• Re: Do the non-Apple common consumer operating systems work wellWITHOUT logging into the mothership mainframe servers?

    From Big Al@alan@invalid.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Saturday, June 29, 2024 14:13:38
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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.
    --
    Linux Mint 21.3, Cinnamon 6.0.4, Kernel 5.15.0-113-generic
    Al

    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Andrew@andrew@spam.net to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Saturday, June 29, 2024 21:38:19
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    Big Al wrote on Sat, 29 Jun 2024 14:13:38 -0400 :

    As far as I have seen, Linux does not require any hooks into any Windows, Google, Apple, Mac
    connections.

    Thanks for checking on Linux, as I haven't used 'nix since I stopped dual booting to Centos & Windows 10 (to turn off Windows update), long ago.

    Paul brought up ChromeOS, which does use, pretty much, the dumb-terminal concept which negates basic functionality if you're not logged in 24/7/365.

    Even Windows S, kind of, is a dumb-terminal concept in that it requires you
    to use the Windows App Store (as far as I know) for basic functionality.

    1. Linux = does not require mothership login for basic functionality
    2. ChromeOS = essentially requires mothership login for basic functionality
    3. Windows S = requires mothership login for basic functionality
    4. Windows 10 = does not require mothership login for basic functionality
    5. Windows 11 = I think it does not require the mothership login (right?)

    As you or something in your article said, adding account logins just enhances the experience.

    +1. Agree.

    There is no doubt that having an Internet login "enhances the experience".

    Although, once you're on Linux, there are plenty of servers you can use!
    a. Home Calendar server
    <https://www.linux.com/training-tutorials/five-best-open-source-calendar-servers-linux/>
    b. Home WebDav server
    <https://reintech.io/blog/installing-configuring-webdav-server-ubuntu-22> c. Home FileSync server
    <https://www.resilio.com/blog/linux-file-sync>
    d. Home CardDav contacts server
    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CardDAV>

    Although there are some Windows servers, most work best with Linux, right?
    <https://help.goodsync.com/hc/en-us/articles/360002527572-Syncing-in-a-mixed-environment>

    There is a ton of "magic" that the dumb-terminal gains by logging into the
    huge mainframe servers, of that there is no doubt.

    That's where Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp, PulseSMS, etc., gain much of their magic; but there's also a privacy downside to the fact that every single
    thing you do is tied to a single well-identified username & password
    account (particularly when meta data is stored and hence can be retrieved).

    Personally, I prefer that Internet account to be "optional", much as it is
    with Windows 10 where I can't think of a single app that I'd want from the Microsoft Store that I can't get from outside of the Microsoft Store.

    Can you?

    I myself use the google calendar events that show on my Android phone and now show on my Linux calendar.

    Yes. Agreed.

    Personally, I prefer to set up my own calendar server, for privacy.

    But here's where Linux is better than all the other platforms in that the WebDAV and CalDAV and CardDav, etc., servers are usually best on Linux.

    Right?
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kees Nuyt@k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Sunday, June 30, 2024 14:49:38
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 23:24:36 -0700, bilsch01 <usenet@writer.com>
    wrote:

    Andrew,
    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.
    --
    Kees Nuyt
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Larry Wolff@larrywolff@larrywolff.net to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Sunday, June 30, 2024 12:31:18
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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.
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Steve Hayes@hayesstw@telkomsa.net to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Sunday, June 30, 2024 18:43:42
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    On Sat, 29 Jun 2024 04:54:02 -0000 (UTC), 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?

    I saw a complaint from a Windows 11 user to the effect that it would
    not allow him to save stuff locally.

    I tried to find out more about it for him and it appears that it
    offers a chic, but his machine was set to log in to the MS server, and
    he didn't know how to change it.

    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.
    --
    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 --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Jan K.@janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Sunday, June 30, 2024 19:14:23
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    W Sun, 30 Jun 2024 18:43:42 +0200, Steve Hayes napisal:

    Do the non-Apple common consumer operating systems (android, linux, >>win10/win11) work WITHOUT logging into the mothership mainframe servers?

    I saw a complaint from a Windows 11 user to the effect that it would
    not allow him to save stuff locally.

    I tried to find out more about it for him and it appears that it
    offers a chic, but his machine was set to log in to the MS server, and
    he didn't know how to change it.

    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.
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From candycanearter07@candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Monday, July 01, 2024 14:10:03
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    Jan K. <janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> wrote at 17:14 this Sunday (GMT):
    W Sun, 30 Jun 2024 18:43:42 +0200, Steve Hayes napisal:

    Do the non-Apple common consumer operating systems (android, linux, >>>win10/win11) work WITHOUT logging into the mothership mainframe servers?

