I'm sure there are many areas I'd disagree with Stallman (also many I agree with too), but I cannot help but respect the man. It cannot be denied what he and those that worked with him did.
Hope you get my point. I have big respect for what RMS offered us (GPL toolchain etc) and what was built upon it but his views on Closed Software are stupid when practical problems arise.
Sarcasm doesn't work over TCP/IP :p
What about canonical's and mark shuttleworth's contribution??
Why isn't everyone mentioning that?
1. The ubuntu distro AND derivatives like mint etc, are the most widely used open source OS's and are the larger percentage in HOME linux ecosystems.
2. Canonical CHANGED the way people perceive linux.
3. Ubuntu not only made linux widely available to the masses it also presented a unique product.
THERE is absolutely NO WAY you can deny that ubuntu is the easiest to use distro and makes linux adoption available not only to computer hobbyists.
NOW THIS IS WHY YOU HAVE ALL DECIDED TO THROW SHIT AT CANONICAL AND UBUNTU:
it literally takes 10 seconds.
BTW do I like the amazon thing? NO I FUCKING HATE IT
DOES CANONICAL DESERVE TO BE DEGRADED ON THE FIRST PAGE OF ARS? DOES UBUNTU DESERVED TO BE CALLED SPYWARE FOR THIS SHIT?
WHY DOESNT STALLMAN INSTEAD OF BEING A FAT ATTENTION WHORE DOESN'T SPEND A COUPLE OF HOURS WITH UBUNTU'S SOURCE CODE AND DELETES ALL AMAZON SHIT AND THEN RELEASES IT AS 'STALLMAN'S UBUNTU' ??????????????????? IS THERE ANYONE KEEPING HIM FROM DOING IT?
NOT ONLY DO YOU HAVE THE CHOICE OF TURNING IT OFF YOU CAN ALSO NOT USE UNITY ALTOGETHER IN UBUNTU, YOU CAN USE ONE OF THE FUCKING DOZENS OF SPINS KUBUNTU< LUBUNTU , I WILL MAKE ONE JUST FOR YOU FUCKS: NECKBEARDEDFUCKCUNTUNTU
You have your own ultra-special, unique, personal definition of spyware that doesn't include Ubuntu. Great, good for you. But stop yelling at everyone else merely for using the standard definition.
ANYWAY, long story short (and very off-topic, but I just need to say it):
- if anyone wants to hold Ubuntu to the dictionary meaning of spyware, then yes, it is. By all means, do so. But leave the real, industry-accepted definition to those who actually deal with real, neferious and much more diabolical spyware that captures information from your computer and sends it to some shady, unnamed third party and not a well-known, established and legitimate organization bound by privacy laws of their respective country.
- Drop the name calling. It's getting sickening.
- I of all people should know how it feels to have your favourite tool attacked by people over stupid reasons (eg: hating Office Windows and wishing that Microsoft will die within the next year just because it's Microsoft, even though their software have areas that are clearly superior to any Linux / OS X offering and vice versa). Feel free to defend it all you want, but you're only going to prove that you are no better than the other trolls if you lower yourselves to their level with the personal attacks.
- Also, i've come to realize that, unlike how Windows and OS X users can still co-exist (just barely) without letting OS discussions degenerate into an all-out flame war, the Linux community cannot even agree to disagree on many fundamental principles. Things like 'you-are-using-nonfree-software-on-Linux-you-have-destroyed-everything-free-software-stands-for-because-of-selfish-interests', 'proprietary-is-evil-and-must-be-eradicated' or 'nonfree-firmware-is-a-menance-you-should-not-even-use-it' only shows how black-and-white the vocal Linux proponents view the software world today. Welcome to the real world, which is painted in shades of grey, not just black and white.
Although I have to admit that if you are going to fill up a desktop Linux install (notice my emphasis on the word 'desktop') with proprietary commercial software, Windows or OS X will definitely do a much better job than Linux. At the very least, unless Microsoft's market share drops to 10% tomorrow, Windows users are virtually assured of the availability of an astronomical software library consisting of both FOSS and commercial proprietary software AND drivers for all common desktop hardware and pheripherals. And OS X's two-digit market share means that it can no longer be ignored by developers, so OS X users get to take such availability for granted too, albeit in a much smaller scale (at the very least, vendor-released driver woes for third-party desktop pheripherals in OS X are virtually non-existant today save for WiFi sticks).
- But more importantly, my observation is that the community spends most of its time fretting over the 'what if <insert nasty development> happens in the future' that it has forgotten to look at the 'NOW'. I can use Secure Boot as an excellent example: when Microsoft announced the UEFI Secure Boot requirements for Windows 8, virtually everybody sat on their collective butts and whined about how it would affect Linux installations when the standard finally kicks in upon Windows 8's launch, and what if Microsoft decides to one day mandate that OEMs should not offer a Secure Boot killswitch. And when a handle of developers (most noticibly Mathew and Bottomley) decided to take the initiative to obtain a Microsoft key to sign shimloaders with and tackle the problem head-on, they were greeted not with thanks, but with complaints that it was like 'selling out' Linux, while worrying about what if Microsoft revokes the keys used by Matthew and Bottomley. And now we're seeing that same 'what if' mentality with Canonical's arrangement to include the Amazon lens in Ubuntu searches, with the peanuit gallery starting to while about what if Canonical decides to to anything more with such arrangements.
