Create an account


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
..

#26
(12-09-2012, 08:24 AM)edh Wrote: You would still have opted into something at some point to accept upgrades and all that comes with it. If you do not believe it either to be permissable under law or under the terms and conditions (which are a contract) then take it up with Canonical.

Can you tell me how they could actually make it opt-out then? Does opt-out exist at all in your imagination?

(12-09-2012, 08:24 AM)edh Wrote: If you don't read it then you can't complain. One of the founding principles of western law is "ignorance is no excuse", the EULA is a contract so this does apply. It might be nice of them to tell you specifically but they don't have to unless it is required in law, hence why I keep suggesting than voicing your opinion on the Interwebs will get you nowhere and that you should raise the legal aspects with Canonical. If they are found not be illegal somewhere then they must do something about it. If people keeping posting that Ubuntu is evil and everyone should boycott them, they don't have to. Stallman is not getting a realistic boycott from this, the vast majority of Ubuntu's target audience have no idea who he is.

The EULA is a contract and is covered by law. Challenge Canonical to prove that it is legal in every country. You are more likely to make progress this way.

Again you're rambling about law and defending Canonical for making minimal effort to warn their users at all. But the point is not to comply with law, but with basic principles of privacy ethics. Of course they don't have a legal obligation to be friendly to their users, but they are disappointing a part of their userbase by neglecting to do so.

Besides, you can't force someone to change their ideology through legal means, so your suggested approach is completely useless in the long term.

(12-09-2012, 08:24 AM)edh Wrote: Oh that evil Mr Shuttleworth putting in so much money into software development, giving the product away free to most users only then for Canonical to want to make money down the line so that it continues as a going concern. You don't seriously think he just wants to keep pouring his own hard earned money into it alone? It's a business.

You're putting words in my mouth, there. I never said they don't deserve revenue or any such thing. Is opt-in really too much to ask for sponsors?

(12-09-2012, 08:24 AM)edh Wrote: I never said I disagreed with an opt-in.

What I disagree with is the chastisement of an organisation being called evil for a practice which is in no way new. If you have a store loyalty card you give away far more information than this any time you shop. You didn't think those points were given to you just for loyalty did you? No, they build up a full profile of your shopping habits. Shell can tell where I drive, how many litres of fuel I put in where and what I eat for lunch. British Airways can tell where I fly, how long to the second it takes for me to get through checkin, security, into the business class lounge and then how long it takes for me to get to the gate. OK, I get air miles as a reward but they're not a gift. Hilton Hotels know where I sleep each time I rock up and hand the card over at the desk. There's advantages to it in them upgrading me to a better room most of the time, free wine, breakfast, Internet but they get something for it in between. Does it worry me? No.

Again, "other people do it so I might as well..." The fact is that this has been a big disappointment for a good bunch of people, who might now turn to distributions and communities they deem more trustable.

I disagree when people say "Ubuntu is spyware" or "Ubuntu/Canonical/Shuttleworth is evil," but they took a bad turn and it disappointed me. That is all.
[Image:http://i.imgur.com/4XODR.png]640K ought to be enough for anybody.
     ― Linux Torvalds
Reply

#27
(12-09-2012, 01:14 AM)Cyber Killer Wrote: Like I was saying (but not many wanted to listen) - Ubuntu is evil :-). I recommend that you change the distro for your parents, as ubu will only get more and more of the crap with each version.

I've noticed this myself, I've just been too lazy to redo my computer which is dual booted with the Developer Preview of Windows 8 and Ubuntu 10.04. I'll likely ditch it and go to another Debian-based distro when I redo everything.
ECKZBAWKZ HUGE LIST OF ACHIEVEMENTS GOES HERE....


Oh wait.
Reply

#28
edh, i get your point, my approch to this isen't to don't care about warning ignorent people though. Instead I try to get the word out, the more people know(especially non-technical ones since those are mostly the ones in the danger zone) about this spyware-like "feature".
Reply

#29
(12-09-2012, 09:07 AM)Mr. Bougo Wrote: Can you tell me how they could actually make it opt-out then?

There already is an opt-out. Uninstall the search tool as has already been discussed. Ubuntu does not have a package selection segment during the installation so it is not possible during install to deselect it of course. I like manually selecting packages always so this is one of the many things I don't like about Ubuntu but if that is part of their installer ideology...

I'm not here to defend Canonical as I don't even like Ubuntu myself.

Mr. Bougo Wrote:The fact is that this has been a big disappointment for a good bunch of people, who might now turn to distributions and communities they deem more trustable.

