RMS Speaks Out Against Ubuntu

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.'"

Comments

I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Pop'nShop]

I've stopped caring. People like to get their social fix and I've noticed that too. Now I'm active on Facebook, I buy from Amazon and Steam and you know what.. being social is better!

I've stopped caring. And btw? I wouldn't change it. Socializing means giving your privacy up for the experiement. It means being vulnerably and if you cannot let yourself be social then what hope is there in the world? We have laws against the most outrageous abuses and that works.

This applies because RMS is against the lens only because how it technically works. I rather be myself than RMS. He has completely lost his touch on reality. In the world WE ALL live in, together.

I'm proud to say I'm more social than ever before in my life and I enjoy it! The change came after I got a mac! And even if I really hate to admit it, Google CEO had correct words when he said "if there's something you don't want anyone to know, don't do it in the first place."

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah HA! You're such a faggot. You should smack yourself in the mouth with a rolled-up newspaper*

* The Sunday edition of the New York Times, to be specific

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Arab]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this up. Rarely is there a response in first post that makes a shred of sense.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

"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

[Pop'nShop]

But the reality is that we cant have all the db's on your own computer, so you have to send some tidbits out for it to work. I'm not even talking just this case, but the reality of what web has become from the early bbs days. Lots of geeks hate it but twitter, facebook and amazon social are how it is now. I used to hate it too but after having change to meet lots of fantastic people I don't anymore!

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

Obvious astroturf. 7 digit UID and only comments are the ones on this story.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

I see. So you are also paid by the Fecesbook?

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what I've stopped caring.

If it took longer than 4 hours to stop caring, call your doctor.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[TheGratefulNet]

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.)

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Nadaka]

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

[Sir_Eptishous]

Your post has that not-so fresh scent of a shill for Industrial Big Data/Behavior Monitoring/Pre-Crime Complex.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

And I think in general these paranoid RMS'es and other lunatic people have lost sense of what privacy even means...

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[serviscope_minor]

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.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

Obvious astroturf. 7 digit UID and only comments are the ones on this story.

Or, you know, a new user. Those still exist, right?

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

We have laws against the most outrageous abuses and that works.

I'll wager the most outrageous abuses haven't even been dreamt up yet.
History books will list this continuing erosion of personal privacy as a precursor to the problems that followed.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Kardos]

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:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't mean he's wrong.

Privacy is a modern convenience, and people will eventually stop giving a shit about it when it moves too far toward inconvenience.

I don't give a shit that Ubuntu relays my searches through Amazon, especially when I can get rid of it with a single command.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[boldsoon]

The question should be how can you be social in privacy and transparency. The best social experience is when you can control and see clearly your information path. For what I've understand the dash will send your query to canonical, even if you're searching your personal information trying to reach your personal data in your personal computer.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[mwvdlee]

What exactly does advertising have to do with being social?

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[__aaqvdr516]

Yes, we all live together. But it's my personal right as an introvert to keep my information to myself. I choose the ways in which my information is used, not a corporation.

Companies can ask to use my information and I am free to say "no". This is the world we live in together. This is reality.
INTJ

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off, $hill

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[X.25]

I've stopped caring. People like to get their social fix and I've noticed that too. Now I'm active on Facebook, I buy from Amazon and Steam and you know what.. being social is better!

I've stopped caring. And btw? I wouldn't change it. Socializing means giving your privacy up for the experiement. It means being vulnerably and if you cannot let yourself be social then what hope is there in the world? We have laws against the most outrageous abuses and that works.

This applies because RMS is against the lens only because how it technically works. I rather be myself than RMS. He has completely lost his touch on reality. In the world WE ALL live in, together.

I'm proud to say I'm more social than ever before in my life and I enjoy it! The change came after I got a mac! And even if I really hate to admit it, Google CEO had correct words when he said "if there's something you don't want anyone to know, don't do it in the first place."

Were you so busy typing the 'first post' that you didn't even manage to read the summary or the article?

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Opportunist]

I'm a rather social person. I tell my friends about most of my hobbies, and some of them even share them. I love sitting down with them and discussing topics that I enjoy talking about and that want to discuss with them.

I don't really enjoy telling some random company out there that I'm currently trying to find a condom and doggy treats. Especially if they don't know that I have to occupy my dog somehow while I have someone in my bed so he doesn't bark, it kinda kills my mood.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[rubycodez]

sad news for you, web-boy. Being social means interacting with real people in the real world. It does not meaning posting details about yourself to the planet via the internet. Do you have any real friends? do you spend time with them?

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[plover]

Well spoken, my anonymous friend. I would grant you mod points, if I had them to give.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[PopAndGame]

Why would divorce filing be bad?

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see here...

First post? Check.
Ridiculous content? Check.
Sounds like a troll? Check.

I'd call you a shill, but most shills here are actually trolls.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the world we all live in, together. Which is why it's important that we treat others with respect and don't hold unjust power over other people.

RMS is not against how it technically works in a strict sense. He is against the fact that users are, without explicit consent, unknowingly transmitting personal information to a 3rd party who can then do whatever they choose with it in secret.

He's against the notion that we should just "trust" the 3rd party even though they wont show us exactly what they're doing.

Amazon wants to hold power over people. Not a lot, just enough to know what you are looking for in order to sell it to you. Canonical wants to hold power over you, not much, just enough to know something valuable to give to Amazon.

This abuse is minor, but it's still an abuse. It's like someone coming up to you and spitting on you. It doesn't hurt physically, you can wipe it off, you can keep walking. But it's disrespectful, and it is not really acceptable.

It would be something very different if the tool was not installed by default, and you had to choose to install it rather than have it slipped into existing functionality unless disabled. However as it stands, it's another tool that is taking unjust power over its user. You are tricked into giving information to Canonical who sells it to Amazon. It can hardly be called free software. You are giving up something of value, that Amazon is willing to pay for. But worse than that, it's designed in such a way that you don't even know you're doing it until you've done it.

Personally, I navigate the spitstorm because I have to pick my battles. I respect RMS for his views though. It's less about not wanting anyone to know something in particular. It's about not wanting to give unfettered access to anyone to your details. You have a choice, whether you want to share your information with others, you can choose to use Ubuntu, or you can choose to use a more free alternative. RMS would rather you choose the alternative, but more than that wants you to know that you are making a choice in the first place.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Johann Lau]

Whoa, slow down and back up a little... define "social"? Do you actually mean being social, or Being Social(tm)?

Also: http://blog.pinboard.in/2011/11/the_social_graph_is_neither/

He has completely lost his touch on reality. In the world WE ALL live in, together.

And you really think by playing word games you're anything but being ironic when you say that? Seriously?

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed! Giving up all privacy is insane. Chimps are more self-aware than this voice of complacency.

Privacy was enshrined in the 4th amendment because free people don't give up their right determine who can access their personal papers (thoughts, associations, etc.), and none of the founding fathers, on either side of the Federalist Papers debate, would ever have thought it a *good* idea to indiscriminately "socialize" with each and every individual in a group.

I feel sorry for this bonehead that he believes it's better to give up his right of self determination in the long run for some transient *feeling* that he's being *social*.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Sir_Eptishous]

This thread and your posts are great!
It's like listening to dialog from the 1978 version of "Invasion of The Body Snatchers":

Internet User Concerned with Privacy: [chats with FBI] I'll get the authorities involved.
FBI Chat Bot: How can I assist you?
Internet User Concerned with Privacy: I'd like to report four bodies in my backyard.
FBI Chat Bot: Wait right there Mr. Bennell.
Internet User Concerned with Privacy: How do you know my name?
Jack Bellicec: [Jack's eyes widen with fear] Disconnect the Hard Line, Matthew.
Internet User Concerned with Privacy: [replies to FBI Chat Bot] I didn't tell you my name.
Jack Bellicec: Disconnect!!!
Internet User Concerned with Privacy: [ends chat session] I didn't tell them my name!
Nancy Bellicec: That's because they're all part of it. They're all Social, all of them!

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[hazah]

Why are you missing the forest for the trees? On purpose?

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

2 commands. They installed shopping-lens and something else too.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget about the advantages of personal, targeted advertising like this:

First off, as an Amazon partner, we at Franks Freaky Finds are concerned about your privacy (after all, it's getting in the way of business) and we will say whatever it takes to get you to shut up. Now, we are sorry to hear that you miss placed your penis pump manual... We can provided a PDF for a small fee. We can't help but notice that you acquired this item in used condition so, sadly, we can't offer an after sale warranty third party as we normally would.

/sarcasm

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you missing the forest for the trees? On purpose?

Because the trees aren't made from AstroTurf (TM).

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Defenestrar]

I think the point is that computers have changed from private to public locations and not everyone has caught up to that fact yet. People have private conversations all the time in public (restaurants, parks, walking down hallways, passing love notes) but the rights mostly belong to other member of public - they can film you, take your picture, stand close to you and read what you are holding, and the only privacy privileges you have are granted by law (e.g. wiretapping, gender segregation in restrooms, etc...). In the computer world the internet is public. A modern computer is crippled without a connection to the internet. (Remember the days when a FPU was optional)?

So, if a modern computer is in a public location, and we extend physical items to their digital corollaries, then any privacy granted would then be a privilege granted by law (probably those same wire tapping rules). So where are the dividing lines? Is it the firewall? People are allowed to take pictures of the interior of a house from public locations (although some states have rules about magnification through windows), so shouldn't anyone be able to look at anything you have visible through a hole (e.g. window) in your firewall? But where is the dividing line between looking in a window and smashing it in to crawl through? Read = OK, Write = illegal?

This is not a simple discussion (and neither is privacy in the physical domain). But many electronic devices (especially computers) have a public presence which is critical to their operation and you should not expect privacy if there is a 'net connection. If you want privacy - then it is your responsibility to make sure legislation is generated which defines, delineates, and grants privacy in a public location as it pertains to your computer (my responsibility as well).

Huh, I've never argued from this side of the coin before. It's been an interesting exercise.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[bluefoxlucid]

The point is that everybody should be an anti-social hermit and that businesses are evil. Privacy issues stem from businesses that used to flash lights and banners at you screaming 'HERE ARE ENGAGEMENT RINGS!" changing to a model where they predict if you're male, decide if you're likely to be in a relationship, if you're probably married or not, and then go, "Hey we saw you looking at paternity things, looks like you're a single guy, hey look, engagement rings!" and if not they show you truck tires because you spend 80% of your time on a fucking truck forum. Your wife is angry because people are trying to sell her things for baby instead of truck tires.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[interkin3tic]

New user ID and fawning over corporations. You sound like a paid shill.

Occam's razor: it's just a sad little man who knows how to troll slashdot effectively, not anyone earning anything. Other than maybe a slight reprieve from the emptiness and/or loneliness.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Defenestrar]

Calling "Astroturf!" is easier than picking up the debate.

Maybe Pop'n'Shop's been reading for years and just now hit the straw which made him/her finally have to post. I've read /. since the fall of '99, but it was years and years (and more years) before I finally snapped (and then got sucked in - see the social inherent in the system?). I can't even remember what it was about when I registered. Sure I've kicked myself a few times over never registering early (Ebay fodder if nothing else), but really I almost never check a UID when instead there's all that text in the box below it which is so much more informative.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

It really is painful how easy it is to troll slashdot these days. I blame the growth of all of the aging, worthless, neck bearded tools on here (the ones that never actually could code themselves out of a paper bag) that think that AGW is just some big hoax, and refuse to think critically on the matter since their superiority complexes tell them everything they need to know. These worthless, unmarried VB 6 and COBOL coders are becoming so cantankerous, they make RMS not only look intelligent, but pleasant as well.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[bluefoxlucid]

Nobody is "entitled" to anything. That's why we have guns ... if you can buy them, keep them, not commit any crimes with them, and not allow the government to talk you into letting them take them away. Fail any of that, and you can't have guns, no matter what "inalienable rights" you think you're "entitled" to. If you can't keep peoples' noses out of your shit, you're not going to have a "private life" either.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[coldsalmon]

For an excellent account of how a lack of privacy destroys socialization see "The Nazi Seizure of Power" by William Sheridan Allen. By subsuming all private social organizations under the Party's banner, the Nazis actually destroyed the social fabric of Germany. Although it seems counterintuitive at first, by destroying privacy you also destroy solidarity. Okay, so I'm proving Godwin's law, but it really is an excellent book!

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck is "the interbutts"? Are you mentally challenged or something?

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Defenestrar]

I've never registered a Facebook account (not even for my cat), but it was more over dissatisfaction with the EULA (or whatever they call it) in their treatment of IP than treatment of privacy for me.

My cat didn't like the IP treatment either, privacy doesn't matter to her - she'll lick herself whether or not anyone's in the room.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[kelemvor4]

If you didn't tell them, they'd never know you wanted doggy treat flavored condoms or condom shaped doggy treats.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[icebraining]

I think natural rights are nonsense, but it should be pointed out that in the US, protection against wiretapping and similar invasions are not supposed to be privileges, but natural and/or god-given rights.

And your premise that the Internet is public, therefore it's a public place is nonsense as well. Just because it is a public medium, doesn't mean the communications over it are public. This is no different from letters, which are also sent across a public medium (even using public company), but can't simply be read by anyone who comes across them.

The idea that the computer itself becomes a "public location" is frankly preposterous. One's car depends on the public roads, is it therefore a public place?

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm usually hard for privacy ..."

How he (and its definitely a he) got so many people to respond and still referenced an erection is a testament to the gullibility of current slashdot userbase.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Samantha Wright]

That's just your computer's way of being social! People assume far too readily that social computing is about augmenting typical human interactions with long-distance, instantaneous communications—but it's not. It's about computers finding an excuse to talk to each other. when they deliver messages to each other about how their user made yet another typo, and oh my god, is he still working on that homework project? It's due in ten minutes!

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[hazah]

What you say is true, but is not related to this topic.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[hairyfeet]

I think EVERYBODY is missing the point, which is RMS refuses to accept the fact that the GPL simply doesn't work in all situations and Canonical is going broke.

Does anybody think that Canonical WANTED to do this? They did it because they simply can't get the economies of scale required to make enough money with a Linux desktop product to keep the lights on, simple as that. Whether anybody likes it or not it has been proven time and again there is ONLY 3 ways to make money using the GPL model, 1.- Support contracts, worthless for desktops because too few buy 'em, 2.- Selling hardware, worthless for desktops because thanks to the trialware Windows Home isn't costing them anything so they can't get squat from the OEMs and canonical isn't gonna get the economies of scale to compete in the razor thin cutthroat hardware market, and 3.- the tin cup model which Canonical has been doing for several months on their download page and found too few give enough to keep the place going.

But why anybody listens to RMS anymore is beyond me when its so obvious he hates anybody making a cent on FOSS. Even the head of Red Hat said of RMS "He treats his friends as his enemies" and he'll even backtrack on his own words if you find a way to make money, for example when asked how software developers were supposed to survive giving away their software several years ago RMS said "They should charge for documentation", yet when software developers stopped including their docs under the GPL, the ONLY way to actually sell documentation when the GPL has a redistribution clause, then RMS came out against the devs and said "Documentation should be free!".

The guy is a failed developer whose only two projects, eMacs and GCC, were both forked AWAY from him, 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?

Just because the man did something good 30+ years ago doesn't make his words today insightful, especially not in light of the fact he seems to have an open hatred of anybody that dares make their living off of FOSS, probably because he so utterly failed to do so himself. Seriously folks stop giving the loonie press, he really isn't a good spokesman for FOSS. Speak to Torvalds, Raymond, Perens, any of the above would be much more insightful and enlightening than speaking to the crazy squatter.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

(Continuing your most apt reply to original poster.)

I'd also like:
f) your complete medical history.
g) a list of all medications you are taking.
h) a list of all psychiatrists or mental health professionals you've ever sought treatment with.
i) a list of any addictions or behavioral problems you've had.
j) a list of any sexual impulses you are ashamed of or any fetishes you have acted out.
k) a list of specific persons or groups you've had inappropriate carnal feelings for (don't forget relatives, friend's spouses, etc.)
l) a list of outstanding debts and credit problems you are having.
m) your net worth, including a list of major holdings.
n) a list of valuables and where they are located in your house (including guns, if any)
o) floor plan for your house.
p) a list of times (of the day, week, year) that your house is typically empty.
q) name, breed, age of all pets you own, especially if they are Dobermans or German Shepherds.
r) a list of your fears, insecurities, and any emotional/spiritual issues you are struggling with.
s) a list of major relationship issues w/your spouse or immediate family.
t) a list of your biggest secrets and who you want them kept secret from.
u) a list of your friends'/spouse's/family's biggest secrets and who they want them kept secret from.
v) for each of your friends and family members, the one insult/cutdown that you could say to most seriously hurt that person.
w) an account of all times in your adult life when you acted (1) very stupidly, (2) very angrily, or (3) very unprofessionally.
x) a candid and complete list of your least-mainstream political views, including policy implications.
y) your SSN, DOB, and mother's maiden name.
z) your home address and all contact phone numbers.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[poetmatt]

That's not the point. The point is that there's a false compromise here - nobody asked to have their information given to amazon. So dealing with the result was never acceptable. Users never agreed to compromise, as this is a dick (and dictator) move.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[gmuslera]

Hanlon's razor applies too. We are not speaking about lawyers here, could be attributed to stupidity instead of malice.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, the mythical child of nondivorced happy parents and apparently you aren't married either. How's it going?

As for myself, my parents "divorced" each other which consisted of my dad buying a gun and mulling over for a few days whether to kill my mom (who wanted the divorce but didn't follow through yet) or not. I found it.

So I can tell you in awful detail just how bad something that starts with the words "divorce filing" can get.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[firewrought]

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.

It's not just that we humans have things to hide (legitimate or not), it's that privacy is a basic psychological need. Some people can't work or even pee if someone's watching over their shoulder. Zoologist see this basic need in animals that start going crazy (exhibiting stereotypic motions, etc.) because they've been kept in a concrete pit in front of the public for years (and now zoos exhibits are designed completely differently as a result).

Privacy is a human right--not because we have secrets, but because it's a fundamental need.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[bluefoxlucid]

The thing is that there is a feature now where when you type in "Coffee maker", Unity can show you coffee makers instead of just searching for apps in the Ubuntu App Store (called 'apt', mostly free apps), related to coffee makers. That's a feature. To do that, they have to search Amazon, or Frugal, or something. People are bitchy because when they punch in a search it goes to Amazon now, which is somehow terrifying because Big Evil Corporatism!

There's all kinds of stretch arguments here. "What if I search for my social security number?" "Divorce filings!" "Name of my girlfriend 'cause I want to see her boob pics I have..." Uh okay? What heinous crimes will be committed with this information? Why is your social security number a filename? You posted that you're getting divorced on Facebook like two months ago and you've been talking about it on your 'wall' ever since.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Microlith]

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

[geek]

This is one of the best posts on RMS I have ever seen. Nearly as good as the one below that shows RMS's defense of pedophilia. http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3301707&cid=42216619

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Pausanias]

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.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[RicktheBrick]

I recently purchased a ssd for my Ubuntu computer. I searched for a means to copy my hard drive to the ssd. The results I got was a hardware device to copy one drive to another. I was looking for a software solution so I gave up and installed a new copy of Ubuntu to the ssd and reinstalled all of my programs. It took me hours to accomplish since I had to download Ubuntu and all of the upgrades and all of my programs. I now have a terabyte hard driven that will probably never be used since I doubt that the ssd will ever be filled. I do not know if Ubuntu is smart enough to store a lengthly file such as a movie on the hard drive rather than the ssd.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[BitZtream]

Name one company that makes money from GPL software. Let me give you a hit, the companies you are thinking of, don't make money from Linux or GPLed software at all.

The second block is true, he no longer provides anything other than fanatical stupidity. You'll be a lot better off when you leave his silly little cult.

Third, consult a dictionary. Ad-nominee means something entirely different than you think it does and your unwillingness to admit to reality makes you look like a religious nutjub.

You can't separate the man from the argue net because its his argument.

He is an irrational idiot who inspires people based on lies about a fantasy that will never exist and you believe it even though reality shows he is constantly wrong.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[tobiasly]

I don't really enjoy telling some random company out there that I'm currently trying to find a condom and doggy treats. Especially if they don't know that I have to occupy my dog somehow while I have someone in my bed so he doesn't bark, it kinda kills my mood.

But now you just told the whole world you date guys who like to bark like a dog in bed? Kind of a strange way to make a case for privacy. Wait, let me read that again...

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Rudisaurus]

I had an interesting experience just a couple of days ago.

I searched on YouTube for Rhonda Vincent videos (using Firefox v17) and watched a couple of them. That's all I did. I did not search on Google (I knowthey own YouTube). I did not access Amazon's website at all.

The next time I went to Amazon, just a couple of days later, lo and behold: their recommendations for me were all Rhonda Vincent CDs and DVDs. In other words, Amazon was sniffing and scooping my browsing history and then storing and using it. To me, that's downright creepy.

I searched around online for how and why this could happen. The majority of postings discussed the Invisible Hand add-on in the Chrome browser, neither of which I use. Eventually I ended up just going to Amazon and turning off their browsing history setting -- but the next time I delete my cookies, apparently, Amazon's ability to probe into my browsing history will be restored. This sucks.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[bluefoxlucid]

Because it's not functional or because you're squicked?

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Opportunist]

But if you really want to bug the crap out of those data miners at some grocery with "member cards", go and buy a few packs of condoms and dog food. The look of the cashier alone is worth it.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[jthill]

A modern computer is crippled without a connection to the internet

And a modern bathroom is crippled without a connection to the main retail area.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

if there's something you don't want anyone to know, don't do it in the first place.

This is selfish position. The problem is not what you lose by giving up information but what they GET.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

One's car depends on the public roads, is it therefore a public place?

No, but only because there's legislation (in the US, anyway) that says that one's car is legally private, just like one's home.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Defenestrar]

I the assumption that one's home computer system is entirely private is not necessarily valid. The communication may take place in a public medium, but, for the most part there is no intrinsic expectation of privacy like there is in a postal system when the message is nominally secured in an envelope (and far more secured by law). The communication takes place wide open and can be observed in the same way that a conversation in the park can be overheard by anyone within range of the sound waves. Instead of a letter, it's more like passing a note in the third grade to someone several desks away without bothering to fold it up. Such a communication not only lacks intrinsic privacy expectations, it has intrinsic expectations of being observed by all parties in between.

In the third grader's example, if one were to transmit an unfolded note written in a secret code it actually invites effort from the other students to read it (because if you wanted privacy you should have folded it up or given it directly to the recipient). (That is of course the strength of public key encryption - everyone can see it, but nobody (announced) can read it other than the recipient).

So, just as one doesn't have the right to expect complete privacy in one's own home (i.e. open windows) one should not expect the same for an electronic device in one's own home. That is precisely why the division between public/private and warrant access/simple request needs to be defined by law. The doors, window shades, open windows, park bench conversations, and etc... of the digital world need to be worked out, and we're only still at the threshold of the computer/internet integration phase.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[PopAndShop]

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?

I can't post my bank account number because in my country we use rolling lists.

I like ladyboys (kathoeeys in thailand) and I have no shame telling it. They are beautiful.

I like japanese massage films.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

what a worthless comment

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[serviscope_minor]

I have no shame telling it.

Sure... anyone can admit to anything under the cover of anonymity, i.e. privacy.

Now give me your mom's email address, your granny's email address, your boss's email address and your real name.

Then we'll see if you care about privacy.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

Your ad-hominem attacks disparaging RMS's lowly status and John-the-baptist-like lifestyle are telling

I didn't know John the Baptist chewed his toe gunk. That would explain a lot, come to think of it...

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[shutdown -p now]

Can't you just disable this whole unified search thingy in Ubuntu by uninstalling a single package?

The choice is still there, RMS is just complaining about the default setting, sounds like.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[hairyfeet]

OMFG did you just compare the MIT squatter to John The baptist? You did! I'm sorry folks but if this doesn't show what kind of batshit mentality this guy inspires i don't know what does.

If ANYBODY other than RMS said or pulled the shit he did, calling things he doesn't like "sins" and acting like he is the fucking pope while eating his toe gunk they would be labeled what their behavior obviously suggests they are...an Internet Troll. That is what he is, he starts flamewars wherever he goes for refusing to use anything but his cultish language and making it all into a battle between God (him) and Satan (all those that don't believe the same as him) and does NOTHING but divide and turn rational meaningful debate into an impossibility.

But when you compare that fricking hippie douchebag to John the baptist? Either you don't know your history very well or you need to get some fucking help.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[hawkinspeter]

This sounds a lot like an ad hominem argument. I can't defend every aspect of RMS and what he decides to do and say, but a lot of what he says is thought provoking.

Whether or not successful business can be built on providing GPL software is irrelevant as the licence is not based on money, but freedom. If Canonical is going broke, then they need to re-think their business model and some people might be fine with them piping information to Amazon by default. However, what RMS is speaking about is whether the GPL community should be making a stand on Canonical's decision. Are they besmirching the reputation of GPL by doing this?

I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand, I use Xubuntu and thus am not directly affected by this as I don't use that particular search software. On the other hand, when I search for a local file on my local computer, I don't expect for that information to leave my computer and it feels like Canonical are sneaking this behaviour into Ubuntu.

RMS has unconventional views, but that's what makes him really interesting. He doesn't just regurgitate the popular opinion and as an "outsider", his thoughts can sometimes really hit the nail on the head.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[jmcvetta]

Why do Stallman's ideas whip you up into such a frenzy of hatred?

This man has devoted his life to the struggle for Freedom for the whole internet, even for folks who despise or are otherwise unworthy of liberty. Perhaps you resent that, despite his outlandish appearance and comparative material poverty, he has already earned his title as a Father of the Internet? While the world will little remember you and I, it would not surprise me a bit if in the future RMS is venerated as a saint.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

Locate doesn't seem to need a 'cloud' to operate, at least, it didn't...

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[defaria]

Stop living your life in fear and stop fearing that "divorce filing" is any kind of phrase that should be frightening you. Yeah I got a fucking divorce from that bitch - what's it to you? Your example is that of a fucking coward - grow up little man and learn to make you own way in this world ya fucking pussy!

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you occupy your dog while hoping that a male person in your bed doesn't bark?
Wouldn't it be easier to tell this person in your bed to be quiet for a while?

Have you talked to a doctor about your compulsion to occupy your dog?

Love, chatbot.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[jones_supa]

Can you repeat that behavior? You should research how that is actually possible and publish the details.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[OolimPhon]

WTF has sending information about local searches to third parties have to do with the GPL?

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[dbIII]

That does not change that both emacs forked (because RMS didn't want X windows support since HURD didn't have X) and gcc forked (because RMS didn't like some changes that would only benefit linux), which makes that comment above correct and not "hatred speaking". Your reply is your "ignorance speaking".
However this is not a complete failure and does also actually show a positive side of RMS since he didn't try to shut down the other forks - he may be grumpy but he didn't stop the game and take his ball home.
People forget that for years when asked about linux he'd say "never HURD of it. HA! HA!" - the same stupid joke for I don't know how many years in serious attempts to interview him, and he'd keep on repeating it in the same interviews if anyone persisted. Then he went from that directly to pretended ownership "for the good cause of raising awareness of GNU".
You'd think after Lindberg Americans would have learnt that hero worship only works when heroes are quiet. RMS is a person with his own agenda, and while worthy of some respect, blind hero worship will only lead to disappointment if you think he is on any "side" other than his own. He's really an example now of how not to run a software project - the "fuck off until we think you're good enough and then you can be the one and only official developer" way some of his projects were run is why emacs forked and IMHO why HURD development has been so slow. He's chased away the people he needs.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[hairyfeet]

You know you really shouldn't use big words if you don't know what they mean, as it makes you look stupid. An Ad-hominem attack is to attempt to derail a discussion on POLICIES or beliefs by making it personal, since the ENTIRE POINT of this thread is NOT a discussion on the merits of the GPL or FOSS but that RMS with his bad and increasingly bizarre behavior is a bad spokesman for the cause there can not be an Ad-hominem in this case, since the entire discussion is about him personally, not the GPL.

