On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 23:00:15 -0500, Paul wrote:
>
> On 2/19/2022 8:41 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
>
> > Tomorrow morning I am going to cut My hair, a one eight inch buzz cut,
> > ( yes, I have been cutting my own hair for the last 12 years)
> >
> > Rene
>
> You'll probably get a better haircut than I get at the barbers now.
>
> The 75 year old barber "retired" when COVID came along. Now all
> you get is the "barber shop graduates" :-) They even bring their
> own bowl.

I use this $20 trimmer to do my buzz cut and beard trim:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01K1HPA60

It does a decent job, and I don't have to go into a barber shop. None
of the barbers in town wear masks, and most of the customers don't
either, so it's ether cut my hair myself or join a cult.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

Mayayana wrote:
> "...w¡ñ§±¤ñ" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote
>
> | Monetization is nothing more than the result of obtaining revenue from
> | any given product.
> |
> Yes. Amking money. Why do you need all the terminology
> to say that?
>
> | It's not what was tried and succeeded or failed, the platforms and
> | products that supported the success and failures created revenue.
> |
>
> MSO and Windows monopolies made money. Period. Again,
> why the convoltued statement? They profited from monopolies.
> Now thet also profit from Azure and gaming. The rest was pretty
> much all a loss. They've been trying to do cloud and they've
> stupendously failed, for 25 years. Locking down the system
> is their strategy now. You made it sound like this has been
> business as usual for 25 years. I'm running XP and 7 here, as
> well as occasional Win10. I've never had any contact at all with
> any kind of MS cloud or their store.
>
> | Windows 11 with or without a required MSA logon, like all o/s before
> | is/has already been monetized.
> |
>
> You're not making sense. The point is that the progressive lockdown
> is aimed at having a captive audience and charging for software
> usage. Windows itself is likely to convert to rental and/or
> ad-supported. That's a radical development, as Win10 forced
> updates were also a radical development. That has nothing to
> do with hotmail or active desktop. You sound like RabidRoach,
> twisting facts to make it sound like nothing has changed.
>
>
Doesn't matter, the question proposed earlier was how MSFT would
monetize with an MSA required for Windows 11.

How or as a result of an MSA for Win11 isn't relevant. The o/s is
already monetized.
Anything changed falls under the same umbrella.

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

On 2/20/2022 3:16 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 23:00:15 -0500, Paul wrote:
>>
>> On 2/19/2022 8:41 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
>>
>>> Tomorrow morning I am going to cut My hair, a one eight inch buzz cut,
>>> ( yes, I have been cutting my own hair for the last 12 years)
>>>
>>> Rene
>>
>> You'll probably get a better haircut than I get at the barbers now.
>>
>> The 75 year old barber "retired" when COVID came along. Now all
>> you get is the "barber shop graduates" :-) They even bring their
>> own bowl.
>
> I use this $20 trimmer to do my buzz cut and beard trim:
>
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01K1HPA60
>
> It does a decent job, and I don't have to go into a barber shop. None
> of the barbers in town wear masks, and most of the customers don't
> either, so it's ether cut my hair myself or join a cult.

Of course, someone with opposing views might say you already have.
Which is why one should refrain from posting this type of off-topic opinion.

On 2022-02-20 3:04 p.m., Bill wrote:
> On 2/19/2022 4:52 PM, rabidR04CH wrote:
>
>> Absolutely none of what Microsoft is doing is illegal and even if it
>> were, you agreed to it when you first set up your computer or
>> installed Windows. Nobody is obligated to buy Office, to install
>> Office or even to use the web Office apps. Nobody is forced to use
>> Edge either. Hell, you're not even forced to use the Microsoft Store.
>>
>>
>
> Of course, there is a difference between illegal and
> immoral/unethical...  And there is something to be said about using your
> monopolistic position in a market to push things in a direction that
> takes away the freedoms that people enjoy.  The "Internet" was invented
> and paid for by the US government.  It is "ours", not the property of
> Google or MS, and I think it is very important to not forget that as we
> access to it "thwarted".

