Ubuntu's Mark Shuttleworth Wins Austria's Big Brother Award

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ubuntu's Mark Shuttleworth Wins Austria's Big Brother Award

Posted by Unknown on Monday October 28, 2013 @10:55AM from the it-burns dept.

sfcrazy writes "Austria's Big Brother Awards awarded the coveted Big Brother Award to Ubuntu's founder Mark Shuttleworth for Ubuntu Dash's privacy reducing online extensions to local searches." From the article: "What’s bad here and raises question here is that despite repeated requests Canonical refused to make the tracking option opt-in. The feature is installed and enabled by default so the moment one install Ubuntu it starts sending info to Canonical servers until the user deliberately disables it."

116 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Freedom isn't free by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 11:01 · Score: -1, Troll

How do you expect Canonical to continue helping Linux actually become usable on the desktop? You neckbeards weren't doing such a good job before Ubuntu came around.
1. Re:Freedom isn't free by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  You neckbeards weren't doing such a good job before Ubuntu came around.
  'We' don't care if other people adopt it on the desktop.
  We do care when someone tries to turn Linux into a douche-bag, spy on everything you do thing so Shuttleworth can get more ad revenue. Fuck him.
  And, I'm afraid I would never use Canonical ever again.
2. Re:Freedom isn't free by Enderandrew · 2013-10-28 11:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  FWIW, I don't think Unity has done much to improve the desktop experience, though that is somewhat a matter of taste.
  Canonical marketed Linux to the extent that Ubuntu was tracking higher as a keyword in searches than Linux.
  I'd like to thank the KDE devs however for making Linux usable on the desktop.
  
  --
  http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
3. Re:Freedom isn't free by Nerdfest · 2013-10-28 11:30 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Not just usable in the HMI sense, but usable because it's solid. Unity is a slow, crashy disaster, and even though I can tolerate Gnome Shell, it's just too unstable to use for real work, with daily crashes. Although these are generally non-fatal, they tend to leave things in a 'not quite right' state. Even the very latest KDE tends to be very fast and very solid these days.
4. Re: Freedom isn't free by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 11:32 · Score: 0
  
  Ok, how do you think they can sustain the operation and remain 'free' then?
5. Re: Freedom isn't free by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 11:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Ok, how do you think they can sustain the operation and remain 'free' then?
  That's not really our problem, is it?
  Other distros doesn't use those tactics and they're doing just fine.
6. Re:Freedom isn't free by occasional_dabbler · 2013-10-28 11:41 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Harshly stated, but in essence, true: Linux has to generate income. Android does it with massive, unavoidable invasion of privacy. Ubuntu does it with a minor, transparent and easily disabled intrusion into some of your online life. It's not like any of us have any real privacy online anymore anyway, so why not let some of the goodies leak to someone actually fdoing something positive with it?
  
  --
  "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
7. Re:Freedom isn't free by Enderandrew · 2013-10-28 11:42 · Score: 2
  
  I haven't checked it out recently, but Ubuntu doesn't necessarily have a reputation for solid bug-free packages that never crash. Ubuntu doesn't have as many engineers, developers or package maintainers as Novell or Red Hat.
  Ubuntu's KDE packages were so famously awful that it soured a lot of people who assumed KDE must be buggy and unstable on its own (when openSUSE and Fedora KDE packages are rock solid).
  
  --
  http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
8. Re:Freedom isn't free by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 12:06 · Score: 0
  
  They could just ask people to buy a license... It doesn't have to pirate-proof, just ask for a small payment in exchange for a license key, those who want will pay for it and those who don't want or can't afford will use a pirated key. Way back, I paid for an Opera license even though I could get a free Netscape or IE, because Opera was a much much better product IMO. I also drop some money into buskers' hats when I appreciate their performance, many other people do too. I'd pay for a solid spy-free Ubuntu as well.
9. Re:Freedom isn't free by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 12:12 · Score: 0
  
  We do care when someone tries to turn Linux into a douche-bag, spy on everything you do thing so Shuttleworth can get more ad revenue. Fuck him.
  And, I'm afraid I would never use Canonical ever again.
  So I'm assuming you also don't use Google either since they have equally turned Linux into a douche-bag, spy on everything you do thing so Google can get more ad revenue.
10. Re:Freedom isn't free by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 12:15 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  KDE is fucking disgusting. Figures Linux aspies are so fond of it
11. Re:Freedom isn't free by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 12:32 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Debian does it through voluntary donations.
  20 years and going.
12. Re:Freedom isn't free by foobar+bazbot · 2013-10-28 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  Harshly stated, but in essence, true: Linux has to generate income. Android does it with massive, unavoidable invasion of privacy. Ubuntu does it with a minor, transparent and easily disabled intrusion into some of your online life.
  Debian does it with volunteer work where possible, and donations for stuff (e.g. hosting) that needs money.
  Arch does it with a similar volunteer/donation scheme.
  Uncle Pat does it with stability and simplicity, to the exclusion of modernity (e.g. still no PAM, no sysv init scripts, and you bet your life no systemd/upstart) -- and enough people want this option to remain available that they voluntarily buy CD sets (in lieu of downloading ISOs) or slackware-branded merchandise, in sufficient amounts to pay the bills for Pat.
  But yeah, if you're making a distro that doesn't appeal to either the sort of people who can volunteer useful help, or the sort who are willing to donate money (whether structured as a "donation", or as the "purchase" of physical media), I guess maybe you have to hope they're the sort who'll barter away their privacy for software. Since I am the sort who has donated and will continue to donate to projects I'd rather didn't die, I by definition don't care about projects that need to monetize my privacy to continue existing.
  Or if you're greedy^Wprofit-oriented, and therefore want more income than people are willing to donate, you might have to seek alternate income sources such as users giving up their privacy. But I don't care about that, because IMO I'm a lot better off using a distro made by people focusing on making a good distro, than one made by people focusing on making a big profit. But what do I know, I'm one of those crazy* right-libertarians who believes the only thing better than a (reasonably small) company, driven to make a good product by competition and the greed/profit motive, is a (reasonably small) co-op, driven to make a good product by the members' individual motive to benefit from the goodness of the product they themselves both make and use.
  I believe both preceeding cases describe Canonical, a for-profit company making an OS that's wildly popular with freeloading "end-user" types -- so I don't question the economic sense (for Canonical) of resorting privacy-monetization, and I don't really mind that they and their non-privacy-valuing users make that voluntary trade. OTOH, for the reasons stated, I also don't care whether Canonical disappears from the face of the Earth, so if I find myself, for whatever reason, using an Ubuntu machine, you can bet I'm turning it off.
  *craziness measured relative to my fellow US right-libertarians, to most of whom "co-op" is a four-letter word. I have seriously heard the sentence "I can see why you'd want such a thing, but a co-op just feels too socialist for me." Yeah, we're all about the individual liberties, economic freedom of voluntary association, etc., but the moment a few guys want to voluntarily associate into a certain class of organization, without imposing it on anyone else, we knee-jerk and cry "socialist"?! </political-rant>
13. Re:Freedom isn't free by jedidiah · 2013-10-28 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  > Ubuntu does it with a minor
  So Canonical is completely in the black now? Otherwise your blithering is completely pointless. Shuttleworth has sold out without really actually gaining anything.
  Meanwhile, all of the real work is still being done by someone else and whatever money Canonical happens to be making isn't contributing to the overall bottom line.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
14. Re:Freedom isn't free by cmdr_tofu · 2013-10-28 14:38 · Score: 2
  