    I saw a complaint from a Windows 11 user to the effect that it would
    not allow him to save stuff locally.

    I tried to find out more about it for him and it appears that it
    offers a chic, but his machine was set to log in to the MS server, and
    he didn't know how to change it.

    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.
    --
    user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Jan K.@janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Monday, July 01, 2024 17:42:38
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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?
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From AJL@noemail@none.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Monday, July 01, 2024 11:08:48
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    On 7/1/2024 8:42 AM, Jan K. 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...

    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Andy Burns@usenet@andyburns.uk to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Monday, July 01, 2024 19:22:37
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    Jan K. wrote:

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

    To me, on this Win11 Home laptop ... nothing.
    I think it asked me once to "finish off installing" or some such phrase.
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Jan K.@janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 02, 2024 00:39:24
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    W Mon, 1 Jul 2024 19:22:37 +0100, Andy Burns napisal:

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

    To me, on this Win11 Home laptop ... nothing.
    I think it asked me once to "finish off installing" or some such phrase.

    What is confusing is how nonchalant everyone is /today/ about the ability
    to simply not create a Windows 11 MSA - but when Windows 11 first came out
    - it seemed everyone was saying that you must create an online MSA account.

    What changed?
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Steve Hayes@hayesstw@telkomsa.net to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 02, 2024 05:36:53
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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.
    --
    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 --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Steve Hayes@hayesstw@telkomsa.net to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 02, 2024 05:41:21
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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.

    But the problem seems to start when people either set up such an
    account without knowing its limitations, or perhaps have it set up for
    them by the vendor.
    --
    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 --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan@nuh-uh@nope.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Monday, July 01, 2024 22:00:28
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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.

    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Daniel70@daniel47@nomail.afraid.org to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 02, 2024 18:45:10
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Daniel70@daniel47@nomail.afraid.org to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 02, 2024 18:53:28
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Andy Burns@usenet@andyburns.uk to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 02, 2024 11:27:48
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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.
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From candycanearter07@candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 02, 2024 14:00:03
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Andy Burns@usenet@andyburns.uk to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 02, 2024 15:23:42
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From AJL@noemail@none.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 02, 2024 07:33:17
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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...


    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From candycanearter07@candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 02, 2024 14:50:03
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Andrew@andrew@spam.net to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 02, 2024 14:54:36
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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>
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From AJL@noemail@none.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 02, 2024 09:24:41
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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...
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Andrew@andrew@spam.net to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 02, 2024 16:43:58
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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.
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From AJL@noemail@none.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 02, 2024 11:25:56
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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...

    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan@nuh-uh@nope.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 02, 2024 11:31:02
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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.
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Andrew@andrew@spam.net to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 02, 2024 20:07:52
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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.
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From AJL@noemail@none.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 02, 2024 14:42:04
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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.


    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Jasen Betts@usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Wednesday, July 03, 2024 01:28:25
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Steve Hayes@hayesstw@telkomsa.net to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Wednesday, July 03, 2024 05:12:09
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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 --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Andrew@andrew@spam.net to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Wednesday, July 03, 2024 17:26:22
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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.
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan@nuh-uh@nope.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Wednesday, July 03, 2024 11:50:00
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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.

    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan@nuh-uh@nope.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Monday, July 08, 2024 10:50:49
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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.
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan@nuh-uh@nope.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Monday, July 08, 2024 10:54:12
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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?
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan@nuh-uh@nope.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Monday, July 08, 2024 10:55:04
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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.
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Steve Hayes@hayesstw@telkomsa.net to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 09, 2024 04:17:19
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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 --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Daniel70@daniel47@nomail.afraid.org to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 09, 2024 20:05:20
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    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
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan@nuh-uh@nope.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 09, 2024 09:18:26
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    On 2024-07-09 03:05, Daniel70 wrote:
    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??

    Probably.


    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.

    Yes. And?


    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.

    OK. And?

    Could you not get such a dongle for a Mac laptop. (Hint: I know you can).


    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??

    Definitely.

    This alleged "tethering" was about whether or not a Mac can be used
    without signing in with an AppleID.

    I'm here to tell you, it most definitely can.

    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan@nuh-uh@nope.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 09, 2024 09:23:37
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    On 2024-07-08 19:17, Steve Hayes wrote:
    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,

    Which works fine saving to the local drive.

    accessing your data on a laptop when away from home or in any other circumstances where an internet connection is not available.

    Which works fine as previously stated.

    You CAN make use of cloud services on a Mac if you choose to do so.

