> I can't believe people are actually comparing telemetry in Windows to Linux.
I'm not surprised - at least some of these people are Microsoft employees so it's no wonder they try to use the same strategy as always - fear, uncertainty and doubt. After all, if people start believing that "Linux also has telemetry", why even consider switching?
Actually I'm happy to hear it from the mouth of Microsoft employees (especially "advocacy" guys, i.e. paid to convince others): it means that Microsoft does care, they do consider Linux a threat, and the war is definitely not over.
There's no FUD. Ubuntu actually does have telemetry. KDE does too. It may not be quite the same in implementation as Microsoft's telemetry, but it is there. There is also nothing to be afraid of here either, the effects of it and how to use it are all spelled out clearly in the respective privacy policies.
"Why even consider switching" is the eternal question that Linux companies have not been able to adequately answer for the last few decades. If you know of a good reason, let me know. Otherwise we can agree that the "war" was already over a long time ago and Microsoft won pretty clearly.
> Ubuntu actually does have telemetry. KDE does too.
Ahh, yes, Ubuntu and KDE = Linux. Very logical.
> It may not be quite the same in implementation as Microsoft's telemetry, but it is there.
There can be a world of difference between telemetry implementations. Debian's popcount, for instance, is opt-in - Windows' are mostly (if not all) opt-out. Ubuntu and KDE send their data to organizations that I trust - Windows do not. Ubuntu and KDE's telemetry remain off when I turn it off - Windows' does not. I know exactly what data KDE collects, because it's spelled out in that page you linked - I don't know what data Windows or Ubuntu collect.
Given the extreme variance in telemetry implementations, trying to falsely equivocate Windows and Linux telemetry is FUD.
In this case, yes. Ubuntu and KDE are two major players in desktop Linux. There really is not anything stopping Linux vendors from using telemetry, and in fact I'd expect them to use more of it in the event their products get more popular.
"Debian's popcount, for instance, is opt-in - Windows' are mostly (if not all) opt-out."
This is a minor detail and I don't think it actually matters. If a company actually needs that data and is not getting it from that telemetry then they're getting it from somewhere else. For example Canonical builds products on Debian and doesn't use popcon, they use other data collection mechanisms, which are detailed in the privacy policy I posted.
"Ubuntu and KDE send their data to organizations that I trust"
This has nothing to do with the implementation. Plus, Microsoft's dedicated customers do trust Microsoft to similar degree, so this is not going to be convincing to them. You need a better selling point.
"Ubuntu and KDE's telemetry remain off when I turn it off - Windows' does not."
That sounds to me like a bug or glitch that someone should fix. Ubuntu or KDE could also manifest such bugs, I guess we're just lucky they haven't.
"I don't know what data Windows or Ubuntu collect"
It's possible to change that. You can just read the Ubuntu privacy policy that I posted. Windows also has a similar privacy policy, you should do a search for it if you're interested.
"trying to falsely equivocate Windows and Linux telemetry is FUD"
Actually I have not done this, I mentioned they're different, and I explicitly explained how you shouldn't be afraid, uncertain or doubting anything. In a lot of cases (including some you mentioned) telemetry is not actually bad, and Windows users may feel that it's not bad for them either. I can give you more details if you need them. Please just don't misuse the phrase "FUD" like this.
It is clear that we have completely different perspectives. What is a "minor detail" for you is a decisive factor for me. I happily enable the Popularity Contest in Debian because they ask and because I trust them. I deliberately block all possible telemetry on Windows because they don't ask and because I don't trust them.
You know what is a crucial difference? I can take my Linux box and inspect all packets coming in and out and understand what they are for (it will take a long time on a modern system, but it's doable). And if I don't like something, I can block it and be sure (compromised systems aside) it will block everything I ask it to. With Windows... not only I can't be sure what all these packets are for, but I can't even be sure the built-in firewall and the related API will successfully block all packets communicating with Microsoft servers (same with Apple tbf). This is something that doesn't bother 99% of desktop users. But it does bother a certain kind of people who don't like being treated like that. We're different, that's all.
