RMS Speaks Out Against Ubuntu 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.'"
Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ugh (Score:4, Insightful)
Right. The freedom to modify. The freedom to have the code so you can change the software to do things you want and to stop doing the things you don't want. As long as THAT freedom is there, this is a side issue.
Do I want my local searches going to the net? Nope. Still isn't a free software issue. RMS is arguing from an ideological point of view...but its not the FSF's main ideological point of view.
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ugh (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because something can be done doesn't mean everyone has the ability.
But everybody benefits from the few who are able.
Re: (Score:2)
And if we just go a little bit further..
Culturally most of it does
yeah except they arent (Score:3)
if you look at who actually funds 'free software', a lot of it is the same big companies that are getting megabucks off of the surveillance state.
a company like Apple has to take responsibility for how its creations are used, and deal with privacy issues... but with free software the makes just claim 'not my problem' and continue their work without asking too many questions about where the money comes from.
what are the odds that drones contain free software? extremely high.
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure that spying on users and disrespecting their privacy is not for the greater good,
Of course it is, doesn't the government always tell you that it is for the greater good when they do it? Part of the problem here is that not everyone defines "the greater good" the same way.
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been studying this phenomena for a while and neither one of you is entirely right. In my observations, some people are inherently "private" - they do not want to be known or tracked, they want their actions and statements to be judged without reference to their identity. Other people are inherently "public" - they want you to know who they are, and if that means they are tracked and marketed they simply don't care, as long as the tracking and marketing doesn't harm them. In the eyes of the "private" person the tracking is in and of itself harmful, because it skeeves them and makes them uncomfortable. They feel the same way about corporations databasing them as others might feel about peeping toms - it's nasty, unsavory behavior that good people simply wouldn't ever do, so it's perfectly fair to assume the people doing it are evil. In the eyes of a "public" person, though, naturally everyone wants to know about the identity and particulars of everyone else - their reputation is important, and their standing is influenced by what people know about them, and obviously it's flattering to gain reputation in others' eyes; there's nothing skeevy about supermarkets tracking purchases, it's just good customer service.
Whichever type you are, it seems to be a fixed attitude once a person reaches an age where their personality is stable - certainly by the time they pass puberty.
And there's nothing you can do to persuade a person who is "private" that tracking them is OK - you will have better luck convincing them that chocolate tastes bad, or that their favorite color is puce. It's a non-negotiable character trait, like favoring certain colors or flavors is.
There's also rarely anything you can do to persuade a person who is "public" that many other people simply want privacy and anonymity for its own sake. That's so completely foreign to them that they will think you are lying, or that the private person has some dark secret, or that they are crazy. A lot of "public" type people are so intellectually crippled by their own attitude that they are fundamentally incapable of understanding the pure physical revulsion some "private" people experience when they find out they are being tracked. I imagine a lot of exhibitionists are incapable of understanding the physical response other people have to peeping toms, too.
Wisdom seems to lie in accepting that the extremes of both types always will exist, and accommodating them as legitimate expressions of character. Most people are somewhere closer to the middle - they might want to have a good reputation in town, but not want their comings and goings tracked by their neighbors. If you can accommodate both extremes, you'll be able to deal with the more commonplace middle grounds. But unfortunately that means both sides have to give up trying to force the other side to be "wrong", and people aren't good at that.
Software devs should keep all the above in mind, but they usually are extremists of one type or the other.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Does the FSF have a monopoly on free software? Just because the FSF is against invasion of privacy by software doesn't mean that a piece of software cannot be free software and also invade your privacy.
Re:Ugh (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
I guess it's hard to argue that one mans views are extreme to someone who shares the same extreme views :S
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?
I will respond to this one. My argument was that people have _decided_ they don't give a shit. It's subtly different from not giving a shit. Obviously some have just gone with the crowd, but many users of social media understand the privacy implications, have thought about it, and decided that they are ok with the trade off.
