I’m confused. What is “not accepting” a MS account to set up Windows? I mean, if you don’t have to use Windows and that is a dealbreaker for you, then great.
But if you need to use Windows and you want to… you know… work… around… having to be logged in, he’s suggesting a way to do that. That’s what we call in the business “a workaround”.
As I said elsewhere, I get that people want this to be a dealbreaker, or the suggestion to be a pointless defense because this is a Linux community and there is a cultural pressure to pretend that the account problem is a massive dealbreaker (as opposed to most normies just going with it, just like they do on their phones, which is what actually happens), but OSs aren’t football teams. You can both criticise MS for having an online activation requirement, rightfully so, and acknowledge a potentially useful mitigation for anybody who needs or wants to use the OS without being constantly logged in.
But it isn’t a work around it’s just accepting the fact you need a microsoft account to setup windows.
I’m confused. What is “not accepting” a MS account to set up Windows? I mean, if you don’t have to use Windows and that is a dealbreaker for you, then great.
But if you need to use Windows and you want to… you know… work… around… having to be logged in, he’s suggesting a way to do that. That’s what we call in the business “a workaround”.
As I said elsewhere, I get that people want this to be a dealbreaker, or the suggestion to be a pointless defense because this is a Linux community and there is a cultural pressure to pretend that the account problem is a massive dealbreaker (as opposed to most normies just going with it, just like they do on their phones, which is what actually happens), but OSs aren’t football teams. You can both criticise MS for having an online activation requirement, rightfully so, and acknowledge a potentially useful mitigation for anybody who needs or wants to use the OS without being constantly logged in.