Slashdot Mirror


Ubuntu Community Manager: RMS's Post Seems a Bit Childish To Me

spacenet writes "As a response to RMS speaking out against Ubuntu about its privacy-violating integrated Amazon search results, which he considers to be spyware, Ubuntu Community Manager Jono Bacon has addressed RMS's statements. In his reply, Jono claims that Stallman's views on privacy do not align with Canonical's, that some of his statements are worded in order to 'generate fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Ubuntu' and that 'it just seems a bit childish to me.' The comments on the post itself are well worth a read."

529 comments

  1. Re: Ooh boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linux troll trying to deflect the conversation. No critisim of Linux allowed

  2. Yeah.. and? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think we can agree that RMS can be childish. I was in the room when he broke into the room yelling at OSCON's Openoffice announcement. That's the way he is.

    Even though I don't and never will agree with him 100% (that's worship) I am happy he's there, especially when there are thousands of people on the other side in IT yelling through coporate bullhorns constantly. His big mouth is a counterweight. If the braindead microsoft zombies that control IT in corporate america have heard of anyone's views it is probably his. I am not sure if Ubuntu is trying to become yet another Open Source company that is canibalized and eaten from inside by today's vile corporate belief system, but at least RMS let us know it COULD happen...

    1. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      "His big mouth is a counterweight"

      I think more likely he has a foot in his mouth.

    2. Re:Yeah.. and? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      we saw it once. You can stop posting it.

    3. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much my first thought, too. How do you tell if RMS is sounding childish? His lips are moving. But reasonable people rarely really change anything.

    4. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      His big mouth is a counterweight.

      No, his big mouth is a liability for the open-source community. He is not a passionate but outspoken advocate of a movement; he is a single-minded, uncompromising advocate for his own opinions at the expense of everyone else's. Either you agree with him, or you are wrong.

      Have you ever encountered one of the Free Software Foundation's articles about a particular software topic, like copyright or patents or the advantages of free software? Ever notice that, typically, at least 80% of the citations in the article are to other articles by Richard Stallman? Like this one? The only opinion Richard Stallman really recognizes as objective or authoritative is his own earlier opinion.

    5. Re:Yeah.. and? by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Without corporate involvement, Linux wouldn't be anywhere near what it is today.

      OpenOffice and its derivatives (basically the de-facto office suites of linux) itself was born out of corporate interests.

      The GPL had the effect (unintended? I don't know as the philosophy of many developers involved in GPL projects seems to vary) of being that the software provides a service, and we don't (necessarily) profit from distributing the software itself, but rather profit from selling the services that it provides, or profit from selling services that provide for its users. Redistributing changes for others to use therefore does not harm your bottom line.

      Linux itself was written by Linus Torvalds, not RMS. And as far as I'm aware, other than GCC the majority of corporate distribution of linux to end users doesn't use GNUtils very much (e.g. android, tivo, soho routers, and many others.) Even if they did, they could always just take the BSD implementations which in nearly all cases are every bit as good.

      If RMS takes issue with that, he can go promote Hurd (aka Turd) to the world, which has little if any corporate involvement, and likewise is back in the stone age by comparison.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    6. Re:Yeah.. and? by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but at least RMS let us know it COULD happen...

      He could have a little class though doing it. Like bursting in and yelling "TROLL! In the dungeon! ... Thought you'd want to know," and then collapsing on the floor. Busting in on someone else's announcement and unleashing a string of profanities and ranting isn't classy -- it's how drunk people act. Is that really who we want as the poster child for the open source movement? A guy who looks like he hasn't shaved or showered in ages and acts piss drunk in public?

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    7. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scroll up, it's posted multiple times.
       
      Heh, captcha: overdone

    8. Re:Yeah.. and? by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Standard PR flak technique #137: When confronted by undeniable evidence of wrongdoing, attack the person or organization providing the evidence with accusations that can't be disproven. Words commonly used for this are "extremist", "conspiracy theorist", "silly", or "misguided".

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    9. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I noticed that dumb people cannot comprehend behavior hat is not limited by following extremely rigid social norms as if they were laws of nature.

      And when they see somebody who's not falling into that tiny little mold of allowed behavior, they think he's not "grown up enough" yet, in that he isn't yet molded to a perfect drone.

      They cannot process the concept that somebody would actually grow to a mental level, where he surpasses the extremely primitive and sometimes plain harmful social norms, and develops his own sense of what is acceptable and what not. Which is what it actually means to become a grown-up.

      Something most people never even remotely come close to in their entire lives.

      So that's why it looks "childish" to them. Because they themselves are still so mentally underdeveloped, that they think that's what being an actual grown-up means.

    10. Re:Yeah.. and? by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      But he needs to be more moderate in his expressions. The bad choice by Ubuntu developers was to put this feature by default. They could have put a splash screen that asked users to enable it if they liked an that would be the end of it, but calling Ubuntu spyware is insane.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    11. Re:Yeah.. and? by icebraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, his big mouth is a liability for the open-source community.

      He's not part of the open-source community. In fact, "open source" was created specifically for their members to distance themselves from GNU/FSF and rms.

    12. Re:Yeah.. and? by Microlith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem isn't corporate involvement. The problem is when corporate involvement leads down the path we're seeing Canonical take with Ubuntu, where they start shoving ads in your face.

      It fundamentally disrespects the user as it becomes apparent that you've given up on making them the customer and decided to sell them like livestock. It's why Facebook is so reviled on Slashdot, and why I can't stand most handset manufacturers (they build for the carriers and not the people who actually use the devices.)

    13. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without corporate involvement, Linux wouldn't be anywhere near what it is today.

      RMS doesn't have any problem with corporations, as long as they respect the freedoms that he considers important.

      And as far as I'm aware, other than GCC the majority of corporate distribution of linux to end users doesn't use GNUtils very much

      I've never heard of this "GNU Tils" thing, what does it do?

      If RMS takes issue with that

      Why don't you read what he's written and find out? Oh, of course, because actually knowing what he thinks would interfere with your mindless hatred.

    14. Re:Yeah.. and? by davydagger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the GPL is what made GNU/Linux a community, instead of a forgotten footnote.

      the GPL and GPL like licenses are what make the Open Source business model viable, as any potential competition has to share their improvements on your code with you. If it where BSD, you'd have something like OS X, where one company would make a locked down version, and no one else would be able to make their own version, and contributing your code in a community would not be viable, because you'd only help your competition, who'd be under no obligation to help you back.

      The GPL actually protects profits of companies.

      As for GNU. Its everywhere. Despite being ignored by most consumer goods, its present everywhere on the business side.

      RHEL and SLES running GNU, as does zLinux, and the other high end commericial distros.

      IBM uses GNU with its AIX workstations
      http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/software/aix/linux/index.html

      HP ports GNU to HP/UX
      http://hpux.connect.org.uk/hppd/hpux/Gnu/

      Apple OS X runs BASH as its default shell, as its available for a number of platforms.

    15. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really don't like some of RMS's pronouncements. It's Linux, no gnu to do with it. Linux without gnu would have a different compiler and a less crappy libc. Gnu without Linux would not have been heard of by about 99.99% of the folks here. However, even a broken clock is right twice a day, and in this case I agree with RMS. Now exsqueese me, I *really* need to shower.

    16. Re:Yeah.. and? by bonehead · · Score: 0

      No, his big mouth is a liability for the open-source community.

      100% agreed.

      Simply having his name attached to something decreases its credibility to almost nil.

    17. Re:Yeah.. and? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't corporate involvement. The problem is when corporate involvement leads down the path we're seeing Canonical take with Ubuntu, where they start shoving ads in your face.

      It fundamentally disrespects the user as it becomes apparent that you've given up on making them the customer and decided to sell them like livestock. It's why Facebook is so reviled on Slashdot, and why I can't stand most handset manufacturers (they build for the carriers and not the people who actually use the devices.)

      But then don't use Ubuntu. One things corporations respond to is user base. If Canonicals actions with Ubuntu displease users so they quit using Ubuntu, then Canonical will change what it is doing. As long as Canonical maintains its user base, however, things will keep on going the way they are.

      In linux, free as in beer also means that you are free to use whatever distribution you want.

    18. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question for me is not whether RMS can be childish. Everyone can be childish, that's human nature. The thing I'm wondering about is, can RMS behave like an adult? And if there's evidence of that, I haven't found it yet.

    19. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The GPL actually protects profits of companies.

      We have always been at war with Eurasia.

    20. Re:Yeah.. and? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Lets not forget when he was picking and eating his own toe jam in a public lecture.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    21. Re:Yeah.. and? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      "If it where BSD, you'd have something like OS X, where one company would make a locked down version, and no one else would be able to make their own version, and contributing your code in a community would not be viable, because you'd only help your competition, who'd be under no obligation to help you back."

      Little problem - the bits in OS X that haven't been contributed back are the bits Apple (or NeXt) wrote themselves, like Aqua (which is probably what you're thinking of). The improvements to open source code have been returned to the community - stuff in BSD, WebKit, LLVM, for example.

    22. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...In linux, free as in beer also means that you are free to use whatever distribution you want.

      So right.

      Ubuntu sends your searches of your own local files (yes, your own private, local files) to their own servers and then to who knows who else severs (Amazon it seems)...AND THEY STILL HAVE A USER BASE AT ALL?!?!

      Seriously people, you deserve what you get if you continue to deal with a company that does stuff like that.

    23. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be such a cunt. Seriously. We can all agree... bullshit. It is so lazy and so old to dismiss rms comments this way. Well he's crazy... Fucking yawn. Contribute to the argument or piss off.

    24. Re:Yeah.. and? by smash · · Score: 1

      Actually no, Linus is the reason Linux isn't a footnote. The GNU alone couldn't save HURD from irrelevance. And I say that as someone who finds himself disagreeing with Linus' stance more and more frequently these days.

      Make no mistake though, his leadership is the sole reason Linux took off in any significant way.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    25. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I donate USD10.00 each month to FSF and happily do so with the knowledge that free means libre not no-cost.

    26. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux Torvalds, the creator of the linux kernel, decided to use the GNU tool suite / tool chain to development an operating system around the kernel. Therefore, GNU has contributed greatly to the success of GNU/Linux. Linus could have chosen the BSD route but felt GNU was a better match for his vision. Are you going to start calling Linus Torvalds names?

    27. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you name a few instances where Stallman's ramblings have been wrong? So far as I can tell his track record is nearly perfect.

    28. Re:Yeah.. and? by ohnocitizen · · Score: 2

      We can avoid using Ubuntu (typing this on Mint currently), and also criticize them publicly to let them know *why* we are leaving. Otherwise they might think its for an entirely different reason, and that might change how they respond (if at all).

    29. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The GPL actually protects profits of companies."

      And yet Apple has somehow taken BSD and used it to become the world's richest company.

    30. Re:Yeah.. and? by bonehead · · Score: 2

      It's not so much a matter of being wrong (although he very often is). It's more the fact that even when he's got a good point, he still can't put together a coherent, well thought out argument and instead just comes across as an extremist nutjob (most likely because that's exactly what he it).

    31. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that tiny little mold

      Is that what he was eating off his foot?

    32. Re:Yeah.. and? by Just+Brew+It! · · Score: 2

      Erm... if you're running Mint, technically you are using Ubuntu. Unless you're running the Mint Debian Edition.

    33. Re:Yeah.. and? by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Wrong, his opinion is his opinion, something everyone is entitled to. Somehow there is a mass media driven distortion that one people have sufficient public attention they can be targeted people and their opinions can be forced to change to conform with selected desires of vocal groups. Those vocal groups can be real or just marketing driven illusions.

      Certainly Richard Matthew Stallman does challenge most copyright and patent controlled forms of software and would prefer a completely free market. That is his choice, that he desires to promote that view over all others is also his choice. That many people also support his opinion and share it does not mean that if you dislike elements of it you should resort to name calling and primitive attacks like the Apple marketdroids.

      Your comment itself reflects one thing, either they are with you are they are a big mouth who only believes in their own opinion. Gees get over it already, Richard Stallman supports and promotes a particular ideology of free software, many elements of which large numbers of the computer geek/nerd community support to a varying degree and oppose to a varying degree. The majority hopes he never ever buckles under, never ever sells out and continues to fight the good fight that he believes in.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    34. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am happy he's there, especially when there are thousands of people on the other side in IT yelling through coporate bullhorns constantly. His big mouth is a counterweight.

      RMS is in no way the counterpoint to the establishment. He is a shill. He has accomplished what no corporate behemoth could have; he destroyed the free (i.e. public domain) software movement.

    35. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If it where BSD, you'd have something like OS X, where one company would make a locked down version, and no one else would be able to make their own version"

      Derp.

      FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonFly BSD and others still exists and are "making their own versions" and on top of that damned near all of the Darwin base system in free and open source software (the darwin base being roughly equiv. to the other BSD base systems).

      "As for GNU. Its everywhere. Despite being ignored by most consumer goods, its present everywhere on the business side."

      You think BSD code isn't? o_O

    36. Re:Yeah.. and? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      It's not so much a matter of being wrong (although he very often is).

      Like what?

      It's more the fact that even when he's got a good point, he still can't put together a coherent, well thought out argument and instead just comes across as an extremist nutjob (most likely because that's exactly what he it).

      When RMS writes, it tends to be rather long, and actually pretty well thought out coherent pieces. Long, well thought out peices are the antethisis of reporting. Most reporting of what RMS says makes him come across like an extremest nutjob, but don't confuse what people say he says with what he actually says.

      And don't form your opinions of RMS from slashdot, either (except this post, naturally ;). Much of what people write here are positions that they assume RMS holds based on misunderstandings of the GPL and things they've heard other people say about him.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    37. Re:Yeah.. and? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Make no mistake though, his leadership is the sole reason Linux took off in any significant way.

      Yes and no, but don't underplay the significance of GNU. The reason Linus wrote Linux was to mess with a 386 and have a system to run the GNU tools at home. Without GNU, Linux would have been nothing more than a kernel. With GNU, overnight it became a full, if rather primitive operating system.

      And phrases like "saved HURD from irrelevance" are entirely meaningless.

      What the FSF wanted was a Free (tm) unixy operating system. Most of the components were done (all but the kernel) by the early 90s. A little bit of work had been done on the Hurd by 92 (it was started in 1990), then Linux came along in 92. It fit the bill, being both unixy and Free.

      So they got what they had been working on since 1983: a completely Free operating system.

      The FSF is rather pragmatic when it comes to authorship and do not suffer from NiH. If a GPLd component comes along from someone outside, they are entirely happy to adopt it to their cause.

      The FSF haven't been "trying to save Hurd from irrelevance" because they simply don't care. You make it sound like they do.

      It's still a GNU project and people still enjoy hacking on a microkernel, but son't believe from that that the FSF are on some quixhotic quest to replace Linux with Hurd.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    38. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not so much a matter of being wrong (although he very often is).

      Like what?

      I'm just here to warn you that you are having a dialog with someone who calls himself "bonehead". That might become a frustrating experience.

    39. Re:Yeah.. and? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      If it where BSD, you'd have something like OS X, where one company would make a locked down version, and no one else would be able to make their own version, and contributing your code in a community would not be viable, because you'd only help your competition, who'd be under no obligation to help you back

      And yet FreeBSD still exists and is thriving. Apple has contributed code to the kernel, libc and userspace utilities directly, has relicensed Launchd at our request, and has indirectly contributed a huge amount via their contributions to LLVM (several full-time employees working on it), which is now our default system compiler. Other companies, such as Yahoo!, Netflix, and Facebook also contribute significant amounts of code to FreeBSD, in spite of the fact that they are competitors in some areas. When one makes a contribution to the network stack, for example, all of them benefit from needing fewer servers.

      Not all of their changes make it back upstream. Yahoo! generally sends back things that everyone would want, but they also have a fair bit of customisation that wouldn't make sense for anyone else. Would the GPL change this? No. Google has lots of changes to Linux that they keep private (including an entirely new distributed filesystem), because the GPL gives them no requirement to share changes with anyone except the people that they share the binaries with, and they keep all of this stuff secret. The assumption that the GPL requires sharing is based on a flawed assumption: that most code is distributed. Only 10% of developers work for software companies (and may of these work on private contracts, not off-the-shelf software), the rest work developing in-house code never for redistribution. We get a lot of contributions to BSDL software from these because it's cheaper to push changes upstream than to maintain a private fork. This also applies to larger companies too: Juniper has started pushing a lot of changes back to us and basing their products on a lightly-modified FreeBSD recently, because they were losing out on improvements upstream and other people were implementing (incompatible) versions of the features that they had in their private fork, making merging hard (read: expensive).

      It's also worth noting that published code is not necessarily useful. The canonical example of this is the Objective-C front end in gcc, which is a horrible piece of code, and was released by NeXT under duress. In contrast, the Objective-C code in clang is clean, layered, and easy to work with, yet was released by Apple without any legal obligations. Oh, and the clang version supports all of the features of Objective-C on all platforms, whereas the gcc version only supports a vaguely-new dialect of the language on Apple platforms and an ancient one elsewhere.

      Back to the original point, it doesn't matter if a company is for profit, it matters if their incentives are aligned with yours. In the case of the FreeBSD contributors, this is mostly the case. Their incentive is to make FreeBSD the best platform for their requirements. As long as their requirements aren't too different from everyone else's, then that's great. The problem with Canonical is that they want to make Ubuntu into the best platform for them to sell support contracts for, which isn't necessarily the same as the best platform to use.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    40. Re:Yeah.. and? by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      Even for the folks using the version based on Ubuntu: "Hi! I'm using a downstream version of your product that removes the software I take issue with, and keeps the parts I like. The removed software also happens to be a source of cash." is very different from "I'm using your product."

    41. Re:Yeah.. and? by Just+Brew+It! · · Score: 1

      Good point. However this also shows that the "Canonical doesn't put enough back to the Linux community" complaint we hear so much is silly. If this was true then distros like Mint would not use them as a starting point.

    42. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever encountered one of the Free Software Foundation's articles about a particular software topic, like copyright or patents or the advantages of free software? Ever notice that, typically, at least 80% of the citations in the article are to other articles by Richard Stallman? Like this one? The only opinion Richard Stallman really recognizes as objective or authoritative is his own earlier opinion.

      Then link to an artikle written bij Stallman, which contains at least "posted by" and a "copyright" text including his name. The Free Software Foundation Europe is a separate entity from the Free Software Foundation.

      More information about your use of open source instead of free software: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software - written by Richard Stallman, it even contains links to other online media.

    43. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you see he is smart.

      He knows that his announcement is not as powerful as his gaffe.

      His gaffe carries with it the discussion of the event and his ideals.

      He is a smart guy and professional activist. Trolling is often useful for getting attention to something in the first place.

      Activists - like PETA (dont tell me your opinion of whether their thing works or not, that's besides the point) often Troll to get attention to a particular topic , and I guess RMS was using this standard tactic.

      At least it seems pretty obvious he was going for "any publicity is better no publicity".

      Everyone loves to bitch about RMS - the worst thing for him would be that no one knows about him.
      He is a speaker ( in the device sense) and he tries to use that modulation that travels the highest distance - AM / FM or in this case , Shout/Noise Modulation, if you would.

    44. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if they did, they could always just take the BSD implementations which in nearly all cases are every bit as good.

      If RMS takes issue with that, he can go promote Hurd (aka Turd) to the world, which has little if any corporate involvement, and likewise is back in the stone age by comparison.

      In case anyone forgot what the proper definition of childish is.

      and if the OP decides to respond, my question is how much value do those "responsible for corporate distribution of Linux" really have? It's nice that they have found a way to make money using Linux, they deserve a pat on the back. But what do they contribute back to the Linux community? You can say we don't need RMS because we have another compiler, but what have Android, Tivo, or the makers of soho routers contributed back to Linux? Anything of note?

      Should we care about their opinions?

    45. Re:Yeah.. and? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      That's one thing I've been wondering... DOES Mint actually go through and take out the stupidity Canonical puts in? I imagine they ditched the phone-home search, since it's gotten so much open hate, but do they change anything else other than the UI?

      It still boggles the mind that every time I set up Ubuntu server, I still have to remove that stupid resolvconf daemon. What idiot thought a tool for bouncing between networks on a laptop needed to be in the default install for a goddamn server, I can't even guess.

    46. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's exactly one of the problems the GPL tries to address much better than the BSDL: proprietary extensions.

      Also, quoting WebKit, whose core is LGPL'd, doesn't exactly help your point.

    47. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, his big mouth is a liability for the open-source community

      With the "open source community" and 2$ you can buy yourself a coffee, what a bunch of mediocre sellouts who seem to be "inconvenienced" by whomever puts it like it is: the "open source community" is a juvenile cancer composed of corporate astro-turfers and those butt-hurt by the success of the GPL.

    48. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excuse the man, he has not found an open-src shaver yet.

    49. Re:Yeah.. and? by gnujoshua · · Score: 1

      Your point is well taken, but please note that the FSFE is not the FSF, so the example does not apply.

    50. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His opinions will never be valid until he can get his act together. He's filthy and disgusting. If he can't even take care of himself, he can't take care of anything else. Sorry.

    51. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about his rant about pedophilia?

    52. Re:Yeah.. and? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      That's one thing I've been wondering... DOES Mint actually go through and take out the stupidity Canonical puts in? I imagine they ditched the phone-home search, since it's gotten so much open hate, but do they change anything else other than the UI?

      It still boggles the mind that every time I set up Ubuntu server, I still have to remove that stupid resolvconf daemon. What idiot thought a tool for bouncing between networks on a laptop needed to be in the default install for a goddamn server, I can't even guess.

      Since the "phone home" search is part of Unity, Mint, or Kubuntu or Xubuntu or even Gnome-Ubuntu don't have it. Other than that, most of Ubunutu's infrastructure is still intact in Mint because Mint uses Ubuntu's repositories (or at least remains compatible with them).

    53. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Is that really who we want as the poster child for the open source movement?

      No. and rms most assuredly wouldn't want to be a poster child for the Open Source movement.

      The Free Software movement, however, is a very different thing ... look up th difference sometime.

    54. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not so much a matter of being wrong (although he very often is).

      Like what?

      The idea that people should care about free software. What tangible benefit does it offer that people should abandon their current systems for? Why should I do my computing like Stallman? For all his pontificating on the evils and dangers of non-free software it hasn't had any negative effect on me and I don't see how switching to free software would have any benefit.
      For the vast majority of people they wouldn't know or care whether they are using free software or not. Free software needs to produce better end user products and end user experiences than proprietary products to prove its worth and make people care, but in its 30-odd year history it has not done this. Free software is great on the backend - and often this has nothing to do with software freedom and is more about open source - but proprietary products are leading innovation for end users and abandoning proprietary products in favor of free alternatives (where they even exist) would in most cases be a significant regression.
      Free software like WebKit is great, but in most cases (like on iOS) users can't actually exercise many of those freedoms, nor do they care to so whether it's free or not makes no difference.

    55. Re:Yeah.. and? by readnotpost · · Score: 1

      No. and rms most assuredly wouldn't want to be a poster child for the Open Source movement.

      The Free Software movement, however, is a very different thing ... look up th difference sometime.

      People still confuse the terminology because they're so very similar and only subtly different that you'd have to be really funny and care about licensing to know the exact differences (in such a way that someone might care enough to know).

      The mere fact people think Stallman is a proponent of open source rather than free software, speaks volume about how catastrophically bad the FSF has been in presenting their message.

    56. Re:Yeah.. and? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Damn, that's what I was afraid of. So I can get a less cringeworthy UI, but I'm still subjecting myself to Canonical's seemingly mindless whimsy.

    57. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If people actually listen to RMS, he explains the difference between the open source movement and the free software movement. The FSF also promotes the same message. This message is, "proprietary software is a social problem and software freedom is the ethical solution"; the free software movement is the socio-political movement that promotes this message. The message of open source software is one of a software development method, "our software is better when we develop the software in collaboration with the public".

    58. Re:Yeah.. and? by readnotpost · · Score: 1

      Once you start mixing politics and software methods, most people tune out at that point. That's the problem - it's such a dry topic for most people that unless you're a geek, you're likely not going to care so much. And even if you're a geek, it doesn't necessarily mean that you'll agree with the FSF in the first place.

      The closest phone we've seen so far which adheres to the tenants of free software as thoroughly as possible has been Openmoko's Neo FreeRunner, which was complete shit. You have a normal person compare that thing to the iPhone, a heavily proprietary design, and the number which would select the proprietary phone is so far slanted in its favor you'd stop taking votes after a while.

      People end up not listening to RMS after a while because he comes across as the crazy man sprouting a bunch of things that, unfortunately, are often true, but are also mixed in with other stuff that ends up being hyperbole that destroys the whole message. Plus, what he advocates is generally to go without something that people often enjoy using (iPhones), and people don't just change because some bearded toe-cheese eater told them too.

    59. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue of freedom is quite simple: do you care about your sovereignty (freedom) OR are you going to let companies take control over your life and your community? Note that the issue of freedom has NOTHING to do with the development method used in developing software, the issue is the social impact of exchanging one's own freedom. For most of society, they are happy to exchange their freedom in for software. Most of society are also ignorant about the personal and social consequences of this exchange of freedom. Most of society are ignorant about the existence of freedom in the first place.

      RMS completely understands these consequences and that's why he started the free software movement to educate society of this social problem as well as the ethical solution. Nobody needs to be a geek to understand these issues, but it requires some education to appreciate it.

      When comparing the iPhone and the FreeRunner by technical merits, the iPhone will win in all aspects. When comparing the two by how abusive it is to the user's sovereignty, the iPhone is the most abusive. The people who are ignorant of the consequences of this abuse will choose the iPhone every time. Every single time, they will not live as a free and upstanding citizen but as a helpless subject who is forever appeasing to their master's good will.

      While it is easy to dismiss our message as hyperbolic rhetoric, please note that there really isn't a kinder way to deliver this message, "When users don't control the program, the program controls the users. The developer controls the program, and through it controls the users".

    60. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Define "thriving" because I think you don't understand what the word means

    61. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RMS is not part of some non-existent public domain movement.

      It is funny how his detractors don't even understand what free software means.

      Free software licenses like the GPL rely on copyright. When you release a GPL program that you wrote, you still own the copyright, and as such are 100% free to do with it as you please, since you own it. See Nokia(QT), Fyodor (Nmap), and many other authors of GPL software that also make it available with commercial licenses.

      Until you understand that free software does not mean public domain, you should sit down and pay more attention

    62. Re:Yeah.. and? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Millions of deployments, one of which is responsible for over 20% of the total Internet traffic in the USA, increasing numbers of developers, and a public foundation that gets a larger number and quantity of donations every year. From the Ohloh.net numbers, both the number of commits and the number of active committers have increased since last year (by 20% and 4% respectively). The number of corporate contributors is increasing, and several companies that were maintaining private forks are now working to integrate their changes upstream. Why, what does 'thriving' mean to you?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    63. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The very definition of ad hominem fallacy.

    64. Re:Yeah.. and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      20%?

      Are you high?

      FreeBSD has several orders of magnitude lower in usage in servers,embedded devices, and even moreso on Desktops.

      For every 1000 Linux machines, no matter what it is running on there is 1 FreeBSD machine, and that is taking a generous estimation of the situation.

      When you have such low numbers increases like 4%, or 20% or even 200% are pretty meaningless.

      FreeBSD, along with every other BSD are insignificant.

      Using your overly optimistic word thriving to describe FreeBSD, projects like SmallTalk are downright booming.

  3. Interesting.... by 3seas · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Now I'm being managed.... What another good linux distro? Anyone?

    1. Re:Interesting.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jono has held the position of "community manager" at Canonical since 2006.

    2. Re:Interesting.... by fredprado · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Try Mint. You will never go back to Ubuntu.

    3. Re:Interesting.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most of us are going (back) to Debian.

      It's broken away from some of the bad habits that made Ubuntu relevant in the first place.

      Although it still has its fair share of issues, but you'll have those in any group.

    4. Re:Interesting.... by chronokitsune3233 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Debian isn't too bad, and it's what Ubuntu is based upon, though it's not as "bleeding-edge" while still being stable. Others might suggest Fedora, Arch or Slackware if you want that, and I've heard good things about Sabayon as well, especially in the eye candy department, though it has been a few years.

