Note: the MacOS part is false
this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2025
563 points (93.2% liked)
Linux
13474 readers
753 users here now
Welcome to c/linux!
Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!
Rules:
-
Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
-
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
-
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
-
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
-
No NSFW adult content
-
Follow general lemmy guidelines.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"same as MacOS" is clearly trying to make excuses.
It’s also wrong. MacOS allows you to go through setup with a local account and doesn’t force you to connect to the internet either
I mean... is it? I'll take everybody's word for it that he is incorrect, since I'm not a Mac OS user, but while it certainly makes it sound that Win11 is doing something common he's still providing a workaround for that thing. He can simultaneously be going "it's not that uncommon" and "but also, here's how to work around the problem" in the same post.
Whether MacOS truly also requires an account is irrelevant.
He says it to make the account requirement appear normal. That's justification. Providing a 'workaround' via a 'burner' account is simply a way to minimize protests. Even the use of 'burner' and 'workaround' normalizes the account requirement.
The man has some good videos but he is Microsoft through and through.
...
I mean he used to work there, so yeah?
You saying the accuracy of the account requirement in MacOS is irrelevant makes me wonder if it is incorrect, because... well, no, it's not irrelevant. I'd like to know. I mean, I will continue to use Windows because I need Windows things, but if I was in a position where I'm mad about this to the point of making me look for a clean break that would be a fairly relevant thing to know.
What I'm hearing here is that people are mad about what he's saying, not because he's wrong or because it's not useful, but because this is a Linux community and people want this problem to be as big as possible to wield it as a dealbreaker to specifically promote the OS they like. Which is, I'm guessing, why you don't sound stoked about MacOS not having the same issue?
Weird as it is to root for specific pieces of software, I also don't find that particularly useful because, frankly, people using Windows already know how good or bad Windows is. Trying to overplay it is not particularly constructive to promote alternatives. You can acknowledge the ways in which people can work around annoying Windows stuff and still point out you don't need any workarounds on Linux, if that's what you want to do.
He is biased.
The factual accuracy of his statements about MacOS is irrelevant to whether he is making excuses or not. Their relevancy to you switching to another OS is another issue.
I don't care about MacOS not having the same issue because I don't own a Mac nor do I plan on buying one. Nobody even asks me to run MacOS software or help them with their Mac. Windows is unfortunately much more pervasive and unavoidable.
The major issue with these workarounds is that they are presented as permanent solutions. They are not, just like Microsoft took away OOBE or whatever they did, they can also disable local accounts in the future. Kicking the can down the road will not work forever.
Nnno? To any of that?
I mean, he's biased, you're biased, whatever. The question is whether his information is accurate. Which I'm assuming it is. I haven't tested it, but nobody seems to be disputing it. I'd personally like to know how much an activated Windows using an offline account phones home, if at all, and what data it shares and stores, but I've noticed nobody seems to care about the specifics of that in this fanboy flamewar, which is frustrating.
In any case, accurate information from biased sources is still accurate, and not sharing the same biases you have isn't deception.
Also, nobody presents these workarounds as permanent anything, he hasn't made that statement or even implied it. Most people sharing the previous workarounds actively warned that they seemed like an oversight and MS may patch them out at any point. Which they ended up doing.
Again, this seems like you equating caveats with dealbreakers for the sake of pushing an agenda. And as someone who uses both Windows and Linux on the daily I'm just gonna say you're not helping. Misinformation makes people who notice it less likely to side with you and everybody here can notice it because we're all tech savvy enough. I guess being the hardcore guy acting all uncompromising makes you feel cool or whatever, but it's not doing much of use.
Yes to all that!
Everybody is biased but usually the deeper the connection one has to a side the more biased he is. I 've been just a user of Linux since 2010, he worked for Microsoft for longer.
If you really are interested in accurate information, you are not very good at it. People are disputing his statements on MacOS in this very thread, on the OP in fact.
Telemetry does not depend on using a remote account, if you don't disable the relevant settings and services windows will still send data to Microsoft. Obviously a Microsoft account provides more identifying information to Microsoft.
I wonder why most people, according to you at least, warned that Microsoft would disable previous methods but Plummer doesn't.
As for all that 'agenda, hardcore, uncompromising' bullshit, I 've only installed Linux on my own and my immediate family's computers, cause they are the computers I will have to fix (or fix) if they are not working. I have installed Windows many more times both on my own machines as well on friends etc because that's what they wanted. There's no point in pushing stuff on people.
You on the other hand seem to think I should be helping with something, presumably something you are pushing for?
Finally I did not post any misinformation.
Yes. People have been correcting him on the Mac OS thing. Which you said was irrelevant several times.