As to the other stuff, no idea how to even respond. Arguing that RMS is a pragma
Re: (Score:3)
I guess it's hard to argue that one mans views are extreme to someone who shares the same extreme views :S
Well, it is if you don't follow my arguements. Here is the basis of my argument, distilled away:
An idealist is merely a pragmatist who cares about the future.
Do you disagree and if so, why?
I will respond to this one. My argument was that people have _decided_ they don't give a shit. It's subtly different from not giving a shit.
I'm not convinced they have sotpped to think about it and even if so, then
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Interesting)
An idealist is merely a pragmatist who cares about the future.
Do you disagree and if so, why?
An Idealist is just another word for tyrant (benevolent or otherwise). Pragmatist (in this case) just want to get stuff done, and uses the best tool regardless of cost (beer / speech) and uses it until it becomes untenable and then uses another tool.
Idealists are not satisfied with themselves being ideal, they want to make everyone else around them exactly the same, and often become the very people they abhor. Pragmatists use whatever tool is around.
Think of it this way, you're starving on an island, and Idealist (vegan) is starving because they won't fish. Pragamtist likes the idea of being a vegan but is willing to fish to feed themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
I believe you are speaking about Mint, which is either a fork of Ubuntu or in the case of LMDE, a fork of Debian... In the case of the Ubuntu fork, it doesn't have the recent idiocies from Ubuntu, such as Unity or this search issue... Typing this on Mint Maya 13.. Don't know much about the Debian fork as I've yet to use it..
Re: (Score:3)
There are already two GNU recommended forks of Ubuntu, gNewSense and Trisquel [trisquel.info].
The list of all the distros is in the GNU site: http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html [gnu.org]
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I would use a different term than "fanatic" (Score:4, Insightful)
RMS is a fanatic, plain and simple. He may be a fanatic for a good cause overall, but he is still a fanatic.
I'm something of a student of human nature and I'm really good at observing people and understanding their motivations and often making accurate predictions on what I see. I believe that about 10% or so of human beings are just like RMS. I don't like to use the term "fanatic" because while technically correct, I think it's too limiting. You see, people like RMS don't just see software in those terms or one thing in life in a fanatical way, they see everything in life in narrow terms. I call them "people who see everything in black and white". These people do not agonize over any day to day decisions like which model of car should I buy. Everything to them is crystal clear - good - bad, right - wrong, great - terrible, etc. Everything to them is quite clear and there's no areas of gray or ambiguity.
One of the things about these people is that they tend to be very religious. Now that does not mean that all religious people are like that, despite what many Slashdotters would love to believe, but it does mean that these people do tend to gravitate towards religion. For example, I believe that most of Al Queda's membership is made up of these people. This is why they are willing to commit suicide - the evil in non-believers is so apparent that it's repulsive to them. People who see the world in black and white will sometimes change their minds on something and they will go from opposing it to promoting it or from loving it to hating it. But they don't go back and forth. If they change their minds, that change is probably permanent. And they tend to be completely obsessed with following the "rules", which at times may be religious teachings, and punishing those who do not obey those same rules. They're the kind of people who want severe punishments for minor infractions, like wanting to put someone in jail for a year for running a stop sign. I served on a jury 7 years ago with a guy like this and it was not pleasant as it took some incredible work by our foreman to get him to agree to a guilty verdict on 2 of 3 counts we had to decide on when 11 of us felt strongly that he was innocent on one count and this one guy threatened to hang the jury unless we voted guilty on all 3 counts.
The most frustrating thing about people like this is that they do not get at all that they are the weird ones. They mistakenly believe that everybody sees the world in the same clear cut way that they do. So this is why you are almost always wasting your time in trying to reason with them and get them to see another point of view. To them any other point of view is irrational and they believe that anyone who holds another point of view is insane because they think that no rational person could ever believe something different from them. So this is why when people rail against RMS and point out inconsistencies or fallacies with his arguments that he digs in. He's truly incapable of seeing any other point of view because he views such as irrational and illogical. At least, that's my guess.