      In all honesty, I keep going back to Debian. My needs aren't too difficult to satisfy, and I can compile something myself if I really need to. I'd recommend using virtual machines to test them first. Why overwrite a perfectly good installation just to find you don't like something?

      --
      I have been a captive in America my entire life. Everybody and everything uses customary units instead of metric.
    5. Re:Interesting.... by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Informative

      What another good linux distro?

      When Ubuntu decided to poop on their users with Unity, there was an exodus of biblical proportions to Linux Mint. That's why Mint is now the #1 distro.

      And thanks to Ubuntu's newest decisions, the Mint userbase is destined to grow even further.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    6. Re:Interesting.... by seyyah · · Score: 2

      Try Mint. You will never go back to Ubuntu.

      Didn't Mint do something vaguely similar by patching a package to redirecting searches to earn income for the distro rather than the original package authors?

    7. Re:Interesting.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except that i tried mint and i went back to ubuntu. Mint felt like it took all tge u iqueness if Ubuntu and crushed it with the standard Windows expectations. Boring, hackneyed and uninspired.j

    8. Re:Interesting.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kubuntu... unless you hate KDE. (NB: If your opinion of KDE 4.x was formed in the 4.0 or 4.1 days, do give KDE another try. Kubuntu seems to be currently using KDE 4.9.2 as its base.).

    9. Re:Interesting.... by Cow+Jones · · Score: 2

      Didn't Mint do something vaguely similar by patching a package to redirecting searches to earn income for the distro rather than the original package authors?

      No, that was Ubuntu, too. Ubuntu vs Banshee

      I'm only providing the link. Please don't interpret this as me siding with RMS against Ubuntu, or the other way around.

      CJ

      --

      Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
    10. Re:Interesting.... by Cow+Jones · · Score: 2

      When Ubuntu decided to poop on their users with Unity, there was an exodus of biblical proportions to Linux Mint. That's why Mint is now the #1 distro.

      IMHO, if they don't like Unity, it should have been an "exodus" to Kubuntu...
      If you haven't tried it, please do. It's beautiful.

      CJ

      --

      Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
    11. Re:Interesting.... by seyyah · · Score: 3, Informative

      Looks like they both might have been doing it: Linux Mint Diverting Banshee Revenue.

    12. Re:Interesting.... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Kubuntu is a fine KDE distro that gives you the advantages of Ubuntu's infrastructure and repositories without all of their shenanigans.

    13. Re:Interesting.... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

      What another good linux distro?

      When Ubuntu decided to poop on their users with Unity, there was an exodus of biblical proportions to Linux Mint. That's why Mint is now the #1 distro.

      And thanks to Ubuntu's newest decisions, the Mint userbase is destined to grow even further.

      At least according to distrowatch's bogus page hit counter. However, if you look at the number of forum users, forum posts, thrid party support, or any number of other metrics, it is hard to substantiate that Mint is #1. I don't say this to disparage Mint, they do a great job, but #1? hardly.

    14. Re:Interesting.... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      When Ubuntu decided to poop on their users with Unity, there was an exodus of biblical proportions to Linux Mint. That's why Mint is now the #1 distro.

      IMHO, if they don't like Unity, it should have been an "exodus" to Kubuntu...

      If you haven't tried it, please do. It's beautiful.

      CJ

      Not only beautiful, but stable, up to date, fast and configurable. Plus you have access to all of the Ubuntu repositories including third party vendors.

    15. Re:Interesting.... by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree, but that's just because I'm a big fan of KDE.

      Why did you put "exodus" in quotes? I didn't misspell it, did I?

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    16. Re:Interesting.... by fnj · · Score: 2

      Or Xubuntu.

    17. Re:Interesting.... by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1

      Until about 2015 then the mint people will have "lost their way" and then some other distro will become the new hotness. This has been one of the major problems with Linux on the desktop and why it will never be a major player in that space. When any distro starts to have any traction suddenly it suffers a backlash from the "linux community". I've seen it now with Red Hat/Fedora, SuSE, Gentoo, Mandrake, Debian, Ubuntu, and Mint will be next.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    18. Re:Interesting.... by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      I'm liking Mint so far.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    19. Re:Interesting.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um no....KDE is horrible and should have died many years ago...

    20. Re:Interesting.... by Cow+Jones · · Score: 2
      The quotes were just because it's not a big deal to move from Ubuntu to Kubuntu.
      You can change an existing Ubuntu installation to Kubuntu by installing a few packages.

      CJ

      --

      Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
    21. Re:Interesting.... by smash · · Score: 1

      Maybe mint users aren't needing to put up form posts, requests for support, etc. because they don't have so many issues? Not claiming that is the case, but you just have no idea whether it is or not.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    22. Re:Interesting.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using Mint doesn't prohibit you from participating in Ubuntu forums.

    23. Re:Interesting.... by countach74 · · Score: 1
      Indeed. For a desktop, Debian Testing is hard to beat. Sure, it requires a little bit more time to setup than Ubuntu or Mint, but it's a much more free OS. It doesn't try to lock you into anything and its goal is not to make money. :)

      Oh yeah and for a server, Debian Stable is *very* hard to beat

    24. Re:Interesting.... by countach74 · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of Ubuntu's "infrastructure" is really Debian infrastructure. Other than not having PPA's, Debian Testing running KDE is very similar to Kubuntu, only without the large corporation pulling the strings. Oh yeah, and it doesn't randomly stop working when you upgrade kernels. I wish the same could be said for Ubuntu.

    25. Re:Interesting.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Debian isn't too bad, and it's what Ubuntu is based upon, though it's not as "bleeding-edge" while still being stable. Others might suggest Fedora, Arch or Slackware if you want that, and I've heard good things about Sabayon as well, especially in the eye candy department, though it has been a few years.

      In all honesty, I keep going back to Debian. My needs aren't too difficult to satisfy, and I can compile something myself if I really need to. I'd recommend using virtual machines to test them first. Why overwrite a perfectly good installation just to find you don't like something?

      I remain with Debian GNU/Linux on my servers, however, on my notebook computer I installed Ubuntu Linux as the primary (host) operating system. Over the years since 1992 I have used a variety of GNU/Linux distributions (SLS, Slackware Linux, SuSE Linux, openSuSE Linux, Debian GNU/Linux, Stormix, Corel Linux, Caldera Linux, RedHat Linux, PCLinuxOS, etc. These days it is only Debian GNU/Linux running Oracle VirtualBox hosting Debian GNU/Linux guests for servers and Ubuntu Linux on my notebook. If Ubuntu Linux moves too far afield of my preferences by the time 12.04 LTS is EOL'ed I will choose another distribution.

    26. Re:Interesting.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fedoraroject

    27. Re:Interesting.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well... yes, if Mint's dev changed Banshee's Amazon affiliate codes (without notifying it clearly somehow), it can be seen as kinda shady. On the other hand, he _is_ providing _his_ distribution of Linux and he's fully within his right to tweak the programs he includes as he sees fit (as everyone else is fully within their rights to choose not to use Mint Linux and/or Banshee's Amazon thingie).

      The difference between that and this situation is that Mint is not transmitting the results of local searches to Amazon (which _can_ be seen as "spyware-like behaviour"), like Ubuntu is doing. Of course, if the user is actively doing Amazon searches through some OS-provided or app-provided interface, he should expect them to be transmitted to Amazon and it's almost certain there will be some affiliate making money off of those searches/purchases.

      So... yeah, Mint's dev might even not be the mostest moral person in the world (I wouldn't know), but he certainly did not include any spyware-like features in Mint or anything that might negatively impact the user's privacy.

      TL;DR: Still prefer Mint over Ubuntu, any day.

    28. Re:Interesting.... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Kubuntu is not sponsored by Canonical, so I'm not sure what large corporation you are refering to? I assume Blue-Systems, which is their sponsor, but then again, they also sponsor KDE itself.

      Nothing wrong with Debian Testing, but Canonical is pushing Ubuntu at the consumer market and that is not where Debian is directed at.

    29. Re:Interesting.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like Banshee has a flawed business model.

    30. Re:Interesting.... by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      You mean, it doesn't involve decades-long trekking in the desert? ;P

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    31. Re:Interesting.... by countach74 · · Score: 1

      True. I misspoke a bit (I forgot that Canonical no longer sponsors Kubuntu). However, to an extent their chain can still get yanked a bit by Canonical: the base system is still Ubuntu.

    32. Re:Interesting.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sabayon without any doubt. Sabayaon have latest packages than Debian testing, It doesn't break like Fedora and you don't have to know everything to install it like Arch.

  4. I can't comment on his post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Because my privacy filter is disabling the commenting function of his...

    The world wide web and half of the Internet is tracking itself to death.

    But I'm using Debian and I wouldn't touch Ubuntu or any other closed source or privacy-invading OS with a ten foot pole.

  5. Childis,h says Jono Bacon .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... of LugRadio fame ... ha ha ha ;-)

  6. He crazy but necessary by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Richard is an academic. He doesn't live in the real world and it doesn't help that he is probably a little looney. That said, he can be right on a lot of points and even if he's wrong if he opens up a discussion then you can still say he's done his bit.

    1. Re: He crazy but necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a comment like that, I bet you can't wait to do his bit again.

    2. Re:He crazy but necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How exactly is he an academic? He has a degree, but he hasn't been employed by a school nor has he been a student in a very long time.

    3. Re:He crazy but necessary by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He doesn't live in the real world and it doesn't help that he is probably a little looney.

      That's a bigger problem than most people want to admit. Very often, an open source project doesn't fail because it's technically inferior to other products, but because of ideological differences between developers. Take the *BSD community: It's dying right now because it split off into four major variants due to political in-fighting. The reason why Linux and Apache have succeeded isn't just technical superiority, but because those groups kept political infighting to a managable level. That's the biggest problem in the open source community right now -- it's leadership ability. Frankly, there isn't a whole lot of that with engineers. Engineers want to build things, not manage it, and their respect of others within a project is based solely on technical ability. So the only projects that really succeed are when by happy coincidence the lead developer also possesses leadership ability. And this is a rare combination! Not just in open source, but everywhere. The better you are at technical skills (as a rule) the worse you are with people skills.

      Richard could be one of those much-needed bridge people who can lead and also garner respect for his technical skills, but he's too damn stubborn and headstrong. His only real use in the community anymore is as a lighthouse -- a warning to others not to become too political, lest you become marginalized and gimp. If he'd just let up a little bit and recognize that getting 90% of what you want is still a win, maybe he could be useful. Right now though, the "All or nothing" approach isn't doing him any favors, just like almost everyone else -- whether it's business, politics, or hobby, very few people succeed with that attitude.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:He crazy but necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Academic" has a lot of meanings.

      - A member of the Academy; a follower of Plato, a Platonist.
      - A member of an academy, college, or university; an academician.
      - A person who attends an academy.
      - One who is academic in practice.
      - Belonging to an academy or other higher institution of learning; also a scholarly society or organization.
      - Pertaining to or characteristic of a school.
      - Belonging to the school or philosophy of Plato; as, the academic sect or philosophy.
      - Being scholarly; literary or classical, in distinction from scientific.
      - Conforming to set rules and traditions; conventional; formalistic.
      - Having an aptitude for study.
      - (pejorative) Having no practical importance.
      - To be so scholarly as to be unaware of the outside world.
      - Theoretical or speculative.

    5. Re:He crazy but necessary by orasio · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, that's your point of view.
      What I see is that the GPL is one of the most used software licenses in the world, and it represents exacly his idea.
      RMS has had great, awesome partial successes. His philosophy is shared by a lot of people, in practice, and his work has been key to us having real, viable, modern, free software platforms today. Without his work particularly and him been so "political", I don't think we could have gone this far.

    6. Re:He crazy but necessary by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Richard is an academic.

      RMS is a religion.

      Defines ethics for people to follow? Check.

      Loves to shove his views down other people's throats? Check.

      Ostracizes anyone who don't follow his strict views? Check.

      Has a confusing mix of greater-good that helps people tolerate his batshit-crazy? Check.

      Has an old tome with several revisions and unfortunate interpretations, which many people praise without actually understanding it? Check.

    7. Re:He crazy but necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fun fact: There is an actual religion around RMS.

      But it is people like you.

      Constantly parrot the same thought-terminating cliches around. = TRUE
      Made it a taboo to ever check these chiches. = TRUE
      Strong obsession going on. = TRUE
      Seeing every view they disagree with as a personal attack. = TRUE
      Acting based on emotions instead of rational thought. = TRUE
      Constantly projecting own traits onto others, so the discontent with them can be expressed as hatred. = TRUE
      Things going so far over their heads, it looks like it comes up from the bottom again to them. = TRUE
      Leaves not a single chance unused, to push his views onto you. = TRUE

    8. Re:He crazy but necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, he's not a religion. Nobody worships at the foot of RMS and his toejam, (not like the Apple faithful did for Jobs, at least), but he is a prophet. You can either heed his predictions and teachings or ignore them at your peril. He's uncompromisng with adhereance to a set of principles and generally makes us sinners uncomfortable.

    9. Re:He crazy but necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually all the BSDs share code frequently. It's also not dying, although traditional memes might say otherwise. Let me guess, you have a beowulf cluster of natalie portman dolls covered in grits?

    10. Re:He crazy but necessary by briancox2 · · Score: 1

      As a former member of the Church of Scientology, I can assure you that those criteria are what makes up a cult. Not a true religion. True religion is usually followed outside of the walls of a cult. The same could be said about the Roman Catholic church. But, point being, cults are the corrupt organizations and religion is the personal meaning found by the true practicing individual. And so I use Linux Mint. While understanding the best hopes and dreams of RMS...and not allowing myself to be his "follower".

      --
      We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
    11. Re:He crazy but necessary by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      He's also lived a large chunk of his adult life at MIT and I think he still has an office there even if he's not living there and basically hasn't had a job (as far as I'm aware) in any commercial business. I'm not saying that's bad but no matter how intelligent you are, if your experiences are fairly narrow then you can't understand the needs of people who aren't like you. His life largely revolve around the university lifestyle. It's good to have people like that but their experiences are often lacking which means they're good at what they've invested their time into learning but not much else.

    12. Re:He crazy but necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have got to be fucking kdding me.

      The first two are true of every argument on Slashdot, on every side, including the objectively correct ones.

      Strong obsession is just weird. He doesn't have much in the way of stalkers. This is an article about him, initiated by his pulic actions.

      I don't seven see the personal attack one. Neither side seems to be doing that.

      The next three are stupid bullshit attacks which *are* personal attacks, not views you disagree on, which is hilarious in light of the above.

      The last one is hilarious because this was about RMS's unsolicited pushing of his views.

    13. Re:He crazy but necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take the *BSD community: It's dying right now

      Netcraft confirms it!

    14. Re:He crazy but necessary by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Maybe so (and a crazy church at that) But the Jono's post also lost me at "worship the church of Ubuntu..."

    15. Re:He crazy but necessary by genkernel · · Score: 1

      RMS is a religion.

      Doesn't everyone know that

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
    16. Re:He crazy but necessary by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      Well, that's your point of view.

      My point of view is that extremists don't attract large numbers of followers or support. Moderates do -- and moderates, unlike extremists, are open to negotiation and compromise. Whatever he may have accomplished, he'll never have a large mainstream following, anymore than any other kind of extremist would. History is replete with examples that support my "point of view". History has only a few examples of extremists which persuaded the majority or caused significant social change... upon which, they ceased being extremists.

      The odds are greatly in favor of my position: RMS is a liability far more than an asset. We have better spokespersons for the movement, who have the common decency to not kick in the door and start screaming at people they disagree with.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    17. Re:He crazy but necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "He".

      As if we wouldn't all know "he" is you.

      For why you have problems understanding it: See the second-to-last item on my above list.

      I'm not even sorry it went over your head.

    18. Re:He crazy but necessary by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      Stallman's partial successes are great. So long as he never achieves total success.

    19. Re:He crazy but necessary by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Don't forget calling things he doesn't like evil!

    20. Re:He crazy but necessary by WrecklessSandwich · · Score: 1

      Leader is referred to as a prophet? Check.

    21. Re:He crazy but necessary by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      The GPL is one of the most used software licences in the world because of its viral nature, getting there first, and being trendy for a while with young geeks. None of the above means those young geeks wouldn't have gone out and enthused and shared and built cool stuff if the GPL wasn't around.

      That's what we did in my day. We called it freeware, and if someone asked if they could see how you did something in your code then you probably took it as a compliment and sent them the file, and no-one gave a damn about copyright on their toy code or plastering boilerplate legalese all over source files.

      Plenty of people still do it. The Internet is full of software in online repos/code sharing sites that was presumably put there for anyone to use but doesn't even have a licence attached, just as people share their graphics demos or upload videos of them playing music to YouTube or post stuff on Facebook/Twitter/their blogs.

      I don't really believe that RMS's philosophy or the ethical goals of the FSF are shared by many people in the grand scheme of things. A lot of people use OSS because it's free as in beer and legal, and a lot of people contribute to it because they're happy to give their code away and someone gave them some code with that LICENCE file thing once so they do the same.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    22. Re:He crazy but necessary by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

      Last did anything extraordinary a few thousand years ago, but his followers still keep talking about it as if it was the pinnacle of human development? Erm... check.

      I think this is the thing that bugs me more than anything else about RMS and the people who talk about how far Free Software has got us and how dangerous proprietary software is. Those of us who develop proprietary software are bringing many benefits to many people, despite all the potential pitfalls, and amazingly many of our users actually like us for it and are happy to enjoy some benefit they wouldn't otherwise have. Meanwhile, RMS is allegedly still reading the web via transcription onto stone carvings or something. If he symbolises anything, it's the total failure of the culture he wants to create to do better than the culture the rest of us live in.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    23. Re:He crazy but necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definition of PROPHET

      1: one who utters divinely inspired revelations: as
      a often capitalized : the writer of one of the prophetic books of the Bible
      b capitalized : one regarded by a group of followers as the final authoritative revealer of God's will
      2: one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight; especially : an inspired poet
      3: one who foretells future events : predictor
      4: an effective or leading spokesman for a cause, doctrine, or group
      5 Christian Science
      a : a spiritual seer
      b : disappearance of material sense before the conscious facts of spiritual Truth

      Number 4 smart guy

    24. Re:He crazy but necessary by Lisias · · Score: 1

      My point of view is that extremists don't attract large numbers of followers or support. Moderates do -- and moderates, unlike extremists, are open to negotiation and compromise.

      Problem is: there's no compromising on a falling airplane. Or the pilot is good enough, or the plane is doomed for sure.

      Being a good pilot is not enough, but certainly, is essential.

      Drama aside, leadership on technical projects is like piloting an airplane. It's easy and smooth, until a emergency rises - when you must be god damned good in what you are doing in order to make the right decisions.

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    25. Re:He crazy but necessary by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Actually all the BSDs share code frequently. It's also not dying, although traditional memes might say otherwise. Let me guess, you have a beowulf cluster of natalie portman dolls covered in grits?

      Naked and petrified, kid. Naked and petrified.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    26. Re:He crazy but necessary by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      That's what we did in my day. We called it freeware, and if someone asked if they could see how you did something in your code then you probably took it as a compliment and sent them the file, and no-one gave a damn about copyright on their toy code or plastering boilerplate legalese all over source files.

      That's what I have been thinking too. People are so obsessed today with various licenses, should I pick GPL, BSD, MIT, zlib, CC-BY-SA... I'm a programmer, not a lawyer. Just put your name on it, for your own little projects that should be enough.

    27. Re:He crazy but necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RMS is a government.

      Defines ethics for people to follow? Check.

      Loves to shove his views down other people's throats? Check.

      Ostracizes anyone who don't follow his strict views? Check.

      Has a confusing mix of greater-good that helps people tolerate his batshit-crazy? Check.

      Has an old tome with several revisions and unfortunate interpretations, which many people praise without actually understanding it? Check.

      FTFY ~ Which goes to show that religion and politics is not really all that different.

    28. Re:He crazy but necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The better you are at technical skills (as a rule) the worse you are with people skills.

      Stop right there criminal scum.

      This is why tech types will always be someone else's pet. It is not true, and even small amount of effort will make you go far. It's that people are not determinate like machines, and tech types recoil from non-deterministic systems like that :).

    29. Re:He crazy but necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >many of our [proprietary software] users actually like us for it and are happy to enjoy some benefit they wouldn't otherwise have.

      That's because they don't think about it. If they did, they'd be appaled and angry.

    30. Re:He crazy but necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The better you are at technical skills (as a rule) the worse you are with people skills.

      This is bullshit. Life is not like an RPG where you can only distribute so many points, and if you spend too many on technical skills you run out of points for social skills. This is just a lie that engineers with bad social skills tell themselves as an excuse to not improve their social skills. Just like any other skill in life, some people seem to do it effortlessly, but just about anyone can do it if they put the time and effort into being good at it.

    31. Re:He crazy but necessary by tjbp · · Score: 1

      Are you implying having anything in common with religion is a bad thing? Are you seriously suggesting religion and academia are somehow incompatible? Are you really sure that rms and religion really have that much in common, or are these the same tired attributes you'd pin on anyone or anything popular that you disagree with? Do you wear your underpants on the outside?

    32. Re:He crazy but necessary by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Can I assume from this that you personally are appalled and angry when you buy a car but it doesn't come with detailed technical schematics, you buy a TV but they don't include the maintenance manual for engineers, or you buy a book but the original DTP files aren't thrown in? Would you rather have no car at all, no TV at all, no books at all?

      There are things businesses do that go too far and we should be wary of supporting or encouraging them inadvertently. For me personally, the lines are often around things like invading privacy or installing malware-like DRM/product activation tools, which can (and sometimes have) actually cause bad consequences for me.

      But if someone sells me software that does something useful to me, does it well, and doesn't do anything shady on the side, I frankly don't care whether I have the source code. I was never going to spend a whole load of my spare time learning my way around a complex system just to make some little change anyway, so I have lost nothing. And most of the general population wouldn't have the skills and knowledge to do that even if they wanted to, nor know how to reliably hire someone who did, so it's worth even less to them.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    33. Re:He crazy but necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The noun form of "academic" - as its used in the phrase, "Richard is an academic," is typically held to mean, "A teacher or scholar in a university or institute of higher education."

      He is not an academic, as it's typically understood. But perhaps you could explain for us which definition above you feel he satisfies?

    34. Re:He crazy but necessary by yawaramin · · Score: 1

      Plenty of people still do it. The Internet is full of software in online repos/code sharing sites that was presumably put there for anyone to use but doesn't even have a licence [sic] attached....

      Legally, all this code available online is treated as all rights reserved ... so anyone who's savvy about copyright law is not using it. So it's all just sitting there doing nothing.

      There are plenty of copyleft and `public domain' licenses. If people really wanted to release something in a non-viral, permissive license, they would find ways to re-implement functionality they needed instead of taking it from GPL code. Make no mistake: people chose to use the GPL.

  7. Ubuntu by Tyler+R. · · Score: 1

    If anything, I think Canonical's being a tad bit childish. They lock us out of alpha/beta test to develop in "secret", and are in the process of turning their OS into a shopping cart. What next?!? Close source the project? It's the very reason I'm typing this from my Kubuntu machine and loving it. :-)

    1. Re:Ubuntu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      no, they have not locked anyone out of alpha or beta testing. They do daily builds and this time they are not calling any particular one of them an alpha or a beta, but nobody is locked out of any of them. If they said they were doing "daily betas" that would be just as true, but a different spin on it. Here, have a copy of the Alpha that was released today. http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/daily-live/current/

    2. Re:Ubuntu by Tyler+R. · · Score: 1

      Thank You. I was not aware of this. I thought they cut pre-releases all together. I'll try it our in VMware when I get the chance. :-)

    3. Re:Ubuntu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't surprising you weren't aware of the facts. Linux users are often unaware of a great many things.

    4. Re:Ubuntu by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      If anything, I think Canonical's being a tad bit childish. They lock us out of alpha/beta test to develop in "secret", and are in the process of turning their OS into a shopping cart. What next?!? Close source the project? It's the very reason I'm typing this from my Kubuntu machine and loving it. :-)

      Nobody is locked out of anything with Ubuntu. The stopped the artifically set alpha/beta releases because there are daily releases. Most people agreed that the move was good as it allowed more flexibility for the developers to get fixes in place by removing artifical freezes.

      As for Kubuntu -- great distro, that pretty much sums it up.

    5. Re:Ubuntu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this is your way of asking permission to die in a fire---granted.

  8. Busted by Tough+Love · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Busted by RMS for adding spyware to Linux, which is not in doubt. Cue the defiant spin. Bad strategy. Ubuntu guys should talk less about their Apple envy and more about doing the right thing.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    1. Re:Busted by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think that is exactly their problem. As I posted in the other related story here, they seem to be hoping that they can make an OS with an 'oooooh, shiny' factors that makes people drop their principles. Asking their users for money is a much better approach than defaulting to sending search results to Amazon, and I think they'd get more money long term. By all means, have one of the 'lenses' installable so that people can do Amazon searches if they want, but having it as a default is not going to make very many people happy.

    2. Re:Busted by dkleinsc · · Score: 0

      As I posted in the other related story here, they seem to be hoping that they can make an OS with an 'oooooh, shiny' factors that makes people drop their principles.

      Also known as the Apple strategy.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Busted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple users don't have any principles ;-)

    4. Re:Busted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like it or not, if Linux is going to move into the future and get out of the hole it's in, It's going to be Ubuntu that moves it forward; and quite frankly HAS been moving it forward. Don't like the feature? It's Open Source, remove it yourself.

      Which is more than I can say for the Ads in Windows Apps, yeah try removing those yourself!. You guys better get your head out your ass.

    5. Re:Busted by Curupira · · Score: 1

      Asking their users for money is a much better approach than defaulting to sending search results to Amazon, and I think they'd get more money long term.

      Please read: A Personal Appeal from Ubuntu Founder Mark Shuttleworth

      Hey, it worked for Jimmy Wales!

    6. Re:Busted by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Apple users don't have any principles ;-)

      They can't even think of a word that rhymes!

      -By an "AC" of another variety altogether! ;-)

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    7. Re:Busted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And consider all the absolute filth that people would spew about Ubuntu if they started asking people for money. Wikipedia gets reamed by people for what is a completely legitimate issue. Either ads or begging, and people outright won't accept either. They expect it all to be free forever, free from ads, and free from any donations.

      Canonical can't win either way.

    8. Re:Busted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Busted: yes
      Should talk more: no
      Should do the right thing: YES

      Amazon doesn't need Canonical's help playing monopoly. What does Canonical get out it?

    9. Re: Busted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adding spyware to Linux?

      So, this is a kernel-level implementation?
      And, wasn't the complaint that Ubuntu never participated 'enough' in kernel development?

    10. Re:Busted by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      Nicely done.

  9. Pretty much Godwin's Law by trollboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When you say "just look at facebook" for a comparison of your privacy policies... you kinda prove RMS's point.

    --
    That which is not dead may eternal lie,and in strange aeons even death may die
    1. Re:Pretty much Godwin's Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook as the new Hitler. That's adorably accurate.

    2. Re:Pretty much Godwin's Law by Andrewkov · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing. Also, Facebook is by definition, a social networking site. Ubuntu is an operating system. I don't expect my operating system to behave like a social website.

  10. Re:Nothing wrong with him by egr · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Getting kinda old though

  11. Re:Nothing wrong with him by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A post such as above reinfrorces every opinion I hold of Microsoft, its tactics, and its camp followers.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  12. Does Amazon pay Canonical for this? by astrashe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Doesn't Amazon pay Canonical if people make purchases? (I might be wrong about this -- if I am, please correct me.)

    *If* Amazon does pay Canonical, and Bacon doesn't mention that in his post, I kind of feel like Bacon loses the argument. I mean, if they're getting paid, and he's making posts that say, "We're doing this only because we want you to have the best search experience," it seems a little disingenuous.

    1. Re:Does Amazon pay Canonical for this? by spacenet · · Score: 5, Informative

      All the search results open an Amazon webpage with Canonical's Amazon Affiliate Code, which adds a tracking cookie to your session and makes Canonical get back an undisclosed percentage of all your Amazon purchases, as long as that cookie stays there.

