Stallman On Unity Dash: Canonical Will Have To Give Users' Data To Governments

Giorgio Maone writes "Ubuntu developer and fellow Mozillian Benjamin Kerensa chatted with various people about the new Amazon Product Results in the Ubuntu 12.10 Unity Dash. Among them, Richard Stallman told him that this feature is bad because: 1. 'If Canonical gets this data, it will be forced to hand it over to various governments.'; 2. Amazon is bad. Concerned people can disable remote data retrieval for any lens and scopes or, more surgically, use sudo apt-get remove unity-lens-shopping."

Comments

sad but true

[Anonymous Coward]

if a company collects any data on you it's inevitable the government will try and take it.

Re:sad but true

[aaron552]

If anyone collects data on you it's inevitable the government will try and take it

Fixed

Re:sad but true

[Lumpy]

They dont have to take it. It's available for dirt cheap at LexisNexis. I can buy enough data on you to freak you out. All I need is a name and an address and I can get your social Security number and pretty much everything else.

This is what most nutjobs don't understand. Stop worrying about the government, because corporations are already harvesting you and selling it to the government at a deep discount.

Re:sad but true

[Beardo the Bearded]

That's why it's more important to give them false information 25% of the time than it is to worry about who or what is tracking you.

Poison the well.

Re:sad but true

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure if that really has much impact. It seems a large usage for such information is market stuff, where as long as they are within an order of magnitude, they can get what they need. Especially if marketing stuff has some low marginal cost, that it wouldn't matter if half the ads, etc., miss.

Re:sad but true

[couchslug]

"Stop worrying about the government, because corporations are already harvesting you and selling it to the government at a deep discount."

But, but I TRUST the Koch Brothers when they say Government Is Bad.

The Invisible Hand Of The Market will protect me.

Re:sad but true

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, this is different. This lets Amazon collect data on what you search for on your computer locally (as all local searches also get sent to Amazon). Depending on how you use search that could be giving Amazon a timestamped history of the names of programs/documents you are using on your computer and when. LexisNexis does not have that data.

Re:sad but true

[bkerensa]

I actually made a python script that use a random word list to send them funky data btw I am the guy who wrote the blog post linked here.

Re:sad but true

[BeanThere]

Stop worrying about the government, because corporations are already harvesting

Bad governments have killed hundreds of millions in the last 100 years alone ... I think I'd prefer to base what I worry most about on actual evidence, thanks.

Re:sad but true

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone collects data on you it's inevitable the government has already acquired it

Completely fixed

Re:sad but true

[http]

Do you really think they haven't figured out that a certain percentage of the db entries will be inaccurate? Inter-database correlations are powerful - e.g. there is a strong chance that this person nicknamed "Adolf Hitler" with a known birthday and an invalid address (and a 95% certain GeoIP) who wrote an online review of "Predator" is the same person as someone with the same birthday and ordered "Predator 2" a week later, and, oh look, the shipping address is close to the GeoIP area. That the errors are deliberately introduced on your part doesn't change the correction mechanism.

"Strong chance" given that a birthdate and a zip code have something like 95% odds of identifying a unique person. My understanding of stats is primitive at best, but I imagine you'd need more than 50% bogus entries to make a CPU twitch, and more than 95% bogus entries to make a measurable difference in load average.

These numbers are pulled from a hat, so I welcome more accurate numbers.

Re:sad but true

[Jafafa Hots]

Who the hell gives out their real birthdate and real zip code to sites?

IP addess - now that's something else entirely.

I have been born in years ranging from 1898 to 1989, according to what I tell any software or website.

Hell, I even have those grocery store discount cards they track you with, but I have no idea what names and addresses I filled out on the forms.

Re:sad but true

[fredprado]

He may have a lot of radical opinions, but none of them is based on madness as you suggest. You may disagree with many of his opinions, but you cant deny that he accurately predicted 20 years ago a lot of the problems we are facing nowadays with the government and corporation increasingly pressing for control and using new technologies against privacy.

Re:sad but true

[Doctor_Jest]

The problem isn't radical opinions (everyone has at least some of those), it's that he advocates strong government intervention in wages and worker rights (which requires a powerful government), but in the same breath he decries the power of the state in our lives. He's got the "cake and eat it too" mentality and refuses to understand what Free Markets are about... (Not crony capitalism, statism, and corporatism... those are pretty obviously shit.)

Re:sad but true

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because I can choose to do my business with a new government...
 
Oh, wait!
 
Corporations can be brought down by consumers. Governments? Not so much. As I recall consumers did the right thing and changed the direction of Bank of America recently. When's the last time the government received such a protest from the people and changed their course? I believe it was late 1700s.

Re:sad but true

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone collects data on you it's inevitable the government will use it as an exscuse to increase military research spending.

Completely fixed

Sensationalized.

Re:sad but true

[Pav]

You seem to be getting methods mixed up with aims. Sometimes you burn a field and sometimes you flood it if you want a good crop - nothing weird there. If you have a hammer doesn't mean you use it to solve all problems either - you hit nails and you ignore china. Free Markets? You seem to be advocating a subset of free markets towards the "Laissez-faire" minimal intervention end of the spectrum. I see this as an extreme position - for example during the potato famine a lot of people starved in destitute Ireland because it was more economically sound to sell grain in England.

Re:sad but true

[fredprado]

Defending a state controlled economy and strong individual rights is not a paradoxical position. It is the definition of "Liberal". Read the Nolan chart for a quick reference on the subject.

Defending "Laissez-faire" capitalism and strong individual rights, which you seem to think more coherent is what is called "Libertarianism".

The other extreme position of defending a strong governmental intervention in the economy AND strong restriction of individual freedom is authoritarianism, and it is usually very bad, as in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia bad.

Re:sad but true

[Anonymous Coward]

The corporations cannot have a bunch of armed guys rush into your apartment and lock you up because they don't like you. (Yet). They have to find smoohter ways to make you change your mind. That's why I like corporations more than government.

Re:sad but true

[Anonymous Coward]

Exacto-fucking true.

I regularly /correct/ the location data on google.com by selecting different addresses.

fuck'em

Re:sad but true

[Lumpy]

All that info self corrects. They have your Birth certificate, your DMV records and your tax records at Lexis Nexis as well as your ENTIRE CREDIT HISTORY. I can get a report that tells me what resturants you eat at and when.

Your script does nothing at all when you are forced to submit real information like a shipping address.

Re:sad but true

[Lumpy]

yes they do. Because amazon sells it to them.

I suggest you actually READ your EULAS.

Re:sad but true

[Lumpy]

Ask someone that has been raided for Copyright infringement if the movie industry cant raid your house.

Re:sad but true

[RockDoctor]

Lexis Nexis as well as your ENTIRE CREDIT HISTORY. I can get a report that tells me what resturants you eat at and when.

Disregarding that they may or may not confine their interest to Americans, but you'll have tremendous difficulty finding out which restaurants I eat in. I pay with cash, so you'd need to get into either mobile phone tower records (IF I'd taken my mobile with me that night, AND left it switched on.) or CCTV. And that's a lot harder than credit card records.

Actually ... it's over a week since I used the bank card for anything other than getting cash out of the hole in the wall. It's not as if I need to use anything other than cash for most things. Data mining ... fucked.

Re:sad but true

[Anonymous Coward]

Or spank you on your bare, bare bottom.

Don't use Ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you can uninstall this feature, by merely using Ubuntu you're implicitly supporting them, and their intentions obviously aren't very nice if they're doing it. Use a different distro, there are also many other issues with Ubuntu to keep using it anyway.

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[mumblestheclown]

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well, are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist? He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord? He said, Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.

Welcome to the world of Linux distributions. Who can figure out the mystery of the sub 2 percent combined desktop market share?

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[Qwavel]

"their intentions obviously aren't very nice if they're doing it"

Based on what we know of them so far, I'd say that they are just trying to figure out a way to make some money, not be evil.

Personally, I hope they are successful in making money, and if there users feel that this latest initiative is the wrong approach then I hope they will respond in a constructive manner and not abandon Ubuntu.

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

Sanest thing I've heard all week. Thank you.

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[Nerdfest]

I think the "ask for it" approach they're trying is a much less evil approach, and would probably pay off more in the long run, both in dollars and good will.

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

Attribution: Emo Philips

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBKIyCbppfs

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[EmperorOfCanada]

With the addition of this feature Ubuntu was crossed off my list. Until now it was Ubuntu for desktops and CentOS for servers. Now it it Mint for desktops and still CentOS for servers. Wow that was hard. Mint is prettier anyway.

