On 2024-07-01 20:36, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 12:31:18 -0400, Larry Wolff
> <larrywolff@larrywolff.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/30/2024 8:49 AM, Kees Nuyt wrote:
>>
>>>> You must be out of your mind to concern yourself
>>>> with this kind of thing.
>>>
>>> Bill, you must be out of your mind to quote all 245 lines of
>>> Andrew's article to just add your 2 cents.
>>
>> It's a worthwhile privacy concern to think about which operating systems
>> are designed to require logging into the maker's servers for most of the
>> vital essential services that comprise the core of the operating system.
>
> It's not just a privacy concern.
>
> The point about laptop computers is that they are *portable*. You can
> take them to meetings at remote locations where there is no internet
> access. You can take them to libraries and archives to do research.
> You can use them (for a while) if the mains electricity goes off.
>
> Being tethered to the mothership means that portable computers cease
> to be portable and are forced to be, well, tethered.

Ummmm...

I've had Mac laptops for more than 30 years.

I've never been tethered.

Alan wrote on 2/7/24 3:00 pm:
> On 2024-07-01 20:36, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 12:31:18 -0400, Larry Wolff
>> <larrywolff@larrywolff.net> wrote:
>>> On 6/30/2024 8:49 AM, Kees Nuyt wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You must be out of your mind to concern yourself with this
>>>>> kind of thing.
>>>>
>>>> Bill, you must be out of your mind to quote all 245 lines of
>>>> Andrew's article to just add your 2 cents.
>>>
>>> It's a worthwhile privacy concern to think about which operating
>>> systems are designed to require logging into the maker's servers
>>> for most of the vital essential services that comprise the core
>>> of the operating system.
>>
>> It's not just a privacy concern.
>>
>> The point about laptop computers is that they are *portable*. You
>> can take them to meetings at remote locations where there is no
>> internet access. You can take them to libraries and archives to do
>> research. You can use them (for a while) if the mains electricity
>> goes off.
>>
>> Being tethered to the mothership means that portable computers
>> cease to be portable and are forced to be, well, tethered.
>
> Ummmm...
>
> I've had Mac laptops for more than 30 years.
>
> I've never been tethered.
>
..... except by the Wi-Fi or USB Dongle that you use to get your signal
out of your Mac laptops to where ever they are distend.

Otherwise the signal would NEVER have left your Mac laptop.
--
Daniel

Steve Hayes wrote on 2/7/24 1:41 pm:
> On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 17:42:38 +0200, "Jan K."
> <janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> wrote:
>> W Mon, 1 Jul 2024 14:10:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 napisal:
>>
>>>>> Someone else told me that Windows 11 does save files locally,
>>>>> but it is so many levels deep that you have to be a hacker to
>>>>> find them.
>>>>
>>>> I think Windows 11 wants you to create and continually log into
>>>> a Microsoft mainframe server account so that they can start to
>>>> market products to you and so they can sell your meta data, but
>>>> I don't think that Microsoft login account on the net is
>>>> required for the essential operation of the device.
>>>
>>> I'm sure they'll try and find some excuse tho.
>>
>> What happens if you do not create that MSA account on Windows 11?
>
> It works.
>
> It does on my wife's computer.

Do you still get all the OS updates?? Or does MS think if you will not
play nicely with them, they will not play nicely with you??

HMM! Is it part of the initial purchase agreement of the OS that MS MUST
provide the purchaser with any relevant updates??
--
Daniel

On 7/2/2024 4:53 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
> Steve Hayes wrote on 2/7/24 1:41 pm:
>> On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 17:42:38 +0200, "Jan K." <janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> wrote:
>>> W Mon, 1 Jul 2024 14:10:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 napisal:
>>>
>>>>>> Someone else told me that Windows 11 does save files locally,
>>>>>> but it is so many levels deep that you have to be a hacker to
>>>>>> find them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think Windows 11 wants you to create and continually log into
>>>>> a Microsoft mainframe server account so that they can start to
>>>>> market products to you and so they can sell your meta data, but
>>>>> I don't think that Microsoft login account on the net is
>>>>> required for the essential operation of the device.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure they'll try and find some excuse tho.
>>>
>>> What happens if you do not create that MSA account on Windows 11?
>>
>> It works.
>>
>> It does on my wife's computer.
>
> Do you still get all the OS updates?? Or does MS think if you will not play nicely with them, they will not play nicely with you??
>
> HMM! Is it part of the initial purchase agreement of the OS that MS MUST provide the purchaser with any relevant updates??