Re:Ugh (Score:4, Informative)
This isn't exactly right. When RMS is speaking publicly on behalf of the FSF then of course he is not going to endorse people or products that act in opposition to the stated principles and aims of the FSF. That's no different from any public spokesman: the devil may have the best tunes but you are unlikely to ever hear the pope say "Yes, the devil is a ghastly fellow but there's no harm in dancing with him occasionally, he has such great moves", though of course for Anglicans the situation appears much more nuanced: some dance all night and go back to old nick's "for coffee", some just have a quick shuffle and a grope and worry about being seen, others remain seated but wide eyed and salivating. Old Mark Scuttlebut's users have sore feet ache and coffee breath.
I've heard RMS in interviews say that privately he might recommend Debian to people who want to use a Free Software OS and who appreciate the difference between Free Software and non-free, because he expects they will not enable the non-free sections of the repositories. But of course when speaking publicly as a voice of the FSF he is never going to recommend a distro that offers and perhaps promotes software the FSF exists to make redundant.
Some people will see RMS as a fanatic simply because he does his best to keep to a handful of very simple principles, even if that means inconvenience or ridicule. The interesting thing is that if you wait long enough his fanatical, extremist positions can start to look farsighted and sensible (see GNU/Linux vs Linux naming convention vis-Ã-vis Android, or privacy/data ownership re. software as a service and so on).
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Funny)
You've also just described Steve Jobs.
There are differences. Jobs appeared to care about grooming, for one.
Re: (Score:3)
rms cleans himself like my cat does*, so what`s the fuss?
(*) Hopefully rms` tongue can`t reach where my cat`s does, or next conferences videos will not be uploadable...
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that you made all those sharing decisions for yourself. Canonical should not make that choice for you by default. They can certainly make it an easy-to-drool-on option, but it should not be the system default.
Re: (Score:3)
Sickening (Score:3)
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.
Re:Sickening (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
since when was "free software" equated with "respects your privacy".
Since never. RMS has never had much to do with "free software", and that's not what he's talking about here. A huge chunk of "free software" actually generates its revenue by violating your privacy.
On the other hand, the underlying principles of Free Software have always been about defending the long-run information interests of the user first. Information security and privacy are tightly intertwined, and both are critical to the long-term
Re: (Score:3)
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.
And that's RMS's exact point: it's their choice. Not Canonical's, not society's, not law enforcement's, and it should not be chosen for us by them as the default setting. If they think it's valuable, they can turn it on for themselves. And that can be made very easy for them, certainly no harder than entering a Facebook password.
Now, I've never used the search feature in Unity, so maybe I've never sent anything to Amazon or Canonical. But I really don't know that for sure any longer, and now my whole damn n
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously most users probably don't share this view.
Well, most users don't understand the issue, or much care how it relates to the spirit of FOSS. RMS can be extreme in his viewpoints but he is addressing the issue from the perspective - of the spirit of Open Source.
Furthermore, Canonical has historically been a real PITA the get along with in terms of "playing nicely" with the rest of the FOSS world. This is just another mark against what they stand for and how their product relates to the Open Source community.
but I still don't see the connection between free software and assumed privacy.
RMS viewpoint is a good representation of wh
Re: (Score:3)
Privacy is only possible with FOSS.
"All A is B" doesn't mean "All B is A". I.e., that you think privacy is only possible with FOSS doesn't mean that all FOSS respects user's privacy.
Further, the issue of privacy isn't tied to the FOSS nature of something. It's tied to the actual programming. Being able to PROVE that a piece of software doesn't violate your privacy in some way requires access to the source, but proving it is different than being it.
As just one example, I started using a piece of FOSS for the RPi that provided a small webse
Don't be so radical (Score:5, Informative)
Just do 'sudo dpkg --purge unity-lens-shopping' and be happy.