Again some MBA was let loose with his spreadsheet. He crunched some numbers and everybody when woooooo. There are all kinds of bad things that look good when put on a spreadsheet. A really nice bold bottom line doesn't make them less bad; it just makes making a bad decision seem better.

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

If you use Ubuntu are they stupid enough to assume you support every aspect of it? If you choose not to use it, do you expect them to figure out what aspect of it turned you away? How much would they care in either case? It is not like some commercial product where they are clamoring to bring in the maximum number of dollars no matter what. They could easily say/think, "Oh, you don't like this particular feature. That is respectable, maybe you should use another distro, and we'll keep this for the people who don't dislike it."

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[couchslug]

Ubuntu doesn't need users, it needs money. It could exist in a vacuum if the bills are paid.

This being Slashdot, why give a fuck about "training wheels" distros?

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

Canonical has a propensity for coming up with some features that can be useful to its users, but seems to implement them in a ham-fisted way (foisting them as a defaults), which has the unfortunate effect of creating controversy and negative publicity about the feature. A shopping lens isn't a bad idea, but it never should have been merged with default file and app search. I hope Canonical decides to split the shopping stuff out into its own lens, so that it doesn't have to be an either/or choice in order to use it.

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[jedidiah]

No. It's the dumbest thing heard all year because they haven't really tried anything yet. They're frustrated because "They've tried nothing and it doesn't seem to work". Little wonder.

They might try some more conventional approaches before being total scumbags.

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems so overly harsh. "Total scumbags"? While it could be misused (people keep predicting that, but haven' shown it in actual use), this level of information already exists (see Google, LexisNexus, etc). Nothing you do that involves another person is private. It probably isn't even unknown. If you have sex with another person and someone overhears it, the act isn't even private. And lets face it, if it can't be overheard, you aren't doing it right.

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[MichaelSmith]

They are trying to make money supplying linux to private users.

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

The regular Mint distro is still Ubuntu. Hopefully you meant the Mint/Debian edition.

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[s4m7]

They might try some more conventional approaches before being total scumbags.

You mean, for example, selling support services, offering affordable cloud services, and creating an online store for linux-compatible software vendors?

Yeah... they should really try that stuff...

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[s4m7]

Mint makes money through their default search engine redirect, or in other words, by selling your keyword searches. Which is exactly what Ubuntu is doing. They've just been doing it for longer.

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

ObMonty Python: <lifeOfBrian>

REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.

P.F.J.: Yeah...

JUDITH: Splitters.
</lifeOfBrian>

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

People have tried responding in a constructive manner to previous edicts on how things are going to be, the best we get is a half-hearted effort at appeasement. For me this is the straw that broke the camels back, it may not be a big deal in itself, as a geek I can easily remove the offending feature, but I just don't like the direction they are going in.

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[eric_herm]

Well, trying is easy. Doing it right would be better. In fact, i am sure Canonical could be profitable if they didn't burn cash faster than a russian autocrat in a Las Vegas casino. For example, it was obvious that Ubuntu One would not work enough to be profitable. It was more expensive than dropbox, and supported less system. They managed to adjust the price, but they are still lagging behind. Same goes for landscape. Why they didn't figure sooner than no one sane would want to have a hosted version of remote control tool ( but they figured that it should be standalone ).

Or maybe using standard tools that are costing less money instead of Launchpad ( whih requires a team dedicated to have it running, while other distribution use bugzilla, which can be a pain to use, but that do not requires 10 person to be setup and managed ). Or maybe they could have chosed a less expensive location for their HQ ( ie, not one of the most expensive tower in London ). But they changed now again. The list goes on, there is no clear big errors ( not like Nokia ), but lots of small "we do not care about money, so let's burn it for now" type of errors. Death by one thousand wastes....

And in the mean time, they didn't "waste" money on working upstream, but more on having their own subsystem ( unity, upstart ), based on some less than optimal code ( like compiz ). For exemple, instead of writing usplash and xsplash, they could have waited on plymouth. Using selinux instead of apparmor, likely cheaper. So no upstream involvement, not enough inside skills to have a good support, and so not enough business clients.

In fact, the whole idea of having Ubuntu for free is fighting against them. Cause people do not see that Ubuntu has value ( it was always given for free ), and may not see they need to pay. Because, they fight against some of their own users, who have small shops doing Ubuntu consulting.

So yeah, they tried. They may not have fully failed, but that's likely not the success they were hoping for ( and I am sure Mark blame the financial crisis for that, instead of his own choice )

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[RocketRabbit]

We are all much stupider for having read this post. Yeah, ha ha, but the issue here isn't partisanship, it's that Ubuntu spies on you.

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[eric_herm]

In fact, ubuntu does it too and so does Firefox. But that's not Mint being paid for selling the data, that's mint being paid to choose one search engine that serve ads over another search engines that serves ads. In short, the only way to not have the issue is either to use seeks ( but the current nodes may not be able to sustain the traffic, and this may not provides the needed quality level ), or not having a search engine at all in the browser ( which is just useless, since people will still use a search engine ).

On the other hand, I do not search on amazon every day, and I do not even type local query like "big boobs" in google if i want to search on my hard drive. So that's why people are pissed of. You can rationalize as much as you want, thinking this is the same, but there is subtle differences.

( but yes, if Ubuntu die, Mint does too ).

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[lennier]

offering affordable cloud services

Yes, a for-pay cloud storage service for all my files, email addresses and contacts with no encryption on it. And when I asked actual Ubuntu employees "what's with the no host-end encryption? Can you please offer me a service that doesn't mean I have to trust you not to read my personal contact data?" they literally argued with me that no, I'm wrong, I don't need any protection, because "Ubuntu is a company of nice guys and they'd never abuse that priviledge".

Yeah, um, no. If that's the corporate direction on their cloud services, then something was rotten right from the top and has been for a while.

Good luck, guys. You had a chance to do the right thing. It didn't even seem to cross your minds that there was a difference between right and wrong.

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[cOldhandle]

I initially defended this Unity Dash adware with the same comparison, but after reading more about it, the Mint advertising is nowhere near as bad. All LOCAL searches are transmitted UNENCRYPTED back to Canonical! If users aren't aware of this new "addition", they will be leaking potentially private local information all over the net - I'm surprised this is even legal (it probably isn't in the EU). There is also no filtering done on pictures of suggestions returned from Amazon, so even pornographic images can be displayed - I guess this automatically bars Ubuntu from any workplaces/net cafes/universities etc. due to possibilities of dismissals, sexual harassment lawsuits etc.

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

But Mint is another bad example.
Case in point: it has every browser plugin that ever existed preinstalled by default. Shit like Java or Quicktime or Real or Windows Media that nobody uses anymore.

This is not just a complaint against bloat, it's bad from a security standpoint, since browser plugins are probably the biggest vulnerabilities nowadays.
I get the impression that Mint is trying to be too dumbed down and user friendly at the cost of bad practices.

I'll not recommend Debian to a Linux novice who wants something ready out of the box, but something like Xubuntu is a good balance between user friendliness and lack of bad practices.

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Also, how is doing something ethically dubious (the mere fact that there's debate about it makes it dubious) to make money, not evil?

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[lister king of smeg]

Because we install it on relatives computers and they need training wheels. Because it has all of the proprietary drivers built in so we don't have to hunt them down.

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Ubuntu will be the new Facebook of collaboration and spying for various US intel agencies. Just ditch Ubuntu . Simple. MAybe if the numbers nosedive for them they will listen. The only thing they seem to listen to is the sound of a cash register.

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[Cloud K]

Funny how everyone who wants to stop supporting Canonical ends up using Mint. Mint is derived from Ubuntu! So yes you're getting a desktop that you prefer... but you're still indirectly supporting Ubuntu/Canonical.

Re:Don't use Ubuntu

[Cloud K]

I've just noticed this (having read up a bit more about how they're really in the belief of everyone involved there *not trying to be evil* but just kind of trying to raise funds, I decided to stop worrying and carry on, and heck, download the latest version)

Lo and behold, before the download it asked whether I'd like to donate something. In what I consider a stroke of sheer genius, they let you allocate it to whatever you consider the biggest concerns (I went for hardware support and upstream co-ordination plus tip) in quite a direct system of voting with your wallet. It's a brilliant idea because indeed it did entice me into donating which I think I last did about 5+ years ago. Money placed where mouth is, and I hope they'll find success with this and maybe not feel the need to stoop further into dodgy advertising territory.

Pretty much always the case with online services

[Fastolfe]

This shouldn't be surprising. If someone is in a position to collect data, and they do so, governments can get that data. Pretty much everyone collects data when you interact with their services. To paraphrase Eric Schmidt, If you don't want anyone to know what you're doing online, don't do things online.

