RMS Speaks Out Against Ubuntu

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RMS Speaks Out Against Ubuntu

Posted by Soulskill on Friday December 7, 2012 @04:39AM from the matters-of-trust dept.

An anonymous reader writes "In a post at the Free Software Foundation website, Richard Stallman has spoken out against Ubuntu because of Canonical's decision to integrate Amazon search results in the distribution's Dash search. He says, 'Ubuntu, a widely used and influential GNU/Linux distribution, has installed surveillance code. When the user searches her own local files for a string using the Ubuntu desktop, Ubuntu sends that string to one of Canonical's servers. (Canonical is the company that develops Ubuntu.) This is just like the first surveillance practice I learned about in Windows. ... What's at stake is whether our community can effectively use the argument based on proprietary spyware. If we can only say, "free software won't spy on you, unless it's Ubuntu," that's much less powerful than saying, "free software won't spy on you." It behooves us to give Canonical whatever rebuff is needed to make it stop this. ... If you ever recommend or redistribute GNU/Linux, please remove Ubuntu from the distros you recommend or redistribute.'"

17 of 597 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Ugh by Anrego · 2012-12-07 04:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

I’m not a fan of ubuntu nor RMS, and I definitely don’t like the sounds of this feature, but since when was "free software" equated with "respects your privacy".
Culturally most of it does, and by consequence of having access to the code any privacy concerns can easily be detected / removed by end users if desired, but I still don't see the connection between free software and assumed privacy. If anything this seems like a dangerous assumption.
Also the usual stuff here applies about pragmatism and user choice. RMS states that this feature is "malicious" as a matter of fact, and throws around spooky words like "surveillance" and "spyware" like he's doing a Fox news special report. I'm all for having opinions, but the way RMS spouts them as absolute irrefutable fact has always annoyed me (even when I agree with them). Obviously most users probably don't share this view. It's probably a useful feature to most, it can easily be disabled by the sounds of it, will bring in some money, and I suspect most users don't give a shit about being "spied on" in this manner. Remember this is the facebook/twitter/whatever else generation. A lot of people _like_ sharing all the minutia of their day with the entire world. I don't get it, but it's their choice.
1. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-07 04:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  but since when was "free software" equated with "respects your privacy".
  Always. I completely fail to understand how you could possibly not know this. Free software groups are normally at the forefront of privacy efforts in the digital age.
2. Re:Ugh by YodasEvilTwin · 2012-12-07 04:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  A tendency for free software groups to support privacy protection efforts does not mean "free software" = "software that respects your privacy". There is an immense craptonne of free software that uses your data in ways similar to this.
3. Re:Ugh by Baloroth · 2012-12-07 04:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I’m not a fan of ubuntu nor RMS, and I definitely don’t like the sounds of this feature, but since when was "free software" equated with "respects your privacy".
  It was equated when RMS said it was equated. RMS is a fanatic, plain and simple. He may be a fanatic for a good cause overall, but he is still a fanatic. That means he sees the world in a pretty simple way. Either you agree with him and follow his set rules, in which cases he recommends and endorses you, or you disagree with his position (in any way no matter how slight), in which case he rejects you completely. There is really no intermediate ground for a person like him.
  It's not a criticism, exactly, he has done some good things, you just have to keep it in mind whenever he says anything about anything: he is speaking as a fanatic. There is no room for deviation from his rules.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
4. Re:Ugh by plover · 2012-12-07 05:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The difference is that you made all those sharing decisions for yourself. Canonical should not make that choice for you by default. They can certainly make it an easy-to-drool-on option, but it should not be the system default.
  
