Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Richard Stallman Calls Ubuntu "Spyware"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by energyman View Post
    since people know about it and help making it work right, spyware is not the correct term. Because 'spying' is a covert activity. You could also argue that installing ubuntu and using that functionality is explicit consent.
    By that definition, Kazaa didn't have spyware either.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by peperoni View Post
      I think he should have told that Windows, OS X, iOS, Android and Ubuntu are all spyware.
      It is clear you didn't read any of what Stallman said. If you are going to criticize someone for not saying something, it might be nice to actually check whether they said this or not. If you had, you would have seen he did, in the second paragraph no less (to be pedantic he did not explicitly accuse Os X of included spyware in the Os).

      Comment


      • #33
        Stallmanís comment is by definition not FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). There is absolutely no uncertainty that Ubuntu sends without any doubt the userís search terms to Canonical.
        Canonical even openly stated to calm the crowd that they get the search terms, not Amazon.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by locovaca View Post
          Your definition of Spyware is misguided. Spyware is simply software that reports back to an outside entity your actions without your explicit consent.

          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Spyware?s=t

          Identity theft, blackmail, etc. doesn't play into it.
          Indeed. Spyware is not always also malware. Ubuntu in its default config is spyware and adware. That's a fact and nothing to fight about. Either you don't care any happily use Ubuntu with that option still turned on or you care and simply don't use Ubuntu.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
            Indeed. Spyware is not always also malware. Ubuntu in its default config is spyware and adware. That's a fact and nothing to fight about. Either you don't care any happily use Ubuntu with that option still turned on or you care and simply don't use Ubuntu.
            You are missing one option: you don't know about the problem because you don't follow the news sites that have brought it up yet. That is why publicizing it is important.

            Comment


            • #36
              most linux nerds who support the amazon ads entirely miss the point. the problem is not that its inconvenient, but that it is EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY distasteful. its the same reason that terminal is not pinned to the taskbar by default, you don't want to look like you are stuck in 1970s. the ads essentially made ubuntu look like a clown OS, even though the stupid brown toy theme already made it look like a mentally retarded version of osx.

              Comment


              • #37
                Lol. I don't like Ubuntu but this guy's just so deluded.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by energyman View Post
                  people who want FREEDOM also should avoid the FSF. Because they don't care about FREEDOM. They care about their agenda.


                  Originally posted by energyman View Post
                  I want to be free and install non gpl, non mit, non bsd licenced software on MY computer. FSF wants to take that away from me.


                  Originally posted by ArchLinux View Post
                  Lol. I don't like Ubuntu but this guy's just so deluded.
                  An old, but always funny and relevant joke: How do you know someone uses Arch Linux? They'll tell you.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Stallman again is right as ever.


                    Originally posted by energyman View Post
                    people who want FREEDOM also should avoid the FSF. Because they don't care about FREEDOM. They care about their agenda. I want to be free and install non gpl, non mit, non bsd licenced software on MY computer. FSF wants to take that away from me.
                    You Sir are either an idiot a troll, or an agent.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      [QUOTE=Rallos Zek;300302]Stallman again is right as ever. [QUOTE]

                      Stallman is an idiot, full stop.

                      This is the same guy who opposes Steam on Linux because playing closed proprietary games with DRM is evil and unethical.

                      Once again he has proven himself to be completely clueless to what most people WANT to do on their computers. People want software and application, not licenses.

                      If this luddite really cares about user freedom he should just shut up about people installing non-free software on a free operating system.

                      Linux users complain about commercial software vendors not offering Linux versions of their software, and when said vendor actually takes the trouble to provide a Linux port, they get flamed because their software is not FOSS.

                      Case in point:
                      - AMD did not support Linux with binary blobs until recently. FOSS cried foul that Linux was not suppoted
                      - AMD released buggy fglrx. FOSS cried foul that the drivers were subpar
                      - AMD improved fglrx greatly. FOSS cried foul because the closed nature of fglrx prevented them from leaching code that could be used for the free Radeon driver
                      - AMD released specifications for graphics chipsets. FOSS cried foul because those specifications were 'insufficient'...and they can't even get RadeonSI working properly after alll the noise they make

                      - Nvidia produces an impressive binary driver for Linux which is updated to support newer versions of xserver much faster than AMD. FOSS cried foul because they cannot steal code from the Nvidia driver to improve their really subpar Nouveau driver

                      If the FOSS community is so capable, why can't they do everything without crying foul on how they cannot leech code from proprietary sources? Or rather, why do they even have to create 'alternatives' to popular commercial software instead of thinking up of those programs themselves right from the get go? Case in point:

                      - Adobe KNOWS that people need creative tools like sophisticated video editors and image editing software (think Creative Suite). So did Sony (Vegas), Apple (Final Cut + Aperture) and Pinnacle (Pinnacle Studio), among many others. Why did it take so long for FOSS to come out with GIMP and a bunch of crappy excuses for non-linear video editors a whole decade AFTER Adobe, Apple, Sony and Pinnacle already entrenched themselves in the creative market?

