This might just be youthful optimism on my part, I feel like people care more about it than they used to, but there is an educational barrier. In corporate IT environments I'm seeing more off topic questions about "how do I reduce my reliance on X platform" and at Free Geek a lot of regular users got really excited about the idea of Linux as an alternative to Windows. They had no idea such a thing was possible until they saw it for themselves.
I don't like saying people won't if they haven't been taught they can. That said it feels like around 80% of the population responds to the revelation that you don't need windows/google with a hearty middle finger. XKCD 743 is one of those jokes that's funny because it is way too true. As an experiment, I would be curious to know what would happen if public schools starting making "choosing your PC" a task for an introductory computer lab class. Like at the start of 6th grade, they line up a bunch of blank laptops, some OS install media, and see what kids do. What % of the student body would choose something non-standard if given the choice? But this is veering way off into a new topic LOL. -Ben On Monday, August 12th, 2024 at 11:48 AM, mo <[email protected]> wrote: > In a world where 21.67%+ use iPhones where you can't even easily diy change > the battery, I doubt most humans will ever care about the important > attributes you mentioned. Oddly my Android works worse than when I used > LineageOS. I guess the uncarrier is too busy installing bloatware. Email > hosting is same for me. I just gave up diligence for convenience, perhaps > even numbed to the point I gave up convenience too! > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024, 10:57 Ben Koenig [email protected] wrote: > > > Yes, but this is also where the concept of free market competition comes > > into play. Any company offering a service in a given space will compete to > > provide the best service in that space. > > > > As a consumer, you compare and contrast the different services based on a > > number of metrics (Price, quality, uptime, long term suppport). You also > > take into consideration that just because a service advertises a given > > feature, doesn't mean it actually works as advertised. > > > > I keep harping on the trust concept, but only because I think it is a > > major factor in choosing a platform. If a Vendor provides a service with > > certain expectations, the Consumer will expect them to meet those > > expectations. If the Vendor fails to meet those expectations, the Consumer > > writes a bad review and looks for a new Vendor providing the same service. > > LTS (how long a feature will be available), and Open Standards (portability > > of data generated/stored on the service) are 2 features everyone should be > > taking into consideration. > > > > Services that implement Open Standards are nice because if you run into > > problems with that service, your data may be compatible with other systems. > > e.g. The GPG keys created for my Proton Mail account can be exported from > > the web interface, and imported using KGPG. This means that I can > > encrypt/decrypt data in KDE using the same keys as my email. AND, if for > > some reason I decide I don't like Proton any more, I can cancel my > > subscription and continue using my keys through a different email service. > > Open Standards :) > > > > -Ben > > > > On Monday, August 12th, 2024 at 8:32 AM, mo [email protected] wrote: > > > > > Those def not the kind of mushrooms I prefer 😂. > > > > > > Wouldn't all externally hosted services suffer a likewise vulnerability? > > > Granted are worse than others, albeit idk who is worse. I barely tried > > > any > > > of them. I miss self hosting; I actually enjoyed sysadmin life aka > > > troubleshooting. > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024, 08:22 Ted Mittelstaedt [email protected] > > > wrote: > > > > > > > To be fair the 2003 version of Word didn't have all the Nanny State > > > > spyware-report-to-Microsoft stuff in it the current versions do. > > > > > > > > "The fact that GW provides the requested features today is moot, > > > > because > > > > tomorrow those features could be removed or changed rendering your > > > > conclusion incorrect." > > > > > > > > Yes this is correct - we have an Expense Report spreadsheet at work > > > > that > > > > uses a complicated macro that someone in the IT department created so > > > > that > > > > users can just type in the source and destination city in their travel > > > > and > > > > have the mileage calculated. It uses a http call to Google to obtain > > > > the > > > > mileage. > > > > > > > > Well 8 months ago - Google made a change to the URL - a very slight > > > > one - > > > > whereupon the expense report spreadsheet broke, causing much > > > > hair-pulling > > > > and consternation. > > > > > > > > It took me around 6 hours to figure out what that change was and > > > > explain > > > > it to the IT department tech who wrote the macro so he could fix the > > > > sheet. Needless to say there was no documentation on the Google website > > > > explaining why they made the change, and even more annoying the "old > > > > style" > > > > URL still worked perfectly - when typed into a web browser - thus > > > > greatly > > > > complicating troubleshooting by misdirecting me down innumerable > > > > rabbit-holes. > > > > > > > > That sheet also breaks when the credit card number on file with Google > > > > declines - which happens every 6 months or so when the purchasing > > > > department changes the card due to someone having