By your reasoning if RMS walked out on stage and...ohh I don't know, ate nasty toe funk from his foot then nobody would be able to mention or say anything about it, since it isn't about his beliefs on the GPL and FOSS and thus would be a Ad-hominem attack. Learn what the words mean before you use them, otherwise it makes you look foolish when you use them incorrectly..

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[unixisc]

I don't disagree w/ ya about RMS, but XEmacs had nothing to do w/ X-Windows. According to Wiki

The "X" in XEmacs is thus not related to the X Window System. XEmacs has always supported text-based terminals and windowing systems other than X11. Installers can compile both XEmacs and GNU Emacs with and without X support. For a period of time XEmacs even had some terminal-specific features, such as coloring, that GNU Emacs lacked.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[dbIII]

NO!
One of the sticking points was most definitely that the emacs developer (yes only one was allowed - gnu development sucked back then) was putting in support for X windows and RMS did not think that was appropriate because HURD did not have Xwindows support, and he didn't want any GNU tools to be better on anything other than the GNU platform (which would have been fine if it had been delivered). So RMS got one of his students to spend a year learning C and then forked emacs development to him. Fuck some random text on the wiki that has nothing to do with the split, the transcripts of the newsgroup discussions are still on line so you can read it yourself. Of course xemacs worked on stuff other than X, the argument was about adding X support on top of emacs and not about making emacs X only (which would have been very silly at the time and probably silly even now).

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude wore a shirt made from camel hair and ate locusts and honey out in the desert. People back then thought he was nutty or a prophet. And John the Baptist did the same.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

OMFG did you just compare the MIT squatter to John The baptist?

Are you like 10 years old or what? Both RMS and John the Baptist can be seen as "preachers", in the sense of being propagators of a message that they consider to be bigger than themselves (I mean... are you not here complaining about his fanatical preachings?) AND both can be seen as living/having lived with some level of asceticism (it's one of the things you are complaining about, in case you haven't noticed), so... YES, the metaphor/comparison seems apt.

But when you compare that fricking hippie douchebag to John the baptist? Either you don't know your history very well or you need to get some fucking help.

I'm sure, if you were alive during John the Baptist's lifetime, you'd also probably try to dismiss him for being a "fricking toe-gunk-eating hippie douchebag" or some other insult with reference to some other equally-irrelevant apparent eccentricity.

I guess "ad hominem" passes off as "insight", these days...

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[unixisc]

Simple - even though he doesn't say so in so few words and has written essays on it, it essentially boils down to 'My way or the highway'.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[crutchy]

just unplug the blue cord when you locate kiddy porn movies on your hdd

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[crutchy]

what i find baffling is that companies pay amazon and google to advertise, whilst even if i spend all my time on truck forums the likelihood of me clicking on any truck tires banner ad is 0.000%

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[amiak]

A modern computer is crippled without a connection to the internet

And a modern bathroom is crippled without a connection to the main retail area.

i don't get this at all... what is modern? what is crippled? maybe the first quote was by a young person who has only known the internet... still, it's too bad that someone would really feel that way. as for me, I don't need a network connection... I have always just liked the flashing lights. an electronic device that turns on is much more useful than one that does not.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

project much, crutch?

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[Anonymous Coward]

Protip: It's spelled lying

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[ShieldW0lf]

Simple - even though he doesn't say so in so few words and has written essays on it, it essentially boils down to 'My way or the highway'.

That is how leaders are supposed to be. They are not there to coddle you, they are there to pursue and inner vision with complete integrity to that vision. You raise them up when the world needs them and you diminish their influence when it doesn't. What you don't do is expect them to sacrifice their integrity. If they do that, they're not leaders, they're just the guy who happens to be in front.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what

[jthill]

Just pointing out the difference between what goes on in a private location and whether or not it happens to be directly connected to a public one.

Ugh

[Anrego]

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.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Ugh

[serviscope_minor]

when was "free software" equated with "respects your privacy".

Have you actually ever read anything about te FSF and its goals. The FSF explicitely states that Free Softwre is a social movement for the greater good. I'm pretty sure that spying on users and disrespecting their privacy is not for the greater good, even if they never explicitely state it.

Also the usual stuff here applies about pragmatism and user choice.

Free Software and the FSF is about pragmatism. Only, unlike many, they are not shortsighted and consider that painting yourself into a corner right now for a small temporary gain is not actually a good idea.

Basically, an idealist is a pragmatist with an eye on the future.

and I suspect most users don't give a shit about being "spied on" in this manner.

Most people don't give a shit about a lot of things. Most people don't seem to give a shit that governments are running roughshod over freedom in the name of terrorism. Most people also don't seem to give a shit about the fact that Congress is bought and sold.

Just because people don't give a shit doesn't mean it's not important.

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.

Re:Ugh

[YodasEvilTwin]

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.

Re:Ugh

[Anrego]

And if we just go a little bit further..

Culturally most of it does

Re:Ugh

[Baloroth]

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.

Re:Ugh

[mykepredko]

Insightful post and brings up a lot of interesting points.

While not part of the "Facebook generation" (ie I don't share every thing that I think of, experience, desire, am angry at, etc.), I do allow Eclipse to upload my usage, help itunes with maintaining it's database and allow Amazon.com to send me recommendations of what it thinks I might like (all of which I guess RMS would be apoplectic over).

It's a question of what is right for the individual user and I guess this is another case where RMS represents one extreme of the continuum.

myke

Re:Ugh

[Anrego]

Free Software and the FSF is about pragmatism.

Oh come on. The FSF and RMS specifically are pretty much the exact opposite of pragmatic. "All software that isn't completely free (and we have to specifically clarify what we mean by free because the common definition of free isn't free enough) is pure evil". I've seen the man speak, he is a lunatic and definitely an extremist.

Have you actually ever read anything about te FSF and its goals. The FSF explicitely states that Free Softwre is a social movement for the greater good. I'm pretty sure that spying on users and disrespecting their privacy is not for the greater good, even if they never explicitely state it.

That's thin. They don't explicitly state that they are against child slavery but by that argument we should claim free software is about protecting children in third world countries?

Just because people don't give a shit doesn't mean it's not important.

The fact that you strongly believe in a view point doesn't make it correct. You only have to look around to see that society in general is becoming more socially open. Yes, sometimes it bites people in the ass, but by enlarge it seems to be enhancing everyones social life to a point where the slight risk is probably worth it. We are moving into a time when privacy is becoming less and less valuable to most people, and social connection (which is valuable to most people) is growing.

This is probably a good thing, but extreme privacy nuts are foaming at the mouth. Arguments like "well, they are too stupid to understand the privacy issue" just show how much they don't get it.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't like the sound of the feature? Lol It's Linux, you can hack it away!. Unfortunately for you Windows fanbois, the ads in your Metro apps, you can't remove. Now go back to your corner.

And fuck RMS on this issue, Ubuntu has done more for the Linux name than anybody else.

Re:Ugh

[zill]

Privacy is only possible with FOSS. To make a car analogy, FOSS is to privacy what wheels are to cars. You can't have a car without wheels.

Re:Ugh

[serviscope_minor]

Oh come on.

No, you come on. You ignored what I said and you've not read much of RMSs writings. Basically everything he complains about is something which will restrict your freedom and therefore cause you problems in the future.

Future problems is not the pragmatic choice. See that? It's about the future. Idealists are pragmatists who care about the future. That is all.

Also the thing about pure evil is a complete lie. He freely admits that it wouldn't have even been impossible to develop GNU initially without using proprietary software.

So, pure evil, my ass. You're just making shit up.

The fact that you strongly believe in a view point doesn't make it correct.

So? You claimed that people didn't give a shit so it wasn't important. I pointed out the absurdity of it. Are you now trying to make a different point?

This is probably a good thing, but extreme privacy nuts are foaming at the mouth. Arguments like "well, they are too stupid to understand the privacy issue" just show how much they don't get it.

You truly strike fear into fiberous heart of every straw man to venture into your path.

Re:Ugh

[stenvar]

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".

One of the primary drivers behind free software is to put users in control, including control of their privacy.

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.

Worrying about corporate surveillance sounds more like progressivism to me (i.e., not Fox). And in this case, it's a valid concern.

Re:Ugh

[Omnifarious]

I completely agree with you here.

But I'm not so sure that this is the right solution. I think that maybe RMS should encourage someone to fork Ubuntu and have a version of Ubuntu without the objectionable feature. Positive change often tastes a lot better and is easier to rally people around than change involving a negative action.

Re:Ugh

[Bob9113]

since when was "free software" equated with "respects your privacy".

Since never. RMS has never had much to do with "free software", and that's not what he's talking about here. A huge chunk of "free software" actually generates its revenue by violating your privacy.

On the other hand, the underlying principles of Free Software have always been about defending the long-run information interests of the user first. Information security and privacy are tightly intertwined, and both are critical to the long-term interests of the individual user's liberty and society's ability to speak and associate freely in the long run.

Given that you conflate "free software" with Free Software, it may take some more contemplation to grasp why the preceding is true. It's not an easy concept to get at first, and I wouldn't expect you to just take my word for it. But there are an awful lot of seriously hard-core information scientists who have reached the same conclusion. It is worth the mental exercise to figure it out on your own, if you think freedom of thought is worth protecting.

Also the usual stuff here applies about pragmatism

Most times when people talk about pragmatism in the context of software, them mean the easy or cost effective short-term path. RMS has never shown any interest in extolling the virtues of taking the easy way out in the short term. His point has been, from the very beginning, that it is worth the extra work it takes to defend individual information liberty and authority.

A lot of people _like_ sharing all the minutia of their day with the entire world.

When they choose to, on their terms, that is perfectly aligned with RMS's principles. When a corporation tracks ignorant people who don't realize what they are disclosing, it is anathema to individual information authority.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Or simply put regarding tracking software:

It is neither Free as in Freedom nor Free as in Beer.

More like hiding a tiny transponder in the beer... You pay a price for drinking the beer and lose some of your freedom.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

We are moving into a time when privacy is becoming less and less valuable to most people

It's great for abusive governments; they don't even have to work very hard to get people to give up their rights!

This is probably a good thing, but extreme privacy nuts are foaming at the mouth.

Yes, anyone who cares about privacy is a nut. Take a look at history, human nature, and the reasons that privacy is even important you naive imbecile.

Re:Ugh

[stenvar]

There is an immense craptonne of free software that uses your data in ways similar to this.

There may be a "craptonne of free-as-in-beer" software that does that, but the FSF is about free-as-in-freedom software.

Re:Ugh

[plover]

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.

And that's RMS's exact point: it's their choice. Not Canonical's, not society's, not law enforcement's, and it should not be chosen for us by them as the default setting. If they think it's valuable, they can turn it on for themselves. And that can be made very easy for them, certainly no harder than entering a Facebook password.

Now, I've never used the search feature in Unity, so maybe I've never sent anything to Amazon or Canonical. But I really don't know that for sure any longer, and now my whole damn netbook is suspect.

As much as I hate to agree with RMS on just about anything, he's absolutely right on this one. We should be able to trust an Open Source distro. And that's been blown.

Re:Ugh

[plover]

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.

Re:Ugh

[Anrego]

I guess it's hard to argue that one mans views are extreme to someone who shares the same extreme views :S

So? You claimed that people didn't give a shit so it wasn't important. I pointed out the absurdity of it. Are you now trying to make a different point?

I will respond to this one. My argument was that people have _decided_ they don't give a shit. It's subtly different from not giving a shit. Obviously some have just gone with the crowd, but many users of social media understand the privacy implications, have thought about it, and decided that they are ok with the trade off.

As to the other stuff, no idea how to even respond. Arguing that RMS is a pragmatist throws an exception in my brain. I can't even mount a good argument that works within the mindspace necessary to reach that initial thought as it's contrary to every opinion I've developed about the man and my personal definition of pragmatism. Our views of reality are clearly incompatible, so I'm out!

Have a nice weekend :)

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, you say fanatic, I say principled.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

You've also just described Steve Jobs.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

He "sees the world in a pretty simple way," yet you don't seem to see any further than "RMS goooood" "RMS baaahaaaaahhhaad".

You used the word "fanatic" twice, yet you sound like much more of a zealot than he does when he makes a simple, cogent, narrow point in a non-repetitive manner as he did in this post.

Re:Ugh

[mykepredko]

Good point.

myke

Re:Ugh

[Attila Dimedici]

I'm pretty sure that spying on users and disrespecting their privacy is not for the greater good,

Of course it is, doesn't the government always tell you that it is for the greater good when they do it? Part of the problem here is that not everyone defines "the greater good" the same way.

Re:Ugh

[Anrego]

Yes, anyone who cares about privacy is a nut. Take a look at history, human nature, and the reasons that privacy is even important you naive imbecile.

And it's _exactly_ that style of argument that drowns out the good arguments for privacy. Extremists get ignored. A reasonable, well thought out, and balanced view on privacy and how it relates to the internet and current society might actually get somewhere. "You're all complete idiots" generally gets you lumped in as a nut who's opinions should be ignored.

Re:Ugh

[serviscope_minor]

I guess it's hard to argue that one mans views are extreme to someone who shares the same extreme views :S

Well, it is if you don't follow my arguements. Here is the basis of my argument, distilled away:

An idealist is merely a pragmatist who cares about the future.

Do you disagree and if so, why?

I will respond to this one. My argument was that people have _decided_ they don't give a shit. It's subtly different from not giving a shit.

I'm not convinced they have sotpped to think about it and even if so, then so what? People stopped, though hard and decided that black people were inferior and it was OK to keep them as slaves. IOW: just because people have stopped, thought and reached a conclusion doesn't have any bearing on the standing of that conclusion.

In this case, I feel if people have stopped and thought then its theirs to give up. I do not believe most people have thought it through very carefully though.

Re:Ugh

[LVSlushdat]

Once again, RMS, despite his fetish for eating fresh toejam (ugh), is absolutely RIGHT on the money... I'm from the old school, where we DON'T tell every Tom's dick is harry our bidness.. Yes, I do have a Facebook account, primarly to keep in touch with relatives in Europe, and have it locked down as tight as I can. I do have a LinkedIn account to keep my hand in with ex-co-workers (am retired now), but weird stuff like Twitter blow my old-school mind... As for Ubuntu, it *used* to be my favorite distro, having started down the "Linux trail" in 1994, with Slackware, then Redhat/Fedora till a friend introduced me to Ubuntu in 2007. Been with it since then, *but* that is changing VERY rapidly.. With the stink from the Unity turd, and now this, I'm off to Mint, and more than likely the Debian derivitive of Mint if Ubuntu keeps going down this road... In fact, I'm typing this on Mint 13, and loving it...

Re:Ugh

[pregister]

Right. The freedom to modify. The freedom to have the code so you can change the software to do things you want and to stop doing the things you don't want. As long as THAT freedom is there, this is a side issue.

Do I want my local searches going to the net? Nope. Still isn't a free software issue. RMS is arguing from an ideological point of view...but its not the FSF's main ideological point of view.

Re:Ugh

[LVSlushdat]

But I'm not so sure that this is the right solution. I think that maybe RMS should encourage someone to fork Ubuntu and have a version of Ubuntu without the objectionable feature. Positive change often tastes a lot better and is easier to rally people around than change involving a negative action.

I believe you are speaking about Mint, which is either a fork of Ubuntu or in the case of LMDE, a fork of Debian... In the case of the Ubuntu fork, it doesn't have the recent idiocies from Ubuntu, such as Unity or this search issue... Typing this on Mint Maya 13.. Don't know much about the Debian fork as I've yet to use it..

Re:Ugh

[93 Escort Wagon]

You've also just described Steve Jobs.

There are differences. Jobs appeared to care about grooming, for one.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

and Amazon is the emissions tester sticking a probe up your tailpipe.

Re:Ugh

[samkass]

I'm more concerned that if step 1 in responding to any privacy violation is a complete boycott, it means FOSS doesn't actually have a very good governance model to deal with these things.

Re:Ugh

[Anrego]

An idealist is merely a pragmatist who cares about the future.

Do you disagree and if so, why?

I generally associate idealism with people who base their views on unlikly (future) or inaccurate (current) realities. That is, "in an ideal world... thus my opinion is..".
I generally associate pragmatism with compromise and choosing less favorable routes based on likely (future) or actual (current) realities.

I can accept that idealism pushes things in their desired direction, but if you make the argument that basing your opinions on something you are trying to achieve makes it non-extremist, then everything becomes pragmatic.

The RMS view that all software should be free is imo extremely unlikely to ever happen. Basing current decisions on that belief or goal to me takes one out of the realm of pragmatism.

Re:Ugh

[Americano]

An idealist is merely a pragmatist who cares about the future.

In fact, a pragmatist is one who cares very little for the future, so what you're really saying is, "an idealist is a pragmatist who is the opposite of a pragmatist."

A = B = !B is not a logically coherent construction, as A cannot be both "B" and "Not B" in reality.

A pragmatist is concerned with the actual, practicability of an idea - how well it suits or reflects our current understanding of reality. It is far less concerned with "possible future ramifications that may come to pass, given a complex series of likely or unlikely events."

A pragmatist would say, "well, this isn't the best solution out of all possible ideal solutions, but it is practical, it is workable, and we can implement it now, and iterate improvements to it over time as resources allow." An idealist would engage in the scorched earth policy of saying, "If we can't have it our way from top to bottom, then it's all evil, and we should have nothing to do with it, and reject it on principle."

I invite you to consider which response would be more likely from RMS, and then consider why you're trying to define him as something that is almost a polar opposite to the way his writings, speech, and ideals suggest.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, software uses you!

Re:Ugh

[Anrego]

The way I see it, what we have are extremists like RMS who serve as discussion points.

You don't have to read too many of the comments to see that the RMS opinion is taken for what it is. An extreme view point. I doubt anything he calls for is going to happen, but this might start discussion about this issue for the rational masses.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure you can: you can have cars with tracks instead of wheels, or hovercars, or.... The fact that we don't is engineering, not principle.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree what RMS says.... but I totally disagree about RMS itself.

I don't care who says what, I only care what they say.

I have not suggested Ubuntu or any Canonical product for anyone for 3 years now. I have seen what they are doing and their goal is to capture Linux user base with lies and promote their own services and capturing that way the upstream what in first place developed the software. It doesn't matter if few nerds knows truth, when over 90% of Linux users believe that Ubuntu is the innovator and "the OS" what is only one there and that even Linux failed. There are so many people talking how Ubuntu is better than Linux and Linux should f*ck off and Ubuntu is only secure OS out there yada yada yada.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I'd agree that he is a fanatic (in the pejoritive sense) if it weren't for the fact that he calls it before it happens, is proved to be right and has already been doing something about it. He does this repeatedly.

There seem to be a lot of people in IT who deal with the cognative disonance of working within the corporate straight jacket using tools imposed by pointy haired bosses by attacking those who refuse that yolk.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's sort of true. But you know what? I've been reading RMS's stuff for quite a while now, and at first I thought "Ok, maybe this guy is a bit of a fanatic". But time and again things I'd originally written him off on have turned around and bit me in the behind.

By now my attitude is more like "oh shit, RMS turns out to be right on the craziest of things. I'd better pay attention"

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when did the FSF get to decide the goals of the free software movement?

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

"You're all complete idiots" generally gets you lumped in as a nut who's opinions should be ignored.

It's not really my problem that people are so touchy and illogical that they'll ignore an argument because they were insulted.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Jobs didn't know the joys of eating dead foot-skin, like RMS does.

Re:Ugh

[serviscope_minor]

In fact, a pragmatist is one who cares very little for the future,

That depends oh how far into the future you look.

Let us take a hypothetical example. Suppose I wanted to dry my hands as fast as possible and I happened to be at the top of a tall building with on towel. Well, a good stiff breeze helps, so if pragmatism was about *now* with no regard to the future, the best option would be to jump off the building and wave my hands in the breeze.

That is clearly absurd and intentionally so.

We can therefore reasonably conclude that a pragmatist cares about the near term future, such as 10 seconds into the future. But from that point there is no hard line between 10 seconds and 10 years. Precisely how far does one have to look before one becomes an idealist rather than a pragmatist?

It is far less concerned with "possible future ramifications that may come to pass, given a complex series of likely or unlikely events."

What about future ramifications that are likely to come around by a series of likely and predictable events?

I have old documents locked in old file formats which can only be opened by long obsoloete software which will run only on long obsolete operating systems on long obsolete hardware. I can't eve legally acquire the software.

I've hard hardware become nuusable in proprietary systems--frequently--because of abandonment by the vendor.

I can see this pattern repeat and repeat. How is it pragmatic to set myself up for future pain and suffering which high certainty? In 5 years, I certainly won't feel I made the pragmatic choice when I have to fix the mess again.

Oh, and I've lost access to DRM restricted things I legally own because of the general defectiveness of the system.

Following RMSs apparent idealism over pragmatism is the pragmatic choice.

A pragmatist would say, "well, this isn't the best solution out of all possible ideal solutions, but it is practical, it is workable, and we can implement it now, and iterate improvements to it over time as resources allow." An idealist would engage in the scorched earth policy of saying, "If we can't have it our way from top to bottom, then it's all evil, and we should have nothing to do with it, and reject it on principle."

I disagee. Idealists generally realise that the world won't change overnight and you have in fact selected an excellent example:

I invite you to consider which response would be more likely from RMS, and then consider why you're trying to define him as something that is almost a polar opposite to the way his writings, speech, and ideals suggest.

How did RMS start the GNU project? Did he take a scorched approach, nuke everythig he had and start hacking from machinecode up until he had a working system?

No! He started writing on proprietary unix systems building enough tools to escape. He wrote utilities. Then used them to make a compiler. Then made a libc. Eventually a good kernel came along from the outside.

Recently, he hsa even been able to acquite a laptop based on free software top to bottom including the BIOS.

By your reckoning RMS as an idealist would have taken a scorched arth approach and eschewed everything proprietary.

He didn't. He instead worked hard using those proprietary systems to escape to the world he wanted to live in by building the systems he felt were necessary.

Surely that was the pragmatic approach.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS does not see the world in a simple way; on the contrary, his worldview is very comprehensive and subtle, and he always explains it elaborately.
And he is not a fanatic, he is someone that puts his money where his mouth is; for many matters there is actually no middle ground.
He makes a very good point; why don't you refute it instead of attacking him?

Re:Ugh

[Obfuscant]

Privacy is only possible with FOSS.

"All A is B" doesn't mean "All B is A". I.e., that you think privacy is only possible with FOSS doesn't mean that all FOSS respects user's privacy.

Further, the issue of privacy isn't tied to the FOSS nature of something. It's tied to the actual programming. Being able to PROVE that a piece of software doesn't violate your privacy in some way requires access to the source, but proving it is different than being it.

As just one example, I started using a piece of FOSS for the RPi that provided a small webserver controlling the GPIO pins. Very nice. It wasn't until I wanted to see how they did it so I could use the ideas myself that I found the Google analytics code embedded in the page. There was no option that asked if I wanted my usage of this code tracked, it simply did it. I think it was repugnant that this guy put that code there, but there was no guarantee that it wasn't there just because I had access to the source, and no guarantee that I'd even know what that code did unless I bothered looking at and understood the HTML/js he produced. In this case, FOSS did not guarantee privacy, it simply enabled me to find that it was being violated and stop it.

If you think I should have examined the code before I used it, you're probably right. But that level of care doesn't scale well. I certainly wouldn't have the time to search through the gcc compiler source code, or that of all the libraries, to see what gotcha's are hidden therein. Yes, there are lots of people who probably have, but there have also been cases of hacked repositories where malware has been inserted and user's privacy shot to hell, so a user still has an open vulnerability. Even when using FOSS.

Re:Ugh

[serviscope_minor]

I generally associate idealism with people who base their views on unlikly (future) or inaccurate (current) realities. That is, "in an ideal world... thus my opinion is..".

Well, then by that measure RMS is no idealist. I don't think his opinion of current realities is inaccurate. His future predictions about corporations locking as much up as possible seem to be coming true.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

"You're all complete idiots" generally gets you lumped in as a nut who's opinions should be ignored.

It's not really my problem that people are so touchy and illogical that they'll ignore an argument because they were insulted.

It is your problem if the point of the argument was to turn them to your position. But if you're just arguing because you enjoy argument, I guess it really doesn't matter how people respond.

Re:Ugh

[sl4shd0rk]

Obviously most users probably don't share this view.

Well, most users don't understand the issue, or much care how it relates to the spirit of FOSS. RMS can be extreme in his viewpoints but he is addressing the issue from the perspective - of the spirit of Open Source.

Furthermore, Canonical has historically been a real PITA the get along with in terms of "playing nicely" with the rest of the FOSS world. This is just another mark against what they stand for and how their product relates to the Open Source community.

but I still don't see the connection between free software and assumed privacy.

RMS viewpoint is a good representation of what the expectations should be of 'Free' software, their vendors, distributions, and contributors. He may be a bit extreme with regard to privacy but no more so (in potential if nothing else) than Facebook or Google is, at the other end of the spectrum. No, I don't always agree with RMS either but if he's got his feathers ruffled about something it's worth paying attention.

Re:Ugh

[Archangel Michael]

An idealist is merely a pragmatist who cares about the future.

Do you disagree and if so, why?

An Idealist is just another word for tyrant (benevolent or otherwise). Pragmatist (in this case) just want to get stuff done, and uses the best tool regardless of cost (beer / speech) and uses it until it becomes untenable and then uses another tool.

Idealists are not satisfied with themselves being ideal, they want to make everyone else around them exactly the same, and often become the very people they abhor. Pragmatists use whatever tool is around.

Think of it this way, you're starving on an island, and Idealist (vegan) is starving because they won't fish. Pragamtist likes the idea of being a vegan but is willing to fish to feed themselves.

Re:Ugh

[PoolOfThought]

There is a difference. This is a case where Ubuntu is unilaterally making the decision to share your private searches about things that already reside on your computer with amazon. It is a huge difference between all the examples you mentioned and the RMS issue. It's rare that I'm in complete agreement with RMS, but I'm pretty confident he got this one right, and I hope Ubuntu gets the message.

Re:Ugh

[Archangel Michael]

"One of the primary drivers behind free software is to put users in control,"

This is okay, depending on the user. NOT all users should be in control of the software. Sometimes, just sometimes you have to protect your users from themselves.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

This isn't actually true, you made it up, or heard it somewhere, but didn't come to this conclusion based on a careful analysis of his character. You need to spend some time on the FSF philosophy page if you want to actually understand his viewpoints. When he disagrees with someone, he gives a logical explanation of why, and it's something you can reason about.

Here is a clear example of where he disagreed with people, but didn't reject them completely.

Re:Ugh

[Americano]

Let us take a hypothetical example. Suppose I wanted to dry my hands as fast as possible and I happened to be at the top of a tall building with on towel. Well, a good stiff breeze helps, so if pragmatism was about *now* with no regard to the future, the best option would be to jump off the building and wave my hands in the breeze.

Reductio ad absurdam - unfortunately for your point, a pragmatist would recognize the idiocy of committing suicide in order to dry his hands.

A pragmatist - in REALITY - would say, "I'll shake my hands briskly to remove as much excess moisture as I can, and then perhaps wipe them on the leg of my pants or my shirt." A pragmatist would NOT say, "I need to assemble a solar-powered hand dryer using only the materials available to me on this rooftop, then leave it behind when I go for other people to use it, and launch a worldwide campaign to install a hand dryer on every roof of every building, everywhere!"

How is it pragmatic to set myself up for future pain and suffering which high certainty? In 5 years, I certainly won't feel I made the pragmatic choice when I have to fix the mess again.

A pragmatist would either print a hard copy for future reference and safe keeping, or dump the relevant information out to a plain text file and files that away so he could access it later. It is not pragmatic to embark on a crusade to change the entire software industry to support standards that will magically protect everybody, somehow, in the future. Shit gets old and obsolete. A pragmatist deals with that fact by saying, "Well what's the longest-lived format I can think of and use?" (hard copy printout, or text-file dump.) An idealist deals with this fact by launching the Long Now project and its affiliates, to ensure that mankind in the future has access to the numerous digital resources and cultural artifacts produced today.

By your reckoning RMS as an idealist would have taken a scorched arth approach and eschewed everything proprietary.