How many of those people were ready to move anyway? If they have outgrown Ubuntu and they feel they should move then fine. They're going to be in a small minority.

machine! Wrote:Instead I try to get the word out, the more people know(especially non-technical ones since those are mostly the ones in the danger zone)

This is what I am concerned about. People worried about Windows and Apple will see this and get confused and frustrated. It doesn't matter that you might be telling them to use some other distribution, that's going to confuse and frustrate them and all of a sudden Linux = spyware. It's a totally foreign world for them and they don't want to mess with their computers and they certainly don't like the idea of community that is connected to it. 'Hacktivism' is most peoples idea of hell. They'll go back to Windows.

So, better still act on improving it by working with Canonical. Dissuade them, get them to clarify what happens with the data, look at the legal side of it, get them to reconsider adding a step to the installer if that is where the weight of the community is.
I'm at least a reasonably tolerable person to be around - Narcopic
Reply

#30
(12-09-2012, 11:55 AM)edh Wrote: There already is an opt-out. Uninstall the search tool as has already been discussed. Ubuntu does not have a package selection segment during the installation so it is not possible during install to deselect it of course. I like manually selecting packages always so this is one of the many things I don't like about Ubuntu but if that is part of their installer ideology...

So it's both opt-in because you explicitly agree to it along with a bunch of other things that come in the EULA, and also opt-out in the sense that the opt-in can be undone?

What I would call opt-in is an actual prompt to the user, asking them whether or not they want to enable web search before they get a chance to use it, and which would make it clear enough that data is transmitted to third-parties. Like a lot of other software does when it collects usage data (even anonymized). Not something you can disable once you become aware of it by chance because you did not read the fineprint at the time you installed the OS.

(12-09-2012, 11:55 AM)edh Wrote: I'm not here to defend Canonical as I don't even like Ubuntu myself.
Gotcha. You also don't have to like something to defend it. It's all right.

(12-09-2012, 11:55 AM)edh Wrote: How many of those people were ready to move anyway? If they have outgrown Ubuntu and they feel they should move then fine. They're going to be in a small minority.

You could say that's the one positive consequence of this mess.
[Image:http://i.imgur.com/4XODR.png]640K ought to be enough for anybody.
     ― Linux Torvalds
Reply

#31
edh Wrote:
machine! Wrote:Instead I try to get the word out, the more people know(especially non-technical ones since those are mostly the ones in the danger zone)

This is what I am concerned about. People worried about Windows and Apple will see this and get confused and frustrated. It doesn't matter that you might be telling them to use some other distribution, that's going to confuse and frustrate them and all of a sudden Linux = spyware. It's a totally foreign world for them and they don't want to mess with their computers and they certainly don't like the idea of community that is connected to it. 'Hacktivism' is most peoples idea of hell. They'll go back to Windows.

So, better still act on improving it by working with Canonical. Dissuade them, get them to clarify what happens with the data, look at the legal side of it, get them to reconsider adding a step to the installer if that is where the weight of the community is.

No, I don't think this will affect the term 'Linux' only Ubuntu, since Ubuntu is the only term used in these discussions, not 'Ubuntu Linux' or 'Ubuntu GNU/Linux'.
Reply

#32
(12-09-2012, 08:24 AM)edh Wrote: Stallman is not getting a realistic boycott from this, the vast majority of Ubuntu's target audience have no idea who he is.

I wonder if the tech inclined don't drive a large portion of Ubuntu's user base? they have started to move away from using Ubuntu AND from recommending it when asked by their friends and family for advice, distros like Mint have benefited from this unity-shopping-lense thing and other decisions Canonical has made regarding Ubuntu, like unity.

(12-09-2012, 08:24 AM)edh Wrote: What I disagree with is the chastisement of an organisation being called evil for a practice which is in no way new. If you have a store loyalty card you give away far more information than this any time you shop. You didn't think those points were given to you just for loyalty did you? No, they build up a full profile of your shopping habits. Shell can tell where I drive, how many litres of fuel I put in where and what I eat for lunch. British Airways can tell where I fly, how long to the second it takes for me to get through checkin, security, into the business class lounge and then how long it takes for me to get to the gate. OK, I get air miles as a reward but they're not a gift. Hilton Hotels know where I sleep each time I rock up and hand the card over at the desk. There's advantages to it in them upgrading me to a better room most of the time, free wine, breakfast, Internet but they get something for it in between. Does it worry me? No.

"What I disagree with is the chastisement of an organisation being called evil for a practice which is in no way new."

The practice is not new but that does not make it right either, no matter how good the cause or how many other companies pull the same shit.

