[ocdtrekkie]

Not having your privacy violated is not a feature, it's a form of extortion. Being violated is not the default state, they specifically added code to the product I pay for to do so. I should be able to disable or remove it.

That's the core of Stallman's point. He's an extremist, but there's merit. If it's my software, I need to be able to turn parts of it off.

[caskance]

If you're going to bring up Stallman, it's very disingenuous to talk like Windows was ever at any point "your software" by his or the FSF's criteria.

[ocdtrekkie]

As I pointed out, I view his attitude to some degree as extremist. But if I am going to pay $200 for a piece of software, I do rightfully expect to be able to configure how it works, and it not to include privacy abuse traps.

I understand that if you choose to use Google, you are paying for it with your privacy, which is why I avoid using it. But when I pay real money for a piece of software, it should not be violating my privacy anyways.

[caskance]

You can "configure how the software works" to some extent even if you only get the free version. As a rule, more expensive licenses give you more features. If you don't think windows 10 pro is a good enough value, that's fine. But characterizing it as some kind of immoral violation of your rights makes me not take you seriously.

I use VS Pro and wish it had the testing tools that Enterprise did. Not enough to pay that much, though. Should I be mad about a violation of my right to IDE test suite integration?

[ocdtrekkie]

I pay for Pro. Still can't set Telemetry 0. And no, consumers can't buy Enteprise.

[caskance]

For an stupid, arbitrarily chosen definition of consumer. Microsoft primary business is selling enterprise licenses.

Complaining that the professional license doesn't have all features available in response to my own analogy with VS makes me think you have no interest in the actual truth and just want to argue for its own sake. Is that accurate?

[ocdtrekkie]

No, it's that your constant defense of Microsoft makes no sense. It's not a logical decision for Microsoft to make. It's hurting their business and their reputation, for almost no appreciable gain. Microsoft has the best chance in the last decade of retaking their market share and their position of power in the tech industry, but they're shooting themselves in the head.

It doesn't matter what their 'primary business' is. What matters is that their reputation plays into decisionmaking. What someone has to deal with at home is going to remind them of their irritation when it's time to make up their mind on a purchase at the office.