The absolute worst thing that happened to the Internet is corporations
took an interest in it. However, the Internet also wouldn't have
survived for very long without their interest.

--
rabidR04CH
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Windows 11
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 2/20/2022 8:57 PM, rabidR04CH wrote:
> On 2022-02-20 3:04 p.m., Bill wrote:
>> On 2/19/2022 4:52 PM, rabidR04CH wrote:
>>
>>> Absolutely none of what Microsoft is doing is illegal and even if it
>>> were, you agreed to it when you first set up your computer or
>>> installed Windows. Nobody is obligated to buy Office, to install
>>> Office or even to use the web Office apps. Nobody is forced to use
>>> Edge either. Hell, you're not even forced to use the Microsoft Store.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Of course, there is a difference between illegal and
>> immoral/unethical...  And there is something to be said about using
>> your monopolistic position in a market to push things in a direction
>> that takes away the freedoms that people enjoy.  The "Internet" was
>> invented and paid for by the US government.  It is "ours", not the
>> property of Google or MS, and I think it is very important to not
>> forget that as we access to it "thwarted".
>
> The absolute worst thing that happened to the Internet is corporations
> took an interest in it. However, the Internet also wouldn't have
> survived for very long without their interest.
>

I don't buy your last sentence. The Internet might be different, and it
might not be in every household, but it would have survived just fine.
It was in operation before it became popular.

On 2/20/2022 8:57 PM, rabidR04CH wrote:

> However, the Internet also wouldn't have survived for very long without their interest.

At $7000 per month for a quarter of a DS1 (1.544 megabits per second divided by 4),
no, it could not possibly have survived :-) That's what my company was paying
for an Internet connection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Signal_1

It just meant, that those who needed it, paid commercial prices.

If you were connected to Internet2 today, you'd probably notice
rather expensive connections too. But then, the links are running
100Gbit/sec. And the participants have multiple of them. That's how
the data from a certain particle accelerator, gets distributed
to physicists who are off-site.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN#Large_Hadron_Collider

Paul

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 00:30:51 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

>On 2/20/2022 8:57 PM, rabidR04CH wrote:
>
>> However, the Internet also wouldn't have survived for very long without their interest.
>
>At $7000 per month for a quarter of a DS1 (1.544 megabits per second divided by 4),
>no, it could not possibly have survived :-) That's what my company was paying
>for an Internet connection.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Signal_1
>
>It just meant, that those who needed it, paid commercial prices.

I have to remember that you're talking about Canadian dollars, but even
so the difference is dramatic. Somewhere around 1998-1999 I was asked by
a client to get a quote for a full T1 and a full T3 (DS1 and DS3,
respectively). The T1 was $300 a month and I think the T3 was $700 a
month. $7000 for a fractional T1 seems excessive. Of course, these days
there might not even be a market for such things. The last time I worked
with a client who had a dedicated circuit was about 2003, +-. Since
then, everyone seems to be using business connections w/SLA from
well-known ISPs, frequently multiple ISPs where I get to configure link
load balancing, redundancy, and failover.

On 2022-02-21 00:30, Paul wrote:
> On 2/20/2022 8:57 PM, rabidR04CH wrote:
>
>> However, the Internet also wouldn't have survived for very long
>> without their interest.
>
> At $7000 per month for a quarter of a DS1 (1.544 megabits per second
> divided by 4),
> no, it could not possibly have survived :-) That's what my company was
> paying
> for an Internet connection.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Signal_1
>
> It just meant, that those who needed it, paid commercial prices.
>
> If you were connected to Internet2 today, you'd probably notice
> rather expensive connections too. But then, the links are running
> 100Gbit/sec. And the participants have multiple of them. That's how
> the data from a certain particle accelerator, gets distributed
> to physicists who are off-site.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet2
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN#Large_Hadron_Collider

So, as annoying as the corporate presence on the Internet is and how
intrusive their ads are, they are a necessary evil if people want to see
their connectivity prices drop, the web content to be fresh and
immersive and the Internet in general to be rock solid.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

"Bill" <nonegiven@att.net> wrote

|> However, the Internet also wouldn't have
| > survived for very long without their interest.
| >
| | I don't buy your last sentence. The Internet might be different, and it
| might not be in every household, but it would have survived just fine.
| It was in operation before it became popular.

