All right, then your argument relies on the licensing difference, not any technical differences between Linux root / Windows admin or source code access. Which makes sense, but it's all hypothetical since neither company addressed this yet, either in the product or in the licensing.
dev_null
joined 2 years ago
No, media did say that at over point, but it was never based on any announcement from Microsoft.
What does the comparability of root/admin access change in this situation?
Suppose Microsoft adds this capability to Windows, and you edit the registry to disable it. How is that any different?
I can see the argument for something like iOS. But on Windows you would be able to add or remove such functionality. What is the difference that makes the user the OS Provider on Ubuntu but not on Windows, in your eyes?
Let's say you own a computer store in California, you sell Windows laptops, and you setup your preinstalled Windows image with the registry edit made, because customers don't like the silly age prompt. How are you not the OS Provider?
They only have access to the functions that Microsoft has provided.
And a user of Ubuntu only has access to the functions that Canonical has provided.
Unless they have root access and modify the OS. Or they have administrator access on Windows and modify the OS. Which is the case for both by default. I don't really see the distinction. There is clearly a provider company behind both, and in both cases the user could add this age check functionality by themselves by installing an utility that provides it.
Great, but how does that help? 99.9% Linux users use a Linux distro that has, ay the very least, a website behind it, with a domain name, that has a registration info.
That the 0.01% of people that use an OS only hosted by anonymous devs on a Russian website does not make this law any better for the rest of us.
You are right, it just says whoever "controls the OS", which is very vague. Even without going to open source, a user still controls the OS even on Windows or macOS. To a lesser degree of course, but in the same way a driver controls a car even if they can't or won't try to modify it.
GrapheneOS would definitely not support Motorola making some secret changes to the OS before installing it so this news is the complete opposite of such situation.
I completely agree, I am answering the hypothetical you brought up:
How would Motorola lock it down?
I don't believe they will lock it down, but you asked how could they do that. And the answer is they could easily do that, deals or not. I don't think they will, but there is nothing preventing them from doing so.
We meant the same thing then. Nothing prevents Motorola from making changes to GrapheneOS, making it closed source, and blocking software/firmware changes on their phone so that you can't install the open source original.
What does it mean to you?
How is Linux going to do this? There’s no server for the os to send the information to report the age of its users
The law doesn't require sending the data anywhere, so that's not a problem.
no way of forcing its user base to comply and no single person or entity to fine, arrest or otherwise force into compliance.
The law doesn't require anything of users, it requires something of OS providers. OS providers have addresses and entities to fine.
GrapheneOS is open source, Motorola - just like anyone else - can make changes to it before they install it on their devices.
view more: next ›
You are in luck, I already explained this very article! Copy pasting my old comment below:
Notice how even the article you linked doesn't give a full quote? It just quotes someone saying "last version" without any context of the sentence it was used in? I will give you the full quote where that comes form. Someone asked a Microsoft developer what they are currently working on, and the answer was:
It is obvious from context "last version" meant "latest version" here. And that misreading of a quote, conveniently not included in most articles, is the only source for all these news. No announcement. No journalist actually asking Microsoft about it. Just a fleeting comment by one Microsoft employee that obviously meant something else, in an answer about something else, but why let that get in the way of a good story.
And this was an answer to an audience question in a "Tiles, Notifications, and Action Center” presentation by a single Microsoft employee, on a developer conference. The absolute last place to look for a ground-breaking announcement about Microsoft's future.
And the exact same article you linked confirms Microsoft is still deciding on the name for the next Windows? Which would make no sense if there was no next Windows?
There will be no Windows 11, says some guy who doesn't work at Microsoft.
And then a bunch of cherry picked quotes about continous updates and a service model being a good thing. Yep, continous updates, just like we got in Windows Vista, and that have nothing to do with there not being new Windows versions, but that's what the article attempts to imply.
Modern journalism is useless. Someone made up a thing, everyone else copied it. And not a single media outlet actually asked Microsoft about it. No one. Or maybe they did, but the answer meant there is no news, so let's ignore it.