As it turns out I had read the complete EULA but had forgotten about it.
I don't see anything devious in the truncation other than space in the
article. Recall that Auerbach (immediately after posting the supposedly
misleading EULA fragment) says:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some have spun conspiracy theories out of that language. I’m more
inclined to blame vagueness and sloppiness, not ill intent. With some
public pressure, Microsoft is likely to specify how and why it will
share your data. But even that won’t excuse Microsoft’s ham-fisted
incursion into users’ data, nor how difficult it is restore the level of
privacy back to what it was in Windows 7 and 8.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I found and read all of the comments to the Slate article. I also
re-read Thurrott's defense of Microsoft here
<https://www.petri.com/windows-10-privacy-concerns-are-overblown-but-perception-matters>
including all of the comments. The way I feel is summarized fairly well
in this comment from that article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your article is highly unprofessional and manipuliative.
At first you insult people who are concerned with their privacy as
"privacy fanatics" or "privacy nuts". What the ..?
Most settings in Windows—browser history, favorites, and passwords—are
now automatically synchronized to Microsoft’s servers."
This is not true for Windows 7.
"Windows 10’s new feature steals your Internet bandwidth."
This is true as well.
"Microsoft assigns a unique advertising ID for each [Windows 10
PC] and Bing which collects data which is then sold to third parties to
provide users with more personalized search results."
Doesn't matter that it is also enabled in Windows 8. I use Windows 7 and
there it is not installed.
"Windows 10 is free for many, so Microsoft simply must be doing
something underhanded as a result.After all, Microsoft would never
really give away Windows 10 for free."
So it's our fault and we are forced to give up our privacy just because
it's free? This is a bad argument (if one after all)?
"Those who care about privacy are free to configure the system as they
please. I wish they’d just stop messing with the truth."
Well who is messing with the truth? It seems you're not comparing
Windows 10 with the right operationg system (=Windows 7). So stop giving
the people wrong information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think we have to agree to disagree
Chuck Norcutt
On 8/10/2015 10:42 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
I declared it as fact since, if it isn't, Microsoft has sharply reduced
income to support a very large development team. You can't produce 70
million lines of code and just give it away.
I did not understand your comment about the EULA being misrepresented.
Your first comment was: "He inserts a period, in the front of a very
specific set of circumstances that his quote applies to." You have now
changed that to: "With the insertion of the comma and deleting the rest
of it, he is completely misleading the reader." I will try to find a
copy of the EULA and compare it. But I'm not sure how I'll do that
without installing Win 10. But you apparently have one and have
compared it. Care to share it?
I will also look deeper for the comments and read them in their
entirety. But even if you are correct that Slate misrepresented the
EULA I still maintain that: "... for the computer users that I support
there is very little upside to a Windows 10 conversion. And we haven't
even mentioned bugs and incompatibilities yet or Microsoft's diddling
with your browser and antivirus apps."
BTW, as a former operating system development manager it is my humble
opinion that the Win 10 code probably has at least 7,000 new defects.
There is no need to subject my senior citizen friends to leading edge
windburn.
Chuck Norcutt
On 8/10/2015 9:10 PM, Lawrence Plummer wrote:
On 8/10/2015 3:34 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
As far as I know there are no comments to the Slate article. I read
Paul Thurrott's
article 3 times and most of the comments more than once. Some of
those comments
support my position. Sorry, I think Thurrot's defense of Microsoft
is very weak and
mostly incomplete. Note that Thurrott's article is not a direct
refutation of the
Slate article.
The fundamental fact is that Microsoft has changed their business
model to be more
like Google or even more like Google than Google. It is their
intention to collect
vast amounts of personal data and don't tell you about it. There
are opt outs
provided but most ordinary users won't know about them or be able to
find them. But
perhaps I'm just a privacy fanatic. I have a Google account but
don't use it or
gmail. I don't use Facebook or other social media.
I continue to maintain that for the computer users that I support
there is very
little upside to a Windows 10 conversion. And we haven't even
mentioned bugs and
incompatibilities yet or Microsoft's diddling with your browser and
antivirus apps.
Color me unconvinced>> Chuck Norcutt
There are currently about 233 comments on the article. Revealing the
comments is notvery obvious. At either the end of the article or next to
the "NEXT" page jump,the fourth red icon, will bring up the comments.
I'd be interested in what/where you got the knowledge to say the above
as fact. The Slate article has essentially modified the actual EULA with
the manner in whichit is presented. With the insertion of the comma and
deleting the rest of it, he iscompletely misleading the reader. larry
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|