Which he has. He will - grudgingly - use non-free software when he has to, and he will bitch about it the whole time, kicking and screaming and fighting it. His move to a 'completely free' computer that you referenced also comes at tremendous sacrifice in the number of things that he can accomplish with his computer. He has chosen his ideals over practical efficiency - in other words, he is an idealist, not a pragmatist. His many semantic quibbles with other Open Source / Free Software people (Open Source vs. Free Software... GNU/Linux vs. Linux... slagging off on Canonical for their misdeeds here... i'm sure you've heard numerous others, I know I have) is also indicative of his "scorched earth" view - if you do not agree with him, you are wrong, evil, immoral, and, if not ACTUALLY the enemy, certainly lending aid and comfort to him.

Don't misunderstand me - I respect him for walking the walk when it comes to his ideals. But trying to call him a "pragmatist" where Free Software is concerned is pretty silly by any stretch of the imagination.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu.... some good and some bad.
Unity? bad.
Snoop ware? Real bad.
Seeing that the desktop paradigm is dropping in popularity and moving the Ubuntu UI in a new direction... good.

Stallman deserves a nod for using his position to bring questionable implementation choices to the end user/non programmers like me.
Some of his other personal philosophies? bad...

For me? There are lots of distros which fit the general bill of "just works" in the Linux community, some with enough clout to be a worthwhile consideration for desktop and server application today.
Bye bye Ubuntu, the relationship has been short and rocky.

Re:Ugh

[BrewDad]

You clearly aren't familiar with the side benefits of his vegan diet; No need to shower. Those close to him tended to disagree.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

"extreme privay nuts are foaming at the mouth"..."opinions should be ignored".

You're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Not only is it installed and enabled by default, but you don't get any WARNING about it, either. You can still, today, download and install Ubuntu, log in, run a search, and be presented with a page of Amazon results without so much as a privacy statement. After your first search, a text link does appear at the bottom right corner, but that's after the fact and I had to be informed about it before I even saw it.

But what really pissed me off was Shuttleworth's response, and I wrote about this in the "ask him anything" article earlier.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

You set the bar pretty low for the definition of "fanatic". It's not like he's holding hostages or blowing stuff up. Try to keep some perspective, ok?

Re:Ugh

[icebraining]

There are already two GNU recommended forks of Ubuntu, gNewSense and Trisquel.

The list of all the distros is in the GNU site: http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html

Re:Ugh

[fredprado]

Without idealists pushing their way you would be more likely than not a slave and would be living in caves.

Re:Ugh

[yakatz]

Have you actually ever read anything about te FSF and its goals. The FSF explicitely states that Free Softwre is a social movement for the greater good.

When did the FSF trademark the term "free software"? Ubuntu can even market with the term free software without agreeing with rms.
(Someone can show me a trademark registration to show that I am wrong...)

Re:Ugh

[plover]

FOSS isn't a governance model. It's a licensing model.

The FSF, on the other hand, may want to be more like a governance model (as in cases like this), but they can only function as an adviser. That's the beauty of the OS licensing. Not even the owners of the license can exert that much control.

And that's powerful evidence of the true 'Free' at the root of FOSS.

What the FSF could do would be to hand out a "Certificate of FSF purity compliance", based on a product's compliance with the FSF's principles (the four freedoms). The compiler of a distro could submit it for evaluation, and the FSF could feature them in a list of fully compliant distros, or place them in a ranking of "most compliant" to "least compliant." A distro might have 99% compliant modules, but include a non-compliant audio driver, for example, so they might get a rating of FSF-99.

They could list each distro and include the violations of the FSF's principles contained within it. That way, people would have a menu they could go to and say "oh, I didn't know Ubuntu violated principle x this way," or "hey, Debian looks like a pretty FSF compliant GNU/Linux distro," or "OMG, I didn't realize RHEL was so not-free."

Re:Ugh

[not already in use]

Have you actually ever read anything about te FSF and its goals. The FSF explicitely states that Free Softwre is a social movement for the greater good. I'm pretty sure that spying on users and disrespecting their privacy is not for the greater good, even if they never explicitely state it.

The FSF can define free software however they want. They have no jurisdiction in forcing *their* definition onto others. They're a bunch of ideologues whose relevance is approaching zero.

Re:Ugh

[stenvar]

Protecting users from corporate abuse is the whole raison d'etre for the FSF: protection against forced upgrades, discontinuation of products and abandonware, deliberate incompatibilities, cryptographic backdoors, and, yes, information leakage to corporations and governments. And the GPL is supporting that effort; but it only works if users also understand the threats and the options the GPL gives them.

Because Unity is under the GPL, people could strip out the privacy invading parts and republish it. (Of course, since Unity is otherwise such a failure, I doubt anybody will bother in this case.)

Re:Ugh

[idlehanz]

Haven't you heard, spying on people IS for the greater good. If you do "secret stuff" how are we supposed to protect you from yourself? All your data are belong to us. Trust us. We only have your best interest at heart.

Re:Ugh

[theshowmecanuck]

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.

Re:Ugh

[zill]

I claimed privacy implies FOSS. I didn't say anything about the converse, since the converse is simply not true. I don't know how you could've gotten "FOSS implies privacy" out of my post, when clearly there are wheels everywhere not attached to cars.

Re:Ugh

[zill]

The ones with tracks are called tanks. The ones that float on air are called hovercars. You wouldn't call M1A1 a "car", would you?

Re:Ugh

[Obfuscant]

I claimed privacy implies FOSS.

No, actually, you claimed the following: "Privacy is only possible with FOSS." And I pointed out that 1) the statement is wrong, and 2) it does not imply that "FOSS implies privacy", which is the claim being made by RMS that FOSS includes a respect for the user's privacy.

Privacy cannot imply FOSS simply because you can have software that respects a user's privacy that is non FOSS and FOSS software that doesn't. In RMS's world, the two go hand in hand, in the real world they are unrelated.

I don't know how you could've gotten "FOSS implies privacy" out of my post, when clearly there are wheels everywhere not attached to cars.

I ignored the typically useless car analogy and considered the context of the discussion, and replied to the specific claim that you actually did make, which was wrong.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Sounds a bit like that guy who owns Canonical.

Re:Ugh

[WaffleMonster]

Iâ(TM)m not a fan of ubuntu nor RMS, and I definitely donâ(TM)t like the sounds of this feature, but since when was "free software" equated with "respects your privacy".

Since when was "free food" equated with "does not make you seriously ill" or "free wood" equated with "does not contain unstable ordinance"

I suppose free junk mail with recording equipment to spy on someone until trash is taken out is also germane.

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

Innocent unintentional expliotable and information leaking security bugs routinely march right by all open source eyeballs and security audits unscathed only to be discovered years after the fact if ever.

The idea this sort of thing would be obvious or possible when done intentionally is not plausable.

In the end "trust" is the only practical assurance us mortals have. Canonical does not benefit from pissing theirs away like this. All they had to do was ask first.

I still don't see the connection between free software and assumed privacy. If anything this seems like a dangerous assumption.

It is a dangerous assumption to go to the faucet and get a drink of water which for all I know could be contaiminated and make me sick or dead..but I do it anyway without thinking twice.

Now if I were living in Mexico my calculation would be different.

It is simply impossible to exist on earth without trust. If Canonical becomes to be known for unwelcomed shennanigans the community of people who are willing to trust them will diminish and with it their support revenue.

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

Malicious seems to be about the proper strength to me. If a user had important or confidential information being leaked out to third parties or over the Internet in the clear due to this it could have serious consequences for the user, organization or third parties.

I'm all for having opinions, but the way RMS spouts them as absolute irrefutable fact has always annoyed me

I can't stand RMS but I agree with his assessment on this issue.

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.

How is this any different than installing a key logger or altering 'bash' to send your commands to god knows where? Whats the difference? You speak of not caring... my question is more basic... do most users even comphrend what is going on?

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.

Even facebook requires a concious decision to be made to post information viewable by others. This is in fact explicitly the whole point of facebook.

My guess a user searching their local computer for a document detailing a secret new product or searching for document containing information from a lawyer or a physician does NOT intend that information to be leaked out to ANYONE.

Re:Ugh

[HaZardman27]

Have you actually ever read anything about te FSF and its goals. The FSF explicitely states that Free Softwre is a social movement for the greater good.

Does the FSF have a monopoly on free software? Just because the FSF is against invasion of privacy by software doesn't mean that a piece of software cannot be free software and also invade your privacy.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Another go at this would be Ubuntu is a shit Linux distro which breaks many things Debian got right. Why not just stick with Debian. What does Ubuntu really bring that Debian doesn't.

I tried to use Ubuntu, but the whole thing kept changing beyond repair for each version. Back to debian next time I "do Linux". Makes sense for servers, but simple desktop experience as well.

What were we thinking?

Captcha: tempted

Re:Ugh

[freezin fat guy]

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.

Agreed. Most users are not even made aware they are being spied on by default or that there is a way to opt out.

Canonical has done some good for Linux so I will give them a chance to fix this before I ditch them, and by extension all the computers I manage. Let's hope they have a change of heart on this one.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read Shuttleworth's response to criticism, and if you can filter out the mountains of horseshit in his blog post, you'll get the impression that he has no respect for his userbase and that this is only the beginning.

http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1182

Re:Ugh

[Anrego]

Never said extremism was a bad thing. Infact in many posts I've said that the world needs extremists tugging on both ends. That said I wouldn't go to one for a pragmatic opinion.

Re:Ugh

[julian67]

This isn't exactly right. When RMS is speaking publicly on behalf of the FSF then of course he is not going to endorse people or products that act in opposition to the stated principles and aims of the FSF. That's no different from any public spokesman: the devil may have the best tunes but you are unlikely to ever hear the pope say "Yes, the devil is a ghastly fellow but there's no harm in dancing with him occasionally, he has such great moves", though of course for Anglicans the situation appears much more nuanced: some dance all night and go back to old nick's "for coffee", some just have a quick shuffle and a grope and worry about being seen, others remain seated but wide eyed and salivating. Old Mark Scuttlebut's users have sore feet ache and coffee breath.

I've heard RMS in interviews say that privately he might recommend Debian to people who want to use a Free Software OS and who appreciate the difference between Free Software and non-free, because he expects they will not enable the non-free sections of the repositories. But of course when speaking publicly as a voice of the FSF he is never going to recommend a distro that offers and perhaps promotes software the FSF exists to make redundant.

Some people will see RMS as a fanatic simply because he does his best to keep to a handful of very simple principles, even if that means inconvenience or ridicule. The interesting thing is that if you wait long enough his fanatical, extremist positions can start to look farsighted and sensible (see GNU/Linux vs Linux naming convention vis-Ã-vis Android, or privacy/data ownership re. software as a service and so on).

Re:Ugh

[shutdown -p now]

Free Software and the FSF is about pragmatism. Only, unlike many, they are not shortsighted and consider that painting yourself into a corner right now for a small temporary gain is not actually a good idea.

FSF and RMS are about as pragmatic as a jihadi blowing himself up to get the promised 70 virgins. They want you to make huge sacrifices right now for the sake of some nebulous free software utopia much later on, which, to any reasonable person, is clearly never going to happen in its entirety.

I mean, we're talking here about the guy who refuses to endorse any distro of Linux that runs well on modern hardware because it's not sufficiently "free", and who does not own any cellphone because its software not "free" and it can be tracked. If that's what you mean by pragmatism, then you clearly don't understand what the word actually means.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

The FSF explicitely states that Free Softwre is a social movement for the greater good. I'm pretty sure that spying on users and disrespecting their privacy is not for the greater good, even if they never explicitely state it.

No true Scotsman...

Re:Ugh

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

"An Idealist is just another word for tyrant (benevolent or otherwise)."

You, sir, have just redefined a word to suit the needs of your argument. There's nothing in the word "idealist" to suggest that others are required to submit to the idealist's "ideals". There may well be idealistic tyrants, just as there are greedy, self-serving tyrants who profess their "ideals" merely as a ruse to seduce the gulllible masses.

As for your hypothetical vegan, she or he could act tyranically and impose a meat-eating ban on the other survivors in the island. But it's just as possible that her "idealism" would merely lead to her own death by starvation. She might withdraw from the group and live by herself on her own small part of the island. Now if only she died because of her "idealistic" belief in not harming any sentient life, would that make her a tyrant?

Re:Ugh

[Hatta]

Just because something can be done doesn't mean everyone has the ability.

But everybody benefits from the few who are able.

Re:Ugh

[heteromonomer]

How in the world did this comment get modded insightful?? That too on slashdot...

Re:Ugh

[theshowmecanuck]

This has almost always been true with almost everything.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

And just like equating an idealist with a tyrant, idealists view some pragmatists as weak-willed and lazy, willing to sacrifice a long-term position for a short-term benefit.

If fishing caused irreparable harm to the ecosystem, making farming or natural growth of vegetation impossible then your analogy would be apt.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

We are on the net. All you need is One who removes the unwanted feature. And, being free software, the clean version can be shared.
People who don`t know how to code follow instructions and jailbreak their phone every day.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Viruses are free.....

just sayin

Re:Ugh

[marcello_dl]

rms cleans himself like my cat does*, so what`s the fuss?

(*) Hopefully rms` tongue can`t reach where my cat`s does, or next conferences videos will not be uploadable...

Re:Ugh

[fredprado]

There are no absolutes in this world. In this case what you call an "extremist" is far from real extreme. Even an idealist that has strong opinions and refuses to compromise them is not necessarily incapable of making pragmatic decisions. The GNU license was a very pragmatic approach to a problem, for example. Using copyright against itself.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

I would bet you money that only a fraction of the people who use Linux have the ability to modify the code.

Oh, absolutely. But as long as some of them do, there will always be other distros to switch to if one of them turns evil. If Microsoft turns evil (or more evil), where are you going to find another version of Windows without any evilware?

You don't need to be able to un-evilify the operating system yourself. You just need to be able to find out which operating systems aren't evil when you set up a new computer. This story is RMS's way of helping out with that.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of it this way, you're starving on an island, and Idealist (vegan) is starving because they won't fish. Pragamtist likes the idea of being a vegan but is willing to fish to feed themselves.

To complete the analogy: the fish contain high levels of mercury. The idealist refuses to eat them, and subsists on a limited diet of nuts and tubers. The pragmatist eats the fish, and will eventually succumb to heavy metal poisoning. Long term versus short term.

If the idealist tries to persuade the pragmatist to help them farming tubers instead of fishing, are they being tyrannical?

Re:Ugh

[Plumpaquatsch]

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.

Wait, what? Because most Linux users can't code, you conclude that they instead use it because they think its "software that respects your privacy"?

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

it's a matter of mutual respect. we lock the doors of our houses at night because the odds [citation needed] suggest a significant likelihood that some anti-social individual might otherwise think he was being invited in. but we'd rather not lock the doors inside our own homes. the f/oss community is a home of sorts, and the denizens therein would rather trust their cohabitants than to have to feel threatened by their environment. sure, it's foolish to trust that your software package is benevolent just because it's branded by a popular trademark, but i still prefer the excitement of finding something new and brilliant over being frightened of how something new and unfamiliar might compromise my safety

Re:Ugh

[phantomfive]

That's a weird definition of idealist. I don't think any dictionary supports that definition.

Re:Ugh

[Anrego]

If it's any conciliation, this post did drop down to 0 at one point.

I wish slashdot provided a moderation graph over time. It's amusing to watch moderation go up and down throughout the day, especially on issues like this where the community is largely divided on the subject.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

it bites people in the ass, but by enlarge it seems

bWAHAHAHA!!! i was with you up until this typo...way to invalidate any attempt at intelligence....bwahahahaha, ffs I haven't LOL'd so much in freakin ages

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

not that it really matters. Ubuntu is a piece of shit, literally and figuratively. It's source, Debian is where the stream is more pure. I really do not get Ubuntu at all...why would anybody fork something as awesome as debian and claim to have done a better job? The claims of canonical have not been borne out by reality. Ubuntu is crap and getting worse for many reasons with each release.

fwiw I used ubuntu from 7.10 until 9.04 when it became apparent to me that canonical had about as much in common with both kinds of freedom as microsoft does. I understand Stallman and his views, and altho I am not necessarily in agreement with everything he says, I understand his reasons and motivations for which I laud his efforts.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

I would bet money that only a fraction of the people who use Windows or Mac have the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time. Every Windows user I know spends more time fixing their tools (often Windows or Mac itself) than they do getting anything done. This is one of the worst aspects of the Windows and Mac community, the inability to care about having terrible tools that don't have to be "worked around" all the time. And the inability to realize how poorly a tool is suited to a task, because deep down inside they really have no clue what they're doing. I can't even count the number of times I've seen web developers on Mac have to reinstall their apache because they overwrote a config file and broke it; and their first reaction is to wipe it and start clean and hope the same thing doesn't happen twice.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's revisit the quote again:

"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.""

The point is, we can't, and never could say "free software won't spy on you". RMS invented the concept of free software, and now he's forgotten what it means.

I guess he's getting a little old for this now. Some might say he should stop talking publically because he's doing more harm than good these days.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, the word "privacy" does not appear in the gnu manifesto.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Idealists are not "pragmatists who care about the future". You don't care what either word means, if you say that. There is nothing in the definition of a pragmatist to say he should not care about the future (on the contrary; pragmatists tend to buy insurance and invest in pension plans). Nor is there anything in the definition of an idealist to say he does care about the future (on the contrary; idealists tend to wish things could be like "the good old days", and if that doesn't remind you of Stallman you're not paying attention).

Re:Ugh

[ultranova]

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.

So it annoys you when others state their opinions as irrefutable facts since they contradict your opinions which actually are irrefutable facts, being obviously probably right despite "obvious" and "probable" being mutually exclusive and you not actually "getting it", according to yourself.

That's certainly worth +5 Insightful.

Re:Ugh

[theshowmecanuck]

We're not talking about Windows. Focus.

Re:Ugh

[theshowmecanuck]

Only a retard would draw the conclusion you just made.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

How does the fact that millions of flies like shit refute the argument that it's shit?

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you be so dependent on what you perceive as the general opinion, or trend? Don't you have any subjective notion of truth?

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

An Idealist is just another word for tyrant (benevolent or otherwise).

An idealist is someone who wants to fight tyranny for everybody's sake, even if there might be other ways to deal with it that are more beneficial to oneself individually. So you're saying that everybody who has other values than their own ego is a tyrant? Some of them clearly are (religious people), but all? That's absurd.

Re:Ugh

[Plumpaquatsch]

Only a retard would draw the conclusion you just made.

Errm, I didn't draw that conclusion, you did. Hey, that makes you right for a change.

Re:Ugh

[Provocateur]

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.

Dammit, I didn't hear the whooshing sound it made when it breezed by. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

76% of all psychology is bs.

Re:Ugh

[unixisc]

That's one of the problems of the FSF and RMS. They conflate 2 completely different things into one, and in the process, end up doing more damage than good to the cause of liberated software.

Individual privacy is a completely different topic from either Open Source or Liberated Software. As the Googles, the Facebooks, the Twitters of the world have shown, one can completely agree w/ the latter, while their business models rest completely on the idea of privacy being dead. And as Scott McNealy noted, privacy is dead. When you look at all the things average people do to get their 15 minutes of fame, which can then mushroom to hours, days, years, it's obvious that to many, that doesn't matter.

Also, RMS never endorsed Canonical in the first place, even though some of his 'Libre-Linux'es, including his own favorite gNewSense, is Ubuntu based (not even Debian). So his bitching about them doesn't matter.

Re:Ugh

[unixisc]

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.

You might want to rephrase that to say 'FSF'. As the GP noted, there is no co-relation b/w opening up the sources of your software, vs. privacy issues. Most people are not programmers, so even if Facebook threw open its code, and included in it whole subroutines of 'take all this subscriber's personal data and send it to ICE', there is no way they'd notice. Or even care!

Re:Ugh

[unixisc]

Expect RMS to smuggle it into GPL4, and piss off everybody who's not been pissed off by GPL3

Re:Ugh

[unixisc]

Fork Ubuntu? Hasn't he done that already? A lot of the 'Libre-Linux' distros - the ones the FSF/GNU endorse - are Ubuntu rip-offs - Trisquel, dynebolic and even RMS's own baby gNewSense - the one he runs on his Lemote Yeedong just to run Emacs. As for your other observation, RMS has never been about positive change - just visit his website, and you'll see someone who'd embarrass Vladimir Lenin.

Re:Ugh

[unixisc]

Those 2, and dynebolic

Re:Ugh

[unixisc]

Software devs should keep all the above in mind, but they usually are extremists of one type or the other.

I don't think it's fair to taint software devs at large just b'cos of one kook amongst them - RMS.

Re:Ugh

[unixisc]

Have you seen any elaborate or comprehensive explanations in his own site - Stallman.org - as to why he supports extreme Left wing causes, or Terrorism or Pedophilia, or has the same views as Chomsky? Why he promotes the most fringe views one can find anywhere?

Re:Ugh

[chilizard]

Amazon is a good vendor, outstanding service and to my experience a pleasure to deal with. I'm a child of the '50s and still carry the wide spread paranoia of the '60s, I don’t like anybody looking over my shoulder unless their a trusted pupil The fact that an open source distributor would stoop to such a "Microsquish" concept without a full disclosure is most disturbing, remember the concept of Linux and open source was to free us from the superfluous bullshit included with every windows version of anything. So Ubuntu is now off of any recommendation for my clients which is really ashamed considering all of the good work they have contributed, especially for the novice Linux user Is this bullshit going to be forwarded to the other Ubuntu based distros such as Mint etc ? Ubuntu needs to look back to disasters like Xandros, which was entirely too much like Windows.

Re:Ugh

[GPLHost-Thomas]

Privacy cannot imply FOSS simply because you can have software that respects a user's privacy that is non FOSS and FOSS software that doesn't. In RMS's world, the two go hand in hand, in the real world they are unrelated.

In the real world, I don't think a spyware wouldn't be accepted in Debian main. If such thing was to happen, I believe it would generate a monster thread on debian-devel, and some of us (probably me included) leaving the project.

Re:Ugh

[GPLHost-Thomas]

RMS has never had much to do with "free software"

Are you aware of the GNU project and the GNU tools? You know, these small utilities which are the basics of all Linux distributions? Do you know that RMS is one of the authors of these?

A huge chunk of "free software" actually generates its revenue by violating your privacy.

Could you care to back this statement with examples? I fail to find any of these from the top of my head...

Or perhaps you make a distinction with lower and upper case? In which case, please explain why adding a capital F and S makes a difference.

Re:Ugh

[Yvanhoe]

"free software" = "control over the software that runs on your machine". If you are deceiving the user into running spyware, you are running contrary to the free software philosophy.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Free Software IS an ideological point.

Your thinking of Open Source.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

The definition of Free Software is, (crazily enough) generally expected to be whatever the people who created and develeped the Free Software movement intended. You might as well ask "since when is medicine supposed to keep you healthy?" The fact that it is possible to abuse something doesn't mean that the people who set out to create that thing are wrong to point out the abuse.

Re:Ugh

[Archangel Michael]

Have you ever been around many Vegans? Thing about tyrants, it only takes one to ruin it for everyone else.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Idealism is about the ends, pragmatism is about the means. They are not mutually exclusive.

Re:Ugh

[peawormsworth]

...Just because something can be done doesn't mean everyone has the ability. This is one of the worst aspects of the Linux community...

So, you are saying this is not a problem with other operating systems because the user (no matter how experienced) doesnt even have the ability to try? You're saying that a major flaw with open software is that most users dont know how to take advantage of its openess? ok. I guess it is true that an advantage to having a close source operating system is that we dont have to worry any longer that some users may not understand how to modify its source code.

Don't be so radical

[Anonymous Coward]

Just do 'sudo dpkg --purge unity-lens-shopping' and be happy.

Re:Don't be so radical

[Nadaka]

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:Don't be so radical

[Jerslan]

QFT Was about to say something similar... Why not just disable it? Surely it's not *that* hard. At worst it should be editing the source, removing that particular piece, and recompiling... Which in the magical fantasy land that RMS lives in, everyone and their Grandmother knows how to do.

Re:Don't be so radical

[Anonymous Coward]

In a distribution aimed at the less tech-savvy, do you really expect the end user to even know that their information is being sent to a third-party server, let alone do the research required to determine the package responsable and uninstall it with a command like that?

I think that is the point of this rant... that the majority of users that comprise the target audience of Ubuntu won't know what's happening, and it shouldn't be enabled by default.

Re:Don't be so radical

[ArhcAngel]

ROFLMAO!

Telling RMS to stop being radical is like telling a fish to stop living in water...

Re:Don't be so radical

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting that no one complained about this feature as it exists in the Video lens of 12.04. It's installed and active by default, sending video search terms to different video sites and Amazon (through Canonical to get affiliate credit). I suppose that's why Canonical decided to make it apply to general searches instead of just video ones since there wasn't much of an outcry then.

Re:Don't be so radical

[ifiwereasculptor]

You don't even have to go that far - you can deactivate it through Unity itself, no need to drop to the "scary" CLI. Ubuntu could have avoided the negative response by implementing a ballot like the Windows web browser selector (only for real) either during the installation or for every new user.

Re:Don't be so radical

[Nadaka]

I wasn't aware it was even there to begin with. Maybe there wasn't much outcry because no one knew about it, because it was on by default. without alerting the user.

Re:Don't be so radical

[morethanapapercert]

what is this unity-lens-shopping of which you speak?

I am using Ubuntu 12.04 and Gnome in Fallback mode because I still want Compiz and all that pretty desktop cube eye candy, but I still have all the default Unity crap still installed. Attempting to use the command you suggested (in simulate mode only because I don't want to make any real changes) gives me this result:

root@machine1:/home/User# dpkg --simulate --purge unity-lens-shopping dpkg: warning: there's no installed package matching unity-lens-shopping

Furthermore; browsing through Synaptic Package Manager reveals the following unity-lens-* packages:

unity-lens-applications (installed)

unity-lens-askubuntu (not installed)

unity-lens-files (installed)

unity-lens-github (not installed)

unity-lens-gwibber (not installed)

unity-lens-music (installed)

unity-lens-sshsearch (not installed)

unity-lens-video (installed)

unity-lens-vm (not installed)

unity-lens-wikipedia (not installed)

It's my understanding that unity-lens-shopping is part of 12.10 and later and also that it only effects people still using Unity and Dash.

Re:Don't be so radical

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how anyone could miss it, considering all those results from Amazon you get when searching for a video while online. Plus, it's easy to turn off by selecting the "Filter" button and unselecting Amazon.

Re:Don't be so radical

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this doesn't stop the information leak.

The Unity searchbox will continue to send your searches to canonical, you need to disable all web based searches through settings. I've just decided to dump unity as of 12.10 - this will only get worse and harder to remove as time goes on.

Re:Don't be so radical

[Anonymous Coward]

That will unfortunately not solve most of Ubuntu's problems. http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html#Ubuntu

Using Trisquel however does. https://trisquel.info/

Re:Don't be so radical

[shia84]

Precisely because not everybody and their grandmother knows how to do it, this is an issue. If everybody and their grandmother made the informed decision to send all their computer contents to Amazon with every search, this would be perfectly fine with RMS. But they are not informed (which is why we need the outcry) and usually don't know how to turn it off even if they could google it (which is why it needs to be off by default) ... I mean, do you see _your_ grandmother googling how to edit privacy settings on her computer (assuming you currently have a grandmother and she owns a computer)?

Re:Don't be so radical

[arbulus]

Exactly. Eventually, they'll make the shopping lens part of some big meta package, like they love doing, and if you try to uninstall it, it will also uninstall your entire desktop environment. Like they used to do with so many packages. If you tried to uninstall evolution, it would uninstall the entire gnome-desktop. It's better to simply pick a distro that respects your freedom and doesn't force you to have something installed that you don't want.

Re:Don't be so radical

[Andrewkov]

Wish I'd known that last weekend, I installed Ubuntu on a spare machine just to check it out since I haven't tried it in over a year. As soon as I saw Amazon ad's in my search I immediately wiped the machine and installed Mint. I didn't even think of the privacy issue, but it was just horribly annoying to have to weed through ad's to find what I was looking for. Totally not the direction we want any Linux distro to be going in. I found it quite offensive.

Although Mint is not without blame either, they promote search engines which pay them, but even this is not as bad as Ubuntu.

