The continued hatred of Microsoft amazes me. If Linus Torvalds, Eric Raymond, and RMS all joined Microsoft and proclaimed it safe, I suspect the accusations of selling out or being drugged would be leveled within milliseconds.
I fully realize RMS would never do this; my larger point is that with a huge chunk of the population I don't think there is anything Microsoft can possibly do to convince them they aren't evil/truly friendly toward open source.
So turn it off. It has ACTUAL end-user benefits being enabled by default. You are literally asked on first boot if you want it on or off. And you can go a step further by disabling it in the registry to prevent a second user on the system enabling it.
>Forced installs
This one gets me more than anything. Literally every *nix admin on the planet bitching for the last 2 decades about MS having all these insecure zombies out in the wild. The fix? Enable updates by default, and make it difficult for the average home user to turn it off. More importantly make it difficult for malware to easily turn off. And you STILL find a reason to complain. Why on earth you'd want to make the internet less secure is beyond me, but that's just such a horrible thing to try to bag them for.
Privacy is not opt-in, thanks. The actual benefits must not be great as Windows is the most user hostile of the big three, and not much improvement since 7. It's clear soon after install that you'll be doing things the way MS wants.
The second you misunderstood, it refers to forced installs to 10.
MS still have quite a lot of problems remaining. Some things are surely better, but many are as bad as they were. Such as lock-in in many areas is still a big issue.
When they'll support Vulkan on Xbox, will make ActiveSync an open standard, and etc. and etc. then you can claim, they are really different today.
They could start by being not evil/truly friendly. I'm amazed that people will happily forget all the bad things that company is still doing after a couple of token gestures.
> They could start by being not evil/truly friendly
This is super vague. When would their decisions stop being token gestures and into not-evil territory?
I doubt any for-profit enterprise will be "truly friendly". After all, to make profit is the bottom-line for any corp. But people fail to realize that a company is not a human. Its direction changes with its leadership. You can't label a company evil/friendly. Because that's bound to change. Look at Google for example.
I fully realize RMS would never do this; my larger point is that with a huge chunk of the population I don't think there is anything Microsoft can possibly do to convince them they aren't evil/truly friendly toward open source.