This is straight up blogspam. Notice how all the links in this article link to the same website?

Here's the original source (In fairness to OP, it's not in English.) [1]

Here's a summary of his findings in English by a guy that isn't trying to drive in ad-traffic. [2]

Now that that's out of the way, here are my thoughts:

Some of this is certainly true and they don't try to hide it-- just last weekend I showed my father the above version of this article. He's a pretty pro-microsoft/anti-FOSS/internet-privacy-is-a-ridiculous-idea guy, but even he was a little shaken to see that we could open up control panel and disable something like the reporting of all of your keystrokes-- assuming it actually disables it.

With regards to data collection and report that users have no control over, I think it's probably true that Windows 10 is capable of this and has code in place to do it, but the idea that it's actually doing this at a large frequency on every user is pretty ridiculous. If it were truly as bad as he's painting it it would be as easy as opening Wireshark, right? We can look at blobs in Windows 10 and find hardcoded strings, and while we probably can't figure out what it's doing with them, we can at least confirm that this guy didn't make it all up. So why hasn't anyone?

I dunno. But IMO the implications of this being true are moot. We already live in a world where Chome is telling Google what you're saying to your microphone[3], where OSX is telling apple where you are and what you're typing into spotlight[4], and where the most popular Linux + GNU distribution is putting out releases that tell Amazon what you're searching for in a default install[5]. Is Microsoft jumping on this same wagon really such a monumental shift when other operating systems and browsers are already doing it?

I'm glad that people are upset at the idea though, and if you're with me so far I'd like to make the case that if you're upset about this you ought to be upset about a possible future that is much worse. I'm willing to eat these words 10 years from now if I'm wrong, but I truly believe that two imminent events are going to be catastrophic for software freedom.

1. From a software-engineering standpoint, LLVM is superior to GCC. It is well-engineered and will inevitably outperform GCC to a great extent. It's modular and that means that adding new languages and targets are far easier. The future of compiler development is decidedly LLVM-like compilers. But this modular nature (and the license) allows ARM/Intel/NVidia/Ati the ability to simply put out blobs that extend LLVM. Nvidia/CUDA already do this. [6]

2. Moore's law is dying, and it's going to result in a transformation of hardware. (Cannot recommend this article enough, though my conclusion from his reasoning is the opposite.) [7]

I know it sounds ridiculous at first thought-- "LLVM is under a FSF-approved license", you say. "Even if it wasn't, nonfree tools have never meant that free tools cannot exist besides them." "The author of that article made a pretty compelling case that we're headed towards more open hardware, not less."

And that's all true.

But consider Apple's iOS app-store lockdown and how anti-developer it is. A $100 fee to even begin developing apps? Approval processes? It's completely appalling that we develop backends for services on the shoulders of free software and yet we're at the whims of Apple when we wish to actually get it in the hands of users. But that's the small price we pay to be able to get our software in the hands of the common man's iPhone.

The fatal assumption in the IEEE article is that developers decide what languages or architectures we wish to target. I don't think we do. The market does; rest of society does. We make software for the products they choose. Open hardware is something that we care about, but the market doesn't. Accessible development tools are something that we care about, but the market doesn't factor that into their decisions. Compare the iOS app-store to Google play-- one has free development tools available for all platforms and costs $25 (to keep spam away). One is available only on OSX and requires a $100 fee to debug on real hardware. If the market cared at all about these things, that difference would have lead to Android dwarfing iOS. That has yet to happen.

So what happens when Moore's law slows down and every device is able to roll their own slightly-different architecture? What happens when the only way to compile on it is to use their linked library for LLVM? What happens when you're forced to pay $100 for that? $1000? $10,000? What happens when microkernels become mainstream and you're forced to compile for EC2/Google Apps/etc. using their blobs? Can GCC be expected to stay relevant? [8]

Reading this over, I don't know if I've made as compelling of a case as I felt I had before I started writing, but I do think that the future of software freedom is unsure and that the more we are willing to put up with their demands the worse the outlook gets. [9]

[1]: http://aeronet.cz/news/analyza-windows-10-ve-svem-principu-j...

[2]: http://localghost.org/posts/a-traffic-analysis-of-windows-10

[3]: http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-listens-after-you-say-ok...

[4]: http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/10/mac-os-x-yosemite-re...

[5]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/privacy-ubuntu-1210-am...

[6]: https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-llvm-compiler

[7]: http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/design/the-death-of-...

[8]: https://lwn.net/Articles/582241/

[9]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.en.html