Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 475 posts

Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”

#241

Post by tfehring »

rkangel wrote: post #48
raesene9 wrote: post #8

The 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…

I guess I don't understand the quote from Microsoft's statement. Canonical provides "implementation and technical support," right? But they're not allowed to use user data from Microsoft to market those services? How else would that data even be useful for Canonical's "implementation and technical support" services?

Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”

#242

Post by gowld »

moron4hire wrote: post #197
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The code is more than just gratis; it's libre . This is Ubuntu, based on Debian GNU/Linux. (Yeah, okay, some of the code is merely gratis, but most of it is libre.) I don't expect an OS based on an OS based on an OS based on a half-finished OS based on free software principles to have shady data-dealing attached, yet hidden from the people whose data is being dealt.

You might not have expected it, but privacy protection is not any sort of obligation encoded in any extant concept of Free Software.

It has nothing to do with Free Software. I'd expect the same treatment if I were paying Microsoft to run Oracle for me.

Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”

#243

Post by moron4hire »

j16sdiz wrote: post #216
moron4hire wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "free as in lying around on the ground", it's free as in "freedom". You have to agree to Canonical's "Terms of Service" to use Ubuntu, so you are a licensed customer of Canonical's. In this case, the license is the GPL, none of which has anything to say about privacy. Maybe this is a failure of the Free Software Foundation's to not include privacy protection in the GPL. Though even if they were to create a G…

I am not sure we should add privacy protection to software license. Debian Free software guideline does not allow discriminate against using debian for evil.

Oh, I definitely agree, I'm just trying to point out that a lot of people here are making assumptions about what "Free Software" means that literally nobody in the FOSS or Open Source movements have ever said were goals.

Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”

#244

Post by foolmeonce »

bigbizisverywyz wrote: post #136
inetknght wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't get me wrong, what Canonical has done here also isn't good. But what they've done shouldn't have been possible because Microsoft shouldn't have given Canonical the information in the first place.

The question I have is what's in it for Microsoft, why did they even bother to do this in the first place? I can't believe there would be that big of a cash incentive.

If this were Windows, I would expect Microsoft to pass it to an internal department that sells higher service contracts and then off to 3rd parties that provide the same for up to a week after you find the "don't share my data" checkbox.

That (enterprise support) is a very important side business. Whether they got cash from other OSes or just set it up the same to fight an eventual Anti-Trust Case is anyone's guess.

Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”

#245

Post by rkangel »

jedberg wrote: post #203
rkangel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which is a problem. I'm much happier if that restriction both exists and is enforced. If we can't see that contract, then it's all based on trust, and trusting tech companies with personal information has not gone well so far.

Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”

#246

Post by BlueTemplar »

curtis3389 wrote: post #64
raesene9 wrote: post #8

The 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…

We all know that you can't trust Microsoft, but a lot of people blindly trust Canonical just because they create a Linux distro. I haven't trusted Canonical since I noticed their pattern of creating competing alternatives to new Linux standards instead of helping them (Mir & Wayland, Snap & Flatpack, Unity & Gnome 3). It'd be one thing if they were bringing better ideas and long-term support to their alternatives, bu…

Yeah, stuff like this is why I only treat Ubuntu as a stepping stone.

I even tried to install Debian while I'm still not really used to Linux, but the graphics card immediately crapped itself on boot, so it will have to wait...

Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”

#247

Post by moron4hire »

gowld wrote: post #242
moron4hire wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might not have expected it, but privacy protection is not any sort of obligation encoded in any extant concept of Free Software.

It has nothing to do with Free Software. I'd expect the same treatment if I were paying Microsoft to run Oracle for me.

So you didn't read the ToS, I take it? I did. I do whenever it's something important to the company's infrastructure. Canonical is the one at fault here for not adhering to Microsoft's guidelines. But Microsoft put the warning on the package.

I mean, it's kind of ridiculous to think that you could do anything in a cloud environment system and not have your actions tracked. Hell, with automated load balancing and load-based billing, that's literally what you're signing up for.

Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”

#249

Post by rkangel »

tfehring wrote: post #241
rkangel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I guess I don't understand the quote from Microsoft's statement. Canonical provides "implementation and technical support," right? But they're not allowed to use user data from Microsoft to market those services? How else would that data even be useful for Canonical's "implementation and technical support" services?

This is the full quote from MS, provided in The Register article:

"Customer privacy and trust is our top priority at Microsoft. We do not sell any information to third-party companies and only share customer information with Azure Marketplace publishers when customers deploy their product, as outlined in our Terms and Conditions. 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."

My interpretation is:

Every time you buy or use something from the Marketplace, MS will give your contact details to the Marketplace publisher. That publisher is then restricted in what they can do with the information. They may not use it for Marketing, they may use it to provide technical support.

Re: “I saw that you spun up an Ubuntu image in Azure”

#250

Post by pc86 »

tfehring wrote: post #241
rkangel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I guess I don't understand the quote from Microsoft's statement. Canonical provides "implementation and technical support," right? But they're not allowed to use user data from Microsoft to market those services? How else would that data even be useful for Canonical's "implementation and technical support" services?

By waiting for someone to reach out for "implementation and technical support," at which point Canonical already has the data they need to investigate deeper? Not that that's even great, because 99% of the people who spin up a service will never contact Canonical and shouldn't have their info shared.
Post reply on HN