stolen the number > > > > and not > > > > telling us they changed it. Yet Google never charges the card because > > > > our > > > > usage of the API is below the minimum threshold. > > > > > > > > The whole system Google has setup for it's public APIs is completely > > > > ass-backwards. And they get away with it because for 90% of the lower > > > > volume customers that use it, the APIs are free. And you can bet Google > > > > tells their high-volume spammer..I mean users... that they are making > > > > changes before they do. But the rest of their "customers" are out with > > > > the > > > > garbage - they are mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed BS. > > > > > > > > Ted > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: PLUG [email protected] On Behalf Of Ben Koenig > > > > Sent: Friday, August 9, 2024 9:17 AM > > > > To: Portland Linux/Unix Group [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: [PLUG] email hosting - who? > > > > > > > > Obligatory XKCD 743: > > > > https://xkcd.com/743 > > > > > > > > A lot of people use "privacy" as a shorthand way to reference the > > > > larger > > > > issue of trust when it comes to companies like Google. > > > > > > > > Yes, GW does provide a lot of features that may fall perfectly in line > > > > with what users want. But there is more to infrastructure than just > > > > "does > > > > it have feature X?" > > > > > > > > Google in general has shown that it is not reliable from an > > > > infrastructure > > > > standpoint. They have a tendency to kill projects, and those projects > > > > that > > > > are not killed will someday change and end users often have no say in > > > > the > > > > matter. The fact that GW provides the requested features today is moot, > > > > because tomorrow those features could be removed or changed rendering > > > > your > > > > conclusion incorrect. > > > > > > > > Rational people generally avoid Google because they trusted them in the > > > > past, got burned and learned from the experience. IIRC there was a > > > > discussion very similar to this on G+.... let me get you a link... ;) > > > > > > > > -Ben > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 8th, 2024 at 8:49 AM, mo [email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Not really. > > > > > > > > > > Privacy? Considering the insane amount everyone puts on social media, > > > > > what privacy is there? Plus anything other self hosted = someone has > > > > > your data. > > > > > > > > > > Market diversity? Idk what that one means precisely. > > > > > > > > > > GW not Gmail. So not free. > > > > > > > > > > 144% for 1000% more services than mere email host. > > > > > > > > > > So nope, don't understand even slightly why rational ppl would not > > > > > choose GW in this scenario. But I appreciate the effort regardless. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2024, 07:29 Tomas Kuchta [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Privacy, market diversity, not having all eggs in one basket, gmail > > > > > > is free anyway, .... and 12*6=72 that happens to be 144% of 50 > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope that gives you some idea what others may or may not think > > > > > > about when chosing a service provider. > > > > > > > > > > > > Tomas > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2024, 11:36 mo [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > If $50/yr, why not just use Google Workspace? $6/mo for all their > > > > > > > services. > > > > > > > I'm asking bc I want the cons of using GW. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2024, 01:18 Tomas Kuchta > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ++ for fastmail email hosting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Works great with(out) own domain for $50 per year. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only feature I am missing - their calendar foes not export > > > > > > > > birthday calendar over IMAP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -T > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2024, 16:13 Courtney Rosenthal > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, been there, done that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When I quit email self-hosting I went to fastmail.com. It > > > > > > > > > works out to > > > > > > > > > $50 per mailbox per year. I have a bunch of domains there. I > > > > > > > > > setup aliases in those domains that forward into one of two > > > > > > > > > mailboxes. So it's costing me about $100/yr for that and I'm > > > > > > > > > super satisfied. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They won't do DNS though. I'm using cloudns.net and I'm very > > > > > > > > > satisfied with them. I've had to use their support a few > > > > > > > > > times > > > > > > > > > (for their monitoring service) and they've been super > > > > > > > > > responsive -- including implementing a feature request I > > > > > > > > > made. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/6/24 14:34, Michael Rasmussen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm winding down my self-hosted web space. Part of this is > > > > > > > > > > finding a place to host jamhome.us - or more accurately > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > email portion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you recommend a place that would do that? They can host > > > > > > > > > > the domain name too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Courtney Rosenthal / [email protected] / www.crosenthal.com