    Off the top of my head:

    Contacts
    Calendar
    To do list
    Notes
    Photos
    ...
    .
    .
    .

    ...and a plethora more.

    But none are mandatory to use the computer.

    I like having my data synchronized between my computer and my phone and tablet, so I make use of them, but if one chooses to, you can perform
    that synchronization for much of it by plugging the iOS devices into the computer.

    So anyone who doesn't want to use those services can operate their
    devices just as well (absent the cloud synching of course).
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Mickey D@mickeydavis078XX@ptd.net to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 09, 2024 12:30:38
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 04:17:19 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

    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.

    The problem with the design of the entire Apple ecosystem (which is
    different from Windows & Linux & Android) is that you stop logging into the Apple servers, the entire ecosystem stops working the way it's designed.

    Very few companies other than Apple can convince dumb users that their
    devices stop working when you're no longer on the Internet is a good thing.

    HP certainly can't. https://boingboing.net/2024/07/09/hp-will-no-longer-sell-printers-that-require-online-connection.html

    "HP has finally been forced to discontinue its cheaper e-series LaserJet printers due to customers experiencing problems with their online-only and always tied to HP+ subscription requirements. Among other things, HP+
    requires a permanent Internet connection, and customers only use
    HP-original ink and toners, not allowing for third-party alternatives to be used at all."
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan@nuh-uh@nope.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 09, 2024 10:53:31
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    On 2024-07-09 09:30, Mickey D wrote:
    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 04:17:19 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

    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.

    The problem with the design of the entire Apple ecosystem (which is
    different from Windows & Linux & Android) is that you stop logging into the Apple servers, the entire ecosystem stops working the way it's designed.

    Oh that is an EXCELLENT ATTEMPT to obfuscate.


    Very few companies other than Apple can convince dumb users that their devices stop working when you're no longer on the Internet is a good thing.

    None of my devices stop working when I'm not on the internet, Arlen.
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From David W. Hodgins@dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 09, 2024 11:05:57
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:05:20 -0400, Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
    <snip>
    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??

    Yes. You are talking about connected to the internet. Alan was talking about the
    os using the internet to "phone home" to M$, Apple, or the linux distributor.


    Regards, Dave Hodgins
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Steve Hayes@hayesstw@telkomsa.net to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Wednesday, July 10, 2024 05:15:19
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 20:05:20 +1000, Daniel70
    <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

    Alan wrote on 9/7/24 3:50 am:
    On 2024-07-02 01:45, Daniel70 wrote:

    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??

    Yes, we are talking about different things.

    We are talking about computers that are no longer computers, but are
    being turned into dumb terminals because they will not perform
    functions that a stand-alone computer normall performs, like saving a
    document, without being tethered, not merely to the Internet, but to a particular site on the internet owned by the vendor of the computer's operating system - like asn Apple computer not working unless it is
    linked to the Apple company's web site, or a Microsoft computer not
    working unless it is linked to the Microsoft company's web site.
    --
    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 --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Steve Hayes@hayesstw@telkomsa.net to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Wednesday, July 10, 2024 05:20:41
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:23:37 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

    On 2024-07-08 19:17, Steve Hayes wrote:
    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,

    Which works fine saving to the local drive.

    accessing your data on a laptop when away from home or in any other
    circumstances where an internet connection is not available.

    Which works fine as previously stated.

    You CAN make use of cloud services on a Mac if you choose to do so.

    Off the top of my head:

    But you have just yourself pointed out that a system with a Mac OS is
    an Apple system.

    If it is an Apple system, then in my understabnding of logic, it
    cannot be non-Apple system. Check the subject line -- we are talking
    here about *non-Apple* systems.
    --
    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 --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan@nuh-uh@nope.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 09, 2024 20:36:55
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    On 2024-07-09 20:15, Steve Hayes wrote:
    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 20:05:20 +1000, Daniel70
    <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

    Alan wrote on 9/7/24 3:50 am:
    On 2024-07-02 01:45, Daniel70 wrote:

    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??

    Yes, we are talking about different things.

    We are talking about computers that are no longer computers, but are
    being turned into dumb terminals because they will not perform
    functions that a stand-alone computer normall performs, like saving a document, without being tethered, not merely to the Internet, but to a particular site on the internet owned by the vendor of the computer's operating system - like asn Apple computer not working unless it is
    linked to the Apple company's web site, or a Microsoft computer not
    working unless it is linked to the Microsoft company's web site.

    There is no Apple computer or device made today that has that problem.

    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan@nuh-uh@nope.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Tuesday, July 09, 2024 20:37:49
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    On 2024-07-09 20:20, Steve Hayes wrote:
    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 09:23:37 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

    On 2024-07-08 19:17, Steve Hayes wrote:
    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,

    Which works fine saving to the local drive.

    accessing your data on a laptop when away from home or in any other
    circumstances where an internet connection is not available.