No, not in this case. It does not matter that Ubuntu and KDE are the two biggest desktop Linux vendors, because (1) their telemetry (and, more generally, spying) are in a different league from Windows', and (2) users are capable of choosing to use another distro - a luxury you don't get with Windows.
> This is a minor detail and I don't think it actually matters.
For almost everyone, except possibly you, this is a huge point. Opt-out and opt-in anything are completely different, both in a conceptual sense, and in an actual privacy sense. On a conceptual level, opt-out vs. opt-in defines the normal behavior or expectation for a thing - Microsoft wants you to believe that it's normal for lots of your (potentially-)private data to go to them. On a practical level, many users aren't aware of (or change) the settings, so opt-out vs. opt-in significantly changes the number of people who actually receive telemetry.
Here's a thought experiment to help you understand how important opt-in vs. opt-out is to most people - how many unhappy people are there that organ donation is opt-in - or opt-out? What if you made college opt-out - and got billed for the first semester even if you didn't attend unless you cancelled? What if social security payments were opt-in, or legal rights as an adult, or protection by civil or criminal law?
> This has nothing to do with the implementation.
Red herring - we're not concerned with just the implementation, we're concerned with Microsoft's behavior as a whole, and whether telemetry as a whole is different between Windows and Linux - the answer to which is a resounding "yes", because the exact same data going to Microsoft is far more likely to be exploited (not for the user's benefit) commercially than data going to the KDE foundation. So, sure, it's not related to the implementation - and that's irrelevant.
> That sounds to me like a bug or glitch that someone should fix. Ubuntu or KDE could also manifest such bugs, I guess we're just lucky they haven't.
This issue has been around for years and noticed by thousands of people on the internet, so if it's not intentional, then it's gross negligence, signifying a complete lack of concern for user privacy...that is not shared by Ubuntu or KDE. But, given Microsoft's past history of user abuse, compared with KDE's non-existence history (and Ubuntu's questionable status), it's rather more likely that it's intentional.
> It's possible to change that. You can just read the Ubuntu privacy policy that I posted. Windows also has a similar privacy policy, you should do a search for it if you're interested.
A snide and absolutely useless reply. My point, which you conveniently missed, was that I don't understand what Ubuntu or Microsoft collect because their privacy policies are obtuse, not because I haven't read them.
If you were actually concerned about seeing what data was collected, you would have read the Ubuntu policy and then seen that it does not make clear what data is collected. For instance, on that page, there's a sentence: "Canonical may collect non-personally-identifying information of the sort that web browsers and servers typically make available, such as the browser type, referring site, and the date and time of each visitor request." ...that doesn't enumerate the complete list of "non-personally-identifying information" collected...and all of that applies a hundred times more to Microsoft and Windows, with Canonical being exceptional in being this bad for Linux distros.
I also noticed that you didn't include a link to the Microsoft telemetry privacy policy. Perhaps that's because you weren't actually able to locate it yourself, just like I wasn't? For instance, let's search for "Windows Telemetry Policy" on DDG[1] - none of the first-page results are what we want. Meanwhile, "KDE telemetry policy" returns the document you linked and one on their telemetry philosophy on the first page. (I couldn't find anything on the Ubuntu telemetry)
Meanwhile, if you were to actually go and read the generic Microsoft privacy policy[3], you would see that it is so vague as to not allow you to understand what is actually being collected - like I said.
> Actually I have not done this, I mentioned they're different, and I explicitly explained how you shouldn't be afraid, uncertain or doubting anything.
Except you didn't - you made vague false equivalences meant to try to portray Linux telemetry as being similar to Microsoft telemetry (even though you couldn't actually provide the technical details to back it up), meant to instill fear, uncertainty, and doubt in Linux by trying to associate Microsoft's brand of "telemetry" with them. You also didn't explain away any worries about Microsoft's telemetry itself.
I can't believe people are actually comparing telemetry in Windows to Linux.