  The Ubuntu LTS releases are actually pretty good. Of course it is just a re-presentation of all the work that goes into the Debian project. I don't like where Ubuntu is going with default Window managers. Ubuntu is what got me off of olvwm/enlightenment and onto Gnome 2. Now I use xfce under Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and it's perfectly acceptable, and no intrusive Amazon search.
15. Re:Freedom isn't free by Enderandrew · 2013-10-28 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  I recall a few years back that they had a LTS release with a beta version of Firefox that was broken, broken Pulse Audio, and even worse, a bad binary blob in the Intel gigabit NIC drivers that would permanently brick your NIC if you loaded the driver.
  LTS releases are supported longer, but that doesn't make them more stable on day one. Nor does it change the fact that the packages get the same polish the other fairly bleeding edge Ubuntu releases get.
  Red Hat and Debian Stable seem to be overly cautious with sticking with old packages forever for "stability", even if known bugs exist in old packages. Ubuntu is very bleeding edge sometimes at the cost of stability.
  I think there needs to be a fairly sane middle ground where each package gets reasonable polish, but you also get newer packages out somewhat quickly. But that takes a lot of package maintainers.
  
  --
  http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
16. Re:Freedom isn't free by foobar+bazbot · 2013-10-28 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  > Ubuntu does it with a minor
  Hey, I don't like Ubuntu either, but accusing them of statutory rape seems a little harsh!
17. Re:Freedom isn't free by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 15:47 · Score: 0
  
  You know, the equivalent version of 'pirated software' in the open source world is a fork... That's the exact opposite of what you want.
  It isn't like in windows, that every pirated version counts, because world domination & etc...
  In open source, the instant you fuck with your users, a fork is made, then, if lucky, community shifts.
  See MySQL-MariaDB, Ubuntu - Mint, openOffice - Libreoffice.
  And that's also why fedora is a fantastic idea.
18. Re:Freedom isn't free by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 16:41 · Score: 0
  
  They do, on every download.
19. Re: Freedom isn't free by Penguinisto · 2013-10-28 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, how do you think they can sustain the operation and remain 'free' then?
  RedHat, SuSE (Novell), Linux Mint, and a whole buttload of other distros have found monetary income w/o resorting to bullshit techniques - why can't Canonical?
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
20. Re:Freedom isn't free by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  I would trust microsoft more than google.
21. Re:Freedom isn't free by syockit · 2013-10-28 17:50 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, if you don't care people adopt it on the desktop, why do you even care that Ubuntu exists? In what way does its existence harm your Linux experience?
  I'm pretty sure GNOME shooting itself in the foot has nothing to do with the introduction of Unity.
  Upstart did get adopted by Fedora for a while, but that's just Fedora being Fedora (even now it's replaced with homebrewn systemd). I doubt hardcore Linux users were affected; the distros they use didn't adopt them.
  If there's anything you might be annoyed with, maybe it's the Eternal September effect: forums getting filled with noob questions who by people don't RTFM, or the pollution of search results of the keyword "linux" with mostly Ubuntu-centric stuff. But a simple google-fu takes care of that.
  
  --
  Democracy is for the people; you only vote once per season and we'll do the rest of the work for you don't have to.
22. Re:Freedom isn't free by fido_dogstoyevsky · 2013-10-28 17:58 · Score: 1
  
  They could just ask people to buy a license... It doesn't have to pirate-proof, just ask for a small payment in exchange for a license key, those who want will pay for it and those who don't want or can't afford will use a pirated key. Way back, I paid for an Opera license even though I could get a free Netscape or IE, because Opera was a much much better product IMO. I also drop some money into buskers' hats when I appreciate their performance, many other people do too. I'd pay for a solid spy-free Ubuntu as well.
  Trouble is, it (the licence) isn't Canonical's to sell.
  They can, however, charge for support, documentation, physical medium (the DVD set), access to their servers for downloading and a whole lot of other things I can't be bothered thinking up. But not for a licence. And if they charge too much for any of those things we can all look forward to the new free (as in beer) Tatmsa 9000 distribution (which will look a lot like Ubuntu).
  
