2 ms·

You're really splitting hairs here, the "polite software" you're talking about also needs to "phone home" to check and offer the update, which probably leaks ab

by zxzax 5y ago

You're really splitting hairs here, the "polite software" you're talking about also needs to "phone home" to check and offer the update, which probably leaks about as much information as you manually refreshing the project's web site every week.

BugWatch 5y ago
I am not. Please re-read. While privacy is always an issue, notice I even directly said I'd willingly enable telemetry for some software (as a means of disambiguation and explanation of my stance), amongst other caveats. However, what I do not stand for is auto-updates without my explicit knowledge and explicit consent, because it regularly messes up my... well, my "anything and everything". (Insert specific xkcd instance about breaking-workflow here.) Therefore, due to personally-experienced and ever-widening common abuse of the mechanic (and ever-encroaching march on my privacy and rights on & from all fronts), I am less and less willing to even consider giving the pieces of software I actually enjoy the benefit of the doubt (aka useful telemetry). Please notice - my original reply was (exclusively) addressing the specific portion of one of the preceeding user's comments "pushing" for the auto-update mechanism as mandatory (and not to the Audacity's issues/attempt/approach specifically). From my perspective, it seems that you and the previous commenter are addressing my replies as a full and all-encompassing description of the whole of my approach and practices (and I have specifically said that isn't the case in the comment above this one). Additionally, there is an assuming of the non-use of any (or a combination, or all) of the myriad of the additional layers of protection available to any semi-advanced user [e.g. Tor, purpose-configured browser, proxy, VPN, etc.] while obtaining the software in the first place (and/or subsequent instances), and that the software in question could be "gotten" from alternative and directly unrelated locations if need be. If true, that assumption would be in error.

by zxzax 5y ago

BugWatch 5y ago

I am not. Please re-read. While privacy is always an issue, notice I even directly said I'd willingly enable telemetry for some software (as a means of disambiguation and explanation of my stance), amongst other caveats. However, what I do not stand for is auto-updates without my explicit knowledge and explicit consent, because it regularly messes up my... well, my "anything and everything". (Insert specific xkcd instance about breaking-workflow here.) Therefore, due to personally-experienced and ever-widening common abuse of the mechanic (and ever-encroaching march on my privacy and rights on & from all fronts), I am less and less willing to even consider giving the pieces of software I actually enjoy the benefit of the doubt (aka useful telemetry). Please notice - my original reply was (exclusively) addressing the specific portion of one of the preceeding user's comments "pushing" for the auto-update mechanism as mandatory (and not to the Audacity's issues/attempt/approach specifically). From my perspective, it seems that you and the previous commenter are addressing my replies as a full and all-encompassing description of the whole of my approach and practices (and I have specifically said that isn't the case in the comment above this one). Additionally, there is an assuming of the non-use of any (or a combination, or all) of the myriad of the additional layers of protection available to any semi-advanced user [e.g. Tor, purpose-configured browser, proxy, VPN, etc.] while obtaining the software in the first place (and/or subsequent instances), and that the software in question could be "gotten" from alternative and directly unrelated locations if need be. If true, that assumption would be in error.