They're not merely culture wars, they're also value wars. Both Windows and MacOS are headed toward continuous behind-your-back communication with their respective motherships. In the case of Windows, they have the audacity to shamelessly advertise on your personal computer.
Correct. Many Linux users want Linux to "win" because they think they know what's best for people, and think that people should not be allowed to give over their personal information and privacy (which everyone presupposes Micro$oft takes from you) in exchange for working software. It leads to rhetoric and propaganda that's detached from reality, but it's for a good cause (getting people to switch to Linux).
If you want to willingly give over your personal information and privacy, which in fact Microsoft does take from you (no need to speak of supposition), that's certainly your decision to make and it's not my place to tell you if that's what's best for you or not. I also think you are imputing motive to Linux advocates that's not real - I don't think any of us are trying to tell you shouldn't be allowed to do what you want with your personal info. We are saying that if you use those systems, the only way you get a choice in the matter is if you go to significant lengths that defy how the vendor tries to force you their system. You are free to embrace those terms as much you like.
The "in exchange for working software" is also a needless swipe. Maybe there's some contingent of Linux users that use it just because they love tinkering, but most Linux users do real work with our systems. Personally, I'm more interested in the work I do with my system than I am with working on my system.
> you are imputing motive to Linux advocates that's not real
I didn't say "Linux advocates" I said "MANY Linux advocates". Linux users can be broadly bisected along various criteria and one of them is how much they care about "saving users from themselves" a.k.a. "knowing what's best for you". I include in that group people who will say that using Windows is fine, but will needle and jab at anyone they see using non-free software, as though it's their civic duty to goad people into submission.
There are plenty of opensource programs with telemetry built in. Many company build there products using opensource components and sell your information in the backend. This is not an opensource vs. closed source argument. This is a data rights/privacy argument and until governments and citizens take the matter seriously we will get nowhere.
I totally agree that we are well past the point where data security and privacy need strong regulation or legislation. At least Europe has GDPR.
However, I hard disagree with drawing a false equivalence between the open source community, particularly in the operating system space (which this article is about), and the closed-source commercial vendors. Also disagree that adopting open source "gets us nowhere" in this battle.
Sure, there is some telemetry in the open source world, as we see in the Firefox discussion. We also see reactions such as LibreWolf, or community outrage at the likes of GitLab when this happens. It's just not part of the open source community's ethos to look the other way at hidden telemetry. In the open source realm it is a) it is the exception rather than the rule, and b) the fact they are doing it is clearly knowable and neuterable[1]. That's a far cry from Apple validating every executable you run, or Microsoft not even allowing you to opt-out of telemetry, and god knows what other vendors of core closed source software do now.
I'm not an open source zealot, but the race to the bottom over the past 10 years just hardens my resolve to own my devices and not the other way around.
[1] Again, talking about client-side software or servers you run/control. You will always have to figure out how much you trust SaaS providers regardless of what software is part of their offering.
