Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RMS Speaks Out Against Ubuntu

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the matters-of-trust dept.

GNU is Not Unix 597

An anonymous reader writes "In a post at the Free Software Foundation website, Richard Stallman has spoken out against Ubuntu because of Canonical's decision to integrate Amazon search results in the distribution's Dash search. He says, 'Ubuntu, a widely used and influential GNU/Linux distribution, has installed surveillance code. When the user searches her own local files for a string using the Ubuntu desktop, Ubuntu sends that string to one of Canonical's servers. (Canonical is the company that develops Ubuntu.) This is just like the first surveillance practice I learned about in Windows. ... What's at stake is whether our community can effectively use the argument based on proprietary spyware. If we can only say, "free software won't spy on you, unless it's Ubuntu," that's much less powerful than saying, "free software won't spy on you." It behooves us to give Canonical whatever rebuff is needed to make it stop this. ... If you ever recommend or redistribute GNU/Linux, please remove Ubuntu from the distros you recommend or redistribute.'"

cancel ×

597 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (-1, Troll)

Pop'nShop (2790457) | about 2 years ago | (#42216361)

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

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

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

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

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216431)

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

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

my raven was equipped with the following (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216645)

MY RAVEN WAS EQUIPPED WITH THE FOLLOWING

HIGH
06 x Cruise Missile Launcher I
01 x SMALL TRACTOR BEAM 1
01 x SALVAGER I

MEDIUM
04 x LARGE SHIELD EXTENDERS
01 x 'HYPHNOS' ECM
01 x MEDIUM SHIELD BOOSTER

LOW
01 x EMERGENCY DAMAGE CONTROL
01 x ARMOR KINETIC HARDENER I
01 x ARMOR THREMIC HARDENER I
02 x WARP CORE STABILIZER I

DRONES
02 x WARRIOR I DRONES
03 x HAMMERHEAD I DRONES

UPGRADES
01 x ROCKET FUEL CACHE PARTINTION I
01 x BAY LOADING ACCELERATOR I

Re:my raven was equipped with the following (-1, Offtopic)

war4peace (1628283) | about 2 years ago | (#42216757)

Get T2 drones, Hammerhead IIs are awesome.
I personally used an Ishtar droneboat with Sentries, they were tanking for me and I usually didn't even have to move. Awesome.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (5, Insightful)

Arab (466938) | about 2 years ago | (#42216471)

I think you miss the point, it's not that it's social, its that it's sending information that isn't social to a third party.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (-1, Troll)

Pop'nShop (2790457) | about 2 years ago | (#42216529)

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

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (5, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | about 2 years ago | (#42216613)

Searching for local files is not one of the tidbits that needs to be sent out for it to work.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (5, Insightful)

Kardos (1348077) | about 2 years ago | (#42216677)

You're missing the point. When you search for a LOCAL FILE, that search term gets transmitted. Probably harmless if it's simply "cat picture" but maybe problematic if it's "divorce filing". The software shouldn't be leaking your LOCAL search terms to the interbutts.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (-1)

PopAndGame (2790489) | about 2 years ago | (#42216839)

Why would divorce filing be bad?

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (2)

boldsoon (2769527) | about 2 years ago | (#42216721)

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

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216489)

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

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216519)

"social" != social, and neither should imply giving up privacy.

You're creating a false dichotomy between being social and having privacy. That dichotomy does not exist. Everyone should be entitled to a public and a private life, and they should be the arbiters of crossovers between the two. I'm sorry you don't care anymore, but many people do care.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (2)

plover (150551) | about 2 years ago | (#42216823)

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

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216555)

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

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216665)

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

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

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216767)

Fuck off, $hill

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216715)

Doesn't mean he's wrong.

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

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

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216591)

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

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216593)

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

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

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (5, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 years ago | (#42216595)

how nice of you to decide for all of us:

"Socializing means giving your privacy up for the experiement"

how very nice. you jump to this, you're happy about it and you've given up the old ideas of privacy.

fine for you.

but not so fine for the rest of us who have not decided to 'just give up' and take the shiney.

(I really hope that there are more like me that will not take the shiney when it comes with such strings attached.)

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (2)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | about 2 years ago | (#42216631)

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

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216655)

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

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (4, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 years ago | (#42216659)

New user ID and fawning over corporations.

You sound like a paid shill.

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

Please post your bank and account password.

Please post a list of all your satisfied sexual preferences and all unsatisfied ones along with the photograph name and address and phone number of your current partner(s).

Oh and please also post:
a) Your real name
b) The porn films you most enjor beating off to (no lieing)
c) Your boss's email address
d) Your mom's email address
e) Your granny's email adddress

Really? you won't tell us?

