From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

To all those Windows hackers who are so proud of their ability to
install Windows 11 on setups that Microsoft doesnrCOt officially support
-- tough luck. The company keeps on tightening the screws with every
new Windows 11 build <https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/10/microsoft-removes-even-more-microsoft-account-workarounds-from-windows-11-build/>:

In a new update released to the Dev channel of the Windows Insider
Preview program yesterday (build number 26220.6772), Microsoft
announced it was "removing known mechanisms for creating a local
account in the Windows Setup experience (OOBE)." Microsoft says
that these workarounds "inadvertently skip critical setup screens,
potentially causing users to exit OOBE with a device that is not
fully configured for use."

However,

It's unclear what "critical setup screens" Microsoft is referring
to; when using the workarounds to create a local account, the
Windows setup assistant still shows you all the screens you need
for creating an account and a password, plus toggling a few basic
privacy settings. Signing in with a Microsoft account does add
multiple screens to this process thoughrCothese screens will attempt
to sell you Microsoft 365 and Xbox Game Pass subscriptions, and to
opt you into features like the data-scraping Windows Recall on PCs
that support it. I would not describe any of these as "critical"
from a user's perspective, but my priorities are not Microsoft's
priorities.

Yup, rCLcriticalrCY as in rCLcritical to MicrosoftrCOs revenue-generation operationsrCY. The fact that you paid them money for Windows itself just isnrCOt enough any more.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 23:26 this Tuesday (GMT):

To all those Windows hackers who are so proud of their ability to
install Windows 11 on setups that Microsoft doesnrCOt officially support
-- tough luck. The company keeps on tightening the screws with every
new Windows 11 build
<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/10/microsoft-removes-even-more-microsoft-account-workarounds-from-windows-11-build/>:

In a new update released to the Dev channel of the Windows Insider
Preview program yesterday (build number 26220.6772), Microsoft
announced it was "removing known mechanisms for creating a local
account in the Windows Setup experience (OOBE)." Microsoft says
that these workarounds "inadvertently skip critical setup screens,
potentially causing users to exit OOBE with a device that is not
fully configured for use."

However,

It's unclear what "critical setup screens" Microsoft is referring
to; when using the workarounds to create a local account, the
Windows setup assistant still shows you all the screens you need
for creating an account and a password, plus toggling a few basic
privacy settings. Signing in with a Microsoft account does add
multiple screens to this process thoughrCothese screens will attempt
to sell you Microsoft 365 and Xbox Game Pass subscriptions, and to
opt you into features like the data-scraping Windows Recall on PCs
that support it. I would not describe any of these as "critical"
from a user's perspective, but my priorities are not Microsoft's
priorities.

Yup, rCLcriticalrCY as in rCLcritical to MicrosoftrCOs revenue-generation operationsrCY. The fact that you paid them money for Windows itself just isnrCOt enough any more.

Love it when the statement is vauge enough to scare off people from
not doing what they want...
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 17:50:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

Love it when the statement is vauge enough to scare off people from
not doing what they want...

The term for that is rCLFUDrCY, as in rCLFear, Uncertainty and DoubtrCY. Found a
way to avoid giving us money? Perhaps by buying a competitorrCOs products? DonrCOt do it, because you have such a nice business going there, it would
be a shame if anything happened to it.

Microsoft used to be the master of that, back in the 1990s or so. And IBM
a decade or two (or three) before them.

Thankfully, both are long past that point.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Lawrence D Oliveiro wrote:

To all those Windows hackers who are so proud of their ability to
install Windows 11 on setups that Microsoft doesnAt officially support
-- tough luck. The company keeps on tightening the screws with every
new Windows 11 build ><https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/10/microsoft-removes-even-more-microsoft-account-workarounds-from-windows-11-build/>:

In a new update released to the Dev channel of the Windows Insider
Preview program yesterday (build number 26220.6772), Microsoft
announced it was "removing known mechanisms for creating a local
account in the Windows Setup experience (OOBE)." Microsoft says
that these workarounds "inadvertently skip critical setup screens,
potentially causing users to exit OOBE with a device that is not
fully configured for use."

Nothing about taking-away the ability to avoid the M$ account with
Pro. M$ can't do that. Businesses would object.

For Home users, probably the "Rufus workaround" will remain.
--
"That's 4 for 4 whining on money, yet we're somehow supposed to
believe that no Linux fanboy considers cost a factor on Linux
'superiority'" - lying asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 10/7/2025 7:26 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

To all those Windows hackers who are so proud of their ability to
install Windows 11 on setups that Microsoft doesnrCOt officially support
-- tough luck. The company keeps on tightening the screws with every
new Windows 11 build <https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/10/microsoft-removes-even-more-microsoft-account-workarounds-from-windows-11-build/>:

In a new update released to the Dev channel of the Windows Insider
Preview program yesterday (build number 26220.6772), Microsoft
announced it was "removing known mechanisms for creating a local
account in the Windows Setup experience (OOBE)." Microsoft says
that these workarounds "inadvertently skip critical setup screens,
potentially causing users to exit OOBE with a device that is not
fully configured for use."

