kyub

Dumb user friendly (having no particular background): yes

Dumb user friendly (having Windows background): no

Windows knowledge makes learning other OS harder because Windows is the weirdest OS out there.

Answer is correct, I just want to clarify a bit more:

"Password protected" in your case probably just means that you have a bootloader password or a user account password. Both would not matter in this case. If you put your drive or partition anywhere else, and it's not an encrypted partition, it can be read. Independently of user access rights. Any other OS accessing the same drive/partition can literally read everything if it's not encrypted. Provided, of course, that there's a file system driver available for the OS.

Windows by default doesn't have any Linux filesystem driver installed. I'm not sure if that's still the case when you install WSL. And there are 3rd party Linux filesystem drivers available as well.

But to protect yourself against robbery or a Windows which might in the future include a Linux filesystem driver, you should always encrypt all of your partitions. And when encrypting, use Bitlocker only for your Windows system partition, not for any data partitions, and certainly not for Linux partitions. For Linux partitons, use the integrated LUKS2. Bitlocker on Windows isn't private encryption by the way, since a recovery key is being uploaded to MS' servers automatically. That means MS has theoretical access, the US government has, and law enforcement has. As well as any hackers who manage to exfiltrate that key from somewhere. That's why I'd use Bitlocker only for the C: partition, a 3rd party encryption tool like VeraCrypt for any other Windows partition, and LUKS2 for any Linux partiton.

Windows will continue to get more and more user-hostile as time goes on, and they want everyone to have a subscription to Microsoft's cloud services, so they can be in total control of what they deliver to the user and how the user is using their services/apps, and they also will be able to increase pricing regularly of course once the users are dependent enough ("got all my work-related data there, can't just leave").

The next big step that will follow after the whole M365 and Azure will be that businesses can only deploy their Windows clients by using MS Intune, which means MS will deploy your organization's Windows clients, not your organization. So they're always shifting more and more control away from you and into MS' hands. Privacy is always an obvious issue, at the very least since Nadella is CEO, but unfortunately the privacy-conscious people have kind of lost that war, because the common user (private AND business sector) doesn't care at all, so we will have to wait and see how those things will turn out in the future, they will start caring once they are being billed more due to their openly known behavior (driving, health, eating/drinking, psychology, ...) or once they are being legally threatened more (e.g. your vehicle automatically reports by itself when you've driven too fast, or some AI has concluded based on your gathered data that you're likely to cause some kind of problem), or once they are rejected at or before job interviews because of leaked health data or just some (maybe wrong) AI-created prognosis of your health. So I think there will be a point when the common user will start caring, we just haven't reached that point yet because while current data collection and profile building is problematic because it's the stepping stone to more dystopian follow-ups, it alone is still too abstract of an issue for most people to care about it. Media is also partly to blame here when they do reviews or news about new devices and then just go like "great camera and display, MUST BUY" and never mention the absurd amount of telemetry data the device sends home. MS is also partnering with Palantir and OpenAI which will probably give them even more opportunities to automatically surveil every single one of their business and private sector users. I think M365 also already gives good analytics tools to business owners to monitor what their employees are doing, how much time they spend in each application, how "efficient" they are, things like that. Plus they have this whole person and object recognition stuff going on using "smart" cameras and some Azure service which analyzes the video material constantly. Where the employees (mostly workers in that case) are constantly surveilled and if anything abnormal happens then an automatic alert is sent, and things like that. Probably a lot of businesses will love that, and no one cares enough about the common worker's rights. It can be sold as a security plus so it will be sold. So I think MS is heavily going into the direction of employee surveillance, since they are well-integrated into the business world anyway (especially small and medium businesses) and with Windows in particular I think they will move everything sloooowly into the cloud, maybe in 10-15 years you won't have a "personal" computer anymore, you're using Microsoft's hardware and software directly from Microsoft's servers and they will gain full, unlimited, 100% surveillance and control of every little detail you're doing on your computer, because once you hand away that control, they can do literally anything behind your back and also never tell you about it. Most of the surveillance stuff going on all the time already is heavily shrouded in secrecy and as long as that's the case there will be no justice system in the world being able to save you from it, because they'd first need concrete evidence. Guess why the western law enforcement and secret services hunted Snowden and Assange so heavily? Because they shone some light into what is otherwise a massive, constant cover-up that is also probably highly illegal in most countries. So it needs to be kept a secret. So the MS (and Apple, ...) route stands for total dependence and total loss of control. They just have to move slowly enough for the common user not to notice. Boil the frog slowly. Make sure businesses can adapt. Make sure commercial software vendors can adapt. Then slowly direct the train into cloud-only territory where MS rules over and can log everything you do on the computer.

