>"Wrong. Win 11 is an entirely new and different situation."

Not wrong. My comment was in reply to a statement about support ending and also paying for support. And as for requiring new hardware, that isn't new either, just nowhere near to this level (in the past, it was mostly based on "real" requirements, like 32 vs. 64 bit or amount of RAM, or generation of CPU due to extensions needed).

I don't disagree with most of what you posted, other than calling me "wrong".

1) I never said it is always without issues.

2) Waiting until the distro is behind being supported before upgrading to a newer version is not recommended.

3) Not all distros are equal.

>"Linux doesn't really solve the problem of wanting to use a 10 year old version of software AND have it supported. Long Term Support in the Linux world usually means 5 years tops then you either pay money or upgrade."

It means after X years, you click on the "upgrade" button instead of the "update" button and wham, you are on the latest version of the distro, instead of updating an old one. And it is free (unless you are using some commercial Linux). And it very rarely requires you replace any hardware. And it doesn't REDUCE your freedom and privacy each time, as it apparently does with MS-Windows.

I have in-place upgraded Linux Mint on countless machines, many times, without having any major problems.

>>"And probably almost all those could run Linux just fine and perform better than they were with MS-Windows 10 or could with 11."

>" I'm not sure why Linux devotees are so consistently delusional about this. It's simply not true."

It absolutely *is* true. I have tons of first-hand experience with it.

>"Almost nobody who plays games, for example, could play as easily or better on Linux"

And, yet, I believe the vast super-majority of these people are not trying to play the latest games. And we are talking about the "now". Do you really think someone with a 10-year-old MS-Windows 10 computer has AAA game support right *now*? Probably not. And for those mid-level gamers that do want more, there is Steam, which is rapidly transforming Linux's gaming ability.

I am not saying games aren't important, but I think there is a wild over-speculation that games are what drive OS selection in the modern world. In fact, of all my family and friends who have a desktop or laptop computer, only ONE of them even plays games (other than something casual that can already be done on Linux for many years either through a clone or just web site). Some have game consoles. Most are just using the web and occasionally some office apps, both of which Linux does very well. The reality is that people don't choose which OS. They choose "Mac" or a "PC" that just happens to ALWAYS be bundled with MS-Windows.

And that is just the "home" market. On the large/mid business side, it is IT-controlled, so they drive what happens. But on the small side, computers typically do the same web stuff and office stuff that Linux does fine for home use. But there is the addition of one or more commercial, industry-specific application that probably only runs on and is supported-for MS-Windows. And the opportunity there is that more and more of it is becoming web-based, where the client no longer matters. Often the server doesn't matter either, because it is cloud-based. That has great Linux opportunity for mid and large business as well.

There has never been a better time to move tons of machines to Linux. Microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot by being so hostile to their "customers." Their behavior about artificial system requirements, forcing cloud logins for local machines, ads and ad-like injections into the desktop, tracking and privacy issues, harvesting data for AI training, trying to force people to use Edge with underhanded tactics, nasty licensing terms and restrictions... it isn't going to work like it used to. 6% of Linux desktops/laptops doesn't seem like a lot, but it is significant. And it is growing. At some point it is likely to hit a critical mass, finally.

>"With only three months until support ends for Windows 10, it is likely that many millions of users will not buy new devices or pay for extended support," Klein writes in his complaint."

Yeah, welcome to commercial software since, I don't know, forever. If you don't want to play that game and/or pay, then install Linux. And then you will get updates and upgrades regularly for free AND have much more control, security, and privacy.

>"These users â" some of whom are businesses storing sensitive consumer data â" will be at a heightened risk of a cyberattack or other data security incident, a reality of which Microsoft is well aware...."

Indeed. And those businesses should be held liable and accountable for their decisions and actions. That doesn't mean Microsoft is.

>"Microsoft's shift away from Windows 10 will lead millions of customers to buy new devices and thrown out their old ones, consigning as many as 240 million PCs to the landfill...."

And probably almost all those could run Linux just fine and perform better than they were with MS-Windows 10 or could with 11. Instead of wasting effort/time/money attacking Microsoft, attack the vendors who continue to put out commercial software/products without Linux (or often even MacOS) support. And if you want to attack Microsoft, then go after them as a near-monopoly using monopolistic tactics like forcing unnecessary "requirements" for running MS-Windows 11.

>"He says nothing about any money he seeking for himself"

Just the goodness of his heart and to better society at large. But will continue to use religiously use Microsoft's products.

>"The complaint also requests an order requiring Microsoft's advertising "to disclose clearly and prominently the approximate end-of-support date[...]"

That I could get behind. Consumer education and disclosure is always good. Of course, how many will actually read all that is another issue.

>"What's not to your liking?"

Can't speak for who you are replying to, but Linus' post was unnecessary long, repetitive, and hostile. He is right, of course, but that doesn't mean it needs to be so caustic.

And something nobody has mentioned yet- the WEAR on the batteries. Those expensive batteries have a service life, and with every discharge, they lose more life. That probably costs way more than the measly sub-wholesale rate being paid. I mean, really, $150 per "Season" (which probably means year) is a joke.