Stallman

[Anonymous Coward]

Stallman gave this speech, as all his speeches, from a secret underground cave bunker on the moon, the only place he's convinced no one can get him. His fears of advancement in space travel however have now caused him to announce his future plans to move his home to a commonly used metaphor, in the hopes that living inside an actual metaphor will present even more security.

Re:Stallman

[kthreadd]

Stallman gave this speech, as all his speeches, from a secret underground cave bunker on the moon, the only place he's convinced no one can get him. His fears of advancement in space travel however have now caused him to announce his future plans to move his home to a commonly used metaphor, in the hopes that living inside an actual metaphor will present even more security.

Actually, we have some really big radio telescopes pointing in that direction.

Re:Stallman

[Anonymous Coward]

My hat protects me.

R.M.S.

sudo apt-get install shred

[Anonymous Coward]

Then install debian.

Re:sudo apt-get install shred

[kthreadd]

Then install debian.

Stallman's organization maintains a list of approved distributions.
Debian is not there, so he won't recommend it.

Re:sudo apt-get install shred

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the FSF uses Debian as well. Debian is 'libre' by default even the kernel nowadays. Stallman won't recommend it because it has non-free repos. But they're disabled by default. Debian is perfectly fine if you don't enable those repositories.

Re:sudo apt-get install shred

[bonehead]

Stallman's organization maintains a list of approved

The scary part is that there are people who actually *care* if something is RMS approved.

The open source movement would be much better served if that whack-job would keep his lunacy to himself.

Re:sudo apt-get install shred

[Anonymous Coward]

Free software nutsos.

I hereby don't approve Stallman or FSF.

Re:sudo apt-get install shred

[Nerdfest]

That man is partially responsible for the progress that has been made in the spread of open software. I think his opinion has more value than a lot of others, especially these days when things in the area of personal computing are growing more closed very quickly.

Re:sudo apt-get install shred

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a fucking shit what RMS says? He's not relevant, who cares?

Re:sudo apt-get install shred

[bonehead]

especially these days when things in the area of personal computing are growing more closed very quickly.

Hmm... You must be young. The trend is actually quite drastically in the other direction.

As for Stallman's contributions, yes, he's done some good things. Doesn't change the fact that every time he opens his mouth he just comes across as being either a lunatic, or really, really stoned.

I'm sorry, but getting paid for your work, in a world where money is necessary to survive, is NOT morally wrong.

Re:sudo apt-get install shred

[Nerdfest]

Server computing, development frameworks, etc, are getting more open. Personal computing is getting more closed. iOS, and now the Windows 8 store for me are a very big push against all the progress that has been made. I'm quite old ... I remember the IBM days and I remember AOL ... both very restricted. I have a feeling most people don't remember those and are taking the freedom they have (or had) for granted.

Re:sudo apt-get install shred

[maxwell demon]

Here's what the FSF has to say about Debian:

Debian's Social Contract states the goal of making Debian entirely free software, and Debian conscientiously keeps nonfree software out of the official Debian system. However, Debian also provides a repository of nonfree software. According to the project, this software is “not part of the Debian system,” but the repository is hosted on many of the project's main servers, and people can readily learn about these nonfree packages by browsing Debian's online package database.

So with Debian, the people can learn that there is non-free software! Oh the horrors!

Re:sudo apt-get install shred

[Anonymous Coward]

One word: emacs. Oh damn, sorry. Escape, Meta, emacs... No, sorry, hang on. Escape, Meta, Atl, Ctrl, .... oh shit, sorry, what was the word again?

Re:sudo apt-get install shred

[bonehead]

I'm old, too. I remember the days when "going online" meant dialing up a local BBS. Any software you could find that was free was almost universally crappy. Then there was limited functionality shareware, some good, some crappy. Beyond that you went to the store and forked over big bucks for commercial products.

Today I can choose from a choice of multiple free operating systems, and even on Windows I can meet all my needs without having to spend a dime on additional software.

The one thing that hasn't changed is that free games still suck.

I have a hard time seeing the overall trend here as being anything other than towards openness. Sure, the big vendors are trying new things to get you to buy their stuff, but that's nothing new. It's just what businesses do.

Re:sudo apt-get install shred

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I were either (a lunatic or really stoned). I'll settle for both though.

Re:sudo apt-get install shred

[antdude]

NBA, CBS, Care Bears, etc. do! [grin]

Re:sudo apt-get install shred

[eric_herm]

So because someone say something you do not agree with, you think it would be better if he kept him for himself ?

People are able to judge by themself and are smart enough to figure if someone should be followed or not, and if some people care, that's their choice, not yours.

Re:sudo apt-get install shred

[Anonymous Coward]

Trisquel is a fine choice for users who care about things like this. I'm very much a supporter. Just because you listen to Richard Stallman doesn't mean you have to agree with everything he says. He makes a lot of good points most people are too stupid to understand. Then they get upset because they are being told they aren't perfect. NOBODY is perfect. Get over it.

The goal is freedom. Stop making excuses for the bad things you do. I'm not perfect and I'll admit I don't use 100% free software. However I still try to avoid it at all costs. I don't recommend Ubuntu, Debian, etc. to more technical users. On the other hand I'm not going to refuse to assist someone moving away from more proprietary environments.

I might not use Trisquel- although I DO fund its development. It's a worthy cause and one day I hope to no longer feel dependent on non-free software. There is nothing I buy which is dependent on non-free software. If you need a really easy means of avoiding it I highly recommend ThinkPenguin.com. The company doesn't ship anything dependent on non-free software so you have 100% compatibility with free distributions- not just those which include non-free drivers/firmware.

Re:sudo apt-get install shred

[Anonymous Coward]

The one thing that hasn't changed is that free games still suck.

Haven't played a lot of OpenTTD, have we?

Re:sudo apt-get install shred

[doshell]

I'm sorry, but getting paid for your work, in a world where money is necessary to survive, is NOT morally wrong.

I'm no hardline stallmanite, but what does this have to do with free software? Nothing in the definition of free software precludes you from making money through it. At most, it forbids certain ways of making money with it.

Re:sudo apt-get install shred

[Anonymous Coward]

>As for Stallman's contributions, yes, he's done some good things. Doesn't change the fact that every time he opens his mouth he just comes across as being either a lunatic, or really, really stoned.

Example? Bitkeeper? Cloud snafus? Ease of removal of CarrierIQ?

>I'm sorry, but getting paid for your work, in a world where money is necessary to survive, is NOT morally wrong.
In fact what you describe can be applied to free software, but not to proprietary software.
Getting paid to make the user hostage of your platform and charge the maximum amount possible disregarding the effort and quality of what you are selling, using silly patents and intentionally obfuscating protocols to cut competition out is morally wrong and exactly describes most closed source today.

Re:sudo apt-get install shred

[lsatenstein]

Then install debian.

Stallman's organization maintains a list of approved distributions.

Debian is not there, so he won't recommend it.

Because Debian lists repositories where you can install non-free stuff, he rejects it. I guess Stallman uses windows to watch YouTube stuf. Ditto for Fedora, (ATI and Nvidia and Flash are non open and can be installed, and therefore the distribution is rejected). Sigh, I don't want to live in a sealed box

Re:sudo apt-get install shred

[Kjella]

Which is exactly what rubs me the wrong way with RMS, he doesn't want coexistence or choice. In his ideal world there is nothing but free software and you will use it because using anything else is "unethical". I much prefer the people who strive for OSS software to win on its own merits - functionality, quality, cost etc. because it's the superior solution and not just by ideology. One sounds more like a religion "Thou shalt not have any other software but Free" and the other more like a self-help community "Use it if you like it, if not that's fine too or you could chip in and help us make it better." Worst are those that think attack is the best defense saying all the things you can't find are things that are stupid and you don't need. That's not RMS, but quite a few of his followers.

Re:sudo apt-get install shred

[unixisc]

The virginity of software - unplugged!

Re:sudo apt-get install shred

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the point of virgins was to plug them up.

Re:sudo apt-get install shred

[rubycodez]

you are confused and being illogical. I make my living with open source software, as do many of my co-workers.

Re:Pretty much always the case with online service

[Anonymous Coward]

More importantly, online services wouldn't be able to function without that data. From the collecting of money to the address to ship to. Not to mention making sure the whole thing works, continues to work, and improves through online stats.

Obligatory xkcd

[kvvbassboy]

http://xkcd.com/1095/

Mod parent +1 funny.