The MSA account has NOTHING to do with Windows Update.

Not that I have seen.

Remember that Windows Update was around with WinXP, and
there was no tracking mechanism there.

Patching is all done by local calculation.
Even when the OS collects various "history" information
about patch success, none of that matters when
Windows Update runs. You can erase some of the markers and
backups, and it makes no different to WU success. (Even if
a Troubleshooter routine deletes various stuff, it does not
stop WU from working.)

It just computes the current situation, what patches do I need,
boom and done.

The speed of Windows Update, the delay can be three minutes (functional minimum,
a rough approximate value), or it can stretch to infinite time (Vista SP2!!!).
You can no longer properly patch Vista. You may also find that some other
experiences have degraded (somewhat due to SHA2 signing and the proper patch order).
But the Vista situation is the absolute worst. I suspect signing has put a knife
into that puppy. I once succeeded in patching Vista SP2, but when I tried
recently, the recipe no longer works.

Microsoft knows the WU scheme is un-scalable. The wheels keep falling off it, and
they apply duct tape and binder twine to hold the wheels on it. I think they're
internally proud of the mess, and how they have staff shackled to desks,
keeping it running :-) The quality of the experience (how long it takes to install),
is partially a function of pruning the update tree properly.

Back in the WinXP era, a middle-manager said "I promise you we will fix WU once and
for all, before the end of WinXP", when the end of WinXP was only in a few months.
I always like to tell that story, because that middle-manager was so full of shit,
and that middle-manager knew exactly how and why WU was broken. And WU, the core
part of it, how the calculations are done, has not changed since it was invented.
That's why the WSUSSCN2.cab file used to track packages BEFORE your current OS.
It could be using calculations based on some WinXP era updates, when working on
a Windows Update for Windows 10. It has a long and "continuous" history. Imagine
for example, how awful the supersedence tree for KB890830 is.

The invention of things like Cumulative Updates, is an attempt to hide the rickety
nature of Windows Update. And you'll notice at times, it's getting almost as bad as
it was in the Windows XP era. Even though our processors are X times faster.

Back in the Win7 era, I found a thread where some IT people were reporting on
Windows Update problems. One guy claimed once an hour or so, Windows Update would
start computing "do I need patches". The process used up all the RAM on a W7 2GB RAM machine.
The employees in the enterprise, could then not use their (cheap) computer. The IT people were
begging and pleading to "fix this quickly before I get fired" :-) And Microsoft made
one of the few clever fixes for Windows Update. It added a memory compressor for the
WU data structure in memory. This makes the memory consuming process execute slower, but, the
data structure no longer takes up all the machine memory, so those employees were
no longer being held hostage by Windows Update :-) Which I think is a cool fix.

Paul

Daniel70 wrote:

> Do you still get all the OS updates?? Or does MS think if you will not
> play nicely with them, they will not play nicely with you??

What have updates got to do with an MSA?

Microsoft have been more and more insistent on creating an MSA at
install time, though there are still ways around it; even if they close
all the loopholes, you can install with an MSA, create a local admin
account then delete the MSA ... just make sure you have copies of any
bitlocker keys elsewhere.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote at 10:27 this Tuesday (GMT):
> Daniel70 wrote:
>
>> Do you still get all the OS updates?? Or does MS think if you will not
>> play nicely with them, they will not play nicely with you??
>
> What have updates got to do with an MSA?
>
> Microsoft have been more and more insistent on creating an MSA at
> install time, though there are still ways around it; even if they close
> all the loopholes, you can install with an MSA, create a local admin
> account then delete the MSA ... just make sure you have copies of any
> bitlocker keys elsewhere.

I wouldn't be surprised if they would still send telemetry about that
account even after deletion..
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

candycanearter07 wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Microsoft have been more and more insistent on creating an MSA at
>> install time, though there are still ways around it; even if they close
>> all the loopholes, you can install with an MSA, create a local admin
>> account then delete the MSA ... just make sure you have copies of any
>> bitlocker keys elsewhere.
>
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if they would still send telemetry about that
> account even after deletion..

