has a completely different meaning and expectations in general use.
Apart from apps that need the Play Services, lack of the Play Store is the biggest issue with shipping AOSP. That's why they forcibly bundle it with all other Google apps and default as Google search.
Chipset and device manufacturers, and carriers, hold all the cards though. Samsung and Amazon could conspire almost overnight to bring about a real contender and, failing something bold like that, Windows Phone has always been an option.
And yet, you can still not use Google Search or Google Play. If you disable Google packages, they will stay disabled (incidentally, I do have the Play Books/Games/Music/Movies apps disabled, so speaking from experience).
You do not have such choice with Windows 10 - it will send out your data without regards to you opting out.
> Because there is a difference between "can voluntarily use" and "is rammed down your throat".
I got gmail rammed down my throat pretty hard when I needed to install an app from the play store on my Android phone... Google search was also front and center on the home screen.
That's like complaining, that when you want to get apps from Windows Marketplace, you need a Live account.
Which is fine. Except that I do not want apps from Windows Marketplace, so I don't need account. I don't want websearch from start menu, I don't want Cortana. So why does it still sends the data out, when I disabled everything that was disableable?
It's like forcing you into Gmail account, even if you didn't want to install anything from the Play Store.
I've been bitching about KB3035583 here and on Reddit for the last few months and mostly getting downvoted for it, heh [1]
Glad to see I'm not the only one. Also enjoying the schadenfreude in the wake of all the spyware W10 has shipped with. Given they don't have a problem installing adware on W7 and W8, it's a bit odd the level of surprise and shock and consternation, etc., when really anyone could have seen this coming if they'd just shut up for a minute and thought it through. C'est le vie.
I really hope you're wrong about five years from now.
I installed Fedora 20 ( with the standard Gnome 3 desktop environment ) onto my parents PC a couple months ago. They love it and rave to other baby boomers how hassle free it is to us. I definitely recommend going that route. All they do is use the web browser and open office occasionally.
Edit* fedora 20, not 22. ( that was the only ISO I had at the time )
"dotNET's openness does not extend to the actually interesting parts (WPF, WinForms)."
Well I disagree with this, there is a lot of good stuff in what they are opening. The new version of Asp.Net, Roslyn, CLR and more are all interesting things that you can use to make real products without WPF and WinForms.
Also they release other really cool things like TypeScript etc...
I no Microsoft fan at all but you gotta give them some credit for what they did this past year.
It is freely licensed for personal, OSS and small teams. You do not get the free license grant for other uses. It's like using GPL code in closed source software. GPL is free but has conditions about that free license that gets granted to you.
> I didn't read the license
Oh boy... Keep that up and you're going to have interesting times ahead of you. Always read licenses, or at the very least (if you can't be asked to deal with legalese) find a summary somewhere.
Is the tracking limited to Home edition, or does this also apply to Pro and Enterprise? Nothing I've read definitively confirms which versions are affected to what extent. Knowing this is useful in that I'd happily pay to not have the spying. Paying is also preferable to downloading an .exe that disables tracking that has dependencies I haven't installed (Python, for example). I'm more likely to trust a PowerShell script, but(for now) haven't the time to invest to create my own.
Can you also fake/spoof the appropriate signatures/headers? Otherwise separating that data is going to be very easy. Unless you do it on a higher level like emulating input, but then you won't have a very useful machine.
I run Windows as a guest with vga passthrough and completely disable networking (though a very strict firewall could also work, e.g. For online games).
https://github.com/nathan-alden/windows-10-tracking
I based the script on the https://github.com/10se1ucgo/DisableWinTracking repository, but the code in that repository is Python and compiles to a Windows executable. I much prefer PowerShell so that the code can be more easily changed and deployed in automated environments. Additionally, that Python code doesn't undo changes, whereas my PowerShell script does.
I'd appreciate any feedback (probably as a GitHub issue).