However,

It's unclear what "critical setup screens" Microsoft is referring
to; when using the workarounds to create a local account, the
Windows setup assistant still shows you all the screens you need
for creating an account and a password, plus toggling a few basic
privacy settings. Signing in with a Microsoft account does add
multiple screens to this process thoughrCothese screens will attempt
to sell you Microsoft 365 and Xbox Game Pass subscriptions, and to
opt you into features like the data-scraping Windows Recall on PCs
that support it. I would not describe any of these as "critical"
from a user's perspective, but my priorities are not Microsoft's
priorities.

Yup, rCLcriticalrCY as in rCLcritical to MicrosoftrCOs revenue-generation operationsrCY. The fact that you paid them money for Windows itself just isnrCOt enough any more.

I guess I could understand if people want the option to use a local
account. Not really, but I get why they would at least. But MS has a
fair point about how it also circumvents other setup screens, all this
crap where people modify a commercial OS doesn't make a lot of sense,
it's perversity at the end of the day. If you want that kind of
control, why in God's name would you even use *Microsoft's* OS?! This
is why I happily log in with my MS account.
--
Joel W. Crump
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Fri, 10/10/2025 6:17 PM, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 10/7/2025 7:26 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

To all those Windows hackers who are so proud of their ability to
install Windows 11 on setups that Microsoft doesnrCOt officially support
-- tough luck. The company keeps on tightening the screws with every
new Windows 11 build
<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/10/microsoft-removes-even-more-microsoft-account-workarounds-from-windows-11-build/>:

-a-a-a-a In a new update released to the Dev channel of the Windows Insider >> -a-a-a-a Preview program yesterday (build number 26220.6772), Microsoft
-a-a-a-a announced it was "removing known mechanisms for creating a local
-a-a-a-a account in the Windows Setup experience (OOBE)." Microsoft says
-a-a-a-a that these workarounds "inadvertently skip critical setup screens, >> -a-a-a-a potentially causing users to exit OOBE with a device that is not
-a-a-a-a fully configured for use."

However,

-a-a-a-a It's unclear what "critical setup screens" Microsoft is referring >> -a-a-a-a to; when using the workarounds to create a local account, the
-a-a-a-a Windows setup assistant still shows you all the screens you need
-a-a-a-a for creating an account and a password, plus toggling a few basic >> -a-a-a-a privacy settings. Signing in with a Microsoft account does add
-a-a-a-a multiple screens to this process thoughrCothese screens will attempt
-a-a-a-a to sell you Microsoft 365 and Xbox Game Pass subscriptions, and to >> -a-a-a-a opt you into features like the data-scraping Windows Recall on PCs >> -a-a-a-a that support it. I would not describe any of these as "critical"
-a-a-a-a from a user's perspective, but my priorities are not Microsoft's
-a-a-a-a priorities.

Yup, rCLcriticalrCY as in rCLcritical to MicrosoftrCOs revenue-generation
operationsrCY. The fact that you paid them money for Windows itself just
isnrCOt enough any more.

I guess I could understand if people want the option to use a local account.-a Not really, but I get why they would at least.-a But MS has a fair point about how it also circumvents other setup screens, all this crap where people modify a commercial OS doesn't make a lot of sense, it's perversity at the end of the day.-a If you want that kind of control, why in God's name would you even use *Microsoft's* OS?!-a This is why I happily log in with my MS account.

An Operating System, is a layer present on a computer as an
"enabler for user-executed programs", a kind of Executive.

It's not an end unto itself. It is not a FlappyBirds/Netflix/DisneyPlus Box. It's not a Commercial HitchARide And Screw You End User box either.

*******

The reason for *starting* with a Local Account after installation, is
so you control the name used on your profile folder.

I want to be C:\Users\Paul and I want to control that directly, not be
sleigh of hand. The Microsoft way, I present an email address such
as CrazyClown@gmail.com and Microsoft carves off the first five
characters of the email, and my profile on first usage becomes

C:\Users\crazy # And I'm crazy forever

which is "not attractive" as I didn't have the control. If my email
was PaulWatson@gmail.com, my profile becomes

C:\Users\paulw

which may not entirely please me either.

Microsoft could have had their cake, plus a big mug of beer,
if the OOBE box went like this:

email address: CrazyClown@gmail.com
preferred profile name: Paul

and then we would both win. But that's too too simple, now isn't it.