  --
  It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
23. Re: Freedom isn't free by kthreadd · 2013-10-28 18:44 · Score: 1
  
  Well, Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu. So one could argue that they can use the work done by Canonical but won't have to pay for it.
24. Re:Freedom isn't free by occasional_dabbler · 2013-10-28 20:14 · Score: 1
  
  > all of the real work is still being done by someone else.
  If Canonical weren't doing something then Ubuntu would be Debian. They are adding value, even if it may not be of value to you.
  
  --
  "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
25. Re:Freedom isn't free by Patch86 · 2013-10-28 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  Shuttleworth has said before that Canonical would be in the black if you discount the money they're spending on Touch. The server and OpenStack business is very profitable for them, the desktop business is around break even, and their Touch stuff is very loss-making. In the interview, he suggested that he'd rather spend his money (he being the major bankroller still) shooting for glory than settling for a profitable little server business pointlessly nibbling at Red Hat's leftovers.
  You can say a lot about Shuttleworth, but he's not prone to lying about this sort of thing.
26. Re:Freedom isn't free by occasional_dabbler · 2013-10-28 20:23 · Score: 1
  
  But yeah, if you're making a distro that doesn't appeal to either the sort of people who can volunteer useful help, or the sort who are willing to donate money
  I must be an exception then, since I've contributed both code and money and if you spend a little time in the vast Ubuntu Forums you'll find there are plenty of people contributing expertise, if not actual code, much of which is useful for any distro, not just *buntu.
  I personally don't use the Launcher thing for anything other than launching programs so I'm not sending any meaningful search data to Amazon (Do I care if they know I opened gparted?) However I do think the whole 'scope' idea is interesting and for this reason I've left it activated just to see how it might develop into something that I would find useful one day.
  
  --
  "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
27. Re: Freedom isn't free by red+crab · 2013-10-28 21:08 · Score: 1
  
  Well, Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu. So one could argue that they can use the work done by Canonical but won't have to pay for it.
  And Ubuntu is based on Debian. So one could argue that they can use the work done by Debian but won't have to pay for it?
28. Re:Freedom isn't free by horza · 2013-10-28 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  Unity is getting slow. I get crash errors ever 10 mins, no idea what is crashing but it doesn't affect my usage apart from having to keep closing those error boxes. I would LOVE to get involved and try the latest Ubuntu but I really don't want to install spyware on my machine.
  Remember all those Ubuntu apologists before? "Why worry about it, it's as simple as apt-get remove somewierdname". Next version is suddenly more integrated and you can no longer simply apt-get remove the package. Gullible fools.
  However KDE looks awful. It is so unpolished. And there are loads of UI bugs that make it unpleasant to use. The final straw for me was double-clicking on a movie residing on my NAS, and KDE deciding to spend 5 mins copying the whole thing to /tmp before attempting to play it.
  So far XFCE is shaping up to be the next popular desktop. I've moved several people to it and they love it. It feels a little basic for me but then what is the alternative?
  The best things that could happen:
  a) Canonical back-tracks and decides not to screw over its user base
  b) KDE has a massive sprint to fix UI, and forgets trying to aim for QT 8.0 which works on smart watches
  c) developers shift from Unity to XFCE and it starts to take over
  d) a new contender emerges
  So far (d) looks the more likely, despite so much time and effort already sunk into and currently wasted in (a) and (b).
  Phillip.
  
  --
  Property for sale in Nice, France
29. Re:Freedom isn't free by RoboJ1M · 2013-10-28 22:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They do.
  The ask for a donation when you download the ISO.
  And guess what?
  They complained about that too. Very loudly indeed.
  In summary, there will always be people on forums complaining about everything.
  They will always be first and loudest.
  The people who just install it, judge it good enough and put a dollar in the hat don't go on-line to troll about it.
  Long live Mark, Canonical, Unity and Mir. ;)
30. Re:Freedom isn't free by Linzer · 2013-10-28 22:56 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, if you don't care people adopt it on the desktop, why do you even care that Ubuntu exists? In what way does its existence harm your Linux experience?
  It harms my Linux experience because nowadays some software developers support Ubuntu and then claim they support Linux.
  
  --
  Gravitation is a theory, not a fact.
31. Re: Freedom isn't free by unixisc · 2013-10-29 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  RedHat & SUSE sell primarily into the server markets, and don't have a big stake in what happens in the desktop. As for everyone else, define 'found monetary income'. The donations simply don't cut it, and they need to find ways to make money. They can't sell their distros, since other distros are free (as in water), and they haven't figured out how to sell it w/ hardware. Advertizing is one option that they have, and Ubuntu tried that, as well as new projects like the Ubuntu phone & Myth TV. Let's see what works.
32. Re:Freedom isn't free by MollyB · 2013-10-29 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  Believe it or not, I'm still using Ubuntu 10.04.4 LTS, and I keep receiving kernel (currently 2.6.32-52-generic) updates along with libc libraries and other basic stuff. Still enjoying Gnome 2--everything stays where I want it and doesn't get in the way. I've been pleasantly surprised for well over a year that it still works fine. Don't need any new stuff, anyway.
  (this comment could have been in the EOL XP article under 'refusal to upgrade'!)
33. Re:Freedom isn't free by occasional_dabbler · 2013-10-29 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  This. Well said, sir
  
  --
  "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
34. Re:Freedom isn't free by occasional_dabbler · 2013-10-29 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  On a clean install of 13.10 I got a couple of crash reports for trivial stuff for the first couple of days, but now it's rock solid. Keep /home on a separate drive and do a clean install of / on every release and Ubuntu is solid enough for production desktop.
  