I'm sure they send telemetry whatever you do, but there won't be much to
send about an account that's been deleted, and therefore can't login

Daniel70 wrote:
> Jan K. wrote:
>> AJL wrote:

>> What happens if you do not create that MSA account on Windows 11?

>>> Can't speak for W11 but I'm posting with a cheapie 10" laptop
>>> that I bought a few months ago (from Amazon, where else?) that
>>> came with a W10 Pro local account (no MS sign up requested). I've
>>> not had any problems for my use yet. YMMV of course...

> Do you still get all the OS updates?? Or does MS think if you will
> not play nicely with them, they will not play nicely with you??

I'm still getting updates on this Windows 10 Pro laptop (described
above) that has NEVER HAD an MS account. One update is waiting to
install now. However I read that the updates will stop in another year
unless I upgrade to Windows 11. And since there have been no offers I
suspect this cheapie laptop is not capable of using Windows 11.

> HMM! Is it part of the initial purchase agreement of the OS that MS
> MUST provide the purchaser with any relevant updates??

Dunno about agreements, but every new gadget I have had came with a
period of updates including my Chromebooks and Android toys...

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote at 14:23 this Tuesday (GMT):
> candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> Microsoft have been more and more insistent on creating an MSA at
>>> install time, though there are still ways around it; even if they close
>>> all the loopholes, you can install with an MSA, create a local admin
>>> account then delete the MSA ... just make sure you have copies of any
>>> bitlocker keys elsewhere.
>>
>>
>> I wouldn't be surprised if they would still send telemetry about that
>> account even after deletion..
>
> I'm sure they send telemetry whatever you do, but there won't be much to
> send about an account that's been deleted, and therefore can't login

Ohh, I thought you meant delete it from the computer.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

AJL wrote on Tue, 2 Jul 2024 07:33:17 -0700 :

>> Do you still get all the OS updates?? Or does MS think if you will
>> not play nicely with them, they will not play nicely with you??
>
> I'm still getting updates on this Windows 10 Pro laptop (described
> above) that has NEVER HAD an MS account. One update is waiting to
> install now. However I read that the updates will stop in another year
> unless I upgrade to Windows 11. And since there have been no offers I
> suspect this cheapie laptop is not capable of using Windows 11.

My Windows 10 Pro desktop has been getting updates from Microsoft for
something like almost 15 years, given the free Windows OS upgrades.

No MSA account for me either. Hell, I don't even have a password set.
(I never understood why people set a password on a home computer.)
>> HMM! Is it part of the initial purchase agreement of the OS that MS
>> MUST provide the purchaser with any relevant updates??
>
> Dunno about agreements, but every new gadget I have had came with a
> period of updates including my Chromebooks and Android toys...

Related to the power of marketing on the period of updates, almost nobody
knows that Apple has the *worst* operating system support in the industry.

Yup. The worst. And most people think it's the best. Why? Advertising.
That's why. People believe whatever they're told to believe by marketing.

We already showed above that Microsoft fully supports Windows 10 and
Windows 11 (as defined by fixing every bug that MS knows about).

The two major Android manufacturers fully support up to seven releases
simultaneously (again, full support means fixing every bug they know of).
<https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/samsung-extends-android-and-security-updates-to-7-years/>
<https://www.tomsguide.com/opinion/google-pixel-8-software-updates>

Google even monthly updates all Android 10+ devices on the net (which is
billions every month) for over two dozen core packages (which has no EOL).
<https://www.androidheadlines.com/2022/01/google-monthly-changelog-play-system-updates.html>

Apple?

