Comments on: Windows Sucks (an old rant) http://piestar.net/2009/08/15/windows-sucks-an-old-rant/ A pragmatic look at the state of FOSS Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:02:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Conzo http://piestar.net/2009/08/15/windows-sucks-an-old-rant/#comment-8664 Conzo Thu, 05 Aug 2010 19:13:18 +0000 http://piestar.net/?p=180#comment-8664 hear hear, Kerb ... one of those rare pests that truly bothers me. Thankfully these days many apps at least give you the opportunity to uncheck unwanted crap, but there's still the odd quickaunch & friends BS ... ah sez ah sez ah sez SHOOT :) hear hear, Kerb … one of those rare pests that truly bothers me. Thankfully these days many apps at least give you the opportunity to uncheck unwanted crap, but there’s still the odd quickaunch & friends BS … ah sez ah sez ah sez SHOOT :)

]]> By: Shaara http://piestar.net/2009/08/15/windows-sucks-an-old-rant/#comment-5497 Shaara Sat, 30 Jan 2010 03:38:28 +0000 http://piestar.net/?p=180#comment-5497 When I launch some *.deb package, who can tell it doesn't have "rm -rf /home/* &" in it's post-install script? Most utility programs now can be just dumped in arbitrary folder and will work from it. Some crucial shared components are signed now and in that way "promise" not to break anything. When I launch some *.deb package, who can tell it doesn’t have “rm -rf /home/* &” in it’s post-install script? Most utility programs now can be just dumped in arbitrary folder and will work from it. Some crucial shared components are signed now and in that way “promise” not to break anything.

]]> By: The Customer Is Always Right | Piestar http://piestar.net/2009/08/15/windows-sucks-an-old-rant/#comment-5391 The Customer Is Always Right | Piestar Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:35:32 +0000 http://piestar.net/?p=180#comment-5391 [...] I’ve even written a post bashing the Windows software installation method and since this is technically an anti-Linux (and thus [...] [...] I’ve even written a post bashing the Windows software installation method and since this is technically an anti-Linux (and thus [...]

]]> By: Roogie http://piestar.net/2009/08/15/windows-sucks-an-old-rant/#comment-2550 Roogie Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:25:43 +0000 http://piestar.net/?p=180#comment-2550 Yeah, I'd definitely support an OS managed installer rather than this free-reign bullshit. I'd also like applications to be more compartmentalized in Windows. Yeah, I’d definitely support an OS managed installer rather than this free-reign bullshit. I’d also like applications to be more compartmentalized in Windows.

]]> By: Jason http://piestar.net/2009/08/15/windows-sucks-an-old-rant/#comment-2548 Jason Mon, 17 Aug 2009 02:10:22 +0000 http://piestar.net/?p=180#comment-2548 @Thomas Your commentary and that of Kerberos are not analogous to each other. Your former commentary, until recently, involved the typical "Linux > Windoze" fare, apropos of nothing. Kerberos is stating that while he prefers Windows, he can also point out its problems. Windows users, unlike Linux users, don't pretend our platform is problem-free. @Thomas

Your commentary and that of Kerberos are not analogous to each other.

Your former commentary, until recently, involved the typical “Linux > Windoze” fare, apropos of nothing.

Kerberos is stating that while he prefers Windows, he can also point out its problems. Windows users, unlike Linux users, don’t pretend our platform is problem-free.

]]> By: Thomas B. http://piestar.net/2009/08/15/windows-sucks-an-old-rant/#comment-2545 Thomas B. Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:04:25 +0000 http://piestar.net/?p=180#comment-2545 Omg, I say bad stuff about Windows, and everyone flames and attacks me, but when Kerberos does it, no one flames him :p Omg, I say bad stuff about Windows, and everyone flames and attacks me, but when Kerberos does it, no one flames him :p