  --
  John
5. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-07 06:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  A lot of people _like_ sharing all the minutia of their day with the entire world.
  No, what they like doing is sharing it with their social circle. The fact that is is shared with the world is generally inconsequential, but sometimes comes back to bite people.
  I've been studying this phenomena for a while and neither one of you is entirely right. In my observations, some people are inherently "private" - they do not want to be known or tracked, they want their actions and statements to be judged without reference to their identity. Other people are inherently "public" - they want you to know who they are, and if that means they are tracked and marketed they simply don't care, as long as the tracking and marketing doesn't harm them. In the eyes of the "private" person the tracking is in and of itself harmful, because it skeeves them and makes them uncomfortable. They feel the same way about corporations databasing them as others might feel about peeping toms - it's nasty, unsavory behavior that good people simply wouldn't ever do, so it's perfectly fair to assume the people doing it are evil. In the eyes of a "public" person, though, naturally everyone wants to know about the identity and particulars of everyone else - their reputation is important, and their standing is influenced by what people know about them, and obviously it's flattering to gain reputation in others' eyes; there's nothing skeevy about supermarkets tracking purchases, it's just good customer service.
  Whichever type you are, it seems to be a fixed attitude once a person reaches an age where their personality is stable - certainly by the time they pass puberty.
  And there's nothing you can do to persuade a person who is "private" that tracking them is OK - you will have better luck convincing them that chocolate tastes bad, or that their favorite color is puce. It's a non-negotiable character trait, like favoring certain colors or flavors is.
  There's also rarely anything you can do to persuade a person who is "public" that many other people simply want privacy and anonymity for its own sake. That's so completely foreign to them that they will think you are lying, or that the private person has some dark secret, or that they are crazy. A lot of "public" type people are so intellectually crippled by their own attitude that they are fundamentally incapable of understanding the pure physical revulsion some "private" people experience when they find out they are being tracked. I imagine a lot of exhibitionists are incapable of understanding the physical response other people have to peeping toms, too.
  Wisdom seems to lie in accepting that the extremes of both types always will exist, and accommodating them as legitimate expressions of character. Most people are somewhere closer to the middle - they might want to have a good reputation in town, but not want their comings and goings tracked by their neighbors. If you can accommodate both extremes, you'll be able to deal with the more commonplace middle grounds. But unfortunately that means both sides have to give up trying to force the other side to be "wrong", and people aren't good at that.
  Software devs should keep all the above in mind, but they usually are extremists of one type or the other.
6. Re:Ugh by theshowmecanuck · 2012-12-07 07:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I would bet you money that only a fraction of the people who use Linux have the ability to modify the code. So no it isn't a side issue. Just because something can be done doesn't mean everyone has the ability. This is one of the worst aspects of the Linux community, a minority of power users and programmers who like making tools saying completely unreasonable things concerning the majority of users who just want to use the tool. No, it is not easy to remove spyware from Linux even if the code is there in front of you. It is only easy if you know how. And it is only useful if it doesn't take so much time away from what you are doing that it kills any productivity you might require because you are spending all your time rebuilding your tools instead of using them. Many power users are content for Linux to continue to be a hobby system to fiddle with or relegated to power users only, while others just want to use the system.
  
  --
  -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what by Arab · 2012-12-07 04:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think you miss the point, it's not that it's social, its that it's sending information that isn't social to a third party.
Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-07 04:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

"social" != social, and neither should imply giving up privacy.
You're creating a false dichotomy between being social and having privacy. That dichotomy does not exist. Everyone should be entitled to a public and a private life, and they should be the arbiters of crossovers between the two. I'm sorry you don't care anymore, but many people do care.
Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what by TheGratefulNet · 2012-12-07 04:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

how nice of you to decide for all of us:
"Socializing means giving your privacy up for the experiement"
how very nice. you jump to this, you're happy about it and you've given up the old ideas of privacy.
fine for you.
but not so fine for the rest of us who have not decided to 'just give up' and take the shiney.
(I really hope that there are more like me that will not take the shiney when it comes with such strings attached.)