                      A developer community which has no idea of what today's users actually need to do on a computer has no right to tell people what they should/should not do. Period.

                      Somebody should steal RMS's passport and netbook again so that he can't post anything for another month or two. Then I'll laugh in his face and proclaim about how his stuff have been claimed by the Free Baggage Foundation, whose goals are to ensure that everybody's baggage and property are supposed to be free for anybody to take.

                      EDIT: Yes, I use tons of non-free software on my copy of Fedora. Intel's proprietary wifi firmware, Microsoft's Skype, Microsoft's proprietary Office 2007 fonts, Opera browser, Nvidia's drivers, proprietary codecs, etc etc, and nobody, not even Stallman, can tell me that this is wrong. I, and I ALONE, decide what's right for my use. Even if it means spitting in the face of FOSS.
                      Last edited by Sonadow; 12-08-2012, 01:15 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                        Case in point:
                        - AMD did not support Linux with binary blobs until recently. FOSS cried foul that Linux was not suppoted
                        - AMD released buggy fglrx. FOSS cried foul that the drivers were subpar
                        - AMD improved fglrx greatly. FOSS cried foul because the closed nature of fglrx prevented them from leaching code that could be used for the free Radeon driver
                        - AMD released specifications for graphics chipsets. FOSS cried foul because those specifications were 'insufficient'...and they can't even get RadeonSI working properly after alll the noise they make

                        - Nvidia produces an impressive binary driver for Linux which is updated to support newer versions of xserver much faster than AMD. FOSS cried foul because they cannot steal code from the Nvidia driver to improve their really subpar Nouveau driver
                        Users are always going to demand more. That's true under both Linux and Windows. As a Windows gamer for many many years, I remember when nVidia drivers sucked for Final Fantasy XIV and I remember when AMD drivers sucked for Metro 2033.. Plenty of gamers demanding these companies meet their demands, and there's nothing wrong with it in the Windows world.. I don't see why Linux users making different demands to the same companies should be treated any different just because they're different demands. Sure, it'd be nice if users were always happy, but that's not going to happen..

                        Also, in the name of progress, the user's shouldn't just be quiet and quit complaining.. Some users (both Windows and Linux users alike) probably complain too much over well-known problems and make themselves very vocal, but they're just outliers.

                        Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                        If the FOSS community is so capable, why can't they do everything without crying foul on how they cannot leech code from proprietary sources? Or rather, why do they even have to create 'alternatives' to popular commercial software instead of thinking up of those programs themselves right from the get go?
                        C'mon, there's plenty of open source software that is pure genius in it's design. I'll take filelight as an example. That program is full of pure genius, words cannot even begin to describe it. I remember years ago SGI had gone all out in their file explorer/navigator with OpenGL up to whazoo to try to solve a problem of visualizing where your disk space is going.. Filelight does it much much better and without OpenGL.

                        There are quite a few open source apps on Linux that are 100% original creations and pure creativity and ingenuity if you know where to look.


                        Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                        - Adobe KNOWS that people need creative tools like sophisticated video editors and image editing software (think Creative Suite). So did Sony (Vegas), Apple (Final Cut + Aperture) and Pinnacle (Pinnacle Studio), among many others. Why did it take so long for FOSS to come out with GIMP and a bunch of crappy excuses for non-linear video editors a whole decade AFTER Adobe, Apple, Sony and Pinnacle already entrenched themselves in the creative market?
                        The problem with the video editors in the past has always been that codecs and containers the video files were stored in were proprietary closed-source nightmares. So open source software has always been at a huge disadvantage and in order to even come close, has in the past, required binary blobs of video codecs which are really hard to work with and get any extra flexibility out of. When you're working with binary blobs, you lose a massive amount of flexibility to do whatever you like and that creates problems. Yet, you're forced to work with binary blobs because the source of all your video (camcorders, cameras, web streams, DVD rips, etc.) came from proprietary multimedia codecs.