Apple has the *worst* operating system hotfix support in the industry.
<https://support.apple.com/guide/deployment/about-software-updates-depc4c80847a/>

Apple was forced to admit they've NEVER fully updated ever more than one
release and they were forced to publish their update policy to that effect.
<https://screenrant.com/apple-product-security-update-lifespan/>
<https://hothardware.com/news/apple-admits-only-fully-patches-security-flaws-in-latest-os-releases>
<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-security-update-policy-only-the-latest-oses-are-fully-patched/>

Worse, Apple was forced to finally ditch their ancient monolithic update
mechanism to join the modern world in the process of how to patch an OS.
<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201224>

And worse than even the fact only Apple refuses to fully support more than
one release at a time, Apple's promise is only for a mere measly 5 years.
<https://www.androidauthority.com/iphone-software-support-commitment-3449135/>

It's no wonder why the Apple devices are the most exploited in history.
<https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>

On 7/2/2024 7:54 AM, Andrew wrote:

> (I never understood why people set a password on a home computer.)

Here in the big city home burglaries happen. My neighbor lost all his
electronics in one. A home computer's passwords (pins in my case) are
all that stand between my data and the perp. Granted most stolen
electronics are likely wiped before resale but still one never knows...

AJL wrote on Tue, 2 Jul 2024 09:24:41 -0700 :

>> (I never understood why people set a password on a home computer.)
>
> Here in the big city home burglaries happen. My neighbor lost all his
> electronics in one. A home computer's passwords (pins in my case) are
> all that stand between my data and the perp. Granted most stolen
> electronics are likely wiped before resale but still one never knows...

Even if your computer or phone is stolen, all they get is the device.
Nobody who knows computers has sensitive data stored in the clear on them.

Besides... MARKETING is who is telling people they need to lock it all up.
(There are reasons for why MARKETING wants this - but that's a long story.)

It's a standing joke that people who put biometric gimmicks on their phones
& computers must live in the slums - but it's not supposed to be literal.

Putting locks like that on a *personal* home desktop computer or phone is
like welding bars across your windows & blocking the doors with furniture.

If people can't trust their own spouse and children around their personal
desktop computers, then I feel sorry for them. I really do. It's sad.

I should change my slogan from "People who lock computers live in the
slums", to something like "I feel sorry for those who can't trust anyone".

Note though that a *corporate* computer is different, and also note that
only a fool stores his private data unencrypted on his own desktop PC.

Also note nobody allows the login/password to be stored, in the clear, and
saved for things like banking (which is simply an indication of ignorance).

In summary, it's my educated assessment that people who use passwords (and
biometric gimmicks) on *personal* computing devices - don't know how to use
computers effectively (or, they don't trust their closest companions, which
is even worse than ignorance).

Having said that, I'm well aware that most people don't know how to use
computers & hence that's why they lock iron bars all around their devices.

On 7/2/2024 9:43 AM, Andrew wrote:
> AJL wrote on Tue, 2 Jul 2024 09:24:41 -0700 :

>> Here in the big city home burglaries happen. My neighbor lost all
>> his electronics in one. A home computer's passwords (pins in my
>> case) are all that stand between my data and the perp. Granted
>> most stolen electronics are likely wiped before resale but still
>> one never knows...

> Even if your computer or phone is stolen, all they get is the
> device.

The only thing that stands between most folks Android phone's unlocked
Google data is the lock screen.

> Nobody who knows computers has sensitive data stored in the clear on
> them.

Agreed. My sensitive data requires 2 passwords/pins. One for the lock
screen and one for the sensitive app.

> It's a standing joke that people who put biometric gimmicks on their
> phones

I never could get my lock screen fingerprint to work the first time. I
found that I could more easily enter a pin in a few seconds.

> & computers must live in the slums - but it's not supposed to be
> literal.

Burglaries happen everywhere. In both good and bad parts of town.

> Putting locks like that on a *personal* home desktop computer or
> phone is like welding bars across your windows & blocking the doors
> with furniture.

As I said I get a 2 second lock screen entry. Not all that terrible...

> If people can't trust their own spouse and children around their
> personal desktop computers, then I feel sorry for them. I really do.
> It's sad.

My wife knows my pins/passwords in case I croak.

> "I feel sorry for those who can't trust anyone"

I do trust some folks. But I still lock my house, car, and electronics...