  --
  "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
35. Re:Freedom isn't free by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-29 15:41 · Score: 0
  
  e) Former Ubuntu users who feel betrayed have an epiphany: There's no such thing as a free lunch.
36. Re:Freedom isn't free by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-30 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  I downloaded the ISO earlier today to try it and see how it's changed, and noticed the donation thing. I personally don't like how they put the skip under a whole list of things.
  Secondly, the OS is unusable to me because it simply doesn't feel like it was designed for human beings...
  1. They took the Windows Taskbar and put it on the left hand side of the screen. You cannot move it. The icons are ugly as dog fecis, as well, and the rubber banding that happens when you scroll all the way to the top of it is not attractive.
  The dock should be at the bottom of the screen by default. It makes no sense being pasted to the left.
  There is an option to hide it, though... And it will pop out when you put the mouse there...
  2. They took Apple's way of displaying menu bars, which completely threw me for a loop. If you're using an app full screen this is all obvious, but Firefox started off as a normal window, and I was pressing ALT- and all sorts of other buttons trying to get to the menubar. It doesn't even show up until you mouse ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP of the screen (not just in the app window, the whole screen). Then, the menu bar isn't aligned with the application window.
  This is fine for people who are moving from OSX, but for Windows users migrating over, they will be completely stomped just trying to find the menu bar in the applications they open!
  They moved the window buttons to the left hand corner of the screen, Lol...
  ---
  They should have just done a Windows-style task bar and left the application menus in the application. For some applications (i.e. GIMP) this makes sense. For the large majority of applications (Productivity Software, Groupware/PIM applications, Web Browsers, File Managers, etc.) it serves no purpose but to confuse the user.
  And for some reason, looking at the screen it just feels like I have less screen real-estate than on Windows. I think it has a lot to do with the toolbars and stuff which aren't in Windows Apps like Internet Explorer vs. Firefox - and of course that Menu Bar (at the top) and Taskbar uses space as well... It just seems off.
  I think the UI font looks a lot better than in past Linux distros that I've used. Font in apps still seems worse than on Windows or a Mac, though.
  Why are they using Abandonware like Thunderbird in their distro, instead of Evolution which is much more powerful?
  If they want to be the OSX for people who don't have a Mac, they really need to focus on the aesthetics a bit more, and stop wasting screen space and doing things differently for the sake of being different.
  I also hate that Search pulls in information from so many damn sources. It was really overwhelming. I got to an app list once, but couldn't find it again after I closed that window.
  UGH. Frustrated with it, Lol.
Wut? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 11:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

If that is the biggest brother in Austria, they are living in paradise.
1. Re:Wut? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  It just means that they dare not offend the Bigger Brothers.
2. Re:Wut? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 12:48 · Score: 0
  
  The NSA issue won in another category and also received some kind of "award for life". Apparently there are many categories. Steve Ballmer won in the category "business and finance"
  Stop making assumptions without making an effort to learn more about the story.
  And by the way, Shuttleworth roundly deserves his award just as the NSA does, even though the NSA is worse. The NSA scandal is not the new yardstick by which to measure things, because every other scandal would be dwarfed by it, without the 'smaller' scandals being any less serious.
  Shuttleworth's attitude is getting worse every month.
3. Re:Wut? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-29 04:27 · Score: 0
  
  If that is the biggest brother in Austria, they are living in paradise.
  Some truth to that: Austria has probably the world's best privacy protection and crypto rolled in to their "Buergerkarte", or Citizen Card.
  Nonetheless, it does demonstrate that Shuttleworth is all talk and no trousers when it comes to privacy.
selling data by I.M.O.G. · 2013-10-28 11:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

Most people within core mass market demographics don't realize or care how much data they send, so defaults are important economically. If the financial motivations are in the wrong place, the wrong decision will be made for invested parties. I don't know of any business that is successful and doesn't exploit this general sort of opportunity. It paints Ubuntu as a villain, but its more business as usual and isn't unique to Ubuntu.

--
Overclockers
1. Re:selling data by mrchaotica · 2013-10-28 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  That just means that all the other totalitarian assholes running those other companies deserve to share the 'award.'
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
He earned it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 11:10 · Score: 0

Well, he certainly earned it ... now can we have a "biggest asshole in Linux" award? He's a shoe-in for that too.
1. Re:He earned it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 12:30 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, but biggest asshole in Linux goes to the almighty Larry Ellison. It's not a fair competition, though.
2. Re:He earned it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 14:11 · Score: 0
  
  RMS for trying to hijack it.
You are small time by sqrt(2) · 2013-10-28 11:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

I can think of someone more deserving.

--
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
1. Re:You are small time by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-29 11:54 · Score: 0
  
  Keith B. Alexander is the host, he will be presenting the award to Mark Shuttleworth
Riiiiiight... by FuzzNugget · 2013-10-28 11:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

Because, of all the privacy violators made apparent in the past several months, Canonical is clearly the worst offender.
1. Re:Riiiiiight... by sgage · 2013-10-28 11:22 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  You don't understand...
  Ubuntu was threatening to be successful in the wider market. Therefore, it must be taken down at any cost! Once again, the FOSS "community" (gack!) eats its young.
  This sort of nonsense is why Linux "market share" will never get anywhwere.
2. Re:Riiiiiight... by Narcocide · 2013-10-28 11:31 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  Seriously? That's your highly enlightened opinion? The FOSS community only tries to "eat" the unethical and inept. They don't do a complete enough job of it either apparently, because you actually got up today and were allowed to spew out this completely uneducated bullshit. If you had actually paid attention to the surveilance features Canonical is building into their system and compared them to ANY OTHER LINUX OFFERING WHATSOEVER you'd see they're moving directly opposite of the entire intent of the rest of the FOSS community with regards to software freedom and privacy.
  But you didn't actually, did you? You're trolling for Ubuntu because you were proud you installed it successfully after having failed so many times with other distros, and it made you feel smart because you didn't even need to read anything to get "working" desktop environment.
  Grow up kid and start putting your effort somewhere it won't be wasted. Canonical has paid people to do this job you're doing for them.
3. Re:Riiiiiight... by Nerdfest · 2013-10-28 11:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Regardless of whether or not it reduces market share, it's behaviour that should be discouraged. There's frequently a difference between doing what's popular and what's right.
4. Re:Riiiiiight... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 11:44 · Score: 0
  
