MX Linux Forum

lars_the_bear wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:34 amSure, that's an entirely fair point. There are two important differences, though.

1. I'm not communicating with the car mechanic over a medium that is see all over the world, and
2. The car mechanic I employ lives in my neighbourhood, and I've known him for twenty years.

Great. So are you willing to pay members of the MX community adequately to provide such highly personalised assistance? Because that is the distinguishing factor here. Providing support for free, for software given away for free, versus a product or service you pay for which likely comes with a warranty and/or a managed product support lifecycle.

lars_the_bear wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:34 amI receive technical information from my clients, over a web interface. Some of my clients know me personally, but most do not. But, even if they don't trust me, they can at least sue me if I mishandle their data. There is a strict code of practice that governs how I store and use that information, which is enforceable by law. If it ever ended up in any public forum, I would be in trouble; the kind of trouble that requires lawyers. And none of the data I handle appears to be sensitive, or capable of exploitation.

So you signed an NDA with your clients, or you entered into a relationship in which there are good-faith provisions regarding the disclosure of such information, sensitive or otherwise. Not the same situation here.

lars_the_bear wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:34 amSadly, we live in a world where a measure of paranoia is justified. Probably, asking people to send this QSI information would not even have raised an eyebrow ten years ago. It's almost certainly harmless even now, but people see things differently these days.

I don't claim to know what the solution is. It might help a little, perhaps, if 'send QSI' wasn't the first thing everybody was asked. Just my two cents' worth, of course.

BR, Lars

Devil's advocate mode on: I can agree if people are asking "How do I do X using Y application" then it is likely possible to assist without the QSI.
Devil's advocate mode off: people often ask "Why am I not able to do X", which often depends on certain aspects of your system. And rather than going through 50 questions, we have all the answers in a package.

Me personally, I work on a need-to-know basis. If I don't need the QSI I will not ask for it. But if I do need some information about your system, I will ask for the QSI and a bunch of logs to help. And what people don't see is, we have been able to resolve many a bug thanks to the QSI and other relevant logs, users do not see this work behind the scenes. I also agree that not providing a QSI is rude per se although if you don't provide it when asked, I won't bother wasting my time and silently leave the thread. Others probably do things differently.

AK-47 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 6:21 am Great. So are you willing to pay members of the MX community adequately to provide such highly personalised assistance? Because that is the distinguishing factor here.

Actually, I am. In principle, at least. Particularly if support includes specific confidentiality guarantees.

This is why, for example, I pay for email and calendar services, rather than using Google's "free" offering. I pay rsync.net for my off-site backups, rather than using a "free" service from Dropbox. And so on. If there were a commercial support offering for MX Linux, with defined SLAs and so on, I would certainly consider subscribing to it. Of course, it would depend on the price :)

I'm sure that people are grateful for the help they get for free. I certainly am, and I try to reciprocate on the few occasions when I can. I'm also sure that people will understand if sometimes they can't get help for free, without taking a small risk with data confidentiality. I don't think any ought to resent being asked for technical data, and I don't see much evidence that anybody does.

Nevertheless, I do think it will deter some people from asking for help, if a condition of getting it is to upload a data dump -- whether it seems to be relevant or not. But, at the same time, I can see why it would speed things up if everybody did this -- particularly as the content of the QSI dump contains so little that could be exploited.

I do understand, really I do; but I understand both sides.

BR, Lars.

I second this challenge via a different route. (testing to see if non-forum members can access this file.

People who are not logged in will not see this. Already tested with someone who never wanted to post their QSI.

Eadwine Rose wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 9:29 am People who are not logged in will not see this. Already tested with someone who never wanted to post their QSI.

I noticed the minute I logged out. I can see greg's QSI as a non member and wanted to check the other avenue.

siamhie wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 9:27 am I second this challenge via a different route. (testing to see if non-forum members can access this file.



QSI.txt

When I'm logged in I can grab it but when i'm logged out I get this:

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

j2mcgreg wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 9:35 am

siamhie wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 9:27 am I second this challenge via a different route. (testing to see if non-forum members can access this file.



QSI.txt

When I'm logged in I can grab it but when i'm logged out I get this:

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

@Eadwine Rose pointed out that this was brought up before.

@j2mcgreg I was going to suggest forum members upload their QSI as a text file so that non-forum members can't see it.
Non members can still see QSI posted as code but there still isn't information included that gives away the users personal information. Only the hardware they use.

Files are cumbersome compared to properly quoted text in the post.
Also as the initial point was mean who cares what hardware configuration a random poster on a forum uses? The only relevance is for people who are trying to help.

Adrian wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 10:05 am Files are cumbersome compared to properly quoted text in the post.
Also as the initial point was mean who cares what hardware configuration a random poster on a forum uses? The only relevance is for people who are trying to help.

+1

siamhie wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 9:58 am

j2mcgreg wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 9:35 am

siamhie wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 9:27 am I second this challenge via a different route. (testing to see if non-forum members can access this file.



QSI.txt

When I'm logged in I can grab it but when i'm logged out I get this:

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

@Eadwine Rose pointed out that this was brought up before.

@j2mcgreg I was going to suggest forum members upload their QSI as a text file so that non-forum members can't see it.
Non members can still see QSI posted as code but there still isn't information included that gives away the users personal information. Only the hardware they use.

All I did was prove you correct.