Re:Pretty much always the case with online service

[Captain Hook]

If you don't want anyone to know what you're doing online, don't do things online.

Some how I think you've missed the point.

Mission Creep

[Stormy Dragon]

Amazon was a member of ALEC. ALEC is the right-wing lobbying group that promotes voter-suppression laws and "shoot first" laws, as well as attacks against wages and working conditions in the US. Amazon quit ALEC after public pressure in May 2012, but I am sure it still seeks the same nasty policies that ALEC advocated and is waiting for a new tool to achieve them.

Even if we accept Stallman's rather innacurate description of ALEC's activities, neither campaign finance, gun rights, or minimum wage laws have anything to do with the free software movement. Stallman's belief to the contrary, Linux is not his personal political hobby horse.

Re:Mission Creep

[leromarinvit]

So Stallman isn't entitled to have an opinion on these subjects? Or is he just not allowed to voice it, whether asked or not? This is his personal website you're talking about.

Tell me, what qualifies you to say that campaign finance, gun rights, and minimum wage laws are none of Stallman's business?

Re:Mission Creep

[Microlith]

He's concerned about individual rights and freedoms. He sees an association between a Linux vendor and a company as a negative in part because of their ties to a PAC that tends to aggresively favor corporations over people.

On an aside, can you highlight how his description is inaccurate?

Re:Mission Creep

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS's description of ALEC is spot on.

You sound reasonable enough to do a little research. I suggest you do.

Re:Mission Creep

[bkerensa]

Stallman has done a lot for Linux and Free Software as such I would respect his opinion on golf if he so gave it.

Re:Mission Creep

[bonehead]

Or is he just not allowed to voice it

Oh, he's allowed. It's just that his causes would be better served by not having his nutjob name attached to them.

Re:Mission Creep

[sumdumass]

If you want to politicize Linux and Open Source Software, go right ahead. But there are many downsides to it that shouldn't be involved with software or open source. If we get a right wing government anywhere in the world, should they automatically ignore the concerns of OSS because it is seen as a front group for left wing nutters?

As for qualifications, I would suggest the same thing qualifies him to speak out against stallman entangling political views with OSS as does qualify you to speak out against him for doing it. Stallman is not on some pedestal that make him irreproachable or uniquely off limits to criticism for his comments or stances.

Re:Mission Creep

[blackest_k]

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/mc-allentown-amazon-complaints-20110917,0,7937001,full.story

read that and then contrast with this from ubuntu.com

Ubuntu is an ancient African word meaning 'humanity to others'.

You might think with these radically differences this might be a bad fit.

Maybe it was a few years back, but Ubuntu doesn't seem to even being developed by the same people who made it great. At least there are good alternatives to Ubuntu. Although if Mint doesn't stop with the configuring firefox to expressly not have google as a default search option or make it easy to add they will be losing users too.

Re:Mission Creep

[sumdumass]

I think that is the problem with these anointed leaders of Linux and Free Software espousing political commentary not related to Linux and Free Software. It makes it appear as if they are trying to include the people who support them and their ideals as support for the political externalizations.

Of course there are people like you who without knowing how qualified he is with something outside Linux and Free Software who hang on his words. But there are people who support the opposite of what Stallman is saying, people who are friendly to all or part of ALEC's agenda, who see his comments as offensive. There are people who have an entire different host of political ideals who support free software and should not be put in a position (at least in appearance if not directly by association) because of the stature of the leaders and their contradictory positions in politics.

  Linux and Free Software should only be politicized to the point policy law impacts it. Any more then that and not only will we find it ineffectual to appose policy because one side will see Linux and Free Software as a front group for another side of politics, but it can be damaging when groups purposely ignore Linux and Free Software in policy and law or worse yet, ignore negative impacts it will have because- after all, they are just a front group some politician's ideology.

Re:Mission Creep

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because he's a paranoid conspiracy theory left wing douche bag.

Re:Mission Creep

[leromarinvit]

If you want to politicize Linux and Open Source Software, go right ahead.

Stallman doesn't care as much about Open Source as he does about Free Software. The differences can sometimes seem small, but I think the latter is inherently political, as is "hacker culture" in general.

If we get a right wing government anywhere in the world, should they automatically ignore the concerns of OSS because it is seen as a front group for left wing nutters?

As a "left wing nutter", I wouldn't have too much hope of a right wing government doing much of anything that benefits common (working class) people. I think trying to get them to pass "OSS-friendly" laws would be a futile endeavour.

As for qualifications, I would suggest the same thing qualifies him to speak out against stallman entangling political views with OSS as does qualify you to speak out against him for doing it. Stallman is not on some pedestal that make him irreproachable or uniquely off limits to criticism for his comments or stances.

Of course. But he seemed to suggest that since political topics have (in his opinion) nothing to do with Free Software, Stallman shouldn't talk about them. This just rubbed me the wrong way, similar to how whenever Chomsky says something political, there are those who claim that since his most well-known works are in linguistics, he should shut up because he's not "qualified" to talk about politics.

Re:Mission Creep

[sumdumass]

Stallman doesn't care as much about Open Source as he does about Free Software. The differences can sometimes seem small, but I think the latter is inherently political, as is "hacker culture" in general.

The comments in question have little to do with free software though. Do you think it is appropriate to conflate free software with Gun rights or abortion?

As a "left wing nutter", I wouldn't have too much hope of a right wing government doing much of anything that benefits common (working class) people. I think trying to get them to pass "OSS-friendly" laws would be a futile endeavour.

Then you would be a left wing moron. This isn't just about passing laws to aid or help OSS. It's about limiting damage other laws might cause with it. It is about the government using it not only for the benefits of owning your own data but for the promotion and development of it. So tell me, if Europe decided that software patents were a good thing and some right wing governments wanted to make it law, would the opinion of software enthusiasts and advocates have more impact in this decision or would the opinion of left wing organizations crying about software freedom? If governments were deciding to change their software, would FOSS be considered when it is seen as a political opposition group? As uncomfortable as it may be for you, the seemingly neutral advocates and enthusiasts would carry more weight in these decisions then groups of political opposition who are also interested in software.

Right now, anyone can be involved with OSS-FOSS regardless of their political leanings. If it becomes a political entity outside of what effects and impacts it, then only expect those jaded with the same outside beliefs to be active. It is not a good thing at all for FOSS or Linux.

Of course. But he seemed to suggest that since political topics have (in his opinion) nothing to do with Free Software, Stallman shouldn't talk about them. This just rubbed me the wrong way, similar to how whenever Chomsky says something political, there are those who claim that since his most well-known works are in linguistics, he should shut up because he's not "qualified" to talk about politics.

It is in my opinion that he is free to say what he thinks. The world is not some place where someone can speak their mind and someone else cannot because you or anyone else agrees with one or the other opinion. If scolding Stallman is appropriate to him because of what he believes in, then it is just as appropriate as you or me scolding him or whoever in the future. However, I think the op has a little more legitimacy because Stallman is seen as a leader in the community that he participates in and should have more of an opportunity to make his case for or against that leader.

I took the op's statement to mean more that Stallman should not be conflating FOSS with outside political ideas like Gun control and so on. That has no place in in FOSS in my opinion. But if the "leaders" want to entangle FOSS with politics like that, they better be ready to accept the consequences of being relegated to just another political mouth piece when something important comes up.

Re:Mission Creep

[eric_herm]

Then maybe slashdot should not try to make a headline of what he post on his website, and maybe people should really not care, instead of posting saying "we do not care, and we do not care so much that we care to explain that we do not care". Geez, could have been a monty python sketch...

Re:Mission Creep

[leromarinvit]

So tell me, if Europe decided that software patents were a good thing and some right wing governments wanted to make it law, would the opinion of software enthusiasts and advocates have more impact in this decision or would the opinion of left wing organizations crying about software freedom?

The European Patent Office has already decided that on its own, by granting thousands of software patents, openly disregarding the law (which says software is unpatentable). If you believe that "neutral" software freedom advocates have any real power to influence governments to act against the interests of capital, you're naive.

If governments were deciding to change their software, would FOSS be considered when it is seen as a political opposition group? As uncomfortable as it may be for you, the seemingly neutral advocates and enthusiasts would carry more weight in these decisions then groups of political opposition who are also interested in software.

On this I agree with you. If you only care about the number of Linux installs or some similar metric, appearing neutral will help. But I doubt that's all Stallman is after.

I took the op's statement to mean more that Stallman should not be conflating FOSS with outside political ideas like Gun control and so on. That has no place in in FOSS in my opinion. But if the "leaders" want to entangle FOSS with politics like that, they better be ready to accept the consequences of being relegated to just another political mouth piece when something important comes up.