  No, because they're the ones who pretend to care and are least apologetic.
5. Re:Riiiiiight... by sgage · 2013-10-28 11:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Discouraged, yes. Though I just installed the latest Ubuntu and this stuff was opt-in, so perhaps the cries were heard. My point is that to award this distinction to Ubuntu in the face of all the crap going down on the Internet is simply absurd, extremely small potatoes, and smacks of sour grapes and/or piling on, which is the norm for the FOSS press.
  What's popular isn't always "right" (who decides that?), but we really might maintain a sense of proportion. In over 15 years of observing the FOSS world, it really seems that if you start to get any traction in the wider world, the "community" (as if there were a "community") seems to want to smack it down. For all the talk of world domination and so on and so forth, the "community" seems on some visceral level to want to remain marginal, They are getting their wish.
6. Re:Riiiiiight... by Nerdfest · 2013-10-28 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  We, the FOSS community decide what's right. It makes it difficult for people who want to push the boundaries of the acceptable though, as I've seen a couple of studies that show a bit of what they called "Hero Syndrome" in the IT community as a whole. I'm not sure if it's from being bullied, reading too many comic books or something else, but apparently it exists. I think it's a good thing, but the Microsoft and Apple marketing and development teams most definitely don't have it, and that leaves FOSS at a but of an idealistic disadvantage.
7. Re:Riiiiiight... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 12:21 · Score: -1
  
  Wow that really hit a nerve! And it is "free software" which means you are free to change what you dont like, hell you could re-distribute it with those features ripped out if you wanted.
  Even if it was trolling like you claim it to be then it still worked damn well on you, I just love it when douchebags like you get so angry that you start calling them trolls in the process of responding. You do understand what trolling is don't you?
8. Re:Riiiiiight... by sgage · 2013-10-28 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  I guess one of my points is that I don't believe there is a "we, the FOSS community". I used to think so, but now there seems to be nothing but a swarm of multiple contingents jockeying for position to further their project, and dumping on the other projects. I suppose it was ever thus, really. In any case, it guarantees that FOSS goes nowhere.
9. Re:Riiiiiight... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 12:47 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The price system in a free market allows people who may ordinarily hate each other to indirectly cooperate by acting in their own interest. FOSS is similar to a free market, with participants acting in their own interest but whose actions indirectly benefit everyone. This chaos of uncoordinated individuals is in fact where FOSS's strength comes from. It is an illusion that centrally-imposed control would lead to any kind of improvement and it may well dissuade FOSS developers from contributing if they feel they are being directed by someone else's interests.
10. Re:Riiiiiight... by exomondo · 2013-10-28 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  We, the FOSS community decide what's right.
  Who is this "we, the FOSS community"? I would have thought Ubuntu and Google were part of the FOSS community, even Apple makes significant contributions to FOSS, are they included? I don't think there is some "FOSS community" that makes these decisions.
11. Re:Riiiiiight... by dugancent · 2013-10-28 13:05 · Score: 1
  
  There is no "we the people". There are as many opinions about what direction to go as there are people. FOSS is not a singular voice.
  
  --
  SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
12. Re:Riiiiiight... by Narcocide · 2013-10-28 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  His statement was OBVIOUSLY inflammatory and factually inaccurate, and you know it, you astroturfing fuck-face. Do you want to admonish me for my bad behavior and poor language too now? Maybe you should have the teacher call my mommy. Piss off.
13. Re:Riiiiiight... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 13:43 · Score: 0
  
  Those bigger privacy violators have been widely reported on everything from Al Jazeera to Fox News, so anyone who cares a bit already knows about them. But almost nobody outside of the geek community have heard of Canonical. This is a way to keep people from innocently latching onto Unity as the Linux Open-Source Savior Of Freedom.
14. Re:Riiiiiight... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 14:25 · Score: 0
  
  Wow that hit a nerve even harder than GGGP's post :) You really are an angry angry person.
  and no i dont care about your poor language you sad cunt :P
15. Re:Riiiiiight... by exomondo · 2013-10-28 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  Just because the default behavior is to ask you to opt-in to the sending of searches hardly makes it any less 'free'. In fact the source code can be downloaded, modified to automatically opt-out and re-distributed if you really want to, because it's free! That's the whole point of free software, that if you don't like the default or want additional features you can add them.
16. Re:Riiiiiight... by John+Balance · 2013-10-28 17:40 · Score: 1
  
  The NSA has won the Austrian Big Brother Lifetime Award this year. There's no higher "honour". Google and Facebook have won in the last couple of years, so from the last remaining options they chose the worst.
17. Re:Riiiiiight... by cripkd · 2013-10-28 19:19 · Score: 1
  
  What's wrong with a linux desktop that "just works"?
  I'm not homophobic but it seems you don't like anything that doesn't get you all sweaty and greased in the process. Am I wrong?
  