Re:Don't be so radical (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
I wasn't aware it was even there to begin with. Maybe there wasn't much outcry because no one knew about it, because it was on by default. without alerting the user.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Don't be so radical (Score:5, Funny)
Telling RMS to stop being radical is like telling a fish to stop living in water...
Stallman bitches, film at eleven (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, but does he force anyone?
No.
Because he respects the freedoms of others.
Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven (Score:5, Interesting)
No, because he can't. But he does do everything he can.
Some quotes:
"The Adobe flash plug-in is non-free software, and people should not install it, or suggest installing it, or even tell people it exists."
"Writing non-free software is not an ethically legitimate activity, so if people who do this run into trouble, that's good! All businesses based on non-free software ought to fail, and the sooner the better."
Stallman believes non-free (as in non-Stallman approved) software is immoral and harms civilization. If he were made dictator of the world I have no doubt he'd outlaw it. I'm pretty sure if you asked him he'd say so too.
Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole point of the GPL is to force anyone who uses GPLed code to GPL their associated code as well. Stallman has written many times what a great thing this is, and the absence of that requirement is why he thinks things like the BSD license are immoral. If Stallman could think of a legally binding way to make everyone GPL their code he's certainly given the clear impression that he'd do it. In fact, if I remember correctly, he says in at least one of his essays that he believes non-open sourced code should be illegal.
Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven (Score:4)
The whole point of the GPL is to force anyone who uses GPLed code to GPL their associated code as well
No, it requires you to release your modifications IF you distribute a modified version.
But RMS isn't forcing anyone to use the GPL.
If Stallman could think of a legally binding way to make everyone GPL their code he's certainly given the clear impression that he'd do it. In fact, if I remember correctly, he says in at least one of his essays that he believes non-open sourced code should be illegal.
Well, on this topic, I won't take your word for it. Stallman is extremely pro-freedom, so [citation needed].
Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a requirement that you should make yourself aware of once you decide to make changes and redistribute them. You don't have to agree to anything just to use or even modify the software.
And if the RIAA and MPAA could charge me every time I make a copy of my music and videos from one device of mine to another, they've given the clear impression they'd do it. Neither has happened, your point is irrelevant.
And the major media corporations would like Copyright to last forever. Well, at least one group has gotten their way, I suppose that's a good thing?
In terms of following extremists, at least RMS has good intentions and your freedom in mind. Instead the world follows extremists who seek only to exploit you. And you attack one who would defend you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 annoyi
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, ad-hominem attacks. Ad-hominem attacks everywhere.
Bonch comes out of the woodwork to defend Apple and attack Linux/Google every so often. He relishes in engaging in character assassination.
And we should replace him with what, people who will be more moderate and acquiesce more to the extremists already in power? Extremists like Apple, who have a fetish for end-user control and lock down?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Stallman bitches, film at eleven (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see a reference to RMS saying nobody should have kids - do you?
I also don't see how his views on pedophilia, are relevant to his views on software? Sure, people like to dig up unrelated dirt on people they do hits on; so?
If that is really ALL he said on the subject, well... to me it comes across as a random comment to a news story. And the skilled reader might notice it includes the words "skeptical" and "seems", which indicates he didn't even have a firm opinion either way. You may say that's insensitive or not very thoughtful, and I'd agree, but to turn it into "RMS advocates pedophilia" and whatnot is just sick. If anything, YOU guys are diluting pedophilia by mixing up such statements with it, and all that mosly because someone is hurting the feelings of a bank account here or there.
So unless there's followups from him detailing his position, I gotta say, what the fuck is wrong with you, and who do you think you are... ?
Bruce Perens on Ubuntu/Redhat etc (Score:5, Interesting)
Bruce Perens wrote this recently on slashdot.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/11/05/0122238/bruce-perens-answers-your-questions [slashdot.org]
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/72012.html [linuxinsider.com]
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
The basic problem with business folks and open source is that they're trying to maximize profit, which means that anything that they give away is done for four basic reasons:
1. Loss leader to get people to buy something else: commercial support contracts, customizations, installation assistance, etc.