Linux, on the other hand, stands for independence. It means you can pick and choose what components you want, run them whereever and however you want, build your own cloud, and so on. You can build your own distro or find one that fits your use case the most. You're in a lot of control as the user or administrator and this will not change considering the nature of open source / free software. If the project turns to sh!t, you're not forced to stick with it. You can fork it, develop an alternative. Or wait until someone else does. Or just write a patch that fixes the problematic behavior. This alone makes open source / free software inherently better than closed source where the users have no control over the project and always have to either use it as it is or stop using it altogether. There's no middle ground, no fixes possible, no alternatives that can be made from the same code base because the code base is the developer's secret. Also, open source software can be audited at will all the time. That alone makes it much more trustworthy. On the basis of trustworthiness and security alone, you should only use open source software. Linux on its own is "just" the kernel but it's a very good kernel powering a ton of highly diverse array of systems out there, from embedded to supercomputer. I think the Linux kernel can't be beaten and will become (or is already) the objective best operating system kernel there is out there. Now, as a desktop user, you don't care that much about the kernel you just expect it to work in the background, and it does. What you care more is UI/UX, consistency and application/game compatibility. We can say the Linux desktop ecosystem is still lacking in that regard, always behind super polished and user-friendly coherent UIs coming from especially Apple in that regard (maybe also a little bit by Microsoft but coherent and beautiful UIs aren't Microsoft's strong point either, I think that crown goes to Apple). That said, Apple is very much alike Microsoft in that they have a fully locked-down ecosystem, so it's similar to MS, maybe slightly less bad smelling still but it will probably also go in the same direction as MS does, just more slowly and with details being different. Apple's products also appeal to a different kind of audience and businesses than MS' products do. Apple is kind of smart in their marketing and general behavior that they always manage to kind of fly under the radar and dodge most of the shitstorms. Like they also violate the privacy of their users, but they do it slightly less than MS or Google do, so they're less of a target and they even use that to claim they're the privacy guys (in comparison), but they also aren't. You still shouldn't use Apple products/services. "Less bad than utterly terrible" doesn't equal "good". There's a lot of room between that. Still, back to Linux. It's also obviously a matter of quality code/projects and resources. Big projects like the Linux kernel itself or the major desktop environments or super important components like systemd or Mesa are well funded, have quality developers behind them and produce high quality output. Then you also have a lot of applications and components where just single community developers, not well funded at all, are hacking away in their free time, often delivering something usable but maybe less polished or less userfriendly or less good looking or maybe slightly more annoying to use but overall usable. Those applications/projects could use some help. Especially if they matter a lot on the desktop because there's little to no alternative available. On the server side, Linux is well established, software for that scenario is plentiful and powerful. Compared to the desktop, it's no wonder why it's successful on servers. Yes, having corporations fund developers and in turn open source projects is important and the more that do it, the more successful those projects become. It's no wonder that gaming for example took off so hugely after Valve poured resources and developers into every component related to it. Without that big push, it would have happened very slowly, if at all. So even the biggest corpo haters have to acknowledge that in capitalism, things can move very fast if enough money is being thrown at the problem, and very slowly if it isn't. But the great thing about the Linux ecosystem is that almost everything is open source, so when you fund open source projects, you accelerate their growth and quality but these projects still can't screw you over as a user, because once they do that, they can be forked and fixed. Proprietary closed-source software can always screw over the user, no one can prevent that, and it also has a tendency to do just that. In the open source software world, there are very few black sheep with anti-user features, invasive telemetry, things like that. In the corporate software world, it's often the other way around.

