Their business model by distributing Chrome (and also ChromeOS and Android, by extension) is to get a browser in as many peoples' hands as possible that uses Google as the default search engine, which is their bread and butter. I have not seen any evidence that any of their products outside of the search engine proper is guilty of spying like Windows 10, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.
This exact Ask Slashdot has already been done at least three times. The answer isn't different: Don't upgrade if you don't want Microsoft constantly spying on you and tampering with your computer and splicing in and out features.
If you just use the "Normal" protection, then yes; use one or the other, both is redundant. But the "Strict" catches more things than the "Normal", in which case it makes sense to have both going so you can disable the "Strict" protection on occasion but still have the "Normal" filters going.
Is there any evidence that Chrome chats with Google for anything other than updates, if you turn off "Safe Browsing" and "Search Suggestions" and what not?
I'm aware of that, but here's the deal on that: Firefox gives you two options -- "strict" or "regular" tracking protection. The strict blocks more things than Disconnect, but it also breaks lots of websites. (I presume the "regular" is exactly equivalent to just using Disconnect.) Occasionally I want to temporarily disable the "strict" protection but still have the "regular", which is not currently an option in Firefox; it's all or nothing. You can switch in the Options menu, but it requires a restart of the browser, so it's a pain in the ass to do it that way. So I keep Disconnect installed so that I can disable the "strict" and still get the "regular" protection.
(Now, all of this is redundant because you can get Disconnect's filters through uBlock Origin, but that's beside the point...)
uBlock Origin and Disconnect do the same things as Adblock Plus and Ghostery respectively, minus taking money to let some "acceptable ads" through the filters.
So are you saying that this planned obsolescence bricks android devices after a certain amount of time? Odd, I have some old tablets on Android that still run.
No, but one would be a fool to use a smartphone with lots of known security vulnerabilities as anything but an offline tool. I need my calls and SMS and app data to be secure.
Regardless, Pennies on devices add up over time to large amounts. Pennies on all aspects of devices can make a real difference.
Horrible argument. No sane person would spend a hundred dollars (which is what the Moto E cost) on a smartphone but willingly not pay an extra few pennies to ensure it will get security updates. Again, this is about planned obsolescence, not device costs.
You need to buy 500 Windows Enterprise licenses at minimum, so what legal way are you supposed to get these spliced-out features back without owning a corporation?
In what other industry can you get away with this?
Imagine if you bought a car with power steering, and one day you go out for a drive to find it's been disabled; you have to upgrade to a premium car to get it back, and you can only do that if you buy 499 other cars at the same time.
Its a pretty well established fact that Android devices update seldom, if ever, and most of the time, never. This is the result of the race to the bottom approach of catering to those who demand as cheap as possible. So the profit margin does not allow for updates.
Total nonsense. Hiring one or two guys to test and push security patches would add pennies or less to each device's cost. This is about OEMs and carriers trying to enforce planned obsolescence so customers will buy newer models more frequently.
But as a savvy consumer, I know that Android devices seldom - and that means close to the point of never - get updates, and am extremely skeptical that one that is claimed to, actually will. And look what happened! Skepticism that turns out to be truth is still ground truth.
You're exaggerating wildly. Motorola actually had a good record for phone updates before 2015 (before they were bought by Lenovo). Nexus devices of course have an excellent track record. I have also heard that Samsung's and LG's flag ships get regular updates these days, but cannot verify.
Did they? I thought the final outcome of that was you were eligible for a $9 voucher, or $50-something if you were willing to testify in court that you bought a PS3 to install Linux on it.
Nonsense. Android is patched regularly. The problem is OEMs and carriers block those patches.
Solution: don't use an evil carrier, and don't buy from an OEM that has a history of doing those things. I use a Nexus phone on Ting Mobile and I get monthly security updates.
Using open source doesn't guarantee that you or anyone else will be able to or can be bothered to fix it. We are not all experts at every aspect of every open source software we use.
But that's the beautiful thing about open source. A bug is reported, and for whatever reason the maintainer won't fix it (incompetence, laziness, untimely death, etc.). You can recompile the project yourself with the fix. I did this very thing with a Thunderbird extension that the maintainer forgot about but broke with a new TB release; somebody left the fix in the reviews.
If Microsoft or some other company declares a project EOL, no luck in hell you're getting that fixed.
Latin America, Canada, Europe and Asia is much larger than the US market. So, sorry for you, but just because it's not US doesn't mean it's irrelevant.
Except for the fact that they aired this commercial on U.S. channels: "And while other smartphones in this category don't always support upgrades, we won't forget about you, and we'll make sure your Moto E stays up to date after you buy it."
I don't see anything in there about *AMERICANS EXCLUDED*.
So I shouldn't be mad at Lenovo, because even though they are guilty of blatantly false advertising, I shouldn't've believed it in the first place?
What kind of victim-blaming shit logic is that?
While we might debate about victim blaming, it's no secret that updates on most all android products simply don't happen. So it fits in the "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" category.
Oh, I see. So it's okay to lie so long as it didn't seem credible to begin with. Got it. I guess people like you are the reason why so many politicians get away with perjury.
Slashdot Mirror
You can get back the start menu with Classic Shell. You can't make the OS stop spying on you or force driver updates.
Surely you missed the most useful one that enhances security.
Only if it's doing something like this: https://it.slashdot.org/story/...
Their business model by distributing Chrome (and also ChromeOS and Android, by extension) is to get a browser in as many peoples' hands as possible that uses Google as the default search engine, which is their bread and butter. I have not seen any evidence that any of their products outside of the search engine proper is guilty of spying like Windows 10, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.
