[jacurtis]

Yes the fact that Microsoft shares this information is concerning. But Microsoft only provides the information to Canonical (according to the ToS) for technical assistance and product support, but not for Marketing purposes.

Canonical is the one who violates trust here. Because they are using this information for marketing purposes, which they are not allowed to do under the information sharing agreement that they have with Microsoft.

So yes, we could argue whether Microsoft should be providing the installation information in the first place. It should at the very least be opt-out (on by default with the ability to not share), and preferably it should actually be opt-in (off by default, check a box to allow). So there is a violation of trust going on here, but this isn't any different than every other major tech company is guilty of right now (not that it makes it right).

But Canonical is the one that took the information and used it in a way that was never agreed to by either the person sharing the information (Microsoft) or by the user via the ToS (the ToS says that it is strictly for tech support, not for marketing). Canonical is the one that really overreached here.

[xorx]

You're obviously correct in the de jure sense, here. But there is also a matter of relationship expectation.

An unstated assumption of using any "free" product is that it's not actually free. Canonical screwed up, to be sure, but I do think many of us just expect getting harassed by salespeople to be the cost of using a "free" product.

Microsoft, on the other hand, charges me by the hour for using Azure. They've taken their pound of flesh, so my business expectation is that I'm going to be left the hell alone for anything other than billing matters. Them sharing the data in the first place, for something I've paid money for, FEELS like the bigger violation to me.

[cogman10]

Depends a lot on the free product.

For a linux distro, my expectations are that it's "free" but support will cost you money. My expectation is not that it's "free" and the OS will spy on you and report back to HQ so sales can make more sales.

If I don't give personal information on installation my expectation is the product is not harvesting or forwarding that information (For example, I expect that with Facebook, I don't expect that with GIMP).

Both are certainly wrong IMO. MS for giving personal info to a 3rd party and Canonical for bundling spyware with their OS. Both are super icky.

[pabs3]

That depends on the distro, a lot of distros offer gratis support. Some like Debian have both paid and gratis support.

https://www.debian.org/support

[sudosysgen]

Well, in the case it's not from the OS, but purely from Azure.

And you're selling the information in order to get tech support from Canonical, otherwise you can get it without selling your info (but won't really receive tech support).

[danans]

> They've taken their pound of flesh,

As an aside, "pound of flesh" doesn't mean "payment", it means "something that is one's legal right but is an unreasonable demand (esp in the phrase to have one's pound of flesh)", both in Shakespeare and in current usage.

Unless you feel Microsoft's price is unreasonable and you have no other option, "pound of flesh" isn't the right expression.

Something like "they've taken their cut" is more accurate.

[xorx]

Thank you for the aside!

Too late to edit, though.

[danans]

Thanks for hearing it out!