The same machine reading its own data is not telemetry, or it would have been a severe violation of the use of the term. The ability of one machine to feed another with data is telemetry. As we all know those abilities can be manipulated by 3rd parties. It is also easier to manipulate something you have helped designed a specific weakness to exploit, which others may never find. How often was this discovered in FOSS in recent years?
The next ones to be discovered are already in effect.
Classic trash facebook kind of reaction, dismiss 99points of content so you can show off you can be right on a tiny detail of this one point, nearly irrelevant to the post.
There is an official source for glibc, a specific edition is a specific edition, or a specific commit is what it is, you package it and use it stating the exact source and ver/commit. This DOES NOT change. You don't necesseraly have such control in rust, someone else does. If you don't have reproducability in FOSS it is not really FOSS, it is quick sand and blurry picture painting. If this one application later seems to have a bug you can't really tell whether it is its own bag or some of its dependencies and you will not find 2 systems in the universe that can be identical, because of the crappy rust builds.
Let's get back on topic. Rust is interesting because it is an anormous amount of people working on it, have enormous support by coprorations, are proped by media hype (corporate media hype) ... and just like in the recent past, hide behind a "non-profit" foundation, some large corporation has in its pocket to make it look like FOSS.
Please try to think without reproducing corporate media hype served to the eternally dizzy.
I can read from my machine, but I can only read from your machine in the same lan only if you have telemetry on. If I can read yours and this lan is on a wider net then "it is possible" that someone across the universe can as well.
First of all, for people on the left as the community states, the use of running datacenters and enterprise networks is minor and rare (unless you are an admin of the party or federation of unions headquarters). This means the machine has the ability to serve data to others, to the network, and to the admin collecting it. Telemetry is a way for machines to passively allow another to collect data. Any chance this can be exploited? Why have it if your intention is a sole user/admin of a single machine?
With the complexities of a self regulated system as systemd such abilities can't be controlled or audited by a user, but look at what most users of linux have. The collaboration of all those subsystems doing such things are expanding the surface of a machine's presence on any network to be exploited.
For non-industrial use no telemetry is needed or should be allowed. But you pick up on a detail of what the original post is aiming to state to discredit it on a technicality that is meaningless. There are hundreds of parts of a linux system where such discussion can be exploited.
The point is DO NOT let your anti-windows rhetoric blind and confuse users that this is an easy and safe alternative that provides security, privacy, and other goodies, when 99% choose windows that is just as automated and "user friendly" as windows.
You tell me if your average linux user (especially those using gnome and plasma) know where, how, and why to disable kernel modules. Whether those modules are optionally disabled, enabled, included in the kernel, or awaiting someone to trigger them. Look at forums and boards, people mess up their boot-loader or fstab and their ms-win reaction is to format the disk and reinstall something like ubuntu.
if you can collect them others may be able to as well, and if there is a way to collect one thing this is a vehicle to access other things. As Snowden says, before his activism it was conspiracy theory, but the world "did change" since then. Or did it?
For sure FOSS is night/day improvement over closed non-free binary blobs, for all we know Win 11 may be linux in drag to look like windows. But the anti-MS-win identity is too short sighted for people on the left at least. How often do you see similar behaviors among linuxers be for/against intel/amd, when in the recent and more distant past, they have both be caught red-handed from forcing backdoor systems into the market discovered long after and silenced by the corpororate press. One of them a few years ago was shortly adopted into the linux kernel before it was flushed. speck is one I readily remember. It was nsa code google suggested it is added to the kernel.
yes, you always have some dependencies, even in the lowest form of linux utilities, there is a c library usually (glibc or musl) but the dependencies needed you choose and provide and are specific. Here we have a dynamic process that draws (not always but sometimes) the latest commit from someone's git as a dependency, and a minute later I try to build the same, someone pushes a commit replacing the previous change, and my package builds as well. The two results are not identical, one may contain a backdoor, and we didn't even notice a difference.
When you build from glibc 2.3.4 and I build from the same, it IS the same.
not on 5.10 but most 6.xx kernel do have telemetry and very few distros disable it, if possible.
when telemetry is enabled it is not the user utilizing it but a manufacturer drawing data from the user's machine.
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/linux/-/blob/main/config
This is a pretty vanilla standard config file with which you compile the kernel, 6.3 in the above example. Search for words as telemetry, rust, IFS ... tell me what linux you use without it.
linux and unix were built on alternatives. If you don't like a piece of code offered as a tool to do something you write something better and offer it/share it with others. So you as a user have a choice among similar tools. Even the most basic ones like gnu-utilities have busybox and other specific alternatives.
The latest trend is to have NO-ALTERNATIVES, to get everyone to use 1 core system. So instead of diverging as a system (as some of the BSD-unix projects did) linux is showing a tendency to converge into one system (fedora,debian,arch) with little differences among them.
You get corporate media publishing articles of the "top -ten" linux distributions, or "top-ten" desktops, all based on the very same edition of IBM software, no exception, as there is none. This is marketing and steering the public into a single direction. The question you should answer to yourself is why! Without somone spelling it out to you drawing the attention of 3 lettered agencies.
I don't have to provide you with an ounce of energy to prove anything to you, when within an m-l community you see nothing of interest in the difference between 2-3 friends writing and providing FOSS and a multinational corporation that strives in selling systems and software providing FOSS. libudev-zero is FOSS, seatd is FOSS, systemd is just a maze of IBM's control on FOSS.
Why isn't s6 receiving any corporate support? By far it is the most superior init system we know. It is portable everywhere and 101% reliable. It has no "will not fix" bugs larking for years. As far as we know s6 has only had a personal offer for the developer to become a highly paid google executive/employee (probably with a huge gallera of programmers in his command). To which offer he wrote a public NO response.
Again, I feel really surprised having to explain such things in such a community, which means that theory and ideology is trapped in a little compartment labeled "political philosophy" hobby, in all other matters we are just day to day liberals with tax-right outs.
Poor Pol Pot must be rolling in his grave, as a figure of speech since decomposing organic matter doesn't move much. His revolver may still be useful though to a blue collar worker or industrial farmer.