  --
  Curiously yours, crip.
18. Re:Riiiiiight... by Narcocide · 2013-10-29 20:24 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, you are wrong. Ubuntu has tricked you into thinking you have to give up freedom for convenience. Linux was never about convenience, it was always only about freedom, but Canonical has also tricked you into thinking that there can't be a third choice. The fact of the matter is they've purposefully hidden the third choice; it should "just work" without you having to let Mark Shuttleworth personally dick your wife up the ass and implant mind control chips in all your children's brains.
FUD by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 11:24 · Score: 1

They are talking about typing something into a field labeled "Search your computer and online sources. I repeat: "SEARCH YOUR COMPUTER AND ONLINE SOURCES" (caps seems to be necessary).
Besides that, you can very easily enable/disable sources (by clicking them in the same dash), completely remove sources with your package manager, or disable all online searches.

But, why in Kropotkinsname would anyone want to disable the online search? If you want to get the weather, calculation, wikipedia page, wouldn't you just lookup the result on the web instead? Or even worse: search it with Google?
1. Re:FUD by foobar+bazbot · 2013-10-28 13:06 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  They are talking about typing something into a field labeled "Search your computer and online sources.
  Call me crazy, but I normally have a real good idea whether I'm searching for something on my computer or on the interwebz. And the only use case I can think of where I'd ever want to search both for the same thing is if I want to run an app (say, Google Earth) that may or may not be installed, so I want to find and execute the installed instance, if any, and failing that, I'll search the web to find and download the installer. Even then, I want to search first one, then conditionally search the other.
  So to me it's pretty obvious that the more useful behavior is two search boxen, one to search my computer, and the other to search online sources. Or perhaps one search box with two buttons, so I can click the local one, and if I don't get a result, click the web one.
  
  But, why in Kropotkinsname would anyone want to disable the online search? If you want to get the weather, calculation, wikipedia page, wouldn't you just lookup the result on the web instead? Or even worse: search it with Google?
  Well, there's two points of objection. One is an issue of how many and whose computers see your search queries -- which is ultimately addressable by changing which sources are enabled. In order to do an internet search, you've obviously gotta trust somebody with your search query -- so pick somebody and set up your sources correspondingly.
  The other, and IMO bigger point, is that somebody -- whether it's canonical's search service, google, duckduckgo, or ixquick -- is receiving info every time you use that tool to search for a local document. No matter how much I trust ixquick, it's senseless to entrust them with more data in exchange for no benefit, so when I know I'm searching for a local file, I'd like the easy choice to not have my search query posted to any web search engine. Again, give me two search boxes, or one box with two (or more -- one for each source, one for all sources, etc.) buttons.
2. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-29 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  The part that Canonical should be publicising MUCH HARDER is that if you want to search your applications, you should press super-A (or you click on the Apps lens). If you want to search your files, you should press super-F (or you click on the Files/documents lens).
  Both of these searches are local and do not leave your computer (at least they were in 13.04 - haven't checked in the latest yet). The "applications available to download" are those seen in your last apt-get update.
  So the features you're asking for do exist already, it's just that Canonical is doing an unfortunately poor job of publicising them.
3. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-29 12:09 · Score: 0
  
  Before, every time I did a search I kept getting pictures of Miley Cyrus. Now that I disabled it I am able to get back to business and have a more informative useful search
"Coveted"? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 11:29 · Score: 0

Oh, right. Newspeak.
If its free, then you're the product by Gothmolly · 2013-10-28 11:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

Just like Google - YOU are the product, not the search (or other) services.

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
1. Re:If its free, then you're the product by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 12:57 · Score: 0
  
  Your search is - in some capacity - a "product" that they "sell" to say Amazon but it's just the keyword(s) which are then mapped to an attempt at a relevant advertisement to then display back to you. If "you" are the product in this sense then you are equally the product when watching free-to-air TV (or any TV with advertisements for that matter). If you want to look at it from that perspective then it's certainly not a new concept.
2. Re:If its free, then you're the product by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 13:46 · Score: 0
  
  Only when for-profit companies are concerned. The vast majority of GNU/Linux distros are free and do not sell their community.
3. Re:If its free, then you're the product by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 16:43 · Score: 0
  
  There is no free lunch. If you want to have good engineering and quality assurance departments, you need money. Many distros collect it in the form of donations.
Big Brother for Shuttleworth? by gmuslera · 2013-10-28 11:33 · Score: 0

Then what is left for Obama? Big Grandfather? And there is a lot of players in the middle ground, (Cameron, Cook, Zuckerberg, Ballmer and a long list of etcs) that are heads and shoulders over whatever Ubuntu could ever do.
You're wrong and you're a bad person too. by Narcocide · 2013-10-28 11:44 · Score: 0

Let us see how many mod points your friends have today.
1. Re:You're wrong and you're a bad person too. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 14:48 · Score: 0
  
  Im not wrong! Everybody else is wrong!
There's an axe and I hear it grinding by umafuckit · 2013-10-28 11:50 · Score: 2

There are better candidates for the Big Brother award than Shuttleworth.