That idea that it has to be commercial is the same red
herring argument that the Brave browser people make.
They reason that the Internet can only survive with targetted
ads and spying, so they propose that they'll act as a
middleman, websites will sign up with them, and you'll get
paid a tiny fee for watching ads you want to see. They
figure the promise of a penny here or there will get them
customers to fleece. And it's working.

It's like a developer who says, "Look, this park is not
making you any money. It's useless. Let me build a mall."
It's true that the park is useless in terms of making
money for the developer, but it's not useless.

On 2/21/2022 2:58 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 00:30:51 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2/20/2022 8:57 PM, rabidR04CH wrote:
>>
>>> However, the Internet also wouldn't have survived for very long without their interest.
>>
>> At $7000 per month for a quarter of a DS1 (1.544 megabits per second divided by 4),
>> no, it could not possibly have survived :-) That's what my company was paying
>> for an Internet connection.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Signal_1
>>
>> It just meant, that those who needed it, paid commercial prices.
>
> I have to remember that you're talking about Canadian dollars, but even
> so the difference is dramatic. Somewhere around 1998-1999 I was asked by
> a client to get a quote for a full T1 and a full T3 (DS1 and DS3,
> respectively). The T1 was $300 a month and I think the T3 was $700 a
> month. $7000 for a fractional T1 seems excessive. Of course, these days
> there might not even be a market for such things. The last time I worked
> with a client who had a dedicated circuit was about 2003, +-. Since
> then, everyone seems to be using business connections w/SLA from
> well-known ISPs, frequently multiple ISPs where I get to configure link
> load balancing, redundancy, and failover.
>

Well, at the time, somebody in IT wanted to impress upon us,
just what a limited resource we had. I think that's why the
dollar number was made available.

I don't think the number was fabricated. And the fact they didn't
just buy a full T1, tells you something. The excessive price,
it's fractional, seems consistent.

For the price, they probably could have lashed together a
hundred AOL CDs, and got a better rate :-)

Paul

On 2022-02-21 11:25, Mayayana wrote:
> "Bill" <nonegiven@att.net> wrote
>
> |> However, the Internet also wouldn't have
> | > survived for very long without their interest.
> | >
> |
> | I don't buy your last sentence. The Internet might be different, and it
> | might not be in every household, but it would have survived just fine.
> | It was in operation before it became popular.
>
> That idea that it has to be commercial is the same red
> herring argument that the Brave browser people make.
> They reason that the Internet can only survive with targetted
> ads and spying, so they propose that they'll act as a
> middleman, websites will sign up with them, and you'll get
> paid a tiny fee for watching ads you want to see. They
> figure the promise of a penny here or there will get them
> customers to fleece. And it's working.

I think that everyone who browses the web, including the people such as
myself who do so with Brave, understand that ads are a necessity to
support the site. The problem, however, is that they are often not just
ads but malware delivery systems. If there was some sort of assurance
that we would, at worst, be mildly annoyed then we would all be using
the mainstream browsers and keeping our mouths shut. Nevertheless, since
we are instead forced to invest in decent anti-virus protection to
venture onto a site, some of us have decided to subscribe to Brendan
Eich's new vision for the web through Brave. We choose to get ads to
make sure that there is something to contribute to the sites we visit.
Most of the sites I visit have signed up to Brave's program and
therefore they get compensated; those who haven't, don't... but that's
not our fault. We want to help out but we won't do so at the risk of our
hardware being compromised and that is why Brave is a better approach.