    Which works fine as previously stated.

    You CAN make use of cloud services on a Mac if you choose to do so.

    Off the top of my head:

    But you have just yourself pointed out that a system with a Mac OS is
    an Apple system.

    Indeed.


    If it is an Apple system, then in my understabnding of logic, it
    cannot be non-Apple system. Check the subject line -- we are talking
    here about *non-Apple* systems.

    Because the OP implies that Apple systems won't work well without
    logging into Apple's servers...

    ...and that's bullshit.

    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Larry Wolff@larrywolff@larrywolff.net to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Wednesday, July 10, 2024 03:16:20
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    On 7/9/2024 11:37 PM, Alan wrote:

    If it is an Apple system, then in my understabnding of logic, it
    cannot be non-Apple system. Check the subject line -- we are talking
    here about *non-Apple* systems.

    Because the OP implies that Apple systems won't work well without
    logging into Apple's servers...

    ...and that's bullshit.

    How do iPhone owners install apps without logging into Apple servers?
    How do they even set up the iPhone without creating an iCloud account?
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Andrew@andrew@spam.net to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Wednesday, July 10, 2024 07:27:27
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    Steve Hayes wrote on Wed, 10 Jul 2024 05:15:19 +0200 :

    Are we talking at different things??

    Yes, we are talking about different things.

    We are talking about computers that are no longer computers, but are
    being turned into dumb terminals because they will not perform
    functions that a stand-alone computer normall performs, like saving a document, without being tethered, not merely to the Internet, but to a particular site on the internet owned by the vendor of the computer's operating system - like asn Apple computer not working unless it is
    linked to the Apple company's web site, or a Microsoft computer not
    working unless it is linked to the Microsoft company's web site.

    While this thread is specifically NOT about the dumb-terminal design of
    Apple systems, it's well known to everyone that if you don't log into the
    Apple servers every moment of every day of the rest of your life, all the "walled-garden" stuff Apple users crow about, suddenly stops working.

    Ask me how I know this (see images in the original post proving it).

    It needs to be stated that this Alan Baker guy is what most of us would
    refer to as a strange Apple religious fundamentalist zealot, who feels his
    only value in life is to defend Apple to the death, no matter what.

    He doesn't even realize he had to log into Apple servers on the Internet
    just to create the AppleID which is an Internet requirement that is found
    on no other common consumer operating system.

    Once he has that Apple ID on the Internet, he doesn't realize all his apps
    are tied specifically to that unique Apple ID such that no app installer
    can be copied to another device (that doesn't have his unique Apple ID).

    Again, that every app (even free apps) are locked to his specific ID is a requirement that is found on no other common consumer operating system.

    Once he installs that app, which is locked to his Apple ID, if that app is
    a key component of the infamous walled garden (such as Messages or
    Facetime), then again he has to log into *another* Apple server on the
    Internet to use all the features of the walled garden he crows about.

    It's well known that I have many Apple products where I specifically
    decided to NOT log into the Apple Internet servers, where Apple
    unilaterally bricks your login after about two years (twice!), and then,
    you have to literally visit an Apple store, in person, where they literally copy down your government ID (Apple's policy, as stated to me by Apple, is
    that you MUST show your government ID - nothing else is acceptable), and
    then, and only then, will Apple unlock your ID that they bricked simply
    because you refused to log into it over time. (Again, see images posted.)

    How's that for privacy!

    In summary, while this thread is specifically NOT about the Apple
    ecosystem, the idiocy spewed by Alan Baker requires that it be openly
    stated that no other common consumer operating system requires that you
    create, maintain and constantly log into the mothership tracking servers.
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Steve Hayes@hayesstw@telkomsa.net to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Wednesday, July 10, 2024 10:15:01
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 20:36:55 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

    On 2024-07-09 20:15, Steve Hayes wrote:
    We are talking about computers that are no longer computers, but are
    being turned into dumb terminals because they will not perform
    functions that a stand-alone computer normall performs, like saving a
    document, without being tethered, not merely to the Internet, but to a
    particular site on the internet owned by the vendor of the computer's
    operating system - like asn Apple computer not working unless it is
    linked to the Apple company's web site, or a Microsoft computer not
    working unless it is linked to the Microsoft company's web site.

    There is no Apple computer or device made today that has that problem.

    There is no Apple computer or device made today that has a non-Apple
    common computer operating system.