                        I used to do a ton of Video editing, and I'll tell you one thing that open source did right that no other video editing company did.. They created a multimedia container (mkv) that supported multiple subtitle tracks, multiple audio tracks, and multiple video tracks. Which was a technology that was seen before for DVDs but had never before simplified down into a single multimedia file until mkv came around.

                        Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                        A developer community which has no idea of what today's users actually need to do on a computer has no right to tell people what they should/should not do. Period.
                        Some devs do, some devs don't. The devs that don't most likely don't know because they're only focused on meeting their own needs with the hope that other people might need it at well (sometimes true, sometimes not). Don't say the whole dev community doesn't know what users want because that's false.. A lot of devs know, but are just too busy to deliver it, while there are some devs that know and are also able to deliver it (Marek for example).

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                          Stallman is an idiot, full stop.
                          Actually, he's a pretty smart guy whose rhetoric is a bit too much for some.

                          "The 'very seductive' moral and ethical rhetoric of Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation fails not because his principles are wrong, but because that kind of language ... simply does not persuade anybody" - Eric S. Raymond

                          Sad, but true.

                          Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                          This is the same guy who opposes Steam on Linux because playing closed proprietary games with DRM is evil and unethical.
                          “This development can do both harm and good. It might encourage GNU/Linux users to install these games, and it might encourage users of the games to replace Windows with GNU/Linux,” he wrote. “My guess is that the direct good effect will be bigger than the direct harm. But there is also an indirect effect: what does the use of these games teach people in our community?” - Source

                          Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                          Once again he has proven himself to be completely clueless to what most people WANT to do on their computers. People want software and application, not licenses.
                          He is concerned with freedom and liberty.

                          Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                          If this luddite really cares about user freedom he should just shut up about people installing non-free software on a free operating system.
                          He is merely expressing an opinion, which appears to be correct. If you have any contradicting evidence against his claim that Ubuntu is "Spyware" please feel free to present it. Otherwise, posting an incoherent rant and telling people to shut up makes his rhetoric (or lack thereof) pale in comparison to yours.
                          Last edited by Loafers; 12-08-2012, 01:43 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I can't help but notice that all the people arguing that Stallman is a zealot (which I honestly can't disagree with), harmful, an enemy of freedom, an idiot, or whatnot have not bothered to explain why he is wrong in this particular case. As Churchill said, "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes". Just asserting that he is an idiot, crazy, irrelevant, harmful, or whatever (not that I agree he is) does not mean that he is wrong about Ubuntu containing spyware and adware.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                              I can't help but notice that all the people arguing that Stallman is a zealot (which I honestly can't disagree with), harmful, an enemy of freedom, an idiot, or whatnot have not bothered to explain why he is wrong in this particular case. As Churchill said, "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes". Just asserting that he is an idiot, crazy, irrelevant, harmful, or whatever (not that I agree he is) does not mean that he is wrong about Ubuntu containing spyware and adware.
                              Stallman is like Jesus. He wears cheap cloths, doesn't have millions and never exploited his position. He calls shit - "shit" and questions why people accept this. Many hate him for this, other call him idiot. He has proved many many times to be correct. Which in turn means those disagreeing with him are short sighted and FUDing. Yes, he is worth own religion, he is cooler than JC Denton.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by pairofslacks View Post
                                Do you have any proof to back that statement up? I mean you have to be trolling, you're seriously suggesting the FSF wants to take away the freedom to install non-free software on your own computer?

                                The FSF showcases and ultimately recommends 100% free as in freedom distros because those are in line with what they themselves have set out to do. You can talk about how they still don't recommend Debian (I think it was only recently that they're targetting all free software), but they in fact do recommend an Ubuntu based distro called Trisquel. The point is to have no non-free bits out of the box if I understand it correctly, and certainly not to take away your ability to install software with any license you want manually and third party repos. No one's preventing you from installing wine and running your licensed copy of CS5.
                                of course I have proof. Just look at their page of non-recommended distributions. If a distribution makes it possible to install non-free software it is not recommended. Just because it is possible. Gentoo makes it possible to filter licenses. So you can install only 'free' software. If you want. It also makes it possible to install non-free software. User choice, you know?
                                And FSF hates them for that.

                                Idiotic.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X