    2. Re:Does Amazon pay Canonical for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      you say "undisclosed" as if it was something being kept secret from you. The rates are here https://affiliate-program.amazon.com/gp/associates/join/landing/referralfees.html it is a sliding scale with some other complications like different categories of products getting different rates. They will get a mix of commissions, generally between 5 and 10% and Canonical won't know until the reports come in from Amazon what the exact percentages are going to be.

    3. Re:Does Amazon pay Canonical for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if someone has a patent on this type of business model ...

    4. Re:Does Amazon pay Canonical for this? by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All the search results open an Amazon webpage with Canonical's Amazon Affiliate Code [amazon.com], which adds a tracking cookie to your session and makes Canonical get back an undisclosed percentage of all your Amazon purchases, as long as that cookie stays there.

      In the Windows world, we call that "malware".

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    5. Re:Does Amazon pay Canonical for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly, how is this in any way more a "feature" then the windows malware seach bars that install along side other programs and hijacked browser searches without asking? Or affiliate popup websites so popular years ago?

      It's not in my view and the fact that software engineers can now convince themselves that it's ethically okay as long as there's an opt-out hidden somewhere and that they aren't violating user privacy but providing them a "feature" that pays the developer by sneakily sharing user data with a huge for-profit company is either a pretty ridiculous display of self-delusion or a deliberately unethical decision made for the extra cash.

      Canonical are basically arguing the former while everyone outside can see it was obviously the latter.

    6. Re:Does Amazon pay Canonical for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, in the Windows world we call that SOP (standard operating procedure).

    7. Re:Does Amazon pay Canonical for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are standard rates. Canonical is likely to be considered a major affiliate and get to negotiate better rates. As such, the rates are undisclosed and probably higher, possibly much higher, than the standard rates.

    8. Re:Does Amazon pay Canonical for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whats your feelings about mozilla's google del?

    9. Re:Does Amazon pay Canonical for this? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      So the browser generates malware or is it that practically every web server on the planet does since they most all have something that uses cookies?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    10. Re:Does Amazon pay Canonical for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well if you say so, it must be true. who needs facts to back up unsubstantiated speculation?

  13. Re:Nothing wrong with him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ad hominem much? I often eat my dandruff but that doesn't mean I can't do algebra or understand my rights.

  14. "Privacy-violating integrated Amazon results??" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I detect the slightest of agendas of the writer here. Just the slightest.

    Seriously, I am all for privacy protection, but can /. stop crying wolf? There are far more deadly threats to privacy out there then the equivalent of going to amazon.com....

    1. Re:"Privacy-violating integrated Amazon results??" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The issue here is not to go to amazon.com, it's that everything you type in Ubuntu's search bar is sent to Canonical and to Amazon, whether you want Amazon search results or not. (Unless you manually disable it)

    2. Re:"Privacy-violating integrated Amazon results??" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you posting AC? There are far more deadly threats to privacy out there then [sic] the equivalent of posting using a CB handle.

    3. Re:"Privacy-violating integrated Amazon results??" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, that's just wrong. It's not just Canonical or Amazon. There are additional "scopes" that will make internet searches on weather info, city stats, dictionary servers, other online vendors and so on. The Home lens was always meant to search for ANYTHING, local and online. If you want to search locally for files and documents, use the Files and Folders lens.

  15. Good grief... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now I'm being managed.... What another good linux distro? Anyone?

    It is so trivial to disable (and remove) this "feature" that bitching about it is almost meaningless and indeed borderlines on childishness.

    In reality, it is not much different that an ad-supported application (such as Opera had at one time), except with those, you didn't have the freedom to permanently remove the ad without paying up - which is not the case here.

    And of course, no one is forcing anyone to download and install Ubuntu, unless of course you are interested in a fairly easy to install distro that works out of the box with most modern equipment - which is a great thing for the less technically savvy.

    In short, this is a non-issue and RMS is (as expected) over-reacting to something that doesn't fit into his perfect Socialist software society.

    RMS is a great man, but like many great men, sometimes he's a raving lunatic.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Good grief... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is so trivial to disable (and remove) this "feature" that bitching about it is almost meaningless and indeed borderlines on childishness.

      Yes, for those of us aware of the issue and are a little more technically savvy . . . but . . .

      [Ubuntu is] a fairly easy to install distro that works out of the box with most modern equipment - which is a great thing for the less technically savvy.

      (Last emphasis in quote is mine.) A less technically savvy person could google "remove amazon search dash" and probably figure out how to disable it, but he'd first need to know about it.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    2. Re:Good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In reality, it is not much different that an ad-supported application (such as Opera had at one time), except with those, you didn't have the freedom to permanently remove the ad without paying up - which is not the case here.

      No, this is spyware, because it is sending information about user activity to the net in settings where users might not expect it. The closest you get in Opera and the likes is search suggestions, which can send your half-typed URLs to Google, but at least then you pretty much expect the data to end up on the net.

      no one is forcing anyone to download and install Ubuntu

      Exactly. We are free to tell them to go fuck themselves, and we should. It's not like their users are getting anything in return for this. It's pretty clear that Ubuntu is just going to keep adding abuse upon their users whether it be for monetization or politics. I'd certainly never direct the "less technically savvy" to a distro that keeps fucking up the sound and the user interface.

      Switch to a distro that respects you.

    3. Re:Good grief... by hazah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You should not have to disable anything. On the contrary, this "feature" should be deliberatly enabled by the user. No one is arguing over the triviality of how to disable it. You said it yourself, this is a distribution that works out of the box. It stands to reason that the majority of its users do not understand the issue nor its implications. Therefore it's plausible that they will not be able to recognize the real need to disable this "feature". This put's Ubuntu against the spirit of the entire community within which they've setup shop. No one here is really arguing that Ubuntu should not be free to operate as they see fit to make a profit, however, they are now stepping on the toes of the giants on which they are shouldered. A completely dickhead attitude that isn't going to lend them any credit for the spirit of freedom.

    4. Re:Good grief... by EvolutionInAction · · Score: 1

      Nobody is forcing him to use Ubuntu. So what the hell are you bitching about? Canonical has intentionally implemented something that 3seas doesn't like, and has repeatedly defended the decision. Why should 3seas continue to use a product they put out? Hell, I don't particularly trust them anymore, either. I don't care if they had the very best of intentions.

    5. Re:Good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, those images from Amazon that appear in the Dash under "Online results" isn't enough of a clue that their searches are going out over the internet? Spyware indeed.

    6. Re:Good grief... by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In short, this is a non-issue and RMS is (as expected) over-reacting to something that doesn't fit into his perfect Socialist software society.

      You know, RMS has been vindicated so many times, I am frankly surprised there still are people trying to put him down, especially with the kind of labeling ("perfect Socialist software society") that makes you look like a douche.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    7. Re:Good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if it's so trivial, then why do Canonical not remove it?

    8. Re:Good grief... by marcello_dl · · Score: 2

      It is not a big issue itself, it's a big signal though: those who sell user data without a fricking "I agree" dialog are not very trustworthy. I had already lost Canonical when they decided a 50 meg tomboy app was to stay in an installation cd and gimp had to go.

      This is not spreading FUD, this is being in FUD and telling others.

      The ease of solving the problem posed by Canonical choices is a BIG advertisement to FOSS philosophy. Ultimately the user is free. Free to hop to another distro without losing documents, or even configuration files. To remove the unwanted feature.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    9. Re:Good grief... by Alex+Zepeda · · Score: 2

      Yeah, well, having to go out of your way to disable stuff is great motivation to move to another distro that actually respects its users.

      --
      The revolution will be mocked
    10. Re:Good grief... by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

      "In short, this is a non-issue and RMS is (as expected) over-reacting to something that doesn't fit into his perfect Socialist software society."

      Every society has parts that are owned by the community. For example, most roads are communally owned. This is done because the cost to maintain a road is minimal when compared to the number of users. Most operating system-level belong in this category.

      So asking that the operating system and other "boring" userspace software be "owned" by the community is no more socialist than insistinig that our police force be a citizen's police force and not the mayor's private army. There are still other ways to make money off software even in a supposedly "socialist" software society.

    11. Re:Good grief... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      You should not have to disable anything. On the contrary, this "feature" should be deliberatly enabled by the user. No one is arguing over the triviality of how to disable it. You said it yourself, this is a distribution that works out of the box. It stands to reason that the majority of its users do not understand the issue nor its implications. Therefore it's plausible that they will not be able to recognize the real need to disable this "feature". This put's Ubuntu against the spirit of the entire community within which they've setup shop. No one here is really arguing that Ubuntu should not be free to operate as they see fit to make a profit, however, they are now stepping on the toes of the giants on which they are shouldered. A completely dickhead attitude that isn't going to lend them any credit for the spirit of freedom.

      While I agree with you in principle, Ubuntu is marketing their distro to the masses and it seems that most non-techie people like all of those "features" that we, here on slashdot, are complaining about. So, for the market they are after, they should have the "features" enabled, whereas other users than their targeted market can disable them.

      I don't use Ubuntu, but I don't fault them for trying to cater to a specific audience when most of their tech savy users don't go with the default installs in the first place.

    12. Re:Good grief... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      It is not a big issue itself, it's a big signal though: those who sell user data without a fricking "I agree" dialog are not very trustworthy. I had already lost Canonical when they decided a 50 meg tomboy app was to stay in an installation cd and gimp had to go.

      This is not spreading FUD, this is being in FUD and telling others.

      The ease of solving the problem posed by Canonical choices is a BIG advertisement to FOSS philosophy. Ultimately the user is free. Free to hop to another distro without losing documents, or even configuration files. To remove the unwanted feature.

      This is nothing new. Apple and Microsoft along with most major hardware manufacturers, Facebook, Google, etc., have been doing this for years. The fact that Canonical has decided to join them, while unfortunate in my opionion, is just them following the existing trend.

      Their data shows that most consumer oriented users like those types of features, so they added them. It is no big deal. But if people think it is, then don't use Ubuntu. It is as simple as that.

    13. Re:Good grief... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, having to go out of your way to disable stuff is great motivation to move to another distro that actually respects its users.

      It is far less annoying to disable this stuff than it is to get other distros working with multimedia codecs, fonts, etc. To each their own.

    14. Re:Good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if Ubuntu is marketing to the masses and everything is made for mass consumption, and even allowing opt-out rather than opt-in, if there is no big deal about it than why should any command line be required to disable the function.

      It seems that if they really want to be upfront about these activities to the unwashed masses, a simple screen explaining the data collection and an opt-out checkbutton is the way to do it. Maybe even accompanied by a blurb that explains that allowing this feature helps to support Ubuntu.

      THe fact that googling a command line is necessary, a state of affairs that Ubuntu has not considered to be acceptable for the masses for other technical issues, demonstrates the underhandedness of this play. They're assuming that most people won't care, which may be true but really isn't for them to decide.

      Respecting the user may be difficult to define in concrete terms, but I don't agree that this program fits the definition. Be completely open about what you would like to do and offer a clear, simple way for people to refuse to aprticipate. This would be more in keeping with the community spirit.

       

    15. Re:Good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, for those of us aware of the issue and are a little more technically savvy . . . but . . .

      This is Linux, for fuck's sake. How many technically un-savvy people are using it (and don't say "Android users!" because we're talking about Ubuntu)?

    16. Re:Good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be talking about a different RMS.

    17. Re:Good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I'm being managed.... What another good linux distro? Anyone?

      It is so trivial to disable (and remove) this "feature" that bitching about it is almost meaningless and indeed borderlines on childishness.

      In reality, it is not much different that an ad-supported application (such as Opera had at one time), except with those, you didn't have the freedom to permanently remove the ad without paying up - which is not the case here.

      And of course, no one is forcing anyone to download and install Ubuntu, unless of course you are interested in a fairly easy to install distro that works out of the box with most modern equipment - which is a great thing for the less technically savvy.

      In short, this is a non-issue and RMS is (as expected) over-reacting to something that doesn't fit into his perfect Socialist software society.

      RMS is a great man, but like many great men, sometimes he's a raving lunatic.

      Yes, no one is forcing you to download and install Ubuntu. That actually a point in RMS's favor. With all the Linux distros out there, there is no reason at this point that anyone should recommend Ubuntu when they are bundling this kind of crap. They have the freedom to do so, and maybe it is not that big of deal. But, we shouldn't encourage this kind of behavior. When a distro sells out its users in this way, it should result in someone forking a new distribution that is just like Ubuntu but without this crap in it and then we all should recommend that instead. Otherwise, Linux will just be reduced to an AOL cd.

    18. Re:Good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But it's so easy to put him down. THE MAN EATS STUFF OFF HIS FEET DURING PRESENTATIONS. How the hell am I supposed to take someone like that seriously?

    19. Re:Good grief... by sacrilicious · · Score: 4

      Couldn't have said it better myself. RMS rocks. Socially awkward? Fuck yes. But on the freakin' money time after time about the fundamental issues? The man has sense, and the courage to outmatch a million critics who want to try to make the issue about his beard or whatever.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    20. Re:Good grief... by Swarley · · Score: 1

      You can disable this from the options menu. The command line is only needed to remove the functionality entirely such that nobody could enable it again.

    21. Re:Good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about treating the consumer with a little respect and offering an opt-in/out during install?

      "Hey, we'd like to install software that does xxxxx. If you choose to enable it you will help support us financially and we will really appreciate it! (You can opt out any time by clicking the plainly marked icon on the software update menu.) If you prefer not to install this software, that's fine too. We respect your privacy. Okay to install it? Y/N"

    22. Re:Good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My neighbour's Rottweiler licks its own arse... yet it's still capable of biting off someone's arm.

      I'm sorry, you were saying...?

    23. Re:Good grief... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Dealing with multimedia codecs has fuck-all to do with your distro and everything to do with VLC.

      BTW, "each" is singular.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    24. Re:Good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes because the average joe will know what the dash is called, know there is a possibility to remove something that seems to be a part of the OS (they're coming from windows most likely).
      BUT on the bright side, they most likely won't use dash at all.

    25. Re:Good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

      He'd first need to _care_ about it. Most users don't.

    26. Re:Good grief... by hazah · · Score: 1

      The point is that they're marketing to the uninformed masses, without informing them of it.

    27. Re:Good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, are you suggesting we should take your neighbor's ass-eating Rottweiler opinions on FOSS as important? Or that we should be careful because once Stallman finishes digesting his toe jam, he's going to try biting off our arm?

    28. Re:Good grief... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      The point is that they're marketing to the uninformed masses, without informing them of it.

      And that is different from any other search engine, how? If I do a google search for widgets, the next thing you know, just about every page I go to has advertising for widgets on it. Sure, I can install something like adblock, but why should I have to? Is it just because Ubuntu does this without you first having to open a browser that has everybody upset?

      Personally, I can see some advantages to their approach, at least in a heavily connected environment where things are stored locally and online. If you are looking for the latest song or video and its not in your own collection, well, look, here, you can get it from xyz (kind of like iTunes does).

      People should stop thinking like geeks and think like the consumer market that Canonical is directing Ubuntu towards. Like iOS and Android, all of your searches and queries bring up online information along with any local information. This "feature" just seems like a logical step given what direction Canonical has been moving Ubuntu towards. At least Canonical lets you disable it (unlike iOS or Android).

      Note, I am not saying I like the online search - heck, I don't even use Ubuntu, but it seems like a consumer feature in a consumer oriented distro. No more or less.

    29. Re:Good grief... by hazah · · Score: 1

      Umm... you're deliberatly submitting your search to google, a 3rd entity. Nice strawman, but it does not follow the same principles. People like you shold stop labeling this as "thinking like geeks" because it has nothing to do with it. It's a smear at best to derail the issue. But that was probably your intent in the first place, wasn't it? Shill.

    30. Re:Good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked in the past for big companies that took privacy much more seriously. For instance,

      * in a mapping app, we couldn't store addresses introduced by users without their explicit permission. This permisison had to be easily seen the first time the app was run, also it should be easily altered in the future in the case user changed their mind.

      * when collecting data for marketing purposes, we also had to ask for their approval before sending it to our external servers.

      This is not what Canonical did, they didn't ask the user 'Do you want us to automatically send your searches to an external server...?' etc. This is a poor practice on privacy matters, it's very unprofessional and totally unacceptable. Moreover, they suppose that because we use 'their' software, we will trust them our data unconditionally ('we're the good guys'), which is ridiculous. They should disable the search by default, give an opt-in to the user to enable it. Not the other way around. So RMS is totally right.

    31. Re:Good grief... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Umm... you're deliberatly submitting your search to google, a 3rd entity. Nice strawman, but it does not follow the same principles. People like you shold stop labeling this as "thinking like geeks" because it has nothing to do with it. It's a smear at best to derail the issue. But that was probably your intent in the first place, wasn't it? Shill.

      I think the actual strawman argument is what RMS is saying. I respect the man's opinion, but he is drawing conclusions where there isn't evidence to support it. As for your argument that google is different because it is a 3rd entity, well, so is Ubuntu, which you deliberately submitted your search. Ubuntu makes no effort to try and hide the searches and none of your identifiable data is sent to third parties unless you click on one of their links that is presented -- a deliberate action you must take.

      If you view the Ubuntu lenses and scopes as a limited browser, then it is functioning exactly the same way that Google, Yahoo, Bing, iOS, Android and many others do, plus it allows you to find local files that meet your criteria. The only tangible difference is that Ubuntu is not storing cookies on your computer, well that and Ubuntu lets you easily turn it off. If you are going for an always on cloud connected device, why would it not be reasonable to expect that your searches are going through the cloud?

      I am no lover of Ubuntu, but they have been pretty up front about what they are wanting to do with their new search and making changes as their community provides useful feedback.

      There is no strawman here. If Ubuntu, or any other distro, does something you don't like, exercise your freedom and switch. If you choose to stay in spite of what you don't like, well, then you have made your decision. In the case of Ubuntu's new search, you don't even have to switch, just turn it off. But this ABU (anything but Ubuntu) attitude needs to stop.

    32. Re:Good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful?
      not true at all. Its installed and enabled by default. Distro upgrades and clean installs too.
      I upgraded (then installed) the thing typed some words, view the stuff coming from amazon, and went to archlinux.

    33. Re:Good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is so trivial to disable (and remove) this "feature" that bitching about it is almost meaningless and indeed borderlines on childishness.

      I didn't know Jono Bacon had an off switch.

    34. Re:Good grief... by hazah · · Score: 1

      Are you ignoring the point deliberatly or by accident? Yes *I'm* in a position to make the choice, because I'm *aware* of what's happening (and I have, I'm dumping Ubuntu, that fate is sealed by this action). This does not apply to the majority of users of Ubuntu. Users, not consumers.

      You are attempting to redifine the purpose of an OS. The computer is mine, the hardware is mine, so what I type into it, is for me, and me alone, and a system as vital as an OS has no business interfering or augmenting this in any way. Ubuntu has not business sending anything anywhere without my explicit request. It's not their machine, nor is it their internet connection. It's non-of-their-fucking-business, period. This is amountingto tresspassing on my property. Unacceptable. If they wish to provide cloud accessibility and other fancy bells and wistles, that's fine, there's a standard route for enabling that, like with any other software, without pissing into the swimming pool.

      As for your remark in regards to RMS, clearly you have not been around for the past 30 years.

      What needs to stop is this attitude of apathy towards having everything about you and your mother be accessible to every corporation. Corporations have yet to prove this provides us, the users, with any substantial value. So far they rake in the cash, so it's great for them, but it's becoming increasingly unsafe to lead a normal life. How many more times do the authorities have to take something out of context and persecute innocent people before you wake up? This non-sense about not including personal details isn't going to cut it, a single bit is already too much. What needs to stop is the underhanded tacktics that are in clear opposition to the spirit of the intent of Free Software. There is no scenario you can convince me of that isn't grossly unethical save for a deliberate opt-in by the user.

      Their biggest mistake is to think they are a leader. In a decentralized environment such as Free Software, the best you can do is be a local warlord.

    35. Re:Good grief... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      You are mixing various issues and then lumping them all on Canonical's doorstep. I do agree that we need "to stop..this attitude of apathy towards having everything about you and your mother be accessible to every corporation." But that is not specifically a Canonical problem but pretty much a problem with anything now associated with the web.

      Like you, I too am disturbed at all of the intrusions on one's privacy that is occurring. However, with regards to this /. article, I am only trying to keep the discussion focused on Canonical's contribution to the overall problem. Right now they (Canonical) are just following what everybody else is doing in that space, albeit somewhat clumsily.

      That said, though, Canonical has publicly stated they are trying to attract the consumer market, so if you or I chose to use their flagship product not as a consumer, but instead as a useful technical tool, that is our choice, but we can't fault Canonical for being true to their plan. For my purposes, Ubuntu is not the best choice, the search lenses are just one part of why that is. So, I don't use Ubuntu and just as I am free, to choose whatever distro I want, Canonical is free to point Ubuntu in whatever direction they want. For instance, Redhat/Fedora only wants to ship free software, so no codecs and proprietary drivers. That's fine, it is their decision. I can either a) agree with it and use it like the developers plan on it being used, b) disagree with it and add the proprietary stuff myself, or c) chose not to use it at all.

      As for Canonical being a leader, well in all fairness to them, they are in some areas, but then so is Redhat, Suse, Mint, etc. It's not that Free Software is decentralized and there are no leaders, it is that it is such a large scope that there are many leaders in their own fields or areas of interest.

      Finally, as for RMS, I've known him since my MIT days.

    36. Re:Good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most Ubuntu users are not tech-savvy.

      Proof:

      Ubuntu is a pile of shit.
      Tech-savvy users can see it is a pile of shit and not use it
      Therefore, Ubuntu users are not tech-savvy

      QED

    37. Re:Good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't compare an OS to a string of text sent explicitly by the user to Google .

      That you try makes you pants-on-head retarded

    38. Re:Good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever tried getting these codecs working on a retail version of windows? Before VLC came out?

  16. Re:Nothing wrong with him by Microlith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ad-hominem. Your entire post is invalid.

  17. Goodbye, Ubuntu. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "If you can't get the message get the man" - Mel Gibson from an interview

    I like how, in the previous RMS post to Slashdot, people were attacking him, even pointing out some disgusting behavior in the first few posts. It makes me wonder how many shill accounts exist just for this purpose, for Linux and FOSS articles a lot of the time sock puppets are the first to post and are usually OT and/or trolls.

    The message is what matters, and in this matter I support what RMS has said.

    Most people of high intelligence are also a bit eccentric somewhere in their lives. It's when they're very smart but poor we call them crazy.

    âoeThe worst thing you can call someone is crazy, itâ(TM)s dismissive.â
    - Dave Chappelle from inside the actors studio

    Calling RMS crazy is a little bit like calling Hawking disgusting because he isn't sexually attractive to most and lacks something because of the way he delivers his speeches.

    More and more people are driven today to admire the rich, pretty looking, but stupid vs. the eccentric ones with the wisdom and intelligence. It's like high school all over again.

    IMO, Ubuntu is headed in the wrong direction. While they had or have money from Shuttleworth and/or others, they should buy up some companies selling proprietary software and liberate it by making it FOSS, in areas where Linux is weak, one example of something lacking is a good video editor, and I've tried them all, they all feel like shit and some crash often. There are many other proprietary programs of different function(s) which they could benefit from by buying and liberating. But instead they've gone the way of Unity and now this so-called spyware issue.

    Thankfully Distrowatch points us to many other choices, Mint being one of them, for those of us who have had enough of these changes in Ubuntu while feeling the developers, or those who micro manage them are out of touch.

    So goodbye, Ubuntu. I'll miss you. Maybe we'll see another rich individual put their money behind a distro and launch some real advertising in the media to awaken the sleeping Windows users.

    OT:

    U.N. report reveals secret law enforcement techniques

            "Point 201: Mentions a new covert communications technique using software defined high frequency radio receivers routed through the computer creating no logs, using no central server and extremely difficult for law enforcement to intercept."

    http://www.unodc.org/documents/frontpage/Use_of_Internet_for_Terrorist_Purposes.pdf

    http://www.hacker10.com/other-computing/u-n-report-reveals-secret-law-enforcement-techniques/

    1. Re:Goodbye, Ubuntu. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's funny that you'd site a coke-head and a biggot to try to prove your point about being dismissive of people, then refer to anyone who disagrees with RMS as an obvious shill/troll.

      It's funny because Mel Gibson the man really did ruin Mel Gibson the Actor, and it has nothing to do with people "going after him". People didn't make up that he went on an anti-semitic tirade after being pulled over for drunk driving. They also never said he was a bad actor, just that in the future they don't want to work with a person like that. If you notice no one is doubting the things that RMS says as far as whether the Amazon search is in there, but plenty of people disagree about whether his opinion that most things people like should be wiped off the face of the earth should be put up on a pedestal.

    2. Re:Goodbye, Ubuntu. by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      You know, doing analysis on posts, using the word "shill", similar bolding and throwing links at the bottom, I know your actual slashdot id. Don't you feel somewhat in a rut, doing the same thing over and over again, yet no one cares?

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    3. Re:Goodbye, Ubuntu. by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      I like how, in the previous RMS post to Slashdot, people were attacking him, even pointing out some disgusting behavior in the first few posts. It makes me wonder how many shill accounts exist just for this purpose, for Linux and FOSS articles a lot of the time sock puppets are the first to post and are usually OT and/or trolls.

      The message is what matters, and in this matter I support what RMS has said.

      So basically you are saying there are ad hominem attacks against Stallman. But that is not _quite_ the case. The principle of an ad hominem attack is this: I don't like the argument, and to refute it, I attack or belittle the person making the argument. It's different here: When a person eats their toe nails in public, many people just find that disgusting, and they don't actually care whether anything that person says is right or wrong. They just don't care. It's not that the argument is refuted, it is ignored. It is even ignored _after_ hearing it.

    4. Re:Goodbye, Ubuntu. by fnj · · Score: 2

      Yeah, look at AC's moderation score and then look at yours. Right now his is twice yours. I'd say plenty of us DO care about what he has to say.

    5. Re:Goodbye, Ubuntu. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm no shill. I'm a former Linux Sysadmin and embedded developer. I also value hygiene. Odd combination, I know. And I find it very difficult to take somebody seriously when they're EATING THINGS OFF THEIR FEET in the middle of a Q and A session. I don't care how fucking right they might be.

    6. Re:Goodbye, Ubuntu. by Microlith · · Score: 1

      Precisely. The attack is intended to bias you against the person making the argument. They attack RMS so you ignore and discount what he says. It's an ad-hominem attack because they can't actually refute what he says.

      It is the pettiest and least mature of all possible attacks, and is done because they hate him and no other reason.

    7. Re:Goodbye, Ubuntu. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how, in the previous RMS post to Slashdot, people were attacking him, even pointing out some disgusting behavior in the first few posts. It makes me wonder how many shill accounts exist just for this purpose, for Linux and FOSS articles a lot of the time sock puppets are the first to post and are usually OT and/or trolls.

      I think it is actually far worse: there is a shift in the "community" and there is now a substantial part of Linux users which combine the worst of Apple users (technological ignorance, love of the shiny, superficiality, etc) and Microsoft users (don't care about licenses, it's all very difficult without a GUI, everything else is "non standard"), and add their own little GNU-hate into the mix to distance themselves from "those weird people". Basically they piss on every meaningful thing that made the free software movement able to produce what they use today, but want to somehow retain their "geek" card - even though they know less about computers than a 8-years-old with an iPhone.

      They harbour especial resentment (and this was seen in the other topic as well) to anything and anyone that makes them look like the stupid little hypocrites that they are, and thus the vitriol aimed at RMS: it reminds them what they really are, fashion victims who wouldn't object to daily anal probing if the equipment was "convenient".

    8. Re:Goodbye, Ubuntu. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how, in the previous RMS post to Slashdot, people were attacking him, even pointing out some disgusting behavior in the first few posts. It makes me wonder how many shill accounts exist just for this purpose, for Linux and FOSS articles a lot of the time sock puppets are the first to post and are usually OT and/or trolls.

      Only crazy people accuse every commenter that disagrees with them of being sock puppets and shills.