"Why meet people half way, when you can punch, slap, and kick them"

When Microsoft removed the "X" in the upper right corner of Metro.Apps
in Windows 8.0, they put the "X" back in Windows 8.1 . See ? They
are capable of learning from mistakes. One of the favorite moments of
that era, was a video taken of a mature dude sitting in front of a
Microsoft provided product evaluation computer, and when he is
stuck in the Metro.App without the "X" in the corner, the dude
has this "deer in the headlights" moment. He just... doesn't
know what to do. Just stares at the screen and stares at the screen.
Too funny.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 00:01:02 -0400, Paul wrote:

Microsoft could have had their cake, plus a big mug of beer,
if the OOBE box went like this:

email address: CrazyClown@gmail.com preferred profile
name: Paul

and then we would both win. But that's too too simple, now isn't it.

Do people who come up with these suggestions for ways that Microsoft could make their products better ever think that they might be talking to themselves?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Sat, 10/11/2025 12:53 AM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 00:01:02 -0400, Paul wrote:

Microsoft could have had their cake, plus a big mug of beer,
if the OOBE box went like this:

email address: CrazyClown@gmail.com preferred profile
name: Paul

and then we would both win. But that's too too simple, now isn't it.

Do people who come up with these suggestions for ways that Microsoft could make their products better ever think that they might be talking to themselves?

Most of the weirdness, comes from Executive compensation and
bonuses awarded for achievements. "If you get a billion
users to cough up their email addresses and make themselves
track-able and suited to targeted advertising... we give
you a NEW CAR, yes we do."

I guess a billion users using a@a.a or a@a.com does not count :-)

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 10/11/2025 12:01 AM, Paul wrote:

On Fri, 10/10/2025 6:17 PM, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 10/7/2025 7:26 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

To all those Windows hackers who are so proud of their ability to
install Windows 11 on setups that Microsoft doesnrCOt officially support >>> -- tough luck. The company keeps on tightening the screws with every
new Windows 11 build
<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/10/microsoft-removes-even-more-microsoft-account-workarounds-from-windows-11-build/>:

-a-a-a-a In a new update released to the Dev channel of the Windows Insider
-a-a-a-a Preview program yesterday (build number 26220.6772), Microsoft >>> -a-a-a-a announced it was "removing known mechanisms for creating a local >>> -a-a-a-a account in the Windows Setup experience (OOBE)." Microsoft says >>> -a-a-a-a that these workarounds "inadvertently skip critical setup screens,
-a-a-a-a potentially causing users to exit OOBE with a device that is not >>> -a-a-a-a fully configured for use."

However,

-a-a-a-a It's unclear what "critical setup screens" Microsoft is referring >>> -a-a-a-a to; when using the workarounds to create a local account, the
-a-a-a-a Windows setup assistant still shows you all the screens you need >>> -a-a-a-a for creating an account and a password, plus toggling a few basic >>> -a-a-a-a privacy settings. Signing in with a Microsoft account does add >>> -a-a-a-a multiple screens to this process thoughrCothese screens will attempt
-a-a-a-a to sell you Microsoft 365 and Xbox Game Pass subscriptions, and to
-a-a-a-a opt you into features like the data-scraping Windows Recall on PCs
-a-a-a-a that support it. I would not describe any of these as "critical" >>> -a-a-a-a from a user's perspective, but my priorities are not Microsoft's >>> -a-a-a-a priorities.

Yup, rCLcriticalrCY as in rCLcritical to MicrosoftrCOs revenue-generation >>> operationsrCY. The fact that you paid them money for Windows itself just >>> isnrCOt enough any more.

I guess I could understand if people want the option to use a local account.-a Not really, but I get why they would at least.-a But MS has a fair point about how it also circumvents other setup screens, all this crap where people modify a commercial OS doesn't make a lot of sense, it's perversity at the end of the day.-a If you want that kind of control, why in God's name would you even use *Microsoft's* OS?!-a This is why I happily log in with my MS account.

An Operating System, is a layer present on a computer as an
"enabler for user-executed programs", a kind of Executive.

It's not an end unto itself. It is not a FlappyBirds/Netflix/DisneyPlus Box. It's not a Commercial HitchARide And Screw You End User box either.

*******

The reason for *starting* with a Local Account after installation, is
so you control the name used on your profile folder.

I want to be C:\Users\Paul and I want to control that directly, not be
sleigh of hand. The Microsoft way, I present an email address such
as CrazyClown@gmail.com and Microsoft carves off the first five
characters of the email, and my profile on first usage becomes

C:\Users\crazy # And I'm crazy forever

which is "not attractive" as I didn't have the control. If my email
was PaulWatson@gmail.com, my profile becomes

C:\Users\paulw

which may not entirely please me either.

Microsoft could have had their cake, plus a big mug of beer,
if the OOBE box went like this:

email address: CrazyClown@gmail.com
preferred profile name: Paul

and then we would both win. But that's too too simple, now isn't it.

Ah, I too noticed that my account name was rather arbitrary. But then
again it's just pixels on a screen, it works, so I just let it be. The OCD-ness about that seems unnecessary, from my point of view.