So by using Linux and (mostly) open source products, you as the user/admin remain in control, and it's rare that you get screwed over. If you use proprietary software from big tech (doesn't even matter which country) you lose control over your computing, it's highly likely that you get screwed over in various ways (with much more to come in the future) and you're also trusting those companies by running their software and they're not even showing the world what they put in their software.

Well every major tech product probably needs to have "AI" somewhere anywhere, otherwise you'll probably have a ~~problem of being too honest~~ marketing disadvantage because there will be potential buyers who don't understand anything about it but think "Thing with AI is better than Thing without AI", period. Doesn't even matter if there's any AI involved anywhere or if the AI feature is actually useful. Unfortunately the tech industry is always heavily riding on hype trains and AI is the current one.

code: camel or snake, depending on language

files/dirs: snake + kebab + dot mixture (trying to avoid caps and special chars here)

Considering that it's the FDP, they're probably primarily doing it to protect corporate interests, not the rights of the general population.

What kind of world do we want to live in? What would be the safest theoretical thing? They can't assign one police officer per citizen, as they don't have enough police officers. So that's a big resource constraint. But they will soon have the tech to videotape and audiotape every single cititzen using small insect-like drones that are almost impossible to find. And before that happens, they want to know who everyone online is, what they're doing and what they've done in the past, present and future. They want to know what sites you visited, who you've spoken to, what you've spoken about, and so on. And after they know this in the online world, they want to know it in the offline world too (using cameras with mics and person detection capabilities). How far will they go with their securtiy madness? It won't be long until the average citizen has zero (not just a little, zero) privacy, neither online nor offline, probably not even on the toilet or in the bed. And like I said, if you want the ultimate security, you need to assign one small surveillance drone per citizen for a complete 100% surveillance everywhere and all of the time. If you don't care about privacy and only care about security, that is your end goal. Is that really the world you want to live in?

AFAIK, browser choice is still limited (as usual with Apple) because every browser on iOS needs to use Apple's WebKit engine. That means they only differ in UI.

Of course they do. It's to be expected that big tech companies use all data they can gather for training AIs, tracking users, creating psychological profiles of the users and selling data to the highest bidders.

Microsoft is also known for creating tools and products which track employees and workers and provide nice looking dashboards and statistics for the employers. And they partner up with Palantir and other companies to create even more effective surveillance solutions for companies and law enforcement to use eventually. MS is a data company since a couple of years, just like Google or Meta is. Data is very valuable.

In the case of Microsoft Office and Teams, there's also the issue of corporate espionage. Companies from all over the world are freely giving away sensitive data about their documents, employees and projects to a US-based megacorp. There was a time in history when this would be called corporate espionage which is supposed to be bad and illegal and so on. But, since they're all doing it voluntarily, and there's no definite proof of MS doing anything because it's a black box and no one except MS can inspect what they're doing, it's apparently "fine". It's like we have collectively become dangerously naive.

So yeah, it's all "fine". Until it isn't. Until it is revealed one day. Then we can all be shocked and say "how could they do this, how could they violate our trust like that, their marketing slides looked so nice and the consultant was so charming and said we needn't to worry about anything they would keep our data safe". Well, if you trusted them in the first place, that's your mistake. You cannot trust a company like MS, Meta, Google, TikTok, and so on with a huge track record of privacy violations. Ever. Cloud = someone else's computer. Host your own stuff. Prefer not to use software with proven track records of privacy violations. Don't use products or services from companies with such track records. Prefer open source over proprietary because when the code is openly auditable that's a plus for trustworthiness, and proprietary applications usually have a bad track record of privacy violations and other anti-user features, while open source software rarely includes such things.

And it's only going to get worse. With upcoming things like Recall, that's almost like having a permanent camera behind you recording your screen at all times. I feel bad for all Windows users, but on the other hand, I don't actually have to care. Keep trusting them blindly, but please don't be surprised when it will come crashing down on you one day.