Some people are perfectly fine and have no worries about opting-in and selling their info for a pancake or a few cents off their next litre of fuel. Can't say I have a problem with it since they are well aware that they are exchanging their info for rewards, my privacy-to-pancake exchange rate is a bit higher Tongue

I would imagine making something like this explicitly optional and opt-in only by explaining to the users what they do with their searches would result in fewer users opting in and thus less money for Canonical. This is why companies default to opt-out, they bank on ignorance and it pays off.

Anyway MR. Bougo has been pretty spot on this entire thread, not much for me to add.
<[-z-]> have you seen the documentary "happy"?
<Samual_> no
<Samual_> it sounds horrible
Reply

#33
(12-09-2012, 03:34 PM)Liquid Sin Wrote:
(12-09-2012, 08:24 AM)edh Wrote: Stallman is not getting a realistic boycott from this, the vast majority of Ubuntu's target audience have no idea who he is.

I wonder if the tech inclined don't drive a large portion of Ubuntu's user base? they have started to move away from using Ubuntu AND from recommending it when asked by their friends and family for advice, distros like Mint have benefited from this unity-shopping-lense thing and other decisions Canonical has made regarding Ubuntu, like unity.

Actually this seems to be exactly the case - ever since unity Ubuntu has been losing users like crazy, and Mint has largely benefited from it (but not only - many ppl moved to completely other distros too). There are some graphs about this here and there, based on distrowatch and other sources and according to it Ubuntu is going down, even with all the recent uptake from the business world.

This only proves that you can't be a successful distro without the FLOSS community backing it. Ubuntu was a good distro once, but that is past. It can take years for a distros popularity to recover from some bad actions (e.g. Suse is only now slowly getting back to the level of popularity that it had before the novell-microsoft deal, and the fall of novell seems to be the cause that more people now try it).
My contributions to Xonotic: talking in the forum, talking some more, talking a bit in the irc, talking in the forum again, XSkie
Reply

#34
Just a quick note, the reason Mint is nr one on Distrowatch and not Ubuntu is beucase when you google "Linux Mint" the second link or sth is to Distrowatch. That way it get more clicks on Distrowatch which is the only thing they're tracking. When you google "Ubuntu" the Distrowatch link doesn't show up before second page or sth so they don't get as much clicks on Distrowatch, Ubunti is sadly still the most popular distro.
Reply

#35
https://www.google.com/trends/explore?hl...nux%20mint
https://www.google.com/trends/explore?hl...nux%20mint

Interpretation not provided.

EDIT: Yeah, I really don't know about this https://www.google.com/trends/explore?hl...C%20debian
[Image:http://i.imgur.com/4XODR.png]640K ought to be enough for anybody.
     ― Linux Torvalds
Reply

#36
(12-10-2012, 01:16 AM)Mr. Bougo Wrote: EDIT: Yeah, I really don't know about this https://www.google.com/trends/explore?hl...C%20debian

Remove "linux" after ubuntu and the results make a lot more sense. Ubuntu hasn't branded itself as Linux® for several cycles.

here's a better comparison.

https://www.google.com/trends/explore?hl...24m&cmpt=q

edit: curiously, search volume for "linux" seems to drop about 25% on the weekends...
Reply

#37
Can I just say, Canonical actually releases all of its software as open source and strongly supports the open source community by allowing only OSI-approved licenses in its primary repositories (something Apple certainly doesn't do), it also hosts Launchpad and supports Bazaar, a GNU project. Among many others.

Canonical is an open source company; more so than even RedHat, which is starting to regret the decision to license everything under the GPL (which Oracle can take and sell). Canonical is still not profitable, true... but it's getting there. And they provide a lot of great open source software for the wider community - except that most people don't notice projects like Upstart and so on as they are so low-level. It can't be denied that Canonical has made the desktop more usable.

I'm not a Canonical fanboy, or an Ubuntu fanboy; I'd move on to another distribution in a heartbeat if I could find a more reasonably up-to-date (hence not Debian) yet still stable (hence not Arch or Fedora) KDE distribution that had lots of packages (hence not SUSE or most, really!). But I think it's wrong to give so much sh*t to Canonical when they really are a fully OSS company.
Reply

#38
You know, I support open-source too, so it doesn't really matter if I spy on my neighbours each day, it's okey since I support open-source.