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what by Nadaka · 2012-12-07 04:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Searching for local files is not one of the tidbits that needs to be sent out for it to work.
Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what by serviscope_minor · 2012-12-07 04:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

New user ID and fawning over corporations.
You sound like a paid shill.
if there's something you don't want anyone to know, don't do it in the first place.
Please post your bank and account password.
Please post a list of all your satisfied sexual preferences and all unsatisfied ones along with the photograph name and address and phone number of your current partner(s).
Oh and please also post:
a) Your real name
b) The porn films you most enjor beating off to (no lieing)
c) Your boss's email address
d) Your mom's email address
e) Your granny's email adddress
Really? you won't tell us?
Perhaps you should just sit in a box and do nothing ever again then.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what by Kardos · 2012-12-07 05:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

You're missing the point. When you search for a LOCAL FILE, that search term gets transmitted. Probably harmless if it's simply "cat picture" but maybe problematic if it's "divorce filing". The software shouldn't be leaking your LOCAL search terms to the interbutts.
Re:Don't be so radical by Nadaka · 2012-12-07 05:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

It should not be installed/active by default without prior alert to the user.
At worst, it should be a choice made during setup, one that is well described and obvious even if the checkbox defaults to being checked.
Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven by Microlith · 2012-12-07 06:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

The whole point of the GPL is to force anyone who uses GPLed code to GPL their associated code as well.
It's a requirement that you should make yourself aware of once you decide to make changes and redistribute them. You don't have to agree to anything just to use or even modify the software.

If Stallman could think of a legally binding way to make everyone GPL their code he's certainly given the clear impression that he'd do it.
And if the RIAA and MPAA could charge me every time I make a copy of my music and videos from one device of mine to another, they've given the clear impression they'd do it. Neither has happened, your point is irrelevant.

In fact, if I remember correctly, he says in at least one of his essays that he believes non-open sourced code should be illegal.
And the major media corporations would like Copyright to last forever. Well, at least one group has gotten their way, I suppose that's a good thing?
In terms of following extremists, at least RMS has good intentions and your freedom in mind. Instead the world follows extremists who seek only to exploit you. And you attack one who would defend you.
Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what by Microlith · 2012-12-07 06:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

But why anybody listens to RMS anymore is beyond me when its so obvious he hates anybody making a cent on FOSS.
Which is plainly not true. The classic model of selling software licenses simply doesn't work with FOSS. There are more than a few who do make money, but like any business you have to work hard to do so.

The guy is a failed developer whose only two projects, eMacs and GCC, were both forked AWAY from him
No, this is your hatred speaking, not reality. He is involved in emacs and gcc development even today.

he is a self proclaimed "squatter at MIT" who has admitted that he doesn't even surf the net and has demonstrated ever increasingly bizarre behavior, such as just walking out of interviews where a reporter dares not to use "his language" in the matter he proscribes and of course the infamous "pulling off his socks and eating toe funk in the middle of the stage during a lecture" so WHY pray tell does anybody still listen to him?
Ad-hominem, all of it. Stick to the discussion at hand, and stop letting your rage and hatred get in the way.
But I guess we can't. There are too many loud, irrational, hate-filled people to address his points. They'd prefer to attack the man than his argument.
Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what by Pausanias · 2012-12-07 07:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think you're underrating him. RMS created the whole GNU philosophy, which has inspired thousands of developers---that is his main contribution. Go and read some interviews where Torvalds himself sings the praises of the GPL v2 and its role in the success of Linux.
I myself and many of you use emacs and gcc every day---I do think there's a special credit to be given to the creator of such projects that underlie the whole Linux ecosystem, even if the projects were forked away from him.
Despite being an disheveled person with questionable personal philosophies, RMS deserves credit for having created the notion of software that has a life of its own and cannot be squashed or secreted away by financially driven interests. He is like the NRA---just as the NRA resists any attempt at squashing personal gun ownership (if they came up with handheld thermonuclear weapons, I believe the NRA would staunchly oppose any attempt at regulating them), in the same way, RMS takes an extreme position, because he knows that everyone else will adjust for that and the net result will be something more geared towards the GNU philosophy than if he didn't.
Your ad-hominem attacks disparaging RMS's lowly status and John-the-baptist-like lifestyle are telling---perhaps you yourself failed at making money of GPL software that was meant to benefit everyone? I agree that it is difficult or impossible to make money of this type of software; only a select few can do it. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist, because it has the potential to empower the billions of financially oppressed poor in this world.