You betrayed your own point when you said "even before smartpohones you COULD HAVE easily been tracked if someone cared". This is substantively different from - you are DEFINITELY being tracked. In other words - it has always been legal to have a PI tail someone, is much different than someone (or a corporation in this case), having a PI tail EVERYONE
Having a PI tail everyone is substantively different from what they are actually doing which is getting random images from the internet and doing facial recognition on them.
and then sell that information to anyone interested.
Can you show me where I can actually buy that information? No, because that's not happening.
I don't know what "public privacy" might mean either, but there is a definite difference between taking a photo in public and strategically photographing effectively all of public space.
And there is a definite difference between what you describe and what is actually happening. Maybe if they were strategically videoing and processing effectively all of public space but that's not even remotely what they are doing.
We need to start including the full price of a product in it's sale price.
Yeah "we need to" do a lot of things, a lot of people say that about a whole lot of different things but actually doing something is a very different ballgame so how about this: you work out how much that is (the full price of the product) for all the things you buy, tally that up and let us know how much it is, then you donate that to an environmental organization. That should get the ball rolling.
Let's see how much your fully unsubsidized life works out to. You say "we need to" do this, so I'm curious to see specifically what that would mean.
But we're talking about Apple here, and in Apple's case when they have identified manufacturing defects they have "in general" provided out-of-warranty, free repairs for their products.
If you're talking about something outside the context of this discussion on Apple then sure, feel free to provide some citation on it.
M$ tried to lock in Windows by making "secure boot" with UEFI... and only they had the cryptographic signing that was accepted.
SecureBoot is not a Microsoft feature, there's no reason you can't add your own signing keys to it and there's no reason you can't just disable it altogether, even on Microsoft's own Surface computers. Not sure how you manage to be "locked in" by that situation. At the time they even put in a provision to OEMs that if you wanted certification they forced you put in a switch to turn SecureBoot off entirely. That's the exact opposite of being locked in.
I guess the bottom line question is - if an MS Surface does not allow you to install Linux on it, should we be wary of other boxes starting to use its UEFI implementation?
But they do, they always have. Despite all the fear-mongering over the years of how SecureBoot will kill Linux on the desktop.
You can add your own keys (if the OEM adds that feature), you can turn SecureBoot off altogether or you can use the shim. Even then that all only applies to hardware that has gone through the "Certified for Windows 10" program.
Because they all need to petition redmond for a signature with the redmond key to be somewhat viable as a competitor to redmond.
No, you're confused. You're talking about the SecureBoot feature of UEFI, which you can turn off even on Microsoft's own Surface computers. Even then the only motherboards that even have any requirement for the SecureBoot feature at all are ones that want the "Certified for Windows 10" sticker on them.
Not really... in general, products that develop a defect due to faulty manufacturing will not be repaired for free unless the product is under warranty
Even Apple themselves have done this with poorly manufactured products.
Even if that is the case there is always going to be a cost to switching and there is also a cost saving in switching but the more important thing is do they get significant value out of switching and the answer to that seems to be an overwhelming "no".
It's not that they are trapped and can't switch, it's that there's no platform worth switching to. They'd just be doing the same thing they're doing now but with the application running on Linux rather than Windows (so they click on an icon that looks slightly different to open their applications) and nobody really cares about that nor does it provide any significant advantage.
“WLinux Enterprise is the first product to support the industry-standard Red Hat Enterprise Linux on Windows Subsystem for Linux” and in the process helping Microsoft sabotage the GNU/Linux ecosystem.
How so? The draw here is that Linux binaries can run on both Windows and Linux, if that ceases to be the case then the whole feature is pointless. Why would they want to sabotage it anyway? To try and gain the ~2% of Linux marketshare on the desktop?
Yes, I spin up Linux instances on Azure. It's clear that people want Linux to run their servers because even Microsoft can't keep Linux from their own platform.
Why would they want to? Microsoft aren't a "Windows" company, their cloud operations makes them a tonne of revenue and why would they care whether the paying customers are running Windows or Linux?