< snip >

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 2/21/2022 8:12 AM, rabidR04CH wrote:

> So, as annoying as the corporate presence on the Internet is and how
> intrusive their ads are, they are a necessary evil if people want to see
> their connectivity prices drop, the web content to be fresh and
> immersive and the Internet in general to be rock solid.
>
>

That sounds more like a political statement than a documented fact.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:16:36 -0800, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 23:00:15 -0500, Paul wrote:
>>
>> On 2/19/2022 8:41 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
>>
>> > Tomorrow morning I am going to cut My hair, a one eight inch buzz cut,
>> > ( yes, I have been cutting my own hair for the last 12 years)
>> >
>> > Rene
>>
>> You'll probably get a better haircut than I get at the barbers now.
>>
>> The 75 year old barber "retired" when COVID came along. Now all
>> you get is the "barber shop graduates" :-) They even bring their
>> own bowl.
>
>I use this $20 trimmer to do my buzz cut and beard trim:
>
>https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01K1HPA60
>
>It does a decent job, and I don't have to go into a barber shop.

Twenty or so years ago, I had a similar device and used to cut my own
hair. But I stopped and decided to use a barber. If I looked at myself
in the mirror, I also thought I did a decent job. But I couldn't see
the back of my head in the AmiPro.

>None
>of the barbers in town wear masks, and most of the customers don't
>either, so it's ether cut my hair myself or join a cult.

My barber wears a mask.

On 2/21/2022 12:24 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:16:36 -0800, Stan Brown
> <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>> None of the barbers in town wear masks, and most of the customers don't
>> either, so it's ether cut my hair myself or join a cult.
>
> My barber wears a mask.

Ours still do. We wear masks in the mall too.

And we put our masks on in the parking lot, at -20C.
With the wind blowing. That's why I have good
color in my cheeks, all that "fresh air experience".

Paul

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 10:24:01 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:16:36 -0800, Stan Brown
><the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 23:00:15 -0500, Paul wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/19/2022 8:41 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
>>>
>>> > Tomorrow morning I am going to cut My hair, a one eight inch buzz cut,
>>> > ( yes, I have been cutting my own hair for the last 12 years)
>>> >
>>> > Rene
>>>
>>> You'll probably get a better haircut than I get at the barbers now.
>>>
>>> The 75 year old barber "retired" when COVID came along. Now all
>>> you get is the "barber shop graduates" :-) They even bring their
>>> own bowl.
>>
>>I use this $20 trimmer to do my buzz cut and beard trim:
>>
>>https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01K1HPA60
>>
>>It does a decent job, and I don't have to go into a barber shop.
>
>
>Twenty or so years ago, I had a similar device and used to cut my own
>hair. But I stopped and decided to use a barber. If I looked at myself
>in the mirror, I also thought I did a decent job. But I couldn't see
>the back of my head in the AmiPro.

A strange typo--must have been caused by automatic correction of
spelling.

Should have been "...in the mirror," of course.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 08:49:33 -0500, rabidR04CH wrote:

> Which is basically most people. I work in a field where I am exposed to
> the generations after Generation X and I can tell you that these people
> have neither the technical understanding nor the patience to change
> operating systems.

Yes, this appliance culture goes with the throwaway society. And who
wants to spend time fettling their system when they could be doing
other things more productive or enjoyable. I'm sure the marketeers
understood this years ago, but never managed to convince the
engineers that most people CGAF what goes on under the hood, as long
as the 'experience' is right.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 12:09:34 -0500, Bill wrote:

> On 2/21/2022 8:12 AM, rabidR04CH wrote:
>
>> So, as annoying as the corporate presence on the Internet is and how
>> intrusive their ads are, they are a necessary evil if people want to see
>> their connectivity prices drop, the web content to be fresh and
>> immersive and the Internet in general to be rock solid.
>>
>
> That sounds more like a political statement than a documented fact.

That's as maybe, my hackles rise when I see the words '...Internet
in general to be rock solid'. After a recent three weeks enforced
loss of service following a simple problem with a 'back hoe' I view
the Internet as anything BUT rock solid.

On 2022-02-21 12:09, Bill wrote:
> On 2/21/2022 8:12 AM, rabidR04CH wrote:
>
>> So, as annoying as the corporate presence on the Internet is and how
>> intrusive their ads are, they are a necessary evil if people want to
>> see their connectivity prices drop, the web content to be fresh and
>> immersive and the Internet in general to be rock solid.
>>
>>
>
> That sounds more like a political statement than a documented fact.

It's both, in a way. It's clear that had the corporate world not taken
an interest in the Internet, connections would be more expensive,
slower, there'd be fewer websites which would be harder to find, the
content would be less immersive, and so on. As bad as corporate anything
is, a complete lack of investment from them is just as bad.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 2/21/2022 1:48 PM, rabidR04CH wrote:
> On 2022-02-21 12:09, Bill wrote:
>> On 2/21/2022 8:12 AM, rabidR04CH wrote:
>>
>>> So, as annoying as the corporate presence on the Internet is and how
>>> intrusive their ads are, they are a necessary evil if people want to
>>> see their connectivity prices drop, the web content to be fresh and
>>> immersive and the Internet in general to be rock solid.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That sounds more like a political statement than a documented fact.
>
> It's both, in a way. It's clear that had the corporate world not taken
> an interest in the Internet, connections would be more expensive,
> slower, there'd be fewer websites which would be harder to find, the
> content would be less immersive, and so on. As bad as corporate anything
> is, a complete lack of investment from them is just as bad.
>

I may be biased. I think that corporations are amoral entities with too
many privileges. Someone needs to go to jail when they commit an
offense. You speak as though they are a "necessity". But I don't wish to
divert the thread.

On 2022-02-21 14:07, Bill wrote:
> On 2/21/2022 1:48 PM, rabidR04CH wrote:
>> On 2022-02-21 12:09, Bill wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2022 8:12 AM, rabidR04CH wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, as annoying as the corporate presence on the Internet is and how
>>>> intrusive their ads are, they are a necessary evil if people want to
>>>> see their connectivity prices drop, the web content to be fresh and
>>>> immersive and the Internet in general to be rock solid.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> That sounds more like a political statement than a documented fact.
>>
>> It's both, in a way. It's clear that had the corporate world not taken
>> an interest in the Internet, connections would be more expensive,
>> slower, there'd be fewer websites which would be harder to find, the
>> content would be less immersive, and so on. As bad as corporate
>> anything is, a complete lack of investment from them is just as bad.
>>
>
> I may be biased. I think that corporations are amoral entities with too
> many privileges.  Someone needs to go to jail when they commit an
> offense. You speak as though they are a "necessity". But I don't wish to > divert the thread.

If they were removed from the equation, I don't believe that many of the
sites we use today would be available to us. If they were, they'd
probably not be as functional as they are. Our connections would also be
more expensive and I wouldn't be surprised if there were data caps as well.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 2022-02-18 17:25, NewsKrawler wrote:
> https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/18/22940517/windows-11-pro-require-microsoft-account-internet-connection
> Windows 11 Pro will soon require a Microsoft Account
>
> You'll also need an internet connection during setup.
>
> Microsoft says it's planning to update Windows 11 Pro so it will require an
> internet connection and a Microsoft Account during the initial setup phase.
> The changes will mirror the same requirements Microsoft originally added to
> Windows 11 Home last year, meaning you won't be able to avoid Microsoft
> Accounts by creating a local user account during setup.
>
> Microsoft has been increasingly pushing Windows users to use a Microsoft
> Account since Windows 10, and this new change to Windows 11 Pro won't sit
> well with many hoping to avoid Microsoft's data and telemetry gathering in
> Windows.
>
> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/02/new-preview-build-adds-microsoft-account-requirement-to-windows-11-pro/
> You'll need a Microsoft account to set up future versions of Windows 11 Pro
>
> Tucked away toward the bottom of the changelog is one unwelcome addition:
> like the Home edition of Windows 11, the Pro version will now require an
> Internet connection and a Microsoft account during setup. In the current
> version of Windows 11, you could still create a local user account during
> setup by not connecting your PC to the Internet-something that also worked
> in the Home version of Windows 10 but was removed in 11. That workaround
> will no longer be available in either edition going forward, barring a
> change in Microsoft's plans.

Can you create one such account initially, then create a local admin and
a local plain user, and use those after that point, never using the
Microsoft Account ever again?