What do you suppose he should do? Refrain from talking about politics? That's also a statement - an endorsement of the status quo. Politics just isn't a private matter, and treating it like one doesn't make you "ideology-free". It just means you're following the neoliberal ideology of pretending not to have one.

Re:Mission Creep

[bonehead]

Where's the entertainment value in that?

Re:Mission Creep

[sumdumass]

The European Patent Office has already decided that on its own, by granting thousands of software patents, openly disregarding the law (which says software is unpatentable). If you believe that "neutral" software freedom advocates have any real power to influence governments to act against the interests of capital, you're naive.

So because one action operated outside of the law, we should give up on trying to influence the law. OK, I get where you are coming from now and understand why you are left wing.

On this I agree with you. If you only care about the number of Linux installs or some similar metric, appearing neutral will help. But I doubt that's all Stallman is after.

The number of Linux installs or other metrics would be ancillary. Ideally if FOSS was catching on in government, those numbers would be up. That would be a sign of success not success in and of itself.

What do you suppose he should do? Refrain from talking about politics? That's also a statement - an endorsement of the status quo. Politics just isn't a private matter, and treating it like one doesn't make you "ideology-free". It just means you're following the neoliberal ideology of pretending not to have one.

I suggest he makes a comment of some sort that clearly delineates which comments and rantings is for the furtherance of FOSS and which are his personal politics so as not to drag the entire FOSS community down with him. If there was a bright line saying this is what Stallman thinks about Foss and this is what he thinks about other things, I doubt we would be having this conversation.

Re:Mission Creep

[leromarinvit]

So because one action operated outside of the law, we should give up on trying to influence the law. OK, I get where you are coming from now and understand why you are left wing.

I didn't say we should give up. Just that even "neutral" advocates will be ignored as long as their goals don't line up with significant corporate interests. Therefore I don't think appearing neutral should be paramount, I think other ways of trying to influence laws are more effective.

Re:Mission Creep

[pnot]

If you want to politicize Linux and Open Source Software, go right ahead.

If you want to de-politicize Free Software and call it "Open Source", go right ahead. And if you then want to lambast the inventor of Free Software for not following you down the apolitical route... go right ahead, I guess. But don't expect to be taken very seriously.

Re:Mission Creep

[sumdumass]

Non-neutral advocating will lead to things being undone and ignore by opposing forces. Further more, it will in fact lead to a de facto dismissing by opposing forces. Look at Fox News and how they are treated by the administration. Clinton and Bush did the same and ignored media sources that appeared to have been advocating for the opposition. Remember travel gate?

Go political with it and you will be sure to either be ignored or actively worked against.

Or just wipe unity from your machine

[bytesex]

And use kubuntu instead!

Re:Or just wipe unity from your machine

[Arker]

I tried Kubuntu once. It was a lot harder to get installed than slackware, and even after getting it all working I didnt like it as much. Slack has a great clean KDE.

Re:Or just wipe unity from your machine

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't disagree with you more. If you think Kubuntu is hard to install you should probably shouldn't use Linux.

Re:Or just wipe unity from your machine

[Threni]

What was hard about it? It's easier to install than many programs.

Re:Or just wipe unity from your machine

[Arker]

Well it was hard as I recall primarily because the installer required X, and the standard cd at the time didnt properly detect my card. Like I need a really pretty installer just to make partitions and copy files? Who thought that up?

Speaking of partitions, it defaults to brain-dead. It looks like someone who didnt know what they were doing mindlessly copied windows.

Re:Or just wipe unity from your machine

[Anonymous Coward]

Download the "alternate install CD" if you prefer a text-based (Debian style) install. It also gives you the option to install a bare command-line system, adding X and whatever later. It feels much like Debian.

Re:Or just wipe unity from your machine

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an alternate installer disk for server installations, or for setups where you can't have X running.

As for the partitions, AFAIR the layout is exactly the same as in other *buntu distros.

Alienating your user base

[ntropia]

Putting aside any judgements for a moment, one could try to see the desire of Shuttleworth to push Linux in the mainstream, and this could be good... somehow.
But then, from Shuttleworth's words:

"It makes perfect sense to integrate Amazon search results in the Dash, because the Home Lens of the Dash should let you find *anything* anywhere"

Seriously? it should "let me find"? You put tons of advertises in user's computers *and* tons of user's data on Amazon servers and you didn't provide it as opt-in feature? And I can't even disable it [until a rushed update came out]?
Good job! You're alienating the most important thing you gained so far, your users. You know, not only it is important to bring Ubuntu in the mainstream: you need to be sure you don't get there alone, you know?

It seems another case of "shut up, we know better than users what users really want".
Do you?

Re:Alienating your user base

[bkerensa]

Shuttleworth also in that same blog post in the comments said Canonical had a privacy policy covering the lens.... I was the person who made it clear they did not and they just now added a disclaimer which really does not tell us what will happen to the data like a full privacy policy would.

Re:Alienating your user base

[Anonymous Coward]

True Canonical has been less than accurate and transparent.

Re:Alienating your user base

[RocketRabbit]

Listen to this parasitic fuck's arrogance: "Donâ(TM)t trust us? Erm, we have root. You do trust us with your data already. You trust us not to screw up on your machine with every update."

No, no I don't. In fact, I don't know anybody who simply trusts Ubuntu's update feature - all the Ubuntu users I know have been burned to a lesser or greater extent on EVERY update.

Sorry, Shuttleworth, I don't trust you, you don't have root, and I'm not going to fund your private Isle of Man party by allowing you to affiliate-scam every Amazon purchase I make.

who even uses ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, they experienced a boom when they were the only ones with an easy to use Linux system (Hardy?)

Since Linux is still not mainstream I am supprised that they still got nerds using their shit software. Linux Mint is way more legitimate in every way...

UBUNTU IS NOT RELEVANT

Re:who even uses ubuntu

[Spy Handler]

well then what do you recommend today for someone looking for an easy-to-use, well-supported and active distro that will do a good job of detecting your hardware and not force you to hunt down or write your own device drivers?

Re:who even uses ubuntu

[Neil_Brown]

Linux Mint is way more legitimate in every way... UBUNTU IS NOT RELEVANT

It may have changed — my last install of Mint was Helena — but is Mint not based on Ubuntu?

For Mint, I'd have thought Ubuntu was very relevant indeed.

Re:who even uses ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux Mint? It's just a re-package of Ubuntu with a different crappy desktop environment, right?
At least Unity works pretty well once you get to know your way around. Cinnamon seems pretty crappy.

Re:who even uses ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

...or write your own device drivers?

What are you talking about? Why, one time I installed MythTV and had blast learning how to use Linux. It was my first 'real' project and getting the IR transmitter built into the Hauppauge encoding card only required complete recompiling of the driver. Heck, I had a great time spending 4 full weekends trying to get my computer to change the channel on my satellite receiver, although in the end I purchased a special USB IR transmitter, but hey, I didn't have to pay for the software, and it was real fun! I think it's great that consumers should have to determine which bluetooth chip and ethernet controller is installed on their motherboards because this way they gain intimate knowledge of their hardware while learning the real nuts and bolts of using Linux! And what is more nuts and bolts than writing a startup script to automatically mount a USB drive? The fact that other operating systems do this by default on-the-fly is just silly! Their users have no idea how to actually use an OS. I'm still baffled as to why Linux hasn't really taken off and Ubuntu has been more popular than other distros, or even better, just use the raw kernel and build your own!

Re:who even uses ubuntu

[BanHammor]

Mageia, even though it's got some pretty awful bugs to iron out, is moving in the right direction.

Re:who even uses ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a Debian version of mint now as well. My boss has been testing it for deployment on all the end user machines at work. He's tired of Windows problems.

Personally, I think Debian is the best Linux distro these days. It's stable and it actually works on most computers I've tried to use it on with the exception of my laptop. Even then, SID worked.

People who run mint or arch are looking for shiny. It's the latest trend just as Ubuntu was. Most distros are based off of Debian.. that's the hint that Debian is the thing to use.

In 5 years, mint will be just as mocked as Ubuntu or Gentoo or any other has been distro. That's just how the linux world is. Somehow Debian has stood the test of time.

Re:who even uses ubuntu

[jedidiah]

Mandrake already did this a long time ago with tools developed by Redhat.

The main fundemental problem with the whole "but Canonical must find some way to make money" is the fact that they really don't do much besides packaging. As far as distributors go, they are the biggest moochers contributing the least amount to upstream projects that ALL distributions benefit from.

