yes it is a sane approach from a marketing standpoint to use a DaaS model.
but I do not like the massive control an already problematic bug and error ridden os as windows tends to be ...has always tended to be..
I do not like that thought that M$ will be in even greater control of the end product I would have to use.
If they produced and marketed a monthly pay as you go OS:
-that wouldn't be a hot mess of problems with every update
-that they didn't change and rewrite the entire OS with every passing moment so as to give a modern approach (I really hate when a OS cannot just gently and incrementally introduce change folks can adapt to ...and instead force everyone into an immediate steep learning curve ..really hate that..)
-that respected the endusers privacy and security and didn't actively compromise it.
-that didn't try to exclude the use of other OS application use (lets see just how long it takes for windows to actively exclude them..)
-that doesn't need an even more Draconian grip on everyone..

then yeah ...sure I wouldn't mind.
But we are talking about M$ here..
We are not talking about the Benevolent Gandhi Operating System Corporation

DaaS is not really surprising. Too bad it’s more a benefit for corporations and not for end users.

Provided you can trust the build tools. The compiler, linker, install package builder...

But yeah. Point taken. Ambiguous wording. What I meant to say was, "How do I know that any code does what its creator says it does and nothing else?"

Basically, it is just a matter of trust. You cannot go around worrying about everything and suspect everyone. You just have to trust someone. You have no choice. In fact, in every single product, from software to cars to groceries, there are many links in the chain and you have to trust every single one of them.

Indeed. And the corporations use that model because they can. Because they now have the tool. It is called, "the internet". The internet has killed the future.

... which are all based on code too.

This part is true ...

... but that part is only true for CS.
With OS you have the choice who that "someone" is you just mentioned.

If you want supported linux on a pc or laptop you can go the Purism route or Dell sells laptops with Ubuntu preinstalled.

https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell...-laptop-ubuntu

We'll just have to agree to disagree, sulu. Closed or open, for all intents and purposes, they are both equally closed to me. I, personally, will never be able to review all the millions of lines of code and have to trust someone else to do it. Whether it is some developer in an air-conditioned office in Redmont or some geek living on pizza and Coke in a darkened bedroom in Windischeschenbach, they are both equally anonymous to me. I do not see much difference. You do. Good for you.

Well, that is interesting that I can save 50% of my limited budget going direct, very interesting.
Too bad I just bought an Asus with mobile CPU/GPU instead of a real full power rock crusher for $500us more..

The Internet was never the answer. It's merely a tool that got compromised and overtaken by greedy people.

It should not, IMO.

I heard this so many times before in the past 25 years, still it misses the core points:

• Public source code enables others to perform (security) analysis of it, completely independent (or even unknown to) the original code authors, with methods of choice.
  That fact poses a significant threat for "special, undocumented functionality" to be detected someday (if it exists in that code), likely having an enormous impact on any business utilising that code (i.e. that is the "threat" for the company developing that software).
• Source code under FLOSS licenses allow for others to enhance that code, even if the original authors lost interest in it.
• Properly hosted public source code allows for retracting who committed which parts of the code when at any time. This transparency eases many technical and social aspects of software development.
• Properly hosted public source code is accompanied by a public bug tracker, at least publicly documenting known bugs, but usually also enabling everyone (including you and me) to file observed bugs.
  One does not need to be a coder to contribute to FLOSS!

All this (and some other more minor effects) usually lead to an environment, which I structurally trust much more than any hidden and closed software development model, even without personally knowing anybody involved in it.

P.S.: Wow, Windischeschenbach really exists. I suppose one could hardly pick a better exemplary hill-billy village in Bavaria with such a sounding name.