Perhaps you should just sit in a box and do nothing ever again then.

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216671)

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

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

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 2 years ago | (#42216735)

What exactly does advertising have to do with being social?

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (1)

Jaktar (975138) | about 2 years ago | (#42216753)

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

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

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (0)

X.25 (255792) | about 2 years ago | (#42216781)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (4, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#42216809)

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

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

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 2 years ago | (#42216811)

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

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216883)

Let's see here...

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

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

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216895)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about 2 years ago | (#42216927)

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

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

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

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

Ugh (5, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | about 2 years ago | (#42216377)

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

Culturally most of it does, and by consequence of having access to the code any privacy concerns can easily be detected / removed by end users if desired, but I still don't see the connection between free software and assumed privacy. If anything this seems like a dangerous assumption.

Also the usual stuff here applies about pragmatism and user choice. RMS states that this feature is "malicious" as a matter of fact, and throws around spooky words like "surveillance" and "spyware" like he's doing a Fox news special report. I'm all for having opinions, but the way RMS spouts them as absolute irrefutable fact has always annoyed me (even when I agree with them). Obviously most users probably don't share this view. It's probably a useful feature to most, it can easily be disabled by the sounds of it, will bring in some money, and I suspect most users don't give a shit about being "spied on" in this manner. Remember this is the facebook/twitter/whatever else generation. A lot of people _like_ sharing all the minutia of their day with the entire world. I don't get it, but it's their choice.

Re:Ugh (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216485)

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

Always. I completely fail to understand how you could possibly not know this. Free software groups are normally at the forefront of privacy efforts in the digital age.

Re:Ugh (4, Insightful)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | about 2 years ago | (#42216549)

A tendency for free software groups to support privacy protection efforts does not mean "free software" = "software that respects your privacy". There is an immense craptonne of free software that uses your data in ways similar to this.

Re:Ugh (1)

Anrego (830717) | about 2 years ago | (#42216561)

And if we just go a little bit further..

Culturally most of it does

Re:Ugh (5, Informative)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 years ago | (#42216499)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, what they like doing is sharing it with their social circle. The fact that is is shared with the world is generally inconsequential, but sometimes comes back to bite people.

Re:Ugh (0, Flamebait)

Anrego (830717) | about 2 years ago | (#42216783)

Free Software and the FSF is about pragmatism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Ugh (3, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 years ago | (#42216881)

Oh come on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Ugh (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | about 2 years ago | (#42216899)

I completely agree with you here.

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

Re:Ugh (5, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 2 years ago | (#42216567)

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

It was equated when RMS said it was equated. RMS is a fanatic, plain and simple. He may be a fanatic for a good cause overall, but he is still a fanatic. That means he sees the world in a pretty simple way. Either you agree with him and follow his set rules, in which cases he recommends and endorses you, or you disagree with his position (in any way no matter how slight), in which case he rejects you completely. There is really no intermediate ground for a person like him.

It's not a criticism, exactly, he has done some good things, you just have to keep it in mind whenever he says anything about anything: he is speaking as a fanatic. There is no room for deviation from his rules.

Re:Ugh (1)

mykepredko (40154) | about 2 years ago | (#42216577)

Insightful post and brings up a lot of interesting points.

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

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

myke

Sickening (2)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 2 years ago | (#42216675)

pragmatism and user choice

Don't you hate that those words. I feel dirty every time I see them, they reek of compromise. They are simply lies, Do you really think people are stupid?

Apple are selling advertising space in Ubuntu to Amazon as a revenue stream. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as users enter into this with there eyes open, and the consequences of that.

....but seriously I'm tired of the double speak.

Re:Sickening (3, Interesting)

Anrego (830717) | about 2 years ago | (#42216893)

they reek of compromise

Which makes sense...

We are never going to have an RMS style "all software is completely free" world. Hell I wouldn't want one. I wouldn't want an Apple style "everything is locked down" world either.

What we have now, the compromise solution, works great. There is lots of free software out there. There are still areas which lack serious free alternatives, but you can run a desktop or server on mostly open source. There is also decent sized and co-existing industry of closed source and propriatary software. Many of us (myself included) make a living in it.

Would I love all the software on my desktop to be completely free, sure. Am I happy with most of my software being free, with say propriatary video card drivers... yup!

Re:Ugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216855)

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

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

Re:Ugh (1)

zill (1690130) | about 2 years ago | (#42216869)

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

Re:Ugh (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about 2 years ago | (#42216891)

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

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

Also the usual stuff here applies about pragmatism and user choice. RMS states that this feature is "malicious" as a matter of fact, and throws around spooky words like "surveillance" and "spyware" like he's doing a Fox news special report.