And those touting "but it is voluntary"... let me introduce you to the "slippery slope", which is often a plan, NOT a fallacy. Just one example (of so many I could list):

1) You are an adult, it is your body, car, and risk.
2) Well, we are going to push a lot of education about seat belts (a good thing).
3) Mandate alarms and nags (not so bad).
4) If pulled over, you will now be warned if not wearing a seat belt (also not that bad).
5) OK, now we are going to ticket you. But only if driver not wearing, and only if there was some other offense you were ticketed for which has to be primary. And no points.
6) Now we ticket you if either front seat occupant is not wearing, but still can't pull you over for that, and has to be some other ticket issued, and no points.
7) Now we drop needing some other ticket issued.
8) Now it is any occupant.
9) Now we can pull you over ONLY for not wearing.
10) And now it has points deducted from you as well.

Give the people time to get used to each concept and turn up the temperature slowly. And there were PROMISES made along the way that it would "never be this" or "that". Then, over the decades, it is exactly what was predicted by the naysayers. (And no, I would never get in a car without wearing a seatbelt, regardless of law or penalties; if that is your line of thinking, you missed the point of the example, entirely).

>"Your PC is not longer yours."

All of mine are, because I run Linux on everything, and always have. Thankfully, I don't want to play that game. But I am worried about other things that could block open systems in the future because they are not "trustworthy."

I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. For example, if my bank pulls something like that (requiring a certain "platform"), I will change banks and loudly let them know why I did. I already did with a credit card company with whom I had a card for decades. Funny how they only REALLY cared about what happened AFTER I cut up their card and went to a competitor because my 100% standards-based browser wasn't what they thought was needed at the time. And another company I left because they forced MFA but only with SMS or phone call, and I refused to comply with that because I don't give out my cell number to companies (they took away Email MFA and had no TOTP option at all). And I made sure to badmouth both to everyone I know, so hopefully they were punished far beyond just little-'ol-me leaving.

Consumers do have quite a bit of power, when they finally start standing up and say "NO" or "ENOUGH".

I also make a living from creative work and it annoys me as well to see someone blatantly trying to rip us off. But I think you and I both know that it's unlikely measures like this will prevent piracy for very long even if they are initially successful. The only thing you can truly control is the systems that don't belong to your user, so that's where you need to put anything you don't want them messing with.

Meanwhile as someone who is also a user and also doing other things than playing games on my devices - including some things where security matters much more than it does for anti-cheat measures in some random game - requiring any kind of intrusive access to my system just to play a game is a 100% reliable way or ensuring that I will never be buying that game.

Fortunately there is now more entertainment produced than I could possibly experience in a lifetime so even if it's the best game in the world I won't be too sorry to miss it while I'm playing something else that doesn't think it should have more control of my equipment than I do.

>"which think is deliberately misleading."

Yes, I think MANY car companies are doing it intentionally to mislead consumers. Especially when they have no BEVs. Honda did it, Toyota did it, Infiniti, many of them. I know, because I encountered it a lot when doing research.

And to the people who claim hybrids "are EV's" I would retort with they "are ICE". Because they are just as much ICE as EV.

>"hybrids as I see them as the worst of both worlds."

As do I. Although a PHEV (plug-in hybrid) is something I think could be very useful for some people. But even those I certainly do not think of them as the "best of both worlds" due to the complexity/maintenance when compared to a BEV.

Because people with phones may not be around at convenient times when you need to make a call. And the lack of public pay phones is precisely the issue being addressed here - most people moved over to cell phones, so either they dont carry change for the few public pay phones which do still exist, or the phone companies either removed them or stopped fixing them after they were last vandalised.

This guy said he set the phones up because he lost cell phone reception during his drive to work - he may work antisocial hours, so he cant just knock on someones door when he gets a flat at 3am.

And lots of people would be concerned about their own safety knocking on random strangers doors - especially in society today.

So this guy is giving people the option to make calls in cell phone dead zones, because thats what *he* saw as missing. Good on him.

>"This is a common enough form, so it's fine."

It is "fine" if you want to sound uneducated. Like it or not, people can and will judge you on the way you write and speak. So if you say/write "There is three people", then you will appear less educated. This may interfere with advancement or even just validity of what you are trying to say. In a perfect world, it might not matter (more focus on what is meant), but we aren't living in that world.

>"Right, because nobody's ever been mugged at a gas station. It's well known how safe and secure they all are. /sarcasm"

If you don't have the option to charge at home (thankfully I can and do), you are likely to spend much, much, much more time "trapped" at a commercial charger than the 4 min to fill a gas tank and be off. Many of them are not as well-let or in as well-trafficked areas, often with no attendant oversight or even cameras. The more time spent at such places, the more likely there will be a negative encounter. So the OP does have a valid point.

>"Hyundai's Electric Car Sales Surged 50% Over July 2024"

No, Hyundai's "electrified" vehicles sales surged. That includes hybrids.

I wish people would be more specific. To 99% of people, if you say "electric car/vehicle", the assumption is that the conversation is about BEVs, not hybrids. Most people (me included) would not regard a hybrid as an "electric car."

>"Actually, it does.[...] So, popular use is precisely what determines meaning and correctness."

Well, tell that to your English teacher and see if it manages to get you a passing grade when you say/write very popular things such as: "I is going to the store", "They had went there", "You and me should get together", "I seen them do it", "Where did you put it at."

>"This is extremely frustrating, and hard to accept, for certain kinds of people"

I guess I am one of those people :)