That's really not much different in terms of privacy than what is being suggested in this bug. The image will have to look at a URI like this for knowing if it's out of date or not:
Then whoever is maintaining the service will see that *someone* has a hardy-i386 machine. I don't really think that the fact that disclosing that this someone is running version A or B of the given image is that much different.
> Can we keep the false dichotomies to a minimum, please?
I'm just trying to move the discussion into something constructive, Soren. Sometimes it's hard to word things in a way that pleases everyone.
> Something like this: people. canonical. com/~soren/ ec2-version- query/current/
>
> http://
That's really not much different in terms of privacy than what is being suggested in this bug. The image will have to look at a URI like this for knowing if it's out of date or not:
http:// people. canonical. com/~soren/ ec2-version- query/current/ eu-west- 1/i386/ hardy/ami
Then whoever is maintaining the service will see that *someone* has a hardy-i386 machine. I don't really think that the fact that disclosing that this someone is running version A or B of the given image is that much different.
> Can we keep the false dichotomies to a minimum, please?
I'm just trying to move the discussion into something constructive, Soren. Sometimes it's hard to word things in a way that pleases everyone.