On 2024-07-02 09:43, Andrew wrote:
> AJL wrote on Tue, 2 Jul 2024 09:24:41 -0700 :
>
>>> (I never understood why people set a password on a home computer.)
>> Here in the big city home burglaries happen. My neighbor lost all his
>> electronics in one. A home computer's passwords (pins in my case) are
>> all that stand between my data and the perp. Granted most stolen
>> electronics are likely wiped before resale but still one never knows...
> Even if your computer or phone is stolen, all they get is the device.
> Nobody who knows computers has sensitive data stored in the clear on them.
>
> Besides... MARKETING is who is telling people they need to lock it all up.
> (There are reasons for why MARKETING wants this - but that's a long story.)
>
> It's a standing joke that people who put biometric gimmicks on their phones
> & computers must live in the slums - but it's not supposed to be literal.

What a horrid person you are.

AJL wrote on Tue, 2 Jul 2024 11:25:56 -0700 :

>> Even if your computer or phone is stolen, all they get is the
>> device.
>
> The only thing that stands between most folks Android phone's unlocked
> Google data is the lock screen.

I know this. I agree with you. It's sad.
We agree on principles.
We differ slightly on implementation.

Fundamentally though, most people aren't like you and me (and most here).

Most people don't know how to use computers.

Specifically, most people don't know how to keep sensitive data separate
from everything else. If they did understand how to use computers, they
wouldn't need to lock steel bars all around their phones & PCs.

Overall, I feel sorry for anyone who puts a lock on a phone or computer.
It's sad that they live in such intense fear of everyone around them.

>> Nobody who knows computers has sensitive data stored in the clear on
>> them.
>
> Agreed. My sensitive data requires 2 passwords/pins. One for the lock
> screen and one for the sensitive app.

While Android can lock specific apps with an additional PIN, I'm not aware
Windows or Linux can lock specific apps with an addition PIN. Can they?

Even so, most of the people on this newsgroup know enough about computers
to understand the concept of keeping only the sensitive data under wraps.

Of course, I'm only talking about *personal* devices, as corporate devices
follow a much more stringent rule of locking everything down to the core.

>> It's a standing joke that people who put biometric gimmicks on their
>> phones
>
> I never could get my lock screen fingerprint to work the first time. I
> found that I could more easily enter a pin in a few seconds.

I agree with you that, if locks are necessary, the PIN is very reliable.
Biometrics are a marketing gimmick - mostly propagated by Apple marketing.

Very few people, I believe, are aware that biometric gimmicks were mainly
propogated by Apple because the design of the iPhone is inherently flawed.

In keeping with the topic of this thread, it's obvious to all who
understand privacy that the iPhone is designed as a dumb-terminal device.

Hence, the iPhone is so poorly designed that it absolutely must log into
the Apple mainframe servers dozens of times a day - just to be useful.

Think about that flaw. Dozens and dozens and dozens of times a day, the
iPhone is logging into the Apple matrix mainframe servers in Cupertino.

No other common consumer operating system (other than ChromeOS) requires
logging into mothership mainframe servers every moment of your life.

No wonder Apple promotes biometric gimmicks to make it easier to do that.

>> & computers must live in the slums - but it's not supposed to be
>> literal.
>
> Burglaries happen everywhere. In both good and bad parts of town.

The "slums" part is intentional to make a point; it's not meant to be
literal - but the main point I am making is that if you set up your device
intelligently - when it's stolen - you lose no sensitive data.

I may need to repeat that statement because it's a fundamental point.

If you set up your device intelligently, it doesn't matter if it's stolen.
All they get is the device.

They never get your sensitive data if you are intelligent about setup.
>> Putting locks like that on a *personal* home desktop computer or
>> phone is like welding bars across your windows & blocking the doors
>> with furniture.
>
> As I said I get a 2 second lock screen entry. Not all that terrible...

It's not a concept of "terrible" so much as a concept of poor setup design.
Any personal device that needs to be locked - is poorly set up by the user.

All sensitive data should be locked - but there's no need to lock up your
web browsers or your app installers or anything that is not sensitive data.

Again, I'm talking about *personal* devices; not corporate equipment.

>> If people can't trust their own spouse and children around their
>> personal desktop computers, then I feel sorry for them. I really do.
>> It's sad.
>
> My wife knows my pins/passwords in case I croak.

I would expect most of us to trust our wives and kids, which is why I said
it's sad when people have to lock up their devices to protect against them.

Overall, I feel sorry for anyone who puts a lock on a phone or computer.
It's sad that they live in such intense fear of everyone around them.