  18. Canonical doesn't get it! And that's the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm certainly somewhere in the middle and while I'm not going to say RMS is right about everything he has done more for us than anybody else. Canonical, Linus, and others are more or less in the way. The humorous part is Linus and various others are bitching about the SAME DAMM THINGS! Ok. So now we have Canonical doing something awful. It's not exactly Microsoft although it doesn't matter that much either. The reason is Canonical doesn't get free software and they have merely done a better job PR wise than Linsire, Novell, and some others. Canonical isn't going to make it. Not because they don't get free software (although that is part of the problem as to why they won't make it) but because they don't have a business model!

    Canonical could have been successful with the desktop although they failed to develop the sales channels which would have made it a success and then went off in another direction entirely (servers, tablets, phones, enterprise support, etc). They needed to start small and develop an Ubuntu Software Center for hardware. Doing this alongside the software would have made them financially successful. What mark didn't understand when he asked the community about building a freedom friendly laptop was the community wasn't in a position to understand the benefits. It didn't matter though. The hardware needs to be freedom friendly if your going to target the masses even if your users don't understand what they are getting from it. Ultimately Ubuntu could have had a store with well supported hardware offering and something along the lines of Apple (except the exact opposite in some ways).

    Humorously ThinkPenguin is basically going to eat Canonical's bread and butter. The difference is ThinkPenguin's funding the distributions rather than developing one itself. But they get that the hardware needs to be freedom friendly in order to support the masses.

  19. Re:This from "Jono" by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

    Hmmm, I don't know if you've met many Jonathans but some abbreviate their name Jon, others Jono because it's less confusing than having people think your name is 'John'.

    No different than being named Steve, Bob, Jim, Dave, Pete etc.

  20. Exactly. by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is RMS wrong? It doesn't sound like it. I don't care if he's childish.

    1. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Yes. I strongly believe he is wrong on every substantial issue he raises.

      You can disagree with him, but since the issues are usually subjective ones, there is no objective way to say that he's wrong.

      Software freedom is so much less importsant than other forms of freedom

      And getting punched in the face isn't as bad as being a starving child in Africa. Your point?

      and inability to express a coherent argument

      Or perhaps you just lack reading comprehension skills?

    2. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "strongly believe"

      Its not a belief thing. He is either wrong or he is not. He has a good track record of being proved right, given time.

      "over-the-top rhetoric"

      He has in fact given the tools and a legal framework to operate under to enable exactly that, freedom from propriety software.

      This importance of software freedom could be the key to preserving the other freedomds you mention, without it the others fall.

      It would seem that the "sell outs" always attack the messenger. The movement is just fine whilst the foundations of its formation remain strong and are actively defended. Changing it into something else to achieve growth hardly helps the original organisation grow now does it.

      You sound like the established church bashing the messiah. If only he could have been more reasonable, a little less sermonising on the mount and attention seeking, if only he'd just grown up a little. It's just not they way we do things around here.

    3. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sure the vast majority of software developers have never bothered to learn what his actual positions are.

      Doesn't stop them from ranting about him on Slashdot though....

    4. Re:Exactly. by bonehead · · Score: 2

      This importance of software freedom could be the key to preserving the other freedoms you mention, without it the others fall.

      Wait. What?

      So you're saying, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that if a company like Microsoft is allowed to sell or distribute software without releasing the source code, it will inevitably lead to the disappearance of all other freedoms?

      'Cause it sure sounds like you're saying that.

    5. Re:Exactly. by YukariHirai · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...but his desire to prioritize the "freedom" of systems over those systems actually doing anything useful is totally unreasonable.

      I do have to agree there.

      While I believe that the computing world would be a better place if all software was Free, Stallman's approach to advocating it does little to move things in that direction. He divides everything into "entirely Free" and "not entirely Free", and everything in the latter category is demonized. A more useful approach would be to advocate mostly Free systems (ie, Free aside from the odd wireless driver or whatnot, such as Ubuntu) over entirely non-Free ones (ie, Windows). As these mostly Free systems gain actual wide use and further developer attention, their quality improves and it becomes easier to replace the non-Free bits with completely Free.

    6. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think being punched in the face is worse than being a starving child in africa you should probably spend more time being both of these things.

    7. Re:Exactly. by rgmoore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but his desire to prioritize the "freedom" of systems over those systems actually doing anything useful is totally unreasonable.

      That's a great theory, but it doesn't agree with actual practice. In practice, freedom is a very important part of doing things that are useful. With proprietary software, you are limited to what the authors' decide to give you. Proprietary software authors routinely leave out important features or include anti-features like spyware because they make more money that way. With free software, the main limit is on what the authors can produce, not on what is in their best interest to provide you.

      Software freedom is so much less important than other forms of freedom (freedom from slavery, freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc) in the real world that I can't take his writing seriously.

      Where does he suggest that free software is more important than those freedoms? I haven't seen it in any of his writings. And if you're just saying that he should concentrate on other kinds of freedom because software freedom is too low on the scale to be worth the effort, that's a bad argument. Things that are worth having are worth having even if there are other things that are more important. The amount of effort RMS has put into free software would be a drop in the bucket compared to all the effort that's gone into the kinds of basic human rights you mention, but he has produced real and important results for that relatively modest effort. He has almost certainly done more real good by creating a new concept of freedom than he would have by joining an existing cause.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    8. Re:Exactly. by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2

      If you look at it in the right, he's practically admitting that it's such a big problem that even a child can see it.

    9. Re:Exactly. by eric_herm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let's see, did Amazon used the proprietary nature of a DRM system to remove a book ? yes, they did; Do various government wanted to censor information ? Yes they, ( either China, on a lot of point, iran, etc, or USA, for Wikileaks, even if I must add that both cases are complex, and the USAs government has a much better track than China and Iran by several order of magnitude )
      Did people used copyright to prevent anything ? Yes, they do, see the book of Lessig, explaining how people cannot do their work on the period after the war and the racism because various movies are not in the public domain.

      So there is a will to prevent free flow of information ( from mundane topic like song to more serious issues like corruption in China ), coming from various places, that could be enforced and that is enforced by proprietary nature of software,

      And sure, with all of that, there is no issue of freedom of speech, who will not be linked to freedom of software. Freedom to innovate, of course, would have been unharmed if Google or Facebook would have been forced to pay license to a competitor for each server they have, and would have been unable to enhance the software. Sure, there is problem of slavery, child labor, woman rights in lots of country. That doesn't mean nothing should be done anywhere until this is solved.

    10. Re:Exactly. by eric_herm · · Score: 1

      In fact, no, people would not start to code because there is wide use, or we would have seen free and open source drivers on windows since a long time. Especially if what Microsoft say is true, ie that most crashes are due to buggy drivers.
      ( you can replace Windows by OS X, that would still work on the principle, even if i have seen 1 free driver for a wifi card on a Apple laptop because the regular one was not good enough ).

    11. Re:Exactly. by ultrasawblade · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think RMS had a lot of foresight.

      Software freedom is important, and more so than ever, when corporations increasingly sell you computing devices that ostensibly you own, but are not free to do anything you like (within the law, of course), with regard to the software running on them. It's more important than ever in a world where hardware is a commodity and what (and I'm trying to say 'range of possible actions' rather than 'range of scale') a given blob of silicon can do is not dictated so much by hardware limitations but rather the particular instructions that happen to live on the non-volatile memory of the device at a given moment. It's important when it is commonplace that we surrounded by devices with CPUs and memory, but no way to verify the device is programmed to do what we want to do and no more, no less. So I'd say the right to exert control over devices you own via installing whatever software you want, whenever you want, is pretty fundamental.

    12. Re:Exactly. by Kenshin · · Score: 1

      One of humanity's greatest flaws is the general inability to see in anything other than black and white.

      He's not exactly wrong, but he's not exactly right either.

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    13. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's okay. Richard Stallman will pay your bill as long as you write free software. He also pledged to pay for my student loan, rent, water, heat, etc. FREE SOFTWARE FOREVER!!!

    14. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The very act of sell and distribute software without the source code by itself will not do that.

      Having one company in a monopoly position, where it can essentially crush all competition that is playing according to the same rules, along with a society where big business can buy their legislation, all while keeping the inner workings of the software closed, will do that.

    15. Re:Exactly. by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They said the same thing about every other leader of a movement (take your pick)... If you have issues with his delivery (he's pedantic at times, and his insistence on making sure he is heard on subjects ancillary to FSF are rather annoying), that's fine. But his message makes sense.

      Copyright has been perverted to a perpetual "ATM machine" for the copyright cartels, and it is used as a weapon to strike innovation and new ideas down before they can blossom. What the GPL does is use that perversion of copyright against itself so that no matter what happens to the copyright law in the future (and believe me it's getting worse), we will have a way to keep innovation free from hoarding elements of the multinational corporations. It isn't the only license in the world, but by gum it's a pretty good alternative to the closed-source nonsense that passes for "commercial" software. DRM, proprietary formats, invasive and restrictive usage requirements (trying to completely kill Fair Use), and otherwise litigious bastards in the copyright retention business (they aren't the creators) can go eat a bag of dicks. The GPL has prevented them from strangling innovation and the sharing of ideas. Thanks to RMS, who I don't always agree with, for pioneering that.

      For me, his positives outweigh his toe-cheese eating negatives. As a person, I'd probably hose him down from 40 feet... but as an idea... RMS has got the chops to put the establishment on notice.

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    16. Re:Exactly. by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Software freedom is so much less important than other forms of freedom (freedom from slavery, freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc) in the real world that I can't take his writing seriously.

      For our children, Software freedom will be the means to all of those other freedoms. This is not some scifi fantasy anymore. Computers will rule your life in the near future. They practically do now. To have software tools locked in corporate and government chains, will be the same as chaining you.

    17. Re:Exactly. by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

      If the biggest fool in the world goes out at noon and says the sun is shinning, it doesn't make it dark.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    18. Re:Exactly. by quixote9 · · Score: 2

      Exactly, indeed. Calling someone names is not an argument. (Nor is it all that unchildish.)

      It's also flat-out false to say RMS is spreading fear, uncertainty, or doubt. Nowhere does he dangle dark but unnamed consequences for using Ubuntu. And there's no uncertainty or doubt whatsoever in his rejection of spyware and therefore of Ubuntu.

    19. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong and he isn't saying that.

    20. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you need to spend more time learning to read and less time on this website.

      Try this instead: http://www.starfall.com/

    21. Re:Exactly. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      You can't grow a movement that way?

      Perhaps you should do a bit of research on some of the most charismatic leaders in recent history. Maybe you could start with Stalin, or Hitler.

      There is almost zero danger of RMS becoming a powerful world-class leader, either good or bad, but he is no worse than some of the leaders whose names became household words in their own lifetimes. It would be interesting if we could resurrect some of those leaders, and get them all together in the same padded room with RMS.

      Well - initially it would be interesting. After a few hours, most rational men and women would grow bored and/or sickened, and wander off to leave the shrinks study them.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    22. Re:Exactly. by alucardX · · Score: 2

      Yes. I strongly believe he is wrong on every substantial issue he raises. I think his use of copyright law to force sharing (the GPL) is a clever legal hack, but his desire to prioritize the "freedom" of systems over those systems actually doing anything useful is totally unreasonable.

      You are entitled to your opinion. The fact of the matter, though, is that there are thousands(being conservative) of useful software packages that are free. Being free is a major priority but being free only matters when the software is useful. In fact RMS didn't even like Unix back when he started the GNU project but he realized that in order to have a really USEFUL system it needed to be portable. Unix was a good fit for that. Freedom was not good without a useful system and the same holds true today.

      Software freedom is so much less importsant than other forms of freedom (freedom from slavery, freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc) in the real world that I can't take his writing seriously.

      RMS himself has stated that software freedom takes a back seat to more important moral issues in the world. He knows this and you should too being that you've claimed to have read all of his essays. Additionally, as more and more aspects of our daily lives are controlled by software this issue has become important. As Lawrence Lessig has written: "Code is Law".

      Given his childish behavior, rant-laden writing style, and inability to express a coherent argument, I am sure the vast majority of software developers have never bothered to learn what his actual positions are.

      I think much of that has to do with the fact that most people learn of Linux and want to know more. They do some research and stumble upon Linus Torvalds. Many never even hear of RMS until an article like this one is posted to ./ or some other tech site. Most times it's just a forum to bash RMS for his eccentricity. It's the popular thing to do right now.

      The only people who can stand to listen to him are those who forgive those traits because they already agree with what he says. You can't expect to grow a movement that way, even if your movement has a purpose that makes sense.

      The movement grows based on its principles, not on the people that started it.

    23. Re:Exactly. by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 2

      Yes they, ( either China, on a lot of point, iran, etc, or USA, for Wikileaks, even if I must add that both cases are complex, and the USAs government has a much better track than China and Iran by several order of magnitude )

      China has been very bad on the political censorship of the Internet. USA is very bad with copyright and patent laws, and has blocked websites worldwide by ceasing .com domains, even if they were registered, and hosted, elsewhere, with the busyness running oversea as well. I don't think making this a competition of who's the most evil serves any purpose. Both censorship must stop, and we should be fighting them rather than discussing who's scoring high.

    24. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take less of an issue with that, and more of an issue with the fact that neither he, nor any other vocal advocates of "totally free" software, have yet suggested a viable method of compensating developers. Selling support contracts is questionable even in the Corporate environment, and requires a lot of additional staff and different skills than the developers currently have. Donations only go so far, and put a company in a really bad spot as they have to bend to the often irrational and contradictory whims of the users. Advertising is about the only workable mechanism presently in use, and even that can be hard to do properly and often doesn't bring in enough revenue to support the product.

      I don't have the answers, and neither does Stallman, so I think he needs to keep that in mind a little more often when he's got his mouth open. Because he does like to open his mouth a lot.

    25. Re:Exactly. by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll get hate for saying this but fuck it this is how I feel, this is EXACTLY why I can't fucking stand RMS, because in just about every way he IS the classic Internet Troll. There can be NO discussion of an issue, NO moderation, NO exchange of ideas or attempts to meet each other in the middle, he is like the absolute worst of partisan politics concentrated into a giant flaming troll.

      In every single rant and every single conversation as far as as RMS is concerned there is only TWO answers, either you agree with every fucking thing he does and says and are therefor "good" or you don't and you are a "sinner" and bad and destroying kittens and kicking puppies. Even the head of Red Hat says "RMS treats his friends like his enemies" because one can NEVER disagree with him, not ever, or you are just a worthless piece of shit destroying the planet.

      So just to put my own spin on his totally tasteless rant when Steve Jobs died "I won't be glad when he's dead but I'll be glad when he's gone" because just like dealing with a ranting political hack or Internet troll its ALL "good VS evil" with of course everything good defined by what St iGNUcious believes and everything evil is those that dont kiss the ring and fall in line. So I'd say he is far worse than childish, most people can see childish behavior and dismiss the person for acting like they are four, nope this is MUCH worse, its the classic Faux News HuffPo "You are with me or against me!" divisive bullshit that frankly makes having a civilized conversation all but impossible.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    26. Re:Exactly. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a person, I'd probably hose him down from 40 feet... but as an idea... RMS has got the chops to put the establishment on notice.

      This is what a lot of people on slashdot don't seem to realise. You hear comments about how they like what RMS/Assange/De-Raadt are doing but can't stand that they're huge dicks (not: I do not agree that they are). The thing is that you are never going to find people willing to devote their life to a any cause who are just nice, easy going people. Nice, easy going people are by definition easy going. A cause requires amazing amounts of stubborn determinantion and that makes people seem not very nice because they are intransigent and unwilling to compromise.

      But you can't have one without the other.

      I would rather have a world with these kind of awkward, singular people and the things they are driven to do than one without.

      Though I will also add that in the very brief exchanges I've had with both RMS and De-Raadt, they both seemes like reasonable, thoughtful people, to me.

      he's pedantic at times... "ATM machine"

      he's not the only one :)

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    27. Re:Exactly. by NickFortune · · Score: 2

      his desire to prioritize the "freedom" of systems over those systems actually doing anything useful is totally unreasonable

      It's more like a desire to prioritize the freedoms of software users over those of software distributors. He's not against software doing "useful" things, except where the usefulness lies in somehow exploiting the software user.

      Software freedom is so much less importsant than other forms of freedom (freedom from slavery, freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc) in the real world that I can't take his writing seriously.

      Of course, freedom from slavery is clearly much less important than freedom from murder. I mean if you are enslaved you can regain your freedom, but if you're dead you're dead. Should we then legalise slavery once again so we can concentrate on the big picture? I'm sure there are lots of other pesky laws that we could get rid of while we're at it. Always assuming your logic of prioritising freedoms holds water, obviously.

      The only people who can stand to listen to him are those who forgive those traits because they already agree with what he says.

      Counter example right here. I don't agree with everything rms says. I don't believe that proprietary software is necessarily a bad thing, and I take particular issue with him on the "GNU/Linux" thing. In this instance, however, I think he's got it about right.

      You can't expect to grow a movement that way, even if your movement has a purpose that makes sense.

      So you're saying that popularity is more important than principle? Presumably rms should abandon his notion of the Four Freedoms and adopt something less controversial, like maybe "oxygen is good" in the expectation of seeing the GNU movement expand dramatically. Personally I think it's his refusal to compromise his principles that has gained him so many followers.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    28. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is wrong. And lunatic. Reading "how i do my computing" from stallman's personal site... gawd, this mans life is hard.

    29. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with everything you said, but I would add that people speaking out against entrenched corporate and political interests are always going to be subjected to character assassination in the press.

    30. Re:Exactly. by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Well put. The "dicks" are the ones that get the job done. They are the ones pushing... "nice" folks just get stomped out or marginalized without them even knowing it.

      My take on RMS is that his message is clear, but there are some things he personally believes in strongly that sometimes get interjected into the narrative and, to outsiders, might seem that he's not focused. (It's because the public RMS and the private RMS are one in the same, I suppose.)

      he's not the only one :)

      I'm an amateur. :)

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    31. Re:Exactly. by LaggedOnUser · · Score: 1

      Your comments remind me of the famous quote by George Bernard Shaw: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." Or as I would put it, if RMS is the backbone of the free software world, it is more important that he be stiff than that he be flexible.

    32. Re:Exactly. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      It's actually an interesting point. Freedom of software use, and the ownership and ability to access and modify data and software which we purchase, is vital to protecting private data. The "Trusted Computing" technology, for example, is designed to provide secured key access for software and data, and it's being heavily promoted among CPU and motherboard manufacturers and software vendors. It's designed to provide a secure toolchain to authenticate, to encrypt, and to provide software registered access to data.

      But careful review of its actual use show thits primary use is DRM, _preventing_ individuals or software from accessing their data in any way other than that specifically authorized by the company issuing the key. The master signature keys for Trusted Computing are held by Microsoft, and they hold most of the private keys in escrow. And the legal guidelines protecting those keys don't seem to exist. I've not been able to find any clear guideline on when, and under what legal requirements, Microsoft will give out or even _subvert_ those keys to install software on computers without the authorization of the owner. This is one of Richard's current concerns: the use of technology to fetter communications and access to your own data and your own resources.

    33. Re:Exactly. by somersault · · Score: 1

      Calling it spyware seemed to me to be FUD. As far as I could tell, it's just getting search results from Amazon and other places. Which I would consider a pretty useful feature. If there's no way to turn it off then that would be a bit weird, but it's being blown way out of proportion.

      It's all a pretty moot point anyway, because anyone who cares about having a usable OS probably dropped Ubuntu as soon as they made Unity the default.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    34. Re:Exactly. by YukariHirai · · Score: 1

      In fact, no, people would not start to code because there is wide use

      People who previously weren't programmers taking it up? Maybe some, but negligible numbers. Almost certainly not getting into driver development, anyway. I was more thinking of people who were already programmers shifting their attentions from Windows and starting to contribute to the open source ecosystem. Plus greater driver contributions from hardware manufacturers.

      or we would have seen free and open source drivers on windows since a long time. Especially if what Microsoft say is true, ie that most crashes are due to buggy drivers.

      I think the main reason there aren't really any open source drivers for Windows is that there's largely no point; working Windows drivers already exist for more or less everything, and most people who think there should be open source drivers for things and have the ability to make it happen don't tend to want a mostly closed system such as Windows. And in all honesty, crashes in Windows aren't common enough these days for it to be worth anyone's time writing an entirely new driver for something.

    35. Re:Exactly. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Calling it spyware seemed to me to be FUD.

      It's spyware because it was inserted without notification to the user and its sends local search results back to a commercial entity without any explanation to the user of what rights they might have or might be giving up by using a service that wasn't advertised to them in the first place. It is, in fact, a clear-cut case because it meets all the requirements for spyware; installed without the user's knowledge (the feature simply appeared before it was announced) and phones home, and there's no user consent before logging begins.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:Exactly. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Software freedom is so much less importsant than other forms of freedom (freedom from slavery, freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc) in the real world that I can't take his writing seriously.

      Point the first: Software freedom is only possible if you have the other freedoms. Point the second: Software freedom is a result of and also an enabler of the other freedoms; in an age when our basic interactions often take place via software, software freedom is steadily becoming more important.

      Given his childish behavior

      You're not even mature enough to sign your name to what you're writing. Given that you're too childish and cowardly to do that, I can't take your writing seriously, and I hope no one else does — which is the reason I wrote this comment.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    37. Re:Exactly. by lee1 · · Score: 1

      "anyone who cares about having a usable OS probably dropped Ubuntu as soon as they made Unity the default." I use Ubuntu on my laptops, but I don't use Unity or any desktop environment. I use the dwm window manager. I care about having a usable OS, so you are incorrect.

    38. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ass to mouth? Wait, did I write that aloud?

    39. Re:Exactly. by bonehead · · Score: 1

      It's actually an interesting point. Freedom of software use, and the ownership and ability to access and modify data and software which we purchase, is vital to protecting private data.

      Don't confuse convenient with vital. Sure, being able to modify your software makes many things easier, but that is not the same as those things being impossible if the software is closed. While I make extensive use of open source software, both personally and professionally, I've also made extensive use of proprietary software as well. I can think of a select few situations where having some source code would have made a data migration easier, but none where the closed nature of software put data in any realistic danger of being lost.

      As far as the Trusted Computing architecture and it's use in DRM, I'm not sure how that's really relevant. In order to have DRM locked data, I have to go out and purchase that data from someone else. Nobody is sneaking onto my PC and adding DRM to any data that I created.

      Now, I despise DRM as much as anyone, but let's be realistic. It's primary use is for the owners of a piece of property to control the manner in which it is used. I may not like those restrictions, and I may even perceive that they inconvenience me, but they don't violate my "rights" in the slightest. The owner of something SHOULD have the right to set the terms under which others may use it.

      Where the bulk of RMS's arguments fall flat on their face is in the extremes he tries to take them to. He takes an inconvenience and raises it to the level of a violation of rights. He takes opposing viewpoints and raises them to the level of "immoral".

      He portrays himself as being a defender of freedom, but an objective analysis of his views reveals otherwise. Most of his views, if applied in the real world, would serve to restrict freedom as much, if not more, than they would promote it. The only "freedom" he really believes in is the freedom to agree with him.

    40. Re:Exactly. by rgmoore · · Score: 1

      Or as I would put it, if RMS is the backbone of the free software world, it is more important that he be stiff than that he be flexible.

      That's a neat quote, but the analogy is imperfect. You don't want a limp noodle for a backbone, but you don't want a rigid rod, either. A real backbone has to have some flexibility or you won't be able to turn your head, bend down to tie your shoes, or do lots of other vital daily activities. That's why doctors don't like to perform spinal fusion surgery until they've exhausted less drastic approaches.

      To continue the analogy, maybe RMS is too far on the inflexible side to be a good backbone. He obviously has some flexibility- he recommends licenses other than the GPL in some cases and is even willing to accept proprietary software for specific, limited purposes- but he may be too rigidly ideological to be the main leader of the movement he founded. He seems to be unwilling or unable to look around and see some of the new stuff that's out there. Someone like Linus Torvalds may be a better leader. He obviously has a strong commitment to Free Software, but he has been flexible enough to try more things (e.g. working with Bitkeeper), and I think it's made him more effective.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    41. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >There can be NO discussion of an issue, NO moderation, NO exchange of ideas or attempts to meet each other in the middle, he is like the absolute worst of partisan politics concentrated into a giant flaming troll.

      As a spokesperson, he has to be that way. Being wishy washy is not good public relations. Also, the message has to be simple in order to be understood by people.

      Also, about his comment of Steve Jobs, it's probably a character trait of RMS to tell the truth, even when it's tactless. They don't realize it. I know some people like that.

    42. Re:Exactly. by melikamp · · Score: 1

      You sound like a sap. RMS does not care to discuss some issues because there is no fucking silver lining to the proprietary software. It's really expensive, really poor quality, really insecure, it abuses everyone but the vendor, and it propagates thanks only to monopolistic practices, advertisement, and consumer stupidity. There is only one way to benefit from proprietary software: by selling it and mistreating its users.

      Defending non-free software in any context (except may be pure entertainment) is like defending spamming and confidence tricks. People should have a right to use it, but they should know it is always a terrible idea, because they get ripped off every time. What non-free software vendors do is obviously immoral, and is only barely legal. For example, since Apple actively, purposefully prevents users from finding and fixing bugs in Apple Maps, then it should be liable when people get killed due to those bugs.

    43. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is that the news organizations you so colorfully named are talking about partisan issues that end up with, either side you're on, fucking over the people.

      RMS fights for the users. Just like Tron.

      Are you saying that Tron is a douchebag because he won't talk with CLU about compromises to end his takeover of the grid and, eventually, the world?

      CLU/MCP is a representation of everything that RMS, and Tron, fights against. Proprietary, closed systems where there is only one rule: follow the rules of the leader or you're out. Sure, RMS says the same thing, but his rule is "Don't shackle your users." This isn't just about being able to install your own packages, but not being under the thumb and scrutiny of some crazy central authority. It's about freedom. Privacy is a form of freedom.

      I guess what I'm getting at is that he is intransigent, but he's that way to protect and help your rights, not to forward his own agenda or make money. Really, what do you think his motivations are? Why do you think he's doing this? Do you even really know?

    44. Re:Exactly. by maestroX · · Score: 1

      His mannerism, zealotry are a pain

      Buy a Tivoized embedded

      Realize his rantings are sane

    45. Re:Exactly. by yawaramin · · Score: 1

      It does if there's a thunderstorm. Or an eclipse. :-)

    46. Re:Exactly. by quixote9 · · Score: 1

      "anyone who cares about having a usable OS probably dropped Ubuntu as soon as they made Unity the default."

      True. It's certainly what I did.

    47. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a sap. RMS does not care to discuss some issues because there is no fucking silver lining to the proprietary software. It's really expensive, really poor quality, really insecure, it abuses everyone but the vendor, and it propagates thanks only to monopolistic practices, advertisement, and consumer stupidity. There is only one way to benefit from proprietary software: by selling it and mistreating its users.

      And yet free software is so much worse, so bad that the only excuse for its continual failure and lack of adoption is that people like you blame the users and call them stupid.

    48. Re:Exactly. by exomondo · · Score: 1

      The problem is that he is far too closed-minded, if you don't agree with his point of view then you are stupid and ignorant, he is so closed-minded that he cannot comprehend that somebody would want to trade freedom for convenience sometimes and in some cases. He doesn't believe you should have the freedom to choose or to give up freedoms you don't care for, things like using a cell phone, or e-commerce.

    49. Re:Exactly. by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Yes. I strongly believe he is wrong on every substantial issue he raises

      No wonder you posted anonymous. It's one thing to be biased, it's quite another to be a blithering idiot with access to the internet. Yes, even if you are lying. I may not agree with RMS's tone all the time, but usually he is correct in some regard.

      Basically the Dash issue stopped us from looking at migrating from RH/Cent to Ubuntu. It's a dead issue. I'm not happy with some shit RH has done lately either.. but what RMS points at and Ubuntu did is not excusable.

      What Canonical and RH need to remember is that the majority of their revenue does not come from Schleppy Code-a-GUI that may or may not buy a copy of their OS for his laptop, but rather that their revenue comes from businesses. Default packages and apps need to take that in to consideration, and, well.. WTF are they thinking with Dash?