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

Don't be so radical (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216387)

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

Re:Don't be so radical (4, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | about 2 years ago | (#42216683)

It should not be installed/active by default without prior alert to the user.

At worst, it should be a choice made during setup, one that is well described and obvious even if the checkbox defaults to being checked.

Re:Don't be so radical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216857)

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

Re:Don't be so radical (1)

Jerslan (1088525) | about 2 years ago | (#42216719)

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

Re:Don't be so radical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216821)

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

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

Re:Don't be so radical (4, Funny)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 2 years ago | (#42216831)

ROFLMAO!

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

Re:Don't be so radical (1)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | about 2 years ago | (#42216919)

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

Stallman bitches, film at eleven (2, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#42216391)

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

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

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven (5, Interesting)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 years ago | (#42216573)

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

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

He has never claimed that you have to buy in.

Ever.

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

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

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

TL;DR stop mking up stuff about RMS.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven (4, Informative)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 2 years ago | (#42216755)

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

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven (5, Informative)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 years ago | (#42216907)

Yeah, but does he force anyone?

No.

Because he respects the freedoms of others.

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven (1)

Microlith (54737) | about 2 years ago | (#42216921)

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

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven (2, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | about 2 years ago | (#42216619)

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

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

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

Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven (2, Insightful)

uradu (10768) | about 2 years ago | (#42216901)

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

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

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

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

Why we still listen to this guy, exactly? (-1, Troll)

Pop'nShop (2790457) | about 2 years ago | (#42216415)

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

Re:Why we still listen to this guy, exactly? (3, Insightful)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | about 2 years ago | (#42216509)

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

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

Re:Why we still listen to this guy, exactly? (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | about 2 years ago | (#42216873)

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

LOL do we still do that. (3)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 2 years ago | (#42216525)

I think its a shame that we try to marginalise people rather than create compelling arguments. What is really concerning is in this industry Bill Gates (look at videos of him in anti-trust trials), Steve Jobs (had to work nights because he smelled). You have just created an account. The fact is Dick is normally on the money, and the world is better place for having great men like him, who have achieved things in their own right.

Do you miss high school?

Re:Why we still listen to this guy, exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216537)

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

Re:Why we still listen to this guy, exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216571)

Thanks. Your ad hominem has really moved me.

Re:Why we still listen to this guy, exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216623)

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

Religions nut condemns moderates.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216419)

News at 11.

You should go to church (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 2 years ago | (#42216799)

News at 11.

You should watch it sometime, this is about "peoples right to privacy"; "selling my information to 3rd party corporations without my consent"; "intrusion into my house", Those are on that news all the time.

I'm sorry this is so far away from any "belief" system you should not be posting.

You may... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216421)

... turn it OFF.

go into the privacy settings and click on the fuck-amazon-i-want-my-privacy-back button.

Re:You may... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216617)

Exactly. You can turn it off in the privacy settings of the control center, you can use a desktop other than Unity, or you can remove the shopping lens package and then blacklist it to prevent re-installation of it [linux.com] .

Already done (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216423)

Way before this spying business.

The wookie's right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216433)

I can't find any issue with what he said or how he said it. A blizzard in Hell.

Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc (5, Interesting)

Frankie70 (803801) | about 2 years ago | (#42216447)

Bruce Perens wrote this recently on slashdot.

http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/11/05/0122238/bruce-perens-answers-your-questions [slashdot.org]

Don't help Red Hat. Don't help Ubuntu. Only help community projects and non-profits. Unfortunately, Red Hat and Ubuntu aren't really taking the community where we need to be. We thought they would, but they didn't get us sufficient users, and didn't get us the users we need for the most part, and the negative effects they have (like isolating us from our own users, and being public representatives in their own interest instead of the community's) aren't worth the rest. We need to work on other ways of getting to users that aren't Ubuntu and Red Hat.

        And then there are the companies who feel that they are helping the community by paying for Red Hat or by joining the Linux Foundation. If you want to help Linux or Open Source, help a free software project directly. Red Hat exists for Red Hat's stockholders, and while the Linux Foundation is sometimes helpful, it represents large companies rather than the developer community, and only a fraction of its budget pays actual programmers.

I fully agree with Bruce. Sometimes I feel the commercial opensource companies are worse than the commercial closed source companies in some ways. At the regular commercial companies are upfront about the fact they are in it just to make money.