Sure it's way of getting a proprietary Linux into Windows (embrace, extend, extinguish) but it's still unnecessary for those that know what they're doing.
Embrace, extend, extinguish what exactly? Linux? If it's not compatible with Linux then it won't run Linux programs and developers won't be able to use it to develop for Linux systems, it would be a complete non-starter much less be able to gain enough adoption to supplant Linux.
Or just run those applications in a VM if they don't run on Wine until they can migrate to something else. But even then that's only for some users in some businesses that actually have developed critical Windows-specific applications.
Is this really the case for the overwhelming majority of employees at the overwhelming majority of organizations? Because Windows still has 90%+ of the desktop market, are there really that many people using Windows-specific applications for which there are no alternative?... maybe there are or maybe the alternatives are simply not of viable quality.
lots of businesses run custom software that requires Windows.
Well they aren't really locked in then, they've decided to stick with Windows and they would just need to port their applications to some other platform. Again, feels like a problem of their own making.
Sure but any company with the means to actually fab those chips is going to take it and put their own custom spin on it so their MIPS chip is going to work differently to somebody else's MIPS chip. You just end up with a fragmented market.
A lot of corporations are trapped on Windows. Vendor lock-in is real.
Are they though? Software like Office runs everywhere, maybe they wrote a few of their own Windows-only line-of-business apps but in terms of the vendor locking them in I don't they are any more locked in than if they wrote their LoB apps for macOS, it's of their own making.
WSL makes it less urgent for them to get off Windows
Or makes it easier to transition to Linux.
they can run good software and legacy Windows desktop stuff together on the same machine.
What software can they run now that they previously couldn't? Aside from pre-compiled Linux binaries of course.
This is M$ strategy of killing off the Linux kernel.
How so? In terms of usage of the Linux kernel the desktop is probably where it is least used, even if the entire Linux user base on the desktop were supplanted with WSL (seems pretty unlikely) I'm still not quite sure how you get to this killing off the Linux kernel.
Apple obviously does not agree because they have gotten rid of it.
Wrong. They just find the value of an extra USB-C port MORE useful than MagSafe. Possibly they are correct.
But just because they moved to something else does not mean they didn't find the older standard useful. Please study logic.
Don't be such a condescending dickhead with your "please study logic" nonsense, it just demonstrates your inability to make a coherent argument. Clearly if they thought it had value they would have added it, either by having 4 USB-C ports + magsafe or eliminating one USB-C port and replacing it with magsafe.
Are you kidding? Magsafe WAS the greatest, and a laptop owner DOES need it.
Apple obviously does not agree because they have gotten rid of it.
USB-C is sadly more all-around functional
You realize that even Apple's own laptops (prior to their current lineup) did indeed have more than one kind of port, the fact that they have USB-C never precluded Apple from having the magsafe charging port.
Who gives a shit? Apple went through a whole marketing song and dance about how great and necessary magsafe was and now admitted actually you don't need it, how the trashcan mac pro was the future of computing, 7" tablets, styluses, intel CPUs, etc... the tech world is full of hypocritical pontifications and neither Apple nor Samsung are strangers to them.
I remember when IE6 was the only choice for the web and how it held it back by a good few years.
Aside from some internal line of business applications that used ActiveX there wasn't really anything that didn't display just fine in any of the alternatives.
so doing what they always have done. use someone else stuff. its litterly how dos/windows came to be.
Doing what just about all companies and groups do, It's also how Linux came to be (clone of UNIX), how macOS came to be (BSD + UNIX clone) and how WebKit itself came to be (was previously an open source browser engine called KHTML).
Problem is everyone else does and then you have trouble opening their projects...
These days sensible projects use systems like CMake so that you only need to upgrade your compiler if the project has a requirement for it. Granted not every project does but it's a more sane solution to the update issue.
Slashdot Mirror
You betrayed your own point when you said "even before smartpohones you COULD HAVE easily been tracked if someone cared". This is substantively different from - you are DEFINITELY being tracked. In other words - it has always been legal to have a PI tail someone, is much different than someone (or a corporation in this case), having a PI tail EVERYONE
Having a PI tail everyone is substantively different from what they are actually doing which is getting random images from the internet and doing facial recognition on them.
and then sell that information to anyone interested.