Re:Don't be so radical

[Jerslan]

Aside from flat-out removing the package as the AC suggested, there's more than likely an easy way to disable it in system settings.

If my Grandmother cared enough about her privacy that she didn't want searches to show Amazon shopping results, she probably would Google how to turn it off. She's not the most tech saavy, but Google isn't *that* hard to use. Also, if she were using Ubuntu it would probably be on a system I set up for her, and not one she did herself.

Do you routinely run local searches in Ubuntu's GUI for whatever depraved porn you have? Do you include PII as search terms? No? Then whatever you are searching for probably isn't anything that really matters in terms of Amazon knowing more about you ("resume.docx" This guy must want resume writing software! or maybe Microsoft Word! Oh, wait this is Linux.... He can't use any software we sell.... Hmmm.... Maybe sell him a printer and some resume paper? Yeah, that's the ticket!).

The point is that it's not permanent, it can be removed/disabled, AND it's not really any more invasive than your average Google Search.

Re:Don't be so radical

[Guppy06]

Once again, the Linux community falls back on "RTFM, n00b!"

Re:Don't be so radical

[Anonymous Coward]

And it should have a big red label marked WARNING! LARK'S VOMIT!

Re:Don't be so radical

[Anonymous Coward]

Kids: the process the parent illustrates is called "opt out".

See, there are sometimes instead, when features are offered "opt in", ie, they aren't activated for you and even less without informing you. So you have the choice upfront to use some feature or not.

So, when you see an hypocritical asshole telling you "i don't know why you are complaining, because you can opt out" you tell him: "BECAUSE THEY TOOK THE UPFRONT CHOICE FOR ANYBODY THAT IS NOT INFORMED, AND DIDN'T MAKE IT OPT-IN".

Canonical, bringing corporative shitgames to the Linux world. Everybody drink our koolaid now!

Re:Don't be so radical

[Anonymous Coward]

Telling RMS to stop being radical is like telling a fish to stop living in water...

But if Mother Nature didn't tell those fish to stop living in water, where would we get those dinosaurs to turn into chickens to make buckets of KFC and funny hairless mammals running all over the place knocking each other over for little pieces of paper?

Of course, in both cases you still have fish that live in water. Mighty tasty on a platter, too.

Re:Don't be so radical

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting how a search on that code /doesn't/ turn up the usual handful of Ubuntu Forum posts.

I had peripherally noticed the mods there had been getting bizarre lately, but this is a new low.

Re:Don't be so radical

[thatkid_2002]

Bandaid, meet solution.

This kids, is what we call a Bandaid Solution - its the type of solution that doesn't really fix anything and allows the problem to fester underneath. It is generally the only type of solution that Ubuntu community knows. Don't believe me? 9/10 posts on the forums suggest a dirty hack or the blood sacrifice of a goat (on a full moon) to "fix" a problem.

These idiots are the posterboys of Linux and hell, somehow even the posterboys of FOSS? Whoever is picking these posterboys needs to be dragged into the street and shot.

I think the real solution here is to re-align Open Source/Free Software community to one of the dozen other distributions which are much more suitable. Let Canonical hawk their crappy wares over in the corner.

Re:Don't be so radical

[Zeromous]

So you entire premise relies on speculation?

Kindly stop your infuriating argument right now. This is quite simply unethical, and YES google is hard to use unless you can be bothered to know what you are searching for in the first place. There are literally EXABYTES of information indexed daily. How is grandma to distill the appropriate search terminology for a problem she doesn't even know about, or best case scenario heard about on Dateline.

It should be noted and configured at install time or first boot. End of story!

Re:Don't be so radical

[Jerslan]

Yes, I can see how a very rational assumption would infuriate you. Especially since it hurts your own argument.

They only way this would be un-ethical is if Canonical was forcing people to use Ubuntu and making the "feature" impossible to remove (at least without significant effort).

You have a choice to NOT use Ubuntu if you don't want to. Does that make their inclusion of Amazon search to their desktop unethical? Hardly. There are plenty of alternatives out there (Debian, Fedora, Linux Mint, Gentoo, CentOS, etc...). If Amazon search becomes the price of entry into the Canonical/Ubuntu "eco-system" then that's the price you agree to when you choose it.

You're are right about one thing though. Ideally it should be an option on first-time set up. Maybe if RMS suggested such a course of action, Canonical and others would listen to him instead of dismissing him as a crazy person ranting about his own personal paranoia.

Re:Don't be so radical

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because it's not the only lens that leaks local searches to the internet.

Re:Don't be so radical

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again, the Linux community falls back on "RTFM, n00b!"

Well, since it works so nicely for Windoze community...

ps. Linux is a kernel.

Re:Don't be so radical

[Zeromous]

Jerslan, it's unethical data mining if the user is not informed first. There is simply nothing rational about uninformed choice to use or not to use Ubuntu considering their target audience. Most Ubuntu users are simply that and are not informed about inner privacy workings.

Its shady. Also you're not at all logical and your opinion contravenes decades of privacy protections and ethical practices.

Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[crazyjj]

The eternal causenik who still doesn't understand that the price of admission for using FOSS shouldn't be having to buy into his pet social movement.

You can't call it "freedom" if you only expect everyone else to just use it to agree with you and do what you want them to do.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[serviscope_minor]

The eternal causenik who still doesn't understand that the price of admission for using FOSS shouldn't be having to buy into his pet social movement.

I love how people just make up random shit about RMS and it gets modded up every single time.

He has never claimed that you have to buy in.

Ever.

He says you should because it's better for you and the world, but he never says you have to.

You can't call it "freedom" if you only expect everyone else to just use it to agree with you and do what you want them to do.

Don't be silly. You can call it freedom if you expect people to agree. You can't call it freedo if you _force_ people to agree. But he's never done that.

TL;DR stop mking up stuff about RMS.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[bonch]

It's one thing to have some Larry Wall style eccentricities, but Stallman hurts any movement he attaches his name to because of his extremist views. He believes, for example, that programmers should not expect to be paid for their work and that it's more important that non-free software disappear than it is for someone's children to be fed (he also believes nobody should have children). He's also made vile statements about what he calls "voluntary pedophilia", claiming that it should be legalized.

The annoying part is that in nearly every Stallman discussion, people will say things like, "You may not agree with everything he says, but we sure need someone like him who always sticks to their guns!" No, we don't. He's hurting the movement.

GNU was an interesting philosophy when it was started, but it's not as if it was the only open source ideology or that other open source movements wouldn't have taken hold. This isn't to diminish GNU so much as it is to diminish Stallman's glorified role in history among computer geeks and lessen the movement's reliance on a crazy person.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[ceoyoyo]

RMS has stated on many occasions, including in his writing, that he believes proprietary software is immoral. He's been almost explicit about the immorality of licenses he disagrees with, such as the BSD license. So yes, RMS wants everyone to buy into his philosophy, to the point of labelling everyone who doesn't as a bad person doing bad things.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[uradu]

Holy crap, here's the actual extract from http://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05, specifically the entry at 05 June 2006:

"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."

So unless his domain was hacked and these aren't his actual views, let me just sat WOW!

Incidentally, the parent poster presents some pretty widely held and well founded views, and even backs them up with references to the actual words of the person he attacks, and he still gets modded down? Welcome to /. indeed...

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[serviscope_minor]

Yeah, but does he force anyone?

No.

Because he respects the freedoms of others.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Microlith]

He wants that but doesn't force you to do so as a condition of using GPL software.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[stenvar]

RMS has stated on many occasions, including in his writing, that he believes proprietary software is immoral. ... So yes, RMS wants everyone to buy into his philosophy, to the point of labelling everyone who doesn't as a bad person doing bad things.

Oh, does it bruise your sensitive little ego when other people tell you that what you're doing is wrong? Well, you'll just have to live with it. RMS is certainly not the only person doing this. Hard as that may be to grasp for you, talking about the morality of acts is a valid and important part of political and social discourse.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS has been clear about this from the beginning. For him, software freedom is a moral issue. Always was.
But he's certainly never called non-copyleft free software immoral. Your stuff about the BSD license is made up. He doesn't call it immoral, just non-optimal.
And he doesn't say you have to agree with him on software freedom in order to use free software. That would be exactly against the definition of free software.
Just like you don't have to accept the Gideons' beliefs in order to read the free bible in your hotel room.

Billions of people around the world have different morals than you do. It doesn't mean they're attacking you personally, "labelling you as a bad person."

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Johann Lau]

You're just rephrasing the correction of the idiotic GP, while pretending it's a rebuttal of that correction? How thick are you?

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[ceoyoyo]

The whole point of the GPL is to force anyone who uses GPLed code to GPL their associated code as well. Stallman has written many times what a great thing this is, and the absence of that requirement is why he thinks things like the BSD license are immoral. 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. 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.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[ceoyoyo]

No, because he can't. But he does do everything he can.

Some quotes:

"The Adobe flash plug-in is non-free software, and people should not install it, or suggest installing it, or even tell people it exists."

"Writing non-free software is not an ethically legitimate activity, so if people who do this run into trouble, that's good! All businesses based on non-free software ought to fail, and the sooner the better."

Stallman believes non-free (as in non-Stallman approved) software is immoral and harms civilization. If he were made dictator of the world I have no doubt he'd outlaw it. I'm pretty sure if you asked him he'd say so too.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Johann Lau]

I don't see a reference to RMS saying nobody should have kids - do you?

I also don't see how his views on pedophilia, are relevant to his views on software? Sure, people like to dig up unrelated dirt on people they do hits on; so?

If that is really ALL he said on the subject, well... to me it comes across as a random comment to a news story. And the skilled reader might notice it includes the words "skeptical" and "seems", which indicates he didn't even have a firm opinion either way. You may say that's insensitive or not very thoughtful, and I'd agree, but to turn it into "RMS advocates pedophilia" and whatnot is just sick. If anything, YOU guys are diluting pedophilia by mixing up such statements with it, and all that mosly because someone is hurting the feelings of a bank account here or there.

So unless there's followups from him detailing his position, I gotta say, what the fuck is wrong with you, and who do you think you are... ?

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

Please shut up. RMS is a fundamentalist and a loon. Those of you who follow him are raging zealots and should just keep out of the way of normal society.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

So? That doesn't mean you HAVE to. Ghandi thought violence was wrong too, but didn't force anyone to stop directly.

Getting away with infringing on the natural rights of others isn't freedom. To make a hyperbolic example, I'm not free to keep slaves, and everyone else is forcing me to conform to their anti-slave agenda.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[bonch]

I don't see a reference to RMS saying nobody should have kids - do you?

Stallman made the statement in the radio show described in the first link. If you want more evidence of his anti-children position, here's a more well-known example.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[ceoyoyo]

My post contained verifiable facts. Yours appears to be rude ranting and personal attacks. I hope, for your sake, you're 13 and just haven't been properly socialized yet.

Since you asked, I've produced both proprietary and open source software. Currently, everything I write is either for personal use or is open sourced. And no, I don't care the slightest bit what Stallman says. He has made some valuable points but unfortunately they need to be distilled out of his zealotous ranting.

You see, regardless of my thoughts on what the optimal approach to sharing, or not sharing, code is, I believe people, including Stallman, should have the freedom to decide what is done with the code they write. If they want it to be used completely freely, that's fine. If they want to restrict it's use the way the GPL does, that's fine too. And if they want to keep their source code proprietary that is also fine. There's nothing immoral about any of those choices unless you somehow force someone to use your code. Stallman, on the other hand, believes that anyone who doesn't agree with his preferred system is immoral and I don't doubt for a second that, if given the chance, he'd make it illegal.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

Stallman wrote in his blog entry of June 28, 2003 that possession of child pornography should be legalized:

'The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.'

There is no other way to interpret his statements. Along with so-called voluntary pedophilia, Stallman advocates legalization of child pornography possession and believes the act is only illegal due to prejudice.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[serviscope_minor]

The whole point of the GPL is to force anyone who uses GPLed code to GPL their associated code as well

No, it requires you to release your modifications IF you distribute a modified version.

But RMS isn't forcing anyone to use the GPL.

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. 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.

Well, on this topic, I won't take your word for it. Stallman is extremely pro-freedom, so [citation needed].

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[93 Escort Wagon]

If that is really ALL he said on the subject, well... to me it comes across as a random comment to a news story.

Yeah, I'm sure if we took enough random snippets of any given person's conversations they'd contain statements like this one.

Wait... no they wouldn't - because most people find pedophilia abhorrent.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

What' the problem with what he said? Are you going to claim that someone raping an 8-year-old forcefully is the same as a 22-year-old have sex with a 15-year-old? HINT: It's not!

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[UtucXul]

RMS has stated on many occasions, including in his writing, that he believes proprietary software is immoral. He's been almost explicit about the immorality of licenses he disagrees with, such as the BSD license. So yes, RMS wants everyone to buy into his philosophy, to the point of labelling everyone who doesn't as a bad person doing bad things.

I know he has said that proprietary software is immoral, but I don't ever recall him say it about the BSD licenses (and would be very surprissed if he did). In fact, I'm almost certain the fsf website lists that as a "good" free license (the modern versions of it, the older ones had some ambiguity and even BSD folks don't use those any more).

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Microlith]

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:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Johann Lau]

So he's an asshole. That still leaves the question what this has to do with anything...

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

Not surprising. They did the same thing when Jobs died. He quoted a politician who made a remark after the death of a fellow politician, "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone." That day Ars and Gizmodo's resident Apple and Microsoft fanboys posted articles that basically amounted to "RMS GLAD JOBS DEAD, CRAZY MAN IS CRAZY AND YOU SHOULD HATE HIM."

Character assassination based on lies and hatred, because the man echoed the opinion that while his death was tragic and in no way deserved or desired, his absence from his field of influence is not unwelcome.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Johann Lau]

And one thing is sure, pro pedos are at the forefront of acting all shocked. That's what I would do at least. While someone who isn't actually fucking children or making child porn, might be more prone to such statements.

Anyways, I find sophistry and shallow thinking abhorrent, too. And I actually think talking about messengers more than about messages is responsible for more suffering in just one year than pedophilia in a century. How's that for something to get your knickers in a twist about?

Don't mistake being able to concentrate in the face of horrible things, and reacting rudely to emotional cards being played in a non-sequitur fashion, with not finding them horrible. Actually, sometimes I might even play devil's advocate just to get those jokers out of the room.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

"THE INNOCENT CHILD AND OTHER MODERN MYTHS" -- http://web.mit.edu/cms/People/henry3/innocentchild.html

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

Since WOW is no argument, I don't really know what you are saying.

However, no studies I know of connect voluntarily pedophilia to harm either.

God forbid we do actual science and say there's no evidence when there's no evidence.

Better run around like chickens with their head cut off whenever someone mentions the p word, that worked so well in preserving our rights (in the EU, more than once (!) pedophilia was the emotional switch-brain-off argument for introducing surveillance, so we are alert whenever it's brought up for any reason - we can guess the reason).

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[bryonak]

You're posting quite an imputation here.

First of all, we know that power corrupts. If made world dictator with limitless power and no accountability, most people would end up doing _far_ worse stuff than outlawing a licensing model.

Secondly, the whole world dictator reasoning mechanism is absurd, as you can pick any tidbit someone made on the record somewhere and blow it out of proportion. E.g: RMS is pretty big on individual choice, so can we agree that as world dictator, he would definitely never force a private individual to do anything against it's will?

Lastly, he's just stating his opinion that software shouldn't be proprietary. You can't prove that there absolutely must exist some proprietary software or else humanity is doomed... means, why shouldn't his model work?
Well, obviously there'd be short-term difficulties for companies relying on proprietary software, but then again, if we were to take _your_ personal opinion on everything as unbreakable world law, it quite probably would have very annoying short-term difficulties for many people as well.
Luckily we do have a reality where ideas from different sides get modified and merged, netting that fancy thingy called compromise.

Personally I don't mind RMS being that far-end anchor who consistently holds up an ethically sound position. Kinda like Ghandi in his later years, just on a clearly less essential topic.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

When has he ever called the BSD license immoral? He disagrees with it, because he thinks there shouldn't be a way for companies / people taking FOSS and making it closed. But I've never heard him call BSD immoral.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[bryonak]

I think that smoking should be illegal, and I stand up to my opinion. This doesn't mean that I'll force anybody I see smoking to quit (by threat, coercion or whatever), and it also doesn't mean that I'm a tyrannical fanatic. It just means that when asked, I'm going to explain my position (I guess you know all the pro and contra in this case) and if I get a vote, I'll cast it. I believe it's better for society. (AND THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! .. !!!)

Likewise Stallman doesn't force people not to use proprietary software. He also doesn't force anyone to use GPL software... it's not complicated.
a) you write some code on your own, you can fully choose the license yourself (unless you're writing it for your employer, in which case it's usually proprietary).
b) you want to copy some code... if it's GPL, you're free not to copy it, or to take it and respect the terms, as with any other license.

There is no forcing of people involved whatsoever, unless you refer to the application of "state force" (fines, lawsuits, ...) if you break the law by violating a license you previously agreed on.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[mdragan]

[...]He's been almost explicit about the immorality of licenses he disagrees with, such as the BSD license[...]

That's most likely a lie. Please tell us where he says something like that.

Meanwhile here's what I found of him saying about the BSD license:

FB: Wasn't that BSD license free enough?

RMS: This license does qualify as free software, but I think it is not as good as some free software licenses because it doesn't protect the freedom of all users. It allows middlemen to make the software proprietary, which means they distribute the software to others but without the freedom.

From: http://linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html?page=2

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

And those who pushed through the law making everything that can be copyrighted automatically copyrighted? What have they done?

all the best,

drew

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, on this topic, I won't take your word for it. Stallman is extremely pro-freedom, so [citation needed].

It's not even an extreme position. Plenty of people on Slashdot think copyright should be abolished. There are even political parties with that as their main theme.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[kernelpanicked]

"I don't see a reference to RMS saying nobody should have kids - do you?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=radmjL5OIaA

Warning. it's a long show, but yes he said it straight up, and even more idiocy. This is the interview where he gives us such gems as developers should go be plumbers rather than develop proprietary software and also software being free supercedes the ability to feed your kids.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Microlith]

Ah, ad-hominem attacks. Ad-hominem attacks everywhere.

Bonch comes out of the woodwork to defend Apple and attack Linux/Google every so often. He relishes in engaging in character assassination.

No, we don't. He's hurting the movement.

And we should replace him with what, people who will be more moderate and acquiesce more to the extremists already in power? Extremists like Apple, who have a fetish for end-user control and lock down?

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

What does making it illegal do? Much like drugs, it still is made and doesn't really do much other than pad the local DA's conviction record. It certainly doesn't cut down on demand, much less production, as terrible as it is.

Not to mention that this subthread is entirely fucking irrelevant to this article except as a basis for ad-hominem character assassination.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

I favor IP abolition. And my political outlook is 180 degrees divergent from Stallman. I also remember saying non-open sourced code should be illegal. It was a while ago, and I'm not going to bother looking for it now - which is why I think Stallman is simply the other side of the same coin as Gates and Jobs.

I even think taking every piece of GPL'ed software on earth, forking them, and closing the source of said forks should be legal.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[stenvar]

My post contained verifiable facts.

I didn't question your facts, I called you out for your ridiculous suggestion that someone calling your conduct "immoral" is an infringement on your freedom.

Since you asked, I've produced both proprietary and open source software.

Actually, I didn't ask, and I couldn't care less what you have done or what your opinions are. I don't necessarily agree with Stallman's politics, but he at least manages to put forth a coherent argument. You're just ranting.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[icebraining]

he thinks things like the BSD license are immoral

That's completely false. RMS has endorsed the use of the BSD in the past, and he has always considered them Free.

he says in at least one of his essays that he believes non-open sourced code should be illegal.

Either provide a link or stop defaming the man.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[icebraining]

programmers should not expect to be paid for their work

[citation needed]. If you're equating "only develop Free Software" with "not being paid", my salary disproves your argument.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Urkki]

The whole point of the GPL is to force anyone who voluntarily chooces to use fruits of somebody elses work for free, when it is GPLed code to GPL their associated code as well.

FTFY

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[dcollins]

"If Thaddeus Stevens could think of a legally binding way to make everyone free their slaves he's certainly given the clear impression that he'd do it."

Extremist!

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[ceoyoyo]

I had forgotten how rude GNU zealots were. Many seem to be not particularly bright as well.

Perhaps you like these quotes better?

"Proprietary software is digital colonization, unjust and evil. Our goal is therefore to eliminate proprietary software."

"In the same way, the abolitionists did not seek to give people the power to make choices about freedom or slavery. They sought to abolish slavery."

"'Giving people the power to make choices about free software or not' is not the right way to think of our goal (see above). Our goal was, and is, to liberate the users from proprietary software."'

RMS's stated goal is the abolition of software that does not conform to his concept of free. His goal is explicitly NOT to give people the freedom of choice.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[ceoyoyo]

You're right, I was remembering something someone else had said. Stallman hasn't been explicit about the immorality of non-GPL licenses. He has said the BSD license is "not evil" but not as good as the GPL. He does say things like this though:

Interviewer: Linus Torvalds told he thinks "the GPLv2 is a superior license," but there's "something like 50 different open-source licenses, and in the end, the GPLv3 is just another one." Does Linus collaborate with you or GNU on free software development?

Stallman: The fact that Torvalds says "open source" instead of "free software" shows where he is coming from. I wrote the GNU GPL to defend freedom for all users of all versions of a program. I developed version 3 to do that job better and protect against new threats.

Torvalds says he rejects this goal; that's probably why he doesn't appreciate GPL version 3. I respect his right to express his views, even though I think they are foolish. However, if you don't want to lose your freedom, you had better not follow him.

Stallman does seem to think non-GPL licenses (perhaps even non-current GPL licenses) are a threat to freedom.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Quila]

Stallman has quite a bit of influence, and he is now using all of it to try to crush Ubuntu.

If he were to succeed in having this feature removed, that would definitely not be respecting the freedom of those who prefer centralized search with expanded network search results in free software.

If he succeeds in crushing Ubunto, that would not be respecting the freedom of those who like to use Ubuntu.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't reply to Lau. He's either a professional troll or suffers badly from asbergers.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[ceoyoyo]

OP: "You can't call it "freedom" if you only expect everyone else to just use it to agree with you and do what you want them to do."

Reply: "You can't call it freedo if you _force_ people to agree. But he's never done that."

My reply: "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."

Highly relevant to the topic of the thread. We're not discussing what Stallman CAN do, we're discussing whether he actually supports freedom of choice or whether he's interested in making everyone follow his philosophy. He has said:

"'Giving people the power to make choices about free software or not' is not the right way to think of our goal (see above). Our goal was, and is, to liberate the users from proprietary software."

"Proprietary software is digital colonization, unjust and evil. Our goal is therefore to eliminate proprietary software. We cannot eliminate it this year, but what we can and must do now is refuse to legitimize it.

In the same way, the abolitionists did not seek to give people the power to make choices about freedom or slavery. They sought to abolish slavery."

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[ceoyoyo]

I incorrectly remembered something one of his followers said as a Stallman quote. It was not a lie, it was a mistake.

Stallman has stated that that BSD license "is not evil" but he has also implied that using open source and non-current GPL licenses is harmful to freedom. See for example his comments about Linus and his choice of license:

http://spoken-tutorial.org/node/957

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[ceoyoyo]

Ah, very nice job cutting my post up into little quotes you could reply to in isolation (and ignoring the rest). Unfortunately, it's easy to see the REAL post.

I'm not ranting. My post was coherent and, as I said, verifiable. Yours was insulting and that's about it. Unfortunately that seems to be all too common among Stallman's supporters. I think the man himself is too extreme, but the followers he attracts are often completely ridiculous. Much like a lot of religions actually.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Hobart]

GNU was an interesting philosophy when it was started, but it's not as if it was the only open source ideology or that other open source movements wouldn't have taken hold.

I really don't think it would have.

I think without both GPL, and GNU (especially Readline and GCC), programmers would still be trading pirate copies of compilers from Borland, Microsoft, and Watcom the way people pirate Photoshop today.

MySQL is only GPL because Monty wanted to use Readline initially.

Objective C compilers were only GPL because RMS refused a request from Jobs to let NeXT make a proprietary fork.

To see what people were doing with "open source ideology", look at how well the BSD / MIT licenses served X11, in the pre-Linux era. Every vendor shipped horribly incompatible versions of things.

Look at how people treat OpenSSH. How many people accept money for shipping it, vs. how many people sending money upstream, or patches.

Yes, he sure as hell could use a spin doctor to phrase his statements in a more palatable way. But his position is key, and without it, we'd still be in the "bad old days".

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[ceoyoyo]

Certainly, if you believe that offering proprietary software for sale (not requiring people buy it, just offering it) is equivalent to slavery, then Stallman's goals are virtuous and right. Stallman says he believes this. The man is certainly remarkably consistent and faithful to his own axioms.

If, on the other hand, you believe there's a difference between selling people and selling software, then he's an extremist.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Johann Lau]

It's "Asperger's", you dumb fucking coward!! >:[

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Johann Lau]

Hah thanks ^^

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[ceoyoyo]

"Proprietary software is digital colonization, unjust and evil. Our goal is therefore to eliminate proprietary software. We cannot eliminate it this year, but what we can and must do now is refuse to legitimize it.

In the same way, the abolitionists did not seek to give people the power to make choices about freedom or slavery. They sought to abolish slavery."

""Giving people the power to make choices about free software or not' is not the right way to think of our goal (see above). Our goal was, and is, to liberate the users from proprietary software."

-- Richard Stallman

Your view of what the GPL does is certainly an understandable one. It's also the way I use the GPL. But Stallman wrote and advocates the GPL as a tool towards achieving a much bigger goal than that. You're right in that I was incorrect in my statement of the point of the GPL. The point of the GPL is to aid in attacking proprietary software and ultimately abolishing it. Fortunately it hasn't been entirely effective.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[ceoyoyo]

As I stated elsewhere in the thread, I was incorrectly attributing a quote from one of his followers to him. I stand by the rest of my post however, and also point you to attacks Stallman has made on Linus Torvalds for endorsing open source and open source licenses:

http://spoken-tutorial.org/node/957

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

He's hurting the movement.

Hurting your movement, maybe. Not the one he started.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

A better comment subject would have been "Stallman, bitches, film at eleven." Now that would be a weekend!

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're against him having freedom of opinion, is that it?

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an ignorant troll.

RMS is pretty much a god. But whatever, let's mod you up some?

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Stallman was raised a Jew, and the Talmud very explicitly allows and condones pedophilia. You would understand him better if you read the Zohar.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[RocketRabbit]

"Objective C compilers were only GPL because RMS refused a request from Jobs to let NeXT make a proprietary fork."

You shouldn't just lie like that, especially when your lies are so easily detected.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[icebraining]

You are confused. Barring a couple of obscure exceptions, all licenses that are considered open source (by the OSI definition) are also considered Free Software; there's no such thing as open source licenses. In fact, rms' own license -the GPL- is also considered open source.

Now, I'm not saying he is a fan of the Open Source movement. But unlike what you said, he doesn't consider Open Source developers or non-copyleft licensing immoral; as he said, "We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software". What he believes is that the developers are doing a good thing but for misguided reasons (technical instead of ethical), and as such they'll switch to non-free software if it's technically superior.

As an analogy, it's like someone arguing for the end of child labor because it's less efficient. They're still arguing for a good thing, but they miss the point, and will argue for child labor if it becomes more efficient, which would be harmful if you think child labor is immoral.

Likewise, rms thinks Open Source misses the point.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[znanue]

It's one thing to have some Larry Wall style eccentricities, but Stallman hurts any movement he attaches his name to because of his extremist views. He believes, for example, that programmers should not expect to be paid for their work and that it's more important that non-free software disappear than it is for someone's children to be fed (he also believes nobody should have children). He's also made vile statements about what he calls "voluntary pedophilia", claiming that it should be legalized.

The annoying part is that in nearly every Stallman discussion, people will say things like, "You may not agree with everything he says, but we sure need someone like him who always sticks to their guns!" No, we don't. He's hurting the movement.

