This horse has been beaten to death already, but I didn’t get any swings in, so…
@2disbetter was saying that “freedom” means to be given the opportunity to make one’s choices, in this case of operating systems. If he (or me or anyone else) decides it’s acceptable to allow Microsoft to know what brand USB drive is plugged into the computer in excha he for better framerates in a videogame, then he or I or anyone should have the freedom to make that choice. Microsoft should have the freedom to put that in the software they design. The MOST DEFINITELY should disclose that, but they make what they like, and they can offer it that way if they like. There should also be alternatives, like Linux or MacOS , and people should have the freedom to choose which they want to use. Companies should have the freedom to charge for the OSes they make, and customers should have the freedom to purchase them or not, or to make their own.
Most (if not all) think it’s not right that Microsoft and Google and Facebook and whomever else are trying to extend their reach too far, and I personally agree with that. But the point is that everyone needs their freedoms, not just freedoms that he or I or anyone else thinks is sufficient. I use Windows for games. I use Linux for some, as much as I can, but still windows for the others. I have chosen to allow Microsoft to know what I’m doing with their operating system when I fire it up to play videogames, and I should not have that freedom taken from me. Whether the price is fair or not is beyond the scope of this discussion, but as far as freedom is concerned, it is my right to play games on Windows.
And now, I can let this horse rest in peace.