"Why meet people half way, when you can punch, slap, and kick them"

When Microsoft removed the "X" in the upper right corner of Metro.Apps
in Windows 8.0, they put the "X" back in Windows 8.1 . See ? They
are capable of learning from mistakes. One of the favorite moments of
that era, was a video taken of a mature dude sitting in front of a
Microsoft provided product evaluation computer, and when he is
stuck in the Metro.App without the "X" in the corner, the dude
has this "deer in the headlights" moment. He just... doesn't
know what to do. Just stares at the screen and stares at the screen.
Too funny.

I just like to have the thing work. Cooperating with its needs does
that for me.
--
Joel W. Crump
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
[...]

An Operating System, is a layer present on a computer as an
"enabler for user-executed programs", a kind of Executive.

It's not an end unto itself. It is not a FlappyBirds/Netflix/DisneyPlus Box. It's not a Commercial HitchARide And Screw You End User box either.

*******

The reason for *starting* with a Local Account after installation, is
so you control the name used on your profile folder.

I want to be C:\Users\Paul and I want to control that directly, not be
sleigh of hand. The Microsoft way, I present an email address such
as CrazyClown@gmail.com and Microsoft carves off the first five
characters of the email, and my profile on first usage becomes

C:\Users\crazy # And I'm crazy forever

which is "not attractive" as I didn't have the control. If my email
was PaulWatson@gmail.com, my profile becomes

C:\Users\paulw

which may not entirely please me either.

I also prefer a local account and sofar have been able to create one
during every new installation, also on Windows 11.

OTOH, all the hoopla about Microsoft forcing a Microsoft Account is a
bit over the top IMO, because AFAIK, it's still possible - and quite
simple - to convert a Microsoft Account on your Windows computer into a
local account.

I did that in the Windows 8.1 era when I had accidentily converted my
local account into a Microsoft Account. And I just did a "change
microsoft account to local account windows 11" search in Google and that confirms that it's still possible. Google's 'AI Overview' gives a
Step-by-step guide which AFAICT is correct. The search results also
include many YouTube videos and other written instructions.

Bottom line: As usual, the OP is only FUD and bait and pathetic and
childish at that.

[...]
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2025-10-11 16:57, Frank Slootweg wrote:

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
[...]

An Operating System, is a layer present on a computer as an
"enabler for user-executed programs", a kind of Executive.

It's not an end unto itself. It is not a FlappyBirds/Netflix/DisneyPlus Box. >> It's not a Commercial HitchARide And Screw You End User box either.

*******

The reason for *starting* with a Local Account after installation, is
so you control the name used on your profile folder.

I want to be C:\Users\Paul and I want to control that directly, not be
sleigh of hand. The Microsoft way, I present an email address such
as CrazyClown@gmail.com and Microsoft carves off the first five
characters of the email, and my profile on first usage becomes

C:\Users\crazy # And I'm crazy forever

which is "not attractive" as I didn't have the control. If my email
was PaulWatson@gmail.com, my profile becomes

C:\Users\paulw

which may not entirely please me either.

Aye. Same feelings here.

I also prefer a local account and sofar have been able to create one during every new installation, also on Windows 11.

I read the other day that they are removing local users completely, and installation must have Internet.

How on earth are people like the military going to install and run
Windows in machines that are completely disconnected from internet?
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 23:04:19 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

How on earth are people like the military going to install and run
Windows in machines that are completely disconnected from internet?

I wonder why they would be using an OS that canrCOt even offer regular civilian-grade security, never mind military-grade ...
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Sat, 10/11/2025 6:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 23:04:19 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

How on earth are people like the military going to install and run
Windows in machines that are completely disconnected from internet?

I wonder why they would be using an OS that canrCOt even offer regular civilian-grade security, never mind military-grade ...

I don't expect Microsoft treats their military partners quite
the way they treat consumers.

If you know the right keywords, you can find the odd tidbit.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/secauthz/c2-level-security

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 23:29:02 -0400, Paul wrote:

On Sat, 10/11/2025 6:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 23:04:19 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

How on earth are people like the military going to install and run
Windows in machines that are completely disconnected from
internet?

I wonder why they would be using an OS that canrCOt even offer
regular civilian-grade security, never mind military-grade ...

I don't expect Microsoft treats their military partners quite the
way they treat consumers.

If you know the right keywords, you can find the odd tidbit.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/secauthz/c2-level-security

rCLService currently unavailablerCY ... but last I checked, the only way Windows could achieve that level of Orange Book security was by
disabling any network access.

Now, you *do* know that Microsoft is moving towards requiring a
Microsoft account in order to activate Dimdows, right? Which means an
Internet connection will be mandatory.

Do you see the problem here?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Sun, 10/12/2025 2:13 AM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 23:29:02 -0400, Paul wrote:

On Sat, 10/11/2025 6:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 23:04:19 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

How on earth are people like the military going to install and run
Windows in machines that are completely disconnected from
internet?