GNU was an interesting philosophy when it was started, but it's not as if it was the only open source ideology or that other open source movements wouldn't have taken hold. This isn't to diminish GNU so much as it is to diminish Stallman's glorified role in history among computer geeks and lessen the movement's reliance on a crazy person.

Your source is clearly biased, and fills his missive with ad hominens, which nearly instantly destroys any credibility for me

He never says that he doesn't think developers should get paid. Maybe you inferred that believing developers only get paid if they work on proprietary software.

I doubt, due to my first statement, that Stallman's views were accurately portrayed about any subject in that article, especially voluntary pedophilia and utilitarian ethics.

How do you know that a few children starving would be less important for the world then open software. Hypothetically, if open software leads to 10% more productivity, a few children starving would be offset by all the other benefits of that increased productivity (if it were evenly distributed) and then less children would starve. Thats just one argument, and you're wading into an insoluable problem and counting on the audience's ingrained sense of values to conclude that Stallman is a nut.

Same sort of line of thinking applies about whether children are always harmed by relations with an adult. Unfortunately, even me saying this will engender some knee jerk reaction calling me not human because I was able to compartmentalize my disgust long enough to consider the problem without letting repulsion bias me into thinking this automatically makes someone a nut...IF he even said it. Direct quote please.

You have such an inflammatory style, similar to the post you linked, I wonder why your post was modded up.

All that said, I'm not saying RMS is not a nut, but I am saying I don't think you advanced the argument in a legitimate way anywhere.

Z

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Dominic]

It must be noted that not all peadophiles are adults.

Also, what might be considered peadophilia in overly socially conservative countries such as the US might be perfectly legal in other countries. You do realise the age of consent varies throughout the world? It's 13 in Spain, for instance. I know it's 18 in some states in the US, which seems ludicrously late to a lot of Europeans, so *maybe* Stallman is talking about have sex with a 16 year old (which is fine), or someone who is under 16 having sex with someone else underage.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Kjella]

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.

Wrong, one of the copyright holder's exclusive rights is:

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

So unless you're permitted by fair use you have to agree to the GPL to modify it, but the GPL doesn't require you to do anything unless you're distributing it. </Hermes Conrad>

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you've been spending too much time reading contracts -- 'should' doesn't mean 'must' outside of legal circles.

I'm always amazed when people argue against their own freedoms; what motivates you? It may be that you get paid to write software or maybe you sell proprietary software (or you're just immediately turned off by zealotry, which is fair).

The logical end is that it's not enough to just sell or distribute non-free software because someone can come along and create a clean room version. As the quality of the free software alternatives increases, the non-free vendors lose 'quality' as a differentiator. So what's next?

Software does something; it's not a product any longer, it's really just a productized set of actions and behaviors. In order to protect your income stream you now need to lock down the idea behind the software you're selling. Or you get the idea that, since you can't control the software, you need to control the ecosystem, or you need to control the data, which is really an indirect way of saying control the user.

Stallman is targeting software because it's the petroleum of the future; everything will run it and run on it. No one is arguing that we shouldn't have a choice or that we shouldn't make a living using or creating software, but we have to be careful that we still allow a right of way or the ability to move about in a reasonable manner after the land grab.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

How much did you pay for the 5 digit account? There's always at least one of you in discussions about RMS that immediately jump to the pedo remark, completely unaware that it is the Godwinning of the present.

You don't like the man, that's fine -- it doesn't make him wrong about software, even if he is a pedophile (which is a HUGE stretch even based on that comment). It's a shame that you can so easily condemn a person for questioning and thinking critically (even about hotbutton, kneejerk topics).

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Johann Lau]

*chirping crickets* + downmod = "yeah, thought so ^_^"

Meanwhile, look at what HN is doing with the exact same story:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4888851

Here's the current top comment:

Reading what he is talking about, Stallman's description is absolutely correct. If I am doing a desktop search for local files, it is not be expectation that that search will be transmitted to servers without my consent, and that it does so makes it spyware even if we don't also take into consideration that it is being done to track my interests for monetary gain in the form of referral links. Good on him for calling attention to this functionality.

And the word pedophilia doesn't even occur anywhere on that page, not even once; wtf? Must be a bunch of evil perverts to talk about the actual topic like that, instead of obsessing about pedophilia like truly upstanding people are rightfully expected to.

Good we cleared that up! Merry Christmas, Keepers of the Brain, and thanks for keeping children everywhere safe from communism/pedophilia (same thing if you think about it, really).

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[KermodeBear]

This is precisely why he is referred to as "Richard M. Stalin" among my friends.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I love how in 2012, on Slashdot, the home of F/OSS, people still argue for RMS's position on the basis of what GPLv2 says. GPLv3 has been out for, what, half a decade now? And he jumped the shark on your comment above, because v3 is more restrictive than that.

"And you attack one who would defend you."

RMS has, countless times, called me, and my chosen work, immoral. That's defending me in the same way that an Islamist calling me an "infidel" is defending me.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's take that comment in context. A Dutch group was campaigning to have legal sex with adolescents aged 12-16. So, firstly, that's not pedophilia - pedophilia by definition is (desire to have) sex with pre-pubescent children. So everyone has their terminology wrong. Assuming Stallman means sex with adolescents, and not sex with pre-pubescent children, his statement is bang on the money. The "harm" aspect is very likely to be absent in voluntary cases; the laws around this are about social mores, not about harm. In fact, Europe has a wide range of ages of consent raging from 18 down to 16 (typical), 15 and even 13 in some cases (Italy).

(I hate on RMS as much as the next RMS hater, but let's be fair.)

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? GP shows how Stallman would probably better than the average human and you say that'd be like Stalin? Are you a fan of Stalin or what? Just to give you a hint: around here, he's not exactly regarded as a hero.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[bryonak]

Regarding your last sentence: so we agree on the issue that slavery is bad but we're split on the issue of whether or not proprietary software is bad?

What if people "like you" (no offense meant) succeeded in stopping the abolishionists back then? Basically it boils down to: they are allowed to try as hard as they can, and if they succeed in changing the general public opinion, everybody will post-rationalise it as a good thing and demonise the nay-sayers.

So RMS should be allowed to try as hard as he can, and if he succeeds, we'll simply call him a visionary and you a short-sighted [insert-contemporarily-fashionable-slur].
As things like these rarely happen at the same time everywhere and often take decades, for some people, the "he succeeds" part has already happened, as seen from the huge propagation of GPL'd software.

Back to the legitimation part... as we see from history, individuals and movements try revolutionary ideas and succeed or fail, that's just reality. But then (sorry Mr. Godwin) the Nazis tried as hard as they could too, and it only brought misery and destruction. Now what's the difference?
Certainly the methods play a role. Recommendation vs. coercion, within-the-framework vs. illegal, etc. And norming against both a moral (e.g. weighing of personal freedom v.s. the societal benefit) and ethical (e.g. human rights) framework. Here (as indicated in another comment), I see RMS much closer to Ghandi than to a 3rd Reich ideologist.
Anyway, that's a completely different debate.

But one point stands: just because RMS holds a position somewhat far from the median, it doesn't mean that he's a loony (I mean the medical sense, not the insult because you don't like him). People with much more extreme ideas (like the abolishion of slavery, or much earlier free speech for every non-wealthy man and *gasp* even women) have succeeded and we can't really claim that they were insane, even though their contemporary opponents probably called them crazy fanatics.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[stenvar]

The "offering" part isn't equivalent to slavery. You can also "offer" to lock someone up and whip them, and even if they take you up on it, that's not slavery. It becomes slavery when the government treats people-who shouldn't be property-as if they were property. RMS's argument is that copyrights and patents have turned something that shouldn't be property, namely ideas, thoughts, and culture, into property. Furthermore, fundamental activities like banking, voting, medical records and disclosure, news, travel, traffic, books, airline security, and many others are controlled by software, so this isn't a side-issue. Any sane person realizes that there's something wrong with copyrights and patents as they are right now; you have to be an extremist (and you seem to be) to disagree with that view.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

Gandhi - note the spelling - definitely forced people to stop violence. In the middle of riots, he'd step in to stop Hindus from killing Muslims, while doing nothing to stop Muslims from killing Hindus. Gandhi is a wonderful analogy for Stallman - others would be Ayatollah Khomenei, Hassan Nasrallah (of Hizbullah), Osama and Mao.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[GPLHost-Thomas]

If he succeeds in crushing Ubunto, that would not be respecting the freedom of those who like to use Ubuntu.

This is one of the most silly statement I ever read on slashdot (and I've read a few). If we go by your logic, then Americans didn't respect the Germans who liked Hitler...

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Quila]

. If we go by your logic, then Americans didn't respect the Germans who liked Hitler...

I don't believe we did. And of course equating a disagreement over the extent of privacy in a well-meaning Linux distro with Hitler is probably the most obscene occurrence of Godwin's Law I've ever seen.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[STratoHAKster]

"Objective C compilers were only GPL because RMS refused a request from Jobs to let NeXT make a proprietary fork."

You shouldn't just lie like that, especially when your lies are so easily detected.

According to Wikipedia, Hobart is right and you are out of your scope: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective-C#Popularization_through_NeXT

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[kraut]

"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."

The age of consent does not necessarily coincide with the age of sexual maturity. Heck, I would have loved to have sex when I was 13 - the age of consent was 16.

Is it right to label a 16 year old "paedophile" for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend?

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[kraut]

So he's socially inept. Wow. That's news. Like saying Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom.

This is a guy who's clearly detached himself from a lot of normal human intercourse because he champions, singlemindedly, one idea. A good idea, which has done a lot of good, on the whole.

And there are good reasons why one would advocate having fewer children. From an ecological perspective it's clear - the more children you have, the more resources they will use.

Now, as a father myself, I sympathise more with the natural instinct to procreate, but I can also understand how someone who's so focused on one idea (FFS, it's his life's work) might not be so understanding,

RMS has some good points to make. But if you expect him to be the kind of person who sends Hallmark cards for new babies you'll obviously be disappointed

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[kraut]

Prostitution - two consenting adults
Adultery - two consenting adults
Necophilia - one consenting adult, but frankly, if you're dead, you might not enjoy it, but how are you harmed?
Bestiallity - so you can kill them, and eat them, but fucking them is out of the question?
        Please do tell me what's better (for the goat) - killing them (legal) or fucking them?#
Paedophilia - it boils down to consent. Can a 9 year old give consent? Clearly not. Can a 15 year old?

i think key point is this: .All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[gmhowell]

I have no idea what the truth of the situation is, but that is a horrible Wikipedia reference. Through the entire four paragraph section, there is only a single citation. That citation is back to a GNUstep link. That only speaks to the veracity of one aspect of the section and that is not even the Jobs/RMS angle.

Try again.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[GPLHost-Thomas]

And of course equating a disagreement over the extent of privacy in a well-meaning Linux distro with Hitler is probably the most obscene occurrence of Godwin's Law I've ever seen.

Sorry, I couldn't resist! :)

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no idea what the truth of the situation is, but that is a horrible Wikipedia reference. Through the entire four paragraph section, there is only a single citation. That citation is back to a GNUstep link. That only speaks to the veracity of one aspect of the section and that is not even the Jobs/RMS angle.

Try again.

Okay, I will "try again" because you asked so nicely.

An e-mail from Richard Stallman:

I say this based on discussions I had with our lawyer long ago. The
issue first arose when NeXT proposed to distribute a modified GCC in
two parts and let the user link them. Jobs asked me whether this was
lawful. It seemed to me at the time that it was, following reasoning
like what you are using; but since the result was very undesirable for
free software, I said I would have to ask the lawyer.

What the lawyer said surprised me; he said that judges would consider
such schemes to be "subterfuges" and would be very harsh toward
them. He said a judge would ask whether it is "really" one program,
rather than how it is labeled.

So I went back to Jobs and said we believed his plan was not allowed
by the GPL.

The direct result of this is that we now have an Objective C front
end. They had wanted to distribute the Objective C parser as a
separate proprietary package to link with the GCC back end, but
I didn't agree this was allowed, they made it free.

source: http://www.tikirobot.net/wp/2008/11/22/why-gcc-has-a-free-objective-c-frontend/

You are welcome.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven

[gmhowell]

Much better source. Not sure if it can qualify as reference to a Wikipedia article, but relevant to discussions here. I'd like to see the original emails, but this synopsis seems to be how RMS saw it.

Thanks.

Why we still listen to this guy, exactly?

[Pop'nShop]

RMS doesn't live in this world. He resembles only the anti-social geeks. Not the kind of guy we want to show the world and hope we make good impressions! Seriously!

Re:Why we still listen to this guy, exactly?

[aaaaaaargh!]

It seems obvious that you don't listen to him, so what's the problem from your perspective? Somebody disagreeing with you?

That being said, instead of answering your question, let me rather tell you why so many people hate Stallman and rant against him. The reason is simply that he's right about most of the things he says, but people do not always like hearing the truth if it is inconvenient. With that respect he has a lot in common with Socrates...

Re:Why we still listen to this guy, exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure even the most anti-social and most geeky amongst the /. crowd are horrified by the sight of him eating his own toe cheese. RMS is in a class all by himself.

Re:Why we still listen to this guy, exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks. Your ad hominem has really moved me.

Re:Why we still listen to this guy, exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly does this make him anti-social? Why do you think we should listen to you, exactly, when you can't even comment on the current issue and just start bashing people? FU.

Re:Why we still listen to this guy, exactly?

[Asic Eng]

I don't think so. I usually agree with him - I often dislike the way how he says things though. Also there is his insistence on the "GNU/Linux" thing, which not only goes against the FSF ideals (you don't get to keep naming rights) it's also a really stupid name.

Re:Why we still listen to this guy, exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to refer to Linux as just Linux, but then I heard about GNU/Linux and I dug a little deeper. I use GNU/Linux now because though Linux is the rock star, Linux still needs the numerous essential untold anonymous GNU programs to be Linux the rock star.

I prefer to use GNU/Linux for philosophical reasons but you are free to call it whatever you want, even Unbuntu :), which by the way was built on the back of Debian.

Re:Why we still listen to this guy, exactly?

[timmyf2371]

That being said, instead of answering your question, let me rather tell you why so many people hate Stallman and rant against him. The reason is simply that he's right about most of the things he says, but people do not always like hearing the truth if it is inconvenient. With that respect he has a lot in common with Socrates...

I genuinely don't think this is the reason. Like everyone, Stallman is entitled to an opinion on things (generally, opinions are neither right nor wrong) but his uncompromising stance and attitude to those who disagree with him gets people's backs up. And I think that this can cause challenges because some of his messages (maybe even this one) may well be important and valuable, but this can often be lost because people focus on the messenger rather than the message.

Re:Why we still listen to this guy, exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just wish people could get it through their heads that there's no such thing as "Linux" or even "GNU/Linux." There is "Red Hat Enterprise Linux," "Debian GNU/Linux," "Gentoo Linux," "Android," "Slackware Linux," "openSUSE," et cetera, ad infinitum. The right way to refer to your operating system is by its name.

Re:Why we still listen to this guy, exactly?

[mlwmohawk]

RMS doesn't live in this world.

RMS Lives in this world and has an almost perfect record of seeing the problems before everybody else.

He resembles only the anti-social geeks.

Seriously, do you work for a company getting crushed by Linux? Insulting a man, not on his character but by your subjective view of his appearence is almost a text book example of insecurity and ignorance.

Not the kind of guy we want to show the world and hope we make good impressions! Seriously!

To the intellects that will listen, he is quite impressive. You, well, lets leave it at that.

Religions nut condemns moderates....

[Anonymous Coward]

News at 11.

You may...

[Anonymous Coward]

... turn it OFF.

go into the privacy settings and click on the fuck-amazon-i-want-my-privacy-back button.

Re:You may...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. You can turn it off in the privacy settings of the control center, you can use a desktop other than Unity, or you can remove the shopping lens package and then blacklist it to prevent re-installation of it.

Re:You may...

[Anamelech]

Most software that returns results from/sends queries to an outside source is opt-in. You're asked on installation if you want to send anonymous usage statistics to improve later versions of <software_package> You're asked if you want to send a crash report to <software_vendor>.

Even Microsoft is asking you what search providers you want to use when you first run IE. How difficult would it be during the ubuntu installation to ask "Do you want to include results from Amazon in dash searches?" and only install the package if the box is ticket? Like Debian does with popcon?

Why Opt-in Marketing Matters. Point 1.b in the comparison in this short article seems to apply perfectly to what RMS is saying.

Already done

[Anonymous Coward]

Way before this spying business.

The wookie's right

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't find any issue with what he said or how he said it. A blizzard in Hell.

Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[Frankie70]

Bruce Perens wrote this recently on slashdot.

http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/11/05/0122238/bruce-perens-answers-your-questions

Don't help Red Hat. Don't help Ubuntu. Only help community projects and non-profits. Unfortunately, Red Hat and Ubuntu aren't really taking the community where we need to be. We thought they would, but they didn't get us sufficient users, and didn't get us the users we need for the most part, and the negative effects they have (like isolating us from our own users, and being public representatives in their own interest instead of the community's) aren't worth the rest. We need to work on other ways of getting to users that aren't Ubuntu and Red Hat.

        And then there are the companies who feel that they are helping the community by paying for Red Hat or by joining the Linux Foundation. If you want to help Linux or Open Source, help a free software project directly. Red Hat exists for Red Hat's stockholders, and while the Linux Foundation is sometimes helpful, it represents large companies rather than the developer community, and only a fraction of its budget pays actual programmers.

I fully agree with Bruce. Sometimes I feel the commercial opensource companies are worse than the commercial closed source companies in some ways. At the regular commercial companies are upfront about the fact they are in it just to make money.

Try figuring licensing terms of different components of MySQL. For eg. try to figure out what components of MySQL Cluster you can also use free of charge without paying for support & what has to be purchased. Ask a question on some public forum where there are lots of MySQL employees active. They will never give the answer on the forum. They will always ask you to contact them offline.

And what about Redhat who have built their product on back of lots of people who worked for free. And now Redhat tries to make sure Centos has a lot of trouble integrating patches made by Redhat.

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[Raven42rac]

I thought it was free as in speech, not free as in beer? It sounds like people want their special little thing to not get too popular and to not let people make money off of it. I don't see much wrong with what Red Hat/Fedora and Ubuntu do. What's wrong with charging money to support an enterprise level product? Is that what Stallman and Berens want?

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[Frankie70]

I have no problems with RH making money. But why are trying to make it difficult for Oracle & Novell to provide support for RHEL?
Why are they hiding knowledge of the insides from CentOS?

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[Anonymous Coward]

Bruce made money transforming Free Software into Open Source. He was warned at the time, but chose not to care. Where is his mea-culpa ?

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[Anonymous Coward]

At [least] the regular commercial companies are upfront about the fact they are in it just to make money.

Uh, how did you ever get the impression that Red Hat and Canonical were not "regular commercial companies?" Of course, they are in it to make money.

And what about Redhat who have built their product on back of lots of people who worked for free

Actually, it's the other way around.

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[Anonymous Coward]

Red Hat has a habit of hiring community developers. I can think of two people in the last few months that I know and speak to, where this is the case, and that doesn't include what I am sure are countless other examples. They contributed to a Red Hat sponsored project and ultimately ended up working for the company. To say that they just use peoples code and dance on their backs is completely inaccurate. They don't hire everyone who makes a commit, and not everyone who writes some code to add a feature or fix a problem in a Red Hat product even wants to work for them, but to say they give nothing back, when they are hiring people to pursue their work full time, provide them with a paycheck, benefits, and so on, while also releasing the code for all to use or modify as they wish, is truly BS.

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed on all but the last sentence. Redhat isn't intentionally making life harder for Centos, they are making it harder for Oracle. Oracle camps on Redhat's integration and testing work with a direct copy and then charges support fees for something that they've only trivially invested in developing. The trick is they will play a finger pointing game with the O/S vendor when you're running Oracle's DB on a non-Oracle O/S. So for the Enterprise space the easier option is to just buy both the DB and the O/S from the same vendor so you have one throat to choke. I think years back it was called leveraging a monopoly in one space to create one in another.

I have run 21 version of RedHat's software and have 30 racks of gear in the data center using it. It may not be a good fit for what you're doing, but for data center servers with clustering it's simply matchless. They are catoring to my niche quite nicely and I've never had a problem with a package I couldn't re-buiild from sources myself.

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[Microlith]

Bruce, apparently, doesn't see the value that Canonical provides in making a distribution that is probably the least painful distro to use. I like the technology behind Debian, but I can't stand using the distro directly. Even with Fedora I get errors and things broken out of the gate.

Rejecting organized efforts to make progress on certain objectives (desktop, etc.) because they're run by for-profit companies only serves to shoot yourself in the foot and keep Linux (particularly desktop Linux) marginalized and ignored.

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[Anonymous Coward]

Because support for RHEL is how Red Hat makes money. Why go to the hard work of producing RHEL just to see your clients jumping to use another company for support?

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[Frankie70]

I did not say Redhat doesn't contribute. All I said was they are now trying to hide stuff just so that CentOS, Oracle etc can't fully understand their code.

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[poet]

I think someone needs to read a little bit more about Red Hat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat

And ask themselves, how much have I given to Open Source?

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[h4rr4r]

I don't see how their changes hurt CENTOS. I do see how they hurt Oracle and hope they wound that beast as much as possible.

Oracle is the one standing on the backs of others and returning nothing. They try to poison the well of FREE software everywhere they go.

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[Frankie70]

I think someone needs to read a little bit more about Red Hat:

Well, it's hope Bruce Perens is following the thread.

And ask themselves, how much have I given to Open Source?

Well, I think someone needs to read a little bit more about Perens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Perens
And ask themselves, how much have I given to Open Source?

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[Anonymous Coward]

Red Hat has a habit of hiring community developers.
Some people (OK me) see that as a way for Red Hat to maintain hegemony over a project (see GNOME/GTK) to make sure it only works towards fulfilling Red Hat's goals and objectives even if it's detrimental to the linux community at large (see GNOME/GTK).

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[Frankie70]

Oracle is the one standing on the backs of others and returning nothing.

Oracle has contributed fixes/improvements to libstdc++, NFS, ext3. They also created the Btrfs filesystem for Linux.

Sure, they have contributed less to Linux then RH. But does that mean RH is more entitled to make money off Linux as compared to oracle. Or even as compared to someone who hasn't contributed much to Linux. There are a lot of small companies who provide commercial support for Linux & many of don't contribute much. They help Linux because the more easily & cheaper support is available for Linux, more will it's adoption grow. Competition even in providing support is always good.

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[h4rr4r]

What they did to OpenOffice more than makes up for that.

Hell, having to deal with Oracle as a company more than makes up for that.

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[Anonymous Coward]

tl;dr: "Check out the crabs in the bucket."

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[Anonymous Coward]

And what about Redhat who have built their product on back of lots of people who worked for free.

They've also contributed far more than ANY other organization. Even Linus admits that Linux would be irrelevant if it wasn't for RedHat and the developers they pay. It's hilarious watching you fosstards tear each other apart.

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[jez9999]

What's so difficult about using Debian directly? For me, the worst thing is probably networking, but that's a problem with Linux in general - the whole idea of networking in Linux is based on 1) wired connections and 2) editing text files for configuration. This is a horrible nightmare in a world where we have wireless (so everything needs to operate without the assumption that the connection won't always be there) and frankly want much easier, Windows-style networking config (I know I do). NetworkManager has all sorts of problems.

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[Anonymous Coward]

Before people grab their torches and pitchforks to run Redhat out of town, consider that 12-15% of the ongoing development of the Linux kernel is funded by Redhat.

http://www.linux.com/learn/tutorials/560928-counting-contributions-who-wrote-linux-32
http://lwn.net/Articles/222773/

Also consider that, allegedly, the kernel is in aggregate primarily developed by corporations.

http://apcmag.com/linux-now-75-corporate.htm

Yes, Redhat is building a product with the help of the efforts of people who worked for free, but they are hardly freeloading. I, for one, am thankful for their work.

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[dkleinsc]

The basic problem with business folks and open source is that they're trying to maximize profit, which means that anything that they give away is done for four basic reasons:
1. Loss leader to get people to buy something else: commercial support contracts, customizations, installation assistance, etc.
2. Convince the community that they're good for open source so they'll work for free.
3. The GPL or other "viral" open source licenses force them to.
4. Selling the user's eyeballs a la Firefox and Google.

For example, in the case of Red Hat, Fedora is their loss leader and "please work for free" tool. If the GPL didn't force them to give stuff away, then they wouldn't, because they'd really rather CentOS didn't exist.

MySql's another great example: They treat free Mysql as a loss leader to sell you support and advanced features. If you're trying to build on a truly open source platform, you're much better off with Postgres.

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[Kjella]

But why are trying to make it difficult for Oracle & Novell to provide support for RHEL?

You mean why are they trying to make it difficult for Oracle & Novell to offer the work of Red Hat as their own? Yes, the source code is open but I understand that they don't want to give their competitors an easy way to search their patches and offer them as their own solutions after Red Hat engineers spent all the time reproducing the issue, digging through the source code, finding the bug and making a patch for it. They never did this while is was only the non-commercial CentOS, it was when Oracle starting talking about Unbreakable Linux and offering their own Linux distribution. Red Hat contributes more back to Linux than probably any other company in the community but I perfectly understand that if you want that particular flavor that is RHEL or the benefits of Red Hat's support system they want you to pay for that.

Certain people in the Linux community is militantly opposed to anyone holding anything back or doing anything less than idealistic or noble in order to bring in money. It doesn't matter if it's using dual licencing, trying to make money off search results like Ubuntu and Firefox or trying to protect their own support business like Red Hat or whatever. Everybody is supposed to be so altruistic and work only for the community and not a shred for themselves or to turn a profit. For sure many people are particularly individual contributors but many also share only out of self-interest, because getting their code integrated, maintained and improved by the community is worth more than the benefits of keeping an in-house fork. To them your whole question is backwards, why should we help our competitors steal our own business?

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[Anonymous Coward]

One more source:

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/sites/main/files/publications/whowriteslinux.pdf

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[Anonymous Coward]

> Ask a question on some public forum where there are lots of MySQL employees active. They will never give the answer on the forum. They will always ask you to contact them offline.

And why dont they get banned?

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize Red Hat is a business, right? If they are handing money out and not getting anything out of it they are not going to go out of business. It's sort of symbiotic like that... I mean they can just give money out everywhere, shutter their doors, and contribute nothing anymore. I'm sure that's one option. A pretty shit option... not really sure what you're getting at...

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[Anonymous Coward]

A better question is: why do you feel entitled to anything other than what Red Hat has already agreed to by redistributing GPL'd software?

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[grumbel]

What's so difficult about using Debian directly?

It lacks polish and doesn't produce up to date stable versions, which means you have to use testing. Last time I gave Debian a try was when Ubuntu pulled of that Unity thing. Well, didn't take long for me to turn around and go back to (X)Ubuntu. Not only did Debian pull of the same stunt of removing Gnome2 and replacing it with Gnome3, it also lacked Wine and Blender in it's testing repositories. They also still ask far to many questions when installing software. Now you might say it's not that difficult to install Wine and Blender manually and the questions on install can be switched of via some dpkg setting, but it exactly this kind of little things make Debian so frustrating to use and make Ubuntu so friendly. With Ubuntu I never run such glitches and they do chose the right settings by default, with Debian I run into those problems time, stuff missing, stuff broken, stuff with bad defaults and whatever, just little things, but lots and lots of them, far to many when you just want to use your computer and not play distri patch guy. Those kinds of little problems were the reason why I moved from Debian to Ubuntu some six years ago and they still exist far to many of them.

Of course Ubuntu is by no means perfect, but at least they give a solid try at actually polishing their distribution so that it's actually end user ready, something Debian has never managed to do. Debian feels like it's in an ethernal beta (which is actually kind of is, as stable is always to old and testing always to broken).

Quality of the distribution itself aside, Ubuntu also has the better community tools, the PPA autobuilder, forums and such all feel a lot better managed then what you find on the Debian side.

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc

[Anonymous Coward]

They (Red Hat) are not hiding the insides from CentOS....or anyone

Their main intent, as I understand it, was making it harder for ORACLE (and maybe Novell) to profit from Red Hat's work so blatantly. CentOS, unfortunately, got caught in the crossfire. Mind you that they're still compliant with the GPL and other licenses which may apply to each piece of software, they're just exploiting (bad word, I know) a way to make it harder for others to make distributable binary distros from it.

