The simple problem is that telemetry has been overstated and overblown.
No, the simple problem is that the telemetry is mandatory. Microsoft could have provided a way to turn it all off, but did not. How much or little about me that is exposed by the telemetry is beside the point.
Because it's on a per login basis. Because one stop privacy shops are all the rage across companies. Because I want to do it once in one place not once on every damn device I own.
That's a fine reason to have the option to control these things through the cloud. It is not a reason to make the use of the cloud mandatory.
I suspect that the whole telemetry stuff is meant to give them information about how the system behaves in various situations for engineering purposes, not ads.
I don't really doubt this is the case. That doesn't make it OK, though.
Firefox has the same kind of telemetry features. Chrome too. And pretty much everything else. But when it comes from Microsoft people freak out first, ask questions later.
I don't use Chrome, but with Firefox, you can disable the telemetry. That's why I don't freak out about it: I just turn it off. Microsoft isn't giving us a "turn it off" option. That's why Microsoft is getting bashed over this.
I hear you -- Microsoft has a long track record that justifies deep mistrust, and it's terribly hard to start trusting them now. Even if what they claim is true and you can stop Windows from phoning home entirely, the fact that they have jumped on this "constantly update" train means that you can't trust that Windows will always be so considerate.
The average user treats their computer as an appliance and don't know the difference.
True, but how is the relevant? It is entirely possible to cater to the "appliance" crowd while still allowing people who care about such things to retain control over their computer.
Besides, that wasn't the argument that I was responding to. The argument I was responding to was that letting users have control over their computers creates business difficulties. That may be true, but is a terrible argument. Why should being able to control my own property be restricted just because it makes someone else's business a little more problematic?
If most people are 2 years behind developers will have to target 10 different OS configurations instead of 2 (those who are on the latest and those who are deferred for a few months).
So the argument is that users should not have control of their own computers because it presents a business problem if they do?
And no, he won't lose his supporters; we have no love for politicized science and the patron elite that rely on it to enforce their will
I am genuinely confused by this. If you have no love for politicized science and the patron elite, then why do you support Trump? He's been deep into both those things for a long time.
(I tried hard to find a way to ask this question without sounding like a troll. I hope I succeeded. This is an honest, and earnest, question.)
Personally, I think the electoral college is a terrible thing that does not, and cannot, do what you argue. I don't think this because of Trump. It's an opinion I've had for many, many years.
this is part of the spoils that the victor is entitled to.
Nobody in office is "entitled" to any spoils whatsoever. There aren't even any "spoils". The very idea that governmental departments and personnel are considered "spoils" is a huge part of the failure of the US political system. If Trump (or anyone in office) views things in terms of victors and spoils, then he is as much a part of the problem as everyone else.
If you were holding out hope that Android and Chrome would one day merge into some kind of super OS that marries the desktop and mobile worlds once and for all
I certainly wasn't hoping for that. I was fearing that it might come to pass.
The last thing that I need is yet another device that has to be frequently charged. My phone is bad enough, thanks very much (and I have to charge that every other day). Although having to charge a watch daily is not disastrous, it is a big enough pain that once I tried the Pebble, there's no way I would go back to something with a shorter battery life. Here's the advantage: I never have to remember to charge my watch at all, because it warns me a day in advance that a charge will be needed within the next day. It's nice to not have the cognitive load of remembering the watch -- it helps it to seamlessly integrate into my life.
I totally get that lots of people wouldn't care, but I do. Once I experienced only having to charge it every week or so, that ability became a dealbreaker feature for me. A watch that I need to charge daily is a watch that cannot accomplish what I want it to.
The development kit is also on the cloud, as is the app store, of course.
Fortunately, it was always possible to develop entirely without the cloud -- I've been doing that for quite a while now. Also, app stores aren't necessary to distribute watch apps. The app store was just a convenience, not a requirement.
FitBit bought they to eliminate a competitor, not to continue to support their competitor's product.
FitBit makes no products that compete with Pebble watches, and Pebble watches don't compete with FitBit devices. Nothing FitBit makes can replace my Pebble, and everything they've said about this deal indicates that they have no intention of developing a new device that would.
FitBit bought technology and expertise that they want to use in their own products, not a competitor. If it were just about eliminating competition, all they would have had to do is wait -- Pebble was already in deep trouble.
Sure you can. The Apple Watch is an entirely different device than the Pebble, and is trying to accomplish very different goals. For my needs, the Apple Watch would be an absolutely awful choice, mostly due to it's dismal battery life and lack of an always-on screen.
Slashdot Mirror
(Although it's not quite true about Firefox. Using the configuration setting to disable the telemetry there seems to be quite effective.)
There's mandatory telemetry in Firefox, Chrome, IE, Opera, Ubuntu, Fedora, and a whole lot of other stuff.
True, and it's equally objectionable with the other stuff as well. But I was talking about Windows.
The simple problem is that telemetry has been overstated and overblown.
No, the simple problem is that the telemetry is mandatory. Microsoft could have provided a way to turn it all off, but did not. How much or little about me that is exposed by the telemetry is beside the point.
Because it's on a per login basis. Because one stop privacy shops are all the rage across companies. Because I want to do it once in one place not once on every damn device I own.
That's a fine reason to have the option to control these things through the cloud. It is not a reason to make the use of the cloud mandatory.
