Don't want to take over the thread, just clarify a few things
Originally Posted by enorbet2
@subassy - When people..... scratch that, when I refer to Windows lack of user control I am talking about both the specifics, such as currently in Win7 even logged in as Administrator and even after downloading a "privilege extender" still there is much that is completely disallowed, and
Not sure what you're referring to exactly that isn't allowed. Usually there's a way to do what you want with third party software and various tweaks. Hard to say without specifics. I mean you could be right, I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just saying I can't really comment one way or the other without specifics.
also of the general attitude of Microsoft that kind of comes off like Duke Nukem, "Suck it down!". They believe deeply that we only lease the software. The PC is not ours, we just get the privilege of using it..... for a price.
Fair enough. Though I expect this is simply the nature of closed source/commercial software. Once I own a particular PC I actually do whatever I want with it. I don't think any one cares what I do with the hardware once it's on my private property. Especially if said PC is off the internet. Pretty much safe to ignore the EULA at that point.
WinPE is Preinstall Environment and as you may know is by no means a full operating system, nor are you free to make it into one. The loophole that got Bart, and subsequent builders by the EULA was that technically on the same box you could not be running the full install, from which the PE image must be derived, and the PE at the same time.
Yes, I know what a pre-install environment is. I wasn't referring to the xp-based PEs gained via EULA loophole though, I was referring to the vista-and-later PE (I call it "VistaPE" -- my own personal nick name for it) that comes with with WAIK - Windows Automated Installation Kit - which is free-as-in-beer from MS.
I should mention at this point I thought we were talking in a context of a hobby-at-home, not in a production/corporate environment.
With the WAIK/VistaPE you can "slipstream" drivers to cover a lot hardware devices (NICs are a big one obviously) and also tweak it put in a GUI, web browser etc. You're right it's not a "full OS" as in getting it to the point of actually sticking in an Office 2007 disc and installing isn't going to work but it is possible to put in the explorer shell, google chrome/firefox and various anti-virus/anti-malware packages. And since all that is possible you can use your imagination on other things/extensions you could use a system with this PE installed on the hard drive (retro game console with console emulators? web browser only station? use XAMPP portable for a web server?). My point isn't that any of this is practical or that there's any reason to do this with VistaPE instead of Linux or that it would be "better" in some way...just that's it's possible and there is in fact some flexibility in Windows if one were to seek it out.
Hyper-V Server requires 2 boxes, one with the full (non-free) system and another with the limited standalone. In both cases you still need an MS license and cannot build a free, complete Windows system legally.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Again apologies if I was not originally clear and also MS is incredibly stupid on naming things: there's Server 2012 Hyper-V
and there's Hyper-V server 2012
. The second one, Hyper-V Server 2012 R2
does not need a second PC to use it. In fact it can be installed on a thumb drive. Much like VistaPE it can be customized and tweaked to have a GUI and made into a usable system. Since it has the identifier string of server it will present some challenges for day-to-day use (some programs like anti-viruses will balk at being installed on a server for instances and getting there may be some drivers issues) but said challenges aren't any more complex than say...getting optimized video drivers working in Linux. Obviously this wouldn't be done in a production environment but it's you know possible
. There is precedence among "windows enthusiasts" for doing these sorts of things in turning server 2k3 into a workstation (there's a still a stickie thread in the windows
operating systems forum for this) and there was a 2008 workstation project when vista first came out (I think the idea largely died out when 7 was released).
An example pointed out in another thread is that PAE for Windows is crippled for the sole purpose of licensing. Another example might be that it is impossible to get DirectX v11 on XP and for no other reason than to force users to pay to "upgrade" to a "new*" system.
I don't know the real motivations for the PAE 4 gig limit thing. I assumed it was because XP is based on Windows 2000 and that was developed when there were only 32bit chips which do have the 32-bit limitation in memory...and it was too much of a hassle to fix it at the time. Or maybe they just wanted a cut-off point between the old compatibility mode stuff on 32-bit and the future more secure 64-bit stuff (driver signing and a few other kernel-related things). Anyway it's okay to critisize them for this. There was an x64 XP at one point. I assume that was their solution to the 4 gig limit issue.
* I put "new" in parenthesis because Microsoft fairly often makes a few basic changes, like adding drivers, and changing the look which normally would be just a Service Pack, but they call it a whole new version and charge for it. One example of that was the Win95 > Win98 debacle.
I've never seen the win95->win98 transition referred to as a "debacle" before. 98 seemed like a normal incremental upgrade to me. Consistent with prior transitions like windows 3->3.1->3.11. This was long before consumer Windows received service packs and I think windows update only came in...I want to say late in 98's life cycle (if it did at all, I don't remember). 98 offered a lot of features in the form of a single purchasable CD at your local CompUSA. This was the ancient times of dialup modems and IE-4-is-great after all
. Also if you complain about that you should at the same time praise MS for XP SP2 which really should have
been a separate paid OS release but was released for free because XP/XP SP1 was such a disaster on so many levels.
Incidentally they often use this leverage to control the hardware market as well. Example - choosing to support Intel's USB but not Apple's FireWire when some would argue that FireWire was superior. Notice that Linux has supported both for quite some time. It's not just Microsoft either. Many proprietary companies buy out the competition just to bury the technology rather than have to compete with it.
Macs actually had USB prior to PCs. 98 was the first windows OS that a customer could purchase to include USB support. And it's really a combination of intel, chipset makers, MS and 1001 OEMs in Asia and the rest of the world working together for hardware support. I think USB only really took off when there started to be so many peripherals using USB like mice, keyboards and printers. Seems like firewire was only really used for super-fast hard drive access needed by video editors and was always really expensive. You might say the same thing is happening right now in the thunderbolt vs usb 3 standards war: thunderbolt seems to be almost entirely on Macs and for whatever reason intel and/or apple seem to be holding it back from other PC makers. No fault of MS or anybody else. Except I guess Apple and/or Intel. And it's probably too late now too. I don't think thunderbolt can catch up with USB 3. Also, thunderbolt cables are ~$30 a piece. I mean what the hell. But this is just my view based on my memory and PC hardware podcasts I listen to. I really don't think you can assign much if any blame for the industry acceptance of USB vs firewire on MS.
As for compiling kernels I always make a custom kernel but not many do anymore and that's just a small part of the flexibility. Whether installing traditionally from source only or with the aid of a SlackBuild script it is rather common that I enable and disable various features. Only in a very few cases anymore do I directly modify code, but there is literally nothing I am disallowed from (with the exception of a few proprietary addons) even if it is harmful. Not everyone uses or prefers this, but some do, me included.
Well I've never compiled a linux kernel before and most likely won't. I read some where if you do that the patches that are released are on the user to integrate and may or may not work. Personally I'd rather let some one else with more experience and knowledge with such things handle kernel security patches. I mean assuming that's true. I've got better things to do. But to each his own.Edited by subassy - 3/17/14 at 6:15pm