--
soylentnews.org
The Fall of Ubuntu by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 11:53 · Score: 0

This surprisingly heavy handed action is why I'll no longer use Ubuntu. Choice is a great thing.
Not the NSA? by NoKaOi · 2013-10-28 12:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

The article blabs on and on about how this is a Big Brother-ish threat because the data could easily be obtained by the NSA. So why not just give the award to the NSA? Or, if it has to be an individual, then to the president or the head of the NSA? I though maybe it had to go to a company operating in the EU, since Canonical is from the UK, but then realized that we know the NSA operates in the EU too. So, maybe the company is being evil by doing this, but clearly not as evil as the US government and its TLAs.
1. Re:Not the NSA? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 12:27 · Score: 0
  
  Wait, Spy agencies are *gasp* spying on people? Outrage!
2. Re:Not the NSA? by cascadingstylesheet · 2013-10-28 12:45 · Score: 0
  
  The article blabs on and on about how this is a Big Brother-ish threat because the data could easily be obtained by the NSA. So why not just give the award to the NSA? Or, if it has to be an individual, then to the president or the head of the NSA?
  Seems logical, huh? But Obama's responsibility repulsion field apparently keeps that from happening.
3. Re:Not the NSA? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 13:03 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, outrage, you fucking asshole, outrage. Down with Big Brother.
4. Re:Not the NSA? by JosefSit · 2013-10-28 15:18 · Score: 1
  
  You (and a lot of other people) are asking, why not the NSA? Well, here is the answer: The NSA alongside the austrian government (for saying nothing) has won the Big Brother Award in the category politcs. It was titled the german name of the movie "The Silence of the Lambs" (Das Schweigen der Lämmer).
5. Re:Not the NSA? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 18:27 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe because the head of NSA probably can't really change anything the NSA does (he might get replaced if he turned the agency into a day care center)? While Mark (can I call you Mark?), probably can change Ubuntu?
6. Re:Not the NSA? by cccc828 · 2013-10-28 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  > So why not just give the award to the NSA?
  
  In fact they gave three awards to the NSA (Source in German). They won "Lifelong Annoyence", the audience award (shared with GCHQ) and in the category "politics" (shared with the Austrian goverment).
If there's one thing to take away by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 12:04 · Score: -1

It's that Linux users always manage to shoot themselves in the foot.
1. Re:If there's one thing to take away by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 12:12 · Score: 0
  
  Linux user here. In my case, I shot myself in the penis. Long story. Anyhow, when life hands you AIDS, make lemonAIDS, as they say. And that's why I'm a linux user.
2. Re:If there's one thing to take away by Iskender · 2013-10-28 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you for today's Linux troll post. It was above-average.
What non-buntu users think by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 12:21 · Score: 0

Let me illustrate what the non-buntu distro users are thinking Ha Ha!/pp.
Shuttleworth? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 12:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't use Ubuntu as a result of the tracking, but they really couldn't find any product that invades privacy more in 2013? They aren't aware of any websites or applications that silently track users, or any tablet/smarthpone software that accesses private information it shouldn't?
He's probably happy to win the award. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 12:48 · Score: 0

It comes with a free kangaroo.
1. Re:He's probably happy to win the award. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 14:13 · Score: 0
  
  Austria you fucking idiot. AUSTRIA.
2. Re:He's probably happy to win the award. by foobar+bazbot · 2013-10-28 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, yes, it's Austria, not Australia. s/kangaroo/kangoo/g Fixed.
3. Re:He's probably happy to win the award. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 18:00 · Score: 0
  
  "Kangoo" has nothing to do with Austria specifically.
  And your regex substitution could have been reduced to:
  s/ar//
  Just sayin'
  P.S. Captcha was "coding" :)
4. Re:He's probably happy to win the award. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-29 02:43 · Score: 0
  
  Then he will win an awd!
overblown by samantha · 2013-10-28 13:01 · Score: 1

Read a bit about dash and what it does and doesn't do. Much as I admire Stallman the man is into some serious polemics (otherwise known as FUD) at times.
For instance read:
http://www.zdnet.com/ubuntu-extends-unity-dash-search-shrugs-off-criticism-7000021869/
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/12/richard-stallman-calls-ubuntu-spyware-because-it-tracks-searches/
Has Stallman head of Machine Learning and its use to improve search results? How does this occur without training data from actual searches over time? As long as it is anonymized at the recording end I don't have an issue.
1. Re:overblown by exomondo · 2013-10-28 17:12 · Score: 1
  
  As long as it is anonymized at the recording end I don't have an issue.
  ...and given that it's free software that can be verified (or implemented). I don't understand why some of the FOSS community is trying to alienate Canonical, we already know not everybody is going to share the same beliefs/morals so this is the perfect opportunity to demonstrate how the benefits of free software can be utilized to take Canonical's product and also make it palatable to those who feel the search feature is a privacy violation.
  I'm not saying Canonical should be celebrated for this but instead of just hating on them why not use this as an opportunity to demonstrate why free software is so good? Otherwise this is just showing that the often-espoused benefits of free software aren't practically utilized anyway, it's really no different that a proprietary program.
2. Re:overblown by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 22:10 · Score: 0
  
  They say it's anonymized, but you try searching the dash for say "sex with 6 year olds" (because it's the name of an article you're writing that's on your hard drive for some reason) and see if you don't get a knock at the door. It's unlikely, but I still wouldn't like to try it.
The NSA too... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 13:16 · Score: 0

The summery is a little bit short, as the article lists more winners than just Shuttleworth/Ubuntu...
Shuttleworth got the price in the category "Communication and Marketing"
"Business and Finance" went to the XBox One for permanent voice and gesture survailance in the livingroom
"Public Offices and Administration" went to the Austrian Attorney General for failing to implement a secure whistleblower platform (storing the data on a rented cloudserver)
"Politics" went to the austrian chancellor and the government as a whole for drawing a vail of silence over the whole NSA affair...
"Global Datahunger" went to the ITU for defining the deep packet inspection requirements in next generation networks.
NSA got covered in the last two prices.
Ubuntu in decline by lapm · 2013-10-28 17:27 · Score: 1

Personally i do not accept default option where Cannonical gets info even on local searches. So i don't use regular Ubuntu. I got couple older laptops that runs light version of Ubuntu.Thank god no mandatory warrant-less searches there. Im all for Cannonical to gain ad-revenue if they need it. But not at expence of them knowing what i search in my local repositories. I do coding sometimes and most of that is done either case by case basis or just for myself. I also have documents that im contractually obliged to keep secret. Do i want someone else to know what i search locally? Hell no. What i don't understand why don't they just ask during a installing system: Would you like to help us spy on you and gain even more advertisement revenue by letting us see everything you search on your computer, over internet or locally?
1. Re:Ubuntu in decline by intermodal · 2013-10-29 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  I don't run Ubuntu, but if my present OS attempted to do this to me, I'd jump ship and find a new one.
  