Can you show me where I can actually buy that information? No, because that's not happening.
I don't know what "public privacy" might mean either, but there is a definite difference between taking a photo in public and strategically photographing effectively all of public space.
And there is a definite difference between what you describe and what is actually happening. Maybe if they were strategically videoing and processing effectively all of public space but that's not even remotely what they are doing.
We need to start including the full price of a product in it's sale price.
Yeah "we need to" do a lot of things, a lot of people say that about a whole lot of different things but actually doing something is a very different ballgame so how about this: you work out how much that is (the full price of the product) for all the things you buy, tally that up and let us know how much it is, then you donate that to an environmental organization. That should get the ball rolling.
Let's see how much your fully unsubsidized life works out to. You say "we need to" do this, so I'm curious to see specifically what that would mean.
But we're talking about Apple here, and in Apple's case when they have identified manufacturing defects they have "in general" provided out-of-warranty, free repairs for their products.
If you're talking about something outside the context of this discussion on Apple then sure, feel free to provide some citation on it.
I'll let you be the one to welcome Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein and Roman Polansky back into the Film Academy then.
M$ tried to lock in Windows by making "secure boot" with UEFI... and only they had the cryptographic signing that was accepted.
SecureBoot is not a Microsoft feature, there's no reason you can't add your own signing keys to it and there's no reason you can't just disable it altogether, even on Microsoft's own Surface computers. Not sure how you manage to be "locked in" by that situation. At the time they even put in a provision to OEMs that if you wanted certification they forced you put in a switch to turn SecureBoot off entirely. That's the exact opposite of being locked in.
So it's only if you buy pretty much any computer you are likely to find in a store then? Wow ... Good thing it is an exception and not the norm!
Is there any system that doesn't have a switch to turn SecureBoot off? Even Microsoft's own Surface devices have a switch for it.
I guess the bottom line question is - if an MS Surface does not allow you to install Linux on it, should we be wary of other boxes starting to use its UEFI implementation?
But they do, they always have. Despite all the fear-mongering over the years of how SecureBoot will kill Linux on the desktop.
You can add your own keys (if the OEM adds that feature), you can turn SecureBoot off altogether or you can use the shim. Even then that all only applies to hardware that has gone through the "Certified for Windows 10" program.
Because they all need to petition redmond for a signature with the redmond key to be somewhat viable as a competitor to redmond.
No, you're confused. You're talking about the SecureBoot feature of UEFI, which you can turn off even on Microsoft's own Surface computers. Even then the only motherboards that even have any requirement for the SecureBoot feature at all are ones that want the "Certified for Windows 10" sticker on them.
Not really... in general, products that develop a defect due to faulty manufacturing will not be repaired for free unless the product is under warranty
Even Apple themselves have done this with poorly manufactured products.
Even if that is the case there is always going to be a cost to switching and there is also a cost saving in switching but the more important thing is do they get significant value out of switching and the answer to that seems to be an overwhelming "no".
It's not that they are trapped and can't switch, it's that there's no platform worth switching to. They'd just be doing the same thing they're doing now but with the application running on Linux rather than Windows (so they click on an icon that looks slightly different to open their applications) and nobody really cares about that nor does it provide any significant advantage.
“WLinux Enterprise is the first product to support the industry-standard Red Hat Enterprise Linux on Windows Subsystem for Linux” and in the process helping Microsoft sabotage the GNU/Linux ecosystem.
How so? The draw here is that Linux binaries can run on both Windows and Linux, if that ceases to be the case then the whole feature is pointless. Why would they want to sabotage it anyway? To try and gain the ~2% of Linux marketshare on the desktop?
Yes, I spin up Linux instances on Azure. It's clear that people want Linux to run their servers because even Microsoft can't keep Linux from their own platform.
Why would they want to? Microsoft aren't a "Windows" company, their cloud operations makes them a tonne of revenue and why would they care whether the paying customers are running Windows or Linux?
