Err that's what happens when you are a customer...the seller gets to know you.
Customer? Yes, you are paying Ubuntu for patches and updates. That service is not free.
“I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”
201–210 of 475 posts
Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”
#202Can't even read this as I was banned from Twitter for doing nothing but sharing truth and facts.
This should alarm you and motivate you to ditch Twitter for other alternatives.
Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”
#203The register article on this https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/11/microsoft_azure_ubunt... has responses from Canonical and MS, which shed a bit more light on the situation. The Canonical quote is the most illuminating :- "As per the Azure T&Cs, Microsoft shares with Canonical, the publisher of Ubuntu, the contact details of developers launching Ubuntu instances on Azure. These contact details are held in Canonical…
Actually, to me the MS statement is the most illuminating and I'm guessing that Canonical is getting some grumpy calls from Microsoft. This is the last part of the Microsoft statement: "Our terms with our publishers allow them to provide customers with implementation and technical support for their products but restricts them from using contact details for marketing purposes" Canonical then tells us that this person…
> That said, I can't see where that legal restriction is
It's probably part of the contract between MS and Canonical.
Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”
#204“Do not sell my personal information.”
They aren't. Ubuntu sells commercial support and you bought it when you spun up the image. Ubuntu has the right to know basic details about the customer.
Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a random sales person can easily go ahead and access PII on their own initiative, that's 1000x worse.
Your PII will be in their CRM and they will have access to their CRM. Literally all they need to do this is your name and linkedin. If you think sales people won't have access to names of potential leads then I am not sure what you think sales people do on outbound sales.
Even in an CRM there should be checks on who can access what PII and when. There is a difference between "you are assigned 100 leads for the duration of lead qualification" and "you can yourself pick out leads (and can get access to their PII) out of any of the thousands of possible leads".
Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”
#206I thought this was going to be a Clippy joke, but the truth was much more disturbing. Why is Microsoft sharing this level of information (from a corporate account) with third parties?
It definitely gave me Clippy vibes, and suddenly thrust me into a Black Mirror type of situation where a current day Clippy would literally forward all of your work (keystrokes, open programs, files) to sales and ad representatives so they can sell you more stuff. Every day I'm more and more paranoid of big companies now!
You realize that pretty much all of that happens when you use Windows 10, yes?
Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You need a better dictionary, or to stop making things up. The Oxford Dictionary, for example, defines purchase as merely "acquiring something". Legally, freedom of contract means the specifics of what is to be exchanged in a purchase are more or less unlimited. Even colloquially, many purchases happen without "money" changing hands. Paying with a voucher, for example, would seem to be a form of payment that doesn’t…
> You need a better dictionary
Indeed, perhaps.
> or to stop making things up.
I didn't make it up but thanks for the insinuation.
> The Oxford Dictionary
I haven't spent $90 on the Oxford Dictionary because I haven't believed it to be necessary.
> defines purchase as merely "acquiring something".
Really? Tell that to Google which claims its definition comes from "Oxford Languages" [0]. I'm sure that's not quite the Oxford English Dictionary though.
Google states:
1. acquire (something) by paying for it; buy.
2. haul in (a rope or cable) or haul up (an anchor) by means of a pulley, lever, etc.
1 a : to obtain by paying money or its equivalent
to acquire by the payment of money or its equivalent; buy.
verb: to buy something
* She purchased her first house with the money.
noun: something that you buy
* How do you wish to pay for your purchases?
You might want to learn about the definition of a rent by the way. It's a bit closer to what goes on with cloud instances.
[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=define+purchase
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purchase
[2] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/purchase
[3] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/purch...
Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn Azure was paid (either money or developer time) and this is happening for other products. I would think twice before using Azure if I was concerned about my usage being shared.
Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mir and WAyland was because wayland couldn't do what they wanted technically. Snap came BEFORE flatpak. Flatpak was the "new competing standard" in that situation. And Gnome shell, quite frankly, sucked. IMO it still sucks, but back then it sucked WAY worse.
Yeah, I wouldn't put down Ubuntu's traditional attitude as "we'll copy something so we can own it" - it's more of a "we'll do whatever we think is better for the experience we provide, screw the community". Which is still misguided and fundamentally doomed to fail in the long run, but not as malicious as, say, Apple's moves. At the end of the day the scorecard reads: - Mir: failed - Unity: failed - Snap: mostly faili…
> - Snap: mostly failing
As much as I hate Snap and remove it from my Kubuntu systems, I don't see where it is failing. I frankly see a lot more non-linux-focused vendors support to snap than flatpak. Could you expand on that point?
Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
You buy a dishwasher from Best Buy. They send your name and address to Maytag. You buy soap from Walmart. They send your name and address to Johnson & Johnson. You buy a sandwich at your local deli. They send your name and address to Boar’s Head. Cool?
The distinction here is when it’s a marketplace. You buy a product from a third-party vendor on Amazon. Amazon sends details of your purchase to the third-party vendor for fulfillment. Cool.
I don't know how I feel about that. Am I doing business with Amazon or the third party? If it's the third party, I want it to be crystal clear that they are the ones who will get my info. And if it's not crystal clear and I find out and their response is "oops, you weren't really supposed to notice that"...
Again, think of the grocery store example: you go in, there is a Boar's Head counter where they sell sandwiches. You grab a sandwich and head to the checkout line. You pay the grocery store worker who is wearing a grocery store shirt and get a grocery store receipt that says you just bought a $5 sandwich and used your grocery store loyalty card. Do you expect that Boar's Head will get the details of your loyalty card, which sandwich you bought, what else you bought, etc. even if the back of the receipt says in fine print that the grocery store may share that information with someone?
If Boar's Head had their own clerk and their own cash register you'd be doing business with them. But then it would be clear cut, right? The fact that the grocery store is processing the payments and presenting it as essentially they are reselling Boar's Head products would imply that Boar's Head is not involved in your individual transaction.
If this is a service you are buying from Boar's Head but they simply use the grocery store's cash registers, accounting, inventory, etc. then I would argue it's on the grocery store and Boar's Head to make it crystal clear who you are doing business with, or else you run into situations like this. And if a situation like the one that started this whole debacle happens, their response should be "We are sorry. We never made it crystal clear why we get this information. You see, we are partners with the grocery store and when you buy our delicious sandwiches from your local Piggly Wiggly you are actually doing business with us. We know it's in the grocery store's TOS, but we think it should be clear that you are actually our customer as well when you transact business with them for our goods. This is to provide benefits X, Y, and Z. If you don't want to do business with both Piggly Wiggly and us, here are some alternatives to get our delicious sandwiches elsewhere and some recipes to make your own. In addition, this incident happened because our sales staff was not properly trained on how we should use our customer data. We are going to review our privacy policies and publish an update in six weeks or sooner with what we will be doing going forward. If you have any concerns, please contact me directly. XOXO CEO of Boar's Head."