As a user, I don't. It's closed source. That's the point. What users have is only circumstantial evidence. And then there is the marketing and PR, such as the NYT article.
One of original two comments was "What would we find?" There is nothing to suggest I have read the source code.
Unless and until Windows becomes an open source project, such as the ones that are routinely discussed in this forum, where users can remove code they do not want, then no amount of "updates" or PR by Redmond is going "fix" Windows to my satisfaction. As I said, I am not expecting that to happen, ever.
There is a comment in these threads from a former Microsoft employee that confirms my suspicions about poor quality control. Are you still in disbelief?
As for your aside, I agree. There's legacy code in both. But I suspect it is far less code overall. And, in my opinion, it's in some cases higher quality than what I am getting with Windows (there are certainly exceptions: Dave Cutter's work on the NT kernel being one). Of course, I do not have the Windows source code so I can only speculate what is in there.
More importantly, the size of the software is much smaller and I can modify and recompile it.
I can see to some extent what has been added and changed over the years. I can continue to learn from the source and the people who wrote it, instead of from a marketing department.
Living in a tty is "the exact same thing" as using Windows?
Is that an example of "comparing like to like"?
I am in VGA textmode. I am not using a graphic layer.
The amount of code to implement the tty, which is available to me to read, edit, compile and redistribute, is, I speculate, much smaller and less complex than the amount of code and complexity used to implement the Windows GUI.
As long as you're claiming that your POV is an opinion, or informed speculation at best, I have absolutely no issues with what you're saying, and do not wish to engage in further argument. We probably agree on most things.
As a user, I don't. It's closed source. That's the point. What users have is only circumstantial evidence. And then there is the marketing and PR, such as the NYT article.
One of original two comments was "What would we find?" There is nothing to suggest I have read the source code.
Unless and until Windows becomes an open source project, such as the ones that are routinely discussed in this forum, where users can remove code they do not want, then no amount of "updates" or PR by Redmond is going "fix" Windows to my satisfaction. As I said, I am not expecting that to happen, ever.
There is a comment in these threads from a former Microsoft employee that confirms my suspicions about poor quality control. Are you still in disbelief?
As for your aside, I agree. There's legacy code in both. But I suspect it is far less code overall. And, in my opinion, it's in some cases higher quality than what I am getting with Windows (there are certainly exceptions: Dave Cutter's work on the NT kernel being one). Of course, I do not have the Windows source code so I can only speculate what is in there.
More importantly, the size of the software is much smaller and I can modify and recompile it.
I can see to some extent what has been added and changed over the years. I can continue to learn from the source and the people who wrote it, instead of from a marketing department.
Living in a tty is "the exact same thing" as using Windows?
Is that an example of "comparing like to like"?
I am in VGA textmode. I am not using a graphic layer.
The amount of code to implement the tty, which is available to me to read, edit, compile and redistribute, is, I speculate, much smaller and less complex than the amount of code and complexity used to implement the Windows GUI.
Pure speculation of course.