Maybe people would take you more seriously if you didn't post like a Russian scammer advertising for viagra.
This exact Ask Slashdot has already been done at least three times. The answer isn't different: Don't upgrade if you don't want Microsoft constantly spying on you and tampering with your computer and splicing in and out features.
If you just use the "Normal" protection, then yes; use one or the other, both is redundant. But the "Strict" catches more things than the "Normal", in which case it makes sense to have both going so you can disable the "Strict" protection on occasion but still have the "Normal" filters going.
How does TrackMeNot stop gmail tracking? Google reads the contents of your inbox and outbox before you even open your browser.
Is there any evidence that Chrome chats with Google for anything other than updates, if you turn off "Safe Browsing" and "Search Suggestions" and what not?
I'm aware of that, but here's the deal on that: Firefox gives you two options -- "strict" or "regular" tracking protection. The strict blocks more things than Disconnect, but it also breaks lots of websites. (I presume the "regular" is exactly equivalent to just using Disconnect.) Occasionally I want to temporarily disable the "strict" protection but still have the "regular", which is not currently an option in Firefox; it's all or nothing. You can switch in the Options menu, but it requires a restart of the browser, so it's a pain in the ass to do it that way. So I keep Disconnect installed so that I can disable the "strict" and still get the "regular" protection.
(Now, all of this is redundant because you can get Disconnect's filters through uBlock Origin, but that's beside the point...)
Also, thanks for mentioning Canvasblocker -- didn't know about that one, it looks to be useful.
uBlock Origin and Disconnect do the same things as Adblock Plus and Ghostery respectively, minus taking money to let some "acceptable ads" through the filters.
Privacy Badger will automatically replace the social media buttons for you, there's an option on its dashboard.
So are you saying that this planned obsolescence bricks android devices after a certain amount of time? Odd, I have some old tablets on Android that still run.
No, but one would be a fool to use a smartphone with lots of known security vulnerabilities as anything but an offline tool. I need my calls and SMS and app data to be secure.
Regardless, Pennies on devices add up over time to large amounts. Pennies on all aspects of devices can make a real difference.
Horrible argument. No sane person would spend a hundred dollars (which is what the Moto E cost) on a smartphone but willingly not pay an extra few pennies to ensure it will get security updates. Again, this is about planned obsolescence, not device costs.
And what will you do if Microsoft decides to remove BitLocker, Hyper-V, and Feedback at a future date?
You need to buy 500 Windows Enterprise licenses at minimum, so what legal way are you supposed to get these spliced-out features back without owning a corporation?
In what other industry can you get away with this?
Imagine if you bought a car with power steering, and one day you go out for a drive to find it's been disabled; you have to upgrade to a premium car to get it back, and you can only do that if you buy 499 other cars at the same time.
Its a pretty well established fact that Android devices update seldom, if ever, and most of the time, never. This is the result of the race to the bottom approach of catering to those who demand as cheap as possible. So the profit margin does not allow for updates.
Total nonsense. Hiring one or two guys to test and push security patches would add pennies or less to each device's cost. This is about OEMs and carriers trying to enforce planned obsolescence so customers will buy newer models more frequently.
But as a savvy consumer, I know that Android devices seldom - and that means close to the point of never - get updates, and am extremely skeptical that one that is claimed to, actually will. And look what happened! Skepticism that turns out to be truth is still ground truth.
You're exaggerating wildly. Motorola actually had a good record for phone updates before 2015 (before they were bought by Lenovo). Nexus devices of course have an excellent track record. I have also heard that Samsung's and LG's flag ships get regular updates these days, but cannot verify.
Did they? I thought the final outcome of that was you were eligible for a $9 voucher, or $50-something if you were willing to testify in court that you bought a PS3 to install Linux on it.
Nonsense. Android is patched regularly. The problem is OEMs and carriers block those patches.
Solution: don't use an evil carrier, and don't buy from an OEM that has a history of doing those things. I use a Nexus phone on Ting Mobile and I get monthly security updates.
You're right, I spoke with imprecision. Mea culpa.
Using open source doesn't guarantee that you or anyone else will be able to or can be bothered to fix it. We are not all experts at every aspect of every open source software we use.
But that's the beautiful thing about open source. A bug is reported, and for whatever reason the maintainer won't fix it (incompetence, laziness, untimely death, etc.). You can recompile the project yourself with the fix. I did this very thing with a Thunderbird extension that the maintainer forgot about but broke with a new TB release; somebody left the fix in the reviews.
If Microsoft or some other company declares a project EOL, no luck in hell you're getting that fixed.
Nexus 5X or 6P will get at least two years of monthly security updates.
Latin America, Canada, Europe and Asia is much larger than the US market. So, sorry for you, but just because it's not US doesn't mean it's irrelevant.
Except for the fact that they aired this commercial on U.S. channels: "And while other smartphones in this category don't always support upgrades, we won't forget about you, and we'll make sure your Moto E stays up to date after you buy it."
I don't see anything in there about *AMERICANS EXCLUDED*.
How the hell does any of that explain why they'll update the Asian and European model but not the American version, of the exact same phone?
So I shouldn't be mad at Lenovo, because even though they are guilty of blatantly false advertising, I shouldn't've believed it in the first place?
What kind of victim-blaming shit logic is that?
While we might debate about victim blaming, it's no secret that updates on most all android products simply don't happen. So it fits in the "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" category.
Oh, I see. So it's okay to lie so long as it didn't seem credible to begin with. Got it. I guess people like you are the reason why so many politicians get away with perjury.
Everybody's devices should be forced to be insecure, so that bad guys are just as unprotected and vulnerable as innocent people.