331–340 of 475 posts
I'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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well I think we all know why. They make money from it. The question that’s more relevant is how many of you are going to cancel your Azure accounts and move to a different host after seeing this and will it lose MS enough money to stop the practice. I’m taking bets that not enough will at 50:1 odds.
It will definitely keep me avoiding marketplace offerings. All we do on Azure is spin up VMs / K8S deployments / Connections to on Prem. The one time we tried to set up SendGrid "from the marketplace", it failed horribly.
Earlier 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…
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…
The anti-patent-trolling, anti-tivoization and copyleft provisions are there to protect developers and users.
Additional clauses around privacy and security would be very nice.
Unfortunately, corporate-sponsored FUD made a lot of people wary of the GPL - which is ironic, given its protective features.
It’s time to switch to fedora on server
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Citation needed. RMS, the FSF and many other orgs made public statements around privacy many times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How more reasonable it would have been for Microsoft to provide the publishers details to consumers instead of the other way around. Interesting that this is not so.
Microsoft can earn more money this way (selling data for sales purposes), so their behavior meets my expectations.
As someone who works in tech sales - the real bullshit here is that this is some right-out-of-college 22 y/o entry level sales person (SDR) who was likely told to to take this list and message everyone on linkedin 1x1. The negative impact of this goes on his shoulders where the positive responses from this get passed off to someone else who is outside the blast radius. Stuff like this is the norm when sales is viewed…
This reminds of of a 2019 paper on "moral crumple zones"[1] which talks about how the human component of automated systems are increasingly there to act as the focus for moral failures. Did your giant automated system do something bad? Blame the one human who was assigned to somehow stop that from happening, no matter how impossible that might be. [1] https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/260
Earlier 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?
> You buy a dishwasher from Best Buy. They send your name and address to Maytag... Cool? Since most appliance manufacturers require you registering your product with them for warranty service, yes, please take care of that for me (many appliance stores do). Now _should_ Maytag require that registration? If it makes for a quicker and smoother warranty service process then I'm okay with it - better than needing to dig…
Manufacturers legally have to honor their warranty regardless of you giving them your information. They don’t exactly say you won’t be covered by warranty if you don’t “register”, because they legally can’t.