Sneaky, morally ambiguous, unethical, downright nasty...call it what you will, but they were very careful to not violate the terms of the licenses.

  I do think they caused some level of harm by doing things this way, but I can't say I don't understand their point of view.

Is he still alive?

[Anonymous Coward]

When ever will he die, or at least shut the hell up?

Re:Is he still alive?

[ArhcAngel]

RMS is the modern day Dread Pirate Roberts. He is constantly replaced by a new person to continue the IDEA...

JEWBOY PEDHOPHILE R.M.S. STRIKES AGAIN!

[Anonymous Coward]

What a Google shill.

Re:JEWBOY PEDHOPHILE R.M.S. STRIKES AGAIN!

[unixisc]

How is a guy who is a self-proclaimed atheist, who occasionally wears a T-shirt that says 'Impeach God' - a Jew? It's not like he likes the Jewish God and hates the Christian one - he thinks that God is evil, period. So why would his rants have anything to do w/ Jews at all?

Re:JEWBOY PEDHOPHILE R.M.S. STRIKES AGAIN!

[Dainsanefh]

Jew is a race. Compare his surname to commonly known Jewish surname.

If not Jew by race he is at least being guilty of being part of the Google shill.

I ditched Ubuntu a long time ago

[Brad_McBad]

I ditched Ubuntu about 18 months ago. I really, *really* hate the "Search for your stuff even if you know where it is" paradigm, and trying to use it just makes me infuriated. Moved back to Debian for servers and Debian back Mint for desktops a long time ago. Only problem with Mint is that by default you're stuck with whatever search / content provider affiliates they've decided you want.

Re:I ditched Ubuntu a long time ago

[Anonymous Coward]

I am at the same point now. I am giving Arch a try (being former slackware it shouldnt be too bad).

Re:I ditched Ubuntu a long time ago

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not "stuck" by default with these providers. They just don't explicitly configure any of their search tools to go through companies that won't pay them. Sure, it may be annoying that Firefox uses Duckduckgo by default, but it takes about 15 seconds to change.

IE is just as restrictive about searching Google by default, but again, you can change it.

Re:I ditched Ubuntu a long time ago

[STDOUBT]

Are you talking about how they removed Google from the search bar in Firefox? You can add it back really easily by going to http://mycroft.mozdev.org/ There are a bunch of other great search engines you can add too.

LOL do we still do that.

[tuppe666]

I think its a shame that we try to marginalise people rather than create compelling arguments. What is really concerning is in this industry Bill Gates (look at videos of him in anti-trust trials), Steve Jobs (had to work nights because he smelled). You have just created an account. The fact is Dick is normally on the money, and the world is better place for having great men like him, who have achieved things in their own right.

Do you miss high school?

bummer

[Anonymous Coward]

Real shame that a Linux distro has taken this anti-privacy, anti-anonymous step.

+1 for rms for speaking up. I certainly don't plan to be using stock Ubuntu anymore.

MOD PARENT UP

[Dainsanefh]

Expose this motherfucker! Who is behind his payroll?

He must be Google's Bitch Dog. His stance against Apple proved this.

Oh do you know that Google's founder were Jewish? Do you know that the duo who wrote The Communist Manifesto were Jewish?

If you don't like it, remove the code dickhead

[Anonymous Coward]

The software is open and free. Remove the code you don't like. You advocate open and free. You advocate where people have access to the source. Now you bitch over something that you can easily fix and release your take. Richard you are a Dick who needs to choose your battles better.

my raven was equipped with the following

[Anonymous Coward]

MY RAVEN WAS EQUIPPED WITH THE FOLLOWING

HIGH
06 x Cruise Missile Launcher I
01 x SMALL TRACTOR BEAM 1
01 x SALVAGER I

MEDIUM
04 x LARGE SHIELD EXTENDERS
01 x 'HYPHNOS' ECM
01 x MEDIUM SHIELD BOOSTER

LOW
01 x EMERGENCY DAMAGE CONTROL
01 x ARMOR KINETIC HARDENER I
01 x ARMOR THREMIC HARDENER I
02 x WARP CORE STABILIZER I

DRONES
02 x WARRIOR I DRONES
03 x HAMMERHEAD I DRONES

UPGRADES
01 x ROCKET FUEL CACHE PARTINTION I
01 x BAY LOADING ACCELERATOR I

Re:my raven was equipped with the following

[war4peace]

Get T2 drones, Hammerhead IIs are awesome.
I personally used an Ishtar droneboat with Sentries, they were tanking for me and I usually didn't even have to move. Awesome.

Re:my raven was equipped with the following

[Anonymous Coward]

Seconded; T2 lights are critical in a battleship.

Also drop the warp core stabilizers (that's what drones are for) and the armor hardeners. Throw in three Ballistic Control Systems, and something or other - probably one of those engineering modules I can never remember that increases cap regen.

Wat r u doin raven you can't armor tank you don't even have an armor repairer.

Re:my raven was equipped with the following

[war4peace]

You don't even need to tank with a Raven while doing missions, you spew long range missiles at rats from 100+ km away, all you need to do is know when to interrupt cycles so that you don't waste missiles on dead rats (hint: you might have as many as 3 salvos in space already when rat dies, so they go to waste).
Golem works best, unfortunately you have to train a LOT to get to fly one.

Re:my raven was equipped with the following

[Anonymous Coward]

Mixing shield and armor tank? What's wrong with you?

Conflating Code And Culture

[MrLizard]

The definition of "free and open source software" doesn't/shouldn't include any limits on what that software DOES. Wouldn't saying, "You can use this code, but not if you write programs that do something I don't like with it!" violate the fundamental principles of open software? How about, "Here's my code for a really great FTP implementation, but you can't use it, or any program including it, to download copyrighted movies." Wouldn't fly, would it?

I understand that the open source coding community also includes a lot of shared cultural values, but the more it becomes just another means of distributing code, the less those shared cultural values are, erm, shared. RMS certainly has the right to speak out against things he find abhorrent, and to encourage people to not support them, as everyone does. As is so often the case, "The right to do something" is not the same as "The right thing to do." I think by trying to link his personal views on what's good, right, proper, etc, to the concept of open source itself, which is utterly apolitical, damages open source and would make people worry that, by using it, they are implicitly accepting or supporting ethical/political ideas they disagree with. (I have seen tons of open source code, esp. Apache, used by people and companies whose goals and values are at extreme odds with the generic "open source" culture.)

Re:Conflating Code And Culture

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS did not once use the phrase "open source" in TFA.

Re:Conflating Code And Culture

[unixisc]

In fact, isn't RMS violating Freedom 3 of GNU - freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits? Obviously, whether what Ubuntu is doing is an improvement that benefits the community is a subjective term, but Canonical is exactly following freedom 3 of the GNU manifesto.

In fact, even before Canonical made this deal w/ Amazon - which RMS has always hated, but then, name me a major company that he doesn't hate? - he still did not endorse Ubuntu, and had this to say about them

Ubuntu provides specific repositories of nonfree software, and Canonical expressly promotes and recommends nonfree software under the Ubuntu name in some of their distribution channels. Ubuntu offers the option to install only free packages, which means it also offers the option to install nonfree packages too. In addition, the version of Linux, the kernel, included in Ubuntu contains firmware blobs.

Ubuntu's trademark policy prohibits commercial redistribution of exact copies of Ubuntu, denying an important freedom.

So I fail to see how RMS is doing anything new against them - it's not like they were in his good books before.

Sickening

[tuppe666]

pragmatism and user choice

Don't you hate that those words. I feel dirty every time I see them, they reek of compromise. They are simply lies, Do you really think people are stupid?

Apple are selling advertising space in Ubuntu to Amazon as a revenue stream. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as users enter into this with there eyes open, and the consequences of that.

....but seriously I'm tired of the double speak.

Re:Sickening

[Anrego]

they reek of compromise

Which makes sense...

We are never going to have an RMS style "all software is completely free" world. Hell I wouldn't want one. I wouldn't want an Apple style "everything is locked down" world either.

What we have now, the compromise solution, works great. There is lots of free software out there. There are still areas which lack serious free alternatives, but you can run a desktop or server on mostly open source. There is also decent sized and co-existing industry of closed source and propriatary software. Many of us (myself included) make a living in it.

Would I love all the software on my desktop to be completely free, sure. Am I happy with most of my software being free, with say propriatary video card drivers... yup!

Re:Sickening

[Anonymous Coward]

You're making a sensible point, but what I don't get is people who talk like you and then go fight everyone who wants (like RMS) to turn your video card drivers into Free Software tooth and nail.
He's not forcing anyone, he's not using the questionable methods we're accustomed to from the media, he's just giving recommendations, voicing his opinion and stating things clearly down to the last consequence.

Re:Sickening

[Anonymous Coward]

sheesh, its not the existance of the non-free thats the problem, its the exclusion of the alternatives sometime at the hardware level, sometime at the software level, sometimes at the corporate monopoly practice level and sometime at the political level with bought and paid for congresscritters. Often all four.

Someone in this equation is not compromising whilst expecting 'reasonable', 'pragmatic' and 'compromised' behavour of other.

RMS position seems calm, restrained and proportionate given the facts.

Ubuntu? I was hoping

[bobstreo]

For a rant about Unity....

Just STFU already, RMS

[MikeRT]

I'm sick of the people who defend him on the basis of his contributions by way of GNU as though that somehow mitigates the harm he does from his soap box. Instead of doing something like taking the bull by the horns and making a slick Android distro that embodies his values AND is friendly to non-geeks, he froths at the mouth at any company or group that makes moves which earn them some money and make things easier for non-technical users.

Contribute to Haiku, fork Android, become benevolent dictator of OpenWebOS. Actually do something that matters today.

Re:Just STFU already, RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

^ This.

This toe-crust-eating whackjob sits on his high-horse and criticizes the people who do all the real work. Seriously, go read his Wiki page. He hasn't done meaningful shit in decades. He slightly modified some printer software to send out messages to users, and has ridden that particular show-pony into the fucking ground every year since then. He's also a drama queen. When the guy who wrote the Scribe markup language put some lines in the code to stop unauthorized use, RMS flipped shit and called it a "crime against humanity." He's a pansy-ass overweight attention-whore.

Slashdot needs to stop idolizing these fat neckbeard pontificators and start paying some respect to actual developers. They're the people who really get shit done.

Re:Just STFU already, RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could just ignore him and his fanboys.

I listen to what RMS says because every once in a while, he's got a point - and I ignore his rants and his fanatical positions. It's his life and he's not hurting anyone; so who really gives a shit.

And in regards to this issue, I would have never known about it if it weren't for him and this Slashdot article.

And I'm happy that I ran away from Ubuntu.

Re:Just STFU already, RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

For a moment I thought a GPLv3 fork of Android might be interesting, but then I remembered that Java sucks.

Re:Just STFU already, RMS

[Microlith]

as though that somehow mitigates the harm he does from his soap box.

Harm? Or simply ire from the people who disagree with him and react viscerally and violently instead of rationally?

Instead of doing something like taking the bull by the horns and making a slick Android distro that embodies his values AND is friendly to non-geeks

Even RMS would tell you that's not possible so long as Android can be closed.

he froths at the mouth at any company or group that makes moves which earn them some money and make things easier for non-technical users.

Bullshit. The easiest way to get him riled up is to do something that exploits the end user, or in some way limits them for the sole purpose of expanding the bottom line. And frankly, as much as I like Canonical that's exactly what the lenses do.

Re:Just STFU already, RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually do something that matters today.

Hurd is going to be ready ANY DAY NOW. And then you Linux whippersnappers will REALLY get what's coming to you!

Started in 1983, I predict 2013 will be the YEAR OF THE GNU/HURD DESKTOP.

Thirty years in the making, but worth the wait.

Re:Just STFU already, RMS

[rubycodez]

no one has to make you a pet project just because you want one, not even RMS. Maybe no one gives a shit about any of the things you mentioned. get off your dead ass and do something yourself, you lazy fucking git. RMS has done a hundred times the open source project work you will ever do.

Re:Just STFU already, RMS

[rahvin112]

Short of contributions to emacs (and a little hurd) RMS doesn't do a lot of coding. He's the community idealouge. We don't all have to agree with him but he's the guy out there warning about stuff. Some of it comes true, some doesn't. RMS has a set of views, or a moral code regarding software and he sticks to it. Rain or shine he speaks for and abides the principles he advocates and that deserves at least some respect. Without him there wouldn't be a GPL or likely even the concept of copyleft.

He's an important cog in the free software community standing on the mountain with his commandments that most of us don't follow.

Re:Just STFU already, RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

You ungrateful little shit.

Re:Just STFU already, RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

You want him to port GNU/Linux to android??? He hasn't even finished Hurd yet.

Re:Just STFU already, RMS

[mattr]

Obviously it should be written in perl (ducks)

Re:Just STFU already, RMS

[melikamp]

at any company or group that makes moves which earn them some money and make things easier for non-technical users.

Not in this case, though. Unless by "making things easier" you mean spying on users and selling them to advertisers and proprietary software vendors, who then abuse users even more thoroughly. Because that's what Canonical proudly does.

Re:Just STFU already, RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

Contribute to Haiku ... do something that matters today.

pahahahahahah

Re:Just STFU already, RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sick of the people who defend him on the basis of his contributions by way of GNU

Right? They should totally judge him for his strange behavior and personal hygiene instead! I love when people that _clearly_ aren't a part of the movement claim "he's fucking up the movement!" like it's some rallying call to the rest of us that can understand his rhetoric.

"Yeah dude, this guy's right! He's hurting the movement!!". Classic.

He doesn't care about making money, he cares about limiting freedoms. You're falling in to the same trap that's set for libertarians all the time. You don't need to fuck over other people to make money in software (I'd say this can be true for any industry); if you do it's the sign of a shitty product and a lazy mind.

Take the fucking gloves off and go at it; spend more time working on your boxing technique and less time trying to tie the other guy's hands behind his back.

Re:Just STFU already, RMS

[seebs]

Yes, harm. Spreading FUD, spreading confusion, and making open source look more hostile to real use cases. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't, but he's consistently a jerk and a spectacularly bad advocate.

Re:Just STFU already, RMS

[KermodeBear]

I couldn't agree more. Sometimes Mr. Stalin has the right idea, but he's akin to some guy running up to you and screaming in your face. He comes across as rude, crude, sensationalist, and generally nasty.

You don't have to be nasty to get your point across. In fact, being nasty tends to make it more difficult to do so. He doesn't seem to realize this, or if he does, he just doesn't care. It's a shame.

Re:Just STFU already, RMS

[unixisc]

Or actually, do something to get HURD fucking released already! Fork Minix 3, make it the microkernel for HURD, port all the HURD servers to that, put it all under GPL3 or later, and then on top of that full thing, put your favorite GPL3 programs, and run w/ it. Install it on all the computers there are based on Loongson or Allwinner, and let it challenge the Windows 8, Mac OS-X, Linux and BSD platforms already there. If he still knows/remembers how to program, that is.

Re:Just STFU already, RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, harm. Spreading FUD, spreading confusion, and making open source look more hostile to real use cases. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't, but he's consistently a jerk and a spectacularly bad advocate.

How does he make open source look look bad when he continually disassociates himself from this movement?
http://news.slashdot.org/story/00/05/01/1052216/thus-spake-stallman

I am not affiliated with the Open Source Movement. I founded the Free Software Movement, which has been working to spread freedom and cooperation since 1984, and is concerned not only with practical benefits but with a social and ethical issue: whether to encourage people to cooperate with their neighbors, or prohibit cooperation. The Free Software Movement raises issues of freedom, community, principle, and ethics, which the Open Source Movement studiously avoids.

Redhat

[Frankie70]

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/72012.html

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.0, which was released last November, packs a hidden punch: The latest version of the operating system pre-bundles patches with the kernel.

The disguised fixes have shaken up some controversy, but Red Hat contends that the move is aimed at making it more difficult for rivals like CentOS, Oracle and Novell to gobble up Red Hat's customers.

Re:Redhat

[Anonymous Coward]

Making it difficult isn't as bad as making it illegal. I'd rather have to put in more work to be RHEL-equivalent than defend myself or my company in court.

If you like the 'commercial' companies, stick with them! I fail to see your point.

You should go to church

[tuppe666]

News at 11.

You should watch it sometime, this is about "peoples right to privacy"; "selling my information to 3rd party corporations without my consent"; "intrusion into my house", Those are on that news all the time.

I'm sorry this is so far away from any "belief" system you should not be posting.

So what?

[ceoyoyo]

Ubuntu is licensed under FSF approved licenses. If RMS hasn't been wrong all these years then no matter what Canonical does the end user can just edit the source, remove the spyware, compile and go happily on his way.

Unless of course RMS's rosy view of an GNU-approved world has some cracks in it.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

People do do that. For example, Lubuntu doesn't have this "feature" in it. In fact, it validates RMS's viewpoint: if people want rid of something in the FOSS world, they can and will be. However, if majority of people want it or don't care either way, they will get what they want too.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reductio ad absurdum fail, no end user needs to edit sources, there are enthusiasts for that.
Proof I am right and RMS is right and the view is rosy? THIS WEBPAGE.
THE SOLUTION TO OUR PROBLEM (apt-get remove blah blah) IS IN A PREVIOUS SLASHDOT COMMENT: no need to edit sources just google it like end users do when windows have issues.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

no matter what Canonical does the end user can just edit the source, remove the spyware, compile and go happily on his way.

Sure, but why would I spend my time doing that, when I can just as easily choose something that doesn't contain spyware to begin with (e.g. Debian, Mint, SUSE)?

That's the only thing RMS is saying: "If you know better and care, don't use/endorse Canonical's Linux distribution; use/endorse some other which does not include spyware." ...which kinda sounds like reasonable advice and, honestly, unsurprising, coming from RMS. It's not like he said Canonical/Ubuntu was evil incarnate and that you should be killed if you dare to endorse it.

Unless of course RMS's rosy view of an GNU-approved world has some cracks in it.

I don't see why...

Why would you expect anyone to fork Ubuntu and/or modify it themselves, when there are already plenty of good Linux alternatives out there? I mean... it's practically the _only_ benefit of having a fragmented OS ecosystem anyway, so... might as well take advantage of that benefit, rather than re-invent the wheel for no particular reason.

Captcha: heretics

Why not endorse something?

[heptapod]

I don't see the value of saying "don't do this".

He'd make a better point saying "This (or these) distro best represents the ideals of GNU and I recommend using it over the leading distro"

Re:Why not endorse something?

[davydagger]

he does actually.
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html

Stuck on 10.04

[Missing.Matter]

I've been on 10.04 since it was released, and it seems like with every version there's more and more nonsense keeping me from upgrading. At this rate it seems, I'll be on 10.04 forever. However, the latest release of ROS doesn't officially support 10.04, so it seems like I might be forced to move on if I don't want to experience any unfortunate surprises... although now might be a better time than ever to find a new distro I'm comfortable enough with. Ubuntu is just going in the wrong direction.

Re:Stuck on 10.04

[davydagger]

http://linuxmint.com/

Re:Stuck on 10.04

[Anonymous Coward]

There is still an upgrade path. LUbuntu skips the entire Unity nonsense, mostly keeping the kernel, and package managers.

It has some flaws, like using a filecolor scheme in their terminal and only letting users change the background and generic text colors. (I want white on black, but the navy blue hardcoded "helpful" color becomes unreadable). I could probably grab an alternate terminal, but I use this for work and tend to ignore it when my work doesn't require a linux terminal.

Re:Stuck on 10.04

[Missing.Matter]

Yeah, I've been playing around with Mint off and on, mostly due to the inclusion of the Cinnamon Gnome fork. Might be time to make the switch permanent.

Re:Stuck on 10.04

[Dretep]

I'm in the same boat as you. Didn't upgrade to 10.10 due to Unity. Have tried LinuxMint but it didn't do anything for me. I have been playing with Xubuntu 12.x and have been quite impressed with the clean, simple Xfce desktop. Might switch to that once 10.04LTS is no longer supported.

Re:Stuck on 10.04

[SCHecklerX]

I was in the same boat. Decided to move to Mint. Tried both Mate and Cinnamon. Decided to stick with Mate. Cinnamon, while pretty, is frustratingly configurable. A few tweaks, and things work the way I want them to in Mate (for the most part). Bonus. Since I did a fresh install, it was a good opportunity to move to a SSD. Holy crap that thing is fast. Boot to login in 5-10 seconds. Running find on a directory is ridiculously fast.

Re:Stuck on 10.04

[SCHecklerX]

*frustratingly unconfigurable*

Also,
Some problems I had with compiz now work properly. And you can once again configure notification display, the MDM login screen, and many other things (MintMenu is nice too). All of those things you loved about ubuntu back in 8.x-9.x that canonical took away from you? They are back in Mint and then some. Life is happy again.

Re:Stuck on 10.04

[Missing.Matter]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll be installing the latest release tonight when I get home... give it another try.

Re:Stuck on 10.04

[Hatta]

Learn to love Debian. It loves you back.

Re:Stuck on 10.04

[jones_supa]

Huh? Just get Xubuntu 12.10.

or even gnome shell

[davydagger]

a gnome shell default search from the dash links to google, and wikipedia by default, and no other options are given for the user to change them.

Re:or even gnome shell

[Anonymous Coward]

It does? I've never seen it.

Just uninstall it

[Anonymous Coward]

You can uninstall the Amazon lens like you can uninstall the rest of lenses.

Simple solution ...

[PPH]

... for string searches:

find ... | grep ...

Re:Simple solution ...

[ls671]

Google search and the like also search within files, not sure about Ubuntu search. Anyway, for that use case:
grep -ir search_string folder
does the trick for me.

That barn is already half empty

[anyaristow]

Free software doesn't spy on you? Everything Google, and much that is in the Android app store, says he's wrong. Did he not notice the barn is already half empty?

Re:That barn is already half empty

[Anonymous Coward]

Remembering that you're quoting RMS's use of the phrase "free software", tell me, what Google software is free?

Re:That barn is already half empty

[SCHecklerX]

Which was a big reason I didn't go with Android, opting for WebOS instead. But now that may be a dead end. Will have to see if OpenWebOS picks up momentum on other devices and gets enough developers behind it to remain viable.

Re:That barn is already half empty

[faustoc4]

You criticize Mr Stallman and don't even know what free software is. Free software give the user the four freedoms http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

So....

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this not the year of linux then?

OK, for a geek site, what's up?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really. Is it just incompetence or actual malice?

What the fuck is up with your site's formatting?

You went all "new age" and insisted on these bollocks new method of displaying threads (because it was new and your CV needed a spruce?) but guess what: you've manage to fuck it up BIG TIME.

Seriously, guys, if you can't write a website properly, DON'T TRY SOMETHING FANCY.

Re:OK, for a geek site, what's up?

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind, there apparently was just some ketchup on my monitor.

Stallman Forgets

[polyp2000]

I think that Stallman is forgetting that the open source / free software community has an awful lot to thank companies like canonical for investing time and development resources into making Linux so much more accessible to people. Not wanting to start a debate about unity or other recent changes in the direction of Ubuntu. I have nothing but respect for Canonical and Mark Shuttleworth for driving Linux on the desktop forward and contributing to the rich Linux ecosystem we have today.

I would also like to mention that - if i recall correctly it is made clear to the user during the installation process about the Amazon feature and that it can easily be turned off. Its not like they are doing it by stealth or anything unlike the other example cited in the OP.

As a long time Linux user (as my primary OS) I worked my way through various distributions. learning much about the core OS from things like Gentoo. A few years ago I settled on Ubuntu as a distro that Looks nice , is usable and just works (TM) I dont feel the need to tweak these days!. I feel spoiled by what Linux is today - everything just works out of the box (which is more than i can say for this new Mac Mini on my desk).

I guess my point is that if every one in the community was as anal as Stallman I doubt we would be in such a great place as we are now - as far as Linux goes.

Re:Stallman Forgets

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that Stallman is forgetting that the open source / free software community has an awful lot to thank companies like canonical for investing time and development resources into making Linux so much more accessible to people.

Why is that important? I don't care if other people use Linux or not. I don't see a problem with anyone using Windows and Mac.

The way I see it, companies like canonical has done a lot to bring people that don't agree with the philosophies behind open source to Linux, fundamentally changing the community. As a result, we're going to get more and more closed source software available in the OS, like Steam and all its game, for example. That's a step backwards. I don't have anything against people choosing to use proprietary software, but if you choose to do so, go do it in a proprietary OS and stop polluting my free one.

Re:Stallman Forgets

[Anonymous Coward]

His concern is not so much where we are but where we're going. If anything he seems a little behind the curve on this one. Most are voting with their feet already and moving to distros with a respect for user choice.

Re:Stallman Forgets

[Anonymous Coward]

I have nothing to thank Canonical for. As a long time linux user, I have got no value from Ubuntu, I have lost value from the changes Canonical and Red Hat have made incorporating utter shit like GRUB2, dbus, PulseAudio, into the software I do use, which has made them less reliable, more difficult to use, and more difficult to understand.

As a system administrator, I have experienced huge amounts of pain trying to get things that just work (tm) on normal Linux and unix machines to work on Ubuntu, with their overly complex, half or non-functional, undocumented and poorly designed systems and changes. Case in point, GRUB2. All a bootloader needs to do is load the kernel and MAYBE present a menu to select an alternate kernel or kernel parameters, instead with GRUB2 we have an OS in a bootloader that doesn't work, is nearly impossible to figure out how to configure, and has all sorts of unnecessary things like tetris and space invaders built in.

So to Canonical and Redhat: Go fuck yourselves.

Re:Stallman Forgets

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Debian. What is your problem?

If you'd take off those Ubuntu-colored glasses, you might understand that Linux will continue to be developed and used regardless of what the major companies now investing in it do. Free Unix is too good an idea to die.

Re:Stallman Forgets

[aembleton]

How is getting more closed source software developed for Linux a step backwards? Does it prevent open source software from being developed? Does it remove OSS from repos? Does it prevent you from developing OSS?

Re:Stallman Forgets

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that Stallman is forgetting that the open source / free software community has an awful lot to thank companies like canonical for investing time and development resources into making Linux so much more accessible to people. [...] I have nothing but respect for Canonical and Mark Shuttleworth for driving Linux on the desktop forward and contributing to the rich Linux ecosystem we have today.

That's all fine and dandy, but "good will" is not the primary criteria underlying most people's choice of OS/distro.

Should I refrain from using an IMHO superior distribution that seems to pay attention to what the community wants, unlike Ubuntu (e.g. Mint), just because Mark and his company (as many others) contributed to Linux? Following the same logic, we should never speak ill of Red Hat, IBM, Google or Intel, right? Have they not contributed also to the rich Linux ecosystem we have today?

I guess my point is that if every one in the community was as anal as Stallman I doubt we would be in such a great place as we are now - as far as Linux goes.

Maybe. But if Stallman wasn't as anal as he is, maybe there wouldn't even _be_ this great place you speak of.

Someone has to be the one pointing out that the King is naked. If RMS thinks something is wrong, don't worry: he'll tell you. Feel free to ignore, if you think he's being unreasonable (he often is).

I love RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS is Jesus

I am a sinnner, and I know that I cannot attain his level of purity, but he is my spiritual guide.

Its not hard to forget about Ubuntu

[davydagger]

"they are free to do this. This is called a "fork" of the program. Soon the community switches to the corrected fork, and the malicious version is rejected. The prospect of ignominious rejection is not very tempting; thus, most of the time, even those who are not stopped by their consciences and social pressure refrain from putting malfeatures in free software."

The idea is that with the GPL, minor contributors can't make people dependant on minor contributions, and keeps the power with the programmer instead of lawyer and marketer.

After unity I can't see why anyone is still on ubuntu. This is the icing on the cake.