I suspect that the whole telemetry stuff is meant to give them information about how the system behaves in various situations for engineering purposes, not ads.
I don't really doubt this is the case. That doesn't make it OK, though.
Firefox has the same kind of telemetry features. Chrome too. And pretty much everything else. But when it comes from Microsoft people freak out first, ask questions later.
I don't use Chrome, but with Firefox, you can disable the telemetry. That's why I don't freak out about it: I just turn it off. Microsoft isn't giving us a "turn it off" option. That's why Microsoft is getting bashed over this.
I'm just pointing out there's nothing BS about having a web interface configure devices just because web.
There is if using the web interface is the only way to configure. Relying on external servers for configuration is madness.
I hear you -- Microsoft has a long track record that justifies deep mistrust, and it's terribly hard to start trusting them now. Even if what they claim is true and you can stop Windows from phoning home entirely, the fact that they have jumped on this "constantly update" train means that you can't trust that Windows will always be so considerate.
It prevents the vast vast vast vast majority of users from being able to get new features because a few Luddites want to go unpatched.
How is that? My decision about whether or not to install any particular bit of software does not extend to other people's machines.
The average user treats their computer as an appliance and don't know the difference.
True, but how is the relevant? It is entirely possible to cater to the "appliance" crowd while still allowing people who care about such things to retain control over their computer.
Besides, that wasn't the argument that I was responding to. The argument I was responding to was that letting users have control over their computers creates business difficulties. That may be true, but is a terrible argument. Why should being able to control my own property be restricted just because it makes someone else's business a little more problematic?
If most people are 2 years behind developers will have to target 10 different OS configurations instead of 2 (those who are on the latest and those who are deferred for a few months).
So the argument is that users should not have control of their own computers because it presents a business problem if they do?
I beg to differ.
And no, he won't lose his supporters; we have no love for politicized science and the patron elite that rely on it to enforce their will
I am genuinely confused by this. If you have no love for politicized science and the patron elite, then why do you support Trump? He's been deep into both those things for a long time.
(I tried hard to find a way to ask this question without sounding like a troll. I hope I succeeded. This is an honest, and earnest, question.)
Personally, I think the electoral college is a terrible thing that does not, and cannot, do what you argue. I don't think this because of Trump. It's an opinion I've had for many, many years.
The EPA is a prime target because while the intent may be good, it is a barrier to being able to do business in the US for a number of industries.
Yes, because fuck the environment if corporations might have to earn less in order to protect it.
The problem is that Trump is a moron.
I disagree. Trump is a con man, pure and simple, and he's pretty good at it.
this is part of the spoils that the victor is entitled to.
Nobody in office is "entitled" to any spoils whatsoever. There aren't even any "spoils". The very idea that governmental departments and personnel are considered "spoils" is a huge part of the failure of the US political system. If Trump (or anyone in office) views things in terms of victors and spoils, then he is as much a part of the problem as everyone else.
If you were holding out hope that Android and Chrome would one day merge into some kind of super OS that marries the desktop and mobile worlds once and for all
I certainly wasn't hoping for that. I was fearing that it might come to pass.
Refuse a lawful request from your new employer.
They have done no such thing. Trump isn't their employer yet.
Its better to stay employed and do what you can from the inside.
If the institution has turned against what you believe is right, then the odds of making any positive change "from the inside" are extremely low.
The last thing that I need is yet another device that has to be frequently charged. My phone is bad enough, thanks very much (and I have to charge that every other day). Although having to charge a watch daily is not disastrous, it is a big enough pain that once I tried the Pebble, there's no way I would go back to something with a shorter battery life. Here's the advantage: I never have to remember to charge my watch at all, because it warns me a day in advance that a charge will be needed within the next day. It's nice to not have the cognitive load of remembering the watch -- it helps it to seamlessly integrate into my life.
I totally get that lots of people wouldn't care, but I do. Once I experienced only having to charge it every week or so, that ability became a dealbreaker feature for me. A watch that I need to charge daily is a watch that cannot accomplish what I want it to.
The development kit is also on the cloud, as is the app store, of course.
Fortunately, it was always possible to develop entirely without the cloud -- I've been doing that for quite a while now. Also, app stores aren't necessary to distribute watch apps. The app store was just a convenience, not a requirement.
FitBit bought they to eliminate a competitor, not to continue to support their competitor's product.
FitBit makes no products that compete with Pebble watches, and Pebble watches don't compete with FitBit devices. Nothing FitBit makes can replace my Pebble, and everything they've said about this deal indicates that they have no intention of developing a new device that would.
FitBit bought technology and expertise that they want to use in their own products, not a competitor. If it were just about eliminating competition, all they would have had to do is wait -- Pebble was already in deep trouble.
battery lasts almost 2 days with light use.
In other words, the battery life is abysmal? "Almost" 2 days of light use from a charge is not a selling point.
I bought a number of Pebbles, but not a single one of them through Kickstarter.
Sure you can. The Apple Watch is an entirely different device than the Pebble, and is trying to accomplish very different goals. For my needs, the Apple Watch would be an absolutely awful choice, mostly due to it's dismal battery life and lack of an always-on screen.
Who on earth is eagerly awaiting a Pebble Time 2? Who actually wants a Pebble Time 2?
Me