I wonder why they would be using an OS that canrCOt even offer
regular civilian-grade security, never mind military-grade ...

I don't expect Microsoft treats their military partners quite the
way they treat consumers.

If you know the right keywords, you can find the odd tidbit.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/secauthz/c2-level-security

rCLService currently unavailablerCY ... but last I checked, the only way Windows could achieve that level of Orange Book security was by
disabling any network access.

Now, you *do* know that Microsoft is moving towards requiring a
Microsoft account in order to activate Dimdows, right? Which means an Internet connection will be mandatory.

Do you see the problem here?

So far, my track record is I've "got what I wanted, where I wanted it".
Thanks to some key third-party contributions. I couldn't make that claim,
if I didn't have help.

I think on just one occasion, I was thwarted. Couldn't get past
the MSA prompt ("a@a.com" didn't work). I tossed the install in
that case. There are more known workarounds available today, so that
does not have to happen a second time.

That is not "activation". That is the account setup step, and if you don't complete account setup, you can't move on to the rest of the OOBE sequence. With the right third party workaround today, that's not a problem.

Enrollment is the next issue, and Char says a recent test of the
script, showed enrollment worked. I don't see any eventual "winning" on enrollment, so watching the behavior is mostly pointless. Only if the people who paid $30 for enrollment, got screwed out of it, would I be visibly angry.

Microsoft knows exactly who I am. I used a credit card to pay for something. That was a long time ago. But the chain of custody, the "free upgrades",
that credit card follows me around. They don't need to see my MSA, thanks :-) They will have correlated all the computers I used since then (seeing
the activity come from the same IP address for periods of time).
They already know everything they could want to know. There is no
particular sense of privacy involved here, like denying them an MSA
makes me special. If I installed an OS "through seven proxies", it would
not help a bit. Computers are leaky buckets, one mistake, they know
who you are.

Paul
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 11/10/2025 3:53 pm, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 00:01:02 -0400, Paul wrote:

Microsoft could have had their cake, plus a big mug of beer,
if the OOBE box went like this:

email address: CrazyClown@gmail.com preferred profile
name: Paul

and then we would both win. But that's too too simple, now isn't it.

Do people who come up with these suggestions for ways that Microsoft could make their products better ever think that they might be talking to themselves?

Do people who come up with these suggestions for ways that Microsoft
could make their products better ever actually USE the new IMPROVED
Microsoft product??
--
Daniel70
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 23:29:02 -0400, Paul wrote:

On Sat, 10/11/2025 6:47 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 23:04:19 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

How on earth are people like the military going to install and run
Windows in machines that are completely disconnected from
internet?

I wonder why they would be using an OS that can?t even offer
regular civilian-grade security, never mind military-grade ...

I don't expect Microsoft treats their military partners quite the
way they treat consumers.

If you know the right keywords, you can find the odd tidbit.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/secauthz/c2-level-security

?Service currently unavailable? ... but last I checked, the only way
Windows could achieve that level of Orange Book security was by
disabling any network access.

Now, you *do* know that Microsoft is moving towards requiring a
Microsoft account in order to activate Dimdows, right? Which means an Internet connection will be mandatory.

Unlikely for Pro and similar versions. And, as Winston points out,
irrelevant for managed systems, which obviously is the case for Carlos'
example of 'the military'.

Do you see the problem here?

Yes, we see your FUD and you having no clue.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 12/10/2025 07:13, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 23:29:02 -0400, Paul wrote:

On Sat, 10/11/2025 6:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 23:04:19 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

How on earth are people like the military going to install and run
Windows in machines that are completely disconnected from
internet?

I wonder why they would be using an OS that canrCOt even offer
regular civilian-grade security, never mind military-grade ...

I don't expect Microsoft treats their military partners quite the
way they treat consumers.

If you know the right keywords, you can find the odd tidbit.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/secauthz/c2-level-security

rCLService currently unavailablerCY ... but last I checked, the only way Windows could achieve that level of Orange Book security was by
disabling any network access.

Now, you *do* know that Microsoft is moving towards requiring a
Microsoft account in order to activate Dimdows, right? Which means an Internet connection will be mandatory.

Do you see the problem here?

No because the vast majority of organisations including the military
don't go anywhere near OOBE for new machines. They have IT departments
or contractors which prepare customised Windows images and roll out
identical setups to 10s, 100s or 1000s of PCs.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 21:08:45 +1100, Daniel70 wrote:

Do people who come up with these suggestions for ways that Microsoft
could make their products better ever actually USE the new IMPROVED
Microsoft product??

Obviously not, since MicrosoftrCOs rCLimprovementsrCY have nothing to do with their suggestions anyway.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 11:27:44 +0100, MikeS wrote:

On 12/10/2025 07:13, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 23:29:02 -0400, Paul wrote:

On Sat, 10/11/2025 6:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 23:04:19 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

How on earth are people like the military going to install and
run Windows in machines that are completely disconnected from
internet?

