[dgzl]

> it's wrong to have to fight my operating system in this way.

Your operating system? This isn't Linux, this isn't a free and open system.

> Microsoft seem intent on having full control of your system, and they are in a position to take that control as and when they like.

This isn't your system any more than buying a CD makes the music yours. You're renting their system.

[grawprog]

>This isn't your system any more than buying a CD makes the music yours. You're renting their system.

I really can't understand how people are ok with this. Now just with windows, but in general these days. Why are people ok with having things they don't really own after spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars on them. If I buy a computer, it's my computer, I don't give a fuck what operating system is on it, what fine print amd or Intel throw in saying their management systems are their property, I don't care. I'll do whatever I want with my computer and if Microsoft or any other company has a problem with it they can come sue me for all I care.

[pasabagi]

Do you live in a house you own?

I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint, but I think rent is a society-wide problem, not just a problem with computers, and computers are far from the most acute example.

[grawprog]

No, I'm not saying rentals, or using things you don't own is bad, I'm saying the line's being pushed too far towards non ownership of things that shouldn't be that way. Owning a house as a much much larger barrier of entry than a computer or other things.

[pasabagi]

Your distinction seems a bit arbitrary to me. Building an operating system is a massive barrier to entry - far greater than building a house. Likewise, designing a computer.

[dgzl]

>I'll do whatever I want with my computer

You pretty much can, I don't understand why you're upset. Windows on the other hand is not your property.

Your laptop in this case is the CD, you own that. Windows is the music that you're renting.

[grawprog]

Hmmm I think a better analogy might be, think of a car, the motor, the body and all the internal working parts are the hardwear, windows is the steering wheel, the gear shifter and the gas and break pedals of my car. Sure my car might run without them, but I'm not going anywhere. Now imagine you owned the rest of your car, but not the steering wheel, pedals or gear shifter. Now imagine the company that made those, separate from the company that makes the rest of your car, owned them and could do whatever they like with them while you're driving your car.

[pault]

No, in this analogy you are the passenger and Windows is a driver that, despite the fact that you are paying them to drive you from point A to point B, always takes a longer route that ensures you see as many roadside billboards as possible. It also occasionally drives you home and makes you wait while it adds new parts to the car, then starts the whole trip over again.

[e40]

Bad analogy. The music on a CD doesn't change after you purchase it. Windows is in constant evolution.

[dgzl]

It's not a bad analogy because the point (it's not yours) doesn't depend on the idea of whether the data changes or not. Regardless of if the data evolves or not, it's still not yours to control (to a complete extent).

[wslh]

> Your operating system? This isn't Linux, this isn't a free and open system.

Linux is not your operating system either. You are not the owner of Linux. Linux has a permissive open source license that don't give you ownership. If you were the owner you could change its license.

[dgzl]

I'm saying Linux is "free and open," you can clearly see that in my comment.

[wslh]

Clearly the "Your operating system? This isn't Linux, ..." assumes that Linux is yours beyond if it's free and open.

[dgzl]

Regardless, "you're operating system" doesn't imply literal legal ownership, it implies ability to control, as in control when and what gets updated as the OP is upset about.

[type0]

I think in a legal sense it is yours. Heck you could even sell it, the license just requires you to provide the code if you change it. If you don't abide the license you can loose that ownership (by the legal copyright case), in a same way you could loose the ownership of your car or house in certain circumstances.

> it implies ability to control, as in control when and what gets updated as the OP is upset about.

Many routers run linux, the provider doesn't have to give you ability to control that OS, but in accordance with the copyright law they have to give you the code when you ask for it. So in that case you own both the device and the code but you don't necessary fully control it (unless it's flashed with OpenWrt or similar). So control and ownership are different things.

[dgzl]

Who else wants to be pedantic?