>> "I feel sorry for those who can't trust anyone"
>
> I do trust some folks. But I still lock my house, car, and electronics...

While I put the daily drives unlocked in the garage, the kids' cars are
parked outside unlocked, as are my tools in the unlocked shed.

The Federal Express/Amazon/DHL/etc., delivery guys put the packages on my
front door (which they don't even know, nor care, is likewise unlocked).

I don't live in the slums though, and I trust my wife and kids.

In summary, this is a philosophical question, where the only thing I want
others to think about is to ask themselves WHY are biometric locks so
highly advertised by companies that WANT you to log into their mainframe
servers every moment of your life (or the device won't work otherwise).

I want people to THINK about why Apple, in particular, is really big on
promoting not only that you MUST log into their servers every moment of
your life just for the phone to do the stuff you like - but also why you
must lock up your data which is stored on the cloud services they sell you.

I propose an intelligently set up device is:
a. One that keeps sensitive data separate from everything else
b. Where only that sensitive data is locked
c. And, where the device works WITHOUT needing to be logged into servers

This has been a philosophical discussion - which was a tangent from the one
statement which you picked up upon that people don't need to lock personal
devices unless those personal devices are badly designed or poorly set up.

On 7/2/2024 1:07 PM, Andrew wrote:

> I feel sorry for anyone who puts a lock on a phone or computer.

These days even a screen lock can be ineffective if the perp grabs your
phone and runs while you're using it.

> It's sad that they live in such intense fear of everyone around
> them.

I prefer the word caution. And being aware of ones surroundings. I spoke
to a lot of victims in one of my earlier careers that could likely have
avoided becoming victims had they done so.

> While Android can lock specific apps with an additional PIN, I'm not
> aware Windows or Linux can lock specific apps with an addition PIN.
> Can they?

With Windows I use a browser to access my sensitive sites. Most require
a password and initially 2FA.

> I agree with you that, if locks are necessary, the PIN is very
> reliable. Biometrics are a marketing gimmick

From what I read biometrics are safer than my 6 digit pins.

> No other common consumer operating system (other than ChromeOS)
> requires logging into mothership mainframe servers every moment of
> your life.

I was assimilated by Google many years ago...

> if you set up your device intelligently - when it's stolen - you lose
> no sensitive data.

That's what the pin is for. Gives me time to get to another device and
change my Google password. Then even if the perp breaks my phone's lock
screen pin my Google stuff will no longer work.

> They never get your sensitive data if you are intelligent about
> setup.

Yup.

On 2024-06-29, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
> Do the non-Apple common consumer operating systems (android, linux,
> win10/win11) work WITHOUT logging into the mothership mainframe servers?

> My only question to the non-Apple newsgroups is whether or not it is a true
> statement of mine that no other common consumer operating system (not even
> Windows 11) requires a mothership tracking account for basic functionality
> (certainly I am well aware Android does not require it).

If I want upgrades they come from debian servers but I don't need to
log in or to connect to their servers for the upgrades. (can use a
third party, or self hosted, mirror etc)

> Is my statement correct for all the non-Apple common consumer systems?

It's almost certainly false for some non-apple system, possibly one
that you have not considered. If you mean only the systems you listed
above, you should explicitly say that.

> Q: Does any non-Apple common OS require a mothership account for the
> basic functionality of the operating system that people love about it?

I think windows asks, but there's a way to refuse.

> That's all I ask to flesh out here, as I care only about the truth.

You are using a lot of words in slightly unusual ways, and yet saying very little, are your Arlen?

> I will only respond to those who stick to the topic of whether the
> non-Apple operating systems ALSO are set up on the dumb-terminal model
> (with the inherent loss of privacy, particularly in meta-data collection).

"dumb-terminal model" Well that's clear as mud! you must be Arlen.

> Below is simply a note I wrote today,in response to a question on the
> Apple iOS newsgroup

I'm stopping here' I don't want to read a cross post out of context
and don't trust you to use language in an understandable way.