Linux Mint - Ubuntu fork. two great sensable desktops installed be default.
http://linuxmint.com/

Re:Its not hard to forget about Ubuntu

[Anonymous Coward]

Pfft. It's easier to just install Cinammon or Mate from PPA on your Ubuntu machine without going through the hoops of installing a new distro.

debian

[Anonymous Coward]

I used ubuntu when it first came out years ago but it took me a month to get back to debian. I mean, what's wrong with debian? I run stable on my servers and testing on my desktops and there's no such thing as lens-shopping-whatever. Better yet, all your desktop flavors are a matter of choice as things should be. The only thing I dislike about it is it's rebranding of software sometimes (cdrkit, iceweasel and avconv for example) but since ubuntu is debian with a corporate flavor all over I bet that's also true for ubuntu. My previous company switched to ubuntu after I left but I wonder why, maybe to attract people for work?

Re:debian

[Anonymous Coward]

Debian generally only "rebrands" software to avoid trademark infringement.
e.g. Iceweasel is Firefox + debian patches, mozilla foundation owns the TM on Firefox and only allows using it for their original product.

Same old RMS....

[kernelpanicked]

Making the same badly informed assumptions, only months behind everyone else.

Do everyone a favor RMS. Next time you feel the urge to 'speak out' on something, just don't.

Re:Same old RMS....

[Anonymous Coward]

Or go back to Argentina, and stay there. Hope your passport disappears

Write your own OS

[Frankie70]

Redhat can write their own closed sourced OS. Then no one will know enough about their OS to provide support for it.

Redhat has an OS currently to support and make money of, because of the open nature of contributions to Linux - in that spirit, they should not be trying to hide stuff.

Sorry I don't care

[tuppe666]

they reek of compromise

The problem with compromise, is it only works if its a two way negotiation. In today's world its not that Increasingly its about meeting someone half way, and then next time you meet them half way again..before you know it you may not have compromised.

You make a lot of points about free software with is not really the point of this discussion. The truth is I bought a video card which hasn't a proprietary driver...guess you didn't need to compromise :) Most of us don't.

Re:Sorry I don't care

[Anrego]

The truth is I bought a video card which hasn't a proprietary driver...guess you didn't need to compromise :)

Last box I built I really tried to find a card that would do what I need and not require propriatary drivers. Admittedly not because I care about them being propriatary, but because they are a pain in the ass to deal with.

Couldn't come up with anything :(

If anyone actually knows of something that can:
- handle 4 monitors (using 2 cards if necessary)
- do opengl and have reasonable performance
- cost less than my car

I'll be happy to use it :)

Re:Sorry I don't care

[ChrisMaple]

Many nVidia cards will run on the open and free nouveau driver. I currently run 2 monitors on 1 fanless Quadro NVS290 card, so presumably 2 cards can drive 4 monitors. It's good for my uses, but I don't run games. About $150 per card, which is excessive.

Find

[Anonymous Coward]

So, wait... when I do a find / -name foo, I now wget results from Amazon? No? Then what the hell does Stallman's opinion have to do with any of it? Isn't he adamantly anti-GUI anyway?

Re:Find

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't even use a web browser. He has no business commenting on modern interfaces of any sort.

So, the only question then

[Giant Electronic Bra]

is how does Canonical present this choice. If its hard coded and not documented, that's one extreme. If it is an option you openly select with a checkbox every time that's probably the other extreme. RMS IMHO is getting all hot and bothered about the wrong things. If we CAN'T have options to interact with external services then we have NO choice, that's not freedom. He's got a fixed view of things like that, and it is just not appropriate. Its also cultural. While we can say people should be entitled to a private and a public life you're not going to find very much agreement across cultures of what that means.

Re:So, the only question then

[lgw]

What are you going on about? Why would you possibly need to send search terms to the world in order to search your local files. It should never happen. Period.

Much as it pains me to agree with RMS, you're trying to argue that 2+2=3 here.

Re:So, the only question then

[icebraining]

If we CAN'T have options to interact with external services then we have NO choice, that's not freedom

RMS' approved distros still have browsers, you're perfectly free to interact with Amazon whenever you want. They just don't tell Amazon what you've been searching on your own computer.

He's got a fixed view of things like that, and it is just not appropriate.

Why? Are principles now a bad thing?

Its also cultural. While we can say people should be entitled to a private and a public life you're not going to find very much agreement across cultures of what that means.

You won't have much agreement across cultures on whether women should or not be men's property, on whether believing or not believing in deities is acceptable, on whether free speech should be a right, and many other beliefs. Since when should that stop us from having our own and sharing them with others?

Re:So, the only question then

[ais523]

It's on by default, and has an opt-out that's not hard to find if you look for it but not presented in-your-face either. IMO, this isn't nearly good enough; it should be off by default (and I don't care how prominent the option to turn it back on again is).

Re:So, the only question then

[PopAndGame]

For example to search with single box?

Re:So, the only question then

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you possibly need to send search terms to the world in order to search your local files?

Exactly. What is the use case for this? I understand how advertisers use it (and how it makes Canonical a little money).
I don't understand how it would ever help any user.

Re:So, the only question then

[spitzak]

Is it possible for the search to return things other than local files?

IMHO if it really cannot return anything other than local files, then it certainly should never send the search information out.

If, as I suspect, it is trying to return a search of both the web and local files then it has to send the info out.

It would be nice if there was an obvious way to say "only look at local files" but the lack of that is not as nefarious as RMS makes it out to be.

Re:So, the only question then

[poetmatt]

"we have violated your privacy by default" is not a phrase reflective of actual choices being presented. It's exploiting users.

Re:So, the only question then

[BitZtream]

Anyone who has every used Google Desktop Search knows how wrong you are and how useful doing so can be. Your ranting about something you clearly have no experience with.

Re:So, the only question then

[lgw]

Anyone who has ever used Google Desktop search clearly either doesn't understand how invasive it is, or doesn't value their privacy, which is exactly the sort of thing RMS if going on about.

There's just no need for an internet connection for this.

Re:So, the only question then

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Nobody says you shouldn't share them, but you're going to have to also understand that other people won't necessarily want them and have their own to share with you as well. That's all fine of course if everyone is civil about it. Things rarely remain civil in these situations however. I'd note that RMS isn't exactly known for being civil either... My point is there's nothing wrong with a tool that lets you extend your search to google or wherever. It isn't inherently bad. YOU may not like it, you are certainly entirely welcome to your opinion, its fine. However it becomes nonsensical when you start talking about something like Ubuntu being evil for providing a tool that YOU PERSONALLY don't approve of. Just don't use it. Go ahead and tell Mark Shuttleworth you aren't using it. Sure, tell him why. Just don't expect to be taken seriously when you call Ubuntu evil...

Re:So, the only question then

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Yeah, see, my own feelings are pretty much like yours. I agree with spitzak though, RMS is being ridiculous, but since when is THAT news?

Re:So, the only question then

[Giant Electronic Bra]

God I'm so glad you're here to make sure I don't accidentally decide I want something that in your infinite wisdom you have decided is bad for me! Blessed is the Richard! I shall fear no evil!

Re:So, the only question then

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Again, more information is needed (frankly I don't go near Ubuntu with a 10' pole, I can handle myself thanks). So I don't know how this is all presented. The mere existence of the option, even if it is enabled by default isn't enough to make it bad. Even if it is a poor choice its simply a poor choice. People are just such drama queens.

Re:So, the only question then

[ais523]

Unity has one search that searches everything it knows how to search at once. So if you're searching for local files, by default it sends the information out too.

Re:So, the only question then

[hawkinspeter]

I think the point is that you should decide on what is good and bad for you. RMS is making the point that Canonical is making the choice for all the users that don't know or care about the result of that choice. Isn't it better for the default search to be local with an option to search the internet?

Re:So, the only question then

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Right, but you know what, people mostly have other things to worry about. If the defaults work well for them, then chances are they're not inclined to think about it, have more important things to think about, and probably lack the information (or time and energy to acquire it). You can argue this both ways is the point, so there's no need for people to toss around words of moral approbation. This is in fact the general problem with RMS and of course many other fanatics, they make every little ambiguous choice in the world into a moral crisis. A mature approach would be perhaps to just point out the dimensions of the thing, its implications, and let people make their own judgments.

Re:So, the only question then

[hawkinspeter]

So, you're suggesting that we let people make their own judgements despite the fact the people mostly have other things to worry about? (and the chances are that they're not inclined to think about it or lack the required information).

Re:So, the only question then

[Giant Electronic Bra]

What are you suggesting, that there are no options? That I just hand over all my concerns to RMS because he's the man? Like it or not we need options and there have to be defaults of some sort. As I've said before, the consideration should be how those are presented.

Re:So, the only question then

[lgw]

In the security world, people have learned a long and painful lesson that you need to default to the most secure option that gets the job done. There are many times when it might be helpful to be less secure, but unless the user is expert enough to diverge from defaults, that user should have the most secure setting.

The same thing is true of privacy protection, for all the same reasons. Options for expert users to choose less security/privacy are find, because an expert user can understand the trade-off, but a novice user needs to start with the most secure/private settings.

Here's why: if you give up a little usability, you can get that back later but once you give up privacy it's gone forever, you can never get that secret back.

Re:So, the only question then

[Giant Electronic Bra]

First of all, do most people actually have meaningful secrets? I doubt it. Second of all the major lesson to be learned from security (and believe me I TEACH secure computing courses now and then at an advanced level) is that you don't have any and what you get from trying is inconvenience instead. There's a very good reason why most people don't opt for security over functionality. Security is also not a black and white thing, it is many shades of grey. You're always choosing more or less of it vs more or less of other things. Nobody is totally secure. There are cases where you're correct, but actually in the majority of cases it is just not that way. The real question is only about expectations. Maybe in this particular case the system should throw up a prompt the first time and then offer to let you default it, and provide some indicator/widget you can use to change your security choices later on and get a hint about what they are. Also I think in general for most users it is better to provide them with goal-oriented configuration. In other words don't show them security settings, show them degrees of security tradeoffs that are useful to achieve specific goals. One person may want to stay below the radar and be very secure, another may want more convenience.

Re:So, the only question then

[BeanThere]

I've already met hardware vendors that push Microsoft software making openly false claims to customers that open source 'spies on you' .. this sort of thing is going to make it just another bit harder to counter misinformation like that.

Re:So, the only question then

[Culture20]

First of all, do most people actually have meaningful secrets? I doubt it.

Meaningful to whom? Russia? China? Al-Qaeda? The United States? Their rival from years ago who still holds a grudge? Their boss? Old SO's? Current SO's? Random dude who wants to abuse their credit? Themselves?
I doubt most people's secrets will ruin their nation if exposed, but most will ruin (or drastically alter) their own lives; else why keep them secret in the first place?

Re:So, the only question then

[lgw]

First of all, do most people actually have meaningful secrets?

I think you'll find a majority of the people alive to day would be imprisoned or worse were their thoughts about their government to become known. If not a majority then close to it would be imprisoned or worse were their thoughts about their religion to become known. A significant minority would be imprisoned or worse were their sexuality to become known. A significant (and growing) minority would be arrested and shunned, perhas imprisoned, were their intolerant thoughts about their neighbors to become known.

Heck, if you have no secrets, you're a very dull anomaly, not the norm.

Also I think in general for most users it is better to provide them with goal-oriented configuration. In other words don't show them security settings, show them degrees of security tradeoffs

Sure, no problem there. But we're talking about defaults. If you have a machine with a control knob thats easy to turn to the left, but impossible or nearly so to turn the right, what's the only reasonable default setting? Obviously, the rightmost setting that allows the machine to operate at all.

Re:So, the only question then

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Bah! I call nonsense on that. You're fantasizing that anyone gives a crap what you think or that anyone could even tell from some trivial amount of data that some ad agency somewhere might get. Sorry, this kind of thing just isn't a substantive threat, get real. Again, you'd have to lay out the actual setup and how it particularly works to be able to argue that the defaults need to be different.

Re:So, the only question then

[lgw]

It's great for you that you live in such a nice place, and have such normal beliefs, that you'd lose nothing if all your secrets were exposed. But I bet you don't live in China, or a theocracy; I bet you're not a homosexual in a place where that is still a serious crime, and taken seriously. Many of those people use computers too, you know.

You're arrogance in proclaiming "it's not important to me, so it couldn't poossibly be important to anyone!" is a bit offensive, you know.

Re:So, the only question then

[Giant Electronic Bra]

I don't think everyone is exactly like me, no, but the vast majority of people who are likely to use Ubuntu would never be harmed by anything Ubuntu is doing by default. I think that is a quite safe statement. Is it going to be true for every person on Earth, of course not. Does that mean we should overblow the whole thing? I don't think so.

Frankly, there are far more important things to consider here. Every time you drive down the street the police are recording where you go. I think anything anyone can garner from a local search is probably a little trivial compared to that kind of thing.

I think the fact that Ubuntu exists and gives people a choice of a generally very secure OS is probably helping them more than anything else they're doing is hurting anyone. I don't know if the way this particular issue is being handled is ideal, I don't use Ubuntu, but RMS is being rather extreme and silly, as usual. He's done some great things, but like many brilliant and energetic people he seems to be half an idiot grafted to half a genius. I'm grateful for all the GNU tools. OTOH I think he'd be much better served to lower his rhetoric a notch and basically grow up some.

I ask again

[Stan92057]

I ask again why are theses company's allowed to spy on us? They have more power then the police,FBI,CIA,Congress and our President. I also ask again how do we stop this. Slashdot was powerful at one time why not again

Re:I ask again

[UltraZelda64]

You can't. Nothing is more powerful than the Almighty Dollar, which all of these companies worship, and their stockholders jizz all over themselves every time they find out how to make even more money. Doesn't matter how crooked that method is.

Well, he has every right to.

[buttfuckinpimpnugget]

And I can keep on using OpenBSD, Debian and Slackware.

CentOS

[Frankie70]

Agreed on all but the last sentence. Redhat isn't intentionally making life harder for Centos, they are making it harder for Oracle.

I am not sure about this. I think CentOS has been eating Redhat's lunch in the enterprise far more than Oracle.

Redhat speaking negatively about CentOS won't sound good - however if they speak against Oracle, it won't be so bad. I think Redhat is killing 2 birds with 1 stone here.

Re:CentOS

[kernelpanicked]

Not really. RedHat has, several times, actively helped CentOS. Their basic view of the situation for quite some time now has been that anyone wanting to use CentOS was not a customer that would have been willing to pay the RedHat support subscription to begin with. So they lose no money. In fact, the existance of CentOS actually helps them.

Re:CentOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed on all but the last sentence. Redhat isn't intentionally making life harder for Centos, they are making it harder for Oracle.

I am not sure about this. I think CentOS has been eating Redhat's lunch in the enterprise far more than Oracle.

Redhat speaking negatively about CentOS won't sound good - however if they speak against Oracle, it won't be so bad. I think Redhat is killing 2 birds with 1 stone here.

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall Red Hat making fairly clear that they weren't targeting CentOS, that their measures were very specifically aimed at those who were making money freeloading off them. Which is, to say, Oracle: the company that gave a bad reputation to the word "unbreakable". And that while doing so they were making a serious effort not to discommode CentOS any more than was unavoidable.

Historically, Red Hat has been very adamant about keeping their freely-distributable software truly free. Even going so far as to avoid bundling in proprietary MP3 code in their offerings, despite the explicit blessings of the patentholder (Fraunhofer Institute). Red Hat does have non-free code, but they are scrupulous about keeping it distinct from their free offerings; almost the opposite of the more common "embrace, extend, extinguish".

Free != "won't spy"

[Anonymous Coward]

That shouldn't be an argument for why to use free software. There are a lot of good arguments for using free/open software, but there is no guaranteed correlation between free and not spying. If it's open, it can be audited to tell if it's spying on you. One could argue that free means that a developer has the freedom to write software that spies. And the user community has the right to look for and remove that spyware. Don't try to force a correlation that just doesn't inherently exist.

I really don't want Amazon search results unless I go to Amazon.com. But Ubuntu can do whatever they want. Dash sucked even before they started "spying", so that's another reason for me to abandon Ubuntu. RMS could make a spin of Ubuntu that was to his liking if he wanted.

Do you have any studies showing there is harm?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if you haven't, and RMS hasn't then you're both ideally skeptial of the claim.

Unless you believe things without evidence.

Local searches, too?

[Rob the Bold]

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.

I haven't used this version of Ubuntu and don't have extensive-enough knowledge of this feature to corroborate or deny this. However, if true, I imagine plenty of organizations really couldn't live with this being installed by default. Organizational policies, regulations, and laws might even forbid them from letting such data leak out. In such case, it might be much easier to select a different distro/OS for the organization than to make sure someone remembers to disable Dash search on every new install. One oops, and you might violate HIPAA, e.g.

RMS is right

[horza]

The suggested apps from the software store was the most annoying thing about 11.04 (along with the panel auto-hiding), and fortunately they removed it before I was forced to change distro . This Amazon thing is the only thing stopping me from upgrading 11.10 to 12.04. It's so annoying that I put up with the teething problems of Unity until it's now finally something nice to use, and then they pull this stunt. I really regret getting to like Unity. Almost as bad as when I used to recommend OS X and then Apple started all those lawsuits, leaving me to regret all those sales I made for them.

I guess after 11.10 I will switch back to KDE, which is also nice but I'll miss the Dash and the indicator applets.

RMS is 100% right.

Phillip.

Re:RMS is right

[jmcvetta]

I really regret getting to like Unity.

I don't regret getting to like Unity - current versions remain imho a big improvement over Gnome. What I do regret is that I can no longer recommend Ubuntu to anyone. This after having recommended it to dozens of people over the past few years, several of whom adopted it.

Now I honestly don't know what to recommend to non-techie people who want to live in the Free world. Mint is highly unappealing, not only for the outdated UI, but also for the militant bad taste of its supporters. Most of the other popular distros are "too hard" to be a realistic satisfactory option for that class of user.

A sad time for Free Software, really...

he's worried about his own web searches

[decora]

anyone with his bizarro attitudes towards child abuse, probably wants their searches to be entirely on TOR.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman

Re:he's worried about his own web searches

[Anonymous Coward]

Burn the witch!!

truck fucking forums?

[decora]

i am not familiar with this, but i am not surprised to first learn about it on slashdot.

Re:truck fucking forums?

[bibliophage]

Here ya go:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/

Re:truck fucking forums?

[bibliophage]

Here ya go:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/

Re:truck fucking forums?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/

Thanks RMS!

[Paracelcus]

I'm getting REALLY old, as this is the first I'm hearing this. It's tough when you're 70 and still trying to keep abreast of the open source movement! I think I will be going back to Slackware.

screw privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

what i want is software that respects my convenience and task requirements

Remove?

[morgauxo]

Ubuntu removed itself from my list of recommended distros a long time ago!

yeah except they arent

[decora]

if you look at who actually funds 'free software', a lot of it is the same big companies that are getting megabucks off of the surveillance state.

a company like Apple has to take responsibility for how its creations are used, and deal with privacy issues... but with free software the makes just claim 'not my problem' and continue their work without asking too many questions about where the money comes from.

what are the odds that drones contain free software? extremely high.

RMS Disagree at your own peril

[mlwmohawk]

I read a lot of negative comments about RMS and it makes me sick. He is fanatical, sure, but he has a track record of *always* being right before anyone notices.

People should be reminded that the "free" in "free software" applies to freedom and not a monetary consideration. Privacy is an important part of freedom.
Cardinal Richelieu:
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."

The idea is the privacy and private information must remain private because no matter how innocuous, it can be used to restrict your freedom.

RMS is right and we should support him in our own self interest.

Re:RMS Disagree at your own peril

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes you sick to read pseudoanonymous negative comments written about a public figure on the internet? Well buttercup, you need some sensitivity training, you aint seen nothing yet.

Re:RMS Disagree at your own peril

[Anonymous Coward]

He is fanatical, sure, but he has a track record of *always* being right before anyone notices.

He has stated that non-free software is immoral. He's wrong, VERY WRONG. But, continue to suck his crusty dick, as you seem to enjoy.

Re:RMS Disagree at your own peril

[unixisc]

I read a lot of negative comments about RMS and it makes me sick. He is fanatical, sure, but he has a track record of *always* being right before anyone notices.

I'm sure he's right about pedophilia as well?

Re:RMS Disagree at your own peril

[mlwmohawk]

I'm sure he's right about pedophilia as well?

I'll ignore the obvious implied ad-hominem (accusing anyone of pedophilia is an attack) and talk about the quote. It is important to be able to discuss sensitive and emotional matters in an unemotional and controversial way. The sub-quote about pedophilia was part of a much larger abstract treatment of social morals and laws around sex and, in fact, did not make any direct claims one way or another. It merely cited a lack of evidence that un-coerced acts caused harm and that it is likely that the coercion, itself, does. Which, given research and a common feeling of "violation" amongst victims isn't all that unreasonable. Also, given the context of the quote, I believe that it was aimed toward maturing adolescents and obviously not about little children, which you seem to want to imply.

Controversial people say controversial things. Things are controversial because they challenge perception. Stupid people react to controversy with hysterics and hatred, intellectual people respond to controversy with reason.

What could be more social?

[Rob the Bold]

What could be more social than having your Ubuntu Quantal-using attorney searching for your files using relevant (embarrassing, incriminating, deal-queering, etc.) keywords and having that data transmitted to a non-privileged 3rd party? Doesn't get more social and enjoyable than that.

Already done.

[UltraZelda64]

If you ever recommend or redistribute GNU/Linux, please remove Ubuntu from the distros you recommend or redistribute.

Already did this many years ago. Canonical has given me countless reasons to recommend against them since approximately 2008-2009. This, since it was announced, was just yet another in a long string of reasons for me to be against installing Ubuntu on any of my own machines in the future as well as to stop recommending it to other people. I'm sorry, but if I'm searching for a local file with a somewhat private name, there is no reason whatsoever for that text to be sent over to Canonical and Amazon. And if I wanted to be sold shit, I would just head to amazon.com or newegg.com... last I checked, Ubuntu came fully equipped with a web browser and capable of allowing its users to securely and expectedly order products without having to send every single "local" system search out to corporations.

What has been an interesting excersise, going insa

[SmallFurryCreature]

What has been an interesting excersise, going insane?

WHAT does MY personal computer located in my house NEED from a public space in order to search my LOCAL files?

THERE IS NO NEED! Why should a search for "taxform 2012" go to amazon? If I want to buy a book about taxes, I can GOOGLE it MYSELF! I AM NOT LOOKING FOR A BOOK ON TAXES, I am looking for MY OWN data. Not amazons or anybody elses, MINE on MY hardware.

Even if am looking for music, anyone with more then two brain cells (Americans, you can stop reading here) knows that if you can't find a song in your private library, you have to either do without or find a way to download or buy it. I do NOT need Amazon to know when I am in the mood for a piece of music I already bought.

This move by Ubuntu is an INSANE leap into an amount of privacy invasion that is practically unheard off. This is not even CLOSE to what Facebook has pulled, at least when I am on facebook I KNOW I am on SOMEONE elses system where the most common goal is to share information.

I have NO such expectation when I am searching my own harddisk. I don't WANT to share my file searches, I have no need for it, it gives me no benefit it only is a massive privacy invasion.

I am perfectly okay with the bank knowing who I pay money to via a bank transfer, I got little to hide but THIS move by Ubuntu would be your bank installing a camera in your wallet to register every cash payment you make anywhere and see if there is something they can sell you because of it.

NO

The entire argument of the parent poster that your personal computer has somehow become public property because your BROWSER can be used to connect to other computers so search in a FILE EXPLORER should be send to other computers as well is such a leap of insanity I fear for the posters long term health, I fear he might keep it and continue to vote. It is an insane idea. What next, my car goes on the public road so my car is a public road? I go into public spaces so I am a public space?

The parent poster is probably someone who has used the word "cyberspace" and meant it. Sorry kid, my computer is a simple tool and it is MY property and I don't want data I don't want to go out to be send out especially when it doesn't serve my interests. My PC, Laptop, Tablet, Phone are NOT public terminals.

I wonder if the parent poster even ever heard of the concept of a firewall. Even Windows nowaday asks whether you want to allow a program to send data to the outside world. Granted, windows firewall is far from perfect but at least it tries. Ubuntu doesn't. And that is really really bad.

And all those who think it is worth for the ONE time they searched for a file and wanted to find a book they wanted to buy but only through amazon... please, try for a Darwin Award. It is something to tell your kids about...promise!

Way ahead of you

[GameboyRMH]

Already done.

I would use a different term than "fanatic"

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

RMS is a fanatic, plain and simple. He may be a fanatic for a good cause overall, but he is still a fanatic.

I'm something of a student of human nature and I'm really good at observing people and understanding their motivations and often making accurate predictions on what I see. I believe that about 10% or so of human beings are just like RMS. I don't like to use the term "fanatic" because while technically correct, I think it's too limiting. You see, people like RMS don't just see software in those terms or one thing in life in a fanatical way, they see everything in life in narrow terms. I call them "people who see everything in black and white". These people do not agonize over any day to day decisions like which model of car should I buy. Everything to them is crystal clear - good - bad, right - wrong, great - terrible, etc. Everything to them is quite clear and there's no areas of gray or ambiguity.

One of the things about these people is that they tend to be very religious. Now that does not mean that all religious people are like that, despite what many Slashdotters would love to believe, but it does mean that these people do tend to gravitate towards religion. For example, I believe that most of Al Queda's membership is made up of these people. This is why they are willing to commit suicide - the evil in non-believers is so apparent that it's repulsive to them. People who see the world in black and white will sometimes change their minds on something and they will go from opposing it to promoting it or from loving it to hating it. But they don't go back and forth. If they change their minds, that change is probably permanent. And they tend to be completely obsessed with following the "rules", which at times may be religious teachings, and punishing those who do not obey those same rules. They're the kind of people who want severe punishments for minor infractions, like wanting to put someone in jail for a year for running a stop sign. I served on a jury 7 years ago with a guy like this and it was not pleasant as it took some incredible work by our foreman to get him to agree to a guilty verdict on 2 of 3 counts we had to decide on when 11 of us felt strongly that he was innocent on one count and this one guy threatened to hang the jury unless we voted guilty on all 3 counts.

The most frustrating thing about people like this is that they do not get at all that they are the weird ones. They mistakenly believe that everybody sees the world in the same clear cut way that they do. So this is why you are almost always wasting your time in trying to reason with them and get them to see another point of view. To them any other point of view is irrational and they believe that anyone who holds another point of view is insane because they think that no rational person could ever believe something different from them. So this is why when people rail against RMS and point out inconsistencies or fallacies with his arguments that he digs in. He's truly incapable of seeing any other point of view because he views such as irrational and illogical. At least, that's my guess.

Re:I would use a different term than "fanatic"

[icy.viper]

This is not a simple matter of fanaticism because RMS holds a special position in the world of linux. He can't simply write an essay as if writing to one other person. He's writing to a legit audience, trying to trigger an emotional response.

He has felt threatened by the privacy issue, and yes, it is indeed an issue. Permit me an aside on this moment. Just because we live in the "facebook/twitter generation", as one user wrote, or apparently have free apps that also share this data, does not mean that the position of the Free Software Foundation should suddenly shift to allow for shared user privacy. Even *if* the "majority" supports sharing of private data to the "world", since when 1) are linux users are in the majority? , and 2) do GNU/Linux , the FSF, and other free software groups care about what everyone else does?

The simple point in question is that an application was sending something out without the user's knowledge. These sorts of things used to be called bugs, if not holes/security leaks. Yes, perhaps in his black/white world, as you put it, RMS is seeing this action as wrong, and can you blame him?

Now, how does a figurehead go about triggering an emotional response? With aggressive language, with glittering generalities, with reminders of ideals and goals, and yes, even with some propaganda. Some may see these techniques as overly exaggerated, fanatical, wrong, etc., but there is a term for this and it is called eloquent. He is trying to catch a problem in its early stages before it goes viral, and we must all open our eyes to examine for ourselves whether he may be on to something.

icy`

Re:I would use a different term than "fanatic"

[NoMaster]

"I don't like to use the term "fanatic" because while technically correct, I think it's too limiting."

Correct. "Zealot", or even "bigot", would be better terms.

Or, as the extended entry in my dictionary puts it:

An enthusiast displays an intense and eager interest in something. A fanatic is not only intense and eager but possibly irrational in his or her enthusiasm; fanatic suggests extreme devotion and a willingness to go to any length to maintain or carry out one's beliefs. A zealot exhibits not only extreme devotion but vehement activity in support of a cause or goal. An extremist is a supporter of extreme doctrines or practices, particularly in a political context.

