this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024

1145 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

59427 readers

3469 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

1145

Microsoft Recall is now an explorer.exe dependency (www.youtube.com)

submitted 1 month ago by disguised_doge@kbin.earth to c/technology@lemmy.world

368 comments fedilink hide all child comments

TLDR:
Windows 11 v24H2 and beyond will have Recall installed on every system. Attempting to remove Recall will now break some file explorer features such as tabs.

YT Video (5min)

Invidious Link

Original Github Issue

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It's because Linux isn't actually trying to work against you, even if it may feel that way to a noobie at first. Guaranteed this requirement exists to make Recall impossible to uninstall, and for no other reason.

The question isn't "why take the time to hack windows" it's "why keep supporting a company that requires you to undo so much of the product just to maintain control and privacy with your own hardware, and which actively seeks to sabotage attempts to do so."

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Guaranteed this requirement exists to make Recall impossible to uninstall, and for no other reason.

Or maybe it's so you can use it in search box in explorer.exe

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I'm skeptical that irrevocably tying the two together is the only or best technological solution to wanting it in the search box.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It’s because Linux isn’t actually trying to work against you, even if it may feel that way to a noobie at first.

Your statement suggest that if Windows is "trying to work against you" then Linux is "trying to work for you". I don't believe that is the case either. Linux works for itself, and if what you want can be done with Linux, great! If you have the skills to alter Linux to do what you want, also great! If you have neither of those, then you'll be left without a specific solution. Linux is great, but trying to pitch it as purely altruistic and supportive isn't accurate and could lead those trying it to abandon it early because their own experience doesn't meet this implicit expectation.

The question isn’t “why take the time to hack windows” it’s “why keep supporting a company that requires you to undo so much of the product just to maintain control and privacy with your own hardware, and which actively seeks to sabotage attempts to do so.”

You don't escape that problem entirely in Linux, it just takes different forms. Proprietary vendor Linux hardware drivers would be a perfect example.

So why hack Windows to make it do what you want? Because that was one of the basic tenets underlying Linux. There is no perfect operating system, just different tradeoffs. If one OS meets most of your needs for a specific task, and you have a way to hack it to fix the rest, thats the better solution rather than trying to reinvent the wheel. Departing from this idea moves the definition of computing from a tool to a religion/social movement. That's fine for some, but not my calling.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Your statement suggest that if Windows is “trying to work against you” then Linux is “trying to work for you”.

That's literally not what I said, nor what I implied. If you want to interpret it that way it's your choice, but I'm not going to defend a statement I didn't make and didn't try to make.

You don’t escape that problem entirely in Linux, it just takes different forms. Proprietary vendor Linux hardware drivers would be a perfect example.

I feel like you aren't distinguishing between "problem exists" and "problem exists because the makers of my OS want it to exist."

So why hack Windows to make it do what you want?

I literally said this was NOT the question.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm not trying to strawman you here, so lets revisit these to make sure we understand what each other is saying.

Your statement suggest that if Windows is “trying to work against you” then Linux is “trying to work for you”.

That’s literally not what I said, nor what I implied. If you want to interpret it that way it’s your choice, but I’m not going to defend a statement I didn’t make and didn’t try to make.

I don't understand why you'd bring up “trying to work against you” if you weren't implying that Linux was the opposite. I suggested you were implying it was the opposite, and you're communicating now that is not what you mean. I don't think you're suggesting that Linux "is trying to work against you". So if its not a positive, and not a negative, you're suggesting what....neutral? As in, "Linux is neither trying to work against you nor is trying to help you". I suppose I can agree with that, but I'm not sure how that supports your argument.

What am I missing you are trying to communicate with your statement?

You don’t escape that problem entirely in Linux, it just takes different forms. Proprietary vendor Linux hardware drivers would be a perfect example.

I feel like you aren’t distinguishing between “problem exists” and “problem exists because the makers of my OS want it to exist.”

You're right, I'm not distinguishing between them because as an end user the reason is irrelevant. I'm left with the same result, with the same choices about how to solve it for myself. I'm not trying to save the world. I'm trying to get my computing done.

So why hack Windows to make it do what you want? I literally said this was NOT the question.

My apologies for the paraprhasing of your position of my position.

Lets look at your exact question:

“why keep supporting a company that requires you to undo so much of the product just to maintain control and privacy with your own hardware, and which actively seeks to sabotage attempts to do so.”

My answer: Because I'm not trying to save the world. I'm trying to get my computing done. If a hack to the existing product can do that faster than changing the world, then the hack is the better choice FOR ME. If its a social/religious movement for you, feel free to spread the "good word". I won't stop you, but I'm not interested in joining your evangelistic endeavor.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Man, if "Microsoft is actively trying to take control of my hardware and prevent me from deciding how it is used" and "Linux has a learning curve and lacks market dominance to get hardware manufacturers to play with them sometimes" seem like equivalent circumstances to you, there is no number of iterations to this back and forth that are going to arrive at any common ground between you and I. I can only say good day to you.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Man, if “Microsoft is actively trying to take control of my hardware and prevent me from deciding how it is used” and “Linux has a learning curve and lacks market dominance to get hardware manufacturers to play with them sometimes” seem like equivalent circumstances to you,

And here I thought we weren't going to Strawman each other.

there is no number of iterations to this back and forth that are going to arrive at any common ground between you and I. I can only say good day to you.

Here, we are in perfect agreement. I'm not looking to be converted to the cause. I may be a friend to it and support it, but I'm not dying on that hill.

Keep fighting the good fight, though.