--
Jasen.
🇺🇦 Слава Україні

On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 22:00:28 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2024-07-01 20:36, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 12:31:18 -0400, Larry Wolff
>> <larrywolff@larrywolff.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/30/2024 8:49 AM, Kees Nuyt wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You must be out of your mind to concern yourself
>>>>> with this kind of thing.
>>>>
>>>> Bill, you must be out of your mind to quote all 245 lines of
>>>> Andrew's article to just add your 2 cents.
>>>
>>> It's a worthwhile privacy concern to think about which operating systems
>>> are designed to require logging into the maker's servers for most of the
>>> vital essential services that comprise the core of the operating system.
>>
>> It's not just a privacy concern.
>>
>> The point about laptop computers is that they are *portable*. You can
>> take them to meetings at remote locations where there is no internet
>> access. You can take them to libraries and archives to do research.
>> You can use them (for a while) if the mains electricity goes off.
>>
>> Being tethered to the mothership means that portable computers cease
>> to be portable and are forced to be, well, tethered.
>
>Ummmm...
>
>I've had Mac laptops for more than 30 years.

And they were all non-Apple?

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Jack wrote on Wed, 3 Jul 2024 01:19:28 +0000 :

> On 02/07/2024 15:54, Andrew wrote:
>> My Windows 10 Pro desktop has been getting updates from Microsoft for
>> something like almost 15 years, given the free Windows OS upgrades.
> Windows 10 updates for 15 years! You must be the genius one to make
> things up on these newsgroups.

You missed the pragmatic part about sequential OS version updates that
themselves, were free which were included into that total time period.

On 2024-07-02 20:12, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 22:00:28 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-07-01 20:36, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 12:31:18 -0400, Larry Wolff
>>> <larrywolff@larrywolff.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/30/2024 8:49 AM, Kees Nuyt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> You must be out of your mind to concern yourself
>>>>>> with this kind of thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill, you must be out of your mind to quote all 245 lines of
>>>>> Andrew's article to just add your 2 cents.
>>>>
>>>> It's a worthwhile privacy concern to think about which operating systems
>>>> are designed to require logging into the maker's servers for most of the
>>>> vital essential services that comprise the core of the operating system.
>>>
>>> It's not just a privacy concern.
>>>
>>> The point about laptop computers is that they are *portable*. You can
>>> take them to meetings at remote locations where there is no internet
>>> access. You can take them to libraries and archives to do research.
>>> You can use them (for a while) if the mains electricity goes off.
>>>
>>> Being tethered to the mothership means that portable computers cease
>>> to be portable and are forced to be, well, tethered.
>>
>> Ummmm...
>>
>> I've had Mac laptops for more than 30 years.
>
> And they were all non-Apple?

Why would you ask something so ignorant?

I've had Mac laptops for...forever, and I've used them both iCloud and
its predecessor MobileMe.

In no way, shape, or form has using those services prevented my machines
from being portable.

I have taken them to remote locations where there was no internet access
and they continued to work fine.

On 2024-07-02 01:45, Daniel70 wrote:
> Alan wrote on 2/7/24 3:00 pm:
>> On 2024-07-01 20:36, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 12:31:18 -0400, Larry Wolff
>>> <larrywolff@larrywolff.net> wrote:
>>>> On 6/30/2024 8:49 AM, Kees Nuyt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> You must be out of your mind to concern yourself with this
>>>>>> kind of thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill, you must be out of your mind to quote all 245 lines of
>>>>> Andrew's article to just add your 2 cents.
>>>>
>>>> It's a worthwhile privacy concern to think about which operating
>>>> systems are designed to require logging into the maker's servers
>>>> for most of the vital essential services that comprise the core
>>>> of the operating system.
>>>
>>> It's not just a privacy concern.
>>>
>>> The point about laptop computers is that they are *portable*. You
>>> can take them to meetings at remote locations where there is no
>>> internet access. You can take them to libraries and archives to do
>>> research. You can use them (for a while) if the mains electricity
>>> goes off.
>>>
>>> Being tethered to the mothership means that portable computers
>>> cease to be portable and are forced to be, well, tethered.
>>
>> Ummmm...
>>
>> I've had Mac laptops for more than 30 years.
>>
>> I've never been tethered.
>>
> .... except by the Wi-Fi or USB Dongle that you use to get your signal
> out of your Mac laptops to where ever they are distend.
>
> Otherwise the signal would NEVER have left your Mac laptop.