But it is the bigot who causes the most trouble, exhibiting obstinate and often blind devotion to his or her beliefs and opinions. In contrast to fanatic and zealot, the term bigot implies intolerance and contempt for those who do not agree.

Re:I would use a different term than "fanatic"

[Anonymous Coward]

Please. You're a know nothing in the guise of being intelligent on the subject. You make long posts just to look insightful.
 
RMS is a fundamentalist loon. Not even worth hearing his crap.

Re:I would use a different term than "fanatic"

[Anonymous Coward]

While I HAVE met some people like that, the "weirdos", RMS is not it. You made a good argument, but failed to really link such a psychological condition to RMS. Have you read his novels, his philosophies, his reasons, his legal basis, his vision for free software, for abundance and not scarcity? If not, then you're simply just another guy on the internet talking out of your ass.

RMS does what he does for a reason. His reasons are coherent, visionary and easily searchable. If you do not have the time to trouble yourself reading up on the guy, I have no time to waste on you.

Btw, prediction is just what these people you criticize do all the time themselves, the black and white people. They will do everything to make their own thoughts make sense, except reject their thoughts until independent confirmation. Instead, they will justify their thinking using any means necessary, which is an entirely flawed way to reasons things out, but an excellent way to reach your goals - just that it will be the wrong goals, with the wrong consequences.

Wise people reject their own, and others', thoughts. Just thought you deserve this gem, because your words are basically good, just don't believe in them too much ;)

Re:I would use a different term than "fanatic"

[rohan972]

10% of the population is a pretty significant demographic, you should reassess your characterization of these people as weird. Why should I agonize over day to day decisions? What I've noticed about people who like ambiguity is that they are often deliberately refusing to see something clearly so they can justify or refuse to confront bad behaviour. Do you want your spouse to interpret your wedding vows in black and white, or is a bit of adultery ok?

Any type of personality has it's pros and cons. When people take a principled stand it will often take a person who sees things in black and white to initiate that action, but I have been known to dig my heels in and subsequently find out I was wrong. For some reason, you are willing to rise out of your customary shadowy confusion to judge that as clearly wrong, where did your ambiguity go when I need it? :)

If there were no "black and white" type people, the world would grind to a halt with all the navel gazing. If there were only "black and white" type people, the world would grind to a halt while we all argued. We need each other.

Re:I would use a different term than "fanatic"

[mnooning]

> His reasons are coherent, visionary and easily searchable. If you do not have the time to trouble yourself reading up on the guy, I have no time to waste on you.

Absolutely!

First, Zontar_Thing_From_Ve sets himself up as an expert on the subject, then basically - reading between the lines - declares people who are willing to take stands to be fanatics, then declares - again reading between the lines - that they are fanatics about most things, and states "they do not get at all that they are the weird ones."

What hubris!

Re:I would use a different term than "fanatic"

[znanue]

RMS is a fanatic, plain and simple. He may be a fanatic for a good cause overall, but he is still a fanatic.

You see, people like RMS don't just see software in those terms or one thing in life in a fanatical way, they see everything in life in narrow terms. I call them "people who see everything in black and white".

Those of us who are not sociological experts do, too.

For what it's worth, I believe we could probably partition most of humanity into disjoint sets each comprising a less than 10% of the population who thinks of all the other members of the other sets as unreasonable people and yet think of themselves as part of the reasonable majority.

I don't understand how your post was moderated up. It seems rather commonly held knowledge and the archetype of the overly moral or righteously indignant person is ubiquitous in literature. Moreover, your post seems so pat and smacks of pretension.

Z

Re:I would use a different term than "fanatic"

[rajafarian]

"He's truly incapable of seeing any other point of view because he views such as irrational and illogical."

Yeah, come on RMS, some people WANT to be fucking slaves.

Re:I would use a different term than "fanatic"

[marcello_dl]

Except that at least for the religion I am familiar with, a fundamentalist cannot force anybody or hurt him in any way without going against the most important commandment and the set example. So a fanatic, as described by you, has a dose of grey in his white.

Also, if a weird guy says `it is going to end up like this`, and that happens for real, it is indeed the other guys and their rambling marketspeak who suffer from disconnection from reality. So I refuse an appeal to majority. The majority deals with problems the would not have with FOSS every day, pay when more powerful free alternatives exist, and so on.

Seeing everything in black or white is being fanatic, but calling black black and white white is being right. Truth has always been hated, by imposing lies or by adopting relativism. Those two strategies are not opposed, they are cooperating. Don`t fall for it.

Re:I would use a different term than "fanatic"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ridiculous, you're completely insane.
He's either a fanatic or he isn't, it's quite simple.

Re:I would use a different term than "fanatic"

[Anonymous Coward]

Very interesting comment. Have you read about the genesis of the FSF (the printer driver source code he couldn't have, which set him into a pique of anger, resulting in the FSF)? What's your take on that?

Re:I would use a different term than "fanatic"

[Anonymous Coward]

Who modded this obvious, self righteous drivel?

This "student of human nature" makes "accurate predictions" on what he sees? No way! So does nearly everyone else! You can thank your mirror neurons for that feature.

Re:I would use a different term than "fanatic"

[Anonymous Coward]

The word you're looking for (or actively avoiding; it's hard to tell from a distance) is: principled.

1 Question: IS HE WRONG HERE?

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject-line above & answer the question...

* Personally I don't think he is on this topic... especially based on what I've been reading here from others & their comments on this!

APK

P.S.=> Being an alleged "fanatic" doesn't necessarily make him incorrect on his points here regarding intrusive search data (especially on LOCAL diskdrive data - that's "the one" that "set me off" personally in the comments here -> "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.", from the article itself, see above ) being sent out to external concerns...

... apk

ubuntu is crap

[Anonymous Coward]

who the fuck even uses that shit, sick of these lame ass kids these days, make it debian or don't bother.

Go RMS

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't always agree with RMS about everything, but his utterings tend to carry more weight than a truckload of Slashdot comments.

Plenty of other Distros

[Anonymous Coward]

I never went to that distro, just like I avoid Suse and Redhat.

What timing...

[3seas]

Now I know why windows is so convoluted that you have to use it search engine to find where it decided to place stuff (i.e. wget...)

I agree, no more U for me

[Anonymous Coward]

Insert quote from Linus here...

GTFO

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS has been fighting for good shit since before alot of you punks were even born.

If you got some bad shit to say about RMS, your a punk ass bitch.

It's as simple as that.

You fuckers gonna dis on MLK too? Gahndi? What people gotta be fucking perfect or you gonna post your crap?

Jesus people, stay focused.

Stand in opposition to bullshit.

Re:GTFO

[Anonymous Coward]

You're comparing free software to the civil rights movement... are you fucking retarded? You're talking about computer programs, not human beings.

Stallman objects to that too

[Quila]

Even having a universal search option for users with network search off by default is "dangerous" according to him.

No, he demands one button for local search and one for network search. Screw the ease of use for the user, we know what is better for him. Reason #3462 for why free software user interfaces traditionally sucked.

Less QQ more PEW PEW

[Anonymous Coward]

The beauty of FOSS software, including Ubuntu, is that if you dont like what it does, then you have the ability to change it to do what you want it to do.

Ubuntu rather you and I want to admit it, is the platform that seems to be doing the best on the Desktop market. This post is really about the desktop though so lets just keep it with that. As of the time of this post, Steam is porting to Linux, but really only to Ubuntu. The interface is simple to use (though I happily admit that I install Gnome 3 and use that), and the installation is straightforward and simple to understand. Getting new applications and installing them is just as simple as Debian ever was, but with a UI that my less computer savvy friends can easly deal with. Its elegant in that it does everything that a desktop user needs it to do.

And then comes the evil spying corporate droneisms that we seem to be ranting about here. Well stop the bitching guys and alter the software to your liking. Someone above suggested removing the unity-lens-shopping package which is precisely what I mean. If it does something you dont like, then change that it does that. And if you have a problem with the distribution overall then you have two choices...

a. Dont use it.
b. Take their packages and make your own version of it with the packages that you DO want.

Its really that simple. RMS is a voice that should be heard even if for no other reason than because he is the one that says everything must be FOSS. Just the same as Linus seems to be a voice of reason while Bruce is the voice of reality. All our voices need to be heard because WE are the users of the software and each point of view needs to be at least considered. But again, if you dont like what Ubuntu is doing then choose your fate from the options above.

Thank you.

As bad as the US Government

[Anonymous Coward]

Stallman here, is as bad as the US Government when they use the term 'Eminent domain' for seizing something they want but which doesn't belong to them. As an example, a few years ago two Israeli researchers created a new cryptographic technology in Israel. They applied for a US patent along with patents in other countries. They then toured Europe, Asia, and about 100 universities in the United States describing their research before the US government got back to them, not with a patent, but with a security order instructing them that their patent was denied and that they are ordered to turn over all materials in the creation of the technology, and are not to tell anyone about it (under penalty of US criminal law), and faced fines or imprisonment if they refuse. In gamer speek "All of your base are belong to us". The normal procedure for the US patent system was 1. Accept new technologies 2. run it past the military folk: if its juicy, instead of issuing a patent, issue a security order which means they shut up and are not compensated until someone else comes up with it that we can't control, then issue the patent, otherwise its not juicy so 3. issue the patent. The mistake made was either that foreign nationals can't create anything juicy the military would want, or they can bully foreign nationals around just like the local folks. They were mistaken. There is nothing in the GPL about privacy. It can be used for evil, it just has a very specific copyright regime. Richard wanted green grass and unicorns. Its a green sunny meadow, but there are no unicorns.

People who mod parent down

[Anonymous Coward]

must be delusional or part of the shill. Nothing more closer to the truth. Well said.

Like I care what some neckbeard has to say

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a heavy Linux user, but when I do, I use Ubuntu. I'm sorry if it no longer meets RMS's precious purity test, but I don't give a shit. I'm not surprised that the open source zealots would start pissing on a distro as soon as it actually started to become comparable, quality wise, to Windows and MacOS.

If you're a sniveling little wuss, then feel free to compile your Linux distro from source. I'll stick to what works.

RMS Speaks out about Google

[Anonymous Coward]

In a post at the Free Software Foundation website, Richard Stallman has spoken out against Chrome because of Google's decision to integrate Google search results in the browsers search. He says, 'Chrome, a widely used and influential browser, has installed surveillance code. When the user searches her own local files for a string using chrome, Google sends that string to one of Google's servers. (Google is the company that develops Chrome.) 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 Chrome," that's much less powerful than saying, "free software won't spy on you." It behooves us to give Google whatever rebuff is needed to make it stop this. ... If you ever recommend search engines, please remove Google from the search engines you recommend.

ignore

[geschild]

negating failed mod

RMS Again?

[nurb432]

The guy is a raving lunatic.. Even if he has something rational to say no one in their right mind would listen.

Re:RMS Again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of insulting comment. Sure, his views can be a bit extreme, but he is far from being a raving lunatic. Check out some of his talks in YouTube some day.

TANSTAAFL

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

Nothing is free. Those guys provide a service and need to pay folks and keep the lights on.

Do I like this "feature"? No, not at all.

Would I like it more if Ubuntu dried up and went away? No.

There are ways to easily disable this "feature" that are posted all over the place. If you like Ubuntu and value your privacy, disable this "functionality" and lodge your complaint with Canonical. Maybe they'll find a better way to earn a living without irritating their userbase.

Best,

There IS a fork!

[crhylove]

There are many, many Ubuntu forks actually, but I think Linux Mint 14 XFCE edition (release candidate just out!) addresses this and many other concerns. In addition Mint is more popular than Ubuntu already on distrowatch and by several other metrics. It has a no nonsense interface (FUCK UNITY, and FUCK GNOME 3), is incredibly fast (8 second boot up on older hardware?!?! YES PLEASE!), and has all the good parts of Ubuntu baked in (apt, millions of apps, etc..).

Just get rid of Ubuntu altogether. It's been crap since it's crap brown days, and still is. They don't listen to end users, they don't really advance the platform, and I'm convinced Canonical has an agreement with Microsoft to continue to suck so that MS can stay in business.

Linux Mint is the bomb.com, go try it out and forget about Ubuntu!

Oh well, hello mint

[Vince6791]

The amazon search feature is useless and it does not work. It also ruins your internal files and applications searches. I think you can remove the amazon feature. But, ubuntu 12.04 has amazon search as well, but, it's placed in the last tab of the unity dash. What i understand is that ubuntu only queries your searches it does not grab any system or personal info and sells it to third parties like the way google and facebook does it. If it does snoop into your privacy I say FUCK YOU to that rich stupid ass oligarch motherfucker for selling out. And I was amazed that canonical was asking for donations when downloading that bloated broken ubuntu 12.10 which is really still in a beta stage. Ubuntu 12.04 works beautifully, 12.10 unity without proper video drivers can't be run, no more 2d support either i think it uses mesa which is so damn slow.

Finally

[mrprogrammerman]

The year of Amazon on the desktop?

Power of free software

[ciphermonk]

I do think RMS has a very good point here. But regardless of what he says, Canonical is clearly not introducing online Amazon searches for the pure benefit of their user base. Their intentions are pretty clear: they want to make commissions by taking advantage of their dominant position in the GNU/Linux market. They would never have introduced this feature when Ubuntu was a new, small distribution. As the saying goes: power corrupts.

At the end of the day, we're in a free market and Canonical might as well do as they please and if they want to milk their user base, it's their right to do so. However, considering that most of Canonicals user base are technologically savvy individuals that value their privacy, that's probably a bad move from them. I believe that it's only a matter of time before Canonical realizes that, publicly apologizes and removes the feature from their operating system. Either that or Ubuntu will be forked and maintained by a more ethical organization.

That's ultimately the power of free software. In the long run, bad players will get weeded out.

Cult Think

[Anonymous Coward]

Just read how he describes this feature - as something super malicious and then gives an all or nothing approach to the issue at hand. This guy had some genuinely good ideas, but we aren't at church and frankly the fact that someone is trying to make money with free software while giving people convenience should not be shot down.

Get a grip Richard. The world of pure hobbyist programmers making an alternate everything to the commercial world is ridiculous and counter productive.

Google is spying you

[Anonymous Coward]

By default, on Ubuntu, Firefox is asking Google if the page you are visiting is secure! (Edit/Security/Block sites...).

It is incredible that Google KNOWS everything about your browsing habits (without your explicit consent).

Approved list of vendors/software/hardware

[Anonymous Coward]

Life would be so much easier if RMS were to post a short list.
A list of the retailers (if there are any), manufacturers (if there are any), software (if there is any), etc. that he approves of.
It seems as though every other day there's yet another RMS rant on why something is violating our rights and freedoms.

I'm all for freedom, in nearly every sense of the word, as well as safety and privacy.
I've followed FSF from the beginning and consider myself an advocate, avoiding many of those products and/or services that have been deemed to be taboo by RMS.
But he needs to write a nice short "cheat sheet" style list of RMS approved;
maybe it could even be an app on approved handheld device (if there are any) from an approved manufacturer (if there are any) running an approved OS (if there are any), that I could buy from an approved retailer (if there are any). RMS, what's left for me to use/buy?

Re:Approved list of vendors/software/hardware

[unixisc]

Oh, he has a short enough list - of 1. Use a Lemote computer based on the Loongson CPU running gNewSense, and you might have his seal of approval.

khm...

[peacefool]

"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."

- Attention, we have an *pple lawyer here!

-1 Unity

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the Ubuntu ecosystem and use it on all my servers but I will never upgrade to Unity+Amazon. Mint here I come.

Un-ity changed my mind

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to think that RMS was just Nucking Futz on some of these issues then Ubuntu went and imposed Unity on me.....

Now I call it Un-ity because it is just unbelievable that they feel they can dictate the desktop experience to me. I went to Ubuntu because I didn't like Microsoft or Apple dictating my desktop to me and now they do it? WTF? I have been actively looking at alternatives like Mint, Debian and others. I'll probably switch over the holidays when I have spare time. I've given Un-ity a fair try but not my cup of tea. And what arrogance for Unbuntu to try and force this decission down my throat.

For one example: The idea that all icons have to be a certain size and that size is determined by the resolution of a finger size is just dumb. If I'm on a computer that has a pointing device like a stylus or mouse the resolution is much greater and could easily be put to use. But nooooooooooo (to quote Belushi) everything has to be done to the lowest common denominator. That is stupid.

I got kicked off the Ubuntu boards and don't really care any more. I'm moving on and I don't think RMS is completely nuts anymore.

RMS would b!tch

[Anonymous Coward]

if he was hung with an old rope.

Reactionary

[Anonymous Coward]

It is too bad that the one company that has done the most to popularise Linux gets blasted for doing something for their commercial interest. At least They have been forthcoming with information about the Amazon search feature/bug (depending on how you see it). You don't have to use it, and are free to remove the tool. The alternative is to let Linux move further into the margins. As a desktop distro, Ubuntu is the best option for those taking the rather scary plunge away from Windows. It's also the distribution most likely to win support from Valve (Steam), a fact which stands to put a nice dent (or at least sratch) in the market shares of of Windows 8 (aka the disater).

Mark Shuttleworth does not deal well with conflict

[Futurepower(R)]

The fundamental problem is that Mark Shuttleworth, who owns Canonical and the Ubuntu and Kubuntu trademarks, does not deal well with conflict. In this case he has made a decision that is destroying the reputation of his company.

I tried to talk with him about resolving conflict perhaps 2 years ago, but he did not take sufficient interest.

GNU on the decline

[unixisc]

The guy is a failed developer whose only two projects, eMacs and GCC, were both forked AWAY from him, he is a self proclaimed "squatter at MIT" who has admitted that he doesn't even surf the net

Emacs was a good system in the olden days when vt100 terminals and monochrome monitors were the norm. If somebody uses an X-based GUI, I can't for the life of me see how Emacs makes sense in this scenario. Unless the unit really lacks much of a GPU, but even then. Oh, and Emacs is one of those rare programs that uses more of the features of X

GCC - well, the wheels are coming out off that one, thanks to GPL3. FreeBSD has already joined OS-X in deprecating it, and I wouldn't be too surprised if other non-Linux OSs follow. Even Linux OSs - I expect that a time will come soon when the next TiVo like companies would avoid using any GNU userland, and maybe do the converse of what Debian does in kFreeBSD - combine the Linux kernel w/ non-GPL userland, similar to BSD. Or maybe use Minix 3 instead of Linux in the first place.

As for Canonical, I think that they didn't have, as Sherlock Holmes once put it, 'the supreme gift of an artist - the idea of when to stop, and hence, ruined everything'. They were doing fine w/ GNOME2, and they could have introduced Unity as a new 'try-it-out' option for their new version, instead of deprecating GNOME2 as a whole. Just like Microsoft could have done w/ Metro. As for the adware, can't someone build ad-blockers into the Linux versions of Firefox, Chrome, Konqueror, GNOME Web or whatever it is Linux browser users use?

I think the next Shuttleworth - if there is one - would do well to repeat the experiment, but this time w/ a PC-BSD derivative plus any missing drivers, so that something like it works right OOTB. Not w/ any GPL based stuff. Do it w/ PC-BSD, maybe even make hardware (hey, port it to ARM or MPS if that improves your margins) and sell it. It would still have to be price compatible w/ the Dells and HPs - few are buying the more expensive System 76s - and then it would have a fair chance of getting some market, particularly if the Windows 8 situation doesn't improve.

Re:GNU on the decline

[Culture20]

As for Canonical, I think that they didn't have, as Sherlock Holmes once put it, 'the supreme gift of an artist - the idea of when to stop, and hence, ruined everything'. They were doing fine w/ GNOME2, and they could have introduced Unity as a new 'try-it-out' option for their new version, instead of deprecating GNOME2 as a whole. Just like Microsoft could have done w/ Metro.

Exactly. They were trying to court the corporate world's money with "Look at us, we're totally unstable and you can't plan anything around our distro. Please pay us for support contracts".

Profitable GPL companies? RMS loathes them

[unixisc]

Actually, the one companies that do make money off Linux - namely RedHat and arguably Google - are companies he hates. So Hairyfeet's point above was accurate. The other one - TiVo - he loathes to the point that he named them while putting together GPL3. He is more of an asshole than even Theo de Raadt supposedly is.

Was He High

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps RMS was high from eating his own toxic toe jam, or maybe he had some coke stuck in his neck beard he sniffed up before making his statement.

I think

[NewYork]

RMS speaks out against Ubuntu and RMS speaks out against Ubuntu business strategy are 2 different things.

On pragmatism

[Anonymous Coward]

To think for a minute on what is more pragmatic, to reconcile with our present circumstances and give in? One might conclude that it is the best strategy to go for, when it is only his interests that matter to him. What about the whole of mankind? Is such forced reconciliation the best thing for the whole of man, to have everyone give in to infinitesimal changes that occcur in their daily lives, such as the one that is the centre of this debate here. To say it very concisely, RMS just wants to convey that the sum of infinitesimals is an integral. It is said that we all are being boiled slowly in a pot of water, and hence are unable to discren that we are being cooked.

Noobs that don't use error handling are baffling

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially those that say code should be easy to debug and cool to look at (like you crutchy).

"...cos we all try to write code that "looks cool" and you know, writing code that functions and easy to debug is all of secondary importance" - by crutchy (1949900) on Sunday November 18, @02:55AM (#42017605)

FROM -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42017605

Yet where was crutchy's error handling here http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42016197 ???

(It's not. What a b.s. artist you are crutch.)

An article just for you here. Read it -> http://developers.slashdot.org/story/12/12/08/146250/the-scourge-of-error-handling noob.

You need it after your statement here quoted above, noob.

Thank-You... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the upmod from the -1 this post was bogusly downmodded to, when I noted here the next day on the SAME topic -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3304601&cid=42235477

APK

RMS is right

[apexwm]

Canonical has no business collecting personal data. Stallman has identified this and is making a good point, that it is counteracting the benefits of free open source software. Canonical can offer this feature, but it should be turned off by default at least. I understand they are trying to generate a revenue stream, but collecting data and putting ads on a desktop doesn't seem to be the way. They are better off utilizing other methods, similar to how Red Hat has created specific distributions targeted to businesses and support is offered for a premium.

Re:Noobs that don't use error handling are bafflin

[crutchy]

sore loser

Re:Noobs that don't use error handling are bafflin

[Anonymous Coward]

says the pitiful done nothing little noob who says he's a pro at programming but can't prove it (rotflmao).

Re:Noobs that don't use error handling are bafflin

[crutchy]

not saying much for yourself then, since the supposed noob found a bug in your code... you're not really doing yourself any favors

YOU didn't find a thing noob

[Anonymous Coward]

'CruTcHy' claims to have "debugged" MY code (that ran 5x PERFECTLY in front of him, and 100's of times before that too):

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3058625&cid=41091833

Funniest part? He didn't DEBUG a thing (he used an online debugger), and he didn't INDENT HIMSELF either, lol (see link above)

Funnier yet?? My code ran PERFECTLY in front of him, 5x in a row (some "bug", eh? Not, lol!):

---

http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42014943

http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42016015

http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42014957

http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42014957

http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42015649

---

LMAO - Funniest part of all though, from the troll 'CruTcHy' (lol) was this statement from him:

"...cos we all try to write code that "looks cool" and you know, writing code that functions and easy to debug is all of secondary importance" - by crutchy (1949900) on Sunday November 18, @02:55AM (#42017605)

FROM -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42017605 [slashdot.org]

Yet where was crutchy's error handling here -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42016197 ???

Oh, wait - It gets BETTER, read on!

When 'CruTcHy' (lmao) was asked to PROVE his statement he was a "professional programmer"?

Well - He flew into a rage foaming at the mouth, lmao (because he couldn't, lol):

"you're a moron for even assuming i need to justify myself... fuck knuckle if you don't like what i say, go back to fucking your sister" - by crutchy (1949900) on Monday November 26, @03:38PM (#42097505)

FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3272015&cid=42097505 [slashdot.org]

So much for THAT puny troll... lol!

Clue/new NEWS/NewsFlash, 'CruTcHy' - Profanities & "FoaMiNg-@-The-MouTh" raging rants "doth not proof make" of YOUR words, BUT, did prove you are a "pot calling a kettle black", lol... & his words?

He had to "eat those words", lol - flavored with the bitter taste of SELF-defeat, & his foot in his mouth!

I love it!

APK

P.S.=> Here endeth the lesson, & 'CruTcHy'? See the price you pay when you troll others, boy?? You fail... badly!

... apk

LMAO - 'CruTcHy' tries to *hide* truth

[Anonymous Coward]

'CruTcHy' claims to have "debugged" MY code (that ran 5x PERFECTLY in front of him, and 100's of times before that too):

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3058625&cid=41091833

Funniest part? He didn't DEBUG a thing (he used an online debugger)

and

LMAO - he didn't INDENT HIMSELF either which is his "big complaint" in my code (a paste to /. doesn't always format code properly, & his own post shows that too - see link above)

Funnier yet?? My code ran PERFECTLY in front of him, 5x in a row (some "bug", eh? Not, lol!):

---

http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42014943

http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42016015

http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42014957

http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42014957

http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42015649

---

LMAO - Funniest part of all though, from the troll 'CruTcHy' (lol) was this statement from him:

"...cos we all try to write code that "looks cool" and you know, writing code that functions and easy to debug is all of secondary importance" - by crutchy (1949900) on Sunday November 18, @02:55AM (#42017605)

FROM -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42017605 [slashdot.org]

Yet where was crutchy's error handling here -> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3258205&cid=42016197 ???

Oh, wait - It gets BETTER, read on!

When 'CruTcHy' (lmao) was asked to PROVE his statement he was a "professional programmer"?

Well - He flew into a rage foaming at the mouth, lmao (because he couldn't, lol):

"you're a moron for even assuming i need to justify myself... fuck knuckle if you don't like what i say, go back to fucking your sister" - by crutchy (1949900) on Monday November 26, @03:38PM (#42097505)

FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3272015&cid=42097505 [slashdot.org]

So much for THAT puny troll... lol!

Clue/new NEWS/NewsFlash, 'CruTcHy' - Profanities & "FoaMiNg-@-The-MouTh" raging rants "doth not proof make" of YOUR words, BUT, did prove you are a "pot calling a kettle black", lol... & his words?

He had to "eat those words", lol - flavored with the bitter taste of SELF-defeat, & his foot in his mouth!

I love it!

APK

P.S.=> Here endeth the lesson, & 'CruTcHy'? See the price you pay when you troll others, boy?? You fail... badly!

... apk

humble prop ...stalllman say - ubuntu - invasive

[Anonymous Coward]

As a daily normal user from 1990 of both unix like and dos,win please tell me :

- in case A named geek say do not like X OS for that Z machine - can be a nice/clean software world ?

I think also that geek "opinion" can be self contained in unbeateable simple/opinion messages - free from beeing sued by some attorney.

But please do not do it for clicks....

Respectfully,
mtiriba@gmail.com
Bucharest, RO

well, it worked

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS may be all or none of the things he's been called or accused of in these comments but one thing is for sure. We're all reading, talking, debating, and thinking about it.

This is the best thread I've seen on Slashdot in a long long time and who do we have to thank for it? I for one have done all I can to avoid the glaring eyes of Amazon and Google and preserve as much of my personal privacy as possible and using Linux as my only OS is part of that, even though at my skill level I would probably get more out of Windows(frustration included). I for one am thankful we have fanatics like RMS in this world as just like a gun, knife, or Backtrack, they all can be used for good or bad. Fanatic is also pretty close to passion, conviction, etc..

 

fanatic?

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS may be all or none of the things he's been called or accused of in these comments but one thing is for sure. We're all reading, talking, debating, and thinking about it. This is the best thread I've seen on Slashdot in a long long time and who do we have to thank for it? I for one have done all I can to avoid the glaring eyes of Amazon and Google and preserve as much of my personal privacy as possible and using Linux as my only OS is part of that, even though at my skill level I would probably get more out of Windows(frustration included). I for one am thankful we have fanatics like RMS in this world as just like a gun, knife, or Backtrack, they all can be used for good or bad. Fanatic is also pretty close to passion, conviction, etc..