      If you knew back in NT 4.x times that Microsoft sucked your data off to a 3rd party would you have used it? Chances are, it would have hurt sales quite a bit. Canonical lacks the funds and clout of Microsoft, and can't keep this story from the Internet. It's going to hurt them plenty.

      It's one thing to try and gear things for average users, but they should have made it very clear what they were doing and made a branch specifically geared toward the "Facebook Crowd". Instead, they screwed over anyone using the standard Ubuntu or investigating migrating.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    50. Re:Exactly. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      You've raised several good points, which I'll try to explain.

      * The Trusted Computing focus on DRM instead of privacy puts the most critical software keys in the hands of the software vendors, not the computer users. Computer users' keys are designed, in Trusted Computing, to be held in Microsoft's central escrow. The result is that to access your data, and possibly your hardware, you must use Trusted Computing authorized software, and your private keys are accessible to anyone with access to Microsoft's central repository. The result is a direct loss of personal security because both the software keys and yoru personal keys live in Microsoft's hands, not merely your hands. The results for personal privacy are profound: the system ensures authentication and tracking of document creation thorugh review of public and private keys, it does _not_ protect individuals from government or corporate abuse of this central key repository..

      * The centralization of the keys and escrow management also means that the keys can be _revoked_, at the software level, denying you access to your previously encrypted private data. Revocation of keys is a critical feature of Trusted Computing, and is rarely addressed for its potential to deny people access to their own Trusted Computing secured data.

      * DRM is not for the "owners" of a piece of property. It is for the _vendors_ of that property. They may not actually own a single line of the code, but the particular assemblage of the code which they sell is locked down. This can be useful to prevent cheating in computer games, but it's precisely what TIVO tried to do with patent encumbrance on top of GPL licensed software. It is an ongoing dream of many software vendors who work with "open source" software or proprietary software to lock down their particular implementation and charge whatever the market will bear for that particular version.

      * DRM is often a violation of ordinary sales rights to use property. If you can successfully put a codicil in the contract or bill of sale, well and good, but many DRM tools far exceed any reasonable or documented codicil. They grant far too much control to the vendor of the software. (Examine Trusted Computing and the history of Sony's "root kits" for examples of such abuse.)

      * RMS has been very careful, and clear, that the people working under GPL are using exactly the right you want: the right to insist that software be used the way the authors want it to be used, or not to be used at all. Many of hsi views are impractical, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be effective if consistently applied

      I actually had the opportunity to speak to RMS a few years ago at a conference. He's a strange man in person, but his approaches to technology and freedom are consistent and well thought out.

    51. Re:Exactly. by You're+All+Wrong · · Score: 1

      > but they don't violate my "rights" in the slightest.

      You simply couldn't be much more wrong. Just because you are ignorant of your rights doesn't mean you haven't had them violated by DRM. Handy hint - try "fair use" in your favourite search engine.

      --
      Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
    52. Re:Exactly. by Kirth · · Score: 1

      Yes

      On the other hand, when I see the masses of extremist mercantilist and protectionist monopoly-fanboys, I'm not surprised to find an extremist on the other side. Because if only reasonable people would be against artificial monopolies, their position would long ago have been swamped by the extremists on the other side (which is, by the way, what already happened). So I think he's necessary.

      Of course, you're not supposed to argue with him, you're supposed to watch him go berserk against the other extremists.

      And if, perchance, he sometimes misses the target (and Ubuntus shopping lens is totally a legitimate target!), then you might need to discuss. If that happens, see the Debian-Project (which still does not accept the GFDL and considers it "non-free") on how to proceed.

      --
      "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
    53. Re:Exactly. by You're+All+Wrong · · Score: 1

      Agreed - this *should* seriously harm Ubuntu's position within businesses. I have instigated a "no ubuntu on any company machines, or machines on the company's network" policy now - I simply can't have confidential information (even things as simple as names of prospective clients, for example) being inadvertently leaked through careless searches. A bulletin went around to all employees as soon as I heard of this decision, it was a very easy one to make.

      I never liked the dumbing down that Ubuntu brought to the linux desktop anyway; to be honest I couldn't care less if these latest decisions bury them, it looks like mint is getting good press as an alternative.

      --
      Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
    54. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool story bro, but reality paints a different picture. RMS knows why people want to trade freedom for convenience. RMS knows why people want to choose to give up their freedom. The point of RMS's activism is to promote the message that freedom is important and it is worth fighting for. He explains the reasons why he does what he does and encourages you to do the same for the sake of your own freedom.

      if you don't agree with his point of view then you are stupid and ignorant

      What if he is correct? That would make you stupid and ignorant if he's truly correct. Well guess what, he's continually been vindicated through the years for the issues that people have dismissed as being theoretical, academic and not likely to happen. This means he been prescient of the topics he espouses and yet, people still don't understand the lesson: if you don't value your freedom, others will be glad to take it from you and they will control you.

    55. Re:Exactly. by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      So if theirs a thunderstorm or an eclipse, it's because the fool said the sun was shining that it is now dark and not because of the other circumstances?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    56. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GPL doesn't force anything.

      I could download any GPL program, modify it as much as I want and never give it back.

      It is not until you distribute it, that the clause that you have to make your changes available kicks in.

      That is more than fair. You have no problem taking others work and keeping it.

      You are the very definition of a mooch.

    57. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me convenience or give me death?

      If you ever want to trade your freedom for ANYTHING, you have failed in being free. You are a slave.

      Has it ever occured to you that we can have both freedom and fancy toys?

    58. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should he meet those in the middle that seek to use technology to control us?

      There is nothing noble in bending your principles for those that have none.

    59. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll get hate for saying this but fuck it this is how I feel, this is EXACTLY why I can't fucking stand RMS, because in just about every way he IS the classic Internet Troll. There can be NO discussion of an issue, NO moderation, NO exchange of ideas or attempts to meet each other in the middle, he is like the absolute worst of partisan politics concentrated into a giant flaming troll.

      In every single rant and every single conversation as far as as RMS is concerned there is only TWO answers, either you agree with every fucking thing he does and says and are therefor "good" or you don't and you are a "sinner" and bad and destroying kittens and kicking puppies. Even the head of Red Hat says "RMS treats his friends like his enemies" because one can NEVER disagree with him, not ever, or you are just a worthless piece of shit destroying the planet.

      So just to put my own spin on his totally tasteless rant when Steve Jobs died "I won't be glad when he's dead but I'll be glad when he's gone" because just like dealing with a ranting political hack or Internet troll its ALL "good VS evil" with of course everything good defined by what St iGNUcious believes and everything evil is those that dont kiss the ring and fall in line. So I'd say he is far worse than childish, most people can see childish behavior and dismiss the person for acting like they are four, nope this is MUCH worse, its the classic Faux News HuffPo "You are with me or against me!" divisive bullshit that frankly makes having a civilized conversation all but impossible.

      Asperger or Autistic.

    60. Re:Exactly. by yawaramin · · Score: 1

      No. The point is, the fool failed to recognise/accept the changed circumstances and still keeps insisting on whatever he thinks should be true.

    61. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is funny since free and open source software runs the entire world.

  21. Siding with RMS on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Usually I find RMS to be far too out in left field for my taste, but I have to agree with him on this one. Ubuntu's move was bad for their users, they have refused to listen to feedback and both the EFF and RMS have correctly called them out for bad behaviour. Mark Shuttleworth going off about how "we already have root" didn't exactly help Canonical's position. Now another Ubuntu developer is screaming "FUD" and whining about how people are calling them out for spying on their users. Really, they just seem to be trying to dig a deeper and deeper hole for themselves.

  22. PETA:animals rights :: RMS:privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Both can be annoying and counter-productive when pushed to extremes. Yet, it's not necessarily bad to have them in the world.

  23. QA by RedHackTea · · Score: 0

    When it comes to Ubuntu and most FOSS, we are the QA, and in my opinion, the QA is very important. It doesn't mean that you should listen to every wisecrack out there, but RMS has a valid opinion here. While I won't admit that it is spyware, it is spyware-like. For the average non-techie user, are they going to know how to uninstall the automatic amazon searches? I bet not. Their search data will be collected. It could possibly slow down searching on the computer (as it will search both their filesystem and amazon; they probably don't know how to use "find" or "grep" appropriately in the terminal). There is no option to opt out of it when installing the OS or an easy way to uninstall it. If you read the definition of Spyware it keeps sounding more and more similar. This isn't FUD. Take your head out of your ass for a minute and actually listen to the community that uses your distro.

    --
    The G
  24. understand by 101percent · · Score: 1

    What I still don't understand is why Ubuntu/Canonical wants to invest in this (dash) "experience" when, if you hold them to their stated goal, there are tons of other worthwhile efforts to engage in that need help. Why not leave the "find things that are interesting and relevant to you" to the billion-plus profit companies who have been doing this for over a decade online. When it is an OS vendors job to innovate in this area, unless they are talking out of the side of their mouths? One can only logically conclude they are doing this as a source of revenue, which is totally fine, however this apology is just another instance in which they say one thing and do another thing.

  25. Typical Canonical/PR bullshit. by c0l0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not that I would expect anything else from someone who is a "community manager" (FOSS' modern-day equivalent to the appendix, in my opinion), but this "personal blog entry" is, of course, a steaming turd. I don't see RMS spreading FUD about Ubuntu, not at all. In fact, he makes it quite clear what they get, in his opinion at least, wrong, and why he sees it that way - and he leaves nothing about that "in doubt" or, in one way or anther, vague. Discrediting this kind of honest and up-front criticism as FUD, whilst he himself is weasling around the true motives (turn desktop users into dollar bills for Canonical's pockets) for the Amazon integration with all that hey-everybody-let's-disregard-that-and-feel-good sidetracking that's going on in that posting really makes me nauseous. "Better user experience", "creating desirable products", yaddah yaddah - yeah, fine and dandy, but trying to sell us this (in my opionion pretty crazy) add-on, that submits all the text I enter - be it to start a new program or open a document I stored - to a web service the users absolutely don't control, as an improvement for the good of the general public is not only ridiculous, but also demeaning to the intelligence of everyone who they expect to fall for the kind of "argument" Jono Bacon is trying to make on his blog. It's the FOSS-equivalent to the Ask.com toolbar, or Bonzy Buddy "form filling" browser-add on from days of yore, that Windows users get shoved down their collective throats if they miss unchecking a box in popular "freeware" installation wizards these days, and everyone with half a brain can see right through that.

    --
    :%s/Open Source/Free Software/g

    YTARY!
    1. Re:Typical Canonical/PR bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You hit the nail on the Head!

  26. The response is obvious by water-and-sewer · · Score: 1

    Former Ubuntu users to Ubuntu's community manager: "We former-users of your once-good distribution now think it sucks."

    Let's see if they understand *that.*

    --
    If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
  27. Know what I want? by stevez67 · · Score: 1

    The tin foil hat concession in the room when these people rant about privacy. You should realize they're all in their own little tizzy because they can't stand being out of the limelight and for the sake of income. No drama = no $$.

  28. Re:Nothing wrong with him by kokako · · Score: 0

    I wish I had mod points for this. Who cares what Stallman eats or does with his toes. What counts is whether he has a point or not, and surely Slashdot of all places should embrace the geeks and freaks that don't care about bourgeois social norms and Emily Post etiquette bullshit. Fuck all of you juvenile morons / Microsoft trolls.

    That said, I like Ubuntu. But I do agree that the shopping lens stuff is a bad move, and Bacon doesn't address its critics at all here.

  29. Re:Nothing wrong with him by alucardX · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Bad hygiene is one thing, opinions and ideas are another. I think that everyone should leave this video out of discussions about real issues. All it does is detract from the topic under discussion. If you want to fixate on that video start a blog and talk about it all that you want.

  30. Re:Nothing wrong with him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Argumentum ad pedem.

  31. And children are often by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...known for their keen method of pointing out things that have become invisible to adults.

    1. Re:And children are often by unixisc · · Score: 1

      The Canonical spokesman needlessly insulted children by equating Stallman's rant to theirs.

  32. Ubuntu have lost their way by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First they totally ignore user wishes by foisting Unity on previously happy Ubuntu users, with a "for your own good" attitude. Thank goodness there is Linux Mint is all I can say about the desktop nonsense.

    Now Ubuntu are integrating privacy-destroying searches. Then they have the temerity to criticize the guy who inspired the ecosystem they depend on (and profit from), when he points out that what is good for Canonical is not good for the privacy of their users.

    What a tragedy. Ubuntu's focus on ease of use was such a great leap forward for Linux usability. Now they've lost the plot and forgot about their constituency, instead trying to drive more and more revenue with things the user's don't actually want.

    It used to be, "In order for Microsoft to 'win', the customer must lose". You could extend that to "In order for Canonical to win, the customer must lose". You could then generalize that (as RMS does) to "In order for $COMPANY to win, the customer must lose". There are still some companies around that actually care about their employees and users (not just paying lip service to it), but that number is clearly decreasing. RMS is right to call them out for ignoring user desire for privacy (privacy should be the default, with effort to opt-in).

    Jono has what seems a reasonable post. He never addresses RMS' assertion not that searches go to Amazon, but that your files and folders that are also searched also have metadata submitted to Canonical (and then presumably, portions go to Amazon). Jono never dismisses this citing stuff about "personal preference" instead. It would be nice if Canonical came out with a statement saying that they don't transfer information from your searched files and folders to Amazon, because they haven't yet (at least not in my reading of Jono's post). Until Canonical prove otherwise it appear that RMS is completely right in this issue.

    1. Re:Ubuntu have lost their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess they just marked their #1 bug as "Wontfix"

    2. Re:Ubuntu have lost their way by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      If you don't like Unity, you can turn it off trivially.

      If you don't like the Amazon.com ads, you can turn them off trivially.

      If you don't like something Canonical did with Ubuntu, you can either change it, or you can use another distro. It's not like there's a shortage of debian distros out there for you to use.

      Or, you can do what Canonical did, and continues to pour millions into without asking a dime from you, and roll your own distribution, pour thousands of man-hours/year into it, and give it away for free.

      I don't get the fire-breathing vitriol directed at Canonical for doing what they do. If you don't like it, you don't have to use their distro.

    3. Re:Ubuntu have lost their way by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      I don't get the fire-breathing vitriol directed at Canonical for doing what they do. If you don't like it, you don't have to use their distro.

      Canonical would like us to use their distro, yes? Then why should they (or you) be perturbed when customers pronounce loudly that Canonical are making missteps? Now there are always whingers, but there is such a groundswell of opposition of Unity and this privacy breaching move that surely it reflects the will of a significant fraction of users. You may tolerate, or even enjoy, a once fine restaurant now serving swill but surely you might understand that other dinners can express their disappointment, yes? Even for something free we can still complain about privacy breaches. Before you counter with "freeloaders can't complain" please remember that Canonical are perfectly free to charge for Ubuntu, and they themselves also take (and yes, improve) for free the vast amount of upstream work for no cost.

      If Canonical want us to use their distro (for which they can leverage rewards in other ways) then making it unappealing helps neither them nor us. It is not the people who complain about Ubuntu that you should worry about, these people feel passionate enough about Ubuntu that they'll complain to try and make it better. The people who can't be bothered to comment and merely switch distros are of greater concern to Ubuntu's viability.

      or you can use another distro

      That's what I did. I used to recommend and use Ubuntu for my Linux fix, but now I use Mint. However, I made comment not as an ungrateful bleat but because silence helps Canonical far, far less than taking the time to write what we don't like about their direction (changing from something that was far more promising). My tastes have changed far less than their direction has. Do you think it is worth them understanding that? (note: software development firms pay large sums to market research firms for the same information - complaining is a way of giving back, annoying yes, but it is still contributing to those companies willing to listen to their users and adapt to the market).

    4. Re:Ubuntu have lost their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." -misattributed to Henry Ford
      "You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new." - Steve Jobs

      Sometimes listening to what people think they want leads to stagnation. To actually advance they have to be willing to jump into things that may fail completely and may lose people along the way.

    5. Re:Ubuntu have lost their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get the fire-breathing vitriol directed at Canonical for doing what they do. If you don't like it, you don't have to use their distro.

      I think it has a lot to do with the feeling that Ubuntu is taking away mindshare (developers, users, media attention, ...) from other distributions that are ideologically purer (e.g. Debian).

      The Linux market on which distributions compete for (both commercial and non-commercial) attention is definitely not a zero-sum game (and you can certainly argue that Ubuntu did massively expand the size of that market) but neither does Ubuntu exist in a vacuum - part of its success does impact the success of other distributions adversely.

      The fear is that the vast majority of (Linux!) users might continue to support the technically superior (ease of use, documentation, etc) but ideologically inferior choice, that they care more about "free as in beer" than about "true" freedom.
      The Free Software movement always relied on the conflation of gratis and free to spread its message: they took people who came for gratis software and gradually converted them into free software zealots. But what do you do when these users choose a superior non-free but gratis solution instead? How can you reach potential recruits?

    6. Re:Ubuntu have lost their way by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

      If you don't like Unity, you can turn it off trivially. If you don't like the Amazon.com ads, you can turn them off trivially.

      Or you can drop Ubuntu for another distro, and you don't have to worry about the next "feature" to turn off.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    7. Re:Ubuntu have lost their way by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Duh. Didn't I say exactly that in the very same post you quoted?

      Or, were you so eager to be snarky that you didn't bother to read the rest of it before replying?

    8. Re:Ubuntu have lost their way by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Finally, a somewhat intelligent comment.

      You raise a good point that Linux developers are a finite resource, but you have to also consider that some users actually do like unity, and some users, especially the shopping type, might find Amazon ads convenient. These users certainly aren't going to fit within the set of what you might describe as a typical Linux user, but the whole point of Canonical's effort is to make Linux more acceptable on the main stream.

      It is only ideologically inferior if your standard of excellence is what you consider to be "purity." I think there is room for Linux to grow more "mainstream" by incorporating "non-pure" features, because let's face it, what a LOT of people consider "pure," a more mainstream person considers "elitist" or even the much loathed image of the "45 years old, single, living in mom's basement on cheetos and red bull" computer dork.

      Perhaps incorporating amazon ads was a misstep, but perhaps not. What has become clear in the last couple of generations is that privacy is only an issue to a comparatively small minority of people. Certainly today's youth, who constantly blather on about what they had for breakfast on facebook, don't give two shits if Amazon.com knows what they do on their computer.

      The youth of today are the spenders of tomorrow, so if you want to know where the computer industry is going, you need look no further. Personally, I think it's fucking scary, because today's youth are a bunch of self-absorbed, entitled automatons who couldn't think their way out of a paper sack.

    9. Re:Ubuntu have lost their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ads aren't a big deal.
      Sending each and every LOCAL search to Amazon... is.

  33. Re:Nothing wrong with him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares what Stallman eats or does with his toes.

    The live audience probably cared.

  34. It's all about the benjamins by MrEricSir · · Score: 2

    The truth is Ubuntu will not continue to exist unless they can make money. This isn't the first strategy they've tried.

    As much as I despise the "feature," I'd rather have to disable some settings when I install than to not have Ubuntu (and its derivatives.)

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:It's all about the benjamins by icebraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ubuntu is the derivative. The original work - without which Ubuntu wouldn't exist - is still here after 20 years and has never used such underhanded tactics on its users, and it actually has and follow a Social Contract that ensures it.

    2. Re:It's all about the benjamins by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      Sure, but let's also not forget that without Ubuntu, far fewer people would likely be running Linux on their desktops. Ubuntu might be a derivative but they've built everything from their own graphical installer to their own build service.

      Canonical employs over 500 people. Someone has to pay their salaries somehow.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    3. Re:It's all about the benjamins by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      The truth is Ubuntu will not continue to exist unless they can make money. This isn't the first strategy they've tried.

      Two words: "bad idea". Recognize that, make it opt-in instead of opt-out ("Support Ubuntu and get better search by enabling this...") and move on to more viable ideas.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    4. Re:It's all about the benjamins by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      Canonical employs over 500 people. Someone has to pay their salaries somehow.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSUSE_Project

      Much better, no 500 people needed. I wonder? Sure, they're sponsored by companies -- but I dare say they're sponsored to deliver great engineering, not to fucking fart around with logos and visions they then shamefully betray and whatnot. So fuck Ubuntu, the marketing and the noobs it rode on in.

    5. Re:It's all about the benjamins by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Ubuntu is the derivative. The original work - without which Ubuntu wouldn't exist - is still here after 20 years and has never used such underhanded tactics on its users, and it actually has and follow a Social Contract that ensures it.

      Let's not forget how Ubuntu made a lot of stuff just work and paved the way for Linux desktop in an important way.

    6. Re:It's all about the benjamins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and that is why after running Ubuntu since 2004 (the first release), I installed Debian testing yesterday.

  35. Wasn't it a child by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That pointed out that the emperor had no clothes?

  36. Re:Nothing wrong with him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would like to see a video if Bill Gates chewing the corporations he bankrupt just for profit

  37. Childish? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    The man is a fundamental loon. No different than a religious zealot. He's a wart on the ass of computing and he's giving the field a bad name.

    1. Re:Childish? by Molt · · Score: 2

      ...and yet he's also contributed so much to the field and been right often enough that people pay notice to what he has to say.

      --
      404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
  38. Stop Encouraging Him by FyberOptic · · Score: 0, Troll

    Richard Stallman has been childish since the day Symbolics told him he couldn't have their source code anymore, to which he set out on an infantile mission of revenge by cloning their software to a tee to give away for free (which today would put him in a lot of trouble), not to mention threatened to blow up their building (which would get you into a whole different kind of trouble in post-911 America). These days, he simply revises the GPL whenever a company (like Tivo) sends him into one of his rages.

    Can the tech media please stop posting RMS stories? Like with any other child acting out, you're only encouraging him.

    1. Re:Stop Encouraging Him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are implying somebody (e.g. Symbolics) could "own" information, then you already lost all your credibility, before you even started.

      First get out of your socially conditioned delusions, cut the propaganda feed to your brain, and then people will listen to you again.

      Children these days... Big and small... it doesn't matter... mentally, they're still children.

    2. Re:Stop Encouraging Him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't want to read it, don't do it. Only those who fear the truth to be known claim for censorship of others.

    3. Re:Stop Encouraging Him by FyberOptic · · Score: 2

      When you grow up and realize what the real world is like, you'll quickly realize that information can in fact be owned, and that it's important for this to occur for numerous reasons which you apparently fail to grasp. No amount of pseudo-techno-philosophy you choose to fill your head with will change how the world works, nor will it stop you from going to jail if you suddenly decide something belongs to you which doesn't.

      Thinking you're more enlightened than the rest of society despite an overwhelming majority of them disagreeing with you is usually the first sign of a delusional mind. It's common in those who feel they should be able to have what other people possess, as a matter of fact.

    4. Re:Stop Encouraging Him by FyberOptic · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between "truth" and "attention-seeking tactless public outbursts." There's quite a few organizations and professionals out there who will deliver the former, where as RMS only delivers the latter. Censorship is not an issue, because anyone can still go to his website if they want to see the ramblings of a delusional man, much the same as one can find websites of all the truthers and birthers elsewhere if that's what they're after.

    5. Re:Stop Encouraging Him by Xtifr · · Score: 2

      These days, he simply revises the GPL whenever a company (like Tivo) sends him into one of his rages.

      Considering that there's only been three versions, and version one basically never saw the light of day, and version two was considered The GPL for over a quarter of a century, I think you're more than exaggerating. In fact, I think you're trolling.

      Or maybe you're right, and RMS has only had one rage in the last thirty years--but then why say "one of his rages"?

      Basically, your post seems to be logic-free. But hey, at least we don't have to worry about you revising any of your major contributions to the world every time you fly into one of your little rages. That would require that you make at least one.

    6. Re:Stop Encouraging Him by icebraining · · Score: 1

      When you grow up and realize what the real world is like, you'll quickly realize that slaves can in fact be owned, and that it's important for this to occur for numerous reasons which you apparently fail to grasp. No amount of pseudo-humantary-philosophy you choose to fill your head with will change how the world works, nor will it stop you from going to jail if you suddenly decide something belongs to you which doesn't.

      Thinking you're more enlightened than the rest of society despite an overwhelming majority of them disagreeing with you is usually the first sign of a delusional mind. It's common in those who feel they should be able to have what other people possess, as a matter of fact.

      The same argument could have been used by the average person not that much ago, yet it looks grotesque nowadays.

      No, I'm not saying that "IP" is slavery. I'm saying that these arguments are nothing but a reflection of the prejudices of the time.

    7. Re:Stop Encouraging Him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you grow up and realize what the real world is like, you'll quickly realize that slaves can in fact be owned, and that it's important for this to occur for numerous reasons which you apparently fail to grasp. No amount of pseudo-humantary-philosophy you choose to fill your head with will change how the world works, nor will it stop you from going to jail if you suddenly decide something belongs to you which doesn't.

      Thinking you're more enlightened than the rest of society despite an overwhelming majority of them disagreeing with you is usually the first sign of a delusional mind. It's common in those who feel they should be able to have what other people possess, as a matter of fact.

      The same argument could have been used by the average person not that much ago, yet it looks grotesque nowadays.

      No, I'm not saying that "IP" is slavery. I'm saying that these arguments are nothing but a reflection of the prejudices of the time.

      Did you just equate software to PEOPLE? No? Then what the hell is the point, you could have used GOLDFISH.
      Yup, they can be owned, and that may be some form of social prejudice, but what ISN'T?

      It's all about priorities.

      IMHO, the debate over ownership of software is way down below ownership of domesticated animals, and fish.

    8. Re:Stop Encouraging Him by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Ownership of goldfish didn't go from normally accepted to abhorrent, so no, I couldn't use it.

      But the same argument applied to goldfish would in fact be as asinine as to software or humans. My goal is pointing out the flaw in the argument, not necessarily say that software can or cannot be owned.

      It's all about priorities.

      No. Nothing in the discussion about software ownership prevents a discussion on ownership of goldfish, so there's no point in prioritizing one over the other.

      IMHO, the debate over ownership of software is way down below ownership of domesticated animals, and fish.

      That's like saying we should only worry about a crime if there aren't any worse being committed. It's a red herring, nothing more.

    9. Re:Stop Encouraging Him by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "If you are implying somebody (e.g. Symbolics) could "own" information, then you already lost all your credibility, before you even started."

      Says the anonymous coward. Slashdot isn't what it used to be, but it's still a goldmine of unintentional irony.

    10. Re:Stop Encouraging Him by Molt · · Score: 1

      He also childishly started the free software movement and wrote the original GPL, which he revises when he thinks it's broken in some way.

      A lot of what he writes annoys me, I think his views are very black-and-white and have an overly idealised slant. I also think he's right quite often though, as in this case, and is able to raise the profile of things such as this a lot better than those of who seem to care what others think of them would be able to do so.

      There is a reason that stories about him are posted by the tech media.

      --
      404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
    11. Re:Stop Encouraging Him by antdude · · Score: 1

      Now, you're being childish. [grin] :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    12. Re:Stop Encouraging Him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, Tivo is a great example of what the GPL was initially created to prevent. Locked hardware.

      In case anyone forgot about the printer incident that started the whole thing.

  39. Re:Nothing wrong with him by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 2
    Feel better, Mr nobody?

    "Bertrand Russell was so inept, physically, that he could never learn to make a pot of tea."

    "Immanuel Kant could not manage to sharpen a quill pen with a penknife."

    "John Stuart Mill could barely tie a simple knot."

    Who cares? They are not fameous for that.

    --
    Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
  40. Re: Ooh boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A post such as above reinforces every opinion I hold of Microsoft, its tactics, and its camp followers.

  41. Re:Nothing wrong with him by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's famous, idoit!

    --
    Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
  42. Ad Hominem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like how, in the previous RMS post to Slashdot, people were attacking him, even pointing out some disgusting behavior in the first few posts.

    It's called an ad hominem attack.

    It makes me wonder how many shill accounts exist just for this purpose, for Linux and FOSS articles a lot of the time sock puppets are the first to post and are usually OT and/or trolls.

    Yep, that's how to do it.