I wonder why they would be using an OS that canrCOt even offer
regular civilian-grade security, never mind military-grade ...

I don't expect Microsoft treats their military partners quite the
way they treat consumers.

... but last I checked, the only way Windows could achieve that
level of Orange Book security was by disabling any network access.

Now, you *do* know that Microsoft is moving towards requiring a
Microsoft account in order to activate Dimdows, right? Which means
an Internet connection will be mandatory.

Do you see the problem here?

No because the vast majority of organisations including the military
don't go anywhere near OOBE for new machines. They have IT departments
or contractors which prepare customised Windows images and roll out
identical setups to 10s, 100s or 1000s of PCs.

You mean, contractors who won the contract by making the lowest bid?

How much technical smarts do you think they would have (left) among
their staff?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Oct 12, 2025 at 6:50:19rC>PM EDT, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 11:27:44 +0100, MikeS wrote:

On 12/10/2025 07:13, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 23:29:02 -0400, Paul wrote:

On Sat, 10/11/2025 6:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 23:04:19 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

How on earth are people like the military going to install and
run Windows in machines that are completely disconnected from
internet?

I wonder why they would be using an OS that canrCOt even offer
regular civilian-grade security, never mind military-grade ...

I don't expect Microsoft treats their military partners quite the
way they treat consumers.

... but last I checked, the only way Windows could achieve that
level of Orange Book security was by disabling any network access.

Now, you *do* know that Microsoft is moving towards requiring a
Microsoft account in order to activate Dimdows, right? Which means
an Internet connection will be mandatory.

Do you see the problem here?

No because the vast majority of organisations including the military
don't go anywhere near OOBE for new machines. They have IT departments
or contractors which prepare customised Windows images and roll out
identical setups to 10s, 100s or 1000s of PCs.

You mean, contractors who won the contract by making the lowest bid?

Nice deflection. IT departments OR contractors. There is no "problem" here, so you change the subject.

How much technical smarts do you think they would have (left) among
their staff?

More technical smarts than the group has (left) among their staff who is not winning any contracts because they always have the highest bid. Realize that the lowest bid could be $1 less than the highest bid.

Lowest bid is winning contracts. Highest bid is not. Who has more money to
pay the contractors? Who has more experience?

You really don't think these things through, do you?

The point is, the imaginary problem you claimed to exist does not exist.
THERE IS NO PROBLEM because the vast majority of organisations including the military don't go anywhere near OOBE for new machines. They have IT
departments or contractors which prepare customised Windows images and roll
out identical setups to 10s, 100s or 1000s of PCs.

Not to mention that the custom Windows image is not that difficult to do. It
is well-documented and understood.

And BTW. Mightgrowsoft? Dimdows? Really? Are you 14 years old? Should I use terms like Linsux? Crapple? Does that make me look more mature?

Grow up, and have a valid point.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 04:13:27 +0000, Tyrone wrote:

On Oct 12, 2025 at 6:50:19rC>PM EDT, "Lawrence D-|Oliveiro"
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 11:27:44 +0100, MikeS wrote:

On 12/10/2025 07:13, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 23:29:02 -0400, Paul wrote:

On Sat, 10/11/2025 6:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 23:04:19 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

How on earth are people like the military going to install and
run Windows in machines that are completely disconnected from
internet?

I wonder why they would be using an OS that canrCOt even offer
regular civilian-grade security, never mind military-grade ...

I don't expect Microsoft treats their military partners quite
the way they treat consumers.

... but last I checked, the only way Windows could achieve that
level of Orange Book security was by disabling any network
access.

Now, you *do* know that Microsoft is moving towards requiring a
Microsoft account in order to activate Dimdows, right? Which
means an Internet connection will be mandatory.

Do you see the problem here?

No because the vast majority of organisations including the
military don't go anywhere near OOBE for new machines. They have
IT departments or contractors which prepare customised Windows
images and roll out identical setups to 10s, 100s or 1000s of PCs.

You mean, contractors who won the contract by making the lowest
bid?

Nice deflection. IT departments OR contractors. There is no
"problem" here, so you change the subject.

As if IrCOm responsible for your Government bureaucracy, or something.

Oh, and just to add to the fun, theyrCOre not getting paid now, anyway.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2025-10-12 12:14, Frank Slootweg wrote:

Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 23:29:02 -0400, Paul wrote:

On Sat, 10/11/2025 6:47 PM, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 23:04:19 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

How on earth are people like the military going to install and run
Windows in machines that are completely disconnected from
internet?

I wonder why they would be using an OS that can?t even offer
regular civilian-grade security, never mind military-grade ...

I don't expect Microsoft treats their military partners quite the
way they treat consumers.

