No it doesn’t?
I just googled it to be sure, but i already assumed you meant ‘spyware’ (which is something completely different), referring to the telemetry (which i can get is a sensitive thing, but anonymous usage statistics to know where to focus their development sounds like a decent idea, and afaik they implemented it with respect for the user)
But is that the fault of XML, or is the data itself just complex, or did they structure the data badly?
Would another human readable format make the data easier to read?
There are people who find XML hard to read?
GP specifically talked about the first version of PHP, sounds like it was just a dummy implementation as they were working on PHP, that then later got replaced with a proper implementation :)
Just wondering, do you know that reading the article where it’s all explained in detail is an option?
Before the change 3% of facebook users agreed to be tracked, after “pay or be tracked” suddenly that jumped to over 90%. The entire point of GDPR is that privacy is a really hard thing to grasp, and that companies have capabilities most people can’t even imagine. So the GDPR demands consent to be given freely. Giving users the choice between yet another subscription or “consent” is clearly not free consent, your “free consent” doesn’t jump from 3% to 90% if you’re not basically coercing your users.
“yeah, but they have the option to pay”. Yeah, and then i can start paying for google (each service seperately with complex bundles of course), and facebook, and reddit, and twitter and tiktok and … and of course everyone has hundreds of dollars to spend on online services to continue using the internet the way we’ve been using it for a decade.
“yeah, but you could use other services”, yeah, i could go to a facebook alternative where none of my friends or family are. Or a youtube alternative where hardly anyone posts videos or… These sites have gained a natural monopoly by being free, and now suddenly i have to pay to not have my rights violated.
And will this long term mean sites like facebook, youtube, … become unprofitable and collapse? I for sure hope so yes. These companies gained a monopoly in big parts of the internet, and will make insane profits of being in that position either via ads or subscriptions. This is a terrible place for society to be in, and the sooner they collapse, the sooner we as society can start figuring out what would be a model that does work and isn’t hostile to its user.
It just joined the musescore project, great open source music notation software. For funding the only commercial thing they offer is a site where you can upload & download scores, with the paying part also paying licensining fees for copyrighted music. Imo all looks very legit. I was already familiar with musescore before this drama, and watched some of tantacrul (head of the musescore project, and now also audacity i guess). He’s a very down to earth guy that has quite some insightful videos on the musescore development and figuring out what to keep/remove when going for new versions. But also great videos regarding other topics.
So far i’ve seen nothing that rings any alarm bells. The open source community can sometimes be a bit too sensitive regarding paid services linked to open source software. But in this case as long as the actual software remains open source, and the paid part actually adds value (a nice place to exchange sheet music, without any copyright issues as that’s covered by your payment, so a very legit reason to ask money), why not?