  43. Re:Nothing wrong with him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's from Britain you insensitve cloud!

  44. RMS Sitting on a Pointy Pedestal, Exposing Sinners by reallocate · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Stallman is very much more concerned with how his software is made than what it can do. That's an attitude that's the mirror image of pretty much the rest of the human race. He has constructed an elitist pedestal of pseudo-morailty around software development and placed himself on top of it. Free software has obvious advantages in terms of spreading technique, etc., but Stallman's trashings of anyone who does not adhere to his gospel is demagoguery at its finest.

    I'm much more offended by the clutter and annoyance of Ubuntu's lens feature than I am by the supposed offense of the product's becoming one of millions of Amazon Associates. Ubuntu is trying to make a bit of cash, and that seems to offend a lot of people much more than any perceived violation of the Stallman Code.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  45. Does it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    UCM's post seems a bit sinister to me.

    RMS raises some valid questions about current Canonical policy and they reply with name calling.

  46. Re:Nothing wrong with him by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 3, Informative

    No, I'm not.

    --
    Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
  47. Well I guess if you have to real arguments... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then personal attacks like "childish" and your unfounded nonsense are the only thing left.

    I found that there is a typical pattern in people with that type of argument demonstrably also lacking the ability to keep up rational and logically solid argument chains for more than a very short time. (Before they start resorting to fallacies like the above, or ad populum, or circular reasoning, or strawman arguments.) I know countless instances. But of course I'll wait, watch for anomalies, and see with my own eyes. ;)

  48. Re:Ooh boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well i would far rather have the RMS version .. The Ubuntu people need to quit with the Apple /MS tactics

  49. Re:Nothing wrong with him by fuliginous · · Score: 2

    Like you I too like (liked?) Ubuntu but I'm not going to be moving on from 12.04 due to the disagreeable features being add. Yes they can currently apparently be turned off but I don't want to be messing like that. Question is where to move to.

  50. Canonical has devolved into a spammer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canonical didn't write the kernel, the userspace or the browser. All of these projects existed before Canonical and they all had restrictions on use that Canonical knew about beforehand.

    Does anyone really think that RMS and Linus didn't put ads in the OS because they lacked the ability?

    Canonical has devolved into a spammer that takes other people's content, messes it up and plasters ads on it.

    Is that what Canonical aspires to be?

  51. Dear RMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for emacs, and the groundwork for fantastic tools that were needed so badly to jumpstart unix and unix like operating systems in the 90's and today.
    Thank you for your contribution. You are appreciated. you can't control your children, You try and try, but you can't.
    Please. Do us all a favor. Be respected for what you have done. Now please go home.

  52. RMS is right by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ubuntu is ultimately there for Canonical's profit. We thought we could work with folks like that, but obviously we were too optimistic. The goals of the Free Software community are important, and will only be achieved if people like you devote your free time to making the non-profits work as the direct path to users.

    1. Re:RMS is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What non-profits are you talking about?

    2. Re:RMS is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ubuntu is ultimately there for Canonical's profit

      Gee, thanks Bruce. Way to piss on all the people who aren't Canonical employees that devote a lot of time and effort to making Ubuntu a successful and welcoming community of users and developers. Way to piss on Canonical too as company that regularly contributes to those non-profits like the Gnome Foundation, the Document Foundation, and probably SPI (which, for some reason doesn't publish corporate contributor list).

    3. Re:RMS is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says the man who worked for the most privacy invasive, linux-using corporation (Google) of all time. You're a hypocrite, Bruce.

    4. Re:RMS is right by fnj · · Score: 1

      Yes. To a battle of wits against RMS, these type of guys come unarmed.

    5. Re:RMS is right by Molt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Windows is ultimately there for Microsoft's profit, and yet there are a lot of people who put time and effort into building communities for both developers and users on Windows without being employed by Microsoft. These people would, quite rightly, be offended if you said they were just doing it to improve Microsoft's profits- they're there to help others, share their knowledge, talk with others who have similar interests, and other similar personal goals.

      It's still true though that Windows is ultimately there for Microsoft's profit.

      The non-profits they invest are those which directly benefit themselves. These are the people who're writing the code which Canonical are going to be marketing, is it too surprising that they're throwing them some money? It's practical in that they can't afford for Linux to fall behind Windows or OS X, and they also want to keep community feeling onside as they don't want to lose support from those who recommend their distro.

      I'm not saying I dislike Canonical, I am saying they are a business. Without that they probably wouldn't have achieved what they have, a few people with great intentions can't achieve as much as a few people with great intentions and the money and organisation to back them up with. That money has to come from somewhere too, it doesn't just magically appear, but deals like this- especially when give spin this poor- are likely to cost too much goodwill from their audience to make them worthwhile.

      --
      404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
    6. Re:RMS is right by jmv · · Score: 2

      I think overall for-profit companies have made a huge contribution to the Free Software community. While Canonical has probably contributed less than many others, I still still their total contribution as positive. Of course I still disagree when their new Ubuntu spyware and even before that I had already decided to stop using it for unrelated reasons (Unity and other interface-related decisions). In any community, there will be individuals and companies that do the wrong thing and I don't see anything special about for-profit. The best example of non-profit org messing up badly that comes to mind (there's probably many more) is XFree86. That was quickly worked around.

    7. Re:RMS is right by BitZtream · · Score: 0

      Sometimes you are such a douche. You wouldn't matter if it weren't for for-profit companies. Linux wouldn't be anything if it weren't for many companies just like Canonical. No one would even know your name, yet you piss on the people who give you the life you have.

      You're (and RMS) are the type of people who cut off your face to spite your nose.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    8. Re:RMS is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Linux community has a new theme song. It goes a little something like this:

      "No time to get down 'cause I'm moving up
      No time to get down 'cause I'm moving up
      No time to get down 'cause I'm moving up, ah-ah
      Check out the crabs in the bucket..."

      It's amusing, and more than a little horrifying, to see notables in the FOSS community turn on the people who have arguably done more to foster the adoption of Linux - and by extension, FOSS - by making it accessible to the mainstream users (Red Hat & Canonical) than anybody at the FSF. Do you realize how ridiculously self-defeating this infighting is? And then, 20 years from now, you're all going to wonder:

      1) Why Microsoft is still making a mint off Windows;
      2) Why Apple is still making a mint off OSX;
      3) Why "The Year of the Linux Desktop" is always $current_year + 1;

      Look in the mirror. The problem is you. And RMS. And everybody else who shits all over any financially successful open source project that is not 100% in compliance with RMS' ideals. The world is an ugly, bumpy, thorny place - it will NEVER comply with your ideals 100%. You can continue holding your breath and stomping your feet and demanding the world to change to suit your ideals, or you can start adopting a more pragmatic approach that might actually get you 80% of the way to your ideals, which is a pretty fucking good place to be.

      No implementation of an ideal survives contact with reality unscathed. It's time you & RMS and all the other crabs in the bucket learned that, too. If you don't, you WILL become irrelevant.

    9. Re:RMS is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bruce is a toe-cheese canape away from being RMS anyway.

    10. Re:RMS is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bruce (and RMS) are like Terry from On the Waterfront: "You don't understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it." Or Jake LaMotta referencing the scene. Nobodies whose best days are behind them. Pilot fish amongst sharks who get things done. Hmm, given his penchant for eating and living on detritus, that truly is an apt metaphor for RMS.

    11. Re:RMS is right by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you get paid Mr Perens? if so I'd say you're being a bit of a hypocrite, as the company that pays you isn't just handing you money because you smell nice ya know, its because they intend to profit from your labor. Without looking up what you've been up to lately I'll take a wild guess and say you or your employer is following one of the 3 "pre-approved" methods listed below, yes? which if correct proves what I've been saying for years, that Linux has no place on a desktop since desktops don't fit into one of the 3 "blessed" business models.

      Mark Shuttleworth invested millions into canonical and like anybody else who invests a large sum he would at least like to break even, and considering the fact that Linux was virtually unknown outside the server room before Canonical came along and started polishing it up and trying to fix the "Its too complicated" image problem i'd say at the very least he deserves to make a few bucks.

      But all of this ranting and hatred directed at Canonical has proven ONE thing, it has proven that what the corps said were correct and GPL should be avoided like an STD unless you are a non profit or intending to survive with one of the "pre-approved" FOSS methods of which there are only 3, software contracts, selling hardware, and tin cup begging. After all Jobs used BSD and built an empire, Shuttleworth used Linux and is getting spat upon for trying to keep the lights on. if I were a new business starting out i know what lesson I'd take away from that, that I wouldn't allow a single line of code written for me or used by me be GPL, period.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    12. Re:RMS is right by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

      You know, most FOSS development is done by paid employees doing their jobs in for-profit companies. Free time, non-profit work is certainly valuable but not strictly needed.
      The commercial aspect is the reason why the GPL works so well.

    13. Re:RMS is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ubuntu is ultimately there for Canonical's profit. We thought we could work with folks like that, but obviously we were too optimistic.

      Without any feedback? Certainly. Profits and freedom don't align themselves magically. The only way in which unfreedom becomes unprofitable is when informed customers don't swallow unfreedom. The consequences of unfreedom are accumulative and slow. Every single step can be nicely justified. So it takes people with principles to raise a ruckus. It is quite popular to say "don't listen to RMS, he's nuts". Problem is, he is the right kind of nuts. The more people listen to him, for whatever reason, the less profitable it becomes for companies to screw people over regarding their personal and developer freedoms.

      People consider themselves independent thinkers by lambasting him. But that does not mean that they actually consider independent action, or even independent thinking. They just promote lethargy as an alternative, thinking that the free market will lead us to the best conceivable world, navigated by profits.

      But that does only work if profits depend on value, and that means that it is everybody's task to make his purchases depend on his personal values, since otherwise the free market will crap on his personal values.

    14. Re:RMS is right by Ash+Vince · · Score: 2

      Ubuntu is ultimately there for Canonical's profit. We thought we could work with folks like that, but obviously we were too optimistic. The goals of the Free Software community are important, and will only be achieved if people like you devote your free time to making the non-profits work as the direct path to users.

      Do you think it has reached brake even point yet? Do you think it ever will?

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    15. Re:RMS is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jono Bacon really? He sounds, and looks, like a total asshole.

    16. Re:RMS is right by Larryish · · Score: 3, Funny

      Bacon hates RMS.

      But RMS _loves_ Bacon.

      I mean, have you seen RMS? That dude seriously loves him some bacon. And probably some donuts too.

    17. Re:RMS is right by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      But all of this ranting and hatred directed at Canonical has proven ONE thing, it has proven that what the corps said were correct and GPL should be avoided like an STD unless you are a non profit or intending to survive with one of the "pre-approved" FOSS methods of which there are only 3, software contracts, selling hardware, and tin cup begging.

      Ah yes, more cock-and-bullery from hairyfeet. This has not proven any such thing, and no amount of asserting that it has will make it so. I understand that you hate the GPL, but not why, except that maybe once a penguin pissed in your Cheerios.

      The most important thing to remember is that the nerds on slashdot do not represent the general population. The average people don't give one tenth of one shit. The second most important thing to remember is that people are not uniformly against Canonical inserting money-making features into Linux. The other primary objection is not that it exists but that it's not splashed right up front for you to make a decision about; it was simply inserted into the OS and it's left to the user to understand the magical incantation to disable it.

      Some nerd rage does not prove that one must avoid the GPL in order to be successful, and no amount of your nerd rage can make it so.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:RMS is right by bryonak · · Score: 1

      Even though I have met quite a few people with your opinion (and just spoke with a guy declaring the GPL incompatible with money-making last week), I'm honestly unable to follow this reasoning.

      You're saying that there are only three business models with the GPL, but without it, there are... four? The license just removes the plumpest of them: pretending ideas were property and exchanging them for money.
      OK, an economist might provide you with more than one difference count without the GPL (and probably more than three business models for the GPL). But looking at the plethora of GPL software out there and seeing how it thrives in our economy-focused society (Linux, LibreOffice and the GPL-equivalent Mozilla products are highly successful and thus visible, but the vast majority simply goes by well enough), I think the complaints about monetising the GPL are due to the lack of creativity and skill rather than the license being an evil socialist trojan horse set to destroy businesses.

      So where does this attitude come from? My speculation is somewhat clichee, but since we know advertising and public campaigning do work, those huge loads of FUD by Microsoft must have had some impact somewhere, i.e. you and many others have been influenced by exactly that vague, self-reinforcing mantra of avoiding cancer-like Free Software...
      I'm sure you're a nice guy if we'd meet, but you can't prove to me that by taking one option (out of many) away for monetising software, you can't still make billions via the GPL.

    19. Re:RMS is right by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      I own my company. It doesn't work by any of the methods you imagined. And of course GPL, as a way of managing copyright, has nothing to do with this.

    20. Re:RMS is right by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

      Do you think it has reached brake even point yet? Do you think it ever will?

      I don't really care. What I do know is that it now has a mainly negative effect on the folks who feed it, and thus I evangelize that community folks find something else to do than helping Ubuntu.

    21. Re:RMS is right by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Way to piss on all the people who aren't Canonical employees that devote a lot of time and effort to making Ubuntu a successful and welcoming community of users and developers.

      As I said in my Linux.conf.au keynote, using your spare time to make Mark Shuttleworth richer isn't smart. We have a lot of real community projects, meaning operated by the community and entirely for the public benefit, where the present Ubuntu volunteers could better spend their time.

      Regarding the money, IMO it's not worth the negative part. And let's not forget that Ubuntu is essentially built by projects like GNOME and LibreOffice, and Debian. Should I be overjoyed by the little portion of what they make that they return to those projects?

    22. Re:RMS is right by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      These people would, quite rightly, be offended if you said they were just doing it to improve Microsoft's profits- they're there to help others, share their knowledge, talk with others who have similar interests, and other similar personal goals.

      Yes, they are. But they could do those same things in a way that sent all of their work to the public benefit. They really are enriching a company that ultimately doesn't have their own interest, or that of their community, in mind.

      Should I be unhappy that my thoughts offend them? I'm just sad for them that they don't see that their activities are so misdirected.

    23. Re:RMS is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple used BSD to build an empire? It was so simple, they didn't even need to invest $429 million in NeXTSTEP.

    24. Re:RMS is right by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      What I'm saying is that the GPL has a fatal flaw that makes it worthless unless you are able to make a living using one of the 3 "blessed" models of usage, software contracts, selling hardware, begging like a bum. the fatal flaw? the redistribution clause.

      And to show what an anti capitalist asshole RMS is I'd like anybody to explain how removing that one clause would change the outcome in his "printer story" that gave birth to the GPL in ANY way? After all he would still have the code, no change there, he could still modify it, again no change, he could even share his modifications, no different than how mods for non free games are perfectly fine and even encouraged by many companies, nope the ONLY thing it would do is allow a company to survive by selling copies of their software which whether you like it or not IS how much software has to be distributed because there are many places the GPL blessed 3 don't work. Games? Nobody is gonna buy contracts, nobody is gonna sell dedicated hardware for each game, and begging is not gonna bring in enough to keep a triple A game house afloat, which is why all GPL games look like shit from 30 years ago. And in the case at hand, desktops? Nobody is buying support contracts, in fact look at the sheer hate best Buy gets for pushing their GS support contracts. hardware? Unless you are Apple nope, not gonna get the economies of scale to compete and nobody is gonna pay more just to have a niche OS on hardware no better than what they get at Wally World in a $300 Dell, begging? We see what that has gotten Canonical, IE not enough to keep the lights on.

      Again whether you like and accept it or not the "blessed 3" simply doesn't work in the majority of cases, hell its beginning to fail in the corporate market as more and more are saying fuck the enterprise contracts and just hiring consultants to do jobs on a one off basis when problems arise. The hardware model means you might as well rename FOSS as "Chinamart" since no American firm is gonna be able to compete with a regime that lets you dump toxic waste out the back door and of course you can hire Chinese coders for less than what we pay the guy cleaning the puke up at Chuck E Cheese, and finally the begging model may work for a couple of guys in their garage doing it as a hobby, you sure as fuck aren't gonna grow and compete with the big boys by holding out a tin cup.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    25. Re:RMS is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please take your condescension and stuff up your Google enriched ass, Bruce.

    26. Re:RMS is right by NateTech · · Score: 1

      What you're trying to say succinctly, is that Bruce profits from the confusion created by open vs. closed source licensing and all the legal issues surrounding such.

      http://perens.com/business/consulting - In this, you are correct sir. His website says he charges a $450/hr consultation fee.

      More confusion, more perceived need. Attack!

      --
      +++OK ATH
    27. Re:RMS is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they are. But they could do those same things in a way that sent all of their work to the public benefit.

      Maybe you should take your own advice and do everything for free for the public benefit...forget money for food and shelter.

    28. Re:RMS is right by exomondo · · Score: 1

      What i don't understand is that after decades of proof that most of his views - for example his 'anti-cell phone' stance - are not something people are interested in and that his lifestyle of 'living like a student' is not something people aspire to he hasn't decided to try to push his agenda in a country with a different economic model. Why not look at developing countries that don't have strict patent enforcement and build a 'free software nation' there, some place untainted by what he sees as the evil of software patents and proprietary software and corporate control? If his model is indeed superior then such a nation would flourish.

    29. Re:RMS is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I do know is that it now has a mainly negative effect on the folks who feed it, and thus I evangelize that community folks find something else to do than helping Ubuntu.

      No, it has a negative effect on your agenda, so you want to encourage people to not help your competition (and their users) because you can't compete on your own merits. This pathetic selfish point of view that if they aren't helping support your income then they shouldn't help anyone. You can pretend you're altruistic but the real fact is you're no different to any of the greedy corporates you claim to oppose.

    30. Re:RMS is right by bryonak · · Score: 1

      Hmm, your ranting style makes it even harder to read than something from Stallman, but I'll try anyway...

      What I'm saying is that the GPL has a fatal flaw that makes it worthless unless you are able to make a living using one of the 3 "blessed" models of usage, software contracts, selling hardware, begging like a bum. the fatal flaw? the redistribution clause.

      Again, I wouldn't limit myself to 3 models if all you can come up with globally is 4. You don't mention dual licensing with requiring copyright assignment (yep, selling the software AND "begging" AND contracts), another strategy that is successfully employed by a number of FOSS projects.
      Also that's a pretty big "unless" there, as shown by the existence of thriving billion-dollar businesses focused on GPL software (e.g. Red Hat).
      Bluntly put: just because I can't capture humans and sell them as slaves (which used to be one of the biggest "economic sectors" in Roman times), this doesn't mean that any system forbidding this is worthless and not suited for monetising human resources.

      And to show what an anti capitalist asshole RMS is I'd like anybody to explain how removing that one clause would change the outcome in his "printer story" that gave birth to the GPL in ANY way? After all he would still have the code, no change there, he could still modify it, again no change, he could even share his modifications, no different than how mods for non free games are perfectly fine and even encouraged by many companies, nope the ONLY thing it would do is allow a company to survive by selling copies of their software which whether you like it or not IS how much software has to be distributed because there are many places the GPL blessed 3 don't work.

      It probably woundn't have changed the outcome, but claiming that this is the litmus test for the redistribution clause is just a strawman. Obviously he saw the need for it (I remember reading somewhere how he explained the need to make sure it stays free), the printer story just started the thought process. The effects (some call them benefits, but let's stay neutral) of the clause are clear to you and me today.

      Apart from that, a company surviving has little to do with not being able to use one narrow business model. But just to employ the same amount of drama: manufacturers saw a huge drop in profits in England when they outlawed 14 hour / 6 days workweeks for children during the industrialisation... and certainly a lot of companies who relied on that business model had a hard time adapting.

      Games? Nobody is gonna buy contracts, nobody is gonna sell dedicated hardware for each game, and begging is not gonna bring in enough to keep a triple A game house afloat, which is why all GPL games look like shit from 30 years ago. And in the case at hand, desktops? Nobody is buying support contracts, in fact look at the sheer hate best Buy gets for pushing their GS support contracts. hardware? Unless you are Apple nope, not gonna get the economies of scale to compete and nobody is gonna pay more just to have a niche OS on hardware no better than what they get at Wally World in a $300 Dell, begging? We see what that has gotten Canonical, IE not enough to keep the lights on.

      The FSF has made it clear that the GPL should not be used for art, documentation and other assets. Software is a tool, and it's source code has a completely different share-benefit behaviour than a nice painting or a poem.
      For most games, the art (music, video, image data) and context (game lore, setting, names) are way more important than the glue code used to piece together the engine and 3rd party libraries. Why shouldn't the engine be Free Software? Sure, the engine producers can't continue to sell it, so it'd be more like the Linux kernel instead of WinNT... and that's a model shown to work very successfully. (I'd even claim that a set of Valve/Activision/EA/...-backed shared game engines would be much quicker than Linux

    31. Re:RMS is right by bryonak · · Score: 1

      Why not look at developing countries that don't have strict patent enforcement and build a 'free software nation' there [...]

      Because he wants to see his own country improve?
      Because he thinks he can make the most global impact this way? (influence is usually USA->India, not the other way around)
      Because it's hard to establish an existence in a foreign country with as little personal wealth as he has? Also language, etc.
      Because it's not necessary (see below)?

      Why isn't it necessary? (First note that the software policy has little overall influence in the question whether a whole "nation would flourish", e.g. mandating all software to be GPL by law in Ethiopia won't stop the children from starving.)
      China's local software industry has grown to be quite impressive over the past decade. You might say that they are stealing everything from the USA, but then it's a simple fact that they'd be much more backwards if they had strong copyright laws. Russia has substantially stronger copyright, but still insufficient by US standards, so it's not really necessary to foster the spread of ideas there as it already happens with less barriers than in western countries.
      So what happens when the the Chinese run out of stuff to copy? I expect them to become dominant in software development anyway, because (aside from work ethics and sheer numbers) their system allows for motivated, creative and ambitious individuals to build their own enterprises based on the available knowledge and become self-made men. Kinda like it was in the USA during the golden age of software development, before all that patent craziness emerged that lead to the current status-quo-perpetuating structure.

      As a side note: in general, people only care about the one or two main views of a ideological leader. Did you know that Ghandi was a huge racist for most of his life (and later simply didn't comment on the topic)? I guess you can find faults with everyone....
      Regarding Stallman, even though I don't agree with lots of his minor views (e.g. cell phones, because I'm too convenience-addicted to care about it), I think his consistent stance on software freedom has been quite beneficial to society. And he continues to serve that often-mentioned valuable anchor function.

    32. Re:RMS is right by exomondo · · Score: 1

      In the last 3 decades if anything it's gone backwards, today people are using devices that are significantly more locked down, privacy invasive and far less 'freedom-respecting' and the claims of how evil and dangerous proprietary software is have amounted to nothing. Yes people use free software but not because it's free software, the vast majority of people don't even know it's free software much less care to exercise those 'freedoms'.

      The companies that have the power to change government policy are those with a vested interest in views opposed to Stallman's and the general public aren't opposed to such companies so my suggestion is based on the fact that countries like China don't have such laws in place so in theory espousing his views there will be more in line with the status quo and the country is likely to build around that sort of culture, if free software is so beneficial then such a country should quickly overtake nations 'encumbered' by proprietary software and patents.

    33. Re:RMS is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't try to reason with HairyFeet. He is a willful fucktard.

    34. Re:RMS is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think volunteering to help a corporation is a good thing?

      It is like volunteering at a for-profit hospital vs a non-profit like Shriners.

      Doing the former makes you an idiot and only really helps corporate interests, doing the latter helps the community as a whole and doesn't line the pockets of a corporation.

      Work for money when performing services for a for-profit corporations(ie your day to day job), donate your time to projects that help everyone.

      This is what Bruce is saying.

      It is not a hard concept to grasp.

    35. Re:RMS is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conanical has done exactly jack and shit.

      At no point has any version of Ubuntu been easier to use then other current distros. In fact, Ubuntu has done more damage, due to their hype and lackluster product, to Linux than Microsoft ever has.

      They also contribute a paltry amount of code to upstream projects.

      They are a package everyone's hard work together, wrap it in a shit-brown package and toss it out the door every 6 months.

      No one shits on Nokia for dual-licensing QT. No one shit on MySQL for doing the same thing. The list goes on and on, but nice hyperbole.

      People are shitting on Canonical because they are installing spyware by default. How hard is that to grasp? If I was stupid enough to use Ubuntu and stick through the Unity bullshit, I would ditch their sorry asses at the first hint.

      Why haven't they tried less intrusive means to raise money? Why did they waste so much money on Unity? You can't spend millions developing a pile of shit and then expect people to feel sorry for you. Unless you have money to burn, wasting it by the millions on a stupid idea will get you put out of business. Curt Schilling learned this the hard way too.

      Where is their legitimate service contracts? Where is their fundraising like Wikipedia does or even better why not have several booster levels that can be bought and you get various rewards for it(t-shirt/mug/plaque, a mention on their website). Why not sell CD's with cool add ons like game companies do with their collector editions?

      The fact is that Shuttlesworth went straight for the shittiest, most lowdown, most pathetic way to try to raise revenue before trying to do it right.

      Fuck Ubuntu, Fuck Canonical, and Fuck Shuttlesworth. The Linux world will be better without them.

    36. Re:RMS is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Helping out a corporation for free, that is spying on you is the height of corporate slavery.

      Not only are you working for free, you are assisting the slavers with enslaving others.

    37. Re:RMS is right by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      If the fact that the Chinese would rather steal Windows than use Linux don't slap people with a cluebat I don't know what will. Again whether they like it or not, whether it fits into Stallman's "bum's paradise' of all programmers working for nothing or not, the simple fact is good software costs good money and with the "blessed 3" unless you are in an enterprise niche, and sometimes not even then, then you simply have no hope of competing or even making a truly good software product.

      I mean look at the costs, a good CS degree is gonna cost upwards of a high 5 to low 6 figures, then you have the costs for the building and the boxes and the power, how are they suppose to work for free? The tooth fairy gonna pay those bills? Gonna hit everybody up for a "FOSS tax" whether they use it or not?

      If you truly want FOSS to win over non-FOSS then you have to give a way for companies like canonical to survive, simple as that. Its the classic "busted shitter" problem in that if I ask you to paint me a picture or write me a song for free? i'll have plenty of takers, if I ask for someone to come fix my nasty turd filled shitter for free? Well I better get used to pissing in the sink.

      And whether the "bum's paradise" people like it or not, and frankly that is EXACTLY what RMS is, even he calls himself a "squatter on MIT", the simple fact is a LOT of jobs in software are just as nasty as fixing a busted shitter. Apple and MSFT pay millions to get THEIR shitters fixed, in FOSS you better get used to pissing in the sink. Bug fixing, writing docs, focus testing, QA and QC, regression testing, all of these jobs are long, slow, boring, tedious and thankless work so they just don't get done.

      Hell for a perfect illustration look at the state of "FOSS gaming" right now, this like desktops is an area where the "blessed 3" of the GPL doesn't work, so what do you get? Games that look like they could have ran on the SNES 20 years ago or yet another MP only Q3 Arena ripoff, why? Because despite being called "games" they have lots of truly shitty jobs, writing the scripts, doing the voice acting, bug fixing and regression testing, so since thanks to the redistribution clause meaning you can't make shit since its not one of the "blessed 3" use cases people ONLY do the easy and fun work like making models for Q3 and then just using the code that ID already made THEIR money on to do the grunt work.

      Despite all the screams of "shill!" because I won't drink the koolaid I actually WANT FOSS to succeed, I really do. You think I like paying more for the OS I want because MSFT is trying to shove Win 8 down my throat? Think I like having to sell some boxes with XP on them because the cost of a Win 7 license would make the system cost more than its worth? But until companies like canonical can actually make enough to survive and still have enough left over to pay for all those nasty busted shitter jobs the fact is Linux just won't cut the mustard. On the desktop its just cobbled together and has a really half ass feel, sorry but it does. Missing docs, drivers getting shit on when you update, programs crashing when you do a simple task like its fricking Win98, its just not in the same league and its because nobody can get paid for fixing all these busted shitter problems so year after year they don't get fixed. I can take a copy of XP RTM, patch it all the way to current and ALL of the drivers and software I installed on the RTM will STILL WORK, I do that on any Linux distro using half that amount of time and I end up with a buggy crashy mess of an OS.

      again you remove the redistribution clause which NOBODY I noticed could come up with a reason for BTW, and you would still solve the printer story, still let the users modify their software all day long, but still allow companies like canonical to make a living fixing the problems. this is why I said the big mistake Shuttleworth made was going Linux over BSD, Jobs used BSD and built an empire around solid software with an "it just works" mantra, shuttleworth used Linux and is struggling to keep the lights on. What more proof do you need that if your software doesn't fall into the very teeny tiny niche of "the blessed 3" then its doomed in GPL land?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    38. Re:RMS is right by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      How are you gonna dual license desktops? Games? productivity software? Frankly there is no point even responding to the rest when you think dressing up support contracts with another name counts as anything but exactly what it is, the "blessed 3" which is the only way you can make money in GPL land.

