1) It runs better than Windows 7 under da hood, plus ISO image auto-mount 2) Interface is shit (Release preview: No options for personalizing interface (sans 3rd party software) AT ALL) and inconsistent as fuck. Me no gusta. 3) Programs don't auto-run as admin when you're using admin account. What the fuck? 4) Bootloader is full of shit. First it loads whole OS, then it offers you OS choice. (That's why you're installing your systems in this order: Win8, Win7, Linux from live CD)
And that's why Kubuntu (or any Linux distro with KDE) is far better choice. (Note: I'm not talking about distros with Unity or Gnome 3, because they suck and are even worse than Win8 (interface-wise).
Boston, USA & Dublin, Ireland; Friday, 30 November 2012: Windows 8 internet usage share is behind what its predecessor Windows 7 achieved one month after launch, according to data from StatCounter, the independent web analytics company. The firm's research arm StatCounter Global Stats finds that by 26th November 2012 Windows 8 had worldwide internet usage share of 1.31% compared to 4.93% achieved by Windows 7 one month after its launch in 2009.
1. The interface is really ugly and inconsistent. (Just my opinion) 2. The start screen is inefficient and primitive. (Just my opinion again) Why make it not fit any standard screen resolution? 3. Windows store. (Apple did this from the start with the closed hardware/software model and loosened up a lot since then. MS has always gone in the opposite direction, so, in my opinion, it's a bit late to start this now. It's going to piss off developers and end users alike). 4. Secure boot. (bad idea gone wrong).
I'm waiting to make sure all the software I need to use is compatible with it before I upgrade. I just got a new computer with win7, and so I got the upgrade discount. I'm just waiting to make sure that upgrading won't totally ruin my life.
Meanwhile, I wonder if there is a way to make that horrid start screen go away and just use windows like windows? I've played with 8 at the stores a bunch, and I drives me nuts. I don't want to touch the screen.... I want to PUNCH it!
Amruth-PillaiFeatured By OwnerDec 4, 2012Hobbyist Photographer
Exactly, people don't know how to embrace the change as they're so set into they're usual habits. We weren't meant to be that way, or else we'd still be using candles instead of CFLs and dinosaurs instead of cars!
I embraced change way back and changed away from windows.
Now I run an operating system that allows me to customize 100% of it how I want, use whatever of any of the dozens of functional UI:s available for it, and I don't have to pay a cent for it. Also, no need for "antivirus" software because the OS is secure unlike windows. And it runs faster!
Everything I do with my computer has become 100x easier since I embraced change and started using linux.
theoretically, sure. There's no such thing as 100% un-breachable system. But two things:
1 - linux has builtin security permissions. By default, every user account only has access to its own home directory and files, so unless you specifically give a malware program permissions to run as root (and why would you do that, right) they can't touch any system files. 2 - linux distributions aren't all identical. They can have subtle differences in the way they're built, so a malware that is designed to infect a certain type of system may not be able to infect another.
I've run my system without any kind of antivirus for ages, haven't had any malware.
Windows has built-in permissions and by default the user can't change system files. It's basically the same. If anything is a criticism it's that Windows goes too far in protecting your system files and doesn't let you make changes when you really need to. Windows even does the executable bit thing on unknown software these days the same as Linux. You don't really need anti-virus on Windows any more than you need it in Linux. Of course the biggest problem is that most users doesn't have the slightest idea what they're doing and that makes Linux just as insecure as Windows.
You actually wouldn't need to write malware to a specific distro. It's difficult to write a binary that would infect all versions, sure. That said, it's difficult to write binaries that can infect more than one, very specific version of Windows. Exploiting common software packages that run cross-distro would be a way to do that. There are reasons that it doesn't happen more often, but it's not because of the differences between distros.
There are good reasons that Linux is stronger against rouge software than windows... but the things you've said here aren't good reasons... or true for that matter.
Yes, I hear Windows has implemented some semblance of permissions and account privileges in the recent times. There's just a slight problem:
Most windows programs assume that they are running with root privileges and break down if they are not given them. So the user is mostly left with using admin accounts anyway. Which negates the entire point.
Then there's the fact that windows is full of security holes. Which can't be fixed because only microsoft has the source code. And you can only wait for them to fix them.
If by recent times you mean the last 12 years, then yes. User programs running on Windows are pretty far from the kernel since ME. XP was weirdly in the middle until service packs fixed that up.
It's true that Windows has always been of the ethos that the user is God whereas Unix is the opposite. It really isn't that way anymore and people whine about it constantly, but that's why the Unix-based systems have been historically more secure. A much better point than your first ones.
Windows doesn't really have any more security holes than any given Linux distro. The only real difference is that with a package manager you can update everything at once whereas with Windows you only get OS updates from Microsoft. Except now they do some stuff with updating program too... but that's not much the point. Microsoft has numbers on its side, there are many more people working to increase security on Windows than there are on any given Linux distro. The self-checking and rapidly-updating nature of open-source software is a real security benefit of Linux-based OSes. Windows is moving in that direction though and you can use all of the same package managers on Windows if you're so inclined.
Again, there are many reasons that Linux-based systems are better than Windows. I'm not sure why you're going with half-truths and decades out-of-date adages that were questionably true 10 years ago, much less now.