Sure it's way of getting a proprietary Linux into Windows (embrace, extend, extinguish) but it's still unnecessary for those that know what they're doing.
Embrace, extend, extinguish what exactly? Linux? If it's not compatible with Linux then it won't run Linux programs and developers won't be able to use it to develop for Linux systems, it would be a complete non-starter much less be able to gain enough adoption to supplant Linux.
Or just run those applications in a VM if they don't run on Wine until they can migrate to something else. But even then that's only for some users in some businesses that actually have developed critical Windows-specific applications.
Is this really the case for the overwhelming majority of employees at the overwhelming majority of organizations? Because Windows still has 90%+ of the desktop market, are there really that many people using Windows-specific applications for which there are no alternative? ... maybe there are or maybe the alternatives are simply not of viable quality.
lots of businesses run custom software that requires Windows.
Well they aren't really locked in then, they've decided to stick with Windows and they would just need to port their applications to some other platform. Again, feels like a problem of their own making.
Sure but any company with the means to actually fab those chips is going to take it and put their own custom spin on it so their MIPS chip is going to work differently to somebody else's MIPS chip. You just end up with a fragmented market.
A lot of corporations are trapped on Windows. Vendor lock-in is real.
Are they though? Software like Office runs everywhere, maybe they wrote a few of their own Windows-only line-of-business apps but in terms of the vendor locking them in I don't they are any more locked in than if they wrote their LoB apps for macOS, it's of their own making.
WSL makes it less urgent for them to get off Windows
Or makes it easier to transition to Linux.
they can run good software and legacy Windows desktop stuff together on the same machine.
What software can they run now that they previously couldn't? Aside from pre-compiled Linux binaries of course.
This is M$ strategy of killing off the Linux kernel.
How so? In terms of usage of the Linux kernel the desktop is probably where it is least used, even if the entire Linux user base on the desktop were supplanted with WSL (seems pretty unlikely) I'm still not quite sure how you get to this killing off the Linux kernel.
Apple obviously does not agree because they have gotten rid of it.
Wrong. They just find the value of an extra USB-C port MORE useful than MagSafe. Possibly they are correct.
But just because they moved to something else does not mean they didn't find the older standard useful. Please study logic.
Don't be such a condescending dickhead with your "please study logic" nonsense, it just demonstrates your inability to make a coherent argument. Clearly if they thought it had value they would have added it, either by having 4 USB-C ports + magsafe or eliminating one USB-C port and replacing it with magsafe.
Are you kidding? Magsafe WAS the greatest, and a laptop owner DOES need it.
Apple obviously does not agree because they have gotten rid of it.
USB-C is sadly more all-around functional
You realize that even Apple's own laptops (prior to their current lineup) did indeed have more than one kind of port, the fact that they have USB-C never precluded Apple from having the magsafe charging port.
Who gives a shit? Apple went through a whole marketing song and dance about how great and necessary magsafe was and now admitted actually you don't need it, how the trashcan mac pro was the future of computing, 7" tablets, styluses, intel CPUs, etc ... the tech world is full of hypocritical pontifications and neither Apple nor Samsung are strangers to them.
I remember when IE6 was the only choice for the web and how it held it back by a good few years.
Aside from some internal line of business applications that used ActiveX there wasn't really anything that didn't display just fine in any of the alternatives.
Remember Microsoft's old informal motto: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish?
Yes I'm pretty sure everybody remembers that but how exactly do you think that applies here?
so doing what they always have done. use someone else stuff. its litterly how dos/windows came to be.
Doing what just about all companies and groups do, It's also how Linux came to be (clone of UNIX), how macOS came to be (BSD + UNIX clone) and how WebKit itself came to be (was previously an open source browser engine called KHTML).
Problem is everyone else does and then you have trouble opening their projects...
These days sensible projects use systems like CMake so that you only need to upgrade your compiler if the project has a requirement for it. Granted not every project does but it's a more sane solution to the update issue.
Someone else already asked that and I already answered that. Do you have the attention span of a goldfish?
Read the thread, no you didn't.