      And ironically thanks to the economy I'm betting you'll see a BUNCH of GPL based software companies go under, because the support contract model is dying. companies are either buying cloud services or paying consultants on a one off basis for fixes, and again dual licensing does nothing since thanks to the GPL you can't say "for home use only" so I can just take your software for nothing and you can go starve for all I care. Look at how many companies have switched to CentOS over RHEL, why pay for the contract if I can just take it for nothing and pay a consultant if I have a problem?

      The simple fact is if your software doesn't fit into the "blessed 3" you're sunk if its GPL, this is why LO sucks compared to MSO, why people laughably try to hold Gimp as an ersatz Photoshop, why GPL games all look like shit that could have ran on the SNES or are just Q3 Arena ripoffs, because VERY few of the multitude of uses for software fall under the blessed 3. Again how will the blessed 3 work on desktops? it won't which is why no B&M stores carry Linux and why I predict Canonical will "give Ubuntu to the community" and struggle to survive on the server and embedded, only to close their doors by 2015, maybe 2014.

      The reason GPL is a flop outside of the blessed 3 is the redistribution clause, simple as that. Without it RMS still would have his "printer story" problem fixed, the users would be able to inspect and modify all day long, even post those mods just as game mods are posted all the time, but then you would get actual progress on the software that doesn't fit the blessed 3. But since RMS would rather be buried in a MSFT coffin than lose the redistribution clause you can take it to the bank that Linux will be an also ran in any category that doesn't fit the big 3.

      Hell last reports say even Google is losing money on it, last reports have Google spending a cool billion a year on Android development and not even making a tenth of that back in ad revenue. Ironically the reason Google doesn't mind losing the money is lock in, they want everybody to think Google and Chrome equals the web so that those Android users will go home and use Google search on Chrome. But if even a supersized corp like Google can't make any money on software that doesn't fit the blessed 3 I honestly don't see how you expect companies like canonical to survive.

      Of course with all the anti-corporation zealotry in the GPL camp I wouldn't be surprised if most are cheering the idea of Canonical going under, even if it makes sure no company is gonna spend shit trying to make an improved desktop using GPL again. But mark my words and mark them well, hell bookmark this post and come back and see if it isn't true, I predict less than 24 months after Valve releases Steam on Linux they drop support. Why? Because the Steambox fits into the blessed 3, the Linux client don't, so they will lose money on it.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    39. Re:RMS is right by exomondo · · Score: 1
      I agree wholeheartedly! The free software community needs to forget proprietary software and just get on with the job of creating good software that people want to use, that's the only way to win, create a better product.
      This community in-fighting with Ubuntu just shows how out of touch that community really is, the whole benefit of free software is supposed to be the ability to change things you don't like, it respects the 4 'fundamental freedoms' (at least as much as possible given the propensity for people to use proprietary hardware and drivers) and yet it is being shunned. If you don't like it, change it, that's the whole point.

      Proprietary software and Free software can co-exist, I don't see actors, motion capture studios, artists, programmers, level designers, etc... just donating time to make the next blockbuster game and begging for donations, moreover the 'support' revenue model simply doesn't work for games.

      I also agree the redistribution clause is unnecessary, if free software is in fact better then people will release and use free software, if you need to force it then you've already failed. A great example is Blender, it competes on its own merits and does very very well in terms of usage and it's not because it's free software - because nobody really cares about that - it's because it's competitive in terms of quality.

    40. Re:RMS is right by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      To me what proves the redistribution clause is simply a way for RMS to try to force everyone to work for free is one simple fact...the printer story, which RMS claims is what made him realize the need for free software would be completely solved without having the redistribution clause. Would he be able to fix his problem? yep, he'd have the code. Could he modify it? Yes again, because he would have the code sitting right there. Could he share his modifications so everyone could fix the same problem? Game mods are released for non free games all the time, often with the encouragement of the company, so no change there. the ONLY thing that would change is that GPL software wouldn't be trapped by the "blessed 3" ways of survival so that companies like Canonical could actually fix bugs, clean up messy code, and provide QA and QC without going broke doing so.

      And you are correct that many in the community use "free as in beer" as an excuse to push out crappy buggy software, under the guise of "If its free you can't complain!" which I always counter with "If somebody offered you a 'free sandwich' and it turned out to be 95% shit and 5% ham, would you eat it?" because you give me free garbage and its still garbage, it does nothing to help me and instead hinders me because I'm dealing with frankly amateur hour bugs because nobody can make a living fixing them so they don't get fixed.

      At the end of the day if their goal is to get people to actually use free software then quality HAS to be job #1, otherwise the vast majority just won't bother. you look at the feature set of LO and compare it to MSO there just isn't any comparison, its like saying Gimp can be a drop in replacement for Photoshop. Are there people that can get their work done in LO and Gimp? Sure but they are a minority that frankly are using so little of the features they could just as easily use something web based like Google docs and get the same results.

      I would argue that this, this right here, is why the more locked down proprietary stuff is winning and GPL software is more and more being left out, because "free as in freedom!" is being used as a crutch and since most software won't fit under the blessed 3 model then it simply won't get any better. Notice how I asked how games and desktops could survive under the blessed 3 and never got a single answer? because there isn't one, the blessed 3 only works in a couple of niches and even in the enterprise support contracts are dying in favor of web based and consultants, so soon GPL will be even more marginalized under the blessed 2, whereas those that can actually make their living selling software will have the resources to make their product better.

      Hell I can take a copy of XP RTM, install my drivers and software, then upgrade it through all 3 service packs AND all the patches that came after and every single driver and app will still be working, could you do the same with ANY Linux distro? I think we all know the answer to that, and that is why Linux has no share on the desktop, even with MSFT charging over $100 a copy.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    41. Re:RMS is right by exomondo · · Score: 1

      To me what proves the redistribution clause is simply a way for RMS to try to force everyone to work for free is one simple fact...the printer story, which RMS claims is what made him realize the need for free software would be completely solved without having the redistribution clause. Would he be able to fix his problem? yep, he'd have the code. Could he modify it? Yes again, because he would have the code sitting right there. Could he share his modifications so everyone could fix the same problem?

      Well that's exactly right, if you need a redistribution clause then it means you're forcing people into your way of thinking, if free software is indeed so good then you don't need to do that. Look at Apple, they don't need to release the source for Darwin, or CUPS, or WebKit, but they do...and then you get Stallman lambasting them for not being as totalitarian on free software as he is.

      At the end of the day if their goal is to get people to actually use free software then quality HAS to be job #1, otherwise the vast majority just won't bother.

      I couldn't agree more, no more excuses, no more deflecting blame, if you want it to succeed you need to take responsibility for the quality of the software.

      Hell I can take a copy of XP RTM, install my drivers and software, then upgrade it through all 3 service packs AND all the patches that came after and every single driver and app will still be working, could you do the same with ANY Linux distro? I think we all know the answer to that, and that is why Linux has no share on the desktop, even with MSFT charging over $100 a copy.

      And why is that? Because the developers are quite happy to recompile their kernel, kernel modules and applications each time. Why build a feature they aren't going to use? They don't have customers to appease, at least none that don't have an IT department to take care of that for them. Moreover companies like Microsoft and Apple work closely with hardware vendors to ensure solid support, for Linux distros to become mainstream they need to do the same thing.

    42. Re:RMS is right by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      The problem is that as I have pointed out several times the mistaken belief that normal folks are gonna deal with all that bullshit just to save a few bucks, that inside every Suzy the checkout girl is a Bash programmer waiting to come out, that grandma is soaking in her tub with a book on how to compile from source. If they were to just say "All we want is to make an OS for programmers and system admins, we don't care about anybody else" then fine, glad to know somebody has found a teeny niche they are happy with serving, the same way eComStation supports older banking systems I have NO problem with that.

      But pretending its a conspiracy, its the OEMs, its retailers like me that are keeping GPLed software from gaining is just insulting. At the end of the day most of my users are simply using the web so frankly it doesn't fucking matter WHAT OS I put on the thing, but my time is $35 an hour and at that price a single forum hunt because "update foo broke my drivers" quickly costs me more than a system builders copy of Win 7 and that is why I won't carry Linux, simple as that. It is simply unsuitable for the Home and SMB markets because it is just too likely to shit itself on the first update. I mean if my users have to have a second machine running Windows so they can Google for fixes when the first one craps the GPU driver and drops them in single user mode I mean why in the fuck wouldn't I just put on Windows in the first place and save my customers the time and hassle?

      As I have said for years, as long as there is a redistribution clause things will NOT get any better, just different but NOT better. And frankly it isn't even about force, although I agree if you have to put a gun to their head the battle is already over, its about one simple fact: If you spend a million in R&D on a product and I can clone that product and undercut you or even offer it free because I have ZERO R&D costs because you did all the work, what is the incentive for you to send a million on R&D? None, there is NO incentive. Things get better on the server side because it fits the "blessed 3" in that the companies using Linux invest in it because they are selling NOT the software but access to the servers (hardware, #2 on the blessed 3) such as hosting or Google letting you use their servers for search in exchange for them showing you ads.

      At the end of the day Apple and MSFT spend hundreds of millions on fixing their bugs so you can't compete unless your OS is at LEAST as polished as theirs, but without the money thanks to the blessed 3 all you get is half assed broken shit because for free all you are gonna get is egos and bad attitudes because the devs take the "its free, go fuck off if you don't like it" attitude since they can't be fired and aren't making squat.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    43. Re:RMS is right by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      If the for-profit hospital is doing something that I find benefit in, then yes, its a good thing.

      I don't have some retarded 'all corporations are evil and everything should only believe the way I do' complex that prevents me from functioning like a normal citizen.

      The behavior of people like Bruce and RMS is a clear indication of mental defect. Its a phobia. I don't ignore it just because they do some things well any more than I ignore the things they do well just because they have other defects.

      I see the big picture, no some narrow minded retarded hippie commune idealistic world that will never exist. There is a reason people like this will never real the world. You (and he) can do whatever you want to try and justify it so you can sleep at night but that won't make it any less true nor will it make the silly fantasy any more likely to become reality.

      Apparently you (and he) do have a hard time grasping reality in a rational, logical way.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    44. Re:RMS is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You still don't get it and are doing nothing but putting up strawmen and looking like a fucking retard.

      What they are saying is really simple:

      1. Don't help a company for free, ever. Donating your time to a for-profit project is fucking retarded.
      Maybe this is dumbed down enough for your non-functioning brain: Working on projects that directly help a corporation out for free is stupid

      2. If you are going to donate your time, help out a non-profit that matches your goals and interests.

      That is it. That is all Bruce was saying. That anyone could disagree is astounding and show how much brainwashing corporations have successfully done.

      All this nonsense with you putting up strawmen about "evil corporations" makes you look retarded.

      You are are having a hell of a time understanding simple points. It is fucking funny that you think you are rational.

      You should ask yourself why you think it is okay to work for free so a company can profit off your work.

      If you think that is okay, you should pull your head out of your ass.

  53. In other words by Murdoch5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The manager doesn't have a good reply or defense so lets just call RMS names.

  54. 1st they ignore GNU, then they laugh at RMS/GNU,.. by D4C5CE · · Score: 1

    then FLOSS forks Ubun-too, then GNU wins.

    (With a nod to Ghandi...)

  55. Re:Noththing wrong with him by madmayr · · Score: 2

    thats easy - move to mint
    i did so when they introduced unity and never regretted it

  56. Re:Nothing wrong with him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yes you are, back in the cart

  57. Re:Nothing wrong with him by TrueSatan · · Score: 4, Informative

    You might consider Trisquel...it is FSF endorsed as a distribution that meets its guidelines: https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html Trisquel is akin to a Ubuntu with the non-free elements removed so it shouldn't be too much of a culture shock for you should you opt to use it. Further distributions with FSF approval are on the following link as is the link to obtain Trisquel: https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html

  58. Re:Nothing wrong with him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's only an ad hominem if it's part of a logical argument. I didn't notice any, although maybe something is implied.

  59. Re:Ooh boy by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You mean like Gobuntu or gNewSense? The versions of Ubuntu that only contain free software? The ones that if you install on a laptop you have a 75% chance of not having wi-fi?

    RMS's demands end up being unworkable. Although he's had a pretty good track record for being right, any "free software only" distro ends up being limiting.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  60. RE: RMS's Post Seems a Bit Childish To Me by davydagger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No, RMS has a valid complaint.

    The concept of being more useful to the consumer is fine. After all, we ALL buy things online. Most of us use the computer for ecommerce of some sort. a feature that makes it easier would be useful.

    However, its not the what, but the how which make this pretty dangerous to your freedoms:

    1. The user doesn't have a choice of the backend. They don't have the right to select the online purchase service of choice. This is going to make the Ubuntu experiance as one giant advertisement to get you to buy partner related shit-you-don't-need.

    2. Targeted ads, at the operating system level. While targeted ads are good, as they reduced the obnoxious system destroying ads of 10 years ago, they do so by spying on the users habit, and compiling dossiers on users. These profiles are then bought and sold on the open market. They are the biggest gross violation of privacy that perhaps exists today.

    At least a few specialize in identifying complainers, and critics(silencing them?), to companies.

    Having this at the OS level, would make Ubuntu 13.04 potentially worse than MS Windows on the default install for privacy. This is certainly an entire OPERATING SYSTEM on par with the shovelware(removable) that comes with windows.

    Instead of selling you an operating system, or selling you service and support on an opperating system. Ubuntu is now selling YOU to the advertising/PR Companies, and through them, anyone else who has the money to pay.

    On the bright side, there are more GNU/Linux distro choices, and it should be easy to remove the spyware via apt.

    http://linuxmint.com

  61. We need RMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only to keep as an example. I'd rather be "childish" be Ubazon privacy violated.

  62. Re:Nothing wrong with him by Microlith · · Score: 2

    Most posts like that are explicitly done to discredit, in the hopes that people ignore everything he says.

  63. Re:Nothing wrong with him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seconded. And using such primitive fallacies is what is *actually* childish.

  64. Re:Noththing wrong with him by sgage · · Score: 2

    Right, move to Mint, a parasite of Ubuntu.

    Just use Ubuntu with a different UI - I use and like Gnome Shell, but there's XFCE, KDE, etc., etc.

  65. Re:Canonical doesn't get it! And that's the proble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spyware is always for cash. HP once had an agreement with Yahoo for $5 per Yahoo toolbar install with their software suite, MSIE 9 includes an option to send keystrokes to Bing, so Canonical having an affiliate agreement with Amazon isn't new or different other than it is built into FOSS.

  66. Re:Ooh boy by Pav · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...or closed source LAN drivers and non-free qt? Oh, that's right... those aren't problems anymore. Contemplate the short term inconvenience and long term gains required to bring about that state of affairs. If you accept "kinda good enough today" that's all you'll ever have.

  67. Too right.,. by bdwoolman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ubuntu is a bastard child. It should be lost on no one that the money Mr Shuttleworth has put into it is an investment, not a donation. Yet libre software licensing is not structured primarily to make money, it is structured to promote knowledge, and science. Attempting to monetize Debian (excuse me 'Ubuntu') is like trying to milk a Gorilla. Possible, but not pretty. Or easy. And nearly impossible to do and keep your hands clean.

    'Lighten up', you say. But that is the whole point. Most of us do have compromising minds. Yes, I confess, I loaded the Nvidia binary blob. It is easy and natural for me to lighten up. Believe me I can live with myself.

    But... If RMS had a compromising mind there would not be a vibrant open source universe, or at least not the one we have. (Although there would no doubt still be some sort of fuzzy academic open computing something.) The day he could not get those specs to write his modified printer driver is the day he saw -- in a flash -- the science of computing being swallowed by business. And boy was he right. He could have cashed in like so many others. Or shrugged it off like I would. But he put his obsessive uncompromising Asbergerish hairy soiled foot down and fought to create an intellectual space for computing that was free from the kind of proprietary sandboxing that hobbles progress in every field (But which makes sh*tloads of money -- Not a bad thing either). Very few people would fight as hard as RMS has to NOT make money. Amazingly many others saw the utility and necessity of what he was doing and joined him. So now, when a lab needs a specialized computing application they don't have to buy it. (They can of course.) They can build it.

    RMS is not being childish in regard to Ubuntu's recent play. He is just being RMS. Monetizing open source software by crippling it is like charging for slide rides on a public playground. It's wrong. (Even if you fix and wax the slide.) Buy an empty lot. Build your own slide. Sell all the rides you want.

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
    1. Re:Too right.,. by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      RMS is not being childish in regard to Ubuntu's recent play. He is just being RMS. Monetizing open source software by crippling it is like charging for slide rides on a public playground. It's wrong. (Even if you fix and wax the slide.) Buy an empty lot. Build your own slide. Sell all the rides you want.

      Most of your post is pretty spot on but saying that adding ads is crippling something is a bit much.

      Also, if companies were not allowed to use open source software to build products then open source would still be back in the stone age and utterly unusable by anyone who wanted an easy life. Ubuntu has done more to make linux useable as a desktop OS then anyone else has, sooner or later he should be able to a return on this although I very much doubt ubuntu will ever get a return covering the amount they have invested.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
  68. RMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " RMS's Post Seems a Bit Childish" ?

    Rms is right about Ubuntu... and Jono Bacon is merely a Canonical/Ubuntu Apologist that will defend anything they do... that's what he gets paid for.

  69. I don't understand Mr Bacons point by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

    "Now, some of you may share Richardâ(TM)s concerns over some aspects of this feature, and as I mentioned earlier, I am not here to convince you otherwise. Richard has every right to share his views on privacy, and who am I to tell him or you that he is/you are wrong?"

    RMS quotes:
    "In your Software Freedom Day events, in your FLISOL events, donâ(TM)t install or recommend Ubuntu. Instead, tell people that Ubuntu is shunned for spying."

    Back to Bacon:
    "These statements simply generate fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Ubuntu; a project that has a long history of bringing Free Software to millions of users around the world with an open community and governance."

    1. RMS believes the feature constitutes spyware as I don't think anyone doubts.

    2. You seem to believe he has every right to his views "who am I to tell him or you that he is/you are wrong?"

    Then I fail to see how in the same breath you can assert his statement regarding being shunned for spying is childish and communicating FUD rather than the legitimate beliefs of RMS with which you agree he is entitled and with which you disagree.

    To make matters worse you have resorted to an unproductive personal attack by asserting his remarks are "childish".

  70. Ubuntu Needs a Wip'en! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linux and Linux Organizations' statement about Ubuntu is correct. Ubuntu needs to address the situation professionally. Ubuntu wants to take it's Ubuntu Distro in a totally different direction than the Linux main stream. Ubuntu is focusing the Ubuntu Distro at the application & gaming level including server levels.

  71. Re:Nothing wrong with him by iluvcapra · · Score: 1
    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  72. RMS is just another Extremist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Extremists come in all sizes, shapes, and colors.

    Turning off these ads is absofuckinglutely trivial.

    1. Re:RMS is just another Extremist by Molt · · Score: 2

      ..and it'd have been so hard for Canonical to disable them by default in order not to annoy their target users? Did they really think that the people who'd choose Linux over Window or OS X on their desktop were the type to happily accept advertisements in their operating systems?

      You're right though that extremists do come in all sizes, shapes, and colours. At the time the views of someone like Martin Luther King were pretty damn extreme.

      --
      404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
  73. First toe jam post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First toe jam post!

  74. Re:Nothing wrong with him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ad-hominem. Your entire post is invalid.

    You do realize that /. is pretty much a digital version of an AM political talk show right?

    This is as cute as someone calling into Rush to say the same thing. It's a talk show, the host always wins, moron.

  75. Lay off RMS .. :) by dgharmon · · Score: 1

    Lay off RMS, he's our John the Baptist, while billg is obviously lucifer, the fallen one who took Linus..er, I mean Jesus, up on high and offered him the whole world, if he only worshiped billg and acknowleged him as the one true software architect .. :)

    --
    AccountKiller
  76. Re:Nothing wrong with him by eric_herm · · Score: 1

    Maybe that's just a tactic to avoid fanboys and to be able to take some rest ?

  77. Re:Nothing wrong with him by colordev · · Score: 1

    I'm leaving Ubuntu too. Been a faithful user since 6.06. Typical reasons for leaving. And Mint seems to be the likely destination ... Goodbye Ubuntu

  78. Stallman is just a political extremist by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    Of the lefty flavor, but no matter that. He's not dealing with the reality of human behavior, which is, "I'd like to get paid for writing this software." or "laying those bricks" or "baking that delicious pie." All software free for all people all the time is the pipe dream of a teenager. Capitalism flourishes for a reason.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Stallman is just a political extremist by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      "Free as in beer" is not Stallman's main point, but to reach for software which does not have malicious features and uses open standards.

  79. Re:Nothing wrong with him by gargleblast · · Score: 1

    It's only an ad hominem if it's part of a logical fallacy.

    Fixed that for you.

    I didn't notice any ...

    Well, now you know what to look for.

  80. Bowing to the corporations? - HELL NO! by fnj · · Score: 2

    Linux owes EVERYTHING to the heart, idealism and intellect of free men choosing to cooperate. Yes, corporations make valuable contributions, but that is because they cannot deny the value of what the free software movement has created. If the corporations had had their way, there never would have been a linux in anything like its present form and spirit, and CERTAINLY nothing remotely like the triumph of Gnu.

    Not sure what you are trying to do minimizing Gnu. If all linux owed to Gnu was gcc, then Gnu would have been the absolutely vital enabling agent, but it owes MUCH more than that. Gnu utilities are in every single case vastly superior to the BSD ones. Yes, they are standing on the shoulders of BSD giants, but when BSD saw their userland as basically finished, Gnu saw an almost infinite number of enhancements and improvements to be made, and delivered.

    1. Re:Bowing to the corporations? - HELL NO! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Gnu saw an almost infinite number of enhancements and improvements to be made, and delivered.

      I first started using unix in 1994. I learned by about 1994 + epsilon to use the GNU utilities if at all possible.

      My god does anyone here still remember the bad old days wherre things like sed would atritrarily truncate lines (or crash? I don't remember) that were more than 100 characters and all the tools had weird, poorly documented fixed length buffers, hideous caveats and all aorts of strange stuff.

      And the GUN utilities added tons of useful extra options which generally prevented a lot of irritating work.And improved argument consistency and all sorts of things.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  81. Re:Nothing wrong with him by Shads · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... or you could just use debian you know, the distribution ubuntu is based off of.

    --
    Shadus
  82. RMS is a bit wacky... by Shads · · Score: 2

    ... but in this particular case he is very right.

    It IS spyware exactly how we've seen it in windows for ages. It's default-on which makes it no better than all the spyware that comes packaged with software. If it was default-off and asked at first boot/during install/whatever if it could be enabled I would have no issue.

    The way it presently is setup is just dirty like all spyware.

    --
    Shadus
    1. Re:RMS is a bit wacky... by jbolden · · Score: 2

      He's right it is spyware. And that's fine. But what he needs to be is very very careful in making sure to be as fair as possible in his factual descriptions including all the minor differences so there aren't factual disputes that he is misrepresenting the situation.

  83. RMS and unbalanced criticism by jbolden · · Score: 2

    I've been a big fan of the FSF since around 90/91 when Peter Norton's speech introduced me to them. RMS has done tremendous things for free software. But overly aggressive and unbalanced criticism doesn't help the causes he is advocating. If the person being critiqued believes that charges are (1) simply wrong on the facts and then (2) exaggerated in the effects they just ignore the criticism. One or the other can be effective, both just comes off as unhinged.

    I hate to say this, but this is becoming pattern for RMS.

  84. Re:Noththing wrong with him by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or just use Debian... which Ubuntu is a parasite of. :)

    --
    It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
  85. Re:Nothing wrong with him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not like he threw a chair or anything....that would have been worth making jokes about!

  86. Making Money vs Spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 12.04 they added a video lens[1] it could search YouTube, BBC iPlayer and Amazon. It was on by default and harder to opt-out of (I don't believe there was a way to disable it through the GUI) I didn't hear cry's of "Oh no!! My local search data is going over the web!!" the complaints only started once Canonical started making money off it.

    [1] http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/02/ubuntu-12-04-adds-new-video-lens-for-finding-movies-tv-shows-online/

    1. Re:Making Money vs Spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one noticed because no one uses Unity.

  87. FUD? Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ubuntu folks just love pulling the F.U.D. card any chance they get. That's really one of the worst arguments you can ever give to defend a statement.

  88. Re:Ooh boy by smash · · Score: 1

    That would be HURD, right?

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  89. Unity, Gnome 3, KDE 4 ... the solution by argee · · Score: 1

    Folks, may I suggest Linux Mint 14 MATE?

    Just change the sickly lime green out, add a launchbar and you have the old Ubuntu experience we
    USED to love. What a breath of Fresh air!

    1. Re:Unity, Gnome 3, KDE 4 ... the solution by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Mint ships with proprietary drivers and installs them out of the box (for video etc), as well as Flash. As far as RMS is concerned, this makes it a no-go.

    2. Re:Unity, Gnome 3, KDE 4 ... the solution by argee · · Score: 1

      But I don't think they call home and give your precious private info away.

      I respect RMS. That does not mean that I will always do as he says or wants. My mom wanted me to
      marry a nice, Catholic girl. I did not. [I got divorced too, is that somehow connected?]

  90. Not satisfied by thereitis · · Score: 1

    In his reply, Jono claims that Stallman's views on privacy do not align with Canonical's, that some of his statements are worded in order to 'generate fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Ubuntu'

    I think RMS' views generated more awareness than FUD. Honestly, I'm not satisfied by Jono Bacon's rebuttal. He says:

    Today it is not perfect – we need to improve the accuracy of the results, present the data more effectively, and continue to expand the coverage and capabilities of the data in dash searches.

    No mention of enhancing privacy?

    Naturally, privacy is critically important to us in doing this work. In the eight year history of Ubuntu and Canonical we have always put privacy forward as a high priority across the many, many different websites, services, and software that forms the Ubuntu platform and community.

    Why do local searches send search queries over the web without the user's knowledge or consent?

    We want Ubuntu to be a safe, predictable, and pleasurable platform for everyone, irrespective of their personal views on privacy, but we also respect that there will be some folks who don’t feel we are doing enough to represent their particular personal privacy needs.

    When I use a web browser, I assume everything I do is sent over the web. When I do a local search on my computer, I don't expect any information about my search to hit the web. How is sending local search data over the web safe or predictable?

    The challenge of course is that privacy is a deeply personal thing and the way in which you define your privacy expectations will likely radically differ from each of your friends, and vice-versa.

    So inform the user of what is about to happen and allow them to proceed or opt out, and remember that setting. Everybody's happy.

  91. Re:This from "Jono" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I once rogered a lawyer named Sue. Does that count?

  92. if Canonical needs money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..then fork Ubuntu, and move on, that's that GPL is is for.

  93. My Two Cents by DarkProphet · · Score: 2

    I rarely bother to log in, much less comment anymore, but I felt compelled to do so on this subject.

    For context: I read the initial writeup and source article on RMS' take on Canonical's actions a few days ago here on Slashdot, as well as Mr. Bacon's response today. I've also been a happy, but increasingly disappointed Ubuntu user for a number of years now. I write this on my 10 year old laptop that hasn't had a working hard drive in 5 years (maybe 6?). This machine runs on a Kubuntu Fiesty Live CD, and my desktop dual boots Win7 and Ubuntu 12.04.

    As a long-time Free Software enthusiast, I can tell you that RMS pisses me off nearly as often as I begrudgingly agree with him. I am hardly alone in that opinion of him.

