Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Richard Stallman Calls Ubuntu "Spyware"

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

  • cant someone just recompile without the spyware?

    Comment


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

      Comment


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

        Comment


        • 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...

          Comment


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


            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.

            Comment


            • 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.

              Comment


              • 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?

                Comment


                • 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.

                  Comment


                  • 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.

                    Comment


                    • 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?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ElderSnake View Post
                        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.
                        I fully agree with you. I just meant that this isn't something linear, just like you said, the same logic cant be applied everywhere. There will always be a line that separates when you should assume the software will not violate your own ideals of privacy or not. Since this line is obviously different from user to user, and there's no considerable harm done (plus, most average users probably don't care), i can see why canonical thinks Stallman is exagerating, and I agree with them.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by BSD Sucks and Dies
                          RMS IS ALWAYS CORRECT AND THOSE WHO DISAGREE ARE MICROSOFT/APPLE DRONES AND ARE LIERS!!!!!!!

                          I admire the efforts of people like crazycheese, kraftman and asdx. I feel the pain and burden they have to go through to deal with/reply to the crap put out by all the Anti-Stallman (which are also freedom hating) people and BSD trolls/zealots in this forum.

                          I like Pawlson and ArchLinux's come back at the BSD MORON Cthulhux.

                          Cthulhux, you should be totallly a shame of urself for using and advocating such a SHIT-PATHETIC and yet EVIL FREEDOM HATING ENSLAVING OS. Everyone here that BSD particularly FreeBSD exist only to voluntarily help the efforts of Evil empires aka M$ and rotten apples suprise and kill freedom and stallman so anyone who uses their horrors (BSD) are guilty of facilitating that effort.

                          You make me SICK Cthulhux, --> SICK!!!! <--
                          It's sad that bsd fanboys are so blind they don't notice their stupidity. In yours logic everyone is bad, except bsd boys who can throw shit whenever they like and those poor boys are victims of EVIL Penguins from the Moon who dare to prove them wrong. Go for therapy or something. Btw. I consider Stalman is right only in few things, so this shows how inacurate yours reply is. Furthermore, ArchLinux' posts are very generous and sane why Cthulhux was acting like a trolly fanboy, but you didn't see this which is something natural for freebsd blinded crowd.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BSD Sucks and Dies
                            I admire the efforts of people like crazycheese, kraftman and asdx. I feel the pain and burden they have to go through to deal with/reply to the crap put out by all the Anti-Stallman (which are also freedom hating) people and BSD trolls/zealots in this forum.
                            Wait, doesn't IE already suck?
                            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrMOBKHqqc8

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by BSD Sucks and Dies
                              RMS IS ALWAYS CORRECT AND THOSE WHO DISAGREE ARE MICROSOFT/APPLE DRONES AND ARE LIERS!!!!!!!

                              I admire the efforts of people like crazycheese, kraftman and asdx. I feel the pain and burden they have to go through to deal with/reply to the crap put out by all the Anti-Stallman (which are also freedom hating) people and BSD trolls/zealots in this forum.

                              I like Pawlson and ArchLinux's come back at the BSD MORON Cthulhux.

                              Cthulhux, you should be totallly a shame of urself for using and advocating such a SHIT-PATHETIC and yet EVIL FREEDOM HATING ENSLAVING OS. Everyone here that BSD particularly FreeBSD exist only to voluntarily help the efforts of Evil empires aka M$ and rotten apples suprise and kill freedom and stallman so anyone who uses their horrors (BSD) are guilty of facilitating that effort.

                              You make me SICK Cthulhux, --> SICK!!!! <--
                              I couldn't agree more

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fazer View Post
                                I can't stand his opinions, he is the reason people hate closed software and think their developers are evil. The world doesn't work like that. There are no good or evil people.
                                ähh yes... you are right there are no bad people at alle... that are completly evil, but there are people who do bad or good things... and if you let your code get or do it yourself under a closed source lisense you do a evil thing... that makes you not a totaly evil person... but there you harm people...

                                maybe you integrated no malicious code but you help somebody a company to bring more people to use that software, and maye when thats the big market leader they hire some people to integrate malicious code... or even if they dont... they have total controll they often vendor lockin with formats... or kill the need to make a free version of this software... then they say maybe ohh you want that this mini feature will get integrated in the software 3 lines of code... pay us a trillion... such stuff... yes you can look on the gnu sites what else for problems you generate and why its evil to develop and release such stuff...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X