If this is possible, can you log to the local accounts without an
internet connection?

What could be the caveats of having an unused MA?

Just curious. My own machines are double boot Windows 10 / Linux and do
not want to upgrade to 11. But sometimes I have to maintain Windows
machines for other people.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2/21/2022 2:36 PM, rabidR04CH wrote:
> On 2022-02-21 14:07, Bill wrote:
>> On 2/21/2022 1:48 PM, rabidR04CH wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-21 12:09, Bill wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/2022 8:12 AM, rabidR04CH wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, as annoying as the corporate presence on the Internet is and
>>>>> how intrusive their ads are, they are a necessary evil if people
>>>>> want to see their connectivity prices drop, the web content to be
>>>>> fresh and immersive and the Internet in general to be rock solid.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That sounds more like a political statement than a documented fact.
>>>
>>> It's both, in a way. It's clear that had the corporate world not
>>> taken an interest in the Internet, connections would be more
>>> expensive, slower, there'd be fewer websites which would be harder to
>>> find, the content would be less immersive, and so on. As bad as
>>> corporate anything is, a complete lack of investment from them is
>>> just as bad.
>>>
>>
>> I may be biased. I think that corporations are amoral entities with
>> too many privileges.  Someone needs to go to jail when they commit an
>> offense. You speak as though they are a "necessity". But I don't wish
>> to  > divert the thread.
>
> If they were removed from the equation, I don't believe that many of the
> sites we use today would be available to us. If they were, they'd
> probably not be as functional as they are. Our connections would also be
> more expensive and I wouldn't be surprised if there were data caps as well.
>

Gasp! Horrors!!! : )

On 2/21/2022 3:10 PM, Joel wrote:
> rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch> wrote:
>> On 2022-02-21 14:07, Bill wrote:
>>>
>>> I may be biased. I think that corporations are amoral entities with too
>>> many privileges.  Someone needs to go to jail when they commit an
>>> offense. You speak as though they are a "necessity". But I don't wish to > divert the thread.
>>
>> If they were removed from the equation, I don't believe that many of the
>> sites we use today would be available to us. If they were, they'd
>> probably not be as functional as they are. Our connections would also be
>> more expensive and I wouldn't be surprised if there were data caps as well.
>
>
> Yeah, whining about big tech and corporations is silly. It's just the
> way the world operates, I say embrace it.
>

Who is whining? You say "embrace it". Embrace societal values? No thank
you very much! I don't cuss, drink or gamble.

On 2022-02-21, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, whining about big tech and corporations is silly. It's just the
> way the world operates, I say embrace it.

I believe that accepting their invasiveness is silly. There is zero reason
to trust any of them, particularly Microsoft which has a very checkered
history.

If you want your PC to be a node on Microsoft's network that's your
choice. I reject it. I don't use operating systems or applications
from any of the large tech companies and have no login accounts with
them. (Have never had a Microsoft account, for example, and never will
have one. Ditto for Google and Apple.) And no, I do not have an Android
or iOS phone.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 2022-02-21, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> Can you create one such account initially, then create a local admin and
> a local plain user, and use those after that point, never using the
> Microsoft Account ever again?
>
> If this is possible, can you log to the local accounts without an
> internet connection?

From what I've read it is possible, and there are also workarounds to
the initial requirement to log into a Microsoft account but I expect
those loopholes will be closed at some point.

https://gizpie.com/install-windows-11-without-microsoft-account/

https://www.thurrott.com/forums/microsoft/windows/thread/how-to-skip-microsoft-account-setup-in-windows-11-home-oobe

https://pureinfotech.com/install-windows-11-home-without-microsoft-account/

> Just curious. My own machines are double boot Windows 10 / Linux and do
> not want to upgrade to 11. But sometimes I have to maintain Windows
> machines for other people.

I'm in the same boat of maintaining Windows for other people, though I do
not use Windows or other Microsoft products at my home or office. I have
not decided yet whether to bail out on supporting Windows 11, depends on
how much of a PITA it turns into. (Early encounters with Win11 are not
encouraging.)

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------