But that is no more and no less "tethered" than any other personal
computer using any operating system.

On 2024-06-30 09:31, Larry Wolff wrote:
> On 6/30/2024 8:49 AM, Kees Nuyt wrote:
>
>>> You must be out of your mind to concern yourself
>>> with this kind of thing.
>>
>> Bill, you must be out of your mind to quote all 245 lines of
>> Andrew's article to just add your 2 cents.
>
> It's a worthwhile privacy concern to think about which operating systems
> are designed to require logging into the maker's servers for most of the
> vital essential services that comprise the core of the operating system.

What "vital essential services" would those be?

On 2024-06-29 11:13, Big Al wrote:
> On 6/29/24 12:54 AM, Andrew wrote:
>> Do the non-Apple common consumer operating systems (android, linux,
>> win10/win11) work WITHOUT logging into the mothership mainframe servers?
>>
>> My only question to the non-Apple newsgroups is whether or not it is a
>> true
>> statement of mine that no other common consumer operating system (not
>> even
>> Windows 11) requires a mothership tracking account for basic
>> functionality
>> (certainly I am well aware Android does not require it).
>
> As far as I have seen, Linux does not require any hooks into any
> Windows, Google, Apple, Mac connections.
> As you or something in your article said, adding account logins just
> enhances the experience.  I myself use the google calendar events that
> show on my Android phone and now show on my Linux calendar.

And macOS doesn't require any hooks into anything either.

On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 10:54:12 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2024-06-30 09:31, Larry Wolff wrote:

>> It's a worthwhile privacy concern to think about which operating systems
>> are designed to require logging into the maker's servers for most of the
>> vital essential services that comprise the core of the operating system.
>
>What "vital essential services" would those be?

My concerns are not so much "privacy" as working.

"Vital essential services" would be things like saving your work,
accessing your data on a laptop when away from home or in any other
circumstances where an internet connection is not available.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Alan wrote on 9/7/24 3:50 am:
> On 2024-07-02 01:45, Daniel70 wrote:
>> Alan wrote on 2/7/24 3:00 pm:
>>> On 2024-07-01 20:36, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 12:31:18 -0400, Larry Wolff
>>>> <larrywolff@larrywolff.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/30/2024 8:49 AM, Kees Nuyt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You must be out of your mind to concern yourself with this
>>>>>>> kind of thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill, you must be out of your mind to quote all 245 lines of
>>>>>> Andrew's article to just add your 2 cents.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a worthwhile privacy concern to think about which operating
>>>>> systems are designed to require logging into the maker's servers
>>>>> for most of the vital essential services that comprise the core
>>>>> of the operating system.
>>>>
>>>> It's not just a privacy concern.
>>>>
>>>> The point about laptop computers is that they are *portable*. You
>>>> can take them to meetings at remote locations where there is no
>>>> internet access. You can take them to libraries and archives to do
>>>> research. You can use them (for a while) if the mains electricity
>>>> goes off.
>>>>
>>>> Being tethered to the mothership means that portable computers
>>>> cease to be portable and are forced to be, well, tethered.
>>>
>>> Ummmm...
>>>
>>> I've had Mac laptops for more than 30 years.
>>>
>>> I've never been tethered.
>>>
>> .... except by the Wi-Fi or USB Dongle that you use to get your signal
>> out of your Mac laptops to where ever they are distend.
>>
>> Otherwise the signal would NEVER have left your Mac laptop.
>
> But that is no more and no less "tethered" than any other personal
> computer using any operating system.

Sorry! Are we talking at different things??

Currently, this Laptop uses its Wi-Fi to connect to a Box at the end of
my Landline Phone-line. If I were to take the Laptop to a Coffee-Bar,
the Wi-Fi would not work .... unless the Coffee-Bar offered Public Wi-Fi
..... but I'd have to obtain the Coffee-Bar Wi-Fi Password first.

Previously, I had a Dongle that I'd plug into a USB socket on this same
Laptop and, as long as I was with-in 'sight' of a Telco Antenna, I could
talk to the world.

In either case, I considered that I WAS Tethered! Maybe not by a
physical wire, but Tethered none the less.

Are we talking at different things??
--
Daniel