    Oh, I forgot Schrodinger's Apple OS.
    --
    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 --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan@nuh-uh@nope.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Wednesday, July 10, 2024 06:54:31
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    On 2024-07-10 01:15, Steve Hayes wrote:
    On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 20:36:55 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

    On 2024-07-09 20:15, Steve Hayes wrote:
    We are talking about computers that are no longer computers, but are
    being turned into dumb terminals because they will not perform
    functions that a stand-alone computer normall performs, like saving a
    document, without being tethered, not merely to the Internet, but to a
    particular site on the internet owned by the vendor of the computer's
    operating system - like asn Apple computer not working unless it is
    linked to the Apple company's web site, or a Microsoft computer not
    working unless it is linked to the Microsoft company's web site.

    There is no Apple computer or device made today that has that problem.

    There is no Apple computer or device made today that has a non-Apple
    common computer operating system.

    Oh, I forgot Schrodinger's Apple OS.

    The whole reason for this thread is for Arlen to imply that Apple's
    devices need to be logged in.

    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan@nuh-uh@nope.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Wednesday, July 10, 2024 11:50:03
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    On 2024-07-10 00:27, Andrew wrote:
    Steve Hayes wrote on Wed, 10 Jul 2024 05:15:19 +0200 :

    Are we talking at different things??

    Yes, we are talking about different things.

    We are talking about computers that are no longer computers, but are
    being turned into dumb terminals because they will not perform
    functions that a stand-alone computer normall performs, like saving a
    document, without being tethered, not merely to the Internet, but to a
    particular site on the internet owned by the vendor of the computer's
    operating system - like asn Apple computer not working unless it is
    linked to the Apple company's web site, or a Microsoft computer not
    working unless it is linked to the Microsoft company's web site.

    While this thread is specifically NOT about the dumb-terminal design of
    Apple systems, it's well known to everyone that if you don't log into the Apple servers every moment of every day of the rest of your life, all the "walled-garden" stuff Apple users crow about, suddenly stops working.

    Utterly false.


    Ask me how I know this (see images in the original post proving it).

    It needs to be stated that this Alan Baker guy is what most of us would
    refer to as a strange Apple religious fundamentalist zealot, who feels his only value in life is to defend Apple to the death, no matter what.

    He doesn't even realize he had to log into Apple servers on the Internet
    just to create the AppleID which is an Internet requirement that is found
    on no other common consumer operating system.

    Once he has that Apple ID on the Internet, he doesn't realize all his apps are tied specifically to that unique Apple ID such that no app installer
    can be copied to another device (that doesn't have his unique Apple ID).

    Again, that every app (even free apps) are locked to his specific ID is a requirement that is found on no other common consumer operating system.

    This is utterly false, inasmuch as Arlen is ignorant of the fact that
    only iOS devices require you to use the app store.

    Once he installs that app, which is locked to his Apple ID, if that app is
    a key component of the infamous walled garden (such as Messages or
    Facetime), then again he has to log into *another* Apple server on the Internet to use all the features of the walled garden he crows about.

    In order to use ANY service that transmit messages from one person to
    another, you need to log in to identify yourself.


    It's well known that I have many Apple products where I specifically
    decided to NOT log into the Apple Internet servers, where Apple
    unilaterally bricks your login after about two years (twice!), and then,

    He's simply lying.
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan@nuh-uh@nope.com to comp.mobile.android,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.os.linux,alt.privacy on Wednesday, July 10, 2024 12:04:43
    From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

    On 2024-07-10 00:16, Larry Wolff wrote:
    On 7/9/2024 11:37 PM, Alan wrote:

    If it is an Apple system, then in my understabnding of logic, it
    cannot be non-Apple system. Check the subject line -- we are talking
    here about *non-Apple* systems.

    Because the OP implies that Apple systems won't work well without
    logging into Apple's servers...

    ...and that's bullshit.

    How do iPhone owners install apps without logging into Apple servers?

    Are iPhones all that Apple sells?

    The OP troll is insisting that you can't do anything without logging in
    to an AppleID and you most certainly can use a Mac without ever even
    HAVING an AppleID.

    Second of all, yes: on an iOS device, you need your AppleID when you
    want to download apps.

    That is the only time you NEED to use it. Period.

    How do they even set up the iPhone without creating an iCloud account?

    First of all, get your terms right.

    It's not an "iCloud account". You create an "AppleID".

    Next, while you will need one for an iOS device, it requires no personal information to be made public, and only minimal information you must
    share with Apple to create it.

    I just tested what information you have to provide Apple to set up an
    new AppleID:

    Date of birth (which you can lie about)

    Phone number for a text confirmation code.

    That's it.

    So it's quite the tempest in a teapot, isn't it?
    --- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2