XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   From: crude@sausa.ge   
      
   On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 08:31:32 -0000 (UTC), Gremlin wrote:   
      
   > CrudeSausage    
   > news:696ad8b8$1$19$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Sat, 17 Jan 2026 00:32:56   
   > GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:   
   >   
   > [snip]   
   >   
   >   
   >> However,that's the thing: you need to _know_ in advance that you can   
   >> use Rufus to bypass such things. Without such knowledge, you're   
   >> installing Windows the way that Microsoft wants it. A default Linux   
   >> installion from _any_ distribution can't even fathom ever being as   
   >> awful as a default Windows 11 installation. The fact that Microsoft   
   >> asks me to jump through hoops to make the operating system I'm forced   
   >> to use decent is part of why I don't mind changing to Linux.   
   >   
   > Rufus is a handy way to customize what should *still be* default for the   
   > time being. It is however a bandaid approach to the issue and cannot be   
   > relied on as an option that will last forever. At some point, Microsoft   
   > will make changes which will cause Rufus to be unable to continue   
   > offering you those options. It's just a matter of time. MS has been   
   > pulling shit like this for ages, they've just gotten a bit more extreme   
   > with it. They really want things back like it used to be - your computer   
   > effectively being a dumb terminal and a subscription system in play.   
   > It's recurring revenue for them when they can make this the new norm.   
   > You shouldn't have to have access to the internet to install an OS or   
   > use your computer, but,   
   > MS is working hard to make this a requirement. You should be able to   
   > load an OS and your applications from local media and use your computer   
   > without a working internet connection if you so desire. As much as I   
   > like the net and as useful as I find it, I do like the freedom this   
   > particular OS I'm using offers me. An internet connection is not   
   > required to login or use my computer.   
      
   The only people who believe that Microsoft isn't trying to remove any   
   possibility of using a local account or working without the Internet are   
   the people who actively advocate for them. DFS doesn't get it yet, but he   
   will. It's like we're all on the same ship that's hit an iceberg. Most of   
   us have already headed for the lifeboats, but he's still on the deck   
   enjoying the view because he hasn't yet begun to lose his balance.   
      
   > I also don't mess the centralized registry concept that MS foisted upon   
   > us. I appreciate human readable text file configurations.  Even if I   
   > didn't have a technical background, I'd still prefer text based   
   > configuration files vs a centralized priopretary registry that's subject   
   > to corruption that if corrupted badly requires a full reinstall of the   
   > OS and possibly some/all of my software packages.   
      
   Same here. Jumping to Windows 95 was especially challenging for me because   
   I was used to editing text configuration files to get software working on   
   my modest hardware. The fact that I couldn't do it anymore and had to   
   navigate a registry seemed very counter-intuitive.   
      
   > I've practically fallen in love with the whole .appimage concept. I had   
   > to obtain a copy of Gimp the other day to work on something. A single   
   > file to download, right click to grant execute permissions and walla; a   
   > working copy of the latest version of Gimp. I could have also used chmod   
   > from terminal to do the same thing, but right click permissions table is   
   > helpful too.   
   >   
   > It reminds me of the old days of DOS and self contained programs. No   
   > installer BS. Unzip into an empty folder of my choosing and away you go.   
   > Easy to backup your entire program and it's configuration files as   
   > necessary too. I treat this usenet client in that manner. It's easy to   
   > move it from workstation to workstation this way. It's not perfect under   
   > Wine mind you, but it's good enough that I can still use it. I'm   
   > relunctant to replace it for another native Linux client because I wrote   
   > various programs when I was still running it on my XP box that interact   
   > directly with it's files to do various things for me that are faster or   
   > not possible to do from within the program. It's search functions for   
   > example aren't the greatest and have various bugs depending on what   
   > you're doing. So, I have a tiny (a few hundred at most kilobytes the   
   > majority aren't even 5k) app that can search any of the local database   
   > 'folders' for specific things I'm hunting with a quickness.   
   >   
   > I started using this client years ago as a replacement for News Xpress   
   > that I used on my Windows 3.1 box way back in the day. I was used to   
   > News Xpress and Xnews look and feel isn't that much different. It's old   
   > mind you, but, so am I, so it's a good match for me.    
      
   I think that all of us who lived through the days of DOS enjoyed the idea   
   that we could extract something into a folder and immediately run the   
   software. Of course, this also made piracy rather easy. I imagine that   
   Microsoft and others moved away from this way of installing software   
   specifically to counter what was definitely a rampant problem at the time   
   and the reason Atari was quickly left in the dust against Amiga   
   (developers stopped porting their products because every Atari-based BBS   
   had copies of their software available to download at no charge).   
      
   --   
   CrudeSausage   
   John 14:6   
   Isaiah 48:16   
   Pop_OS!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)