For me specifically, the setup and config oftentimes is what I’m doing with the computer, the learning and knowledge gained from the practice is what I’m after, which is good because it’s significantly less fun than it used to be.
Admittedly mine is probably a non-standard case and it ties in with other things in my life.
Condolences on your loss.
Depends on how you define ‘cost’ I suppose, but seems like the trade off isn’t worth it for you, which is fair.
Some might value the perceived benefits much higher than you do.
What if the life I’m imagining I’m protecting is one where I have the option of choosing a platform/application that isn’t scraping the absolute dregs of the barrel to squeeze out that last bit of profit margin.
That’s a win win right?
I mean, yes? That’s a good summation.
The part where you get to call something “open source” by OSI standards (which I’m pretty sure is the accepted standard set) but only if you adhere to those standards.
Don’t want to adhere, no problem, but nobody who does accept that standard will agree with you if you try and assign that label to something that doesn’t adhere, because that’s how commonly accepted standards work, socially.
Want to make an “open source 2 : electric boogaloo” licence , still no problem.
Want to try and get the existing open source standards changed, still good, difficult, but doable.
Relevant to this discussion, trying to convince people that someone claiming something doesn’t adhere to the current, socially accepted open source standards, when anybody can go look those standards up and check, is the longest of shots.
To address the bible example, plenty of variations exist, with smaller or larger deviations from each other, and they each have their own set of believers, some are even compatible with each other.
Much like the “true” 1 open source licences and the other, “closely related, but not quite legit” 2 variations.
1 As defined by the existing, community accepted standards set forth by the OSI
2 Any other set of standards that isn’t compatible with 1
edit: clarified that last sentence, it was borderline unparseable
“It’s not libre / free as in freedom so it’s wrong”.
I think it’s more “It’s not libre / free as in freedom so it’s not open source, don’t pretend it is”.
The “wrong” part would be derived from claiming its something that it isn’t to gain some advantage. I’m this case community contributions.
There’s not a handwaving distinction between open source and not, there are pretty clear guidelines.
Second, at least here in Germany Telegram has become the main platform for conspiracy nuts and antidemocratic organizations. Someone who is “very active” on Telegram is most certainly an idiot.
Bet the majority of them drive cars as well.
I don’t think there’s any data Microsoft can get through you using edge that they can’t also get just by controlling your OS
I’d put mid-level money on that not being true. There are a lot of things going on in a browser, a lot of which aren’t particularly easy to access from the outside.
Not to say it isn’t possible.
There are valid reasons to use windows and if you’ve gotta use it anyway they’ve already got your data from the start
To a degree yes, but assuming they aren’t pulling nefarious shit in the background, there are in theory many things you can turn off or somewhat neutralise using the options in the OS to reduce the level of data collection.
They are slowly removing those options but they still exist for now.
Again, i fully understand people not wanting to go to the trouble to achieve a goal they don’t care about, but that isn’t the same as there being nothing you can do if you wish to.
There shouldn’t be any of the Googled parts of Chrome in Edge, just as there aren’t any Googled parts of Chrome in stock Chromium.
There are at the very least googled parts of chromium in it though : https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium
Unless google have significantly changed the way they package and build chromium recently there are still google web service dependencies and i believe binary blobs (though they may have changed the closed source blob policy iirc)
Of course, you are now giving your data to Microsoft instead of Google, which isn’t really a win or a lose. If you’re not paying for the software, you’re either using FOSS, or the software is paid for by selling access to you and your computer.
Indeed
If you’re using windows you’re already giving Microsoft data so may as well
While technically correct, to me this sounds like “You haven’t managed to stop some of the tracking, why not just give them everything?” which is personally not my approach.
Not to say that my approach isn’t effort and is even effective, but I’d much rather limit the damage in the ways i can rather than give up entirely. I can see why someone wouldn’t want to put in that kind of effort though and i don’t fault them for it.
Edge uses chromium not chrome, I would hazard a guess there’s much less data harvesting going on in base chromium given it’s open source and people can see exactly what they collect
Open source yes, but not necessarily free from data-harvesting.
The fact that un-googled chromium (and others like it) exist implies that straight up chromium being open source isn’t a guarantee they aren’t doing consumer-hostile shit anyway.
Though, yes, it’s almost certainly less than full-fat chrome.
I’m having trouble parsing this so i might be commenting on something that isn’t there.
Current edge is a chrome re-skin with some addons, I’d put good money on it not being google free.
If you care about data going to nefarious places you probably shouldn’t be using either.
Cost per GiB is higher and long term reliability is lower in most scenarios.
The failure scenarios for spinning rust tends to work better with large storage arrays as well.
Not all absolutes, but enough of them are true on a common enough basis that spending the extra on SSD’s isn’t usually worth it.
If you want some real in depth explanations there’s probably a datahoarder community somewhere or reddit if you are so inclined.
The only “legal” thing you can do
And you’re free to do so, that’s the entire point of a decentralised system.
They aren’t making decision for anyone but themselves, again, as is the point.
If you don’t agree with whatever they do, find an instance you do agree with or start your own.
Staying or leaving has the same amount of personal agency.
I’m talking anecdotally and from my experience here, not as an absolute.
I will upfront admit i am somewhat biased against authority in general, especially what i perceived to be unearned authority (if you wish to be a respected authority, earn it and continue to do so) In this case however I’m talking about “authority” in a professional sense somewhat measured against the success or failure of particular projects or initiatives.
For the most part i agree with you but it seems like you are using the term “anti-authoritarian” as an absolute, as in being against authority is bad in all cases.
At a lot of companies “Critical thinking and standing up for your ideas” is considered anti-authoritarian because the company culture doesn’t allow for that kind of autonomy of thought (by design or long term evolution usually).
Your example works in the context of a company that works in a manner that promotes/encourage that kind of person, not all of them do. My personal experience and that of my circle of colleagues and acquaintances, I’d guess that percentage is around 30/70 with the 70% being companies that either actively or passively punish/discourage both of those types of employees.
Which i’d imagine is what @bouh meant when they said “But good employees will hate your company, because you consider them like bad ones”
Anti-authoritarianism is a bad trait. when the authority in question is doing the correct things (for whatever definition of correct you wish to use). “Anti-authoritarianism” and “Critical thinking and standing up for your ideas” are not mutually exclusive.
As with most things it’s contextual.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1149