Seriously, unless you have the divine ability to predict the future, lay off the 'what if' paranoia and start focusing on the more important 'now' problems. Cross that bridge when you come to it, or you'll never even reach it to begin with. People need to do their work now and provide deliverables to their bosses/employers, who are not going to care whether the work was done on FOSS or on a proprietary tool. At best, give due thought to what may happen with subsequent developments in the IT space, but really, stop putting the cart before the horse. Secure Boot is so overblown it's almost painful to watch, and now this whole hoo-ha about Ubuntu's Amazon lens.
Agree or disgree or hate it, I've finished saying my piece. Any subsequent posts made by me to Phoronix will be on a Windows machine, not a Fedora box anymore. I think I'm finally ready to call it quits after having to deal with such politics and conflicts about what should 'the right way' be, along with issues of having some of my pheripherals not supported because of the total lack of proper working drivers for the entirety of 4 years on Linux. If i ever feel the need to OS hop again, it will be to OS X, not Linux. That is, unless some huge breakthrough captures my attention again, like how i first tried out Red Hat when the book I borrowed from the library came with an install CD for loan, or how the release of the 2.6.24 kernel way back in 2008 captured my attention because it supported my WiFi card.
Now I think Ubuntu is a good thing for Linux overall, and I think it's nothing wrong with them trying to gain money out of their efforts, but this is just a poorly implemented way of doing so.
Make this optional at installation, with a disclaimer clearly defining what it means. Yes, alot fewer people will enable it than if it is done by default, but they also won't alienate their own users and tarnish their brand.
Actually I think that when giving people a good heads-up with a thorough explanation and giving them a clear choice, alot of people who would never go for this normally will think, 'hey, they are honest about this, I will allow this because they are up-front and I like Ubuntu'.
SO much better than trying to sneak it past users which will obviously cause a 'this sucks, what the hell else are they planning/sneaking past me?' knee-jerk response from said users.
Bottom line is that fanboys are fanboys, they are no different in the Linux, Microsoft, Apple, BSD etc camps.
What is black, white or a shade of grey is obviously subjective, for example I personally don't think proprietary code is 'black', I do however think vendor lock-in through keeping user-data in proprietary or severely obfuscated formats to be 'black'. Other people are entitled to their personal opinions and have the same right as me to voice them.
Microsoft wants Linux gone, that is simple truth. They are also coming across as increasingly desperate (likely fueled by their continously failed attempts at entering the mobile market, resulting in things like the pathethic Scroogled and DroidRage compaigns for example).
Linux user's 'paranoia' concerning Microsoft is well deserved given their track-record of foul-play, and having to rely on Microsoft in any way shape or form in order to run Linux on hardware you've bought is obviously not something that sounds reassuring.
The FSF exists purely to protect this freedom : to install what you want. If corporations had their way, we'd already be locked in walled gardens and you could install only software they approved. The FSF won (sort of) in the PC space, but the mobile space is in big trouble (appStores/Markets are the worst kind of lock-in that can exist).
let's get into the FSF philosopohy :Point one : imagine you were only allowed to run an OS to edit text files. That sucks, you can't do what you want with your software/hardware.Quote:
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Point 2 : got a new device, the PC you have doesn't have a driver for it. I am not allowed to modify the software on my PC, thus rendering my device useless.
Point 3 : Classical lending, but within the digital world that becomes copying.
Point 4 : I figured out a way to make my device (from point 2) work, I am FREE to help others by documenting what I did.
This is what the FSF stands for. If you want to install software that is 'evil' go ahead, you are FREE to do so, in no small part thanks to the FSF.
Now Stallman is changing his tune a bit from pure FLOSS, to FLOSS + privacy protector. Has ubuntu become spyware? Yes. Does google collect information about you? Yes. Is this trend of information collecting dangerous? Hell yes! Information is power and control. Whoever controls information controls everything else. All Stallman does is point it out and tell us "do something about it!". He can't do much more.
Some people pointed out Steam. I must say that while I admire what they are doing, I will never become their customer (because of freedom 0). The fact that other people may choose otherwise is a direct consequence of said freedom 0.
This to say : RMS sees the big picture, not the now. Most people want the now! This is a sure way to hell. Always take a step back, and ponder the consequences.
The now is already shaped, all we can do is survive it, the future is what we can affect. Act per your beliefs to shape the future as you want to see it.
tl;dr version : RMS is right, ubuntu is spyware, don't use it.
If someone, with all the information regarding this 'feature' at their disposal, decides to enable it then I can see nothing wrong with that. But enabling it by default rather than informing the user of exactly what it means and presenting them with a choice of enabling it is just bad practice, it's an attempt to sneak something in which they think the end user won't like. And as pretty much always is the case when things like this happen, the motivation is money.