See what I did there Evropi Wink

EDIT: BTW Open-source doesn't mean it's an honest company, it is Free Software which means it's ethical and all that, Open-Source only means that they have choosed that for practical reasons and/or marketing purposes, Open-Source doesn't even mean it have to be approved by OSI, it's a wider term than Free Software.
Reply

#39
Note that the OSI attempted to trademark "open source".
[Image:http://i.imgur.com/4XODR.png]640K ought to be enough for anybody.
     ― Linux Torvalds
Reply

#40
I know.
Reply

#41
(12-10-2012, 01:21 PM)Mr. Bougo Wrote: Note that the OSI attempted to trademark "open source".

Wow... Now that's what I call utter idiocy.
Reply

#42
(12-10-2012, 02:31 PM)rocknroll237 Wrote: Wow... Now that's what I call utter idiocy.

Context matters and I don't know any of it. Can't find sources :<

Anyway, don't call people idiots when you don't know who exactly and what for Tongue
[Image:http://i.imgur.com/4XODR.png]640K ought to be enough for anybody.
     ― Linux Torvalds
Reply

#43
(12-10-2012, 02:39 PM)Mr. Bougo Wrote:
(12-10-2012, 02:31 PM)rocknroll237 Wrote: Wow... Now that's what I call utter idiocy.

Context matters and I don't know any of it. Can't find sources :<

Anyway, don't call people idiots when you don't know who exactly and what for Tongue

Oh okay, sorry. But it just sounds like a totally wacky idea.
Reply

#44
(12-10-2012, 02:46 PM)rocknroll237 Wrote: Oh okay, sorry. But it just sounds like a totally wacky idea.

Seems like a totally sound idea to me. You don't want someone else to trademark it? Trademark it yourself!

Linux had this many years ago when a freeloader tried to trademark Linux. Obviously the community was up in arms about it and it did get rejected but to better enable the Linux name to be protected in future, Linus trademarked it himself and takes a very laid back approach to its use.

What if someone in a totally different field trademarked 'open source' for their entirely unrelates product. Yes, very nice that the community would be using the term but they would not be allowed to any more. There is no preexisting product called open source, so no defence of its name under common law could be made. Hence trademarking it makes good sense if you want to keep using that name.

There are many pieces of open source software which are trademarked and for good reasons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tra...e_software
I'm at least a reasonably tolerable person to be around - Narcopic
Reply

#45
Very good point edh, haven't thought about that.
Reply

#46
Why are you starting with the spyware thing again? We already went through that. I'm worried again this is going to become a Canonical bashing thread again rather than constructive.

It is worth noting a response from a Canonical rep, David Pirkin, on Super Meat Boy:

Quote:Hi Edmund, let's figure the confusion out as soon as possible. There were some crossed wires with the Humble Indie Bundle 5 launch and Super Meat Boy plus the lack of age restrictions in the Ubuntu App Store for Issac but nothing more I thought : (

So without knowing more details, you can't make accusations. There is no reason why you should believe Edmund McMillen or Canonical in preference without the facts.

The authors themselves say that there's not much money in it and hence didn't take it too seriously themselves. How exactly did they contact Canonical to inform them of the claim? Why have they chosen to put this on their blog rather than escalate it properly? It's really a very unprofessional approach on their behalf, especially when said blog post doesn't even use capital letters.

Obviously you won't see Canonical make sure a statement. They have already made a very considered and reasonable message when stating "the authors of Binding of Issac [sic] declined to make their game available and we respect their wishes.", if they wanted to be nasty about it they could have done, but they're a grown up company so they wouldn't.
I'm at least a reasonably tolerable person to be around - Narcopic
Reply

#47
Have canonical revived any payment whatsoever for selling(or rather distributing) Super Meat Boy? I thought that when you buy the bundle you hand over your money to HIB, inc for a download key.

Quote:this thread is meant to discuss scam'ish stuff about Canonical and such, not precisely those links I shared
so you're saying you only want one side of the story?
Reply

#48
Merged.
[Image:http://i.imgur.com/4XODR.png]640K ought to be enough for anybody.
     ― Linux Torvalds
Reply

#49
You can. Edit the title in the first post.

Watch your credibility Wink
[Image:http://i.imgur.com/4XODR.png]640K ought to be enough for anybody.
     ― Linux Torvalds
Reply

#50
(12-23-2012, 03:41 PM)machine! Wrote: Could you rename this to "Ubuntu Conspiracy"?

(12-23-2012, 04:32 PM)Mr. Bougo Wrote: You can. Edit the title in the first post.

Watch your credibility Wink

indeed Tongue

it's coming off like you are just reaching for stuff to throw at Canonical hoping it sticks.
<[-z-]> have you seen the documentary "happy"?
<Samual_> no
<Samual_> it sounds horrible
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Forum software by © MyBB original theme © iAndrew 2016, remixed by -z-