    Anyway, I've been less than thrilled with the Unbuntu-proper releases for the last couple of years now. Its just a simple case of the design team taking the distro in a direction that decreasingly suits my tastes, particularly on the desktop. I am not a fan of Unity. I begrudgingly used it on my desktop machine for about 2 years, and even after I got used to it, I still didn't like it. The default environment just, I dunno -- it pisses me off. And its gotten increasingly annoying to me in the last couple of releases. That alone is fine. I'm sure there are many users that like things better now. Aside from the desktop environment itself, Ubuntu distros have never failed me in terms of working well with my hardware, which is more than I can say for a couple of distros (which have probably caught up in the prevailing years for all I know.). My weird Wifi and graphics hardware just works. Thats freakin' sweet! My desktop machine currently runs Kubuntu 12.04 because I just got tired of the Unity crap. However I'm likewise not thrilled with KDE at the moment. Plasma and the file manager are only marginally less annoying to me. It pisses me off for similar, but different reasons. That's another story. I realize that I have other options within the Ubuntu ecosystem in regards to Desktop Environment, and I'm also quite aware I have options in switching distributions altogether. That isn't really my gripe.

    For all that, and back on topic: RMS is totally right on this one. Yeah, he called out Ubuntu in a pretty blunt way, but it is what it is and RMS is famous for that same tone. That's sort-of Stallman's self-appointed job. It is on him to hold the highest ideal for Free Software and bark loudly when it seems something runs afoul. None of us are surprised. Mr. Bacon's retort (if you can call it that), is simply unsatisfactory because it doesn't really address the issue. If Mr. Bacon had simply accepted that the default behavior of the dash is unfavorable to the user and promised to have it reconsidered, if not changed, that would have been _something_. My personal view is that the Amazon thing should be opt-in, and even that isn't ideal, but I'd be willing to accept that and not get hung up on it.

    RMS is many things, but childish and/or short-sighted are not the first words that come to my mind, even though I'm certainly not his biggest fan. I have a slightly looser requirements from my Linux distributions than those recommended by the FSF. For example, I don't really mind loading a binary blob driver from Nvidia so that I can actually use my graphics hardware. Ideologically, RMS is right, but I have shit to do NOW. We can fight the hardware/driver problem later.

    At the end of the day, I will strongly consider moving from Ubuntu altogether because this is just the last straw for me. Not really for ideological reasons, but it just isn't usable for me anymore. I've never tried Mint, but enough commenters have spoken favorably of it for me to give it a go. I greatly appreciate what Canonical has done to try to bring Linux to the masses, as it were, but I feel that over time they have deviated from the spirit of what they originally set out to do. I can no longer support Canonical if they choose to continue along this path, and deeply feel that making 'sneaky' decisions like this one

    --
    What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
  94. Tell writers/governments by mattr · · Score: 1

    Just curious is http or https used to upload the spy payload to canonical?
    And when you purchase, is the purchase actually going to Amazon without going through Canonical's servers, or is Canonical also sent a notification from your spyware of your purchase?

    I thought linux was seen as more trustworthy than windows but this hurts it. As someone said, this is exporting a naive young gamer's mentality onto every single person in the world who might find a linux desktop useful. Anybody / any corp/governent with a sniffer and other data to aggregate can make whatever use they want of your private information. As an example imagine someone in a divorce case I could imagine a lawyer being able to obtain info that you were searching for singles sites. Or someone living under an oppressive regime searching for great firewall proxies, or religious sites, or whatever community or product, it is immoral and potentially dangerous for them to use a computer that is constantly reporting their searches to at least two companies (canonical and amazon) at all times.

    If you want to stop it, you should get journalist to pick up on it and maybe initiate a government inquiry. I could even see foreign countries' governments getting upset that local queries are sent to U.S. firms without notification! Someone tell the German government they are usually interested in this sort of thing.

  95. I knew Ubuntu was crap made for people who smell.. by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

    ... when everybody and their dog started meaning "Ubuntu" when they said "Linux" - I actually can remotely detect cancer in things that way hah. Not to mention the name "Canonical" -- wait, you mean you get to compile the canon out of what others made? Bullshit, that's my fucking job! But I digress. So now someone pointed out that sending local searches to amazon by default and without option or warning is fucking stupid, and instead of saying "Yes, you are correct, thanks for pointing that out", they're now crying and calling foul, while engaging in ad-hominems? What a bunch of poopyheads!

    One thing softens the extreme rage I feel right now; I like how the summary mentions the comments on it to be interesting, not the actual article - haha! Canonical, stop hitting yourself.

  96. Re:Noththing wrong with him by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    Linux Mint *is* basically Ubuntu with a different UI...and codecs...or rather, it's Ubuntu with the *original* UI.

    Also, using Ubuntu with a different DE means you're still using Ubuntu. The GP specifically stated he didn't want to support what Canonical is doing. While what you're saying may be easier (I myself recently installed both and was surprised to find that it was actually easier in Ubuntu than Mint this time around), that's not what we're talking about here.

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  97. Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What Jono is saying is that RMS's spirit hasn't been crushed by society in his early teens as it usually happens to most children. He still thinks he can make the world better, and that makes him a child, and since society doesn't listen to their children, that invalidates RMS's opinion.

  98. Definition of spyware by ciphermonk · · Score: 1

    Directly quoted from wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyware )

    "Spyware is a type of malware (malicious software) installed on computers that collects information about users without their knowledge"

    "Sometimes, spyware is included along with genuine software, and may come from an official software vendor"

    Ubuntu community folks are very good at public relations. However, if you look past their lovely sales speech, it is spyware. I would be more tolerant if the feature would be opt-in rather than opt-out. Making it opt-out defines it as spyware as un-informed users don't know their data is being collected and published on the internet.

    I always loved Ubuntu and have sold it to many of my friends. I am sad to see this great product go down the road it is going now. I am running 12.04 LTS right now and monitoring the outcome of this issue. I really hope Canonical can come to their senses and listen to their community. No-one wants this! Read the forums and blog posts! I am seriously considering moving to Mint if they continue down that path.

  99. Re:Ooh boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of the ones that Apple supports.

    What's your point?

  100. Re:Ooh boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ones that if you install on a laptop you have a 75% chance of not having wi-fi?

    Do those odds go up if I install on a desktop?

  101. Re:Ooh boy by BeanThere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I glossed through Jono's response and it looks like a bunch of standard manipulative corporate PR-speak, he waffles a lot of marketing-speak like "the goal of the dash in Ubuntu has always been to provide a central place in which you can search and find things that are interesting and relavent to you; it is designed to be at the center of your computing experience blah blah blah" and makes vague insinuations about the 'accuracy' of RMS's statements, calling it FUD and using ad hominem attacks like "childish" --- but nowhere does he actually bother to deny the core claim - that personal local searches are sent to the servers online. In fact, he appears to be defending the idea of doing so, claiming that not liking this is merely a subjectively "different" "privacy" preference of individuals.

  102. Re:Nothing wrong with him by gmhowell · · Score: 0

    I have never seen until about a week ago.

    I am surprised it was never linked here. Or maybe I never saw it?

    Downmodded by gnus when it gets posted. Usually.

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  103. Re:Nothing wrong with him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe the fallacy you just committed was called "Poisoning the Well" where-in you consider the entirety of another's argument invalid if it makes one sometimes unrelated mistake.

    Because you failed to engage his argument and haven't furthered the discussion, your own conclusion should be discarded.

  104. Re:This from "Jono" by gmhowell · · Score: 1

    I once rogered a lawyer named Sue. Does that count?

    I always wondered what happened to that guy after he got into the fistfight with his old man.

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  105. Re:Nothing wrong with him by easyTree · · Score: 1

    ... or an adult being named 'Jono'.

  106. Jono... who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'nuff said.

  107. Re:This from "Jono" by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    And William Franklin Graham, Jr. refers to himself as "Billy".

    You were saying...?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  108. Uncool, unpro by yusing · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ad hominem attacks are the first refuge of a playground bully (e.g. it's the primary MO of the US Tea Party). That an Ubuntu Manager makes such an attack in a remark on a community-oriented pioneer like Stallman immediately marks the attacker, not the attacked.

    Canonical made a big mistake (doing this without a thorough, public discussion), they doubled down on their mistake, and now they're taking cheap potshots at a major community figure. They're hurting themselves and FOS. Unprofessional, uncool, and unhelpful. Bad week.

    --

    "You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

  109. Re:Nothing wrong with him by paulatz · · Score: 1

    There are many distributions: openSUSE, Fedora, Mint are common ones.

    --
    this post contain no useful information, no need to mod it down
  110. Which ones are 'nuts' by islisis · · Score: 1

    Lately, a lot of comments on RMS state 'he is a nut, but he is right...'. So why not stop calling him a nut and instead, state that in current world we live in only what he is trying to do is nuts.

  111. Re:Nothing wrong with him by hendridm · · Score: 2

    Yes they can currently apparently be turned off but I don't want to be messing like that.

    It's not too difficult: sudo apt-get remove unity-lens-shopping

    That said, I still agree with you. Once an OS starts to have a ton of stuff you have to turn off upon install/reinstall, I tend to want to use something else.

  112. Ubuntu Marketing Spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This post is a presumptios marketing operation. And it's quite insulting? I can't even begin to critize its flawed argument:

    "Richard is a child. Privacy and freedom are deeply personal. Therefore we are ok."

    And also "In the future we may improve this", the Amazon integration of course not the privacy issues, "because we want to be like Apple"
    (and don't have our own store).

  113. Yeah by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    And if you make sure everyone in the production of a good earns a fair sustainable wage, the product ends up more expensive. It is so limiting to respect human rights in your production process. Far easier if you can just say you think human rights are right but walk all over them in practice.

    RMS is not saying that closed software doesn't have its attractions but that ultimately you may regret your choice. It remains funny to me that it took Apple to proof that Android didn't really need to bend over for the closed source security risk that is Flash after all. So much for iOS being limiting because it excluded a closed source piece of software.

    RMS is not talking about the easy way out, he is telling you that the easy way out might end up costing you. You are free to ignore him but it keeps amazing me how many people who are normally privacy nutters scream and rage against RMS for telling them what they themselves rant about.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  114. RMS should take a hike by BlackCreek · · Score: 2

    As an Ubuntu user I would like to bring the following data point to your attention:
    - I use Linux since '95.
    - I work full-time producing FOSS licensed code;
    - if it wasn't for Ubuntu, I would be running OSX.

    Have a nice day,

    1. Re:RMS should take a hike by m50d · · Score: 1

      if it wasn't for Ubuntu, I would be running OSX

      Would that be any different?

      --
      I am trolling
    2. Re:RMS should take a hike by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      That's funny, because I gave them both (Ubuntu with Unity and MacOS) a really 'fair' try last year - spent two months with each (Ubuntu at home, Mac at work), and came to the conclusion that I was frustrated at largely the same things in both, and switched. Currently mainly just using plain Debian at home AND work.

      However, I just got a new Windows 8 laptop... and Debian doesn't currently (apparently) work dual booting on a UEFI system, and Ubuntu does. So I ended up installing Ubuntu again. Not really that happy about it - saw the Amazon app and it was one of the first things I deleted - I didn't even know it was "collecting" my information until the RMS post. Now I'm less happy.

      I understand Fedora can install happily on a UEFI system, too, but I'm accustomed to Debian at this point.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    3. Re:RMS should take a hike by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      You should be able to use Ubuntu bootrepair to get debian booting I had the same issue yesterday with mint and the boot repair utility took me through repairing grub well replacing it with a version with the shim to boot a Linux os

      Boot with a live USB stick install boot repair and it should work

    4. Re:RMS should take a hike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why?

      I can name at least half a dozen Linux distros that are better than Ubuntu,

      Ubuntu has nothing of value that other distros don't have, but do it better.

  115. It was a bit childish by DrXym · · Score: 1
    Ubuntu are guilty of enabling an Amazon affiliate search engine doing it in a really hamfisted way that annoyed people. They should have done it better, e.g. by providing simple checkbox on a control panel that allows a user to remove or disable "sponsored" results in the search lens stuff. But ultimately it was just them trying to drum up some extra cash for an OS which they give away for nothing. It was executed badly, but was hardly a big deal and they're certainly within their rights to do it given that Ubuntu is not a charity.

    The way this has been portrayed by Stallman as spyware, and as a springboard into objecting that Ubuntu contains non-free programs just smacks of whining. Anyone who objects to those things can simply remove them or use an alternative dist.

  116. Instead of calling the guy childish. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about you address the issue?

  117. Re:Ooh boy by icebraining · · Score: 1

    Wi-fi on free distros also works in all the supported configurations. My point is that people claim that the OS must work fine in every possible machine to be successful, when Apple shows that's not true.

    It wasn't a dig at Apple, by the way.

  118. Re:RMS Sitting on a Pointy Pedestal, Exposing Sinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What a bunch of nonsense. Really.

  119. Re:Nothing wrong with him by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    It's amazing that you link to a video where the text of the song appears on the screen and yet still manage to misquote it.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  120. Right next to the "install mp3 support" checkbox. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see why when they introduced this feature that they didn't include an option during setup, right next to the "Enable mp3 codecs". There should be another check mark that says "include online and/or 3rd party search results including sales offers when searching your desktop."

    Could you imagine the unholy whooping and hollering that would happen if Microsoft made it so that typing into the search box on the start menu also popped up a browser window that offered to sell you things related to that search term?

  121. Privacy is highly, not infinitely, valuable by Dave+Emami · · Score: 1

    On this specific instance, RMS does seem have a point. I don't see any good reason why a local search for something should trigger an Amazon search. And I do care about my privacy a bit more than the average person, just judging from the amount of personal information many of them voluntarily talk about on their Facebook pages or whatnot. But privacy is not infinitely valuable. Controlling the flow of information takes effort, and depending on the parties and information involved, this can be more effort than it's worth. As a meatspace experiment, next time you go grocery shopping, try to do so without any of the other customers seeing what items you're purchasing. Is it worth the bother?

    Mind you, I'm talking about the subject in general. As I said, in this specific case, I think RMS is mostly right, albeit using over-the-top rhetoric. I don't want my local search for "spock.jpg" resulting in Amazon hawking more Star Trek DVDs to me.

    --

    "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
  122. Ubuntu post seems arrogant to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I guess that's supposed to be some form of argument against the post, right?

    After all, they thought calling a post "childish" was one against RMS's position.

    Of course, you'd probably have to be 6 to understand the logic there...

  123. No, you're a shill. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you just made up all that CV there, including the hygene stuff.

    Tell us, how does RMS (even if he did) eating flakes of skin off his feet (you know that normal people WASH their feet, right, so it's pretty similar to eating fingernails) affect you?

    It doesn't.

    It's irrelevant.

    But because shills have nothing else to play with, they try ad homming.

  124. Re:Ooh boy by horza · · Score: 1

    Came to exactly the same conclusion. There was no refutation of the actual claims, only attacking Mr. Stallman and his article. His PR puff piece only convinces me RMS is right. The "we want to be like Apple" is not a good argument as most Ubuntu users are users because they prefer it in its current form to Apple and Microsoft. And the "well Facebook is able to get away with privacy violations" is not exactly inspiring either. With rot like this in the core of the organisation it's a bit worrying for the future of Ubuntu.

    Canonical should just create an Amazon "app" in their software store, that makes it easier to search than just going to amazon.com. Give some extra value and earn their affiliate fee. Not easy as Amazon is already pretty slick to use. Perhaps also integrate results from other book sellers?

    Phillip.

  125. Canonical can go to hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ubuntu sucks now anyway. Too many "me too" changes and social networking integrations that no one asked for. It's a shame that what was once a very viable alternative decided it had to go completely mainstream and copy everyone else instead of preserving its own look and feel.

    Speaking of which, the UI is worse than Windows 8. I can't imagine what they were possibly thinking.

  126. Users aren't that crazy about privacy by Loundry · · Score: 1

    What a tragedy. Ubuntu's focus on ease of use was such a great leap forward for Linux usability. Now they've lost the plot and forgot about their constituency, instead trying to drive more and more revenue with things the user's don't actually want.

    Does anyone want Facebook? How is it that Facebook is free?

    When users want "privacy", they want to make sure that their location isn't tracked ... until they want to be able to share that with their friends and know where there is an available parking space. To say that by sacrificing our privacy we will have a much richer lifestyle is a tautology by this point. For example, it's happened more than once that I found someone on the Internet using a service that they didn't expressly consent to, and they were delighted that I found them because they had been looking for me and were unable to find me. What was more important -- that I respected their privacy, or that we have a newly-kindled friendship?

    When RMS talks about "privacy", keep in mind the monk-like lifestyle he leads. http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html

    I'd be willing to accept an "apples and oranges" rejoinder.

    --
    I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
    1. Re:Users aren't that crazy about privacy by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      You have a right to privacy. In most countries you must explicitly consent to have personal details given to third parties (although this is often in fine print) or be in a public space with no reasonable expectation of privacy. Your own PC is not a public space and Ubuntu are not asking for your consent in forwarding not only your search results, but likely searches based on the indexed contents of your filesystem.

      It is wonderful you serendipitously found a new friend through a breach of your mutual privacy. Now imagine the converse, where you were a girl and didn't want to be found by an abusive ex-boyfriend, or by criminal kidnappers (they do exist) etc etc. The services you *didn't consent to* are working against you in this regard, and there may be no escape from the tracking (particularly as cellphones are the best and easiest tracking devices known to those that watch).

      Personally i don't think your one happy coincidence makes up for the potential damage to many that unauthorized privacy breaches do. Furthermore, the companies are breaking the spirit of the law when they onsell your personal information *without you consenting to it* (that's the real key, it's not that they do it, it's that they didn't ask you). Ubuntu have it wrong. This needs to be an opt-in system.

  127. Re:Ooh boy by morgauxo · · Score: 1

    Um... I assume you mean out of the box since you can add anything you want to pretty much any distro to get wifi going. In my personal, completely anecdotal experience having wifi working right out of the box 75% of the time would be a tremendous improvement from the main Ubuntu, or pretty much any OS that doesn't come pre-installed!

    Not that I would really want to limit myself to "free software only". About your example... I'm just saying..

  128. Re:Ooh boy by morgauxo · · Score: 1

    Really? Honestly Ubuntu users, if you don't want something that is like Apple why are you still using Ubuntu? Ubuntu variants I can see because Ubuntu is really good at hardware detection and ease of setup but if you wanted to get away from the Apple feel you should have trashed Ubuntu proper a long long time ago! IMHO

  129. Re:Noththing wrong with him by morgauxo · · Score: 1

    Mint Debian Edition? Unless you feel that's just a parasite of Debian but that would be dumb because if it is then so is Ubuntu AND Debian encourages that sort of thing anyway!

  130. Linux on the desktop? Yeah right... by sjbe · · Score: 1

    ...considering the fact that Linux was virtually unknown outside the server room before Canonical came along and started polishing it up...

    You think Canonical has gotten Linux on the desktop? Have you had some Bigfoot sightings or found the Loch Ness monster?

    Linux remains unknown outside the server room and on mobile devices like cell phones and tablets. (and on the mobile devices most people don't even know linux is involved) Even the most optimistic estimates of desktop market share I can find put linux at less than 2% with little evidence of that changing anytime soon. The ONLY thing that will get linux serious desktop market share is if it starts shipping pre-loaded on PCs in large quantities and I just don't see that happening anytime soon. Outside of a few geeks like us here on slashdot, NOBODY is installing Linux in place of Windows.

    1. Re:Linux on the desktop? Yeah right... by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      Outside of a few geeks like us here on slashdot, NOBODY is installing Linux in place of Windows.

      Tell that to the secretaries at my work who use RHEL. To be fair a few of them think they are using Windows.

      Also hundreds of people used RHEL on workstations at my previous position.

  131. Re:RMS Sitting on a Pointy Pedestal, Exposing Sinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shill more, please. The issue is not one of Canonical wanting to make a buck. It's about how they're going about it, and screwing all their customers in the process. What they are doing is indefensible.

  132. He's not childish, he's RIGHT by apexwm · · Score: 1

    Canonical has no business collecting information from local searches, none. The Amazon integration must be for some sort of revenue stream for Canonical (and I do commend them for supplying a mainstream distribution to promote open source software), but they are approaching it the wrong way. If they added the feature as an option that the user could install at will, that would be better than enabling the feature from the start without the user knowing exactly what it does. This is like software I've seen on Windoze such as HP printer software that installs toolbars in Internet Exploder without the user choosing to do so. Canonical should bundle the distributions similar to Red Hat and offer stable distributions with support. Red Hat has paved the way for creating a successful distribution that generates revenue. There's no reason other distributions can't follow suit.

  133. Agreed, 110%... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Standard PR flak technique #137: When confronted by undeniable evidence of wrongdoing, attack the person or organization providing the evidence with accusations that can't be disproven. Words commonly used for this are "extremist", "conspiracy theorist", "silly", or "misguided"." - by dkleinsc (563838) on Sunday December 09, @06:19PM (#42237299)

    See subject-line, & I'm going to quote you in the future on it (because you're 110% correct).

    * Nice to see there's people out there with their eyes open, & brains thinking, to see past the bogus machinations of the BIGGEST LIARS ON THE PLANET (marketers).

    APK

    P.S.=> Bottom-Line: If Mr. Stallman's SO "incorrect", then WHY HASN'T ANYONE DISPROVEN HIS POINTS ON Ubuntu's search features sending LOCAL DISK QUERIES out to remote servers?

    To me @ least?? That's the same as putting a surveillance camera into your home WITHOUT your permission...

    ... apk

  134. "Childish"? by flacco · · Score: 1

    I got a bit queasy reading Jono's post, with the corporate-speak, hand-waving, and magical feel-good thinking.

    RMS's statement was well-reasoned and dispassionately delivered. He understands his role in the community and he executed this action perfectly.

    Canonical: Fix the offending code, apologize to the community, fire the decision-makers involved.

    For my part, I've used Ubuntu almost exlusively for a couple of years now, but have always known the day would come when I need to start looking for alternatives because of corporate overreach.

    --
    pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
  135. Dodge the bullet, why don't you? by jon_doh2.0 · · Score: 1

    This retort appears quite well reasoned, but on reflection is actually a lesson in deflection. Nowhere does he address the specific issue of the Amazon data scraping. By contrast RMS does address it (it is the source of his gripe). He simply (politely) attacks RMS and accuses him of FUD, and avoids the particulars of RMS's complaint. Very slippery.

  136. RMS = FUD? by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

    Never.

  137. Glad LugRadio ended by atomicxblue · · Score: 1

    I've just lost all respect for Jono for throwing away his principles for money. There is *no* reason for searches of local files on a home computer to be sent across the internet. There's not even a technical reason for doing this.

    Jono says: "The challenge of course is that privacy is a deeply personal thing and the way in which you define your privacy expectations will likely radically differ from each of your friends, and vice-versa."

    What I consider an appropriate level of privacy should be defined by me, not by another company. It should be telling that the only quotes Jono selects come at the end of RMS' rant and he doesn't do anything to address the main issues brought up.

  138. The responses are amazing! by atomicxblue · · Score: 1

    Only 1 person came to Ubuntu's defense, but the rest seem ready to bring out the torches and pitchforks!

  139. How is it different than what SlashDot does? by daboochmeister · · Score: 1

    You access SlashDot, you see ads (that go to ad agencies that compile data about you). You can disable it, under certain circumstances.

    In Ubuntu, you see ads if you search for music etc. You're able to disable it.

    In either case, a compute resource tracks something about you - and you can cause it not to. How is this different? Because on a website we've just kind of given up, and accept that our privacy will be "violated"?

    --
    "Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh ... never mind." Dave Bucci
  140. Re:Nothing wrong with him by atomicxblue · · Score: 1

    The problem is, although I'm a Mint user, I still had to search through countless pages just to find your post telling how to disable it.

  141. Please Pass The MINTs ... by assertation · · Score: 1

    I've seen many tech journalists over the years make the (reasonable) point that the multiplicity of Linux distributions hinders the popularity of Linux in some ways.

    This situation is one place where those tech journalists are wrong.

    Since there are choices, I will be choosing something other than Ubuntu when I replace my system in the spring.

    I've been using Ubuntu since it first came out, but I found Unity to be too obnoxious and now this built in "spyware"/integration with Amazon.

    Pass the MINTs ( KDE version ) please ....

  142. Re:Ooh boy by jesset77 · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, accept "non-functional today, but I promise tomorrow it will be amazing!" then that's all you'll ever have, too.

    --
    People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
  143. Re:Nothing wrong with him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's idiot, moreon!

  144. And You ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess you are an IT Whore who will salute to every insane command by your Local MBA retard. That's why your company's assets got pwned by Chicom Ltd.
    Linux and BSD are exactly secure because they are Run By Extremists - Thorvalds, DeRaadt, RMS.

    "Moderate" means bending over when the MBA Crapper comes with a bundle of dollar bills. See what they have achieved in the Windows Virus API and the Apple Random Tyranny Appstore.

    But better is the enemy of evil and very soon Linux and BSD will have taken over. See phones, tablets, DSL routers and search engines. The cancer is encircled and will soon be eliminated.

  145. Muha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linux was just a kernel. Quick and dirty first. You cannot run a Unix computer with the kernel only. Think about bash, make, emacs, vi, sort, wc, grep and several hundred similar things.

  146. You Mean, Like... Jesus ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently he also broke into the congregations of respected men and even threw their tables, where they had their worshipping goods made out of gold stacked.

    Considering the success of that hippie Jesus, there is a lot in it for RMS !

    And no, I don't mean this ironically. Linux and FOSS is going extremely strong and gettting stronger by the day.

  147. Hahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RMS has already been more successful than anybody else in the software industry, including Bill Gates. Why is that ? Because GPLed software has proven again and again to be much more secure (which is a big issue in the internet age), consumes less energy (critical in phones and other mobile devices) and in general is taking over the world.

    Google's and Apple's success would not be possible without several GPLed tools like gcc, Linux and bash. Apple is now #1 in market cap. Can you argue with that ??

  148. Shmoorly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why Android is based on Windows Buttfuck 17.5.

  149. Problem Is Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canonical is burning money. This kind of stuff is desperate. They should simply give up. Thanks for the show, we had enough now.

  150. Hey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..this guy is a "business person". He is in this for making big dollars or big pounds. He dreams of a villa and a Ferrari. To that end he has sold his spine, his logical thought and of course this truthfulness.

    Don't be so rude to him. He is just one of the Management Retards.

  151. I Disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RMS merely points out that Canonical is burning through Mr Shuttleworth's money and is desperate for revenue. So desperate they install spyware.

  152. You Mean, MR Ballmer's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Semen ?

    Factually you M$ shills are admitting defeat with this crap. Thanks, you will from now on be our slaves.

  153. Agreed. Crippled was not the right phrase by bdwoolman · · Score: 1

    "Monetizing open source software by tainting it" would have been a bit better way to phrase it.

    And I agree that the Ubuntu project has been very positive for Linux on the desktop. (Compromising sleazeball that I am I just installed Linux Mint Nadia on a recent project.) And also it is clear that Canonical has managed to remain pretty decent in general as they try to walk the perilous moral tightrope they have chosen to walk. And Android is a satisfying win for the open model (But not for Google's bottom line last time I checked). So how do you measure win? And I get that there is a dynamic process going between open source and for-profit activities that is not a bad thing. All your points are very well taken. I do get it. But I have a compromising mind. So I can get it.

    But RMS has styled himself a zealot, or is naturally a zealot. He won't get it. For him all that commercial activity is a dangerous cancer. And it is right and good for him to be there seeing the world that way. Because Libre software rocks like a rowboat in a riptide. And I doubt there would be such a vibrant FOSS movement without him. And, so, no magic well for the rest of us to taint.

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
  154. Re:Ooh boy by readnotpost · · Score: 1

    Fucking right. I gave up running Linux as a primary OS because I got suckered into the promise of things getting better - and they did, in some ways, while in others things went backwards (general stability of software is IMHO WORSE than 5-10 years ago).

    At some point it just makes sense to stick with a mature, winning solution, which in my case is Windows 7.

  155. Ubuntu continues to please me by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

    These new online Ubunt ufeatures don't help me, but they do not harm me either.
    I wish Ubuntu success. I am a loyal fan.