"detecting your hardware" is s function of how PCI and USB are designed. It's done by the kernel. Canonical really doesn't have a lot to do with it.

It's long past time to deflate the Ubuntu hype.

Re:who even uses ubuntu

[jedidiah]

Need to know about your motherboard?

lspci

This is the same information that the kernel uses to determine what device drivers to load for you. Mandrake took advantage of this for the very first 3D card (voodoo) supported by Linux and did it all automagically.

The same goes for USB.

While LIRC is a convoluted a beast. It's also had automated configuration support since 2007.

Re:who even uses ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a bit unfair to too mention Ubuntu and Gentoo in the same sentence considering the topic. Leave Gentoo alone, what have they ever done wrong?

Or is it that you found the install too hard...

Re:who even uses ubuntu

[Gordonjcp]

I had a look at Mint, but it doesn't appear to have Unity. So, back to Ubuntu, then.

Re:who even uses ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of forking means that Linux Mint no longer needs Ubuntu, which is a Debian derivative, though. If it were still dependent, you'd be correct, but their goals diverged a long time ago. Many packages for Mint are unusable in Ubuntu, just as many Ubuntu packages don't work in Debian. It's a very common thing in the linux community; for instance, I use Fuduntu, which is Fedora 14 based, so if Fedora stopped development today, it wouldn't affect Fuduntu at all. If you grow plants or have children, you should be able to see the parallels to those, as well.

Re:who even uses ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

Mint could not exist without Ubuntu

Re:who even uses ubuntu

[ntropia]

I don't agree with this. Just to make things clear, I use mainly Debian and only occasionally play with Kubuntu.
As other people pointed out, there are several Ubuntu derivatives that give you pretty much all of the benefits you get with Big-U without all the mess (Unity or whatever Lens they put on top of it...). And for what matters, I think Kubuntu itself is really well-made, with great care of details and usability.

I don't like Ubuntu, but all its merits must be recognized: it positively influenced the world of distros by stressing that style and identity are as much important as the programs you provide (totally different scenario than Apple); it proofed the idea started pushing the idea that Linux can be a viable alternative in the Grown Ups market and you can sell a computer without Windows.
It wasn't the only player, for sure, but Ubuntu moves contributed (directly or indirectly) to make Linux a less fuzzy target, maybe influencing other moves (did I think about Valve?).

Let's see, for the common user:
- Debian couldn't be enough (questionable, in recent times, but let's keep it...)
- Ubuntu is too much (bad bad Unity, desktop invasion, etc...)
- Ubuntu-derivatives (more usable desktop, no crazy marketing $h1t
- ...
- Profit

Re:who even uses ubuntu

[gl4ss]

It's a bit unfair to too mention Ubuntu and Gentoo in the same sentence considering the topic. Leave Gentoo alone, what have they ever done wrong?

Or is it that you found the install too hard...

what did gentoo do wrong? well, for starters they created a bunch of users who now think that their browser is faster because it doesn't have support for ps/2 mouses..

Re:who even uses ubuntu

[onefriedrice]

what did gentoo do wrong? well, for starters they created a bunch of users who now think that their browser is faster because it doesn't have support for ps/2 mouses..

Mostly, these mythical users with a wrong understanding of optimization exist only in your head. This straw man is revived every time there's an opportunity to snipe at Gentoo. In reality, the vast majority of people who use Gentoo do so because of Portage and the vast potential for customization at every level, not speed. It's a great distro, as is Debian and Fedora. It's not what I recommend for Grandma, but Gentoo certainly has earned its place on the short list of great meta-distributions.

Re:who even uses ubuntu

[rubycodez]

you are funny, most Mint users are fleeing from Unity.

Unity is great for people who don't want to see more than one window at once, or only run one app, or are working on a giant tablet using their knees, elbows and forehead. The rest of us want the results of over two decades of UI improvement that continues to evolve, i.e. not Unity but one of the many polished alternatives.

these people and their business models

[Anonymous Coward]

Things like ubuntu are so god damn irrelevant. The dude says we are trying to make shopping easier...WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT EVEN IMPLY?

Do these people sit down at meetings and talk about how to improve shopping for their tiny user base who doesnt even shop much? Y U NO MAKE SENSE WORLD!

Re:So tell me...

[couchslug]

"He's a dirty fucking hippy." who is usually proven correct, and who doesn't prefer comfortable slavery to freedom.

I don't care if he smells like a burning landfill, he's done more for freedom than either of us ever will.

Re:So tell me...

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, it would be huge news.

Can someone explain TFS, please?

[pla]

I consider myself a fairly well-informed geek, and a regular reader of Slashdot.

And, as the links all appear Slashdotted, I have no fucking clue what the summary talks about. I recognize a lot of the words, the overall tone interested me enough to "look inside", but... What does "Unity Dash" mean, why does it mean giving info to governments, and what does Amazon have to do with turning off lenses and scopes? And what lenses and scopes?

And yes, I know about Ubuntu's recent whoring itself to Amazon for ad placement on the desktop, but that seems to have nothing to do with the rest of the summary.

Anyone have a better explanation?

Re:Can someone explain TFS, please?

[MichaelSmith]

Its basically saying that Amazon can keep the data they get and it might find its way to Government at some point. **But** most operating systems these days are centralised around package repositories. You install and update from one place so canonical already knew that what you installed, as do debian, mint, etc. Microsoft knows that as well. The information about what you search for is more valuable but you can disable that but then you lose the integrated search with amazon, which might actually be useful to some people.

Re:Can someone explain TFS, please?

[ais523]

Unity Dash is what Unity (Ubuntu's default window manager) uses as a start menu substitute/replacement: it's basically a set of specialised search engines (one for applications, one for files, one for videos, etc.). They search within your computer, but also into repositories (so you can search for a program you don't have installed and will be given the option to install it. The individual search engines are referred to as lenses and scopes; there's some sort of technical difference that most people don't care about.

The controversy is about the addition of a new search engine to the Unity Dash that searches Amazon (and, by implication, sends Amazon your search terms). Part of the issue is that the default lens/scope, "Home", just aggregates the results from all the others, so if you're trying to start a program, or open a file with a particular name, Amazon will indirectly learn the fact that you're doing that. Now, they might not care, but presumably they record the data, and the issue is that they might either do something with it themselves, sell it to someone else, or provide it to governments on request.

You can easily work around this simply by uninstalling the Amazon lens/scope; part of the argument is centered around the fact (and the fact that it's installed by default, so this is an opt-out not an opt-in).

Thanks

[Zamphatta]

Thanks /., I've now added `sudo apt-get remove unity-lens-shopping` to my to do list.

Re:Thanks

[jedidiah]

Why stop there.

Just do "sudo apt-get remove unity.*"

Regular expressions are a beatiful thing.

Re:Thanks

[Zamphatta]

Because I like Unity.

Re:Pretty much always the case with online service

[Anonymous Coward]

If I want you to know what I'm doing Ill tell you otherwise mind your own fucking business.If your going to make the internet a 'Human' then privacy is important.

Americans - a nation that will whore themselves out for the smallest chance of a dollar.

Re:So tell me...

[bkerensa]

How rude

Looking for a new distro

[Anonymous Coward]

Becuase of Canonical adding this, I'm looking for a new distro. I know, I know... I can remove it with apt-get. Not the point. I think I'm just going to head back to a plain-jane non-commercial Linux distro like Salix. Gonna go back to basics.

An operating system environment should have no commerical ties to the outside save what the users introduce to their own userland. Nothing by default. Sad that people think they have to find creepy ways to turn a profit.

I had any kind of stuff like this. I deny all website the right to profit from me. I use noscript, a web proxy, adblockers, I disable CSS visited links as well as http/s referer so there are no click thru profits. I already pay to use the internet via my overprices ISP. I will not be the product. I have a right to sanitized internet and I do what it takes to get it.

I don't need to help anyone make a profit. If they cannot make it without ads, they need to find a new line of work. Ads are intrusive, they track you, they can be malware vectors, and I never even looked at them back in the day. Ads are a lazy way to make a living, especially via the net. No thanks, Canonical. I will not help anyone make money. Non-profit all the way. I knew Slackware and Debian would come in handy one day. That day is here.

False Dichotomy Peddlers

[jedidiah]

...yes because the only alternative to Crassus Maximus is Julius Ceasar.

Cannonical needs money

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor fuckers can't even afford any shills on slashdot.

The feature needs to be opt-in - period.