Try figuring licensing terms of different components of MySQL. For eg. try to figure out what components of MySQL Cluster you can also use free of charge without paying for support & what has to be purchased. Ask a question on some public forum where there are lots of MySQL employees active. They will never give the answer on the forum. They will always ask you to contact them offline.

And what about Redhat who have built their product on back of lots of people who worked for free. And now Redhat tries to make sure Centos has a lot of trouble integrating patches made by Redhat.

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc (1)

Raven42rac (448205) | about 2 years ago | (#42216515)

I thought it was free as in speech, not free as in beer? It sounds like people want their special little thing to not get too popular and to not let people make money off of it. I don't see much wrong with what Red Hat/Fedora and Ubuntu do. What's wrong with charging money to support an enterprise level product? Is that what Stallman and Berens want?

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc (2)

Frankie70 (803801) | about 2 years ago | (#42216707)

I have no problems with RH making money. But why are trying to make it difficult for Oracle & Novell to provide support for RHEL?
Why are they hiding knowledge of the insides from CentOS?

Redhat (3, Informative)

Frankie70 (803801) | about 2 years ago | (#42216775)

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/72012.html [linuxinsider.com]

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.0, which was released last November, packs a hidden punch: The latest version of the operating system pre-bundles patches with the kernel.

The disguised fixes have shaken up some controversy, but Red Hat contends that the move is aimed at making it more difficult for rivals like CentOS, Oracle and Novell to gobble up Red Hat's customers.

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216739)

Bruce made money transforming Free Software into Open Source. He was warned at the time, but chose not to care. Where is his mea-culpa ?

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216747)

At [least] the regular commercial companies are upfront about the fact they are in it just to make money.

Uh, how did you ever get the impression that Red Hat and Canonical were not "regular commercial companies?" Of course, they are in it to make money.

And what about Redhat who have built their product on back of lots of people who worked for free

Actually, it's the other way around.

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216851)

Red Hat has a habit of hiring community developers. I can think of two people in the last few months that I know and speak to, where this is the case, and that doesn't include what I am sure are countless other examples. They contributed to a Red Hat sponsored project and ultimately ended up working for the company. To say that they just use peoples code and dance on their backs is completely inaccurate. They don't hire everyone who makes a commit, and not everyone who writes some code to add a feature or fix a problem in a Red Hat product even wants to work for them, but to say they give nothing back, when they are hiring people to pursue their work full time, provide them with a paycheck, benefits, and so on, while also releasing the code for all to use or modify as they wish, is truly BS.

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216867)

Agreed on all but the last sentence. Redhat isn't intentionally making life harder for Centos, they are making it harder for Oracle. Oracle camps on Redhat's integration and testing work with a direct copy and then charges support fees for something that they've only trivially invested in developing. The trick is they will play a finger pointing game with the O/S vendor when you're running Oracle's DB on a non-Oracle O/S. So for the Enterprise space the easier option is to just buy both the DB and the O/S from the same vendor so you have one throat to choke. I think years back it was called leveraging a monopoly in one space to create one in another.

I have run 21 version of RedHat's software and have 30 racks of gear in the data center using it. It may not be a good fit for what you're doing, but for data center servers with clustering it's simply matchless. They are catoring to my niche quite nicely and I've never had a problem with a package I couldn't re-buiild from sources myself.

Re:Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc (2)

Microlith (54737) | about 2 years ago | (#42216903)

Bruce, apparently, doesn't see the value that Canonical provides in making a distribution that is probably the least painful distro to use. I like the technology behind Debian, but I can't stand using the distro directly. Even with Fedora I get errors and things broken out of the gate.

Rejecting organized efforts to make progress on certain objectives (desktop, etc.) because they're run by for-profit companies only serves to shoot yourself in the foot and keep Linux (particularly desktop Linux) marginalized and ignored.

Is he still alive? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216455)

When ever will he die, or at least shut the hell up?

Re:Is he still alive? (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 2 years ago | (#42216935)

RMS is the modern day Dread Pirate Roberts. [wikipedia.org] He is constantly replaced by a new person to continue the IDEA...

JEWBOY PEDHOPHILE R.M.S. STRIKES AGAIN! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216459)

What a Google shill.

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Dainsanefh (2009638) | about 2 years ago | (#42216609)

Expose this motherfucker! Who is behind his payroll?

He must be Google's Bitch Dog. His stance against Apple proved this.

Oh do you know that Google's founder were Jewish? Do you know that the duo who wrote The Communist Manifesto were Jewish?

