I mean just the idea of spinning up linux on Mircrosoft's cloud is pretty funny in and of its self.
“I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”
91–100 of 475 posts
Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”
#92Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”
#93I'm super confused as to why anybody thinks this is a problem. Generally, when one "buys" something from a "marketplace" the vendor gets to know who the buyer is. That the vendor asks the buyer if there's anything else they'd want to buy is par for the course.
What? When I buy something at a brick and mortar store, I don't expect the product's manufacturer to get my personal information. I don't even expect the store to get my personal information if I pay in cash.
I don't want some "relationship" with a company just because I buy their product.
Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
But systemd :). Honestly the main servers I am thinking of moving use zfs and zfs on FreeBSD is more of a first class citizen than on Linux.
The zfs reason makes sense, but in recent releases Debian and Ubuntu take the same approach to systemd, so switching between those two wouldn't meaningfully change the init system situation. (I did see the smiley face; this comment is just in case that smiley is more self-deprecation than sarcasm, or for other readers.)
I put the smiley there because just the other day I was defending systemd on a different HN discussion as a perfectly usable piece of software. I meant that I wanted to move off a system that uses systemd which would mean both Debian and Ubuntu. It has been a while since I’ve run a non-Linux server so part of it is to stretch my stead in muscles. Don’t want to get rusty.
Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * I would find this message to be a lot better - "We see that you've taken advantage of the Ubuntu image* No. That's not better at all. The mere fact that Canonical has specific information to reach me when I am not a direct customer of Canonical is a complete violation of my privacy. Ubuntu is a free product. Canonical should not be able to find out if I (specifically me or my organization) allocates or runs 1 or…
> Ubuntu is a free product. Canonical should not be able to find out if I (specifically me or my organization) allocates or runs 1 or 10000 instances of Ubuntu I agree with the message behind this and obviously Canonical and Microsoft are both being extremely gross. But Ubuntu as a binary image (or source code) is a very different product than a VM with Ubuntu pre-installed and pre-configured, which is what you paid…
> But Ubuntu as a binary image (or source code) is a very different product than a VM with Ubuntu pre-installed.
How? Why? If it's different in any meaningful way from just clicking "next" on the installer then it's no longer Ubuntu, and certainly not Canonical Ubuntu, that's pre-installed. It's become, at best, Microsoft-Ubuntu-Because-Microsoft-Added-Telemetry-For-Azure. Or it's Canoncical-Ubuntu-Configured-By-Microsoft-With-Azure-CLI-Preinstalled.
It's not "Ubuntu" any more.
Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
A free copy of Ubuntu, packaged specifically for use on Azure.
That's not a purchase. Every dictionary I've read has described a purchase to include transferring money and ownership. Starting a VM isn't a purchase of Ubuntu. It's a rental of compute, storage, and network resources. Any other definition is, quite simply, wrong.
> Any other definition is, quite simply, wrong.
Then there are a great many definitions of there that are quite wrong. Many references to organising a service and so forth.
This is probably one of those instances where the dictionary needs to catch up. A dictionary documents how language is used at the time of its compilation, it does not dictate how language will/should be used for all time forward.
Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is a Canonical rep contacting him purely a "Microsoft feature"?
Well, what should we be more angry about? That Canonicals sales rep is using data in their CMS, or that Microsoft is selling data to third parties. The root cause seems to be Microsoft, not Canonical and (at least in my eye) the conclusion is not "don't trust Ubuntu", but "don't trust Azure".
Someone giving you a gun doesn't absolve you of the crime of shooting someone with it or of keeping the gun.
edit: The data doesn't just magically show up in Canonical's CRM. They spent time and effort establish an integration with Microsoft and then building processes on top of that data.
Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
The alternative is that Azure owns complete access to the customer. Which seems... well, an easy skip to App Store-esque rent seeking. So MS sharing "their" customer details with the image provider seems more generous than evil. Provided there's a "Do not share" config option somewhere.
The issue is more so *why* Microsoft is sharing this information with Canonical. — what does it obtain from it? Ubuntu is gratis, so Canonical can't have coerced Microsoft into doing so; it is quite probable that one approached the other to make a deal, and that Canonical is paying a certain fee for this information.
The code is gratis. Although, partnership deals tend to go beyond simply sharing code, and into the realm of dedicating time and resources to working with each other.
Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”
#99Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * I would find this message to be a lot better - "We see that you've taken advantage of the Ubuntu image* No. That's not better at all. The mere fact that Canonical has specific information to reach me when I am not a direct customer of Canonical is a complete violation of my privacy. Ubuntu is a free product. Canonical should not be able to find out if I (specifically me or my organization) allocates or runs 1 or…
The alternative is that Azure owns complete access to the customer. Which seems... well, an easy skip to App Store-esque rent seeking. So MS sharing "their" customer details with the image provider seems more generous than evil. Provided there's a "Do not share" config option somewhere.
If I'm doing business with Azure, I would absolutely expect them to keep my data and behavior private. It's part of the reason why I would be paying them (instead of expecting something for free) in the first place.