2. Convince the community that they're good for open source so they'll work for free.
3. The GPL or other "viral" open source licenses force them to.
4. Selling the user's eyeballs a la Firefox and Google.
For exam
I ditched Ubuntu a long time ago (Score:3)
Conflating Code And Culture (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
For a rant about Unity....
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just STFU already, RMS (Score:4, Insightful)
Harm? Or simply ire from the people who disagree with him and react viscerally and violently instead of rationally?
Even RMS would tell you that's not possible so long as Android can be closed.
Bullshit. The easiest way to get him riled up is to do something that exploits the end user, or in some way limits them for the sole purpose of expanding the bottom line. And frankly, as much as I like Canonical that's exactly what the lenses do.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, harm. Spreading FUD, spreading confusion, and making open source look more hostile to real use cases. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't, but he's consistently a jerk and a spectacularly bad advocate.
So what? (Score:3)
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.
Stuck on 10.04 (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Learn to love Debian. It loves you back.
Re: (Score:3)
*frustratingly unconfigurable*
Also,
Some problems I had with compiz now work properly. And you can once again configure notification display, the MDM login screen, and many other things (MintMenu is nice too). All of those things you loved about ubuntu back in 8.x-9.x that canonical took away from you? They are back in Mint and then some. Life is happy again.
or even gnome shell (Score:3)
Stallman Forgets (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that Stallman is forgetting that the open source / free software community has an awful lot to thank companies like canonical for investing time and development resources into making Linux so much more accessible to people. Not wanting to start a debate about unity or other recent changes in the direction of Ubuntu. I have nothing but respect for Canonical and Mark Shuttleworth for driving Linux on the desktop forward and contributing to the rich Linux ecosystem we have today.
I would also like to mention that - if i recall correctly it is made clear to the user during the installation process about the Amazon feature and that it can easily be turned off. Its not like they are doing it by stealth or anything unlike the other example cited in the OP.
As a long time Linux user (as my primary OS) I worked my way through various distributions. learning much about the core OS from things like Gentoo. A few years ago I settled on Ubuntu as a distro that Looks nice , is usable and just works (TM) I dont feel the need to tweak these days!. I feel spoiled by what Linux is today - everything just works out of the box (which is more than i can say for this new Mac Mini on my desk).
I guess my point is that if every one in the community was as anal as Stallman I doubt we would be in such a great place as we are now - as far as Linux goes.
Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (Score:5, Funny)
It's like listening to dialog from the 1978 version of "Invasion of The Body Snatchers":
Internet User Concerned with Privacy: [chats with FBI] I'll get the authorities involved.
FBI Chat Bot: How can I assist you?
Internet User Concerned with Privacy: I'd like to report four bodies in my backyard.
FBI Chat Bot: Wait right there Mr. Bennell.
Internet User Concerned with Privacy: How do you know my name?
Jack Bellicec: [Jack's eyes widen with fear] Disconnect the Hard Line, Matthew.
Internet User Concerned with Privacy: [replies to FBI Chat Bot] I didn't tell you my name.
Jack Bellicec: Disconnect!!!
Internet User Concerned with Privacy: [ends chat session] I didn't tell them my name!
Nancy Bellicec: That's because they're all part of it. They're all Social, all of them!
truck fucking forums? (Score:3)
i am not familiar with this, but i am not surprised to first learn about it on slashdot.
Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is plainly not true. The classic model of selling software licenses simply doesn't work with FOSS. There are more than a few who do make money, but like any business you have to work hard to do so.
No, this is your hatred speaking, not reality. He is involved in emacs and gcc development even today.
Ad-hominem, all of it. Stick to the discussion at hand, and stop letting your rage and hatred get in the way.
But I guess we can't. There are too many loud, irrational, hate-filled people to address his points. They'd prefer to attack the man than his argument.
Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're underrating him. RMS created the whole GNU philosophy, which has inspired thousands of developers---that is his main contribution. Go and read some interviews where Torvalds himself sings the praises of the GPL v2 and its role in the success of Linux.
I myself and many of you use emacs and gcc every day---I do think there's a special credit to be given to the creator of such projects that underlie the whole Linux ecosystem, even if the projects were forked away from him.
Despite being an disheveled person with questionable personal philosophies, RMS deserves credit for having created the notion of software that has a life of its own and cannot be squashed or secreted away by financially driven interests. He is like the NRA---just as the NRA resists any attempt at squashing personal gun ownership (if they came up with handheld thermonuclear weapons, I believe the NRA would staunchly oppose any attempt at regulating them), in the same way, RMS takes an extreme position, because he knows that everyone else will adjust for that and the net result will be something more geared towards the GNU philosophy than if he didn't.
Your ad-hominem attacks disparaging RMS's lowly status and John-the-baptist-like lifestyle are telling---perhaps you yourself failed at making money of GPL software that was meant to benefit everyone? I agree that it is difficult or impossible to make money of this type of software; only a select few can do it. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist, because it has the potential to empower the billions of financially oppressed poor in this world.
Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (Score:5, Insightful)
"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: (Score:3)
Well spoken, my anonymous friend. I would grant you mod points, if I had them to give.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
For an excellent account of how a lack of privacy destroys socialization see "The Nazi Seizure of Power" by William Sheridan Allen. By subsuming all private social organizations under the Party's banner, the Nazis actually destroyed the social fabric of Germany. Although it seems counterintuitive at first, by destroying privacy you also destroy solidarity. Okay, so I'm proving Godwin's law, but it really is an excellent book!
Re:So, the only question then (Score:4, Insightful)
What are you going on about? Why would you possibly need to send search terms to the world in order to search your local files. It should never happen. Period.
Much as it pains me to agree with RMS, you're trying to argue that 2+2=3 here.
Re: (Score:3)
"we have violated your privacy by default" is not a phrase reflective of actual choices being presented. It's exploiting users.
What has been an interesting excersise, going insa (Score:3)
What has been an interesting excersise, going insane?
WHAT does MY personal computer located in my house NEED from a public space in order to search my LOCAL files?
THERE IS NO NEED! Why should a search for "taxform 2012" go to amazon? If I want to buy a book about taxes, I can GOOGLE it MYSELF! I AM NOT LOOKING FOR A BOOK ON TAXES, I am looking for MY OWN data. Not amazons or anybody elses, MINE on MY hardware.
Even if am looking for music, anyone with more then two brain cells (Americans, you can stop rea
Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Re:I'm usually hard for privacy but you know what (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
New user ID and fawning over corporations. You sound like a paid shill.
Occam's razor: it's just a sad little man who knows how to troll slashdot effectively, not anyone earning anything. Other than maybe a slight reprieve from the emptiness and/or loneliness.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly does advertising have to do with being social?
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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:Why we still listen to this guy, exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
LOL do we still do that. (Score:4)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
RMS doesn't live in this world.
RMS Lives in this world and has an almost perfect record of seeing the problems before everybody else.
He resembles only the anti-social geeks.
Seriously, do you work for a company getting crushed by Linux? Insulting a man, not on his character but by your subjective view of his appearence is almost a text book example of insecurity and ignorance.
Not the kind of guy we want to show the world and hope we make good impressions! Seriously!
To the intellects that will listen, he is quite impressive. You, well, lets leave it at that.
You should go to church (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
Re: (Score:3)
I really regret getting to like Unity.
I don't regret getting to like Unity - current versions remain imho a big improvement over Gnome. What I do regret is that I can no longer recommend Ubuntu to anyone. This after having recommended it to dozens of people over the past few years, several of whom adopted it.
Now I honestly don't know what to recommend to non-techie people who want to live in the Free world. Mint is highly unappealing, not only for the outdated UI, but also for the militant bad taste of its supporters. Most of the other popu