Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
Just do 'sudo dpkg --purge unity-lens-shopping' and be happy.
Bruce Perens wrote this recently on slashdot.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/11/05/0122238/bruce-perens-answers-your-questions
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.
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.
"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.
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.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
how nice of you to decide for all of us:
"Socializing means giving your privacy up for the experiement"
how very nice. you jump to this, you're happy about it and you've given up the old ideas of privacy.
fine for you.
but not so fine for the rest of us who have not decided to 'just give up' and take the shiney.
(I really hope that there are more like me that will not take the shiney when it comes with such strings attached.)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Searching for local files is not one of the tidbits that needs to be sent out for it to work.
New user ID and fawning over corporations.
You sound like a paid shill.
if there's something you don't want anyone to know, don't do it in the first place.
Please post your bank and account password.
Please post a list of all your satisfied sexual preferences and all unsatisfied ones along with the photograph name and address and phone number of your current partner(s).
Oh and please also post:
a) Your real name
b) The porn films you most enjor beating off to (no lieing)
c) Your boss's email address
d) Your mom's email address
e) Your granny's email adddress
Really? you won't tell us?
Perhaps you should just sit in a box and do nothing ever again then.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
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'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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yeah, but does he force anyone?
No.
Because he respects the freedoms of others.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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!
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
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.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
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.
No, this is your hatred speaking, not reality. He is involved in emacs and gcc development even today.
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.
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.