[RanceJustice]

It is unfortunate that Ubuntu, which has become one of the most public and accessible desktop Linux distributions during its rise to prominence is making such a colossal blunder. In a world where one's privacy is being increasingly assaulted from all sides, Linux has shown itself as the alternative to walled gardens and locked down fences; software with an ethos that puts control squarely in the hands of the user. Ubuntu has brought interest and investment to desktop Linux - even the long-awaited Steam beta is testing on Ubuntu. Combined with other excellent free and open source software, like Mozilla's Firefox and Thunderbird, Libre Office, as well as user- desired proprietary programs (ie games, like those sold through Desura and HumbleBundle) that increasingly are offering Linux versions, a larger group of "regular" users than ever before have become interested in Linux and open platforms. Some are tired of lock-in and upgrade treadmills, some just like the fact that these "free as in beer" alternatives (with "free as in speech" being a bonus, at times) allow them to accomplish their tasks without spending a fortune, others come seeking an environment that is unpolluted by the insidious privacy and security violations that have grown unchecked, but are searching for a better environment.

Linux and FOSS have become worthwhile destinations and for many these days, Ubuntu is the entryway into a Linux-based operating system. This whole issue with Amazon basically leaves a giant defecation on the doorstep of Linux. Advocates who have rightly been claiming for years the benefits of Linux, the freedom, privacy, user control etc... are going to have a problem on their hands when it seems the most visible desktop Linux company is engaged in the same underhanded moneymaking bullshit as everyone else. Its completely unacceptable and hurts not just Ubuntu, but Linux as a whole. Many newcomers are not going to stick around "learn, and choose another distro" if they have a poor experience. Even for Linux veterans who use other distros, it harms the community as a whole to the face presented to the world with rotting teeth, so to speak.

Thus, we need to do something to try to convince Canonical to make some changes. At minimum the entire feature needs to be opt-in. Users should be able to decide if they want to segregate their desktop/local network searches from their Internet searches. Most users, when they search for baby pictures or music they know they have on their hard drive, do not want to see Internet-based suggestions for the two; they certainly don't want to be poked to BUY related music or see ads for fertility specialists. From both a usability and security perspective, it is important that users (especially "joe users" that may not be technically competent) to know the difference between local and Internet content. If someone wishes to integrate the search, that should be a conscious choice. Next, its just plain unacceptable for Ubuntu to include Canonical's Amazon affiliate code on those searches, without user knowledge. This is basically spyware built into the operating system. Rightly so, people frown when others try to disguise their referral links and the financial benefit they'll be given, even when those links are present on forums and email. To have a major operating system do the same thing is lunacy. The hypocrisy of this happening on Linux (or any open platform or software) is even more repugnant.

Users should have to opt in for any "lenses" that search the Internet, be given a description of how/where they will be searching, and who will benefit from the search. If Canonical wants to offer this functionality, it should be required that when a user turns on any search "lens" that has an affiliate bonus that benefits them, there should be a mandatory explanation page that allows the user to understand what is going on and gives them the chance to opt out and strip the affiliate data from their searches if they desire. If they're honest and say "Hey, we

Re:The feature needs to be opt-in - period.

[MichaelSmith]

Nothing stops you from compiling an ubuntu derived distribution with this feature taken out by default and distributing it.

Ethics should apply in your life

[betterunixthanunix]

Stallman lives by a particular ethical code. Despite the widespread belief that people should separate their ethical beliefs from their work, Stallman does not actually do so, and thus if he believes that Amazon is doing unethical things (which is not really a stretch), he is not going to support the idea of taking his software (which is part of the basis of Ubuntu) and using it to support Amazon financially. I do not see why he should be criticized for that, any more than people should be criticized for refusing to seek employment with companies whose behavior they object to.

Re:Ethics should apply in your life

[Stormy Dragon]

I think Chick-Fil-A is an unethical company too. Does that mean that open source web browsers should be refuse to resolve URLs pointing to their domain? He is basically arguing that the functionality of Linux should be limited based on what people wish to do with it (in this case buy things from Amazon). That is, in fact, a betrayal of the principles of free software, which apparently now take a back seat to Stallman's other political interests.

If that's how he feels, than fine, but then it needs to be recognized he's no longer advocating FOR free software.

Re:Ethics should apply in your life

[betterunixthanunix]

At what point did anyone say that browsers should refuse to connect to websites? Stallman is saying that Ubuntu should not be putting advertisements for Amazon on people's desktops as a default. If people want this functionality, they can install it -- it should be opt-in. Ubuntu putting it there is basically an endorsement of Amazon.

It is not different than saying that we should not be putting Chic-Fil-A advertisements on the Unity desktop, unless people opt-in.

Re:Ethics should apply in your life

[Anonymous Coward]

> Despite the widespread belief that people should separate their ethical beliefs from their work.

dafuq i just read?

"I wonder if becoming a sleeper operative for al qaeda pays well", is it ok in your book?

Re:Ethics should apply in your life

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Chick-Fil-A is an unethical company too...

Off-topic, but I like Chick-fil-A. Damn that Rahm Emanuel. He's the worst thing that every happened... to me. Now Chick-fil-A is always so crowded, it takes forever to get some of that tasty chicken for lunch!

I'd take Richard Stallman more seriously

[Gordonjcp]

... if he actually worked for a living. He reminds me a bit of the twats I used to know at university who wanted to "smash the system" and live in their malodorous buses, but at the same time relied on "the system" to pay them their grant cheque or dole money.

Re:I'd take Richard Stallman more seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I have yet to read anything more useful from you than RMS. Are you sure you're referring to RMS or someone closer to home?

Re:I'd take Richard Stallman more seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

Stallman helped pioneer much of what the internet is powered by quit being a dick.

Re:I'd take Richard Stallman more seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you try actually reading what the man writes? And leave the ad hominems alone.

Re:I'd take Richard Stallman more seriously

[raynet]

Do you mean that he is living on unemployment benefits?

Re:Pretty much always the case with online service

[Mabhatter]

No, not really... If you use ANY mainstream ISP they are already logging your requests for marketing purposes... Just not specifically about "you". That was the deal with DNS being hijacked... It's not like they don't still do it. The guy that owns your "wire" has 100% of the info you send.

Re:Pretty much always the case with online service

[Fastolfe]

If I want you to know what I'm doing Ill tell you otherwise mind your own fucking business.

Is that what you tell the clerk at the grocery store? You just expect everyone you meet to become an amnesiac after you're done talking to them?

Don't mistake my post as an argument in favor of tracking everything you do. I'm just pointing out that this is the world we live in: things get logged. Governments can compel people to produce logs. Ergo, online activities are discoverable by governments and if you don't want that, you must avoid using online services.

Re:Pretty much always the case with online service

[Fastolfe]

Would you care to enlighten me?

Torvalds as a FOSS spokesmun

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

I don't know about RMS, but Torvalds? He's been known to use four-letter words to describe the things he don't like. As far as online reputations go, Torvalds sounds like a nicer person in person, but he tends to use more abrasive language than RMS, who mostly reserves his online rants to describing congressmen as "congress critters", stuff that he posts on his "personal" web site.

Read the stuff though that he's posted on the official FSF sites. They're more well-thought out than anything Torvalds has written, since, well, Torvalds, as a self-confessed pragmatist, tends not to take official positions on anything. Torvalds himself admits, no, he's proud of the fact that he has NO vision as a software godfather. Which isn't necessarily a bad "position" to take. If you believe that like life on Earth, software should evolve, free from ideological design.

Re:Torvalds as a FOSS spokesmun

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anonymously so as to not have my modding activity zapped.... Our industry had/has lots of "eccentric" individuals, some of whom have contributed the most.

I'm not the biggest fan of RMS either, but I'm always prepared to listen to what he has to say. Criticize him for his opinion and words, not his appearance or occasional odd behaviour.

/andrewa

Re:Torvalds as a FOSS spokesmun

[unixisc]

I'd much prefer ESR

Re:Torvalds as a FOSS spokesmun

[davydagger]

"Well I didn't say he was a NICE guy, I said he was a SMART guy and one can be a smart guy and a bit of an asshole, see Gates, EDISON, Jobs, hell a bit of doucheyness seems to go with the turf."

Tall order first comparing either of these scumbags to RMS. for his faults, can you name ONE THING either of these men did that will ever compare to gcc and glibc, and the other libs associated, to make a very good, very free toolchain which most of the free/open ecosystem depends on

Second. you've dismissed RMS purely on asthetical grounds, and as far as crackpot conspiracy theories, Gates takes the key. Stallman never asserted his competition was a "virus" or "Communist(tm)" or "un-American", in allusion to demanding the the federal government eliminate it through shady intellegence work as been done in the past.

So, one is an activist, and the remaining three are corporate scumbags out to take your rights, your money, and demand you smile while they do.