I, remember, said it is not. Because again, this is not about what you like, it's about what is true. Given what I've seen so far I'm assuming that a) his workaround is valid, and b) his statement that MacOS works the same way is not. I'm open to changing my mind on both of those because, one more time, it's about what is true.
On that note, the breakdown of what is sent, how and when is absolutely dependent on your account login. If it was not then there would be nothing to complain about. That doesn't mean they don't send anything without an account (unless you're not online at all, obviously), but the payload of information will be different and in some cases some calls may be dependent on you having an ID in the first place. Plus there's the question of whether unsigned users leave any connection to the account that activated the Windows install. Which I don't know about and you clearly don't care about.
Oh, and... yeah, I would love to help Linux get more mainstream. If only egotistically, it'd be super nice if the parts of it that don't work right for me due to missing drivers got more first party support, but having the underpinning of home computing software revolve around open source software? Yeah, I wanna help with that. I do agree with you that "I installed Linux for my grandma" is not "helping", either, but I didn't say I do that, either.
Yes, you on the other hand consider it relevant, yet you don't have an issue with him making that point but with me.
I answered on whether he was trying to justify Microsoft's actions or not. In that regard it does not matter whether it true or not, him bringing it up is an attempt to normalize Microsoft's actions. What would matter is him knowingly lying about it instead of being wrong but I am not going to accuse him of that.
I 'd rather disable telemetry totally. Windows does have installation wide keys, even if Microsoft right now does use it to connect accounts to local accounts they can at will.
It helped my family just as installing windows for my friends helps my friends if not my ego.
No, I have an issue with both him misrepresenting Mac OS and with you misrepresenting his point.
Because for the fifteenth time, what matters is what's true. I'm not taking sides with you and assuming every fallacious argument you make is fine and every fallacious argument this guy makes is not, or viceversa. Your fallacies don't justify his, and importantly, his don't justify yours.
Look, at this point you're being obtuse because egos and the Internet and whatever, so whatever, you do you. This conversation is deep into "I'm not mad, I'm disappointed" territory.
I am not misrepresenting his point, you are misrepresenting my point with this 'truth is what matter' fixation when discussing his intent. While not actually care about him being untrue.
You have attacked me, calling me a liar, a fanboy, a poser etc. You are only here to troll.
Man, I don't really care what you think, but the way you can only parse this as taking sides or being personally attacked is... kinda not healthy?
Just maybe come back to it in a couple of days and give it some thought.
Sure kid.
Hah. "Kid", right.
First off, don't be disrespectful to young people, some of them can make decent points sometimes.
But also, man, I wish. I was using DOS before this guy was working on it.
But it isn't a work around it's just accepting the fact you need a microsoft account to setup windows.
I'm confused. What is "not accepting" a MS account to set up Windows? I mean, if you don't have to use Windows and that is a dealbreaker for you, then great.
But if you need to use Windows and you want to... you know... work... around... having to be logged in, he's suggesting a way to do that. That's what we call in the business "a workaround".
As I said elsewhere, I get that people want this to be a dealbreaker, or the suggestion to be a pointless defense because this is a Linux community and there is a cultural pressure to pretend that the account problem is a massive dealbreaker (as opposed to most normies just going with it, just like they do on their phones, which is what actually happens), but OSs aren't football teams. You can both criticise MS for having an online activation requirement, rightfully so, and acknowledge a potentially useful mitigation for anybody who needs or wants to use the OS without being constantly logged in.
It's a dealbreaker for me. Along with many of MS's other business decisions.
But I chose to do something about it by switching to Linux, instead of incessantly bitching and moaning about Windows while still using it.
Hell, my work laptop is a Surface 7 running Windows 11 Enterprise. But work pays for and manages it, so I don't worry about it having issues - I just email IT and they handle it. Not my problem. I'd rather spend hours in a bash terminal than deal with Windows on a personal device ever again.
I am so furious with this at this point.
And the problem is, I also get what's going on. You all feel cool and proud and self-actualized with the whole thing where you moved to Linux and whatnot. And you really, really, really want to tell somebody about it. I get it. It's social media.
It's fine the first few times, but it piles up after a while, you know? You can only have somebody veer sharply to the left towards "I use Linux, by the way" so many times.
Nobody asked if it was a dealbreaker for you. That didn't happen. And even if someone did it's not relevant to the conversation we're having. We know.
Look, again, it's not you. It's just that hanging out around this place and trying to engage with the issues can get to be really weird after a while.
I was agreeing with you.
Look, like I said, it's not you and it's not about whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.
I think at this point I'm just disappointed at the concept of social/user generated media as a whole. Straws and and camels and all that.
Same here.