Yes, and MS claimed that their agreement with Canonical required them not to share that info with sales.
No it said not use that for marketing. And they didn't, the sales person said he would be the point of contact. They didn't market or try to sell him something in his message. He just send a request to be his contact.
Most people would view the message as being marketed to.
The employee was referred to as a salesperson. Any difference from marketing is pedantic.
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.
organising -> purchasing
(is it just my terrible coordination with this slide keyboard and lack of attention to see errors as they happen, or is android's auto carrot getting less & less reliable?)
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…
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...
I guess you have an Nvidia card? The two other major vendors have mainline (therefore GPLed) drivers and basically work out of the box. Keep that in mind during your next hardware upgrade. Nvidia was the least terrible solution about 10 years ago (I have PTSD from installing binary blobs and editing Xorg.conf to make it work.) While others have improved tremendously and you don't have to do anything to get full 2D an…
> the license is the GPL, none of which has anything to say about privacy 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.
People are coming into this thread, talking about "this should not happen cuz free software." And Free Software protections are just completely orthogonal to privacy protections. There is a certain level of reasoning where one might say that, if the software were truly libre, you could "just" fork it and rip out the parts you don't like. But because you clearly can't "just" do that, then the software must not be free…
The idea is that, if free software principles were widely followed, this kind of spying could never be built in the first place. It'd be like a rice cooker that refuses to cook a full portion if you're putting on weight, or a washing machine that won't turn on during peak energy hours; a bizarre, unprecedented imposition on the principle that you should be able to do what you want with your stuff.
Oh! All Cloud hosting providers that have Ubuntu available provide Canonical with some information. I didn't realize that it was so personal! I'd heard that this information was used for licensing payments.
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…
> but restricts them from using contact details for marketing purposes ... Canonical then tells us that this person was a Sales Representative
I don't understand - what's the difference between marketing and sales? Sales is trying to sell you something? But that's also marketing?
> You buy a dishwasher from Best Buy. They send your name and address to Maytag. For warranty purposes of course > You buy soap from Walmart. They send your name and address to Johnson & Johnson. In case they need to recall the soap > You buy a sandwich at your local deli. They send your name and address to Boar’s Head. Cool? So you can get some cool Boar's Head swag! Just kidding of course. We need much better data…
Those actually seem reasonable (other than the swag one) if and only if that info is locked away on a need-to-know-basis, it’s used for precisely that purpose, and regulators vigorously punish any sharing or release. The GDPR seems like a good step in that direction.
For recalls the customer could subscribe to a public recall channel and warranty can be handled on a machine-identity basis (at least until the warranty actually kicks in) so none of those really require personal data upfront.
On the off chance you are not being sarcastic, do you think that Canonical got the data for free?
Yes? Its pretty evident that when you publish a marketplace app, the details of those that installed it are automatically stored for use by the vendor. All of the statements above align with this, unless you're insinuating that Microsoft are liars.