Mabey in Free Software/Open Source we have much diffrent values than the mainstream. We care when things work. We care about fixing bugs that aren't on the user interface. We don't deflect problems with corporate marketing men.

So if your going to ask me if I agree with Stallman on everything, I'd say no. If you're gonna ask if I think some of his IDEAS are a little out there, I'll say "yeah", but vouching for his moral character based on totally asthetics is not something the geek community does. Then you have the nerve to compare him to the three biggest tyrants, robber barrons, and most incompetent people in technology.

As for the people who cannot stand that the smartest people are not always the most attractive? We don't need you in FOSS. In fact we are better if you left. As for end consumers I'd be damned if they ever knew who RMS was, and don't care. If you consider yourself a techie and half to look at the physical attractiveness of the speaker to detemine his merit, your not.

I am sure that someone can always fine a nice ex-porn star(either gender or sexual orientation) or someone to put RMSs words into plain english for the non-techie types, and sell some newb distro to them.

For the rest of us, your critisms of stallman are hollow, and ring an awfully like yet another paid microsoft stooge who just doesn't get it.

Re:Torvalds as a FOSS spokesmun

[gmhowell]

I'd much prefer ESR

Ahh, F/OSS' own Ted Nugent...

Re:Torvalds as a FOSS spokesmun

[Anonymous Coward]

gmhowell, slashdot's own troll and waste of life.

Re:Pretty much always the case with online service

[Anonymous Coward]

The clerk at the store I can just say some polite mundane small talk to, now if I catch him following me down every aisle looking into my wallet etc then yes I would tell him to fuck off.

Unity?

[gronofer]

Does anybody actually use the Unity interface? All I've every heard about it is negative, and it's easily replaced e.g., with Gnome 3. That's part of my standard procedure for installing Ubuntu, since I also find Unity unusable.

If nobody uses it, there's no need to be concerned about its features.

Re:Pretty much always the case with online service

[martin-boundary]

Why do you quote that two faced asshole Schmidt? What he actually believes is that this only applies to the little people, ie you. If you try to publish data about _his_ life for all to see, like some journalists from CNET did in 2005, he'll try to punish you for it, and all those connected with you. Look it up.

The truth is that everybody likes privacy, but shits like Schmidt will say anything to convince people to give up their rights so that they can be exploited. Don't drink the cool-aid.

That is not the point.

[RanceJustice]

Comments like these hold Linux back in the dark ages. "Compile it yourself, roll a new distribution, the command line is all you need, you only need to edit ten thousand configuration files to do things that can be done with a click elsewhere, RTFM, google it, go to IRC for help..." and the litany of other so-called solutions simply aren't acceptable if Linux adoption is to proceed beyond a tiny minority of ubergeeks. The very same people who are most vehement in the superiority of Linux are the same ones championing these sorts of solutions that ensure that many who would otherwise be able to have a better computing experience on Linux will never adopt because of foolish barriers set by arrogance, rather than technology.

As I said before, Ubuntu is more or less the "face" of desktop Linux. The "Gateway" distribution, with a desktop user focus and a variety of comprehensive paid and free support avenues of quality. Canonical making foolish decisions like this harms the entire Linux community. Linux has a chance to capitalize on the kind of momentum that has been built on the snowballing of having Ubuntu bring users to desktop linux, which brings further developers to work on Linux software and bring previously Win/OSX software to Linux as a worthwhile destination. Decisions like this slow that momentum. Like it or not, Ubuntu is pivotal due to its current position in the community. Gradually over time there may be a transition to another distro as a "face" of the Linux desktop user experience, (ie Mint is a good example) but unless it happens through organic growth, it will negatively affect user experience and thus Linux adoption. Its one thing for someone to have a good experience on Ubuntu, learning the basics there, and deciding they want to learn more/try something new etc... and switching to another distro. Its another thing entirely for them to have a neutral or poor experience; they will be unlikely to give another distribution a try and will go back to Windows or Mac.

I don't think its too much to ask for Canonical to give users a choice before embedding referral/affiliate links and to ensure good security practices by allowing users to choose exactly what, where, and how their OS's built in desktop search operates. Opt-in is the only ethical, logical choice - doubly so for an OS that makes "Freedom" one of its core values.

I

Re:That is not the point.

[MichaelSmith]

No because Canonical want to make money from their product. Not just break even and keep a few engineers employed. They want to make billions of dollars out of it (like Thwaite). The product is certainlty worth that sort of money. To do that they have to sell information and services. You don't opt in to paying money when you buy a house. You pay up front. Why should using ubuntu be any different? And for the rest of us there are the command line tools.

Re:Pretty much always the case with online service

[Captain Hook]

The shopping lens will pass every search string you make using the default search box onto canoncial who will then pass it on to amazon (supposedly anomymized) or whoever else they decide they want to in the future.

I.e. if you search for something on your local computer, using your local machine to do the search, you would normally expect that search to remain local, but you now have to take extra steps to ensure that an offline search remains offline.

The point I suggested you missed is that line between online and offline is not as well defined as it should be and so its not just a case of choosing to not do stuff online.

re: Who the hell gives out their real data?

[dutchwhizzman]

People that want their parcels to actually make it to their homes, because they ordered stuff. People that don't take the trouble to erase all cookies, log out of facebook and whatnot before they start messing up reviews with fake entries. There are so much things identifying you online that once they have your real data, they'll follow you regardless of the amount of bogus you fill in, unless you simply don't order online and don't do any social networking, use search engines and such.

Scary?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, man. I don't agree on every thing with Stallman. But I do listen to what he says, and I do care. I weigh it and decide then.

As to you: who are you, anyway?

Re: FSF distro

[Filip Maurits]

The FSF also has/had its own Debian/Ubuntu-derived distro, gNewSense (basically, Debian without anything the FSF considers non-free, I think).

Re:Pretty much always the case with online service

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you're pretty popular around the stores in your neighborhood.

Re: FSF distro

[lindi]

Afaik it also adds stuff that Debian considers non-free (GFDL docs with invariant sections).

Re: FSF distro

[unixisc]

FSF doesn't use Debian - gNewSense is Ubuntu derived, but one of the 'libre-linux' distros, which they've stopped updating and are only maintaining. FSF has a list of approved distros, none of which are among the commonly heard of names, unless one is familiar w/ Trisquel, Blag, Dyne:bolic, Musix, et al.

Slavery and Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Stallman has done good work. But by conflating Linux/Open Source with anti-gun laws, he exchanges one tyranny with another. Open Source allows ordinary people the FREEDOM to use the software they want, contribute in various ways to its development, with the LIBERTY to use non-commercial software.

This liberty and freedom comes with a cost, as it always does: questionable or missing documentation, software that is not easy to use, myriad design choices, incompatible distributions, many desktop environments. Freedom and liberty are messy, ugly, divisive, and raucous.

Dirty smelly hippies simply want personal freedom and liberty to do as they please while the government cracks down on freedom and liberty of others. Thinking that they can have the government and society infringe on middle class people with no effect on their freedoms. They simply exchange one set of chains for another.

What they call voter suppression laws, others call anti-fraud/ballot stuffing laws. What they call "shoot first laws" others call "no liability for shooting the carjacker and home invader." What they call awful behavior, others call the liberty and freedom to defend themselves from violent attacks, often racially motivated. With the responsiblity to answer to a jury of their peers if shots are fired.

What Stallman is too stupid to realize, is the crackdown on people whose culture, social background, and politics he does not like: "Rednecks" aka the Scots-Irish backwoods people, that he a respectable neo-Puritan abhors, will also crush him. That same government that bans guns, allows ballot stuffing, pushes all sorts of liberal causes, will also crush Free Software because the respectable establishment of Bill Gates and that nice gay man running Apple hate hate hate Open Source the way he HATES HATES HATES rednecks with guns, or attempts to stop ballot stuffing (by checking ids).

Stallman is too much a creature of his own prejudices, class dislikes, and social background to see that crushing his social enemies will crush Free Software as well.

of all the places in the universe

[KingBenny]

why are people here still on about ubuntu then?
i wish someone could assure me mint is still the safe option for the paranoiac since ubuntu has definitely failed the mission completely (that paranoiac would be me), i'm referring to the free bit and the part where you dont just get spied on and sold out because you use something that cost you nothing
mission failure, game over
how about mint? any alternatives? anyone ? any of the seasoned vets care to share something about that i'd be much obliged, something as easy to use as ubuntu but without the added .. well diminished value?
any comments by people who know what they talk about would be very welcome, and i'm sure not just to this here lunatic