If you know the right keywords, you can find the odd tidbit.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/secauthz/c2-level-security >>

?Service currently unavailable? ... but last I checked, the only way
Windows could achieve that level of Orange Book security was by
disabling any network access.

Now, you *do* know that Microsoft is moving towards requiring a
Microsoft account in order to activate Dimdows, right? Which means an
Internet connection will be mandatory.

Unlikely for Pro and similar versions. And, as Winston points out, irrelevant for managed systems, which obviously is the case for Carlos' example of 'the military'.

Do you see the problem here?

Yes, we see your FUD and you having no clue.

Then please explain.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2025-10-12 00:47, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2025 23:04:19 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

How on earth are people like the military going to install and run
Windows in machines that are completely disconnected from internet?

I wonder why they would be using an OS that canrCOt even offer regular civilian-grade security, never mind military-grade ...

Absolutely, however they do.

I worked at a military base, as civilian. They used some database
software to track spares, and even though the software was customized
for Spain, it came from the NATO, so they had to use that and Windows. Although that Windows, among other features, ran updates from an
internal server, not directly from Microsoft. And it was an old version
of Windows, because the newest had not been certified.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Joel W. Crump <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote at 07:27 this Saturday (GMT):

On 10/11/2025 12:01 AM, Paul wrote:

On Fri, 10/10/2025 6:17 PM, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 10/7/2025 7:26 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

To all those Windows hackers who are so proud of their ability to
install Windows 11 on setups that Microsoft doesnrCOt officially support >>>> -- tough luck. The company keeps on tightening the screws with every
new Windows 11 build
<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/10/microsoft-removes-even-more-microsoft-account-workarounds-from-windows-11-build/>:

-a-a-a-a In a new update released to the Dev channel of the Windows Insider
-a-a-a-a Preview program yesterday (build number 26220.6772), Microsoft >>>> -a-a-a-a announced it was "removing known mechanisms for creating a local >>>> -a-a-a-a account in the Windows Setup experience (OOBE)." Microsoft says >>>> -a-a-a-a that these workarounds "inadvertently skip critical setup screens,
-a-a-a-a potentially causing users to exit OOBE with a device that is not >>>> -a-a-a-a fully configured for use."

However,

-a-a-a-a It's unclear what "critical setup screens" Microsoft is referring
-a-a-a-a to; when using the workarounds to create a local account, the >>>> -a-a-a-a Windows setup assistant still shows you all the screens you need >>>> -a-a-a-a for creating an account and a password, plus toggling a few basic
-a-a-a-a privacy settings. Signing in with a Microsoft account does add >>>> -a-a-a-a multiple screens to this process thoughrCothese screens will attempt
-a-a-a-a to sell you Microsoft 365 and Xbox Game Pass subscriptions, and to
-a-a-a-a opt you into features like the data-scraping Windows Recall on PCs
-a-a-a-a that support it. I would not describe any of these as "critical" >>>> -a-a-a-a from a user's perspective, but my priorities are not Microsoft's >>>> -a-a-a-a priorities.

Yup, rCLcriticalrCY as in rCLcritical to MicrosoftrCOs revenue-generation >>>> operationsrCY. The fact that you paid them money for Windows itself just >>>> isnrCOt enough any more.

I guess I could understand if people want the option to use a local account.-a Not really, but I get why they would at least.-a But MS has a fair point about how it also circumvents other setup screens, all this crap where people modify a commercial OS doesn't make a lot of sense, it's perversity at the end of the day.-a If you want that kind of control, why in God's name would you even use *Microsoft's* OS?!-a This is why I happily log in with my MS account.

An Operating System, is a layer present on a computer as an
"enabler for user-executed programs", a kind of Executive.

It's not an end unto itself. It is not a FlappyBirds/Netflix/DisneyPlus Box. >> It's not a Commercial HitchARide And Screw You End User box either.

*******

The reason for *starting* with a Local Account after installation, is
so you control the name used on your profile folder.

I want to be C:\Users\Paul and I want to control that directly, not be
sleigh of hand. The Microsoft way, I present an email address such
as CrazyClown@gmail.com and Microsoft carves off the first five
characters of the email, and my profile on first usage becomes

C:\Users\crazy # And I'm crazy forever

which is "not attractive" as I didn't have the control. If my email
was PaulWatson@gmail.com, my profile becomes

C:\Users\paulw

which may not entirely please me either.

Microsoft could have had their cake, plus a big mug of beer,
if the OOBE box went like this:

email address: CrazyClown@gmail.com
preferred profile name: Paul

and then we would both win. But that's too too simple, now isn't it.

Ah, I too noticed that my account name was rather arbitrary. But then
again it's just pixels on a screen, it works, so I just let it be. The OCD-ness about that seems unnecessary, from my point of view.