]]> By: Jason http://piestar.net/2009/08/15/windows-sucks-an-old-rant/#comment-2543 Jason Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:43:41 +0000 http://piestar.net/?p=180#comment-2543 Check out this essay by Sarah, an intern at the FSF. It reads eerily like the writings of a brainwashed cult follower. http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/sarah-mcintire-introduction Check out this essay by Sarah, an intern at the FSF. It reads eerily like the writings of a brainwashed cult follower.

http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/sarah-mcintire-introduction

]]> By: fellowhater http://piestar.net/2009/08/15/windows-sucks-an-old-rant/#comment-2542 fellowhater Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:28:13 +0000 http://piestar.net/?p=180#comment-2542 Startup apps has always been a bit of an annoyance. Thankfully, it's solved in less than 5 minutes with the Sysinternals autoruns utility. Win7 also helps, by hiding such clutter and popups, which should also discourage vendors from adding something there that won't ever be seen. Startup apps has always been a bit of an annoyance. Thankfully, it’s solved in less than 5 minutes with the Sysinternals autoruns utility. Win7 also helps, by hiding such clutter and popups, which should also discourage vendors from adding something there that won’t ever be seen.

]]> By: Roogie http://piestar.net/2009/08/15/windows-sucks-an-old-rant/#comment-2540 Roogie Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:06:25 +0000 http://piestar.net/?p=180#comment-2540 One really bad offender is Visual Studio. Installation: It gives you the option to specify what directory you want to install in. It then creates a folder and a few non-critical files in that directory. Afterward it ignores your specified directory and just installs in Program Files (no big deal if that's where you want it). If you're on x64 then some files go in Program Files and the majority in Program Files (x86). This begs the question, if the software is going to ignore my specified directory then why give me the option at all? Uninstallation: When you run the uninstaller all it does is partially removes the Visual Studio program. The dozens of other software that came with Visual Studio are not removed. It leaves it all behind? What the hell? Is it that hard to write a "remove everything" routine? Then of course if uninstall things in the wrong order you're completely screwed and will be forced to remove things manually (a very long and painful process making the manual removal of old versions of Norton/Symantec seem like child's play). I like Visual Studio but damn the installer/uninstaller is completely retarded. You'd think it'd be a trivial matter for Microsoft to make these routines work properly. One really bad offender is Visual Studio.

Installation:
It gives you the option to specify what directory you want to install in. It then creates a folder and a few non-critical files in that directory. Afterward it ignores your specified directory and just installs in Program Files (no big deal if that’s where you want it). If you’re on x64 then some files go in Program Files and the majority in Program Files (x86). This begs the question, if the software is going to ignore my specified directory then why give me the option at all?

Uninstallation:
When you run the uninstaller all it does is partially removes the Visual Studio program. The dozens of other software that came with Visual Studio are not removed. It leaves it all behind? What the hell? Is it that hard to write a “remove everything” routine? Then of course if uninstall things in the wrong order you’re completely screwed and will be forced to remove things manually (a very long and painful process making the manual removal of old versions of Norton/Symantec seem like child’s play).

I like Visual Studio but damn the installer/uninstaller is completely retarded. You’d think it’d be a trivial matter for Microsoft to make these routines work properly.

]]> By: wbkang http://piestar.net/2009/08/15/windows-sucks-an-old-rant/#comment-2534 wbkang Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:21:14 +0000 http://piestar.net/?p=180#comment-2534 I don't think you can even cause BSODs with softwares in Windows now... The only places it can go wrong are drivers. And I totally agree with problems crap installers and start-up programs. I know some softwares used to replace dlls in system32-and break my system. The problem is mitigated a little bit by file system virtualization I guess. These days, core system files are not writable unless you are the "TrustedInstaller" user, which I assume it is the user Windows Update use. I don’t think you can even cause BSODs with softwares in Windows now… The only places it can go wrong are drivers.
And I totally agree with problems crap installers and start-up programs. I know some softwares used to replace dlls in system32-and break my system. The problem is mitigated a little bit by file system virtualization I guess.

These days, core system files are not writable unless you are the “TrustedInstaller” user, which I assume it is the user Windows Update use.

]]>