  --
  In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Hrm... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 19:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Everyone seems to be making a mountain over a mole hill, the Amazon lens for Unity isn't spyware and can be easily turned off in the Settings panel and does not send any information personal to the user, it is fully open-source so you can examine how it works and Canonical tell you it's there... How is this spyware ??? Stop trolling a good Os and just turn it off, or better yet, use Xubuntu where XFCE is the default window manager and stop whining...
1. Re:Hrm... by Fruit · 2013-10-28 19:42 · Score: 2
  
  You can't switch it off if you don't know it exists. Or is reading slashdot mandatory now if you want to run free software?
2. Re:Hrm... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 22:57 · Score: 0
  
  Thinking about this, surely if someone is savvy enough to install Ubuntu, they can find a simple off-switch in the settings for the thing that everyone is shouting about on the internet. If they don't know the controversial search is there and don't know you can turn it off they must have their heads so far up their arses they can see the space where their brains should be (and thus probably deserve what they get)
3. Re:Hrm... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-29 06:47 · Score: 0
  
  I have a friend who's a smart guy but not really a computer expert. He was having trouble with Windows on his laptop and I suggested Linux. He installed Linux Mint without any input from me besides what distro+version to use. Had Ubuntu not added the Amazon spying, I'd have suggested Ubuntu. But why say, "Hey use this great alternative platform that spies on you, but don't worry, you can disable it as far as I know," when I have the option of saying "Hey, use this great alternative platform."
That's the least interesting one, here's the rest by YoungManKlaus · 2013-10-28 20:55 · Score: 1

Much more interesting are the ones in politics (eg. because of the completely absent reaction to the NSA scandal).
Here are all the winners with a short description:
Communications and Marketing: Marc Shuttleworth, Ubuntu
Business and Finance: XBox One /Steve Ballmer, Microsoft
Administration: Whistleblower-Platform which is hosted in another country by the same institution that hosts similar services for other countries and agencies / Beatrix Karl, ÖVP
Politics: The NSA and the silence of the lambs / Werner Faymann and the government
Worldwide data hunger: ITU Technical Specification for Deep Packet Inspection / Hamadoun Touré, ITU
Lifetime nuisance: NSA - Yes we Scan
So sick of hearing this crap by thegarbz · 2013-10-28 23:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

You are not the "product" just because you use something appears to have no dollar value assigned to it, and just because I don't pay to use Google or any of their services does not mean they aren't services.
I pay them with my information and they allow me to use their services. They in turn sell this information to others who associate a dollar value with it. This is not unlike the bartering system where I give you a goat in exchange for you building me a table and you then give the goat to someone else in exchange for gold.
Yes Google makes money off our information, but good luck getting that information without enticing us with the ability to use their products and services which in turn cost them quite a lot to supply. Anyone who claims that a person is the product is woefully ignorant of the flow of value through Google's intricate web.
Bottom line is that Google offer many products and services and we pay for them with information.
1. Re:So sick of hearing this crap by Kjella · 2013-10-29 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  When you buy low and sell high over time in a one-way flow it's a supplier/customer relationship and the people you buy low from are your suppliers, the people you sell high to customers. We supply Google with raw information and get paid in free services, they process it and sell it to their customers. Of course they want us to use their services because it means they have more product to sell to their customers but we're the "supply" part of the market, not the "demand". Both can be mutually beneficial relationships, but they should not be confused such as when Google changes their services to maximize the commercial value of that information, not for our benefit but for their customers. They have a very direct financial interest in manipulating us into being a more profitable product that your example lacks, he doesn't care if he's paid in goat or gold.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
2. Re:So sick of hearing this crap by thegarbz · 2013-10-29 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  No we're the supply side of only one part of the market. Again you can't look at it as one customer base. If google don't supply us with the relevant products and services we won't use them and hence we can't in turn be the supply to their other customers.
  My point was any attempt to define any part of the Google system by a single moniker (product, supply side, etc) completely ignores the economics of how the company works.
backasswards by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 23:28 · Score: 0

Oh so Windows leaking info all over the place with no way to turn it off wasn't quite enough for the award i guess. I nominate Austria for the Ignorance award.
It's the context: free software is generally safe by ciaran_o_riordan · 2013-10-28 23:31 · Score: 1

The problems with Ubuntu are a big deal because getting people to switch to free software was supposed to be the solution to these privacy problems. We had a nice, simple message: "GNU/Linux doesn't spy on you". Ubuntu muddies the waters, which is annoying because solutions are pretty thin on the ground.

--
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Microsoft? Apple? Google? Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 23:50 · Score: 0

Why doesn't these companies get it instead, as they work with NSA. Canonical at least lets you turn off any collection of data - Microsoft, Facebook and Apple and Google hands it over without you ever knowing it.
You're the product by yenic · 2013-10-29 08:26 · Score: 1

If a for-profit entity offers you a service for free, you're not the customer -- you're the product. Mozilla offers freebies and you are not the product. Ubuntu shifts the profit elsewhere from the sticker price, like Google does. That said, I'll take Canonical over Google any day. And Mozilla's products over both. I use both FirefoxOS and Ubuntu.
Because it's the most polished distro, I realize I'm not cool for that.. and I can live with that.

--
http://www.accountkiller.com/en/delete-slashdot-account Stop visiting Slashdot.