Well, US politics are more important than those of most other countries, because they still are a huge world-wide influence. But once enough climate change related disasters happened, everything will change anyway (for the worse). If you're young enough to experience the resulting chaos in a couple of decades, you should start preparing for that now (e.g. saving up, not buying houses near oceans, and so on), instead of worrying about more temporary and short-lived political decisions. Unless they directly and significantly affect your life in the short term already, of course. Humanity does and will not be able to fight the climate change based on past and current observations, so buckle up.

Problem is, when you don't oppose stuff like that, stuff like that gets added more and more and it's all opt-out and some day you'll have an update and something's turned on by default and you don't realize that for a year or so and then you're like "shit, was this really on all the time". Even worse when they hide settings well in the UI, or use dark patterns to annoy or trick you to enable a setting that's actually bad for you.

Opt-out stuff is just bad, even in small doses. It's always kind of a scam. I wish Mozilla wouldn't need that kind of stuff. I mean they could be the knight-in-shining-privacy-armor browser, compared to Chrome/Edge/Opera/.... But they are all similar unfortunately (by default). Yes, Firefox is still less worse than Chrome/Edge/Opera are by default. But "less worse" doesn't equal "good". Yes, you can configure Firefox to behave well, and by using a good preconfigured user.js these settings also will stick after updates. But you shouldn't have to do that in the first place. The common user doesn't do that and shouldn't have to. The Firefox forks like LibreWolf or Mullvad Browser for example do not have anything bad enabled by default. And it's likely they won't ever have anything bad enabled after updates. So it is possible. The only reason the common browser makers aren't doing it is because that gives them (or their business partners) less data/money.

MI is great, I played 1+2 when they were new (in the 90s), they were brilliant back then. These days, they're probably still good point&click adventure games. There were some special editions or remasters which probably make them play well on modern machines. They belong to a long list of awesome LucasArts point&click adventures during the 90s and early 2000s. Most of these games are great. You should definitely try them out, especially if there are remasters available. But you can also play the originals using ScummVM most likely. Ron Gilbert is like the mastermind behind the series. He still creates adventure games to this day. And they're all pretty good, but the genre is kind of niche these days. It wasn't niche back then. It was just as big as action or soulslike games are today. The Monkey Island titles were probably the most successful or popular ones of the bunch. But there are some others which are equally good. Adventure games are rare these days but basically they are like puzzle games where you have to solve certain situations by combining items, finding items in the first place, trying different approaches, and so on. You kind of know once you've overcome a challenge when you were able to progress further in the game. There's little to no handholding, but also little to no handholding needed. There's one timing-based riddle in the original Monkey Island which I never liked that much, but it's still a funny one. It's not hard but it doesn't really fit the genre well because nothing else is timing-based. It does fit the game's art, setting and humor well though. The soundtrack is nice indeed. This is probably the most well-known track: https://invidious.nerdvpn.de/watch?v=FoT5qK6hpbw

Yes.

If you still want to play such "modern" games loaded with spyware, I recommend a dedicated only-for-gaming PC (running Linux of course*) using a different IP address than your main system (probably a notebook), for example by using a VPN on one but not the other. I'd recommend using the VPN for the gaming machine, it's less of a risk there, it allows for easy circumvention of geo-blocking, etc. If you need to access some services (e.g. chat) from both machines, create a separate account for it. Don't share account credentials between machines. In fact, act as if the gaming machine is permanently infected with random stuff "required" for modern games, and isolate it accordingly. This is just an idea how to mitigate those problems and don't let them creep into to your real machine where non-game-related data could leak out as a result. But you're still going to support the developer doing this which is not recommended.

*) Why still no Windows, in this isolated case, you ask? Well, because it's important to fight MS' monopoly on gaming machines, so don't support it by running it and contributing to its marketshare. Instead, run Linux and enjoy watching Windows' sinking market share. In fact, if you can, don't support such games either by not playing them, that would be the ideal solution. But this is written under the presumption that you or your friends still want to play it and you kind of feel left out otherwise.