Yes, they called themselves the “most open operating system”. Which in fairness doesn’t imply all the “free” FSF freedoms, but at least being unable to work around restrictions or reverse-engineer to me definitely contravenes “open”.
That said, this is just beating a dead horse; literally anyone with a brain who knows what Linux is knows that Windows is less open.
I hadn’t heard of the WAN show before this comment. I learned about puffery as a kid when my parents were shopping for a car and I was very excited to inform them I had just heard on the radio that a specific dealership was the best.
we are. “open” can mean lot of things, and the original post was not about open, it was about free. no one has to be convinced windows are not free, it is as surprising as the fact people don’t fuck for love in brothel.
Open absolutely cannot mean a lot of things, and there is no possible legitimate definition of open that could ever in any context be used to describe Windows, with the sole exception of “open to bad actors”.
It’s a locked down, restrictive, broken pile of shit.
What is the point of this “revelation”? When did Microsoft claim that windows were free in any way?
Yes, they called themselves the “most open operating system”. Which in fairness doesn’t imply all the “free” FSF freedoms, but at least being unable to work around restrictions or reverse-engineer to me definitely contravenes “open”.
That said, this is just beating a dead horse; literally anyone with a brain who knows what Linux is knows that Windows is less open.
Maybe they meant open, as in it leaks your private data and is open to be exploited by advertisers, malware etc?
Open as in “spread your cheeks and your wallet” open
Only if the people doing the exploiting aren’t using Windows, because that goes against the terms of service.
https://www.threads.net/@pureinfotech/post/DCzbB-jJvfD/thoughts-anyone-is-windows-the-most-open-operating-system-is-there-any-linux-use
This is marketing puffery. It’s an imprecise claim about the product’s goodness that cannot be objectively tested.
Duh
(I know, you watched a recent WAN show and just wanted to brag with the word puffery)
I hadn’t heard of the WAN show before this comment. I learned about puffery as a kid when my parents were shopping for a car and I was very excited to inform them I had just heard on the radio that a specific dealership was the best.
that specifically says open, not free. it is marketing buzzword you can project really anything into.
It doesn’t resemble open in any legitimate interpretation of the word, though.
Even if you hack your way to a tolerable experience, they can and will randomly revert changes you make on a whim.
we are slowly drifting away from the original point…
We’re not. The point is that Microsoft is lying and pretending Windows isn’t a locked down pile of shit.
we are. “open” can mean lot of things, and the original post was not about open, it was about free. no one has to be convinced windows are not free, it is as surprising as the fact people don’t fuck for love in brothel.
if anything, this is far more funny:
Open absolutely cannot mean a lot of things, and there is no possible legitimate definition of open that could ever in any context be used to describe Windows, with the sole exception of “open to bad actors”.
It’s a locked down, restrictive, broken pile of shit.
I liked this image more: https://icosahedron.website/@halcy/113554477309412476