I ditched Ubuntu a long time ago (2)

Brad_McBad (1423863) | about 2 years ago | (#42216517)

I ditched Ubuntu about 18 months ago. I really, *really* hate the "Search for your stuff even if you know where it is" paradigm, and trying to use it just makes me infuriated. Moved back to Debian for servers and Debian back Mint for desktops a long time ago. Only problem with Mint is that by default you're stuck with whatever search / content provider affiliates they've decided you want.

bummer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216601)

Real shame that a Linux distro has taken this anti-privacy, anti-anonymous step.

+1 for rms for speaking up. I certainly don't plan to be using stock Ubuntu anymore.

If you don't like it, remove the code dickhead (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216635)

The software is open and free. Remove the code you don't like. You advocate open and free. You advocate where people have access to the source. Now you bitch over something that you can easily fix and release your take. Richard you are a Dick who needs to choose your battles better.

Conflating Code And Culture (3, Insightful)

MrLizard (95131) | about 2 years ago | (#42216647)

The definition of "free and open source software" doesn't/shouldn't include any limits on what that software DOES. Wouldn't saying, "You can use this code, but not if you write programs that do something I don't like with it!" violate the fundamental principles of open software? How about, "Here's my code for a really great FTP implementation, but you can't use it, or any program including it, to download copyrighted movies." Wouldn't fly, would it?

I understand that the open source coding community also includes a lot of shared cultural values, but the more it becomes just another means of distributing code, the less those shared cultural values are, erm, shared. RMS certainly has the right to speak out against things he find abhorrent, and to encourage people to not support them, as everyone does. As is so often the case, "The right to do something" is not the same as "The right thing to do." I think by trying to link his personal views on what's good, right, proper, etc, to the concept of open source itself, which is utterly apolitical, damages open source and would make people worry that, by using it, they are implicitly accepting or supporting ethical/political ideas they disagree with. (I have seen tons of open source code, esp. Apache, used by people and companies whose goals and values are at extreme odds with the generic "open source" culture.)

Ubuntu? I was hoping (1, Insightful)

bobstreo (1320787) | about 2 years ago | (#42216693)

For a rant about Unity....

Just STFU already, RMS (3, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | about 2 years ago | (#42216703)

I'm sick of the people who defend him on the basis of his contributions by way of GNU as though that somehow mitigates the harm he does from his soap box. Instead of doing something like taking the bull by the horns and making a slick Android distro that embodies his values AND is friendly to non-geeks, he froths at the mouth at any company or group that makes moves which earn them some money and make things easier for non-technical users.

Contribute to Haiku, fork Android, become benevolent dictator of OpenWebOS. Actually do something that matters today.

Re:Just STFU already, RMS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216905)

^ This.

This toe-crust-eating whackjob sits on his high-horse and criticizes the people who do all the real work. Seriously, go read his Wiki page. He hasn't done meaningful shit in decades. He slightly modified some printer software to send out messages to users, and has ridden that particular show-pony into the fucking ground every year since then. He's also a drama queen. When the guy who wrote the Scribe markup language put some lines in the code to stop unauthorized use, RMS flipped shit and called it a "crime against humanity." He's a pansy-ass overweight attention-whore.

Slashdot needs to stop idolizing these fat neckbeard pontificators and start paying some respect to actual developers. They're the people who really get shit done.

So what? (2)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 2 years ago | (#42216805)

Ubuntu is licensed under FSF approved licenses. If RMS hasn't been wrong all these years then no matter what Canonical does the end user can just edit the source, remove the spyware, compile and go happily on his way.

Unless of course RMS's rosy view of an GNU-approved world has some cracks in it.

Why not endorse something? (1)

heptapod (243146) | about 2 years ago | (#42216817)

I don't see the value of saying "don't do this".

He'd make a better point saying "This (or these) distro best represents the ideals of GNU and I recommend using it over the leading distro"

Stuck on 10.04 (1, Interesting)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about 2 years ago | (#42216845)

I've been on 10.04 since it was released, and it seems like with every version there's more and more nonsense keeping me from upgrading. At this rate it seems, I'll be on 10.04 forever. However, the latest release of ROS doesn't officially support 10.04, so it seems like I might be forced to move on if I don't want to experience any unfortunate surprises... although now might be a better time than ever to find a new distro I'm comfortable enough with. Ubuntu is just going in the wrong direction.

or even gnome shell (2)

davydagger (2566757) | about 2 years ago | (#42216853)

a gnome shell default search from the dash links to google, and wikipedia by default, and no other options are given for the user to change them.

Just uninstall it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42216859)

You can uninstall the Amazon lens like you can uninstall the rest of lenses.

Simple solution ... (1)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#42216875)

... for string searches:

find ... | grep ...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?