The profile name does matter to me somewhat, just because it is going to
appear in a lot of places (basically every file path your files point
to). I'd be upset if I couldn't set it at setup, especially since its
way harder to change down the line since everything is referencing the
old paths and you have to manually fix every single one.

"Why meet people half way, when you can punch, slap, and kick them"

When Microsoft removed the "X" in the upper right corner of Metro.Apps
in Windows 8.0, they put the "X" back in Windows 8.1 . See ? They
are capable of learning from mistakes. One of the favorite moments of
that era, was a video taken of a mature dude sitting in front of a
Microsoft provided product evaluation computer, and when he is
stuck in the Metro.App without the "X" in the corner, the dude
has this "deer in the headlights" moment. He just... doesn't
know what to do. Just stares at the screen and stares at the screen.
Too funny.

Do you have the video on hand?

I just like to have the thing work. Cooperating with its needs does
that for me.

--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Mon, 10/13/2025 1:20 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:

Do you have the video on hand?

The odds of me finding that one again, are pretty slim.

My Sent box goes back to 2008, and I can't find a reference in there.

Paul


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Frank Slootweg wrote:

Do you see the problem here?

Yes, we see your FUD and you having no clue.

He's got plenty of clue, and your defense of Micro$oft is stupid.
--
"[chrisv] censored his reply" - lying asshole "-hh", lying
shamelessly
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 10/13/2025 3:28 PM, chrisv wrote:

Frank Slootweg wrote:

Do you see the problem here?

Yes, we see your FUD and you having no clue.

He's got plenty of clue, and your defense of Micro$oft is stupid.

Far be it from me, to defend MS from fair criticism. However, this
thing about having a Microsoft account really should be easier to cope
with, for folks, you make countless accounts, this is just one of them,
it does some good tricks. It's a feature.
--
Joel W. Crump
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> news:10cfguc$19c0g$3@dont-email.me Sun, 12 Oct 2025 06:13:32 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy, wrote:

Now, you *do* know that Microsoft is moving towards requiring a
Microsoft account in order to activate Dimdows, right? Which means an Internet connection will be mandatory.

You must not be familiar with what they used to call VLK keys then. No activation required with them. The scope of VLK changed with Vista. XP
didn't require activation if a VLK key was used. Or if you had it
configured to look for a specific marker string in the system BIOS. Dell
HP, etc. So called 'branded OEM' discs.

You could also change a few files around on the original ISO and convert
it to/from a specific OEM brand that would activate with a matching string
in the system BIOS - Dell for example. A small collection of files on the original MS CD home/pro determined what you had and how the product
activation would go.

MS also released so called 'combo' ISO discs via technet subscriptions.
The same ISO had both flavors and you could do the same with them as I
wrote about above. Copy the original to an ISO - extract a few files, make
some slight changes, rewrite the ISO and install with it. Poof, home to
pro or back, oem or non oem. VLK or not.

For the military and other places where internet isn't allowed on
workstations, they're most likely activating in this manner:


KMS: Key Management Service
KMS uses a client-server model, where a KMS host computer within the organization activates other machines on the local network.

Activation process: A KMS host server is set up and activated with a
special KMS key from Microsoft. Client computers are configured with a
Generic Volume License Key (GVLK), which tells them to look for a
local KMS host for activation. Clients automatically discover the KMS
host via a DNS entry and activate against it. Network requirements:
Devices must be able to communicate with the local KMS host. They do
not need to connect to Microsoft's servers after the host is initially
activated. Activation count: A KMS activation is only valid if there
are enough clients on the network to meet a minimum threshold (for
example, 25 for Windows client OS). The KMS server tracks the number
of activations, but the number is not finite like a MAK. Activation
validity: KMS activations last for 180 days. Clients automatically
attempt to renew their activation by contacting the KMS host every
seven days. If a client cannot reach the KMS host after 180 days, it
will enter a grace period. Best for: Large organizations with a stable
network environment and a large number of computers that are
frequently connected to the corporate network. It is highly scalable

for large deployments and prevents individual machines from needing to
connect to the internet for activation.

Do you see the problem here?

I don't see a problem...I understand why you did, though. Hopefully this
reply fills in some blanks in your understanding of how it works?
--
Liar, lawyer; mirror show me, what's the difference?
Kangaroo done hung the guilty with the innocent
Liar, lawyer; mirror for ya', what's the difference?
Kangaroo be stoned. He's guilty as the government

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

Frank Slootweg wrote:

Snip of my arguments duly noted.

Do you see the problem here?

Yes, we see your FUD and you having no clue.

He's got plenty of clue, and your defense of Micro$oft is stupid.

It's clear - as I said and also from replies from several others -
that he has no clue about managed systems and non-Home versions of
Windows. That lack of expertise is of course no problem, but his FUD,
innuendo, etc., etc. is.

And exactly *where* did I "defend" Microsoft?
--
Frank Slootweg, worked in some tiny company with 100K+ managed Windows PCs.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2