Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 177

Thread: Richard Stallman Calls Ubuntu "Spyware"

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    359

    Default

    cant someone just recompile without the spyware?

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by D0pamine View Post
    cant someone just recompile without the spyware?
    http://www.linuxmint.com/

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    215

    Default

    They already did. Take Xubuntu and add Unity without the shopping lens.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pallidus View Post
    OMG even bsd users posting
    What is that supposed to mean?
    -shuttleworth will monetize ubuntu, either you like it or not

    -stallman will keep trolling

    -phoronix cunts will write 30 pages about it.

    Me, not being retarded, have enough inteligence to recognize that there needs to be corporate involvement and money being throw at linux development for it to start being more than a OS for phoronix cunts.


    canonical can turn ubuntu into adware central OS with amazon in the wallpaper, AND I'M STILL GOING TO USE IT. They need to make a little money and I need a OS, quid pro quo.
    sure, I'm not blaming him for trying to monetize. It's just that personnaly I'm terrified of this interconnectedness of everything, and I'm acting on it. (Using software I trust, heck I'm in the process of installing my personnal mail server!) As you said : quid pro quo. I set up and maintain my system, and get what I believe is right. You apparently are willing to sacrifice parts of what are my beliefs (not necessarily yours) for ease of use. your CHOICE (belief system).

    To give you an insight into my views, I'll take the ever recurring example of Valve/GOG : I am not capable of subscribing to Valve. I simply can't, to me it would be like cheating on myself. Why? Because it's a controlled environment, it does stuff I can't control, but the worst (again a what if scenario) is the thought of Valve going underground. I will never accept that stuff I purchased will be taken from me in the future just because I didn't really purchase it but "leased" it. This may or may not happen, but it feels like a (less fatal) sword of Damocles, and I'm not willing to live with it. (Note the difference between something getting taken away, getting used (losing compatibility) out and breaking)
    GOG doesn't screw with me, they just give me installers and I do whatever I want afterwards. Lesser choice of games, not on my platform of choice, but this is where my money is going.

    All this to say that it all comes down to our personal values. I have mine, you have yours. I admit I do judge you based on them (who doesn't) but I take great offence for getting called retarded just because I don't think/behave same as you.

    Stallman isn't trolling, he's stating facts, as he has been most of the time. Now just adding to the fuel of this thread : link. This really creeps me out...

    Serafean

    PS : this is a reply to Pallidus, but not only he should take a step back and think before posting. A community presents itself to the interweb through its forums, just keep that in mind...

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    230

    Default

    Is it just me or does Phoronix forums seem to harbour a lot of angry people?


    Quote Originally Posted by Pallidus View Post
    Stallman has absolutely no right to degrade canonical or tell people what to do or what to think.
    But he does have the right. It's called free speech. Richard Stallman himself, for example, disagrees heavily with anti-abortionists, but said he would always fight for their right to express their view and have their anti-abortion websites etc.

    We may not always agree with that he says or how he says it, but he has a right to speak his mind.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    But, last time I checked, Firefox already includes a private browsing mode like that out of the box?
    No, they work different. FF’s privacy mode will just not save cookies etc. but will still allow connections to trackers, eg. Google Analytics which means that Google will still get the IP address and fully track the user within that session.
    Ghostery will block any connections to such trackers, similar to a custom hosts file but with 1-click opt in/out. There is also a 1-click method to inform the user about the tracker. Simply click on “What is Google Analytics” and land on http://www.ghostery.com/apps/google_analytics

    It's a quite easy and transparent way to give users control.

    That said, opening a web browser is still opt-in whereas Ubuntu’s Amazon search is on by default for offline searches. No other OS that I know does something like this.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    That said, opening a web browser is still opt-in whereas Ubuntu’s Amazon search is on by default for offline searches. No other OS that I know does something like this.
    Both installing Ubuntu and using the lens is not something that happens without the user noticing, so following your logic I guess that's also opt-in, no?

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    215

    Default

    When installing Ubuntu, inspired by all those "I AM 1337 B.COZ I CAN INSTALL UBUNTU LULZ" people, users usually don't know that anything they'll type into the Dash will be made public.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mdias View Post
    Both installing Ubuntu and using the lens is not something that happens without the user noticing, so following your logic I guess that's also opt-in, no?
    Isn't that splitting straws a bit though? I mean I see your point, but with a web browser even the most basic user knows that the browser will be generally connecting them to the World Wide Web.

    Most users, I assume, would generally assume a local search to be just that, a local search. Not have their queries for even the Terminal to be sent somewhere else.

    However, this could be opt-in as you describe, if they would just put a notice giving the information or dialog asking permission for this feature at the time of installing, so no-one can be possibly left in the dark. I don't see why Canonical could consider this unreasonable.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mdias View Post
    Both installing Ubuntu and using the lens is not something that happens without the user noticing, so following your logic I guess that's also opt-in, no?
    So installing Kazaa should've been considered "opt-in" too?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •